UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

Author
Discussion

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Monday 29th June 2015
quotequote all
Bill said:
What was the split on the 30%+ who had made their mind up?
From memory

16% def in
12% def out

59% possibly leaning one way 31% in 28% out

balance don't knows

69% said still to make minds up regardless of current inclinations and needed more info

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 29th June 2015
quotequote all
4v6 said:
Glad youre back greg, got an answer to that question yet?
Misconceived questions based on a false premise don't mature into swans over time. They stay as they are.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Monday 29th June 2015
quotequote all
Further to that Survation poll


Survation said:
The narrowness of the headline result, however, belies some sharply different opinions in different parts of the country, with the most Eurosceptic region, the North East of England, voting over 2:1 in favour of leaving, whilst the most pro-European region, Scotland, was over 2:1 against. Overall 7 of the 11 regions of Great Britain wanted to vote to leave the EU, whilst the other 4 (Scotland, the South-West, North-West and the most populous region, London) voting to remain a member. 

A great deal of this opinion, however, is subject to change. 61% of ‘OUT’ voters would reconsider if certain key policy areas were renegotiated for the UK. Meanwhile 80% of current ‘IN’ voters would consider leaving if certain aspects of potential future EU integration were forced on the UK, being made to join the Euro chief among them. There is therefore considerable fluidity of opinion on both sides.
Which supports what I said a few days ago that it's all still to play for either way. But then I'm reading it with approval because it supports my opinions.

dirk01

47 posts

105 months

Monday 29th June 2015
quotequote all
FiF said:
Further to that Survation poll


Survation said:
The narrowness of the headline result, however, belies some sharply different opinions in different parts of the country, with the most Eurosceptic region, the North East of England, voting over 2:1 in favour of leaving, whilst the most pro-European region, Scotland, was over 2:1 against. Overall 7 of the 11 regions of Great Britain wanted to vote to leave the EU, whilst the other 4 (Scotland, the South-West, North-West and the most populous region, London) voting to remain a member. 

A great deal of this opinion, however, is subject to change. 61% of ‘OUT’ voters would reconsider if certain key policy areas were renegotiated for the UK. Meanwhile 80% of current ‘IN’ voters would consider leaving if certain aspects of potential future EU integration were forced on the UK, being made to join the Euro chief among them. There is therefore considerable fluidity of opinion on both sides.
Which supports what I said a few days ago that it's all still to play for either way. But then I'm reading it with approval because it supports my opinions.
But one poll does alter the trend I showed in the graph I posted, unless you have a graph for Survation that sows something different?

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Tuesday 30th June 2015
quotequote all
dirk01 said:
But one poll does alter the trend I showed in the graph I posted, unless you have a graph for Survation that sows something different?
Interpreting that fractured English into the question I think you were asking.

Far fewer points on the Survation graph, to the point whereit's not worth showing graphically, but in essence if one were to plot a trend for each curve, not that the trend would mean much as so few points, but then the gradients of the trend lines would be sort of similar, ie crossing to show a shift from Out leading IN to IN leading Out. There was one outlier in 2014 which showed a particularly big lead for In when YouGov were showing a dead heat, but that was a rather small sample.

4v6

1,098 posts

125 months

Tuesday 30th June 2015
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
4v6 said:
Glad youre back greg, got an answer to that question yet?
Misconceived questions based on a false premise don't mature into swans over time. They stay as they are.
Sounds like a "non!" to me.
Pity, I thought youd have at least managed something, anything to explain why britain shouldnt run its own affairs, but like I already stated, there is no good reason, hence why the hell do we need unnacountable eu officials to do it for us?


NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
For all the opinionated on here:

Vice president of the European Commission (EC) Frans Timmermans said he "really liked" the Ukip leader's sense of humour.
But he said he was "terribly annoyed" by how many times Mr Farage appeared to correctly diagnose problems with the 28-member union.

"I get terribly annoyed when he's right. And on some issues he is right too often," he said.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/588168/Ukip...

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
Disastrous said:
don4l said:
Do you think that Connie St Louis should be praised, or punished, for her expose of Sir Tim Hunt's recent comments?
Strange question. I don't think she should be praised or punished. She sounds like an awful pain in the arse to be frank. I don't approve of what she did and haven't got much time for those who are offended by everything, but I don't think she should be punished. I think she should be ignored.

Why do you ask?
Was there a point to asking this, since I had the decency to answer, don4l?

Also, I notice Scuffers completely ignored me pointing out very clearly the question he had missed from the other poster earlier after insulting me and claiming there was no question.

