politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MEMO to CON MPs who think that an EU referendum is the magic bullet that’ll help them save seats: It isn’t
Judging by the intensity of many backbench CON MPs over the EU referendum issue you’d have thought that they firmly believe if only they could get this sorted it would be the magic bullet that would ensure their re-election at GE2015.
Sorry I wanted to insert something short to claim my first for quite a while. I actually agree. The obsession of the tory party (or at least a part of it) is shared by very few others. Even those who vote UKIP are not that interested.
All the tories get out of Europe is stories of splits and a perception of being slightly obsessive, paranoid and defensive. Cameron's best policy on Europe was not to talk about it and it should remain his guiding principle from here to the election.
I am not sure there are any Tory MPs who think an EU referendum will help them save seats, other than in a very roundabout way.
There are some Tory MPs who want out of Europe, and don't care about a UK election (Read Matthew Parris in The Times today)
There are some Tory MPs who are going to lose seats because of UKIP votes
If there was a referendum, and we voted out, both of those impediments to a Tory win would disappear, but that is a long way from thinking just having a vote will save any seats.
The problem with this poll is one of semantics. If the option were expressed
"Europe Union (i.e. EU Dictats, Open Borders, European Human Rights Act, the Euro, the European Central Bank, etc.)"
then I think more people would see it as an important issue. As it is, when asked what "Europe" means to them, most people probably think of football, the French Riviera or Alpine scenery which clearly aren't of pressing concern.
@DavidL I completely agree with your post. The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
FPT @Alanbrooke said "I'm suggesting we create more than two banks to restore competition we need to back out of a position where two banks ( RBS and LBG )have 40+% of some of our credit markets. Anything above 15% for a company tends to drift towards a monopoly position. We need a series of banks with nor more than say 5%.
The capital for these banks we have already paid in the recession. I'm afraid we've spent the money. The issue we have is do we follow the GO route of leave the big beasts in place and try to privatise them in the short term or sit on the capital longer and restructure them for the wider benefit of the economy. My preference clearly is for the second. As a note I don't think just breaking banks up per se will not solve all our problems, clearly it won't, but I do believe it will lessen them significantly and create an environment where regulation is underpinned by competitive pressure. It's the point I made last night the control of pricing in oligopolies tends to be pricing for profit as opposed to pricing to win business.
As for your second point, yes there is that risk and ultimately that depends on how a split is managed. Clearly the retail banks need to be better capitalised. However I would suggest that if the mega banks have been feeding capital from retail to other operations this has simply been a covert way of gaining access to more funds to play international markets. If the markets they wish to play are that profitable then they should do what they should have done in the first place and raise fresh capital to gamble on their own accounts.
I don't suppose we'll be heading back to the halcyon days of Warmington on Sea, technology and the world have moved on, but the interesting thing of this debate has been the way the banker fans have lined up to defend the producer and have put the needs of the customer to one side. SMEs remain one of the powerhouses of UK jobs, innovation, prosperity and bluntly tax revenues which multinats avoid. That we seem to want to ignore ways of increasing their prosperity seems bizarre to me."
Sorry for not replying on previous thread but another higher power insisted I needed a Costa downtown. It may be we are closer than I thought from my skim of the previous debate. I certainly agree with nearly all of this.
Sorry I wanted to insert something short to claim my first for quite a while. I actually agree. The obsession of the tory party (or at least a part of it) is shared by very few others. Even those who vote UKIP are not that interested.
+1 The Tories seem to think UKIP is an anti EU party. While it might have been once upon a time, currently its the anti politics as usual / none of the above party and it will remain that until a political party identifies why those voters don't like any of the current parties and adjusts their policies appropriately...
Do people vote based on what they perceive as the most important issues facing their family or the country? This is a serious question to which I don't know the answer. My gut feeling is more are concerned about issues facing themselves than the country as a whole but it would be a brave man or a fool to claim that applied 100% across the board.
It is quite possible a significant proportion of people feel that the problems facing their family (particularly economic issues) cannot be solved by the government but only by themselves. As such would that necessarily inform the way they vote?
This is a general point not specifically related to Mike's normal banging on about Europe. :-)
@Richard_Tyndall The experience in the US is that issues facing voters and their families have more of an electoral impact than those facing the country.
Romney was well ahead on managing the economy in November 2012.
