politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI party like-dislike ratings raise doubts about t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ipsos-MORI party like-dislike ratings raise doubts about the party’s future progress

Thus the big news from latest Ipsos-MORI “like/dislike” party and leader ratings was the big fall in Ed Miliband’s personal position which, of course, has been the big political story this summer. This has overshadowed other numbers from the firm about UKIP that might be more interesting from a GE2015 forecasting perspective.

Read the full story here

peter_from_putney

First!!

Grandiose

The simple fact is that 'Bongo Bongo' land might secure a core UKIP vote, but it isn't going to make the party likable and it isn't going to win them the 15% plus required to go on towards a significant presence in the House of Commons.

TOPPING

"It suggests that UKIP support won’t be expanding at the same rate as has been experienced in the past year and, indeed, that we might have seen what the ceiling is for now."

Mike, we PB Tories have been banging on for ages that the natural Kipper constituency is p***ed of Tories most of whom have no intention of actually voting Kipper come the day. I give it 4-6% at GE2015.

They are holding their nose and expressing a preference. Fine. But don't expect them to actually vote for NF/UKIP (was there ever a more unfortunate set of initials?).

OblitusSumMe

It's interesting that more people dislike the Conservatives than dislike UKIP - this points to the larger number of don't knows for UKIP.

From my point of view on the left, it is hard to understand why someone would dislike the Conservatives and not dislike UKIP too, but given that there are such people it makes life rather difficult for the Tories - although the 38% who say they like the Tories is more than voted for them last time. Perhaps they could increase their vote after all?

peter_from_putney

The big surprise for me is how little the LibDems are disliked. Following on from the ICM poll at the weekend therse appear to be clear signs that they are turning the corner ..... I must re-visit those Ladbrokes website for those tasty odds on them winning 40+ seats.

Speaking of which one of the best bets currently on offer has to be the 4/6 from Laddies on Danny Alexander retaining his seat at Inverness - a real shoo-in imho, but DYOR.

Stuart_Dickson

antifrank said:

If I were Ed Miliband, I'd be more worried about the idea that the Sun might do a mock-up of his face in a lightbulb on the day of the general election.

This Sun front page worked out well:

http://mrmxyzptlkaa.blogspot.se/2011/05/dont-let-dangerous-alex-salmond-destroy.html

anotherDave

22% of people have not yet formed an opinion of UKIP, so you could argue they have more upside than the others.

"David Cameron is liked by 43%, and disliked by 52%. The Conservative party is liked by 39%, and disliked by 57%. The proportion liking the Conservative party has slightly increased from 35% in October 2012.

Ed Miliband is liked by 30% (down from 37% in October 2012), and disliked by 63%. The Labour party is liked by 49%, and disliked by 43%, which represents little change.

Nick Clegg is liked by 33% (up from 29% in October 2012), and disliked by 57%. The Liberal Democrat party is liked by 43% (up from 40%), and disliked by 47%.

Nigel Farage is liked by 27%, and disliked by 50%. The UK Independence Party is also liked by 25%, and disliked by 52%. Around one in four (22%) say they don’t know."

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3245/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-August-2013.aspx

TheScreamingEagles

I guess this polling explains why despite Ed's poor ratings, Labour are doing well in the polling?

Slackbladder

Is a political party there to be 'liked' or there to do a job?

Slackbladder

peter_from_putney said:

The big surprise for me is how little the LibDems are disliked. Following on from the ICM poll at the weekend therse appear to be clear signs that they are turning the corner ..... I must re-visit those Ladbrokes website for those tasty odds on them winning 40+ seats.

Speaking of which one of the best bets currently on offer has to be the 4/6 from Laddies on Danny Alexander retaining his seat at Inverness - a real shoo-in imho, but DYOR.

The lib dems are in a even worse position.. they are ignored..

RichardNabavi

We shouldn't really be looking at the net figures, except possibly as a leading indicator of how sentiment is shifting. For a minor party, tactical voting against you is not an issue, so whether you are disliked is immaterial: the only thing that matters is the number of people who like you (and/or dislike the main alternatives).

OblitusSumMe

@Ishmael FPT: "Was Blair sleazier over Iraq than Eden over Suez?"

The crucial difference being that Eden resigned shortly after Suez, while Blair continued as PM for four more years.

MarkSenior

Slackbladder said:

peter_from_putney said:

The big surprise for me is how little the LibDems are disliked. Following on from the ICM poll at the weekend therse appear to be clear signs that they are turning the corner ..... I must re-visit those Ladbrokes website for those tasty odds on them winning 40+ seats.

