neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 7, 2014 10:34:55 GMT
Wow! Two posts at the same moment both using the phrase 'hot bed of recusancy' or similar. That is so unlikely. I've never heard anyone else say it actually! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 11:06:59 GMT
That treaty doesn't exist, it seems. Or according to the conspiracy theorists, it exists, but it's secret, so official information sources aren't about it and they are the only ones daring to talk about that scandalous secret. Sometimes, I wonder if the mental care provision should be improved. Something must have went wrong with their mind somewhere. You need to remember that t'internet IS mental health provision. As we type away with our conspiracy theories for thousands & thousands of words it keeps us off the streets. Well, works for me. .... From 3.00 onwards........ |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 7, 2014 11:29:52 GMT
'Must have went...'! I don't think so. Well, I doubt it's a good life. Society ostracise you and conspiracy theorists usually come up with a lot of paranoia. But perhaps it's my naivety of thinking than people are born naturally good. Yes it is your naivety coupled with syntactical challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 7, 2014 11:42:22 GMT
Well I think you all know that I am not trying to 'validate' nor to excuse the behaviour or utterences of people, only to make a number of observations as to the practical circumstances of voter receptivity and attitudes, because I don't think all of you realize that the whole world is not perceived in your image and against your really very current filter of approved terms for conducting dialogue. For my part I am usually fairly unconcerned about anything 'said' but much more censorious about actual physical behaviour. In this I am the reverse of most of you. I frankly don't give a toss about what Bloom or Helmer say or said. For me it really does not amount to a hill of beans, because it is just words. But the casual way in which serious sexual acts are overlooked, underinvestigated, swept under carpets and not prosecuted are really serious, yet most of you don't seem to see that the same at all. The Lib Dem record recently on this for me has been an utter disgrace and pushes UKIP bar room banter far far into the background. Most of you see this differently to me. But I am far from an individual alone out there. That is why UKIP does not suffer in the way you obviously think it should for such transgressions as you see them. You don't understand how I can cheerfully put up with Bloom and Helmer but am quite outraged by a Deputy Speaker given to alcohol-fuelled sprees of licentiouness and disgusting behaviour. We live in different moral worlds that are drawing apart day by day. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. For these purposes, I'm rather more concerned about the electoral implications of Helmer's statements than what they say about him as a person. Condemning people for their comments, whilst occasionally cathartic, is rarely productive in of itself. I'm not overly enamoured of Evans' actions, but as I don't associate with him and they weren't criminal, it's not an issue that affects me personally. That's not to say there's no disapproval there. But on the other hand, most racist/homophobic/outrageous comments that attract outrage fall under the same rubric. It would be reasonable to be concerned about the ability of a candidate to represent electors of a minority group they've made negative comments about, but few of the politicians we're electing have any substantial amount of executive power and in isolation they're therefore not going to make a great amount of difference. It'd be more serious with a potential cabinet minister or council leader, but with a UKIP by-election candidate or a local election candidate in an unwinnable seat, the practical ramifications of their comments are sharply limited. I therefore think that attacks upon people for their comments should be seen in much the same way as we would a campaign against Evans based upon his personal morality - they're attacks on character, suggesting that the individual concerned acts in a way that makes them unpleasant or unpalatable. It's essentially a campaign of moral outrage and its success or failure rests upon its ability to convince not just those immediately offended but those who are initially not sure what to think. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 7, 2014 12:02:31 GMT
I don't think it is even 'at cross-purposes' EAL. You express yourself so reasonably and succinctly that it is difficult to find a quibble in it. I am nor really a warrior for Bloomism and I think you at least know that. But I do try to set out the stall and advance the view from a different perspective because so much on here appears to be to be in a narrow monoculture except as regards party affiliation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 13:01:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 13:16:57 GMT