@DavidL I completely agree with your post. The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
No the damage was caused by Cameron not by the Eurosceptics. He represents neither his party nor the country in its views on Europe and that is why he is in such difficulties.
By the way Mike, I notice you don't include the UKIP numbers in your header. It appears that 20% of UKIP supporters consider the EU in the top 3 most important to their family and 36% consider it in the most important to the country. I wonder if Cameron (or Miliband) would like 36% of the UKIP vote back?
Europe is a symbolic issue for the Tory flamekeepers, rather than a rational one.
They measure all Tory leaders through the prism of Margaret Thatcher's tough leadership in the eighties.
I suspect the reality is that the EU is far more complex these days, the laws and regulations are far more embedded into our daily lives and disentangling us from the EU by leaving is probably nightmarish bordering on impossible.
So realistically and rationally Cameron nor any other leader is going to push to leave the EU in the short term. Reforming and improving the EU is really the only feasible option.
But that won't wash with anti-EU Tories or Kippers. The EU remains the most convenient stick to beat Cameron (or any other 'wet' leader) with.
As long as Europe is a live issue on the right the higher the chances are that Labour gain power. Such is the EU paradox.
Europe is a symbolic issue for the Tory flamekeepers, rather than a rational one.
They measure all Tory leaders through the prism of Margaret Thatcher's tough leadership in the eighties.
I suspect the reality is that the EU is far more complex these days, the laws and regulations are far more embedded into our daily lives and disentangling us from the EU by leaving is probably nightmarish bordering on impossible.
So realistically and rationally Cameron nor any other leader is going to push to leave the EU in the short term. Reforming and improving the EU is really the only feasible option.
But that won't wash with anti-EU Tories or Kippers. The EU remains the most convenient stick to beat Cameron (or any other 'wet' leader) with.
As long as Europe is a live issue on the right the higher the chances are that Labour gain power. Such is the EU paradox.
The problem with that argument being that reforming or improving the EU in any significant way is even more nightmarish or impossible than just leaving. This comes back to the basic problem that the 'in Europe not run by Europe' have never been able to deal with. the EU cannot be reformed in the way they want and as time goes by that becomes more and more obvious.
@Richard_Tyndall The experience in the US is that issues facing voters and their families has more of an electoral impact than those facing the country.
Romney was well ahead on managing th economy in November 2012.
That seems reasonable to me and would match my own perceptions/bias. I would still be interested to see someone try and find out what proportion of the electorate are guided in their voting habits by what is good for them vs what is good for the country. I think such a consideration would apply equally to both the right and the left although perhaps in slightly different forms.
@DavidL I completely agree with your post. The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
No the damage was caused by Cameron not by the Eurosceptics. He represents neither his party nor the country in its views on Europe and that is why he is in such difficulties.
Its also because Cameron has never had the honesty or courage to announce his establishment EUphile views.
Instead he pretend to be a EUsceptic to win the leadership and then made a series of promises he never meant to keep.
When someone's been exposed as a liar trust is lost permanently.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
I've noticed this desperate attempt to rewrite history before.
Of course Mike Smithson was a wholehearted supporter of the ERM at the time and a wholehearted advocate of joining the Euro afterwards.
Most people think that what they are interested in other people are also interested in. And that the things they care a lot about other people also care a lot about.
It doesn't just apply to political issues - it applies to all subjects.
Which is why these Tory MPs will never ever get the message. Their brains cannot digest the information.
The point Eurosceptics make is that the EU affects most policy decisions that the UK makes. At the moment they are not making this case well enough. So when you give people a list of issues, they don't pick the EU as being a main issue. They intead pick the issues such as immigration, which are of course affected by EU membership.
The Tories are too split on this issue and I think a referendum in 2017, if it happens, should settle them down. The problem is that the Tories are unlikely to win in 2015 and there will probably not be any referendum. People blame Cameron, but I cannot see it being any different under another leader. Should Cameron try to do a deal with Farage, so that UKIP does not field a candidate in marginals the Tories need to hold or win, so at least the Tories have a chance of winning a majority. This would surely be in the interest of Tories and UKIP.
Of course it's comical but is it any more comical than supposedly educated people sitting in churches praying to "Almighty God" supposedly thinking that "Almighty God" is actually listening to them and will do what they are praying for.
