Ukip 'Most Favourably Regarded Party'

[claig]

Is there a quiet revolution going on despite the insults aimed at UKIP and their voters by some people in other parties who refer to good people as nutters, fruitcakes and racists?

How has this happened, how has UKIP become so popular despite the wishes of the great and the good and the TV propaganda of the paid-for media puppets?

I am bafffled and

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-most-favourably-regarded_n_4623876.html

Funny old world I am a fan of sported up Seat cars, and less so of Ukip seats in parliament, but one has to assume that you will, otherwise that nice Mr Farage has said he'll leave Ukip and get an honest job - probably selling false promises in a share 'boiler room' scam. lol

But you don't need seats to bring damage to the UK and interest rates by skewing the election result, as in 2010.

And I suspect the closer we get to May 2015, the markets and potential employers will start 'pricing in' to their investments/plans the prospects of the post May 2015 political uncertainty - including the prospects for a 2017 EU referendum.

I wonder if UKIP's Westminster career will match their MEP careers. Apparently the poorest attenders in the European Parliament(though still taking their full salary and benefits) are the UKIP MEPs.

And that my dear slugger indicates the punchline to the joke ‘VOTE UKIP’ in April; they don’t want the UK to be part of the European Parliament, they therefore have no real interest in the internal gubbins of policies - so by sending them there at a huge taxpayer expense, the joke really is on us.

Slug, I wonder whether this will change when the EP voting processes change - esp the introduction of QMV and the blocking minority.

A vote for UKIP, however much stupid and misguided, isn't 'skewing the election'.

You may think that the Tory scum have a divine right to rule, but the public think otherwise.

Clearly if a political party who’s only domestic policy to improve the life of their citizens is to come out of Europe, when they can’t do a thing to bring the nation out of Europe themselves, and are getting in the way of those that CAN give the people a say – then I can’t think of a BETTER example of screwing themselves and the people, by skewing the result of an election.

As to “divine right to rule”, look no further than the political party that has fixed the electoral boundaries in their favour, brought in a few million East European socialist voters to do just that no matter what the domestic cost to their voters, and spent more time laying electoral policy traps for the next Conservative administration than trying to fix their own mess – and to many without their heads up their ideological bottoms, that is worse than scum, it’s even beyond treason.

Yers, and the man on he street can't tell the tories apart from them.

Pretty poor excuse for the liblabcon MEP non-entities who merely turn up to stick their snouts in the trough and rubber stamp anything that crosses their desks. You still haven't provided me with the names of two liblabcon MEPs of note out of quite a number to choose from.

Skewing the election eh? So those votes that UKIP receives are actually owned by the tories are they?

There's this little thing called democracy...

IsItMe

brought in a few million East European socialist voters to do just that no matter what the domestic cost to their voters

I can't decide whether you're woefully ill-informed about a number of issues or are lying to advance your own agenda.

Migrants are unable to vote in national elections. Those 'East European' voters you seem to believe Labour imported to secure an electoral majority in Parliament aren't actually allowed to vote in general elections. Council elections - yes, European elections - yes but not in general elections.

'I can't decide whether you're woefully ill-informed about a number of issues or are lying to advance your own agenda'

I had worked under the assumption that it was both!

TheHammaconda….them’s fightin’ words, I’m sure that you will apologise to me as I would to all on these boards, if migration to the UK did not favour the Parliamentary Labour Party in one form or another. Now even IF you were correct in assuming that residents here can not vote in a General Election, it is a fact the more local councillors etc a party has, the more grass roots help an MP can expect in a General Election.

According to the link below, a UK General Election does not appear to be excluded from citizens from European Union countries who are resident here and register to vote. And of course it was not just EU citizens that were able to take advantage of Labour’s open door migrant policy and potentially vote Labour, as Mr Brown obviously knew and turned his blind eye to.

www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx

“Below is a full list of Commonwealth and European Union countries. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, and resident in the UK, you are eligible to register to vote in UK elections. To qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK and either have leave to enter or remain in the UK or not require such leave. The definition of a 'Commonwealth citizen' includes citizens of British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html

“MigrationWatch’s report said: “One possible reason why Lord Goldsmith’s report was largely ignored by the Labour government of the day is that voters from black and minority ethnic communities, some of whom will be Commonwealth citizens, are far more likely to vote Labour than Liberal Democrat or Conservative.”

