This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
Hopefully, before the next UK elections/EU referendum the sensible media will try to define what people who vote for UKIP actually think instead of just talking "isms" and cute soundbites. For example, I don´t beleive the average UKIP voter is anti-free movement (in the EU). They are anti-free access to social benefits/healthcare to all EU citizens (in all EU countries).
For people who actually know about the EU, it´s obvious that Britain (and British people) have hugely benefited from and supported 1992, and even the Euro zone (not being in it but being just outside it). However since 1992 there has been a growing anxiety among many British people about a development of a social, legal, fiscal and political EU, which is now coming to a head with UKIP support.
Hopefully, before the next UK elections/EU referendum the sensible media will try to define what people who vote for UKIP actually think instead of just talking "isms" and cute soundbites. For example, I don´t beleive the average UKIP voter is anti-free movement (in the EU). They are anti-free access to social benefits/healthcare to all EU citizens (in all EU countries).
For people who actually know about the EU, it´s obvious that Britain (and British people) have hugely benefited from and supported 1992, and even the Euro zone (not being in it but being just outside it). However since 1992 there has been a growing anxiety among many British people about a development of a social, legal, fiscal and political EU, which is now coming to a head with UKIP support.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
Guardianistas, you lost, deal with it.
Despite what you think, you are neither morally nor intellectually superior to your fellow citizens, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom or virtue, and despite having such long noses, it is not obligatory to look down on others over them.
Smear and sneer didn't work, in fact it was massively counter-productive. Reinforcing failure is always regarded as the most egregious military sin, yet you do it obsessively. Think of a new approach, try another tactic, strike another match, go start anew - if you are capable of changing your thinking, your prejudices, your ingrained habits that is, which is highly doubtful, given that you are such one-trick ponies.
Guardianistas, you lost, deal with it.
Despite what you think, you are neither morally nor intellectually superior to your fellow citizens, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom or virtue, and despite having such long noses, it is not obligatory to look down on others over them.
Smear and sneer didn't work, in fact it was massively counter-productive. Reinforcing failure is always regarded as the most egregious military sin, yet you do it obsessively. Think of a new approach, try another tactic, strike another match, go start anew - if you are capable of changing your thinking, your prejudices, your ingrained habits that is, which is highly doubtful, given that you are such one-trick ponies.
In reply to ht2:
Well I think the issue is that there isn't an "average voter". Eurosceptics take various forms ranging from those opposed to ever closer union as you describe, to the "shut the door before the next Romanian gets in" lot. The problem with this recent election IMO is that ukip have been the only party not to sneer at Eurosceptics as a whole and assume they all belong to the latter category. Hopefully come the general election we'll see a change in tack, and hopefully hear some objective pro-eu argument rather than demonising those opposed.
Anyway, to the op, Greenland got off lightly there didn't they?
> Hopefully, before the next UK elections/EU referendum the sensible media will try to define what people who vote for UKIP actually think instead of just talking "isms" and cute soundbites. For example, I don´t beleive the average UKIP voter is anti-free movement..
Well I think the issue is that there isn't an "average voter". Eurosceptics take various forms ranging from those opposed to ever closer union as you describe, to the "shut the door before the next Romanian gets in" lot. The problem with this recent election IMO is that ukip have been the only party not to sneer at Eurosceptics as a whole and assume they all belong to the latter category. Hopefully come the general election we'll see a change in tack, and hopefully hear some objective pro-eu argument rather than demonising those opposed.
Anyway, to the op, Greenland got off lightly there didn't they?
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
Looks like a bastardisation of the old Tory map of the world...
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=k_QvU9XgPOLR8geH6YDQCw#q=tory+ma...
Looks like a bastardisation of the old Tory map of the world...
https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=k_QvU9XgPOLR8geH6YDQCw#q=tory+ma...
In reply to knthrak1982:
average, majority, typical, call it what you like, but yes, I agree with what you are saying.
average, majority, typical, call it what you like, but yes, I agree with what you are saying.
In reply to ht2:
Wot does it mean, "supported 1992"? Wot's "1992"?
> ....hugely benefited from and supported 1992, ...
Wot does it mean, "supported 1992"? Wot's "1992"?
In reply to Simon4:
I do enjoy your posts every time you step out of the closet
> Guardianistas, you lost, deal with it.
> Despite what you think, you are neither morally nor intellectually superior to your fellow citizens, you don't have a monopoly on wisdom or virtue, and despite having such long noses, it is not obligatory to look down on others over them.