Speaking of which one of the best bets currently on offer has to be the 4/6 from Laddies on Danny Alexander retaining his seat at Inverness - a real shoo-in imho, but DYOR.

The lib dems are in a even worse position.. they are ignored..

Only 10% had no view on the Lib Dems , 23% had no view of UKIP therefore more than twice as many ignoring UKIP .

Grandiose

@tim

-4% for the LDs isn't bad, although I'm sure they were riding high in 2010 (or 2009, before the Clegg thing). The size of the 2010 LD > 2015 Any Other Party pie will be more important than how that pie is divied up among other parties.

ThomasNashe

Interesting figures. I think this helps explain why Lab and LD are likely to continue benefiting more from tactical voting than Con - and it also suggests the particular difficulties UKIP will face in winning a seat: namely, that in any constituency in which their candidate has a chance of winning, a lot of voters may be more motivated to vote for the candidate best placed to defeat them.

RichardNabavi

tim said:

Correct.
The 57% who dislike the Tory Party is far more important, and in particular the 76% of 2010 Lib Dems who dislike the Toxics.

Yes, that and the 63% who dislike Ed Miliband, the highest dislike figure of them all, and the 43% of Labour supporters who are dissatisfied with him. I guess that makes him über-toxic.

Slackbladder

tim said:

Slackbladder said:

peter_from_putney said:

The big surprise for me is how little the LibDems are disliked. Following on from the ICM poll at the weekend therse appear to be clear signs that they are turning the corner ..... I must re-visit those Ladbrokes website for those tasty odds on them winning 40+ seats.

Speaking of which one of the best bets currently on offer has to be the 4/6 from Laddies on Danny Alexander retaining his seat at Inverness - a real shoo-in imho, but DYOR.

The lib dems are in a even worse position.. they are ignored..

Fewer Don't Knows for the Lib Dems, which suggests that as ever that you don't understand the polling.

that's not what I was talking about, but thanks for your limited input dear boy.

AlastairMeeks

I like ice cream and I don't like watercress. Which I eat will depend on how badly I need to diet.

anotherDave

Full tables, p.32

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-political-monitor-august-2013-tables.pdf

Like UKIP
2010 Con: 47%, 2010 Lab: 17%, 2010 LD: 15%

Dislike UKIP
2010 Con: 48%, 2010 Lab: 60%, 2010 LD: 72%

ThomasNashe

antifrank said:

I like ice cream and I don't like watercress. Which I eat will depend on how badly I need to diet.

I love watercress, but you should never accompany it with wine.

MonikerDiCanio

These figures indicate that EdM is a fantastic drag on Labour. The logic of Labour politics demands that he should either resign or be forced out.

Kevin_McCandless

A party full of cranky white people is always going to hit a glass ceiling sooner or later.

redcliffe62

When MSM is against you it is tough to get message across, no matter how different.

Slackbladder

MonikerDiCanio said:

These figures indicate that EdM is a fantastic drag on Labour. The logic of Labour politics demands that he should either resign or be forced out.

The logic of labour history says that he won't be.

RichardNabavi

MonikerDiCanio said:

These figures indicate that EdM is a fantastic drag on Labour. The logic of Labour politics demands that he should either resign or be forced out.

Actually, I think what these figures show is that people like the idea of Labour, but not the reality.

Seems fair enough, and swapping leaders wouldn't fix it.

SouthamObserver

There is a very big anti-Tory constituency in this country and it has shown itself well able to vote rationally in order to keep the Tories out. These figures show that it continues to exist. Crosby clearly recognises this, which is why his focus is on courting UKIPers. But if the UKIPers do not return, the Tories are going to find it incredibly difficult to come close to victory in 2015. And even if the rightward push and the attacks on EdM do work sufficiently to get UKIP below 5%, should the anti-Tory Party retain its discipline Labour could still end up the biggest party.

OblitusSumMe

Slackbladder said:

Is a political party there to be 'liked' or there to do a job?

We can look at that by seeing how much support each party has, despite being disliked - one would assume that the Tories would have more support from people who disliked them, on the basis that they have to do an unpleasant job of sorting out the deficit, sort of thing.

For current declared Conservative voters, the balance on like/dislike the Conservative party is 85%/13%, and for Cameron is 73%/25%

For current declared Labour voters, the balance on like/dislike the Labour party is 90%/6%, and for Miliband is 55%/42%.

So we can see that the Conservatives do have the support of more people who dislike them than Labour; a differential that would have to rise for the Conservatives to lead in the polls - unless they can convince people that they really do not eat babies.

ThomasNashe

should the anti-Tory Party retain its discipline Labour could still end up the biggest party.

