Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 19:30:49 GMT
Than what? Asking Christine Hamilton for anything? exactly, all the other parties we would know the procedures and timetable by now. Yes, complete with Labour selections where people backed by certain Unions are guaranteed to be chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 2, 2014 21:37:06 GMT
My argument is that he should he have won this by-election (and in the aftermath of the Euros I think that is a distinct possibility) he would have quickly been joined by 7 or 8 Tory MPs who would have the excuse they were looking for. That they believe they could win as UKIP in their seats and that UKIP could beat them or at least make them lose at the general. Think of it as kind of an SDP approach but the seat winning itself is the catalyst. That would of course be a strategy to take them forward and actually win MPs and become a factor in the body that governs this country's relationship with the EU. But he's more interested it would seem in being party of a body he despises and ultimately has no power to do what he wants to do. See his lack of identifying a seat to fight in 2015 for example. The county elections in Kent were an excellent guide and he could have identified a seat there and then. But that would be a bit to much like real politics for him wouldn't it, and instead he can swan around pontificating and making grand ststements without actually doing anything about pulling us out of the EU. Because without that strategy, all you Kippers on here are wasting your lives, your time and effort, working for a party who will, at this rate, not even have a voice in the Commons. Strange isn't it that UKIP appears to be the only party where the media and other political parties demand where we must stand, and who must stand for us or apparently it's a bottle job if we don't do what is demanded by the scribes and the other political parties. In this case, Farage said that he was seriously considering standing in the by-election, and then changed his mind the next day. If he hadn't opened his mouth in the first place, or had ruled himself out from the start then nobody would be talking about whether he should stand or not. Or, if they were, it would be the same kind of conversation as idly speculating if and where Boris Johnson might stand in future. So no, in this case, UKIP are not being singled out for special treatment by the media and other political parties. It's being called a bottle job because that's precisely the impression that your leader created. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 2, 2014 23:44:53 GMT
Than what? Asking Christine Hamilton for anything? exactly, all the other parties we would know the procedures and timetable by now. '...all the other parties...?' No, you are wrong again. And just what business is it of yours or of anybody outside UKIP as to how and when and why we do anything? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301
|
Post by maxque on May 2, 2014 23:47:36 GMT
exactly, all the other parties we would know the procedures and timetable by now. '...all the other parties...?' No, you are wrong again. And just what business is it of yours or of anybody outside UKIP as to how and when and why we do anything? Because, if you want to back up your claim of doing things differently and really listen to the people, you ought to be transparent. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 2, 2014 23:54:42 GMT
Strange isn't it that UKIP appears to be the only party where the media and other political parties demand where we must stand, and who must stand for us or apparently it's a bottle job if we don't do what is demanded by the scribes and the other political parties. In this case, Farage said that he was seriously considering standing in the by-election, and then changed his mind the next day. If he hadn't opened his mouth in the first place, or had ruled himself out from the start then nobody would be talking about whether he should stand or not. Or, if they were, it would be the same kind of conversation as idly speculating if and where Boris Johnson might stand in future. So no, in this case, UKIP are not being singled out for special treatment by the media and other political parties. It's being called a bottle job because that's precisely the impression that your leader created. Well, well, well! So, we get to be talked about and discussed on every element of our conduct. We remain at the centre of attention. One cannot buy that level of publicity. Why are you all concerned about us and our doings and our reasons? Are we doing so badly? Are we drifting off course and losing our support? Perhaps not? I wouldn't swop places with the LibDems, Greens or Conservatives just at present. I shall carefully examine the Newark result for evidence of significant progress by the Greens and the LibDems.....and guess what I shall probably find....  We shall deal with our Newark mote GC...and leave it to you to remove the Green beams! |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 2, 2014 23:57:59 GMT
'...all the other parties...?' No, you are wrong again. And just what business is it of yours or of anybody outside UKIP as to how and when and why we do anything? Because, if you want to back up your claim of doing things differently and really listen to the people, you ought to be transparent. Oh yes! Going forward we fully intend to be transparent and we covenant with our people to nuance our buzz words and to tax humbug and cant. Expect a big tax bill max. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 3, 2014 0:32:20 GMT
In order for your theory to be worth anything, it would be necessary for the voter to be simultaneously clever enough to be aware of the date and stupid enough to think it's relevant. So in that quote you are saying anyone who complains that for 39 years we have had not had another chance for our opinion on whether or not we should be in the EU, which has changed from the EEC to the EC then to the EU. is stupid? No, I did not say any such thing. If you have interpreted what I wrote as meaning what you are suggesting that I "said", then you are even more stupid than the people I was referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on May 3, 2014 10:21:23 GMT
Just to stress my point about Farage not necessarily being the best candidate for Newark see this clip of Farage being interviewed by Norman Smith on the BBC news.