> Smear and sneer didn't work, in fact it was massively counter-productive. Reinforcing failure is always regarded as the most egregious military sin, yet you do it obsessively. Think of a new approach, try another tactic, strike another match, go start anew - if you are capable of changing your thinking, your prejudices, your ingrained habits that is, which is highly doubtful, given that you are such one-trick ponies.
I do enjoy your posts every time you step out of the closet
In reply to Simon4:
Ukip get a one off 30% protest vote on a single issue and you think they have won.
Doh!
Ukip get a one off 30% protest vote on a single issue and you think they have won.
Doh!
In reply to silhouette:
Sorry, that´s actually a very good question. Because when I say 1992, I mean the coming into life of the Single European Act, free movement of goods(31st Dec 1992). I do not mean the Treaty of Maastricht 1992, which was not so popular with the British and perhaps was the point from which it all started to go wrong.
Sorry, that´s actually a very good question. Because when I say 1992, I mean the coming into life of the Single European Act, free movement of goods(31st Dec 1992). I do not mean the Treaty of Maastricht 1992, which was not so popular with the British and perhaps was the point from which it all started to go wrong.
In reply to Root1:
If getting the most votes and the most seats isn't the definition of "winning" an election what is your alternative definition?
> Ukip get a one off 30% protest vote on a single issue and you think they have won.
> Doh!
If getting the most votes and the most seats isn't the definition of "winning" an election what is your alternative definition?
In reply to Root1:
They got more seats than any other party, it certainly looks like a win for ukip.
> Ukip get a one off 30% protest vote on a single issue and you think they have won.
> Doh!
They got more seats than any other party, it certainly looks like a win for ukip.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Winning in electoral terms suggests to me an ability to wield some power. I've not seen much evidence that UKIP MEPs have spent their doing anything very important so far.
> If getting the most votes and the most seats isn't the definition of "winning" an election what is your alternative definition?
Winning in electoral terms suggests to me an ability to wield some power. I've not seen much evidence that UKIP MEPs have spent their doing anything very important so far.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-05-28/racial-prejudice-on-the-rise-in-britain/
Just come across this, with comments about Lennie Henry should go to a black country and Nigel's about Romanian men living next door it struck a chord.
Obviously not all UKIP members or voters are racists, though, for the benefit of Simon4...
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-05-28/racial-prejudice-on-the-rise-in-britain/
Just come across this, with comments about Lennie Henry should go to a black country and Nigel's about Romanian men living next door it struck a chord.
Obviously not all UKIP members or voters are racists, though, for the benefit of Simon4...
Post edited at 10:13
In reply to tony:
If labour or the tories had got the number of votes/seats instead of ukip it would have unequivocally been called a win. Denying that last Thursday was a win for ukip seems a bizarre head-sand view.
> Winning in electoral terms suggests to me an ability to wield some power. I've not seen much evidence that UKIP MEPs have spent their doing anything very important so far.
If labour or the tories had got the number of votes/seats instead of ukip it would have unequivocally been called a win. Denying that last Thursday was a win for ukip seems a bizarre head-sand view.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
I find it links in quite interestingly with how people who are unqualified or unemployed or amongst the poorest in the UK, are less likely to be positive about Europe, according to the people whose job it is to find out these kinds of things.
I find it links in quite interestingly with how people who are unqualified or unemployed or amongst the poorest in the UK, are less likely to be positive about Europe, according to the people whose job it is to find out these kinds of things.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I think I agree.
> If labour or the tories had got the number of votes/seats instead of ukip it would have unequivocally been called a win. Denying that last Thursday was a win for ukip seems a bizarre head-sand view.
I think I agree.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
They won the most votes and the most seats, that's clear. What they do with those votes and seats remains to be seen.
They won the most votes and the most seats, that's clear. What they do with those votes and seats remains to be seen.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
there is a bizarre trend on UKC of people thinking that all, or even a large percentage of voters have looked past the front page of the sun/mail/guardian and spend the time to dig up worthwhile information on what a party stands for, what it's policies on a variety of matters is, and what they plan to do to bring about change.
Many don't even look at the front page...they vote as Jim in the pub has explained things, or as their parents have told them to vote.
This has been further twisted due to it being pretty difficult to find any answers anywhere as there seems to be little clear policy or plans available anywhere, the main parties have all be vague on what they plan to do. Even now the headlines are "PM (or other) says change is needed in our relationship with Europe" but there's nothing easily accessible saying what that means. (and remember most people probably quite rightly expect the info to be presented nice and clearly for them by an obvious source, not to have to trawl through dozens of web links, all from people with their own opinion to shout about rather than just facts).
While I very much dislike UKIP at least they've said "we will do x,y,z to satisfy the complaints the common people have", even if they've pandered to the more unpleasant of complaints, fed simplistic solutions etc.