Enter Billy Bragg

CopperSulphate

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

Jonathan

"Like" doesn't equal "respect" or "will vote for". But this is a clear advantage here for Labour to mine electorally.

IMO the Tories appear to prefer to be disliked. Odd. One of Thatcher's legacies perhaps. Something that limits their progress.

philiph

OblitusSumMe said:

Slackbladder said:

Is a political party there to be 'liked' or there to do a job?

We can look at that by seeing how much support each party has, despite being disliked - one would assume that the Tories would have more support from people who disliked them, on the basis that they have to do an unpleasant job of sorting out the deficit, sort of thing.

For current declared Conservative voters, the balance on like/dislike the Conservative party is 85%/13%, and for Cameron is 73%/25%

For current declared Labour voters, the balance on like/dislike the Labour party is 90%/6%, and for Miliband is 55%/42%.

So we can see that the Conservatives do have the support of more people who dislike them than Labour; a differential that would have to rise for the Conservatives to lead in the polls - unless they can convince people that they really do not eat babies.

For the short term with the starting of the cull they can switch from eating babies to Badgers. Will that help?

SouthamObserver

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

Which probably explains why over 40% of 2010 Tories dislike UKIP.

anotherDave

Jonathan said:

"Like" doesn't equal "respect" or "will vote for". But this is a clear advantage here for Labour to mine electorally.

IMO the Tories appear to prefer to be disliked. Odd. One of Thatcher's legacies perhaps. Something that limits their progress.

The later questions also show that people don't know what Messrs Clegg and Miliband stand for, but do know what Messrs Cameron and Farage stand for. Perhaps that' advantage is less real than you imagine.

ThomasNashe

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

anotherDave

Kevin_McCandless said:

A party full of cranky white people is always going to hit a glass ceiling sooner or later.

LDs?

philiph

The question is 'Like - Dislike. The rabid party loyalists see that as 'Love - Hate'

The first two are based on a light gut feeling, not a deeply rooted conviction, and are not too difficult to alter.

The second two are based on emotion, and are very hard to shift.

The real question therefore, is how many of those polled hold the view emotionally as opposed to dispassionately?

david_kendrick1

I was on a UKIP 'trade stand' at Ashwell show yesterday. UKIP is unquestionably amateur [never have chairs for staff on a trade stand. Girls on stands should never wear heels, and when anyone needs a break, GET OFF the stand.]

One middle aged woman came on the stand, and whispered to me not to spend any time with her: 'I always vote UKIP'. The most interesting point of that was that she was embarrassed to admit it 'out loud'.

There is a potential, albeit distant plus, for us. If it ever became fashionable to vote for UKIP, the sky is the limit. Currently, we are at the other extreme....

It is the same logic when buying a house. Always choose an unfashionable location. You always get more sq ft/£, and as fashions change, you only have up-sides.

OblitusSumMe

philiph said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Slackbladder said:

Is a political party there to be 'liked' or there to do a job?

We can look at that by seeing how much support each party has, despite being disliked - one would assume that the Tories would have more support from people who disliked them, on the basis that they have to do an unpleasant job of sorting out the deficit, sort of thing.

For current declared Conservative voters, the balance on like/dislike the Conservative party is 85%/13%, and for Cameron is 73%/25%

For current declared Labour voters, the balance on like/dislike the Labour party is 90%/6%, and for Miliband is 55%/42%.

So we can see that the Conservatives do have the support of more people who dislike them than Labour; a differential that would have to rise for the Conservatives to lead in the polls - unless they can convince people that they really do not eat babies.

For the short term with the starting of the cull they can switch from eating babies to Badgers. Will that help?

I've heard of some vegetarians who eat roadkill, on the basis that the animal died by accident, and it would be a waste not to eat it.

If Cameron could make a similar argument with respect to eating culled Badger, and tying it into the politics of austerity, it might help. I do think that no Conservative politician should be seen out and about without a pack of jelly babies, somewhere close to hand.

anotherDave

david_kendrick1 said:

There is a potential, albeit distant plus, for us. If it ever became fashionable to vote for UKIP, the sky is the limit. Currently, we are at the other extreme....

Swing voters are moving between Con, Lab and UKIP. Only Lab and UKIP (of the top 4 parties) are up on their 2010 result.

Slackbladder

Jonathan said:

"Like" doesn't equal "respect" or "will vote for". But this is a clear advantage here for Labour to mine electorally.

IMO the Tories appear to prefer to be disliked. Odd. One of Thatcher's legacies perhaps. Something that limits their progress.

Not really. It's just that the tories usually have to clear up the mess labour leaves behind. so having to make the tough decisions labour duck.