So Smith asks Farage if he would consider changing his mind if the local party begged him to and Farage replies that he spoke to the local party and they all told him that they would be willing to support him but actually maybe another candidate might be better. Smith completely fails to clock that this is what Farage has told him. He, like all the other journalists, simply takes it for granted that Farage would be UKIP's best candidate for the seat. Not one national journalist has picked up on what Farage said here and not one has even discussed the question of whether Farage might be correct in his assessment that he might not be the best candidate. It simply doesn't occur to them that it is a question. I can only think that they assume that most people are as obsessed with celebrity and celebrity politicians as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on May 3, 2014 10:33:47 GMT
This also illustrates an issue that I have with a great many TV interviewers, their failure to listen. These people will be earning multiples of the average national salary for what? Anyone can ask questions, a good interviewer should listen closely to and analyse the answers he gets so that he can respond with perceptive follow up questions. So many interviewers are just listening out for the answers they are expecting or hoping for and fail to listen closely to what they are actually being told.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 3, 2014 10:44:12 GMT
Just to stress my point about Farage not necessarily being the best candidate for Newark see this clip of Farage being interviewed by Norman Smith on the BBC news.
So Smith asks Farage if he would consider changing his mind if the local party begged him to and Farage replies that he spoke to the local party and they all told him that they would be willing to support him but actually maybe another candidate might be better. Smith completely fails to clock that this is what Farage has told him. He, like all the other journalists, simply takes it for granted that Farage would be UKIP's best candidate for the seat. Not one national journalist has picked up on what Farage said here and not one has even discussed the question of whether Farage might be correct in his assessment that he might not be the best candidate. It simply doesn't occur to them that it is a question. I can only think that they assume that most people are as obsessed with celebrity and celebrity politicians as they are. You have pinpointed a matter of fundamental importance to our current success. It is the near complete disjunct of the commentariat and the metropolitan political elite from how a significant section of the public think and act. They cannot understand how a party lead by Farage and containing the likes of Bloom could possibly exist at all, let alone flourish. They just cannot grasp that they are dealing with a demographic who share very few of their modernist thoughts and who fail to be outraged by by the sort of remarks most of them habitually and casually make everyday themselves. They don't get the concept of a populist party of the people with no side, no political correctness issues at all, who do not measure their words and strain to avoid offence, because that is not how they live their lives and not how they want to live their lives. They see us a refreshing draught of water in a politically parched environment. And we are. We don't play by the commonly accepted rules of engagement because we don't want to and don't need to. This slightly off-centre and slightly rebarbative attitude is a major attraction and not a problem. Every time we do things differently we engage with more people. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 3, 2014 13:50:53 GMT
In this case, Farage said that he was seriously considering standing in the by-election, and then changed his mind the next day. If he hadn't opened his mouth in the first place, or had ruled himself out from the start then nobody would be talking about whether he should stand or not. Or, if they were, it would be the same kind of conversation as idly speculating if and where Boris Johnson might stand in future. So no, in this case, UKIP are not being singled out for special treatment by the media and other political parties. It's being called a bottle job because that's precisely the impression that your leader created. Well, well, well! So, we get to be talked about and discussed on every element of our conduct. We remain at the centre of attention. One cannot buy that level of publicity. Why are you all concerned about us and our doings and our reasons? Are we doing so badly? Are we drifting off course and losing our support? Perhaps not? I wouldn't swop places with the LibDems, Greens or Conservatives just at present. I shall carefully examine the Newark result for evidence of significant progress by the Greens and the LibDems.....and guess what I shall probably find.... We shall deal with our Newark mote GC...and leave it to you to remove the Green beams! I'm not sure how that relates to what I posted. One of your fellow party members/supporters complained that talk about Farage's decision not to stand was the media singling out UKIP for special criticism. I pointed out that it was entirely a result of what Farage said, and you come out with an un-related rant. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 3, 2014 15:21:22 GMT