Politics is incredibly murky and unpleasant in recent years. It's no longer working class vs middle/upper class, it's a mass of hate, lies and unclear claims. It's sadly not surprising that UKIP got such a large number of votes.
there is a bizarre trend on UKC of people thinking that all, or even a large percentage of voters have looked past the front page of the sun/mail/guardian and spend the time to dig up worthwhile information on what a party stands for, what it's policies on a variety of matters is, and what they plan to do to bring about change.
Many don't even look at the front page...they vote as Jim in the pub has explained things, or as their parents have told them to vote.
This has been further twisted due to it being pretty difficult to find any answers anywhere as there seems to be little clear policy or plans available anywhere, the main parties have all be vague on what they plan to do. Even now the headlines are "PM (or other) says change is needed in our relationship with Europe" but there's nothing easily accessible saying what that means. (and remember most people probably quite rightly expect the info to be presented nice and clearly for them by an obvious source, not to have to trawl through dozens of web links, all from people with their own opinion to shout about rather than just facts).
While I very much dislike UKIP at least they've said "we will do x,y,z to satisfy the complaints the common people have", even if they've pandered to the more unpleasant of complaints, fed simplistic solutions etc.
Politics is incredibly murky and unpleasant in recent years. It's no longer working class vs middle/upper class, it's a mass of hate, lies and unclear claims. It's sadly not surprising that UKIP got such a large number of votes.
In reply to tony:
True, we can carry on criticising what they do (or don't do). But it's silly to start by denying they won.
> They won the most votes and the most seats, that's clear. What they do with those votes and seats remains to be seen.
True, we can carry on criticising what they do (or don't do). But it's silly to start by denying they won.
In reply to Timmd:
It doesn't as Simon4 said though indicate that the argument is over, UKIP got slightly more seats than labour indicating that the country is still very much split on the issue of Europe.
It doesn't as Simon4 said though indicate that the argument is over, UKIP got slightly more seats than labour indicating that the country is still very much split on the issue of Europe.
In reply to kestrelspl:
That's true.
> It doesn't as Simon4 said though indicate that the argument is over, UKIP got slightly more seats than labour indicating that the country is still very much split on the issue of Europe.
That's true.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Disagree (not that it matters much). UKIP are a single issue part who get get the Eurosceptic votes at the Euro election, even those of Conservative party activists. Even if you discount the Conservative vote (which is likely to be the more Euro friendly wing of the part), the combined votes of Lab and LibDem are higher than UKIPS.
This vote actually shows that the anti-EU vote is a large minority, but nowhere near a majority.
Lazy journalist are interpreting a PR result on FPTP basis.. but would UKIP be able to form a governing body based on these results... no chance.
> But it's silly to start by denying they won.
Disagree (not that it matters much). UKIP are a single issue part who get get the Eurosceptic votes at the Euro election, even those of Conservative party activists. Even if you discount the Conservative vote (which is likely to be the more Euro friendly wing of the part), the combined votes of Lab and LibDem are higher than UKIPS.
This vote actually shows that the anti-EU vote is a large minority, but nowhere near a majority.
Lazy journalist are interpreting a PR result on FPTP basis.. but would UKIP be able to form a governing body based on these results... no chance.
Post edited at 10:51
In reply to Mike Stretford:
You can disagree all you like, it doesn't change the fact that ukip got more votes/seats than anyone else. If any other party had got those figures it would have been termed a win, there is no point applying different criteria just because it's ukip.
And no, they couldn't form a governing body (governing what? The UK can't govern the EU), just like the tories or labour.
Of course if all you are saying is that ukip don't have a majority, well, yes.
> Disagree (not that it matters much). UKIP are a single issue part who get get the Eurosceptic votes at the Euro election, even those of Conservative party activists. Even if you discount the Conservative vote (which is likely to be the more Euro friendly wing of the part), the combined votes of Lab and LibDem are higher than UKIPS.
> This vote actually shows that the anti-EU vote is a large minority, but nowhere near a majority.
> Lazy journalist are interpreting a PR result on FPTP basis.. but would UKIP be able to form a governing body based on these results... no chance.
You can disagree all you like, it doesn't change the fact that ukip got more votes/seats than anyone else. If any other party had got those figures it would have been termed a win, there is no point applying different criteria just because it's ukip.
And no, they couldn't form a governing body (governing what? The UK can't govern the EU), just like the tories or labour.
Of course if all you are saying is that ukip don't have a majority, well, yes.
In reply to tony:
What, in the last three days? That's a bit harsh. It's certainly a novel definition of winning an election.
I'm sure they'll be busy soon voting for all the different presidential candidates…..oh.….whoops, maybe not…...