I remember some wag pointing out that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time in 86 years after Massachusetts legalised same sex marriage in 2004.
The point Eurosceptics make is that the EU affects most policy decisions that the UK makes. At the moment they are not making this case well enough. So when you give people a list of issues, they don't pick the EU as being a main issue. They intead pick the issues such as immigration, which are of course affected by EU membership.
The Tories are too split on this issue and I think a referendum in 2017, if it happens, should settle them down. The problem is that the Tories are unlikely to win in 2015 and there will probably not be any referendum. People blame Cameron, but I cannot see it being any different under another leader. Should Cameron try to do a deal with Farage, so that UKIP does not field a candidate in marginals the Tories need to hold or win, so at least the Tories have a chance of winning a majority. This would surely be in the interest of Tories and UKIP.
If the numbers normally quoted are correct and only 40% of UKIP support comes from former Tories then I do not see how doing a deal with the Tories would be in UKIP's interests.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
Of course it's comical but is it any more comical than supposedly educated people sitting in churches praying to "Almighty God" supposedly thinking that "Almighty God" is actually listening to them and will do what they are praying for.
Both are equally absurd.
I did see a very good comment from someone recently to the effect that:
Thanking God for saving your family from a natural disaster is akin to thanking a serial killer for knifing the family next door.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
Mr. Tyndall, it does seem peculiar that the current monotheistic believers might thank God in that, but not blame him if they do lose someone in such a tragedy.
I quite like the old Greek polytheism (which is making something of a comeback, reportedly) in that regard. If someone you knew drowned then obviously it's Poseidon's fault.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
Apart from the VI ComRes asked the following questions
We also asked people if they agreed or disagreed with the following statements. Fame and acclaim to the person with the best guesses for the “agree” percentages.
George Osborne is right to seek a further £12 billion in public spending cuts through reducing welfare benefits
Ed Miliband is an old-style left-winger
Middle-class families have become worse off under the coalition Government than they would have been under Labour
Middle-class families would be worse off if Ed Miliband becomes prime minister in 2015 than if David Cameron is re-elected
Theresa May would make a better prime minister than Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson would make a better prime minister than Theresa May
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
I disagree.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
There is no doubt about it - the position is crystal clear and has been for a very long time.
Only solution is to throw these people out of the Party. It cannot be acceptable to continue as a Conservative MP if everything you do is designed to lose the party the GE.
Hmm, so why does Rentoul talk about the Labour lead? What might be the marmalade-dropping element? Curious. Worst case for the blues would indeed be a big increase in Labour's lead caused by an equally sharp decline by the Tories to the kippers' benefit.
Most people think that what they are interested in other people are also interested in. And that the things they care a lot about other people also care a lot about.
It doesn't just apply to political issues - it applies to all subjects.
Which is why these Tory MPs will never ever get the message. Their brains cannot digest the information.
The problem is far more than the human brain.
For a start, we tend to live amongst people who think like us, which is why most constituencies are not marginal, especially when you get to the ward level. Worse, we tend to socialise with and even marry people who think like us.
We read newspapers and blogs which reinforce our views; on Twitter we follow those whose opinions we already support.
More subtly, search engines tailor their results in line with our previous activity.
There was research published after the Bush/Gore election showing that Democrat and Republican voters did not just have different opinions, they had different facts.
Of course, in America, television news is not required to be impartial but the phenomena listed above probably mean the same is true here. (Are any aspiring politics PhD students looking for a thesis topic?) Is Britain skint because of the global financial crisis which started in America or because Gordon Brown did not fix the roof while the sun shone? Is the world heating or cooling?
That's the problem -- Tory MPs (and Labour ones) mix with like-minded people who share the same analyses of the EU, immigration or VAT on pasties.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
I think they should have candidates everywhere.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
I disagree.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
Hmm, so why does Rentoul talk about the Labour lead? What might be the marmalade-dropping element? Curious. Worst case for the blues would indeed be a big increase in Labour's lead caused by an equally sharp decline by the Tories to the kippers' benefit.
It's not John Rentoul who tweeted the marmalade dropping tweet.
It was Jane Merrick, the political editor.
John Rentoul is very good at not hyping MoE changes, he's one of the very few media bods who understands MoE shifts and polling in general.
Hmm, so why does Rentoul talk about the Labour lead? What might be the marmalade-dropping element? Curious. Worst case for the blues would indeed be a big increase in Labour's lead caused by an equally sharp decline by the Tories to the kippers' benefit.
It's not John Rentoul who tweeted the marmalade dropping tweet.
It was Jane Merrick, the political editor.
John Rentoul is very good at not hyping MoE changes, he's one of the very few media bods who understands MoE shifts and polling in general.
Indeed so. But all adds to the excitement in an otherwise very dull day.
Hmm, so why does Rentoul talk about the Labour lead? What might be the marmalade-dropping element? Curious. Worst case for the blues would indeed be a big increase in Labour's lead caused by an equally sharp decline by the Tories to the kippers' benefit.
It's not John Rentoul who tweeted the marmalade dropping tweet.
It was Jane Merrick, the political editor.
John Rentoul is very good at not hyping MoE changes, he's one of the very few media bods who understands MoE shifts and polling in general.
Indeed so. But all adds to the excitement in an otherwise very dull day.
Dull day? Go to the cinema and watch The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorcese's finest film ever.
It's a false argument this 'not in the top 3 issues'. The big issues will always be on things like the economy, crime, health and immigration. Now the EU has an effect on pretty much every area these days (whether positive or negative) but on two of the areas, the Economy and Immigration it is more pronounced. It is curious why the Libdems and supporters are now so against the concept of a referendum. They were all for it in 2010. What's changed in 4 years?
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
I disagree.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
So you're happy with governments which impose their views on others.
Take a look around the world and you'll see how dangerous that position of yours is.
My viewpoint helps homsexuals in much of the world while your's oppresses them.
Its easy to congratulate yourself on your 'progressive' views when you live in the Sheffield Hallam of 2014 but if you lived in a different time or place you'd be cheering at gays being stoned.
Tolerance is about allowing things you don't like not imposing your views upon others.
How ironic that 4 days before the campaign for the Euro elections officially begins (the 22nd) up pops Mike Smithson to put up yet another of his tiresome and repetetive ' nothing to see here' EU threads.
Putting aside that the EU outweighs just about every issue that the Libdems bang on about (electoral reform, taxation, climate change etc) and much as we know that OGH has long since prostrated himself at the alter of 'Ever Closer Union', the reality is that the EU issue is important enough to Tories to make a difference.
Firstly he persists in ignoring that the EU is heavily linked to the immigration issue which if I recall was only 2points behind the economy (39-37) in the Mori issues index as the most important issue there is.
Secondly, even if we do as OGH and ignore that and just look at his salami sliced statistics 12% of 2010 Conservatives rate it in their top three. That's 1.3 million votes if fully projected. Can the Tories afford to lose 1.3 million votes? Can they win the election with just 9.4 million votes? Of course not. As much as OGH wants the issue to go away for the Tories it cannot.
I appreciate that Libdems are utterly on the wrong side of this issue and just want the Euros to go away but when is OGH going to give up this futile and generally disingenuous (given the importance of the EU in political terms) propaganda?
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
I disagree.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
So you're happy with governments which impose their views on others.
Take a look around the world and you'll see how dangerous that position of yours is.
My viewpoint helps homsexuals in much of the world while your's oppresses them.
Its easy to congratulate yourself on your 'progressive' views when you live in the Sheffield Hallam of 2014 but if you lived in a different time or place you'd be cheering at gays being stoned.
Tolerance is about allowing things you don't like not imposing your views upon others.
I'm happy with governments that promote equality, which is what the gay marriage laws delivered.
I'm sure if you lived in a different time or era, you'd be cheering Jim Crow.
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
No, it's a perfectly logical position. Insisting on non-discrimination in the provision of services is considerably harder to justify on intellectual grounds.
True but I am talking from a personal point of view where the EU is the main driving factor behind my support for UKIP. I still have serious doubts as to whether it should even be a political party and certainly from a Libertarian point of view I am very unhappy with many of its positions on social issues such as Gay rights.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
Is UKIP proposing to make gay marriage illegal ?
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
They opposed the introduction of Gay marriage which is a thoroughly un-libertarian position to take.
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
I disagree.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
So you're happy with governments which impose their views on others.
Take a look around the world and you'll see how dangerous that position of yours is.
My viewpoint helps homsexuals in much of the world while your's oppresses them.
Its easy to congratulate yourself on your 'progressive' views when you live in the Sheffield Hallam of 2014 but if you lived in a different time or place you'd be cheering at gays being stoned.
Tolerance is about allowing things you don't like not imposing your views upon others.
The properly Libertarian view is that the Government has removed legislation from an area of people's lives that it has no place intruding upon.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
I think Chris Christie's presidential ambitions are over:
"Two senior members of Gov. Chris Christie's administration warned a New Jersey mayor earlier this year that her town would be starved of hurricane relief money unless she approved a lucrative redevelopment plan favored by the governor, according to the mayor and emails and personal notes she shared with MSNBC."
"In this account -- supported by email, public records and Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's own diary entries -- Christie's inner circle was willing to cut off devastated constituents, muscle a friendly mayor and arrange public funds to finance a study for a project the governor supported."
@DavidL I completely agree with your post. The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
The only time this parliament the Conservatives have challenged Labour in the polls was during the 'vetogasm'.
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
How ironic that 4 days before the campaign for the Euro elections officially begins (the 22nd) up pops Mike Smithson to put up yet another of his tiresome and repetetive ' nothing to see here' EU threads.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others. .
Rewind a few decades, and replace homosexual couples with black or mixed race couples in that sentence and you'll see how silly that position of yours is.
So you're happy with governments which impose their views on others.
Take a look around the world and you'll see how dangerous that position of yours is.
My viewpoint helps homsexuals in much of the world while your's oppresses them.
Its easy to congratulate yourself on your 'progressive' views when you live in the Sheffield Hallam of 2014 but if you lived in a different time or place you'd be cheering at gays being stoned.
Tolerance is about allowing things you don't like not imposing your views upon others.
I'm happy with governments that promote equality, which is what the gay marriage laws delivered.
I'm sure if you lived in a different time or era, you'd be cheering Jim Crow.
See we can all play this game.
I'd be opposing Jim Crow laws just as much as I oppose people who discriminate against homosexuals.
I don't approve of bigotry ** in its many forms - for example that bigoted little song you sing about the French rugby team.
I suspect you'd be loudly applauding Jim Crow laws though as long as you thought there was a political point to be scored through it.
BTW Eagles have you resigned from the Conservative party yet:
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
Not sure I could be described as sensible but just read about this and cringed. Maybe he is a Tory plant!
As for the thread, the 33rd most influential 50+ on Twitter talking biased shit once again. He obviously isn't stupid so why portray himself so?
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
How on earth is singing Ou Est La Papier bigoted? Are you sure you're not an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation, 'cause that's the kind of bollocks I'd expect, either that, or you've fallen down and hit your head very hard?
Please tell me how this is bigoted, I'd love to know.
You seem to miss my qualification to the Tory party, and focus upon one part of my red line.
I said, if Cameron did a Blair, and sent troops under-resourced into new wars, then that's my red line.
If I don't respond for a while, don't be offended, I have to go change a nappy, and I maybe some time.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
If only the Tory Eurosceptics 'banged on about Europe' as infrequently as OGH.....
As was once wisely observed 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis' and we should not underestimate the eagerness of some of them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....
Lord Ashcroft has tried to set them straight several times, but I fear they are beyond help....
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
Alternatively, you could date ERM exit as the start of the Conservatives bickering about Europe.
Alternatively, you could point to the fact that ERM exit was (almost) coincident with the Labour Party getting Blair as leader.
Alternatively, it could be the time when a group of youngsters (like me) got the vote and (perhaps unlike me) were vehmently anti-Tory.
Beware of reading too much into correlations.
Mrs Thatcher's leadership challenge was triggered by her opposition to closer EU integration.
But was rooted in the poll tax, her increasingly imperial style and mushrooming electoral liability.....the Tories did not dump Thatcher because of Europe, it was a simple case of sauve qui peut - and it worked!
How on earth is singing Ou Est La Papier bigoted? Are you sure you're not an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation, 'cause that's the kind of bollocks I'd expect, either that, or you've fallen down and hit your head very hard?
Please tell me how this is bigoted, I'd love to know.
I found it offensive, as did other people who commented at the time.
I believe that people with good manners show respect to visitors and to their national anthems.
And don't replace the words with a song about having a sh1t.
