2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Alf Bentley]

 

 

 

 

Answered your own question.  :xmastongue:

 

 

 

Are you saying that she left the Labour Party because she was completely gormless, that she joined UKIP because she was completely gormless or that UKIP was interested in her as a candidate because she was completely gormless....or all 3?! 

 

I find the denim skirt and DMs look quite erotic in a woman, but that's probably just an expression of my political inclinations. After seeing her interview on Newsnight, though, I wouldn't last 5 minutes on a dinner date with her without climbing up the wall. Either you didn't see the Newsnight interview, Webbo, or you have seriously low standards if you'd "bang it", though admittedly she looked quite attractive in the photos I saw beforehand.

[Webbo]

Definitely low standards, I'm an equal opportunity perv.

[Buce]

Definitely low standards, I'm an equal opportunity perv.

[MooseBreath]

I saw something about thousands of bricklayers being recruited from abroad due to a growth in demand and a skills shortage among the native population - not sure if that's the story you mean? If so, maybe if we'd indulged in some Keynesian investment in those skills, instead of seeking to immediately balance the budget for ideological reasons, we might be further reducing domestic unemployment instead of recruiting immigrant bricklayers? :xmaswink:

I've only just had a chance to look at your 2010 Blanchflower article and it doesn't show him getting proven wrong at all. He said that Osborne should spread his cuts over a longer period, which is what he's ended up doing, isn't it, having failed to meet his target of eliminating the deficit within 4 years? He also said that Osborne's strategy of cutting in a recession would make things worse - and it's certainly arguable that it did for several years, as unemployment rose and growth flatlined for about 3 years. Granted, growth is now back and unemployment falling (though real living standards are still much lower than in 2010), but he didn't say that growth and employment would fall forever, just that cuts would make the situation worse - which is certainly an arguable case, as growth rose for 2 quarters in 2010 on the back of Darling's policies and was then stagnant for about 3 years under Osborne.

.

Some desperately selective interpretations there Alf. I'm surprised you've looked for a negative in a story about tradesman's pay going through the roof after you've been banging on about the importance of wage growth all this time. To me that's nothing but a good news story, economic activity is so vibrant that we haven't got enough people to fulfil all the demand. You could argue that the country could have incentivised training up more bricklayers but from 2007 to about 2011 those people would have gone straight on the dole. It's an industry that's very sensitive to economic health. That it's booming now is nothing but good news.

In 2009 Blanchflower wrote in the telegraph that "tory public spending cuts could push unemployment to 5 million". He predicted a "decade long depression".

In the 2010 Blanchflower article I posted he said cuts were "the greatest macro-economic mistake in a century". He said they would push the country back into recession.

In a 2011 article on bloomberg he said austerity was failing and wrote about how it simply never works. He predicted recession again and negative growth for the year.

In a 2012 article in the independent he was quoted as saying some very petulant things about Osbourne as well as claiming that the country was actually in a recession (by completely redefining what recession actually means). He had another slightly more desperate pop at the unemployment rate, though he didn't mention his earlier prediction.

In 2013 he predicted annual growth of 0.2% for the year in the independent. He also had a Rincewind moment with a weird little moan about the "bedroom tax". Yet again at this point he predicted another recession.

These are all from articles I've found from googling his name and the year and selecting something from the first page. You can be sure there's more. He has been wrong about everything. Literally, absolutely everything. I've joked about left wing economists being wrong about everything all the time in the past but blimey, I never realised one man could epitomise that so well. Thanks for bringing him to my attention, he's worth following just for the laughs.

[SMX11]

 

Looking a bit desperate now when you're flinging mud at the Labour Party without presenting any evidence, Matt, and using the word "appear" to cover yourself against any potential libel suits!  :xmaslaugh:

 

Have you got any evidence for your implication, apart from the fact that this woman was once involved with the Labour Party? I wouldn't entirely put it past them, but some evidence would be nice.

 

Did you see her on Newsnight last night? I'm astonished to read that she's an Oxford-educated teacher, as she came across as completely gormless; maybe she was just nervous, to be generous to her. She also seemed to have a sense of entitlement to be a candidate for some party or another. It sounds as if she got nowhere up the greasy pole in the Labour Party, then went to UKIP - and they lapped her up, presenting her at their conference and considering her as candidate for one of their key target seats. Wonder if the fact that she's young, non-male and mixed race had anything to do with it? Would certainly help their image as a bunch of grumbling old white blokes who are obsessed with immigrants!