> Winning in electoral terms suggests to me an ability to wield some power. I've not seen much evidence that UKIP MEPs have spent their doing anything very important so far.
What, in the last three days? That's a bit harsh. It's certainly a novel definition of winning an election.
I'm sure they'll be busy soon voting for all the different presidential candidates…..oh.….whoops, maybe not…...
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yeah, but it still wouldn't have meant anything. You don't even get a silver plate. The difference here is the Conservative 'win' of 2009 wasn't hailed as some sort of victory.
What should be of interest is that UKIP had nowhere near a majority on a vote which has become a barometer of feeling towards the EU. I expected them to do better.
> If any other party had got those figures it would have been termed a win, there is no point applying different criteria just because it's ukip.
Yeah, but it still wouldn't have meant anything. You don't even get a silver plate. The difference here is the Conservative 'win' of 2009 wasn't hailed as some sort of victory.
> Of course if all you are saying is that ukip don't have a majority, well, yes.
What should be of interest is that UKIP had nowhere near a majority on a vote which has become a barometer of feeling towards the EU. I expected them to do better.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes it was, just not a very convincing one.
Your predictive shortcomings don't change the definition of "winning" an election.
> Yeah, but it still wouldn't have meant anything. You don't even get a silver plate. The difference here is the Conservative 'win' of 2009 wasn't hailed as some sort of victory.
Yes it was, just not a very convincing one.
> What should be of interest is that UKIP had nowhere near a majority on a vote which has become a barometer of feeling towards the EU. I expected them to do better.
Your predictive shortcomings don't change the definition of "winning" an election.
Post edited at 11:23
In reply to Postmanpat:
?? He didn't have a working majority and couldn't form a government without the alliance with the Lib Dems. How can that be called a 'Conservative win' ?
> Yes it was, just not a very convincing one.
?? He didn't have a working majority and couldn't form a government without the alliance with the Lib Dems. How can that be called a 'Conservative win' ?
In reply to Postmanpat:
There is no one definition, it depends on the system being used. Around the world, plenty of parties who got the largest share will find themselves in opposition, I wouldn't call that a win.
> Your predictive shortcomings doesn't change the definition of "winning" an election.
There is no one definition, it depends on the system being used. Around the world, plenty of parties who got the largest share will find themselves in opposition, I wouldn't call that a win.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
EU elections, we didn't have a UK election in 2009, Gordon.
> ?? He didn't have a working majority and couldn't form a government without the alliance with the Lib Dems. How can that be called a 'Conservative win' ?
EU elections, we didn't have a UK election in 2009, Gordon.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Most votes, mot seats. Usual way.
> ?? He didn't have a working majority and couldn't form a government without the alliance with the Lib Dems. How can that be called a 'Conservative win' ?
Most votes, mot seats. Usual way.
Post edited at 11:31
In reply to Postmanpat:
Really, I don't remember? The Conservative 'win' in the 2009 European elections was hailed as a victory (with 'Just not a very convincing one' in brackets afterwards)? Seems an odd way for a journalist to phrase something, gotta link?
> Yes it was, just not a very convincing one.
Really, I don't remember? The Conservative 'win' in the 2009 European elections was hailed as a victory (with 'Just not a very convincing one' in brackets afterwards)? Seems an odd way for a journalist to phrase something, gotta link?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Most votes, most seats, Tory PM and Chancellor. I'd say that's a win, albeit not a knockout one.
"Winning" with a PR system and myriad parties across Europe is much less clear cut. Yes UKIP got more votes than anyone else in the UK and won in that sense, and overall similar parties did well across Europe. However, I don't think any group can ever be said to have won the Euro elections outright. The latest result will (already is) produce a shift of emphasis and direction reflecting the complex mix of views in the European parliament.
Most votes, most seats, Tory PM and Chancellor. I'd say that's a win, albeit not a knockout one.
"Winning" with a PR system and myriad parties across Europe is much less clear cut. Yes UKIP got more votes than anyone else in the UK and won in that sense, and overall similar parties did well across Europe. However, I don't think any group can ever be said to have won the Euro elections outright. The latest result will (already is) produce a shift of emphasis and direction reflecting the complex mix of views in the European parliament.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
No, why do you think a journalist used that phrase? Does your laptop not register commas?
> Really, I don't remember? The Conservative 'win' in the 2009 European elections was hailed as a victory (with 'Just not a very convincing one' in brackets afterwards)? Seems an odd way for a journalist to phrase something, gotta link?
No, why do you think a journalist used that phrase? Does your laptop not register commas?