They expect to be disliked, not prefer to be.

CopperSulphate

tim said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

I guess David Cameron branding UKIP as racists led to some of that.
To then employ Lynton Crosby to court those "racists" leaves the Tories in the worst of all worlds, disliked by the centre and left, trying to recruit people on the right they have denigrated.

Good point, I think once anyone or organisation has been branded as racist then they're basically going to be disliked forever if the mud sticks.

God knows what Cameron is doing, trying desperately to be liked by everyone but failing miserably is my guess. If he sends forces to Syria then he's just going to be remembered as a pathetic copy of Blair without the electoral success.

Edit: Actually thinking about it, his accusations towards UKIP were probably part of his Tory detox strategy and it might actually have been midly successful, although probably only with people who would never vote Tory in a million years.

anotherDave

philiph said:

The question is 'Like - Dislike. The rabid party loyalists see that as 'Love - Hate'

The first two are based on a light gut feeling, not a deeply rooted conviction, and are not too difficult to alter.

The second two are based on emotion, and are very hard to shift.

The real question therefore, is how many of those polled hold the view emotionally as opposed to dispassionately?

Good point!

isam

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

RichardNabavi

david_kendrick1 said:

It is the same logic when buying a house. Always choose an unfashionable location. You always get more sq ft/£, and as fashions change, you only have up-sides.

Let's see, annual change to March 2013:

Middlesbrough -6.4%

Richmond upon Thames +6.7%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/html/bd.stm

felix

Labour offer something for nothing - wot's not 2 like?

ThomasNashe

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

"Like" doesn't equal "respect" or "will vote for". But this is a clear advantage here for Labour to mine electorally.

IMO the Tories appear to prefer to be disliked. Odd. One of Thatcher's legacies perhaps. Something that limits their progress.

Not really. It's just that the tories usually have to clear up the mess labour leaves behind. so having to make the tough decisions labour duck.

They expect to be disliked, not prefer to be.

No. Many prominent Tory politicians still have a tendency to do themselves unnecessary damage. Going back to Peter Lilley's 'list', a politician should never set out to say that a group of people (single mothers, asylum seekers etc) as the target of a particular policy; it makes them look like bullies: mainstream voters may not object to the policy, but they dislike the rhetoric used in presenting it. Similarly, adopting a condescending tone when being interviewed (no matter how stupid the question) should be another no-no.

MikeSole

May I recommend a test to find out what you really think of other parties. I attended a "Miner's Festival" yesterday and I thought it would help my daughter, who will be studying A level politics to have a chat and pick up some leaflets from the "Communist Party" & "Labour Party" stands. She took the mickey as I (a long term Lib Dem) walked away carrying an "I'm voting Labour" carrier bag with the stuff in. But then I thought, would I have been happy being seen in public with an "I'm voting Conservative" or "I'm voting UKIP" bag even if it was obvious that it was just "a bag"?

ThomasNashe

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Fair enough. Just don't expect to pick up too many floating voters/ might just consider voting for you if you're nice to me types.

RichardNabavi

Syria: A very thoughtful piece from Dan Hannan

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100232667/its-finely-balanced-but-supporters-of-intervention-in-syria-have-not-yet-made-a-convincing-case/

Jonathan

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

"Like" doesn't equal "respect" or "will vote for". But this is a clear advantage here for Labour to mine electorally.

IMO the Tories appear to prefer to be disliked. Odd. One of Thatcher's legacies perhaps. Something that limits their progress.

Not really. It's just that the tories usually have to clear up the mess labour leaves behind. so having to make the tough decisions labour duck.

They expect to be disliked, not prefer to be.

I'm not so sure. Cameron got a whole lot of stick when he tried to soften the presentation of his party. Tories seem to get off on being disliked. "If it's not hurting it isn't working".

If anything Blair tried to give Labour a harder edge "Tough on Crime" etc.

anotherDave

MikeSole said:

May I recommend a test to find out what you really think of other parties. I attended a "Miner's Festival" yesterday and I thought it would help my daughter, who will be studying A level politics to have a chat and pick up some leaflets from the "Communist Party" & "Labour Party" stands. She took the mickey as I (a long term Lib Dem) walked away carrying an "I'm voting Labour" carrier bag with the stuff in. But then I thought, would I have been happy being seen in public with an "I'm voting Conservative" or "I'm voting UKIP" bag even if it was obvious that it was just "a bag"?

So you perceive LD and Labour voters as intolerant thugs? I think that's a little harsh.