 

Then again, maybe they're just genuinely clueless, looking at this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html

This can't be true, can it?! That the new face of UKIP, "the people's party", and key seat candidate to be disgraced ex-Tory "cash for questions" sleazebag Neil Hamilton?!?!  :xmaslaugh:

It's across several on-line papers, not just the Indie, so I don't think it's a LibLabCon conspiracy, though it might be...... If it's true, you really couldn't make it up!

 

 

Looks as if she made this up. Sounds more and more like an inside job from Labour   Or she is a compulsive liar.

[bovril]

Looks as if she made this up. Sounds more and more like an inside job from Labour   Or she is a compulsive liar.

 

She works in politics.

[SMX11]

She works in politics.

 

:xmaslaugh:  Silly me how did I forget.

[Alf Bentley]

Looks as if she made this up. Sounds more and more like an inside job from Labour   Or she is a compulsive liar.

 

Yes, sounds like Oxford Uni are denying she was ever a student there! I wonder what checks UKIP carried out on her before inviting her to address conference and be shortlisted for one of their target seats (Basildon is somewhere they ought to be thinking about winning). I suspect the vetting procedure was "you look quite young, brown and female, you'll do!" I couldn't believe she'd been at Oxford when I saw her interviewed for 3 minutes, so they must have been desperate to believe it. I wonder if she's really a teacher?

 

If Labour or anyone else wanted to cause a scandal for UKIP, surely they'd use someone more credible? In her interview, it sounded as if the reason she left the Labour Party was because they didn't offer her a position, which she saw as an entitlement....but UKIP did, no questions asked!  :xmasbiggrin: I always thought that UKIP might implode in the heat of the election campaign, but didn't think Farage would allow it to happen this far out.

 

Still, every party seems to have them: Tory MPs cleaning moats, buying duckhouses and abusing police; Labour MPs funding trips to France, brawling in parliament and claiming for their husbands' porno videos; Lib Dem MPs claming expenses for their secret gay lovers, persuading their wives to fraudulently accept speeding tickets and hiring gay prostitutes....and that's without getting onto the serious stuff. The Greens haven't been in any scandals since David Icke, have they? Cue grainy footage on tomorrow's news of Caroline Lucas accepting a brown envelope before streaking down Brighton pier....

[Alf Bentley]

Some desperately selective interpretations there Alf. I'm surprised you've looked for a negative in a story about tradesman's pay going through the roof after you've been banging on about the importance of wage growth all this time. To me that's nothing but a good news story, economic activity is so vibrant that we haven't got enough people to fulfil all the demand. You could argue that the country could have incentivised training up more bricklayers but from 2007 to about 2011 those people would have gone straight on the dole. It's an industry that's very sensitive to economic health. That it's booming now is nothing but good news.

[blanchflower quotes]

 

If real pay grows on a sustained basis, that will be excellent and important news. It's good news for these particular blokes if they're suddenly getting well-paid work, but just anecdotal evidence at this stage. Time will tell!

 

Sorry, but I'm too knackered to respond re. Blanchflower. Certainly, he likes a bit of over-the-top rhetoric and is clearly to the left in his politics. I'm sure, though, that I could just as easily find accurate quotes by him - or inaccurate ones by Osborne.

 

We'll return to this, I'm sure!

[Strokes]

Tbh I'd vote green if the candidates name was roger bird, its a pretty heroic name.

[Alf Bentley]

So, UKIP has lost Natasha Bolter as its Basildon candidate. Sadly, it does seem that she is some sort of fantasist and UKIP couldn't spot that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/10/oxford-university-denies-ukip-candidate-natasha-bolter-was-a-student_n_6304350.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

(On a serious note, I hope that the media now leave her alone and she gets some support - she actually strikes me as someone who might be a bit vulnerable: see Newsnight video in link)

 

 

Sadly, UKIP has also lost her prospective replacement as Neil Hamilton has withdrawn as a candidate after UKIP questioned his expenses claims :xmasohmy:  :xmasblink: :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hamilton-claims-dirty-tricks-as-expenses-row-ends-ukip-seat-bid-9916881.html

 

 

Thankfully, UKIP does have a replacement candidate lined up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strokes]

So, UKIP has lost Natasha Bolter as its Basildon candidate. Sadly, it does seem that she is some sort of fantasist and UKIP couldn't spot that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/10/oxford-university-denies-ukip-candidate-natasha-bolter-was-a-student_n_6304350.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics

(On a serious note, I hope that the media now leave her alone and she gets some support - she actually strikes me as someone who might be a bit vulnerable: see Newsnight video in link)

Sadly, UKIP has also lost her prospective replacement as Neil Hamilton has withdrawn as a candidate after UKIP questioned his expenses claims :xmasohmy: :xmasblink: :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hamilton-claims-dirty-tricks-as-expenses-row-ends-ukip-seat-bid-9916881.html

Thankfully, UKIP does have a replacement candidate lined up:

Its a small party, that has shot up in popularity like no other before it. Its obvious we will see the odd case like this, the established parties hardly set the standard.