In reply to Postmanpat: Go back and read, you clearly claim the Conservative 'win' was 'hailed as some sort of victory'.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
The libdems were the really loser's in this election but they didn't come last, how does that work?
> Have it your own way, ukip lost.
The libdems were the really loser's in this election but they didn't come last, how does that work?
Post edited at 11:50
In reply to ht2:
Thanks for the explanation
> Sorry, that´s actually a very good question. Because when I say 1992, I mean the coming into life of the Single European Act, free movement of goods(31st Dec 1992). I do not mean the Treaty of Maastricht 1992, which was not so popular with the British and perhaps was the point from which it all started to go wrong.
Thanks for the explanation
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I've no idea, who were they looser than?
> The libdems were the really looser's in this election but they didn't come last, how does that work?
I've no idea, who were they looser than?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes, because it was. And then in reply to your request for a specific quote that said it was "a win, just not a very convincing one" asked why you would want that when the comma implied that the second part of the sentence was my description, not that of a third party.
> Go back and read, you clearly claim the Conservative 'win' was 'hailed as some sort of victory'.
Yes, because it was. And then in reply to your request for a specific quote that said it was "a win, just not a very convincing one" asked why you would want that when the comma implied that the second part of the sentence was my description, not that of a third party.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Really, when and how did this change. I was disappointed by Arsenal's loss in the FA cup final. I expected them to win3-0 but it was only 1-0.
> Not in 1951. Maybe not in 2015.
Really, when and how did this change. I was disappointed by Arsenal's loss in the FA cup final. I expected them to win3-0 but it was only 1-0.
In reply to Postmanpat: Oh for the love of....
So yes, you claim the 2009 Euro election was 'hailed as a victory' for the conservatives, I don't remember that.
The second bit was a little joke, as 'hailed as a victory' and 'but not a very convincing one' don't work well together, IMO.
So yes, you claim the 2009 Euro election was 'hailed as a victory' for the conservatives, I don't remember that.
The second bit was a little joke, as 'hailed as a victory' and 'but not a very convincing one' don't work well together, IMO.
In reply to Postmanpat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
Most votes, not most seats. Same could happen next year.
> Really, when and how did this change. I was disappointed by Arsenal's loss in the FA cup final. I expected them to win3-0 but it was only 1-0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951
Most votes, not most seats. Same could happen next year.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088548.stm
"The Conservative Party were the clear winners in these elections." - David Cameron.
In reply to ht2:
What might be worth doing is asking them, and then listening to what they say rather than telling them what they *really* think like most seem to.
Do you really think they're not anti-free movement, when half of UKIP's campaign was based on saying that we have it and we shouldn't?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088548.stm
"The Conservative Party were the clear winners in these elections." - David Cameron.
In reply to ht2:
> Hopefully, before the next UK elections/EU referendum the sensible media will try to define what people who vote for UKIP actually think instead of just talking "isms" and cute soundbites. For example, I don´t believe the average UKIP voter is anti-free movement (in the EU).
What might be worth doing is asking them, and then listening to what they say rather than telling them what they *really* think like most seem to.
Do you really think they're not anti-free movement, when half of UKIP's campaign was based on saying that we have it and we shouldn't?
In reply to thomasadixon:
I was thinking journalists and political commentators rather than Conservative politicians. Gordon Brown said many positive things about Labour in 2010 but that didn't work out too well did it?
> "The Conservative Party were the clear winners in these elections." - David Cameron.
I was thinking journalists and political commentators rather than Conservative politicians. Gordon Brown said many positive things about Labour in 2010 but that didn't work out too well did it?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
FROM THE BBC
Labour has suffered its worst post-war election result after it was beaten into third place by UKIP and saw the BNP gain its first seats at Brussels.
Labour's share of the vote at the European elections was just 15.3% - worse than party bosses had feared.
THE TORIES WON WITH 28.6%, beating Labour in Wales but failing to increase their total share significantly.
The results have sent shockwaves through UK politics and led to renewed calls for Gordon Brown to quit as PM.
FROM THE BBC
Labour has suffered its worst post-war election result after it was beaten into third place by UKIP and saw the BNP gain its first seats at Brussels.
Labour's share of the vote at the European elections was just 15.3% - worse than party bosses had feared.
THE TORIES WON WITH 28.6%, beating Labour in Wales but failing to increase their total share significantly.
The results have sent shockwaves through UK politics and led to renewed calls for Gordon Brown to quit as PM.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
So in 1951 you could "win" an election with most votes but not most votes but in 2014 you have most votes and most seats but not "win".Is that your point?
> Most votes, not most seats. Same could happen next year.
So in 1951 you could "win" an election with most votes but not most votes but in 2014 you have most votes and most seats but not "win".Is that your point?