Sigh. You guys.
I don't what you mean by the "sigh" comment.

You sound like you have a sense of moral superiority. I'm sure you don't, but perhaps you should consider that phrases like "Sigh. you guys." won't help to convince your audience.

Anyway, enough of the helpful advice.

I fully admit that you had the decency to answer, and I should have kept an eye on this thread.

The truth is that I have decided to buy a barbecue, and I have spent the last few days in the "Food, Drink and Restaurants" sub-forum. The main BBQ thread is 105 pages long! There is some truly wonderful stuff in that thread.

Anyway, I've just re-read your reply to my previous post, and I don't understand why you expected a response from me. You didn't actually ask a question. We take different views about her behaviour. You, of course, are fully entitled to your views.

I see her as someone who has lied on her CV. Her CV page on the City University web site has been removed, and there is a message there which says "This page is in the process of being updated." Oooops!

She has destroyed the career of a man who encouraged women in science.

You will, of course, disagree with me. That actually doesn't matter, though, does it?

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I wasn't deliberately ignoring you.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
Strawman said:
don4l said:
Unless you are some sort of facist, then you should believe that people should be free to do whatever they like unless their actions have a negative impact.

So, rather than ask UKIP members to justify their right to take part in an LBGT demonstration, perhaps you should explain why they should be prevented from taking part.

Are you homophobic?
No, you seem put out that UKIP supporters can't openly display their political allegiance on a Gay Pride march, I don't care. You won't explain why the organisers banned them, though they took part anyway (according to you) so it wasn't a strictly enforced ban. I can understand why gay rights activists would not want UKIP on their march, you don't seem able to grasp their reasons. How does that make me homophobic? Surely UKIPhobic would be more accurate a jibe?

ETA- apologies if my posts seem a bit glib, I googled and found this article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prid...

and my assumptions were partly wrong

said:
The directors said they had “wrestled with the difficult issue” of whether to allow the application over several days, adding that the intention was to unite, rather than divide, people with an event that serves the whole community.

“This decision has been made after careful consultation in order to protect participants and ensure the event passes off safely and in the right spirit, it has not been made on a political basis,” a spokesperson added.
Why would you expect me to explain why UKIP were excluded? I am surprised that they were excluded, and I don't understand the decision. Also, I didn't state "that they took part anyway". I don't know if they did, or didn't. Please don't put words into my mouth.

You wonder why I asked if you were homophobic.

The answer is really quite simple. You advocate a system which would reduce the number of demonstrators by at least 12%. Surely, if you weren't a bit homophobic, then you would want to encourage as many people as possible to turn out.

You seem to think that it is more important for UKIP to be silenced, than for people who detest homophobia to have their voice heard.



dirk01

47 posts

105 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
FiF said:
dirk01 said:
But one poll does alter the trend I showed in the graph I posted, unless you have a graph for Survation that sows something different?
Interpreting that fractured English into the question I think you were asking.

Far fewer points on the Survation graph, to the point whereit's not worth showing graphically, but in essence if one were to plot a trend for each curve, not that the trend would mean much as so few points, but then the gradients of the trend lines would be sort of similar, ie crossing to show a shift from Out leading IN to IN leading Out. There was one outlier in 2014 which showed a particularly big lead for In when YouGov were showing a dead heat, but that was a rather small sample.
I apologise for the English. Though it was primarily the Merlot to blame.

nevertheless I think you got my point, and have confirmed that even the Survation data backs it up- since UKIP obtained a national voice and was heard in the media, support for leaving the EU has dropped. Quite markedly so.

I think that fact and the reasons for it are very relevant to this thread

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
dirk01 said:
FiF said:
dirk01 said:
But one poll does alter the trend I showed in the graph I posted, unless you have a graph for Survation that sows something different?
Interpreting that fractured English into the question I think you were asking.

Far fewer points on the Survation graph, to the point whereit's not worth showing graphically, but in essence if one were to plot a trend for each curve, not that the trend would mean much as so few points, but then the gradients of the trend lines would be sort of similar, ie crossing to show a shift from Out leading IN to IN leading Out. There was one outlier in 2014 which showed a particularly big lead for In when YouGov were showing a dead heat, but that was a rather small sample.
I apologise for the English. Though it was primarily the Merlot to blame.

nevertheless I think you got my point, and have confirmed that even the Survation data backs it up- since UKIP obtained a national voice and was heard in the media, support for leaving the EU has dropped. Quite markedly so.