You may be a very articulate and intelligent guy Alf but if you think any of these stooges or media set ups will deter the ukip supporters, then you are missing the point. I'm still undecided which way I will vote in may but i wouldnt let anything like this sway me.

[Alf Bentley]

Its a small party, that has shot up in popularity like no other before it. Its obvious we will see the odd case like this, the established parties hardly set the standard.

You may be a very articulate and intelligent guy Alf but if you think any of these stooges or media set ups will deter the ukip supporters, then you are missing the point. I'm still undecided which way I will vote in may but i wouldnt let anything like this sway me.

 

I wouldn't expect to sway your voting intention. I assume you'll make your decision based on what you think of parties' polices etc. I was just having a laugh at UKIP's expense - as others would if it were one of the "old parties" that had got itself in this mess. We all know that the other parties have done so often enough, too. For that matter, though I intend to vote Green, realistically I'll be hoping for a Labour-led government so it might not be to my benefit for UKIP to cock up, as most polls suggest that they still get more votes from ex-Tories than ex-Labour.

 

Yes, it's a small party so cock-ups will happen, but even a small organisation should know better than to give a prominent role to a woman without apparently checking her education credentials, and then to consider replacing her with a former MP voted out of a Tory safe seat because he was found to be personally corrupt ("cash for questions").

 

If any evidence appears that some other party set this up, I'll hold my hands up, but I'm more of a cock-up theorist than conspiracy theorist (though a media sting is slightly more possible). If Labour or the Tories had wanted to set this up, surely they'd have chosen someone a bit more credible, who hadn't apparently lied about her educational qualifications? A press sting is possible, but more likely it was just UKIP being a bit amateurish and not conducting thorough vetting on someone who would have been a good PR story for them (young, mixed-race woman defects to party accused of being a bunch of old white men obsessed with immigration).

 

Some UKIP supporters reckon that UKIP get a bum deal from the media, but I bet the Greens would love to be getting some of the media coverage that UKIP get. I don't know about the tabloid press (who will do anything to sell papers - including creating scandals around Labour, UKIP, Tories etc.), but TV gives UKIP a lot of coverage, and mainly neutral coverage, which has been very useful publicity. Some of the coverage is critical, but that applies to other parties and is just journalists trying to do their jobs properly. There's a lot of focus on UKIP attitudes to foreigners, but that's hardly surprising when they've mainly gone on about Europe and immigration so far. When the election campaign is underway, I presume that both UKIP and the media will pay more attention to other polices, on the economy, the deficit, living standards, public services, energy/environment etc.

 

Thanks for your compliments, but don't over-estimate my intelligence (e.g. I've not even got a GCSE in science, am hopeless with anything technical and have made some pretty bloody stupid decisions in the past); words are about the only thing that I'm any good at....and I use far too many of them!  :xmaswink:

[Guest MattP]

I must admit that I agree with you on this one. The Lib Dems have had some impact on the coalition government (including the boundary changes, as you say) - and couldn't reasonably be expected to have had more of an impact. After all, it was the Tories who had the largest number of MPs after the last election. Clegg & co have made some serious errors, notably making the promise that they did over tuition fees. I happen to disagree with that policy anyway, as tuition fees couldn't be a priority in tough times, but regardless of that, they knew that there was a chance they'd end up in a coalition and that they probably wouldn't be able to deliver on that policy - or should have known.