CopperSulphate

ThomasNashe said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Fair enough. Just don't expect to pick up too many floating voters/ might just consider voting for you if you're nice to me types.

Things are still relatively ok for most people who turn out to vote, so appearing as nice probably adds on a fair few percentage points. When things start to get worse economically then that all goes out the window.

Labour got in with a landslide in 1997 by painting the Tories as nasty and being the nice guy alternative. It worked because the economy was doing well.

Andy_JS

It's not that surprising. Most committed Labour and LD supporters — and a lot of Tories — will strongly dislike UKIP for daring to encroach on the political scene.

Andy_JS

Kevin_McCandless said:

A party full of cranky white people is always going to hit a glass ceiling sooner or later.

The "cranky" bit of your comment makes sense, the "white people" part less so.

corporeal

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well.

edmundintokyo

Yglesias on Syria: Dropping bombs and killing bad guys is not a cost-effective way of saving lives:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/27/syria_intervention_cost_military_strikes_are_a_highly_cost_ineffective_way.html

taffys

''Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well. ''

Keep parroting the same smears and that should shut the debate down nicely, eh?

MonikerDiCanio

As the death toll mounts in the Middle East ,ME Peace Envoy Blair gets busy ;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402354/Peace-envoy-Tony-Blair-yacht-Mediterranean-West-debates-air-strikes-Syria.html

isam

corporeal said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well.

Im not sure where the racism you talk of is, but if you dont like what a politician says, dont vote for them, why moan?

Would you prefer they lie to con your vote?

richardDodd

T'would be difficult to find a "I am voting Conservative" bag at a miners rally

taffys

''T'would be difficult to find a "I am voting Conservative" bag at a miners rally''

Almost as difficult as finding a miner....

Neil

MonikerDiCanio said:

As the death toll mounts in the Middle East ,ME Peace Envoy Blair gets busy ;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402354/Peace-envoy-Tony-Blair-yacht-Mediterranean-West-debates-air-strikes-Syria.html

While I'm sure people who want to be outraged will be outraged anyway Tony Blair's role is limited to the Israel - Palestine peace process rather than anything to do with Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East.

CopperSulphate

tim said:

Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics
Blog: Intervention in Syria – who decides what would be legal or legitimate? http://tgr.ph/19Kc78s

Hopefully Nick "Illegal War" Clegg will get to make a speech on Thursday.

Finally here's his chance to come back from the political dead. Does he bring down the coalition by coming out against intervention?

Of course not.

corporeal

taffys said:

''Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well. ''

Keep parroting the same smears and that should shut the debate down nicely, eh?

Have you read Godfrey Bloom's comments?

I've got no problem with the debate as such, but it's hard to characterise his comments as anything else.

Gerry_Mander

MikeSole said:

May I recommend a test to find out what you really think of other parties. I attended a "Miner's Festival" yesterday and I thought it would help my daughter, who will be studying A level politics to have a chat and pick up some leaflets from the "Communist Party" & "Labour Party" stands. She took the mickey as I (a long term Lib Dem) walked away carrying an "I'm voting Labour" carrier bag with the stuff in. But then I thought, would I have been happy being seen in public with an "I'm voting Conservative" or "I'm voting UKIP" bag even if it was obvious that it was just "a bag"?

Why would you be unhappy? Presumably with a Labour bag you're only going to get laughed at? With a Conservative bag, the other side wouldn't be so nice?

richardDodd

Taffy's...LOL..Very true..If I went to one I would probably be the only one there....

corporeal

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well.

Im not sure where the racism you talk of is, but if you dont like what a politician says, dont vote for them, why moan?

Would you prefer they lie to con your vote?

You're on a political forum, asking why someone is talking about what a politician says?

Really?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sulphate, I concur that this is a good opportunity for Clegg. However, it would only be a potential Coalition-crusher if it were official government policy. If Clegg's against, it can't be.

I'm not anti-Cameron, but I hope he loses the vote, assuming he speaks for intervention.

SouthamObserver

CopperSulphate said:

ThomasNashe said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Fair enough. Just don't expect to pick up too many floating voters/ might just consider voting for you if you're nice to me types.

Things are still relatively ok for most people who turn out to vote, so appearing as nice probably adds on a fair few percentage points. When things start to get worse economically then that all goes out the window.

Labour got in with a landslide in 1997 by painting the Tories as nasty and being the nice guy alternative. It worked because the economy was doing well.

The Tories were hopelessly split over Europe.

Public services were creaking.

VAT had been raised despite promises that it would not be.

We'd had the whole ERM fiasco.

We'd had moral and political Tory sleaze in Westminster Council and in Parliament.

We'd had Peter Liley's charming little list and the uproarious applause it attracted at the Tory conference.