I think that fact and the reasons for it are very relevant to this thread
Well yes but I thought it was interesting that the survey didn't just lump the "definitely vote this way" in with the " currently might vote this way" on each side in order to come up with impressive numbers of decided voters.

Instead they pointed out that significant proportion of voters have yet to make up their mind, even if they tend to favour one way or the other. Which tells each side to up their game and make a case.

dirk01

47 posts

105 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
FiF said:
Instead they pointed out that significant proportion of voters have yet to make up their mind, even if they tend to favour one way or the other. Which tells each side to up their game and make a case.
I think that is very true. In a sense the "stay-in" case is best made after the negotiations. Bu the "leave" case has no such excuse. Why is it so absent then?

Strawman

6,463 posts

206 months

Wednesday 1st July 2015
quotequote all
don4l said:
Why would you expect me to explain why UKIP were excluded? I am surprised that they were excluded, and I don't understand the decision.
Well there it is all laid out for you, in the independent article I posted, did you bother to read it?

don4l said:
Also, I didn't state "that they took part anyway". I don't know if they did, or didn't. Please don't put words into my mouth.
The article clearly states they did, are you saying they didn't?

don4l said:
You wonder why I asked if you were homophobic.

The answer is really quite simple. You advocate a system which would reduce the number of demonstrators by at least 12%. Surely, if you weren't a bit homophobic, then you would want to encourage as many people as possible to turn out.
So you are saying the people who organised the LGBTplus Pride rally are homophobic, I had nothing to do with banning UKIP supporters, that was entirely their decision, but you know better than them, I see that as typical of the myopic arrogance of a kipper.

don4l said:
You seem to think that it is more important for UKIP to be silenced, than for people who detest homophobia to have their voice heard.
When have I advocated UKIP be silenced, I think it better that all kippers are given free reign to spout their hatred and bile, the more they do the fewer and fewer people support their cause.

Disastrous

10,072 posts

216 months

Thursday 2nd July 2015
quotequote all
don4l said:
Disastrous said:
Disastrous said:
don4l said:
Do you think that Connie St Louis should be praised, or punished, for her expose of Sir Tim Hunt's recent comments?
Strange question. I don't think she should be praised or punished. She sounds like an awful pain in the arse to be frank. I don't approve of what she did and haven't got much time for those who are offended by everything, but I don't think she should be punished. I think she should be ignored.

Why do you ask?
Was there a point to asking this, since I had the decency to answer, don4l?

Also, I notice Scuffers completely ignored me pointing out very clearly the question he had missed from the other poster earlier after insulting me and claiming there was no question.

Sigh. You guys.
I don't what you mean by the "sigh" comment.

You sound like you have a sense of moral superiority. I'm sure you don't, but perhaps you should consider that phrases like "Sigh. you guys." won't help to convince your audience.

Anyway, enough of the helpful advice.

I fully admit that you had the decency to answer, and I should have kept an eye on this thread.

The truth is that I have decided to buy a barbecue, and I have spent the last few days in the "Food, Drink and Restaurants" sub-forum. The main BBQ thread is 105 pages long! There is some truly wonderful stuff in that thread.

Anyway, I've just re-read your reply to my previous post, and I don't understand why you expected a response from me. You didn't actually ask a question. We take different views about her behaviour. You, of course, are fully entitled to your views.

I see her as someone who has lied on her CV. Her CV page on the City University web site has been removed, and there is a message there which says "This page is in the process of being updated." Oooops!

She has destroyed the career of a man who encouraged women in science.

You will, of course, disagree with me. That actually doesn't matter, though, does it?

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I wasn't deliberately ignoring you.
Thanks for replying. I've bolded the question I asked. I don't really mind what people's views on the Tim Hunt situation are, as I don't have strong feelings about it. I was just curious as to why you asked and what the relevance was.

Also, my 'sigh. You guys' was intended to support my earlier point that it's very difficult to debate/discuss when you respond to a point and it gets ignored (I appreciate you replied but Scuffers came back with a 'what have I ignored??' and hasn't responded since I pointed him to it) and this makes it much easier to simply snipe or attempt to 'score points'.

So my sigh was one of frustration, more than superiority.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
dirk01 said:
I think that is very true. In a sense the "stay-in" case is best made after the negotiations. Bu the "leave" case has no such excuse. Why is it so absent then?
First of all it's rather disingenuous to say the out case is so absent. There is a lot of stuff out there if you care to look. If you don't then cannot help that but it's out there.

However it's not pulled into a single cohesive effort for out - true.