In reply to Postmanpat: Thanks for proving my point
The conservative 'win' was not hailed as a victory, it wasn't even the headline. If you think you've proved anything else go back and read what I said, and how you replied.
The conservative 'win' was not hailed as a victory, it wasn't even the headline. If you think you've proved anything else go back and read what I said, and how you replied.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Are yu now arguing the meaning of "hailed"?
> Thanks for proving my point
> The conservative 'win' was not hailed as a victory, it wasn't even the headline. If you think you've proved anything else go back and read what I said, and how you replied.
Are yu now arguing the meaning of "hailed"?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I am saying that the 2009 election was regarded and described as a win ("victory") for the Conservatives.
What are you saying?
> No, have you picked up the wrong specs today?
I am saying that the 2009 election was regarded and described as a win ("victory") for the Conservatives.
What are you saying?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Quite obviously I'm saying it was not 'hailed as a victory'. If you wish to disagree with that fine, I just don't remember headlines of the sort and what you've posted confirmed that.
The 1951 election is a straight forward example of most votes not resulting in a win, as there seems to be a need to keep things simple on the forum nowadays.
> What are you saying?
Quite obviously I'm saying it was not 'hailed as a victory'. If you wish to disagree with that fine, I just don't remember headlines of the sort and what you've posted confirmed that.
The 1951 election is a straight forward example of most votes not resulting in a win, as there seems to be a need to keep things simple on the forum nowadays.
Post edited at 14:10
In reply to Mike Stretford:
So is your dispute about the meaning of "hailed" versus "described" or the meaning of "victory" versus "win". Do you agree it was "described as a win"?If not what the hell is it?
Which has what to do with what you were arguing?
> Quite obviously I'm saying it was not 'hailed as a victory'. If you wish to disagree with that fine, I just don't remember headlines of the sort and what you've posted confirmed that.
So is your dispute about the meaning of "hailed" versus "described" or the meaning of "victory" versus "win". Do you agree it was "described as a win"?If not what the hell is it?
> The 1951 election is a straight forward example of most votes not resulting in a win, as there seems to be a need to keep things simple on the forum nowadays.
Which has what to do with what you were arguing?
Post edited at 14:19
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think he's trying to say that the current result is being described as 'game changing' 'earth-shattering' etc. and receiving non-stop media coverage, whereas the 2009 result was just 'the conservatives came first, onto the next story'
I think he's trying to say that the current result is being described as 'game changing' 'earth-shattering' etc. and receiving non-stop media coverage, whereas the 2009 result was just 'the conservatives came first, onto the next story'
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Your like a dog with a bone! Jeez, talk about labouring a tiny point.
If it takes you 20 posts to try and describe your own version of "win" then it's probably better to put the kettle on and read a book or something....please.
Your like a dog with a bone! Jeez, talk about labouring a tiny point.
If it takes you 20 posts to try and describe your own version of "win" then it's probably better to put the kettle on and read a book or something....please.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Err Pat, you interjected my reply to someone else with a series of silly pedantic posts, I'm not in not in dispute with you.
> So is your dispute
Err Pat, you interjected my reply to someone else with a series of silly pedantic posts, I'm not in not in dispute with you.
In reply to kestrelspl:
Pat knew exactly what I meant, I guess he's bored.
> I think he's trying to say that the current result is being described as 'game changing' 'earth-shattering' etc. and receiving non-stop media coverage, whereas the 2009 result was just 'the conservatives came first, onto the next story'
Pat knew exactly what I meant, I guess he's bored.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Hello you. Described what I meant posts ago, thought I was being polite replying to pat but just encouraged him.
Hello you. Described what I meant posts ago, thought I was being polite replying to pat but just encouraged him.
Post edited at 14:25
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I could sort of handle the PP responses, but when in conjunction with responses to Sir Chasm I started to lose the will to live
I could sort of handle the PP responses, but when in conjunction with responses to Sir Chasm I started to lose the will to live
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: To start with I was a little perplexed by Mike's contention that, despite getting more votes and seats than any other party, ukip had in fact lost the EU election. But he's put up a compelling case to show that the tories won.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
But regardless who won, do we all at least agree with Simon that the Guardianistas lost?
But regardless who won, do we all at least agree with Simon that the Guardianistas lost?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: Faced with 2 posters determined to turn the forum into some sort of Punch and Judy exchange, there ain't much one can do.
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
For starters they've got their map completely wrong: Yetis come from the Himalaya and its the Sasquatch that comes from Canada. Feckin' Idiots those UKIP people!
https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostUKComedy/photos/a.196868763749976.28275.15...
