That's not a very high bar to get over. It's basically lying on the ground.Originally Posted by Unheard Of
That's not a very high bar to get over. It's basically lying on the ground.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
e.g. This shit. How much of a racist cunt sack do you have to be to come up with this drivel?
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
That sounds familiar, must've read the same stuff in one of the refugee-threads on this forum. Wb btw
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, these people could get asylum in Europe and then live there for 5 years and then have a EU passport after which they could all migrate to the UK. So that's clearly a migrant time-bomb already ticking.
Congratulations America
Yesterday was an evil day. I didn't want to comment on politics after the murder of the MP, but before then I was already fuming with that racist shit. I have a theory he is trying to sabotage the Leave campaign as he knows that if Leave actually wins then he is unemployed and his career is over. Better to continue on the gravy train with a perpetual reason to whine and get attention than actually have Leave occur.
The Leave campaign has deliberately excluded Farage as much possible because they know he is a vile toxic racist. Leave have taken the lead by excluding him not by this hate.
A significant portion of Leave's supporters are hateful racists that eat that shit up like it's candy and ice-cream. By "excluding" Farage from the official campaign they've been able to sanitize their image enough to be able to go after ordinary voters who aren't absolutely vile. That doesn't mean that Farage and the asshats he represents are not also vital to the success of the Leave campaign. If you disagree then you should be predicting a larger margin for Leave's win that takes into account the prevalence of actual fuckheads eg. among UKIP's supporters.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, it's less about excluding and more distancing yourself enough for him to be deniable while letting him do his thing.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
There are hateful asshats on all sides. Democracy means everyone gets a vote, not just everyone we like.
Steely how exactly do you propose Farage gets prevented from doing his thing? And how do you think that's acceptable in a democracy? The Leave campaign were absolutely furious when Farage got chosen to do one of the televised debates and threatened legal action against ITV to prevent it (but were unable to).
Regardless, Farage and those asshats are indeed likely to be vital to the Leave campaign's success. I don't mind that everyone gets a vote and I don't even think, like you do, that the importance of their vote should be reduced (through your electoral system) to the point of it essentially counting for nothing. All I'm saying is that UKIP has significant popular support and a large number of its supporters love the kind of thing Farage is doing because that shit speaks to them and their own beliefs and feelings and thoughts.
The quirks of your system make it difficult to accurately estimate UKIP's voter base but it should be fair to assume that their supporters--at least when it comes to matters relating to immigration and the EU--make up around 20% of British voters given that 26% voted for them in the most unsexy European Parliament election (nicely matching earlier polls of voting intention for that election). A significant majority of UKIP's supporters hold views that are directly targetted by ads such as the one Farage is being criticized for and a significant minority are out-and-out racists. No doubt many of the other parties' supporters hold similar views but given the strong association, in the public mind, of this particular issue with the EU, I believe most of those voters are more likely to support the Leave campaign. You may be disgusted by those attitudes, but without them your victory in the referendum is much less certain, to the point of being implausible.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
On the voting system I don't think their vote should be reduced I think it should be counted the same as everyone else's and if their vote is locally the most popular and wins a plurality then they win, if it isn't then they lose. Fair and square, same as everyone else's. You seem to be under the assumption that your system is the default and ours is a weird variance despite our system being the status quo, the oldest modern system that I know of and the most popular system used by more voters globally in free democracies than any other. Maybe used by more voters than all other systems put together. So it's anything but eccentric.
As far as what percentage support there is it is hard to measure but the 26% is meaningless for multiple reasons. Firstly turnout was dreadfully low as its a pathetic meaningless faux-Parliament that is being elected. Secondly for the above reason people were using it as a protest vote - it seems a very large proportion of former LD voters switched to UKIP from LD as the LD's had gone from "none of the above" to a party of government. Thirdly while they were the only openly leave party there were people voting based on that and nothing to do with race which wasn't getting magnified anywhere near as much as this vile poster.
Finally as far as people with disgusting views are concerned there are disgusting views on all sides of the ballot. Including on the Remain side both other racists (white European migration is OK so long as it's not Muslim Middle Eastern migration) and Sinn Fein and others.
If leaving the EU destroys UKIP, where do you think UKIP voters will turn? Seems odd to assume that this party won't change some policy positions to please these people. Again, lots of wishful thinking based on virtually zero evidence, while ignoring a ton of theoretical and empirical evidence.
Hope is the denial of reality
They may go back to the Lib Dems and BNP where they came from respectively or more likely they will continue to waste their vote on a party with by then zero MPs.
Show any empirical evidence that UKIP without MEPs will be able to get significant electoral representation.
Iirc you've previously implied or said outright that your system's effect of reducing the influence of parties like the UKIP (compared to the influence they'd have in eg. a PR system) is a good thing. If you've changed your mind, fine.