But then neither is the in campaign. That too is not coordinated in any way. You have Branson making himself look rather stupid. You have the CBI, with their EU grants, banging on to such an extent that a Govt minister has to tell them to STFU as they're damaging negotiations.

If one looks back to 75 one of the problems the out campaign faced was that as soon as they mentioned a subject the response from the Govt was " well that's under negotiation. " Thus it was difficult for them to get traction on any subject.

That's why, perhaps, Business for Britain Change or go campaign is first concentrating on what things should we be asking for under the negotiations. At the same time developing chapters in their case for how to deal with various issues and the detail behind them. A million words allegedly which will ultimately, such is life, have to be distilled down into digestible messages.

Which finally brings me to the corollary of your point. If it's correct as you suggest that it's correct for the in campaign to wait for the end of negotiations, then that implies there is absolutely no case for IN with the current format EU. If there is a case for that, where is it because I don't see it, apart from disparate FUD creating rants with no substance and long dismissed untruths.

So if there is only a case for in after reform, why no red lines in the sand? Probably because no intention of actually leaving, in which case we're in danger of being conned , again.

Edited by FiF on Friday 3rd July 13:21

dirk01

47 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
FiF said:
dirk01 said:
I think that is very true. In a sense the "stay-in" case is best made after the negotiations. Bu the "leave" case has no such excuse. Why is it so absent then?
First of all it's rather disingenuous to say the out case is so absent. There is a lot of stuff out there if you care to look. If you don't then cannot help that but it's out there.

However it's not pulled into a single cohesive effort for out - true.

But then neither is the in campaign. That too is not coordinated in any way. You have Branson making himself look rather stupid. You have the CBI, with their EU grants, banging on to such an extent that a Govt minister has to tell them to STFU as they're damaging negotiations.

If one looks back to 75 one of the problems the out campaign faced was that as soon as they mentioned a subject the response from the Govt was " well that's under negotiation. " Thus it was difficult for them to get traction on any subject.

That's why, perhaps, Business for Britain Change or go campaign is first concentrating on what things should we be asking for under the negotiations. At the same time developing chapters in their case for how to deal with various issues and the detail behind them. A million words allegedly which will ultimately, such is life, have to be distilled down into digestible messages.

Which finally brings me to the corollary of your point. If it's correct as you suggest that it's correct for the in campaign to wait for the end of negotiations, then that implies there is absolutely no case for IN with the current format EU. If there is a case for that, where is it because I don't see it, apart from disparate FUD creating rants with no substance and long dismissed untruths.

So if there is only a case for in after reform, why no red lines in the sand? Probably because no intention of actually leaving, in which case we're in danger of being conned , again.

Edited by FiF on Friday 3rd July 13:21
I can't be bothered to find my original quote, but I think it is plain that there is an enormous amount of material out there for both sides (much of it specious of course) but in neither case has it brought together into a consistent credible case and communicated.

You as a firm anti-EUer are aware of the out case, others will be aware of the in case. I have looked at some elements of both. The out campaign is unlikely to succeed if the best you can do is say "there is a lot of stuff out there, can't help if you don't look"

I do take your point about the reasons the out case has to await the negotiations as well, though I don't see tat my reasons for the in case waiting show that it is all a con or any of the other allegations you have built on such flimsy foundations

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

261 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
dirk01 said:
FiF said:
dirk01 said:
I think that is very true. In a sense the "stay-in" case is best made after the negotiations. Bu the "leave" case has no such excuse. Why is it so absent then?
First of all it's rather disingenuous to say the out case is so absent. There is a lot of stuff out there if you care to look. If you don't then cannot help that but it's out there.

However it's not pulled into a single cohesive effort for out - true.

But then neither is the in campaign. That too is not coordinated in any way. You have Branson making himself look rather stupid. You have the CBI, with their EU grants, banging on to such an extent that a Govt minister has to tell them to STFU as they're damaging negotiations.

If one looks back to 75 one of the problems the out campaign faced was that as soon as they mentioned a subject the response from the Govt was " well that's under negotiation. " Thus it was difficult for them to get traction on any subject.

That's why, perhaps, Business for Britain Change or go campaign is first concentrating on what things should we be asking for under the negotiations. At the same time developing chapters in their case for how to deal with various issues and the detail behind them. A million words allegedly which will ultimately, such is life, have to be distilled down into digestible messages.

Which finally brings me to the corollary of your point. If it's correct as you suggest that it's correct for the in campaign to wait for the end of negotiations, then that implies there is absolutely no case for IN with the current format EU. If there is a case for that, where is it because I don't see it, apart from disparate FUD creating rants with no substance and long dismissed untruths.