The economy was recovering, it is true; but only because Tory policies had buggered it up in the first place.

In short, the Tories did plenty to ensure people felt the way they did about them in 1997. They deserved what they got. The same thing happened to Labour in 2010, except the Tories were not able to capitalise in the way that Blair did in 1997. In part, at least, for reasons not unconnected with the chart in Mike's intro.

peter_from_putney

peter_from_putney said:

...... one of the best bets currently on offer has to be the 4/6 from Laddies on Danny Alexander retaining his seat at Inverness - a real shoo-in imho, but DYOR.

Oops, those odds from Ladbrokes on Danny Alexander retaining his seat are in fact 4/5, not 4/6 as incorrectly posted earlier.

taffys

Have you read Godfrey Bloom's comments?

Given the protections against discrimination that exist in law, those comments are meaningless. Stupid, but meaningless.

Is Bloom proposing to repeal those laws or to erect barriers to women from taking part in certain walks of life?

Not that I'm aware.

anotherDave

"...vaguely beginning to form in the electoral air is a specter of elections yet to come, which must haunt the nightmares of all the existing parties and of the modern liberal establishment. What if all the morally and socially conservative people in Britain were to unite across class barriers and demand an end to the cultural revolution that has transformed their lives for the worse since the 1960s? ... What if a government came into office that had genuine intellectual and moral objections to the left-wing project of multiculturalism, economic liberalism, sexual revolution, and open borders, which has had the West in its grip for half a century?

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/17/revenge-of-the-fruitcakes/

corporeal

taffys said:

Have you read Godfrey Bloom's comments?

Given the protections against discrimination that exist in law, those comments are meaningless. Stupid, but meaningless.

Is Bloom proposing to repeal those laws or to erect barriers to women from taking part in certain walks of life?

Not that I'm aware.

So because of that I shouldn't call him sexist on a political forum?

Neil

taffys said:

Given the protections against discrimination that exist in law, those comments are meaningless. Stupid, but meaningless.

Surely they mean he's a bit sexist?

isam

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well.

Im not sure where the racism you talk of is, but if you dont like what a politician says, dont vote for them, why moan?

Would you prefer they lie to con your vote?

You're on a political forum, asking why someone is talking about what a politician says?

Really?

How I hate smart arsery... theres a lot of it on here

You said his comments meant...

"he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age"

Are you are suggesting it is better for a politician to pretend to think something they dont in order to get votes from people who wouldnt otherwise vote for them?

Wouldnt it be better if they all spoke their mind and left us to decide who we thought was best for the job?

Sean_F

How significant is it, in electoral terms, to be "liked"? 43% like the Lib Dems, but only 11% say they'll vote for them. What matters is being trusted or respected, surely.

If this finding means anything, it suggests that UKIP's current ceiling is about 25%.

taffys

Surely they mean he's a bit sexist?

Maybe but I'd prefer to reserve the emotionally charged term 'sexist' for people who oblige women to cover up in public, force them to undergo female circumcision, deny them property rights or equal remedies in law, forbid them from driving, deny them equal rights in education (or any rights in education), to name but a few.

And it always amazes me how people who cannot wait to dub Godfrey Bloom a 'sexist' are strangely silent when it comes to condemning the far more sexist behaviour I have just outlined.

corporeal

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Sexism, racism, filth seems to describe it fairly well.

Im not sure where the racism you talk of is, but if you dont like what a politician says, dont vote for them, why moan?

Would you prefer they lie to con your vote?

You're on a political forum, asking why someone is talking about what a politician says?

Really?

How I hate smart arsery... theres a lot of it on here

You said his comments meant...

"he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age"

Are you are suggesting it is better for a politician to pretend to think something they dont in order to get votes from people who wouldnt otherwise vote for them?

Wouldnt it be better if they all spoke their mind and left us to decide who we thought was best for the job?

1. No I didn't.

2. You're mixing two things, how much politicians speak their minds, and how much we like what they say. I'm fine with him speaking his mind, but I don't see why you object to my coming on a political forum and commenting that I don't like what he says?

Carola

Fancy a fantasy cabinet reshuffle? (If not posted already...):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10268610/The-Telegraphs-fantasy-Cabinet-reshuffle-interactive.html

Sean_F

anotherDave said:

"...vaguely beginning to form in the electoral air is a specter of elections yet to come, which must haunt the nightmares of all the existing parties and of the modern liberal establishment. What if all the morally and socially conservative people in Britain were to unite across class barriers and demand an end to the cultural revolution that has transformed their lives for the worse since the 1960s? ... What if a government came into office that had genuine intellectual and moral objections to the left-wing project of multiculturalism, economic liberalism, sexual revolution, and open borders, which has had the West in its grip for half a century?

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/17/revenge-of-the-fruitcakes/

Good article.

Kevin_McCandless

Andy_JS said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

A party full of cranky white people is always going to hit a glass ceiling sooner or later.

The "cranky" bit of your comment makes sense, the "white people" part less so.

Sorry. My own tunnel vision coming into play. I'm cranky. I'm white. And it's been a long day.

corporeal

taffys said:

Surely they mean he's a bit sexist?

Maybe but I'd prefer to reserve the emotionally charged term 'sexist' for people who oblige women to cover up in public, force them to undergo female circumcision, deny them property rights or equal remedies in law, forbid them from driving, deny them equal rights in education (or any rights in education), to name but a few.

And it always amazes me how people who cannot wait to dub Godfrey Bloom a 'sexist' are strangely silent when it comes to condemning the far more sexist behaviour I have just outlined.

Is there a term you'd prefer to call him, misogynist etc?

Sean_F

My own view is that Godfrey Bloom is a bit of a buffoon, but the three main parties' stables are so full of ordure that they're in no strong position to criticise UKIP.

anotherDave

Sean_F said:

How significant is it, in electoral terms, to be "liked"? 43% like the Lib Dems, but only 11% say they'll vote for them. What matters is being trusted or respected, surely.

If this finding means anything, it suggests that UKIP's current ceiling is about 25%.

I seem to recall polling that scots would vote for independence if it meant they'd be £500 better off.

UKIP already seem to be offering TV licence (£145), and perhaps abolishing green taxes/subsidies on gas/power. So their ceiling may move.

taffys

Is there a term you'd prefer to call him, misogynist etc?

Call him what you like, but don;t expect not to be challenged. In my book you are using a sledgehammer to knock a nail in.

For me Bloom is a foolish attention seeker who may not even believe the comments he made, let alone expect them to be taken seriously by the public at large. Best ignored.

The Mail is running an article today on how people choose their partners differently based on whether they are male or female. That's probably sexist in the sense that Bloom is because its absurd to make generalizations about morals or behaviour based on sex or biology.

However, these are still a world away from seeking to deny women rights or equal opportunities, or even calling them 'hoes' or 'bitches'.

corporeal

taffys said:

Is there a term you'd prefer to call him, misogynist etc?

Call him what you like, but don;t expect not to be challenged. In my book you are using a sledgehammer to knock a nail in.

For me Bloom is a foolish attention seeker who may not even believe the comments he made, let alone expect them to be taken seriously by the public at large. Best ignored.

The Mail is running an article today on how people choose their partners differently based on whether they are male or female. That's probably sexist in the sense that Bloom is because its absurd to make generalizations about morals or behaviour based on sex or biology.

However, these are still a world away from seeking to deny women rights or equal opportunities, or even calling them 'hoes' or 'bitches'.

Not to be challenged about what? You agree what he said is sexist don't like the term but haven't offered another you think's preferable.

Unconscious sexism, which I imagine the Mail's article would be about would for me be a level below Bloom's conscious sexism.

Isam seems convinced he's just speaking honestly.

foxinsoxuk

And to be fair; Israel is an island of peaceful civil society in a strife torn middle east at present.
Indeed, with the conflict escalatinv all around it seems as if the Israel/Palestine question will be an easier one to solve than either Egypt or Syrias internal conflicts.

Neil said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

As the death toll mounts in the Middle East ,ME Peace Envoy Blair gets busy ;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402354/Peace-envoy-Tony-Blair-yacht-Mediterranean-West-debates-air-strikes-Syria.html

While I'm sure people who want to be outraged will be outraged anyway Tony Blair's role is limited to the Israel - Palestine peace process rather than anything to do with Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East.

Plato

This hasn't got much comment yet - but Ben from MORI tweeted that they're the most popular form of dwelling.

"Councils are to be urged to build a new generation of bungalows as part of a planning revolution to create bespoke homes for people aged above 65, Eric Pickles will announce this week. The Communities Secretary is to publish rules to make town halls match development to the type of accommodation needed locally to cater for the ageing population.

Planners will have to ensure that they have enough properties of the right type — including clusters of bungalows that can be let only to older people. Pensioners will be encouraged to downsize, freeing up family homes...The regulations are part of the Government’s national planning guidance to be published on Wednesday. The document will include plans to remove council tax premiums on family annexes and allow bigger extensions without planning permission.