Secondly, I don't know if I'm particularly persuaded by the implied claim that your system is better or the preferable default simply because it's old and still used in the places you colonized. Either way, the eccentricity or not of your electoral system is irrelevant to the question being discussed.
Your electoral system is likely to discourage voting for small parties with low likelihood of winning seats as well as cause lower turnout compared to PR systems. In spite of this, UKIP secured around 12% of the popular vote in the latest general election. It should be fair to say that actual support for UKIP is likely to be higher than 12% if you take into account possible differential turnout and tactical voting. Two-thirds of UKIP's supporters have views on immigration and immigrants that are likely to make them view the message of that poster favorably. Around 20% are proper racists and xenophobes. These people should account for a large portion of the margin in favour of Leave implied by the latest ipsos-mori poll.As far as what percentage support there is it is hard to measure but the 26% is meaningless for multiple reasons. Firstly turnout was dreadfully low as its a pathetic meaningless faux-Parliament that is being elected. Secondly for the above reason people were using it as a protest vote - it seems a very large proportion of former LD voters switched to UKIP from LD as the LD's had gone from "none of the above" to a party of government. Thirdly while they were the only openly leave party there were people voting based on that and nothing to do with race which wasn't getting magnified anywhere near as much as this vile poster.
Those attitudes are likely to be of extremely low relevance to the outcome of the referendum unless of course Farage's ad convinces them to switch their votes to Leave.Finally as far as people with disgusting views are concerned there are disgusting views on all sides of the ballot. Including on the Remain side both other racists (white European migration is OK so long as it's not Muslim Middle Eastern migration) and Sinn Fein and others.
Just under half of UKIP's supporters are former conservatives. Even if you factor in lies about past voting, former tories are likely to make up a larger portion of UKIP's current voter-base than former LD:s.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's already wishful thinking that the UKIP will go away after achieving the independence they were one of the driving forces behind. It's more likely that the Conservative Party will tear itself apart in the aftermath of this referendum.
Congratulations America
I think we'll see UKIP merge with the nationalist wing of the Tories under Johnson, while some pro-EU Tories will defect to the Lib Dems. UKIP would have no more reason to exist.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't want him to prevented from doing anything.
I would want to see more active condemnation for his more racist antics by the rest the leave campaign before I give them any credit for "distancing" themselves from hi by ignoring him and still benefiting from the campaigning he is doing.
I'm not giving them points for simply refraining from being overtly racist, that is the bare minimum I expect from politicians and other public figures.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
The system of not giving power to the extremists is a good thing yes. Because the extremists lose the vote. If the extreme becomes the mainstream then that's democracy for you.
I'm just saying it isn't eccentric.Secondly, I don't know if I'm particularly persuaded by the implied claim that your system is better or the preferable default simply because it's old and still used in the places you colonized. Either way, the eccentricity or not of your electoral system is irrelevant to the question being discussed.
Two-thirds of 12% is 8% not 20%. Either way I think you're wrong and are reading too much into it, the biggest driver for UKIP was the protest "plague on both your houses" vote. The biggest correlation in 2015 for how much the UKIP vote went up was how much the Lib Dem vote went down. Now what do the Lib Dems and UKIP have in common policy-wise? It wasn't policies or race that made voters switch from Lib Dem to UKIP it was protest.Your electoral system is likely to discourage voting for small parties with low likelihood of winning seats as well as cause lower turnout compared to PR systems. In spite of this, UKIP secured around 12% of the popular vote in the latest general election. It should be fair to say that actual support for UKIP is likely to be higher than 12% if you take into account possible differential turnout and tactical voting. Two-thirds of UKIP's supporters have views on immigration and immigrants that are likely to make them view the message of that poster favorably. Around 20% are proper racists and xenophobes. These people should account for a large portion of the margin in favour of Leave implied by the latest ipsos-mori poll.
A problem with referendums and why I don't like them in general is that it forces a binary choice in a complicated world. There are douchebags on both sides. So you should make your decision based on what and who you agree with, not who you disagree with. I disagree with people on both sides, in this campaign I've agreed most with Michael Gove and Boris Johnson (who incidentally just happen to be both in the government and likely leaders of the government if Leave wins).Those attitudes are likely to be of extremely low relevance to the outcome of the referendum unless of course Farage's ad convinces them to switch their votes to Leave.
Source?Just under half of UKIP's supporters are former conservatives.
Source?Even if you factor in lies about past voting, former tories are likely to make up a larger portion of UKIP's current voter-base than former LD:s.