 

Otherwise, they've performed their role rather well. It's easy to forget that, in 2010, a lot of people thought coalition government would be unworkable in this country - and it hasn't been. I don't like the policies that government has brought in, but that's because the main party elected to government was the Tories. From my perspective, it would have been a lot worse if the Tories had had a majority (a lot better from your perspective, presumably). The Lib Dems have acted quite responsibly in putting national interest before party interest to help maintain political stability in turbulent times and to help to implement roughly what the electorate voted for (much as I don't like it). Now they're likely to suffer severe damage as a political party, possibly losing half of their MPs. In a way, that's unfair, but then they knew that 2/3 of their voters incline more to the left than the right (previous polls have shown this), so they were always going to incur damage for helping the Tories. Could they have formed a coalition with Labour and others? Certainly not with Brown as PM...and probably not with some other Labour PM, if I'm honest, though it was what I was hoping for at the time. They could yet end up losing half their MPs and still in government, possibly propping up a Labour minority government or coalition next time.....I wonder what that will do for their popularity long-term, and whether Clegg will be allowed to stick around (probably not, I'm guessing, even if he keeps his seat - and Ashcroft's poll only gave him a lead of 3% despite his enormous majority, so he could yet be the "Portillo" of 2015).

 

It's a strange argument that people put forward that the Lib Dems should have more influence, they have a few MP's who held a balance of power, they didn't have widepsread support, more people in the UK voted for the Tories than any other party in 2010 and it's completely fair they should be the ones deciding the vast majority of policy. Clegg found out the hard way that parties shouldn't promise things they know they can't deliver just because they had thought they had no chance of being held account to those decisions.

 

If Labour have a strong candidate and attack the area they might force a Portillo moment, but I don't see Labour or Miliband's popularity rising anytime soon and certainly not enough to be challenging for seats like that despite the Ashcroft poll. Plus all the students up there will probably still vote for him when push comes to shove.

 

If any evidence appears that some other party set this up, I'll hold my hands up, but I'm more of a cock-up theorist than conspiracy theorist (though a media sting is slightly more possible). If Labour or the Tories had wanted to set this up, surely they'd have chosen someone a bit more credible, who hadn't apparently lied about her educational qualifications? A press sting is possible, but more likely it was just UKIP being a bit amateurish and not conducting thorough vetting on someone who would have been a good PR story for them (young, mixed-race woman defects to party accused of being a bunch of old white men obsessed with immigration).

 

Some UKIP supporters reckon that UKIP get a bum deal from the media, but I bet the Greens would love to be getting some of the media coverage that UKIP get. I don't know about the tabloid press (who will do anything to sell papers - including creating scandals around Labour, UKIP, Tories etc.), but TV gives UKIP a lot of coverage, and mainly neutral coverage, which has been very useful publicity. Some of the coverage is critical, but that applies to other parties and is just journalists trying to do their jobs properly. There's a lot of focus on UKIP attitudes to foreigners, but that's hardly surprising when they've mainly gone on about Europe and immigration so far. When the election campaign is underway, I presume that both UKIP and the media will pay more attention to other polices, on the economy, the deficit, living standards, public services, energy/environment etc.

 

We are talking about the Labour party here Alf, it's not some brilliantly covert organisation that would excel in these stings, most political parties in this day and age seem to be pretty incompetent, look at some of the women they have on the opposition benches, this one is actually no worse.

 

I'm sure the Greens would love the same PR as UKIP but what entitles them to it? UKIP have won a national election in the last year, the Greens have came at a highest 4th in one, UKIP is polling around 15-19%, Greens somewhere between 4-6%, Greens have 1 MP that they are struggling to hold onto despite moving half their membership to the area and having the perfect demographic, UKIP have double that and will gain more in May. Despite the so called Green surge they are still behind a dead Liberal Democrat party in the vast majority of the polls.

 

Although I'd love to see the Greens be asked a lot more by the BBC regarding how they are going to fund everything they are promising, it's more of a fantasy World than if you put UKIP, Labour and the Tories financial plans all together.

 

Obviously I'd love to see the Greens in the TV debates as they will only be eating into the Labour vote, but there really is no reasoning I can think of for them to be invited.

[Guest MattP]

As I pointed out with my yougov graph on the last page as well Alf, it's not just 'UKIP supporters' who think UKIP get a bum deal from the media, it's the majority of people in the country whatever their political affiliation.

[Alf Bentley]

It's a strange argument that people put forward that the Lib Dems should have more influence, they have a few MP's who held a balance of power, they didn't have widepsread support, more people in the UK voted for the Tories than any other party in 2010 and it's completely fair they should be the ones deciding the vast majority of policy. Clegg found out the hard way that parties shouldn't promise things they know they can't deliver just because they had thought they had no chance of being held account to those decisions.

 

If Labour have a strong candidate and attack the area they might force a Portillo moment, but I don't see Labour or Miliband's popularity rising anytime soon and certainly not enough to be challenging for seats like that despite the Ashcroft poll. Plus all the students up there will probably still vote for him when push comes to shove.