For starters they've got their map completely wrong: Yetis come from the Himalaya and its the Sasquatch that comes from Canada. Feckin' Idiots those UKIP people!
https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostUKComedy/photos/a.196868763749976.28275.15...
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I did not contend that UKIP had not 'won' the largest share of any party. I thought we might expand the topic to what the tangible result of this poll was for them, you know dig behind the lazy headlines a little.
Historically we don't attach much importance to the 'winner' of the UK component of the Euro elections, given the result and low turnout, I don't think we should this time.
> To start with I was a little perplexed by Mike's contention ect
I did not contend that UKIP had not 'won' the largest share of any party. I thought we might expand the topic to what the tangible result of this poll was for them, you know dig behind the lazy headlines a little.
Historically we don't attach much importance to the 'winner' of the UK component of the Euro elections, given the result and low turnout, I don't think we should this time.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Norman Tebbit makes an interesting point in his Telegraph Blog from May 27th.
"There were some odd features of the poll, particularly the puzzle of who was really funding the "An Independence From Europe Party" whose title put it at the top of the long ballot paper which had Ukip at the bottom. Clearly the organisers and funders could have had no hope whatsoever that it would gain enough votes to elect an MEP, so what was their motive? I can only assume it was to catch out voters intending to support Ukip and lure them into precipitately putting a cross against its name before finding Ukip right at the foot of the page. One way or another it secured 1.49 per cent of the vote and if one adds even half of that to Ukip's score it makes Mr Farage's lead even more impressive."
As we have been told repeatedly, UKIP voters are uneducated simpletons. Therefore it's highly likely that the 1.49% had not been able to differentiate between the two candidates at opposite ends of the long form and with mouth half open and holding their pencil like a spoon , they put their cross next to the wrong candidate. I think this has legs
Norman Tebbit makes an interesting point in his Telegraph Blog from May 27th.
"There were some odd features of the poll, particularly the puzzle of who was really funding the "An Independence From Europe Party" whose title put it at the top of the long ballot paper which had Ukip at the bottom. Clearly the organisers and funders could have had no hope whatsoever that it would gain enough votes to elect an MEP, so what was their motive? I can only assume it was to catch out voters intending to support Ukip and lure them into precipitately putting a cross against its name before finding Ukip right at the foot of the page. One way or another it secured 1.49 per cent of the vote and if one adds even half of that to Ukip's score it makes Mr Farage's lead even more impressive."
As we have been told repeatedly, UKIP voters are uneducated simpletons. Therefore it's highly likely that the 1.49% had not been able to differentiate between the two candidates at opposite ends of the long form and with mouth half open and holding their pencil like a spoon , they put their cross next to the wrong candidate. I think this has legs
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Well, you could admit that UKIP won this time, the Conservatives won in 2009 and move on, rather than apparently indulging in some pedantic word game and then denying that you were doing so!
PS. I didn't interject in your debate. It had started above with tripe hound's contention that UKIP hadn't won, to which I replied.
Hope that's cleared up the confusion
> Faced with 2 posters determined to turn the forum into some sort of Punch and Judy exchange, there ain't much one can do.
Well, you could admit that UKIP won this time, the Conservatives won in 2009 and move on, rather than apparently indulging in some pedantic word game and then denying that you were doing so!
PS. I didn't interject in your debate. It had started above with tripe hound's contention that UKIP hadn't won, to which I replied.
Hope that's cleared up the confusion
Post edited at 16:18
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes dear. I think it does matter because these people represent us for the next 5 years.
> I did not contend that UKIP had not 'won' the largest share of any party. I thought we might expand the topic to what the tangible result of this poll was for them, you know dig behind the lazy headlines a little.
> Historically we don't attach much importance to the 'winner' of the UK component of the Euro elections, given the result and low turnout, I don't think we should this time.
Yes dear. I think it does matter because these people represent us for the next 5 years.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I never denied that UK 'won' the UK component of the Euro elections, but the UK component is not a 'competition' in it's own right, it doesn't get you a prize. If it is a poll on peoples attitudes to the EU, as Farage would like, then the anti EU vote is a sizable minority, but not the majority they would have us believe.
I still suspect you knew what I meant from the kick off. I admit these are quick posts between work, but others understood ok.
> Well, you could admit that UKIP won this time, the Conservatives won in 2009 and move on
I never denied that UK 'won' the UK component of the Euro elections, but the UK component is not a 'competition' in it's own right, it doesn't get you a prize. If it is a poll on peoples attitudes to the EU, as Farage would like, then the anti EU vote is a sizable minority, but not the majority they would have us believe.
> Hope that's cleared up the confusion
I still suspect you knew what I meant from the kick off. I admit these are quick posts between work, but others understood ok.