“A report last year by the Runnymede Trust showed 68 per cent of black and Asian people backed Labour in the last general election, said the study, which also suggested the Commonwealth vote could be influential in the referendum on European Union membership.”

IsItMe
TheHammaconda….them’s fightin’ words, I’m sure that you will apologise to me as I would to all on these boards, if migration to the UK did not favour the Parliamentary Labour Party in one form or another.

I see no reason to apologise

Now even IF you were correct in assuming that residents here can not vote in a General Election, it is a fact the more local councillors etc a party has, the more grass roots help an MP can expect in a General Election.

Clutching at straws aren't you?

But if a party has more councillors they can expect more MPs in a GE. The Conservative Party with their 8,548 councillors should romp home in 2015 given that they have 1711 more councillors than Labour. Sorry, Wikipedia link.

According to the link below, a UK General Election does not appear to be excluded from citizens from European Union countries who are resident here and register to vote

Actually, according to the full text in the link you provided

Below is a full list of Commonwealth and European Union countries. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, and resident in the UK, you are eligible to register to vote in UK elections. To qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK and either have leave to enter or remain in the UK or not require such leave. The definition of a 'Commonwealth citizen' includes citizens of British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

Citizens of the European Union (who are not Commonwealth citizens or Citizens of the Republic of Ireland) can vote in European and local elections in the UK, elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies (if they live in those areas) and some referendums (based on the rules for the particular referendum) but are not able to vote in UK Parliamentary general elections.

I'm not assuming that Eastern European migrants (who you referred to exclusively in your post) are unable to vote in general elections. As I said, because I know these things (rather than blythly making assumptions and posting them as facts). Migrants are able to vote in UK elections - that means council elections, european elections, elections to the devolved assemblies (if resident in devolved regions) and some referenda. I was very careful to explain clearly.

And of course it was not just EU citizens that were able to take advantage of Labour’s open door migrant policy and potentially vote Labour, as Mr Brown obviously knew and turned his blind eye to.

You are disgusting, how dare you make a joke of someone's disability?

^www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html^

“MigrationWatch’s report said: “One possible reason why Lord Goldsmith’s report was largely ignored by the Labour government of the day is that voters from black and minority ethnic communities, some of whom will be Commonwealth citizens, are far more likely to vote Labour than Liberal Democrat or Conservative.”

“A report last year by the Runnymede Trust showed 68 per cent of black and Asian people backed Labour in the last general election, said the study, which also suggested the Commonwealth vote could be influential in the referendum on European Union membership.”

You mentioned "Eastern European socialists", nothing about BME voters. You inferred that the Labour Party had engineered this in order to gain a parliamentary votes. IIRC extension of the franchise to Commonwealth citizens was done by Labour. In 1948.

IIRC extension of the franchise to Commonwealth citizens was done by Labour. In 1948.

Actually, it might have been in 1918. The Representation of the People Act extended the franchise to all British Subjects - the meaning of this has changed to now include Commonwealth citizens.

Thank you Hammaconda.

Clears that little spat up nicely.

Not really, I've just been too busy with my paper rounds this week to reply, but I will shortly.

The Hammaconda…..I’d firstly like to apologise for making an incorrect statement on EU citizens voting in General Elections, as that is indeed factually incorrect; my GENERAL accusation against Labour from 2000 onwards however, confirmed by that Labour speech writer chap, was that a major reason for allowing near ‘open door’ immigration was to boost Labour’s vote in elections, and I still stand by that.

*The reason I stand by that is I had not comprehended the INCREASE immigration by Commonwealth and ‘others’, OVER AND ABOVE EU NUMBERS that arguably we had a right to refuse citizenships - who mostly COULD vote in General Elections, well over the average of the 1990’s – so I’m not quite sure what your 1948 date is all about versus Labour's increases in the 2000's, outlined within a table below.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk

And this would be confirmed as Mr Mandelson mentioned that ‘sent out search parties far and wide’ to fill skill shortages we couldn’t be arsed to train up an ever growing unemployment domestic population for.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

As for EU citizen voters influence on (Labour) Councillors, it is you “clutching at straws” in thinking that local Councillor help is NOT important at grass roots level at General Election time, whether main party Memberships are falling away sharply or not.

And yes you are correct, in 2013 the Conservatives with 8,548 counsellors was far more than Labour’s 6,837, but as Labour’s strength is more densely populated inner cities (Metropolitan and London) boroughs cover far less ground than the Conservatives across the shires of England, they are able to make more impact.

And if memory serves, due to the boundaries and share of the vote needed, as Labour only needs 35% of the population to vote for them in order to return to power with a decent majority, such local concentrations and grass root party machinery already providing Labour with a decent lead in the polls it doesn’t really need to win, New labour’s strategy has worked well.

And as for your gasted being all of a flabber for the mocking Brown’s disability, for the sheer policy incompetence and the electoral deceit of leaving power without attempting to provide policies to solve the countries problems for 2010/2015 electoral gain – if he’d have come clean to the plebs just how bad a shape the country was in – he’d have been lucky not to have lost his head, then put on a spike, next to the Tower of London. Why do you think the MP Brown hardly dare show his self acclaimed economically “prudent” face in parliament since 2010 (to earn his current MP salary), his expectations and modesty of receiving a parliamentary standing ovation, or mockery he would receive from all sides of the house AND the media.

You know it hit home to me the other week (when I was flicking between news channels and caught parliament) just HOW MUCH political capital and respect Brown HAS lost. In fairness to him he was speaking/appealing to parliament about a noble cause; the (lack of) education of many tens of thousands of displaced Syrian women refugees, that with a low cost plan he offered for teaching in shifts within neighbouring country schools, it would go some way in maintaining their education.

You know I don’t think that there was more than 4 or 5 MPs on EITHER side of the house listening, which based on the subject, was disrespectful, but if Labour had no more MPs in attendance than the coalition. It speaks volumes on his political record whilst running domestic policies from 1997. IMO.

You do know that immigration is increasing under the tories don't you?

Spin….You’re a bit slow with this, I’d thought Farage had ordered his minions back from shooting themselves in the Ukip foot, until AFTER the MEP elections. Lol

Having said that you are correct, the trend in NET migration has altered sharply, as many of the buggers here like it too much and don’t move to sunnier clims, while the figures coming here from the EU has reversed the downward/flat-lining trend, funny enough mainly from the destinations they usually chose to emigrate to – all nicely pictured for you, with colours, in the link/graph below.

Clearly EU citizens have a right to come here until Ukip get out of the way, and a majority Conservative government can provide an EU in/out referendum; so I’d be more concerned if the rise was in citizens we CAN control coming here, that appeared to rise so much under Labour as they also knew tended to vote for socialist parties.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26367391

“The Office for National Statistics said the net flow - the numbers moving to the UK minus the numbers leaving it - rose from 154,000 in the previous year.”

“The increase has been driven by a big growth in the number of European Union citizens coming to Britain.”

“But No 10 said its aim had not changed”.

Asked if David Cameron stood by his pledge to reduce net migration to under 100,000 by 2015, the PM's official spokesman said: "That is absolutely the objective and we are going to very much keep working towards that.

"We are putting in place what we believe are the right measures that go towards meeting that objective."

"There was a rise in new arrivals from Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal."

IsItMe

I’d firstly like to apologise for making an incorrect statement on EU citizens voting in General Elections, as that is indeed factually incorrect;

Was that deliberate, in order to misinform people or did you not understand the article that you linked to?

my GENERAL accusation against Labour from 2000 onwards however, confirmed by that Labour speech writer chap, was that a major reason for allowing near ‘open door’ immigration was to boost Labour’s vote in elections, and I still stand by that.

Andrew Neather, a speech writer, said that immigration was to "...rub the Right's nose in diversity". I don't recall him mentioning boosting Labour votes.

You said in your original posy on this "Eastern European socialists". You suggested that Labour allowed in migrants from Eastern Europe in order to vote for them. Don't change your tune now.

The reason I stand by that is I had not comprehended the INCREASE immigration by Commonwealth and ‘others’

You stand by something you said earlier because you didn't understand it?

OVER AND ABOVE EU NUMBERS

Of... Do you mean EU data or the number of migrants from the European Union?

that arguably we had a right to refuse citizenships - who mostly COULD vote in General Elections, well over the average of the 1990’s

Do you bother to read the information that you post? You don't need to grant citizenship of the United Kingdom to individuals from certain Commonwealth nations. Some Commonwealth nationals are eligible to vote in all UK elections by virtue of the fact they are Commonwealth nationals. They do not have to apply for citizenship to vote.

BME voters (who according to you are all Labour voters ) are less likely to vote than white British voters. Ipsos Mori and Electoral Commission

so I’m not quite sure what your 1948 date is all

The 1948 date is about the Representation of the People Act and it coincides with the creation of the Commonwealth

about versus Labour's increases in the 2000's, outlined within a table below.

And this would be confirmed as Mr Mandelson mentioned that ‘sent out search parties far and wide’ to fill skill shortages we couldn’t be arsed to train up an ever growing unemployment domestic population for.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

So you think it's a good idea for hospital waiting lists to grow while people wait for more medical staff to be trained? An efficient labour market requires flexibility. Part of that is the ability to draft in skilled individuals to plug gaps

As for EU citizen voters influence on (Labour) Councillors, it is you “clutching at straws” in thinking that local Councillor help is NOT important at grass roots level at General Election time, whether main party Memberships are falling away sharply or not.

And yes you are correct, in 2013 the Conservatives with 8,548 counsellors was far more than Labour’s 6,837, but as Labour’s strength is more densely populated inner cities (Metropolitan and London) boroughs cover far less ground than the Conservatives across the shires of England, they are able to make more impact.

I know I'm correct. Leave the PA bullshit out.

And if memory serves, due to the boundaries and share of the vote needed, as Labour only needs 35% of the population to vote for them in order to return to power with a decent majority, such local concentrations and grass root party machinery already providing Labour with a decent lead in the polls it doesn’t really need to win, New labour’s strategy has worked well.

The Conservatives need to have a 7% lead over Labour to be confident of a Parliamentary majority. That's a downside of FPTP and nothing to do with UKIP.

And as for your gasted being all of a flabber for the mocking Brown’s disability

I wasn't flabbergasted. I was, and am disgusted by your disablist attitudes. I think it the hallmark of a total and utter cunt to mock disabled people for their disability.

for the sheer policy incompetence and the electoral deceit of leaving power without attempting to provide policies to solve the countries problems for 2010/2015 electoral gain – if he’d have come clean to the plebs just how bad a shape the country was in – he’d have been lucky not to have lost his head, then put on a spike, next to the Tower of London

If you have a problem with his policies attack them (ideally in a new thread so as not to fill this one any further with your Tory propaganda) don't take the fucking pathetic and lazy approach you have taken.

Why do you think the MP Brown hardly dare show his self acclaimed economically “prudent” face in parliament since 2010 (to earn his current MP salary), his expectations and modesty of receiving a parliamentary standing ovation, or mockery he would receive from all sides of the house AND the media

I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

You know I don’t think that there was more than 4 or 5 MPs on EITHER side of the house listening, which based on the subject, was disrespectful, but if Labour had no more MPs in attendance than the coalition. It speaks volumes on his political record whilst running domestic policies from 1997. IMO

It tells me more about how our MPs work (or not) and what their overriding concerns are rather than anything about a particular MP.

Clearly after reading that last post, you are somewhat of a larger Hammaconda than the original, believing the best form of defence is attack – and mostly a personal attack from a foul mouthed self professed teacher (hopefully not of children) as when it comes to Labour’s intent, you are more than screwed.

So lets get it clear exactly WHO was blowing smoke up the electorates bottom holes by intent and subsequent excuses once it went horribly wrong, the Labour Party and you, or me.

Ex Labour speech writer Andrew Neather’s quote “Rub the Right's nose in diversity”, so what exactly DOES THAT MEAN, from an ex speech writer for Labour politicians, apart from the usual lets blame the Conservatives for everything we do’, implying it was the the right’s lack of something, rather than what Labour wanted?

Neather also said “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” – so wasn’t the (then) UK or EU Brown then signed us up for, multicultural enough for them – again, WHAT DID THAT MEAN and if it was a covert Labour objective, why wasn’t ‘the people’ who would have to share their jobs, housing stock and services ever ASKED?

And let’s get this straight, from 2002 to 2010, when Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year (whilst building over 100,000 new homes a year), are YOU seriously trying to tell me that Labour did not think they could fill our skills shortages from an open door EU immigration policy alone? That whatever ‘multicultural’ benefits there were, they would more than outweighed by the price the voters that put THEM in power, had to pay?

Labour would now like us to think that this (secret) immigration policy was just a ‘mistake’, incompetence on a grand scale, but there was no upside for their voters in a “reserve army of labour” (Marx), SO IT WAS A CONSPIRACY for Labour’s gain. And the BBC was in on the objective, but probably not the main ‘benefit’ of the conspiracy, from the very beginning.
www.theweek.co.uk/tv-radio/53951/bbc-immigration-coverage-affected-liberal-bias

“A million Commonwealth citizens living in England and Wales should be stripped of the right to vote because they could significantly influence the outcome of the next (2015) general election, according to a new report.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html
“Except for nationals of a handful of Commonwealth countries that grant similar rights, it should be brought to an end immediately.”

“The report said a similar proposal was made by Lord Goldsmith, the former Labour Attorney general, in a 2008 report commissioned by the then prime minister Gordon Brown, but was never acted upon.”

“MigrationWatch said its analysis of 2011 Census data showed there are 960,000 Commonwealth citizens who have the right to vote in England and Wales but do not have British citizenship.”

Clearly after reading that last post, you are somewhat of a larger Hammaconda than the original

I don't think The Hammaconda should get any bigger TBH .

... believing the best form of defence is attack – and mostly a personal attack from a foul mouthed self professed teacher (hopefully not of children)

There's no personal attack. I was very careful not to include a personal attack. I find your constant change of tack, indecipherable posts and posting of your own opinion as fact slightly irritating.

Teachers (self-professed or otherwise) are allowed to swear.

I find your disablism far more offensive than my, apparently, foul-mouthed swearing. If you don't like swearing, try netmums.

... as when it comes to Labour’s intent, you are more than screwed

What do you mean? This does not follow logically from the rest of your sentence.

So lets get it clear exactly WHO was blowing smoke up the electorates bottom holes by intent and subsequent excuses once it went horribly wrong, the Labour Party and you, or me.

Is this a question? You seem to think that someone who does share your conservative values or openly support the Conservative party is automatically a Labour supporter. I don't know what's given you that view. Other than the fact that I disagree with you.

Ex Labour speech writer Andrew Neather’s quote “Rub the Right's nose in diversity”, so what exactly DOES THAT MEAN, from an ex speech writer for Labour politicians, apart from the usual lets blame the Conservatives for everything we do’, implying it was the the right’s lack of something, rather than what Labour wanted?

I think it means that, in Andrew Neather's view, it was desirable to piss off the right wing by making Britain a more multicultural place.

Neather also said “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” – so wasn’t the (then) UK or EU Brown then signed us up for... multicultural enough for them – again, WHAT DID THAT MEAN and if it was a covert Labour objective

I don't know why you keep asking me Andrew Neather meant. I'm not Andrew Neather. I can only infer that he meant that the Labour government believed that multiculturalism was something to aim for so, yes it probably was an objective of government.

Gordon Brown didn't actually sign us up for the the European Union. Nor was he PM in 2004 (when the A8 countries officially joined and their citizens gained access to our labour mkts).

why wasn’t ‘the people’ who would have to share their jobs, housing stock and services ever ASKED?

Why weren't the people asked? Because we have a representative democracy not a direct one. The government are elected to govern. They are given a mandate to do so by the electorate. Most of the immigration over this period came as a result of the expansion of the European Union. Transitionary controls were placed on workers (but only

And let’s get this straight, from 2002 to 2010, when Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year (whilst building over 100,000 new homes a year), are YOU seriously trying to tell me that Labour did not think they could fill our skills shortages from an open door EU immigration policy alone?

I'm not sure where you've got your data from on the number of migrants entering the UK each year from 2002 to 2010. I've always used this with my GCSE students as it gives all the salient points in a nice, interactive graph.

Yes, they were unable to fill skills shortages from the available pool of European Union workers that why there were, and are, shortages of skilled professionals. For example, I remember Headteachers travelling to Australia to try to recruit teachers of shortage subjects.

That whatever ‘multicultural’ benefits there were, they would more than outweighed by the price the voters that put THEM in power, had to pay?

This doesn't make any sense.

Labour would now like us to think that this (secret) immigration policy was just a ‘mistake’, incompetence on a grand scale, but there was no upside for their voters in a “reserve army of labour” (Marx), SO IT WAS A CONSPIRACY for Labour’s gain.