The Leave campaigners have made abundantly clear they don't agree with and want nothing to do with Farage. How much more do you think is reasonable and do you hold everyone else to the same standard? Is Cameron responsible for everything Jeremy Corbyn says? If Jeremy Corbyn says anything do you wonder if Cameron agrees with him because he's on the same side in this binary choice? Don't be absurd!
Because of all the times Johnson has shared a platform with UKIP right? All zero point zero occasions.
Johnson has been sharing a platform with Labour Leavers, not UKIP. The only thing you got right there is your final sentence.
MEPs will be history. How many MPs does Farage control in Parliament? Answer: zero.
There is one nominally UKIP MP in Parliament but he is a glorified independent who now hates Farage and vice-versa.
No-one said two-thirds = 20%. The numbers are in reference to separate things. My very rough estimate is that total support for the UKIP is closer to 20% than to 12%. Two-thirds of the confirmed UKIP voter-base (ie. the 12% that participate in and are open about their allegiance in surveys and studies) hold views that mesh with that ad. 20% (one-fifth) of that total UKIP voter-base are outright racist. That doesn't mean that other parties don't attract any racists but it does mean that the ad you find so abhorrent is likely to appeal to a large number of people (even if don't posit a total UKIP support of 20%) who're likely to vote Leave.
One easy source:Source?
Source?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/24...s-its-support/
45% of self-identified UKIP supporters report voting for the tories in 2010. Only 15% voted previously for LD.
Another source examining implied voter flows broken by type of seat (safe, marginal etc) in a different sample:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/...s-2015-defeat/
The behaviour of UKIP voters is more straightforward than that of LD voters. Granted a number of those UKIP-voters may have voted labor in elections long past (ie. they migrated to UKIP from Lab via Con) and may do so in elections yet to come, but, as things are now, people who voted for UKIP in 2015 are more likely to have voted for Con than for either Lab or LD.
Last edited by Aimless; 06-18-2016 at 02:47 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Speaking of ads that are so crappy as to be offensive...
https://www.facebook.com/nick.roesen...56979038385591
Courtesy of Spawnie
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
YouGov got the polling (and the election) badly, badly wrong.
That argument is bizarre on both sides. OK so the EIB spends money in the UK? I'm going to guess its our own money filtered through bureaucrats and then a smaller amount than what was paid out gets paid back on projects we don't choose. Not a good argument for Remain.Speaking of ads that are so crappy as to be offensive...
https://www.facebook.com/nick.roesen...56979038385591
Courtesy of Spawnie
EDIT: Yes the UK has invested 16.1% of the capital of EIB and in exchange for that received 11.2% of EIB funding. Sounds like a great deal to me ...
Frankfurt am Main will definitely welcome a Brexit. They're already making plans on how to house all the fleeing bankers.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'm very sorry, the second link was the same as the first link which I'm sure you noticed given that the preceding sentence implied that it was to a different source. Of course, that was not my intention and the second link should have been this instead:
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/...s-2015-defeat/
(based on long-term ipsos-mori data)
Every pollster failed more or less badly in that election when it came to predicting outcomes for Lab and Con, most likely primarily due to overestimating turnout and having problems handling differential turnout. In YouGov's case there was also an under-representation of very old voters. However, the questions currently being discussed are how many people really support UKIP (relevant to my assertion about the minimum number of people who'll view that racist ad favorably) and where those people will go if UKIP goes under (relevant to the discussion about what will happen in the event of a Brexit that also destroys the UKIP).
You suggested they'd go "back" to LD and BNP. The data available shows that the plurality of UKIP's voters at least claimed to have voted for Con in the previous election. The YouGov data suggest it. The ipsos-mori data and its analysis also imply the same. If you have other data that says something completely different then you're welcome to share it. If not, then you're welcome to share your revised estimates instead, along with your justification for those estimates.
Other research has shown that a significant number of people tend to exaggerate their likelihood of voting as well to report having voted when they probably could not have done so. The sample underlying that particular YouGov analysis underestimated UKIP's actual share of the popular vote by a couple of percent.
Last edited by Aimless; 06-18-2016 at 03:04 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Btw you should give some thought to amending the OP in order to reflect the EU's deal with South Korea as well as the pending ratification of the deal with Canada.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The idea that a lot of UKIP members are former BNP supporters is laughable for the simple fact that the BNP never got all that many votes. You'd need 500% of former BNP voters to defect to make a dent on UKIP's current support level.
Hope is the denial of reality
Thank you
Last edited by Aimless; 06-18-2016 at 03:52 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
UKIP between 2010 - 2015 increased their vote by 2,961,658
2010 BNP 564,321
2015 BNP 001,667
Where do you think the missing 562,654 went?
Though I didn't just say all Kippers are ex-BNP, a large chunk are ex-Lib Dem protest voters too. Between 2010 and 2015 the Lib Dem vote went down by 4,420,386
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote