Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling figures that could lay to rest any idea of a CO
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling figures that could lay to rest any idea of a CON-UKIP electoral alliance
On the face of it this seems odd. For in the comparison standard poll CON and UKIP together had combined support of 44%. Yet just 35% told the pollsters that they would vote for a CON-UKIP alliance. What happened to the other 9%?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Con plus UKIP 35 %
....as Sunil might put it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24308499
As Farage has also ruled out such a pact and the two can't stand each other I think we can safely rule it out!
If only I had a cup of cocoa for the poor thing. Sadly I cannot find an t'Web service for the poor girl....
Do you have anything to offer other than personal abuse ? Something about politics perhaps ?
@DPJHodges: 40% of Ukip voters say they would consider voting Tory to stop Ed M. 57% if economy improves.
The simple reason for the discrepancy in the YouGov figures are the fact some tories and many kippers would show thier disgust at such a pact by not voting.
Once and for all for all PBers: UKIP are not in the pact or alliance business; at least not before the GE in 2015.
Or it could be a photo-centric reaction to a dark lime-green background on my "blue-filtered" contacts? Or maybe coz; ahem - what is that term - who cares; whatever....
The Tory conference might give some clues but I guess they will be too busy banging on about Europe.
I've only made 18 posts so I'm not sure who I've been attacking either willy or nilly. I'm not sure what I've said or done to earn such bile from somebody I don't even know but perhaps that is the norm here, who knows. As for do you have anything to offer other than personal abuse, that would appear to be a question to which the answer is no.
Your record is as scratched as a Soho's sewer-rat's itch. Your "posting record" is a known comedy.
You blame, sweet innocent me (seriously), of behaviour yet you miss the parody of the response. As for politics; Hah! Do you agree with me (as posited t'other thread) that the tax system should be simple, fair and minimalist.
My approach is ecletic and often irratating: I do not welcome "new" posters nor do I comment upon their misfortune (unless their economics are as bad as Marque Senile's or their diction as 'consumed' as seanT's. This is not my hosted-site and I am a mere-mortal guest at this feast.
What I never do is a simple thing and something you may learn from: I never discuss moderation; never highlight people who should be excluded; and never call another poster "racist". Others have targeted me for such attacks: Me, I trust the in-house team (and have been punished for miscreations) yet I still try to abend the rules whenever possible, but never break them....
Hugs!
:would-you-like-your-cocoa-now:
Shush, enough sillyness now thanks. You protest too much.
"Ed shares the sense of detachment from the traditional default assumptions which David identifies: his defining characteristic is a readiness to take on established interests, whether Murdoch or unions or energy companies."
You mean that EdM is willing to take on established interests which are both unpopular and which oppose him.
Are we meant to be impressed?
Now if EdM wants some respect ley him take on established interests from which he benefits but the people of Britain don't.
Let EdM take on the PPE establishment in politics or the left-liberal metropolitanism which dominates the public sector and BBC.
A class to which membership comes from being in the right family or having the right education - an Oxford PPE or a Harvard MBA for instance.
Now if EdM really wanted to take on established interests and to do something radical to help the ordinary person then he should try this suggestion:
All plc executives need to have their contracts approved, not only by other executive oligarchs on a remuneration committee, but by randomly selected small shareholders and randomly selected workers.
Likewise all executives on public bodies need to have their contracts approved by randomly selected taxpayers and randomly selected workers.
But EdM would never support such ideas for he is just another member of the executive oligarchy and sees nothing wrong with their increasing dominance and self-enrichment.
Withering by name, peevishly ineffectual by nature. And could you point us towards any posts you have contributed about politics, or betting?
Now why don't you grow up and try discussing issues intelligently instead of writing party slogans.
And of course lines like "left liberal metropoliatnism" are not sloganeering at all are they ?
A deranged woman complaining about Tories not understanding and being judgemental.
Now whether you agree with the proposal or not both sides of the argument should have been given or none.
I couldn't get into the comments for a while.
Is the whole background now meant to be bright green? It's much less user friendly than it was before.
* As fitting in the ethos of this site.
Through this I have learnt many things from PB.
What I don't do is mouth of party slogans like a cheerleader or try to close down debate like a facist.
If you don't think there such a thing as a left-liberal establishement in much of the public sector or BBC then say so and explain your views.
How dare you ! I have a full head of hair !
:look-at-the-poor-punctuation...:
FPT Josias - yes, sorry, didn't mean the part of my reply relating to other posts to appear to be directed at you. I was just too lazy to write two separate posts and should have made it clear.
Somebody...
What an absolutely ridiculous idea. If the worker doesn't like how the boss is being paid, he doesn't have to work there. If a shareholder doesn't like how the boss is being paid he can vote against it, or sell his shares.
Maybe we should have random moderation on the site. Someone random gets to moderate every post - so if you write something, and tim doesn't like it and is lucky enough to be the moderator... well, you're out of luck
If you guys keep moderating each other, I shall get very cross and edit the css so your posts get displayed in 4 point comic sans serif.
Comrades! This proves that our glorious 2015 revolution is well on course!
The chances of the Murdoch media being pro-Labour were nil.
So the risk that EdM takes is that they would be slightly more anti-Labour or pro-Conservative than they would otherwise.
Whereas EdM gains the definite boost of appealing to anti-Murdoch, anti-capitalism types generally and giving some 'red meat' to Labour members specifically.
As we know, as shown by the recent thread, the newspaper groups are increasingly less important in influencing public opinion.
The Sun still has a wide working class circulation but that's not a group that EdM or the political establishment have been overly bothered about for years. While the Times has lost much of its influence because of the paywall.
Choosing your enemies wisely is necessary for success and with energy companies, union bosses and Murdoch EdM has chosen unpopular enemies.
I don't disagree with EdM's choice if he wants to win in 2015 but I don't think he's chosen bravely.
Thanks again for sorting out the site, Robert. As always, much appreciated.
On topic, I remember a poll from a few months back showing that 38% of UKIP voters preferred a Conservative majority Government so the 40% number quoted below makes sense.
A UKIP vote share of 10% means 4% potential for the Conservatives so Cameron is presumably hoping to get to at least 36% on his own with the UKIP floating voters propelling him to an overall majority.
There is a logic to the view that the Conservatives, if in Opposition after 2015, will seek, as a priority, to absorb/merge with/crush (delete as appropriate) UKIP but that won't (if the numbers are as stated) achieve much. The key to the post-2015 environment if Labour wins a majority is which of the Conservative, Lib Dem or UKIP will start garnering the anti-Government vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Fd7WYHe6E
How often do the financial companies that control these shareholders votes ever vote against the reappoitment of directors or against the directors remuneration packages or against the reappointment of auditors.
In fact has a plc EVER had a director's appointment or remuneration report or auditor appointment voted down at an AGM?
As to the workers how often have we seen companies destroyed by incompetant but greedy executives who then walk away with millions while the workers lose their jobs.
I'm all for free market capitalism and shareholder democracy, but we don't have that at the moment. Instead we have had capitalism perverted into the business branch of executive oligarchy.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/icm-poll-data-labour-conservatives#data
There are a smaller number of marginals where a substantial kipper vote would put the Labour candidate in parliament. The dynamics of these seats would be different, and a UKIP/Con alliance here may push a lot of centrist votes to Labour. Better here to publish "only the torys can beat Miliband here" dodgy barcharts.
I cannot see an advantage in an alliance benefitting either party.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/al-qaeda-rocket-blows-lid-on-ira-cigarette-cargo-29596545.html
A problem with what Miliband and Labour did with Murdoch is that, as we knew at the time, it was far from being just NI. We obviously cannot discuss the whys and wherefores here, but I'd have had a lot more time for the attacks if they'd attacked *everyone* who'd done it.
NI were first in the frame due to the convictions, but were not the whole story.
It gives the impression that Labour'll ignore such injustices if you're on their side (as they did when NI supported them), and complain when they're not. That may be politics, but it stinks.
(Hopefully this post is mod-friendly enough, but it's dangerous ground).
He sounds the mirror image of your friend. Nowt queerer than folk!
UKIP supporters (in marginal seats) have a very simple decision to make: either vote Tory and get a referendum if the Conservatives get a majority, or vote UKIP and help ensure there is a left-wing Miliband government, more state intervention, higher taxes, more political correctness, and no referendum.
A Con/UKIP pact doesn't actually make any difference to this basic calculation, although interestingly a senior politician who is quite close to Farage has told me he thinks Farage will want to find a way to help the Tories win the GE (but not until after the 2014 Euro elections, of course). Of course that would be entirely rational if Farage did actually want to help get the UK out of the EU, but I must say it seemed very implausible to me (Farage seems to be enjoying the ego-trip too much for that). On the other hand I've never met Farage, whereas the person I was talking to knows him very well; I pass the snippet on as I was told it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
Good news for the London clubs and Southerners...
As to an EU referendum we all know that there's no way Cameron would ever take the UK out of the EU whatever a referendum said. Instead we'd be drowned in the weasel words of 'negotiation' and 'clarification' and a requirement of a second referendum for 'clarification'. The history of referenda regarding the EU is there for everyone to see.
I've met as many Manchester United supporting southerners as those that support London clubs, mostly Spurs fans with a few Arsenal and West Ham supporters. The only Chelsea fan I know is a Yorkshireman.
But so what, from the point of view of those who unconditionally want to leave? The referendum will still take place - there is not a snowflake's chance in hell, if there is a Tory majority, not a scintilla of a glimmer of possibility, that the referendum would not happen. And if, as the kippers tell us, there is a massive popular majority for leaving, then we'll leave, whatever Cameron says. Unless you think he's some kind of political magician who can force people to vote to stay in when they don't want to, we'd be out, if there is indeed a majority for leaving.
Of course, it might be that they are just frit, and think they'll lose. They might well be right, if so, but it would be nice if they didn't set about wrecking all the hard-won progress that has been made, by letting Miliband become PM.
But so what, from the point of view of those who unconditionally want to leave? The referendum will still take place - there is not a snowflake's chance in hell, if there is a Tory majority, not a scintilla of a glimmer of possibility, that the referendum would not happen. And if, as the kippers tell us, there is a massive popular majority for leaving, then we'll leave, whatever Cameron says. Unless you think he's some kind of political magician who can force people to vote to stay in when they don't want to, we'd be out, if there is indeed a majority for leaving.
Of course, it might be that they are just frit, and think they'll lose. They might well be right, if so, but it would be nice if they didn't set about wrecking the country by letting Miliband become PM.Cameron isn't seeking any concessions. The government's position is that there is no need for repatriation of powers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374418/William-Hagues-review-branded-Whitehall-whitewash.html
During this parliament the Conservatives have passed _more_ powers to the EU. (8m44s into the video linked to below)
http://youtu.be/c3JnIw50zL8?t=8m43s
If (like me) you only joined UKIP because you want Britain to quit the EU, then being offered a referendum is not a holy grail. It might, or might not, be a step to leaving the EU.
The referendum could be lost. There would be extensive scaremongering of the (non-existent) incipient dangers of leaving. This would be lead and abetted by the BBC. Then we would have Cameron, as PM and from a completely different angle, advising the disinterested voter to vote to stay in.
Best for BOO is a strong vote for UKIP at every opportunity, gaining some UKIP MPs. Also best would be a weak Miliband promising a referendum, in a late attempt to undermine the Tories. The Labour party could announce that, at a time of their choosing, if the tories seemed to be putting too many eggs in the 'You'll only get a referendum if you vote tory' basket. A weak Miliband govt, a united Tory party in favour of leaving---then there would be a very good chance of achieving Out.
The background is always that the Senate electoral committee should meet to disqualify him (or not). If PD votes for disqualification along with SEL and Grillo, there will be a majority of expelling him.
Letta's government is weak as a consequence. Letta asked for a review of the government and so stopping any legislative activities in the mean time.
Problem is the VAT increase was set (by Monti's government) in early October. So if there's a review, they can't act to stop it.
And so today, Silvio being cunnier than the left (as always) asked his ministers to resign because they don't want to be in a government which can increase VAT.
If the government falls, there will be a VAT increase anyway
So we poor people will be stuffed no matter what!
Still, at least you (unlike most UKIPpers) are honest about not wanting a referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24319274
Whether its Cameron or EdM, its merely one side or the other of privileged metropolitanism.
And I would prefer that it was Labour's image which was ruined by the problems that this country will suffer after 2015.
The Conservatives might just move then to becoming a more radical party looking to help the average person instead of one which governs by, of and for the PPE.
And as David Kendrick says the best time for an EU referendum would be under a weak EdM government with the Conservatives united in favour of leaving.
It's utter nonsense, A1, no-holds-barred nonsense.
Unhappily, there's quite a high chance that I'll be shown to be right on this, and on the extent of the Miliband disaster (I now think he'll be far worse even than Brown) relatively quickly.
In practice, I doubt if it would be as much as 25%. But, yes, there are Conservatives who loathe everything UKIP stands for, and would far prefer a left-wing government.
Didn't some Italian deposit an "unknown but considerable amount" in her bank-balance a few years ago? She may also know a[n] UK "organisation" to help you negate taxes (allegedly): Can't help to ask.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24319274
I'm not against a referendum---I'm simply very nervous about the result of one. For sure, it will be very close.
Wanting another Cameron government is like wanting Heath to have won in 1974.
Yes its possible to think up a nightmare Miliband timeline but I don't see any longterm hope under a Cameron government - immigration will remain uncontrolled, social and economic mobility will continue to fall, debt will continue to increase by £100bn per year, the EU and multinational business will continue to be pandered to ete etc.
At least there's a chance that an EdM government will so discredit both Labour and statist-leftism that there might be reform as there was in response to the 1970s.
If you think, as I do, that Britain is on the wrong track then there's no reason to support David 'Heir to Blair' Cameron and George 'sharing the proceeds of growth' Osborne.
I do think that the Conservatives are the best hope for changing the course we're on but I don't see any evidence that Cameron and Osborne have ever thought that the course needed changing.
While it is true that he seems to be even more dangerous from a policy perspective, where are the forces of hell keeping his colleagues in check? All of the folk who sat on their hands in fear of the Brown machine, what is their excuse this time? Are they waiting for Ed to win an election despite himself, then hope to topple him before he actually unleashes economic Armageddon?
Even if Miliband wins in 2015 and loses the next election 4-5 years of Red Ed as PM and Balls as Chancellor could seriously **** up the economy. We're still in a shaky situation even if we got another Con-Lib coalition next time. For all Cameron's and Clegg's flaws, rescuing us from the likes of Brown, Miliband and Balls was a great thing.
To leave without a referendum is really quite implausible.
That was not quite my point. We didn't have a referendum when Heath signed to go in: I can't see that we need one to leave. But if we do, we do.
I'm not against a referendum---I'm simply very nervous about the result of one. For sure, it will be very close.
Never seen you lot so sad and introspective. Thought you'd have been banging on about Dave's own back-to-the-future marriage tax break.
Chin up.
How do you work out the SNP are finding it difficult. Assume you are basing this on London based polls