That's a non sequitur.

And the BBC was in on the objective, but probably not the main ‘benefit’ of the conspiracy, from the very beginning.
www.theweek.co.uk/tv-radio/53951/bbc-immigration-coverage-affected-liberal-bias

A million Commonwealth citizens living in England and Wales should be stripped of the right to vote because they could significantly influence the outcome of the next (2015) general election, according to a new report
^www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html
“Except for nationals of a handful of Commonwealth countries that grant similar rights, it should be brought to an end immediately^

The report said a similar proposal was made by Lord Goldsmith, the former Labour Attorney general, in a 2008 report commissioned by the then prime minister Gordon Brown, but was never acted upon.

“MigrationWatch said its analysis of 2011 Census data showed there are 960,000 Commonwealth citizens who have the right to vote in England and Wales but do not have British citizenship.”

I'm a British Citizen who lives abroad. After 15 years has elapsed since my last UK voter registration I will be unable to vote in UK elections. It pisses me off no end that citizens of other nations are able to vote in UK elections when British citizens are disenfrachised.

The Goldsmith report didn't actually present any data on the number of Commonwealth nationals who are registered to vote. It presented no data on the number of actual votes that were cast.

You seem to imply that Brown didn't act on this because the Labour Party would benefit from increased votes. So, given the benefits to them, why do you think the coalition hasn't done anything about it?

Something we both agree on, the Hammoconda should NOT get any bigger, but I sense that it is literally in your hands, often.

FYI I’m not worried about the inherent ignorance of other posters dropping ‘the c-bombs’ etc, I was brought up within a London council estate, to me it just means the other poster is getting desperate for answers – as proven by your last post, with more back passage smoke blowing, than in a kipper shed, so I’ll keep this short.

And on that note, you make me laugh on your answers to WHAT DOES IT MEAN “rub the rights nose in diversity” and “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

Of course we don’t know what it means, those are feeble excuses to try and justify a secret and destructive policy on an unsuspecting domestic population – but proves the open door intent from the beginning, with no regards for any social consequences i.e. on domestic jobs, unemployment , housing and services.

On the 500,000 coming in (give or take) each year under Labour you mention, this link was on my post just before your previous one, when clearly frothing at the mouth, unfortunately NOT with carbolic soap.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk

As for Cameron reversing Brown’s plan to boost his voting base, how do you do that once they have become British Citizens and/or have jobs and settled here? As an example when Brown enlarged the Public Sector payroll by over 1 million from 1997 to 2010, how many were from overseas?

What Cameron tried to do was address Labour’s need for just 35% of the electorate’s votes to obtain a decent 2015 majority, was to try and make the UK electoral boundaries fairer, but the Lib Dems stopped that.

But as to reversing Labour’s ‘UK jobs for migrant worker votes’, Cameron appears to have done something about that, on both the lowering of the numbers on non EU citizens coming in, and with the help of benefit reforms, who is apply/getting the new jobs.

June 2011 “Frank Field: Migrants take nine out of 10 jobs

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8585750/Frank-Field-Migrants-take-nine-out-of-10-jobs.html

November 2013 “Over 90% of new UK jobs taken by British nationals”

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/13/uk-jobs-british-nationals-romanians-bulgarians
“Figures demolish claims that majority of new jobs have gone to foreigners despite rise in number of Romanians and Bulgarians”

Translation: You think I'm an ignorant wanker.

Not more food for you.

Stepping away from the bridge dweller...

There seem to have been a number of stories recently about UKIP. Talks of forming a pact with the BNP ( Guardian ) and accusations of hiring Nige's former mistress.

Bugger, posted too soon.

Both of these are old stories but make riveting headlines. UKIP strategists are unlikely to welcome headlines linking them to the BNP or Nigel Farage to infidelity and expenses abuse.

Is this the beginning or the end of a smear campaign from the main parties? If it's the end, what more is there to come?

I doubt it is the end, though what they have left to print after dredging up stories from ten or fifteen years ago is another matter.

I'm of the firm opinion that all publicity is good publicity seeing as though even the average journalist can spell UKIP. Interesting that only Clegg has shown willing to debate issues rather than throwing childish insults. It appears to be the last option considered and only then out of desperation.