I don't think it is even 'at cross-purposes' EAL. You express yourself so reasonably and succinctly that it is difficult to find a quibble in it. I am nor really a warrior for Bloomism and I think you at least know that. But I do try to set out the stall and advance the view from a different perspective because so much on here appears to be to be in a narrow monoculture except as regards party affiliation. I think the point is not so much a critique of his views, but an analysis of how those views will play with the electorate. That his views represent a strand of though in the UK ? Clearly. Enough to win a by election? Doubtful. The response of many politicians, of all parties, is to say little of substance, to appeal for support through mediocrity. I tend to take the position that I say what my views are, & trust the electorate to look at the round rather than insist on 100% conformity, for example I am a europhile representing a very euro sceptic ward. But there are boundaries to what is acceptable, which differ from person to person, & some of Bloom's statements will put off some potential switchers, IMHO .... which is why this seat is now a probable Tory hold |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 13:23:44 GMT
Are you saying they shouldn't give a damn about anti-Catholic bigotry? Mr Helmer is a very unpleasant man and I think his selection is indicative of a willingness to adopt a candidate who is high-profile, ignoring the fact that much of what he is high-profile about is pretty shocking. This will work against UKIP and pretty much guarantees a Conservative hold. The only way the Tories are ever going to lose here is in a fairly close 3-way fight (a la Eastleigh) Helmer's selection has not altered that. I see a clear 1st 2nd and 3rd here. Wouldn't be suprised to see labour under 20 (though I expect more like 22 ish) Con 42 UKIP 30 Lab 22 LD 5 Oth 3 |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,940
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 7, 2014 13:35:44 GMT
Possible for sure, but it doesn't quite match what the bookies are saying.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 13:40:27 GMT
Possible for sure, but it doesn't quite match what the bookies are saying..... They seem to suggest a tory hold with UKIP and labour vying for 2nd. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 7, 2014 13:43:34 GMT
Possible for sure, but it doesn't quite match what the bookies are saying..... Its not what the bookies are saying but what the gamblers are saying. There is a huge sincerity in a guess based upon personal hard cash, but it is only the synthesis of sincere guesses by 'involved' but amateur onlookers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 7, 2014 13:50:31 GMT
The only way the Tories are ever going to lose here is in a fairly close 3-way fight (a la Eastleigh) Helmer's selection has not altered that. I see a clear 1st 2nd and 3rd here. Wouldn't be suprised to see labour under 20 (though I expect more like 22 ish) Con 42 UKIP 30 Lab 22 LD 5 Oth 3 I think the Tories will be down by more than that if UKIP are up to 30% Labour should be good for about 25% (but no more) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 14:06:59 GMT
Yeah perhaps
Con 39
UKIP 30
Lab 24
LD 6
On reflection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 14:07:42 GMT
I see a clear 1st 2nd and 3rd here. Wouldn't be suprised to see labour under 20 (though I expect more like 22 ish) Con 42 UKIP 30 Lab 22 LD 5 Oth 3 Sometimes I think you have a tendency to make predictions on the basis of what you would like to happen, rather than what is actually likely to happen. What would you suggest  |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 7, 2014 15:57:38 GMT
Possible for sure, but it doesn't quite match what the bookies are saying..... Its not what the bookies are saying but what the gamblers are saying. There is a huge sincerity in a guess based upon personal hard cash, but it is only the synthesis of sincere guesses by 'involved' but amateur onlookers. When I was based in Gib, I used to get the early prices, well, early. It's amazing how influenced they are by an estimation of what the punters will be backing, even more so when you compile your own tissue to compare. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 7, 2014 17:38:49 GMT
Its not what the bookies are saying but what the gamblers are saying. There is a huge sincerity in a guess based upon personal hard cash, but it is only the synthesis of sincere guesses by 'involved' but amateur onlookers. When I was based in Gib, I used to get the early prices, well, early. It's amazing how influenced they are by an estimation of what the punters will be backing, even more so when you compile your own tissue to compare. I fear I am not fully certain what that means? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 21:38:56 GMT
Have the Lib Dems named who will be beaten by Elvis yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 7, 2014 22:37:08 GMT
UKIP are 5/1 with Ladbrokes. That seems like value to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossmark on May 8, 2014 11:13:42 GMT
UKIP are 5/1 with Ladbrokes. That seems like value to me. Yes seen as William Hill have them at 11\4 |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 8, 2014 11:54:19 GMT
|
|