Bungalow building has almost ground to a halt since the 1980s with only 300 built in 2009. Last year builders registered plans to construct 1,700 bungalows with the National House Building Council, but many of these will not have started..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3852372.ece

Quincel

UKIP are barely more disliked than the Tories, yet no-one would claim the Tories are generally unelectable (even if some would say they won't win in 2015). It seems a stretch to say that UKIP can't get more than 15% of the vote on -27 but the Tories can get 40% and win on -19.

redteddy

Quincel. UKIP are disliked because of its racism. However, in that they differ little from the Tory right. I would also have to say that 40% will not elect the Tories. I cannot see Labour falling to less than 36% and are likely to poll around 38-9%. If that was so the Tories would have to poll 45% or more to get an overall majority. Given that UKIP will almost certainly poll more than the 3.17% that they got last time. then the Tory task is impossible. These figures can be checked on Electoral Calculous.

AlastairMeeks

If John Rentoul ever drops by, he might be interested to know that the advert that I'm currently getting includes a QTWTAIY, courtesy of the Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

"Is Russia really anti-LGBT?"

CopperSulphate

SouthamObserver said:

CopperSulphate said:

ThomasNashe said:

isam said:

ThomasNashe said:

CopperSulphate said:

Left wingers absolutely hate anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So even a new party which has never been in power so has never had a chance to do anything unpleasant is loathed simply for being right wing.

To be fair, I think Godfrey Bloom has been doing a pretty good job in putting them off. Worse even than his notorious 'Bongo-Bongo land' comment was his earlier indication that he was not interested in the votes of any women of child-bearing age.

A politician saying what he thinks and leaving it to the public to vote as they see fit rather than pretending to change his opinion to grab votes?

Absolute filth

Fair enough. Just don't expect to pick up too many floating voters/ might just consider voting for you if you're nice to me types.

Things are still relatively ok for most people who turn out to vote, so appearing as nice probably adds on a fair few percentage points. When things start to get worse economically then that all goes out the window.

Labour got in with a landslide in 1997 by painting the Tories as nasty and being the nice guy alternative. It worked because the economy was doing well.

The Tories were hopelessly split over Europe.

Public services were creaking.

VAT had been raised despite promises that it would not be.

We'd had the whole ERM fiasco.

We'd had moral and political Tory sleaze in Westminster Council and in Parliament.

We'd had Peter Liley's charming little list and the uproarious applause it attracted at the Tory conference.

The economy was recovering, it is true; but only because Tory policies had buggered it up in the first place.

In short, the Tories did plenty to ensure people felt the way they did about them in 1997. They deserved what they got. The same thing happened to Labour in 2010, except the Tories were not able to capitalise in the way that Blair did in 1997. In part, at least, for reasons not unconnected with the chart in Mike's intro.

Sleaze and the ERM, big deal. The country is totally and utterly bankrupt now.

dr_spyn

disliked racists - continued page 94.

CopperSulphate

Who the hell is Godfrey Bloom? We've got all three major political parties who have had MPs slung in jail for various crimes and yet UKIP are far worse because some bloke you've never heard of said something that's politically incorrect.

Pulpstar

Here he comes to save the day
Tony Blair is on his way !

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/26/article-0-1B747F72000005DC-553_634x465.jpg

OldKingCole

"Quote" rel="CopperSulphate">

Sleaze and the ERM, big deal. The country is totally and utterly bankrupt now.

That was then, of course, we've moved one, and perchance down!

RodCrosby

The Torygraph stands up for facts and logic...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100232698/syria-why-would-assad-invite-a-western-intervention-by-using-wmds-in-a-war-he-was-winning/#disqus_thread

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

If John Rentoul ever drops by, he might be interested to know that the advert that I'm currently getting includes a QTWTAIY, courtesy of the Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

"Is Russia really anti-LGBT?"

John Rentoul does visit PB.

He even voted in yesterday's PB Poll.

corporeal

CopperSulphate said:

Who the hell is Godfrey Bloom? We've got all three major political parties who have had MPs slung in jail for various crimes and yet UKIP are far worse because some bloke you've never heard of said something that's politically incorrect.

He's an MEP who made some offensive comments and is getting criticised for them. What's wrong with that?

Sean_F

redteddy said:

Quincel. UKIP are disliked because of its racism. However, in that they differ little from the Tory right. I would also have to say that 40% will not elect the Tories. I cannot see Labour falling to less than 36% and are likely to poll around 38-9%. If that was so the Tories would have to poll 45% or more to get an overall majority. Given that UKIP will almost certainly poll more than the 3.17% that they got last time. then the Tory task is impossible. These figures can be checked on Electoral Calculous.

So you hope, anyway.