So if there is only a case for in after reform, why no red lines in the sand? Probably because no intention of actually leaving, in which case we're in danger of being conned , again.

Edited by FiF on Friday 3rd July 13:21
I can't be bothered to find my original quote, but I think it is plain that there is an enormous amount of material out there for both sides (much of it specious of course) but in neither case has it brought together into a consistent credible case and communicated.

You as a firm anti-EUer are aware of the out case, others will be aware of the in case. I have looked at some elements of both. The out campaign is unlikely to succeed if the best you can do is say "there is a lot of stuff out there, can't help if you don't look"

I do take your point about the reasons the out case has to await the negotiations as well, though I don't see tat my reasons for the in case waiting show that it is all a con or any of the other allegations you have built on such flimsy foundations
"I can't be bothered"

Then why continue to obscurate the thread with your "offerings" ?


rofl

dirk01

47 posts

105 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
"I can't be bothered"

Then why continue to obscurate the thread with your "offerings" ?


rofl
I was busy, but still took the trouble to write my post in English, rather than throw in a random Latin word in the wrong case. So what's your excuse for writing gibberish and not adding to the thread in any constructive way?

toohangry

416 posts

108 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
obscurate
good made up word

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Friday 3rd July 2015
quotequote all
dirk01 said:
FiF said:
dirk01 said:
I think that is very true. In a sense the "stay-in" case is best made after the negotiations. Bu the "leave" case has no such excuse. Why is it so absent then?
First of all it's rather disingenuous to say the out case is so absent. There is a lot of stuff out there if you care to look. If you don't then cannot help that but it's out there.

However it's not pulled into a single cohesive effort for out - true.

But then neither is the in campaign. That too is not coordinated in any way. You have Branson making himself look rather stupid. You have the CBI, with their EU grants, banging on to such an extent that a Govt minister has to tell them to STFU as they're damaging negotiations.

If one looks back to 75 one of the problems the out campaign faced was that as soon as they mentioned a subject the response from the Govt was " well that's under negotiation. " Thus it was difficult for them to get traction on any subject.

That's why, perhaps, Business for Britain Change or go campaign is first concentrating on what things should we be asking for under the negotiations. At the same time developing chapters in their case for how to deal with various issues and the detail behind them. A million words allegedly which will ultimately, such is life, have to be distilled down into digestible messages.

Which finally brings me to the corollary of your point. If it's correct as you suggest that it's correct for the in campaign to wait for the end of negotiations, then that implies there is absolutely no case for IN with the current format EU. If there is a case for that, where is it because I don't see it, apart from disparate FUD creating rants with no substance and long dismissed untruths.

So if there is only a case for in after reform, why no red lines in the sand? Probably because no intention of actually leaving, in which case we're in danger of being conned , again.

Edited by FiF on Friday 3rd July 13:21
I can't be bothered to find my original quote, but I think it is plain that there is an enormous amount of material out there for both sides (much of it specious of course) but in neither case has it brought together into a consistent credible case and communicated.

You as a firm anti-EUer are aware of the out case, others will be aware of the in case. I have looked at some elements of both. The out campaign is unlikely to succeed if the best you can do is say "there is a lot of stuff out there, can't help if you don't look"

I do take your point about the reasons the out case has to await the negotiations as well, though I don't see tat my reasons for the in case waiting show that it is all a con or any of the other allegations you have built on such flimsy foundations
Firstly your original quote was quoted at the start of the post. If you can't be bothered to find that there's not much hope for you.

Secondly you alleged no case was being made on one side for which there was no excuse. We're both agreed that there is stuff on both sides and nobody is coordinating anything. I don't agree that it is beholden on one side only to do something at this stage.

Thirdly your complaint that I said I can't help anyone who isn't prepared to go out and look, despite me naming one outfit that is approaching it in a sensible and methodical way has no more weight than asking for a link. Seems you really can't be bothered.

Finally my reason for suggesting that a con is potentially in place is nothing whatsoever to do with anything you said. It's after talking to and hearing from people closely involved and they are adamant that his quiet intention is to gain just enough reforms to sway enough waverers and then rely on the great unwashed propensity for doing as the powers that be tell them. Just like 75. If you think it's a flimsy construct to wonder why nobody who is saying we need to be in the EU but that the EU also needs to reform seems able to come with anything to say well these reforms are absolutely demands then that's your opinion. Personally it's my opinion that it's because they have no such red line demands and intend to accept whatever the result.