If I was French I would have been deeply offended and would have assumed that bigoted English people were abusing my country, and thought worse of England because of it.
Clearly you see nothing wrong with the song whereas I do.
Which of us is right ? Perhaps we're both are in different ways but who is to judge and I have no wish to impose my views upon you.
So while I deeply disapprove of the song and I wouldn't stop you singing it. Instead in two weeks time (almost to the minute) I'll be thinking "Eagles is singing that song again, I wish he'd stop".
That's what I mean about tolerating things you disapprove of.
If that means I share some views with 'an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation' then so be it. I form my own views from my own thoughts, knowledge and experience and don't just repeat whatever is the latest fashionable thinking or government decree.
Perhaps an odd state of mind in the modern world but its the one I've got.
And with that I have to depart for some time, I hope the nappy changing was successful.
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
He was a tory councillor that switched recently. Obviously, he feels the Lords wrath personally.
If Scotland votes for independence, will its government confiscate the estates of English landowners? The SNP is talking about a tenants’ “right to buy” – three such innocuous little words! – even if the landowners don’t want to sell. As my colleague Charles Moore pointed out in The Spectator, “one great independence leader who played this issue politically was Robert Mugabe”.
Cue shrieks from cybernats, the digital wing of the SNP, masters of coordinated outrage.
The damage that the eurosceptics have done to the party is huge. The problem Cameron's got is that the more he caves into them the the more they want.
That's because it's not about Europe, it's about defeating Cameron.
It was the Eurosceptics who detroyed Major's government in the mid 1990s and paved the way for Blair and the Iraq War.
Simply not true. It was Major himself who laid the groundwork for destroying his own government when he was Chancellor by tying us into the ERM. It was economics that did for Major - or at least the perception that his government were economically incompetent. To try and blame his defeat on the Eurosceptics is just ludicrous.
Douglas Carswell produced a handy little graph of Conservative party poll scores/election results, with the ERM leaving date marking a clear, and long term fall in support.
Alternatively, you could date ERM exit as the start of the Conservatives bickering about Europe.
Alternatively, you could point to the fact that ERM exit was (almost) coincident with the Labour Party getting Blair as leader.
Alternatively, it could be the time when a group of youngsters (like me) got the vote and (perhaps unlike me) were vehmently anti-Tory.
Beware of reading too much into correlations.
Mrs Thatcher's leadership challenge was triggered by her opposition to closer EU integration.
But was rooted in the poll tax, her increasingly imperial style and mushrooming electoral liability.....the Tories did not dump Thatcher because of Europe, it was a simple case of sauve qui peut - and it worked!
I'm with CarlottaVance on this one.
Let's remember what a massive boost this gave to the Tories in the polls and them at GE1992.
What sparked off the sceptic split was the Danish referendum in, I think, June 1992.
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
I wonder how sensible Tories feel about having selected him as a candidate for the Council in the first place?
People don't need to feel strongly about the EU for it to affect their vote. We know people are influenced by things like which candidate is tallest or whether they're going bald, neither of which are going to be listed in most peoples top three issues. For Cameron's EU policy to affect the next election, it need only be at least as important to people as his looks. Any pollling on that?
Basically, indecisive voters, on the cusp of switching parties, or unsure whether to bother voting at all, will often end up deciding on the basis of minor issues, because all the major issues cancel out for them. (If they didn't, the wouldn't be undecided.) This can mean going for the candidate who looks most authoritative, or deciding they might might as well vote since the dog needs walking, or even deciding that while there's nothing to choose between the main parties of all the important issues, Cameron talks more sense on the EU.
Wonder how the sensible Kippers on here feel about a UKIP councillor blaming the recent devastating floods in the South of England on David Cameron legalising "gay" marriage. pic.twitter.com/Oi1YPVbIb9
Well I have already given my opinion downthread. I would hope that UKIP would distance themselves from the moron. Dropping him from the party would seem to be a good idea.
Of course the Tories are in no position to comment over this given that they were happy for Ken Gregory to continue as a Councillor after he left phone messages hoping that an opponent died of aids.
How on earth is singing Ou Est La Papier bigoted? Are you sure you're not an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation, 'cause that's the kind of bollocks I'd expect, either that, or you've fallen down and hit your head very hard?
Please tell me how this is bigoted, I'd love to know.
I found it offensive, as did other people who commented at the time.