Post edited at 17:03
In reply to Sir Chasm:
So, er, dear (cough), you must be gutted by the low turnout?
> I think it does matter because these people represent us for the next 5 years.
So, er, dear (cough), you must be gutted by the low turnout?
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I'd rather more people had voted, but on the votes cast ukip won.
> So, er, dear (cough), you must be gutted by the low turnout?
I'd rather more people had voted, but on the votes cast ukip won.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I wouldn't worry. If the new UKIP councillors are anything to go by, the MEP's will be mostly banned from Parliament by late 2015 at best
> Yes dear. I think it does matter because these people represent us for the next 5 years.
I wouldn't worry. If the new UKIP councillors are anything to go by, the MEP's will be mostly banned from Parliament by late 2015 at best
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
There are probably lots of these, but the UKIP map reminded me of this, that I saw on the door of a biology lecturer's office at Sussex University in 1988: The world according to Ronald Reagan.
http://tinyurl.com/o7o4nwx
There are probably lots of these, but the UKIP map reminded me of this, that I saw on the door of a biology lecturer's office at Sussex University in 1988: The world according to Ronald Reagan.
http://tinyurl.com/o7o4nwx
In reply to woolsack:
Unfortunately, google suggests, it appears that ukip would then pick a successor from the candidate list.
> I wouldn't worry. If the new UKIP councillors are anything to go by, the MEP's will be mostly banned from Parliament by late 2015 at best
Unfortunately, google suggests, it appears that ukip would then pick a successor from the candidate list.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yeah we established that UKIP won the UK component of the Euro election on a FPTP basis competition earlier today (though it does seem like much longer).
You then said you were worried about representation. If that is the case I would be more worried about the fact that the UK has no MEPs in the EPP, the largest grouping in the European Parliament.
> I'd rather more people had voted, but on the votes cast ukip won.
Yeah we established that UKIP won the UK component of the Euro election on a FPTP basis competition earlier today (though it does seem like much longer).
You then said you were worried about representation. If that is the case I would be more worried about the fact that the UK has no MEPs in the EPP, the largest grouping in the European Parliament.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I think you're right people probably did vote for them by mistake, but Norman is wrong, there's no conspiracy. Mike Nartass was in UKIP but got de-selected and so went off and formed An Independence from Europe. Same goes for We Demand a Referendum, but in that case Nikki Sinclair got kicked out because she left the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group on the grounds that some of it's members are extreme right wingers (now that story does have legs!).
UKIP got votes because of what they are, but also splinter because of what they are, swings and roundabouts.
> Norman Tebbit makes an interesting point in his Telegraph Blog from May 27th.
> "There were some odd features of the poll, particularly the puzzle of who was really funding the "An Independence From Europe Party" whose title put it at the top of the long ballot paper which had Ukip at the bottom. Clearly the organisers and funders could have had no hope whatsoever that it would gain enough votes to elect an MEP, so what was their motive? I can only assume it was to catch out voters intending to support Ukip and lure them into precipitately putting a cross against its name before finding Ukip right at the foot of the page. One way or another it secured 1.49 per cent of the vote and if one adds even half of that to Ukip's score it makes Mr Farage's lead even more impressive."
> As we have been told repeatedly, UKIP voters are uneducated simpletons. Therefore it's highly likely that the 1.49% had not been able to differentiate between the two candidates at opposite ends of the long form and with mouth half open and holding their pencil like a spoon , they put their cross next to the wrong candidate. I think this has legs
I think you're right people probably did vote for them by mistake, but Norman is wrong, there's no conspiracy. Mike Nartass was in UKIP but got de-selected and so went off and formed An Independence from Europe. Same goes for We Demand a Referendum, but in that case Nikki Sinclair got kicked out because she left the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group on the grounds that some of it's members are extreme right wingers (now that story does have legs!).
UKIP got votes because of what they are, but also splinter because of what they are, swings and roundabouts.
Post edited at 10:40
In reply to Mike Stretford:
This is interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/05/nigel-farage-succeed-p...
This is interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/05/nigel-farage-succeed-p...
In reply to deepsoup:
It's interesting he thinks Boris is an MP, let alone the nation's favourite.
> This is interesting:
It's interesting he thinks Boris is an MP, let alone the nation's favourite.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yes. I almost didn't post the link because of that, it's an embarrassing boob. Did post it in the end, because I think he makes an interesting point about politicians pretending not to be politicians in spite of that.
Yes. I almost didn't post the link because of that, it's an embarrassing boob. Did post it in the end, because I think he makes an interesting point about politicians pretending not to be politicians in spite of that.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...