 

 

We are talking about the Labour party here Alf, it's not some brilliantly covert organisation that would excel in these stings, most political parties in this day and age seem to be pretty incompetent, look at some of the women they have on the opposition benches, this one is actually no worse.

 

I'm sure the Greens would love the same PR as UKIP but what entitles them to it? UKIP have won a national election in the last year, the Greens have came at a highest 4th in one, UKIP is polling around 15-19%, Greens somewhere between 4-6%, Greens have 1 MP that they are struggling to hold onto despite moving half their membership to the area and having the perfect demographic, UKIP have double that and will gain more in May. Despite the so called Green surge they are still behind a dead Liberal Democrat party in the vast majority of the polls.

 

Although I'd love to see the Greens be asked a lot more by the BBC regarding how they are going to fund everything they are promising, it's more of a fantasy World than if you put UKIP, Labour and the Tories financial plans all together.

 

Obviously I'd love to see the Greens in the TV debates as they will only be eating into the Labour vote, but there really is no reasoning I can think of for them to be invited.

 

As I pointed out with my yougov graph on the last page as well Alf, it's not just 'UKIP supporters' who think UKIP get a bum deal from the media, it's the majority of people in the country whatever their political affiliation.

 

I agree with most of that, Matt. My grandparents lived in Sheffield Hallam and it was always the Sheffield Tory seat in those days. Labour have never won it according to Wiki (it's Labour that were 3% behind Clegg in the Ashcroft poll). Even allowing for shifting demographics (Tory voters moving further out of cities), I can't believe that Clegg will suffer a "Portillo moment" - a mini-Portello moment for Danny Alexander at the hands of the SNP might be a more reasonable hope!

 

The policy lists of both UKIP and Greens look pretty unfundable in the short-term. But I don't think that matters much. We all know that, barring a political earthquake, neither party will exert extensive influence after the election. Even the Lib Dems had limited (if important) influence in a formal coalition with almost 60 MPs. If the election does leave either party with influence in a hung parliament, we know what they'd prioritise, anyway: UKIP would want an in-out EU referendum, more action on immigration & probably less tax-and-spend; Greens would want more action on environment/climate change, more redistribution of wealth & power & more quality of life (I hope they wouldn't prioritise opposition to nuclear power as I disagree with that policy).

 

Recent polls have the Greens on 7%, but still well behind UKIP and unlikely to win more than 1-2 seats, even if they're lucky. It's quite right that UKIP should get more media attention - and that's acted as oxygen for them (I doubt that much of their support has come from UKIP activists on the ground). I did see your interesting yougov graph about media bias. Maybe I get a partial view of media coverage of UKIP, as I get most of my news from TV or the internet pages of broadsheets. Some (but not all) of the tabloids give UKIP a hard time, but that applies to Labour, too (apart from the Mirror)....a bit of a victim/underdog complex among UKIP fans, too, I feel. Interesting to see, in your graph, that the public reckon the media is also very biased in favour of the Tories, fairly even-handed to Labour and pretty unfair to the Lib Dems....fairly accurate perceptions, I think, taking papers, internet and TV together.

 

It would make for a more interesting political debate if the Greens got more coverage, even if they've not made a significant breakthrough yet - and even though there's more difference between Labour and Tories than 5-10 years ago.

[Webbo]

Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but does anyone think that maybe Ukip get a lot of coverage because they take votes from the Tories whereas the Greens don't because they take votes from Labour?

[Lionator]

Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but does anyone think that maybe Ukip get a lot of coverage because they take votes from the Tories whereas the Greens don't because they take votes from Labour?

 

No because UKIP will take the traditional labour working class vote. The last thing the media want is a labour government as Miliband might actually enforce the Leveson rule, something which the current losers refuse to do, hence why the knives are out for Ed. (Not saying that he is the answer however).

[leicsmac]

Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but does anyone think that maybe Ukip get a lot of coverage because they take votes from the Tories whereas the Greens don't because they take votes from Labour?

 

Unless the right wing press are in on it too (for reasons I cannot fathom) I doubt it.

[Danno]

[SMX11]

Russell Brand is such a moron.

[Danno]

Russell Brand is such a moron.

Genuinely sounds like a 15 year old politics student who has no idea what they're on about.

[SMX11]

Give this bloke a medal. Who the **** is that woman?!?!

[lavrentis]

Question Time lol

[SMX11]

Brand is so out of his depth when someone fights back.