I believe that people with good manners show respect to visitors and to their national anthems.
And don't replace the words with a song about having a sh1t.
If I was French I would have been deeply offended and would have assumed that bigoted English people were abusing my country, and thought worse of England because of it.
Clearly you see nothing wrong with the song whereas I do.
Which of us is right ? Perhaps we're both are in different ways but who is to judge and I have no wish to impose my views upon you.
So while I deeply disapprove of the song and I wouldn't stop you singing it. Instead in two weeks time (almost to the minute) I'll be thinking "Eagles is singing that song again, I wish he'd stop".
That's what I mean about tolerating things you disapprove of.
If that means I share some views with 'an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation' then so be it. I form my own views from my own thoughts, knowledge and experience and don't just repeat whatever is the latest fashionable thinking or government decree.
Perhaps an odd state of mind in the modern world but its the one I've got.
And with that I have to depart for some time, I hope the nappy changing was successful.
You should hear what the nation of collaborators sings about us Les Rosbifs, you should hear the suggestions Welsh Rugby fans tell us where we can stick our sweet chariot, but this is a family blog.
Alls fair in love, war and Rugby.
But just for you, I'll never sing it again.
Some of us have been advocates of gay rights even before it was unfashionable in Tory circles, but that's because one of my friends had a very troubling coming out when when we were sixteen, so it is an issue that has always been close to my heart.
Nappy changing is fun nowadays, I now change nappies whilst wearing either my Iron Man or Darth Vader helmets as it gives me protection.
Honestly, I have a son, that times his weeing to the exact moment I remove his nappy.
I'm going to predict the marmalade poll will be tories miles behind and only just ahead of ukip... it is an indy journalist drawing attention to it earlier after all, if a good blue one I'm guessing little would have been said in advance.
A thread on God, the EU and marmalade – only on PB.Com ; )
Lol! Ipsos-Mori poll sounds amusing - like JohnO I'd guess it'll show a low lead but disinclined to spray marmelade either way. Despite the press's best efforts, I don't think anything much is shifting at the moment.
I had the ultimate floating voter on the doorstep this afternoon - a libertarian (so LibDem) pro-trade union (so Labour) Eurosceptic (so Tory) and disillusioned with traditional parties (so UKIP). He so needs a Swiss referendum system to express his views precisely.
Europe is a symptom rather than the key issue for most UKIP supporters that I meet - "The elite does what it likes, look at immigration, look at Europe, etc." I don't think any particular policy on any issue will really bring them back - what they want is a tub-thumping populist (Boris is probably the closest the Tories have to it). It's important in the opposite sense to the Guardian wing of Labour too - I raised £160 today at a lunch discussion of the EU with local voters, and I was the least solidly Europhile person in the room, as I cautiously suggested the EU wasn't perfect.
If only the Tory Eurosceptics 'banged on about Europe' as infrequently as OGH.....
As was once wisely observed 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis' and we should not underestimate the eagerness of some of them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....
Lord Ashcroft has tried to set them straight several times, but I fear they are beyond help....
If only Cameron didn't keep making idiotic statements about the EU and totally unobtainable promises then the Eurosceptics might not need yo keep pointing out his dishonesty.
I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies though. At least Mike has stopped trying to make that ludicrous claim that no one gives a monkeys about the EU.
A thread on God, the EU and marmalade – only on PB.Com ; )
Lol! Ipsos-Mori poll sounds amusing - like JohnO I'd guess it'll show a low lead but disinclined to spray marmelade either way. Despite the press's best efforts, I don't think anything much is shifting at the moment.
I had the ultimate floating voter on the doorstep this afternoon - a libertarian (so LibDem) pro-trade union (so Labour) Eurosceptic (so Tory) and disillusioned with traditional parties (so UKIP). He so needs a Swiss referendum system to express his views precisely.
Europe is a symptom rather than the key issue for most UKIP supporters that I meet - "The elite does what it likes, look at immigration, look at Europe, etc." I don't think any particular policy on any issue will really bring them back - what they want is a tub-thumping populist (Boris is probably the closest the Tories have to it). It's important in the opposite sense to the Guardian wing of Labour too - I raised £160 today at a lunch discussion of the EU with local voters, and I was the least solidly Europhile person in the room, as I cautiously suggested the EU wasn't perfect.