Well, well, well! So, we get to be talked about and discussed on every element of our conduct. We remain at the centre of attention. One cannot buy that level of publicity. Why are you all concerned about us and our doings and our reasons? Are we doing so badly? Are we drifting off course and losing our support? Perhaps not? I wouldn't swop places with the LibDems, Greens or Conservatives just at present. I shall carefully examine the Newark result for evidence of significant progress by the Greens and the LibDems.....and guess what I shall probably find.... We shall deal with our Newark mote GC...and leave it to you to remove the Green beams! I'm not sure how that relates to what I posted. One of your fellow party members/supporters complained that talk about Farage's decision not to stand was the media singling out UKIP for special criticism. I pointed out that it was entirely a result of what Farage said, and you come out with an un-related rant. Oh! GC. Hardly a rant? I know about rants. When I do 'rant', you will know you have been ranted at. Let us put away motes and beams and enjoy a pleasant weekend. |
|
Jim
Non-Aligned
Posts: 161
|
Post by Jim on May 3, 2014 16:17:13 GMT
For some reason the site seems to be removing the paragraph I was trying to quote from Carlton, which was: "So, we get to be talked about and discussed on every element of our conduct. We remain at the centre of attention. One cannot buy that level of publicity. Why are you all concerned about us and our doings and our reasons?"Because you're interesting, and certainly in my adult lifetime it's the first time a major new player has entered the scene. I can only speak for me of course. But look at it this way - Conservatives and Labour aren't doing anything radical, nor are they likely to. My party, while I stand by it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else, isn't exactly inspiring many people at the moment. UKIP has come along with a fresh and bold agenda, and it makes politics interesting. I don't support most of UKIP's policies and I'm not keen on your leader, but that doesn't change the fact that what's happening is going to prove extremely interesting to watch and I think 2015 at least for me will be a 'book Friday off work and stay up all night after the polls close'. I confess I have struggled to take UKIP seriously, and in some ways I still do. But it's irrelevant what I feel - UKIP have changed the game and even as a Lib Dem I feel it foolish to deny that, nor would I try to. I'm not saying you will win a tranche of seats next year (I think you will win a few but not many) but at the same time I do think you will do very well at this month's Euros. I don't think it's traitorous of me; it's just realism. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not scared of UKIP. Why should I be? And that doesn't mean that I don't think you have public support, but just that you're not the big bad wolf - you're simply a party with opinions that are contrary to mine. Good! Those differences are essential to democracy, and what would even be the point in elections if such differences didn't exist? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 4, 2014 0:49:45 GMT
Maybe the only way UKIP are going to win this is with a bit of tactical voting from traditional Labour voters who might quite like to see the Tory candidate defeated for the first time since 1974.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossmark on May 4, 2014 8:41:46 GMT
Newark By Election
Conservatives
4/7
Labour
11/4
UKIP
4/1
Liberal Democrats
200/1
These are the latest odds from Paddy Power
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 4, 2014 12:09:59 GMT
Maybe the only way UKIP are going to win this is with a bit of tactical voting from traditional Labour voters who might quite like to see the Tory candidate defeated for the first time since 1974. 1974? Most of the constituency had a Labour MP 1997-2001 (albeit not one those parts would have voted for) and the bits that came in from Rushcliffe were last represented by Labour 1966-1970. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 13:23:50 GMT
UKIP candidate is/could be/might be Roger Helmer.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 4, 2014 14:10:12 GMT
Maybe the only way UKIP are going to win this is with a bit of tactical voting from traditional Labour voters who might quite like to see the Tory candidate defeated for the first time since 1974. 1974? Most of the constituency had a Labour MP 1997-2001 (albeit not one those parts would have voted for) and the bits that came in from Rushcliffe were last represented by Labour 1966-1970. They weren't as they were part of Carlton then. I think that area has in fact never been represented by a Labour MP as it was part of the Newark seat before 1950 which was of course held by the Tories even in 1945 (the boundaries were fairly similar then to the current seat) |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on May 4, 2014 14:26:04 GMT
And were the bit of Carlton that kept the seat Tory in the 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on May 4, 2014 18:35:03 GMT
|
|
We shall deal with our Newark mote GC...and leave it to you to remove the Green beams!