Just to correct you Nick, the pro-EU, pro-statist Lib Dems could never in a million years be considered libertarian.
Off topic it strikes me as very fortunate for justice and Lord McAlpine's family that he didn't die before the terrible accusations against him were made. I suspect it would have proved far more difficult to clear his name if he had already been dead.
Comments
All the tories get out of Europe is stories of splits and a perception of being slightly obsessive, paranoid and defensive. Cameron's best policy on Europe was not to talk about it and it should remain his guiding principle from here to the election.
There are some Tory MPs who want out of Europe, and don't care about a UK election (Read Matthew Parris in The Times today)
There are some Tory MPs who are going to lose seats because of UKIP votes
If there was a referendum, and we voted out, both of those impediments to a Tory win would disappear, but that is a long way from thinking just having a vote will save any seats.
"Europe Union (i.e. EU Dictats, Open Borders, European Human Rights Act, the Euro, the European Central Bank, etc.)"
then I think more people would see it as an important issue. As it is, when asked what "Europe" means to them, most people probably think of football, the French Riviera or Alpine scenery which clearly aren't of pressing concern.
@Alanbrooke said
"I'm suggesting we create more than two banks to restore competition we need to back out of a position where two banks ( RBS and LBG )have 40+% of some of our credit markets. Anything above 15% for a company tends to drift towards a monopoly position. We need a series of banks with nor more than say 5%.
The capital for these banks we have already paid in the recession. I'm afraid we've spent the money. The issue we have is do we follow the GO route of leave the big beasts in place and try to privatise them in the short term or sit on the capital longer and restructure them for the wider benefit of the economy. My preference clearly is for the second. As a note I don't think just breaking banks up per se will not solve all our problems, clearly it won't, but I do believe it will lessen them significantly and create an environment where regulation is underpinned by competitive pressure. It's the point I made last night the control of pricing in oligopolies tends to be pricing for profit as opposed to pricing to win business.
As for your second point, yes there is that risk and ultimately that depends on how a split is managed. Clearly the retail banks need to be better capitalised. However I would suggest that if the mega banks have been feeding capital from retail to other operations this has simply been a covert way of gaining access to more funds to play international markets. If the markets they wish to play are that profitable then they should do what they should have done in the first place and raise fresh capital to gamble on their own accounts.
I don't suppose we'll be heading back to the halcyon days of Warmington on Sea, technology and the world have moved on, but the interesting thing of this debate has been the way the banker fans have lined up to defend the producer and have put the needs of the customer to one side. SMEs remain one of the powerhouses of UK jobs, innovation, prosperity and bluntly tax revenues which multinats avoid. That we seem to want to ignore ways of increasing their prosperity seems bizarre to me."
Sorry for not replying on previous thread but another higher power insisted I needed a Costa downtown. It may be we are closer than I thought from my skim of the previous debate. I certainly agree with nearly all of this.
It is quite possible a significant proportion of people feel that the problems facing their family (particularly economic issues) cannot be solved by the government but only by themselves. As such would that necessarily inform the way they vote?
This is a general point not specifically related to Mike's normal banging on about Europe. :-)
Romney was well ahead on managing the economy in November 2012.
By the way Mike, I notice you don't include the UKIP numbers in your header. It appears that 20% of UKIP supporters consider the EU in the top 3 most important to their family and 36% consider it in the most important to the country. I wonder if Cameron (or Miliband) would like 36% of the UKIP vote back?
They measure all Tory leaders through the prism of Margaret Thatcher's tough leadership in the eighties.
I suspect the reality is that the EU is far more complex these days, the laws and regulations are far more embedded into our daily lives and disentangling us from the EU by leaving is probably nightmarish bordering on impossible.
So realistically and rationally Cameron nor any other leader is going to push to leave the EU in the short term. Reforming and improving the EU is really the only feasible option.
But that won't wash with anti-EU Tories or Kippers. The EU remains the most convenient stick to beat Cameron (or any other 'wet' leader) with.
As long as Europe is a live issue on the right the higher the chances are that Labour gain power. Such is the EU paradox.
Instead he pretend to be a EUsceptic to win the leadership and then made a series of promises he never meant to keep.
When someone's been exposed as a liar trust is lost permanently.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/01/18/ukip-politician-david-cameron-to-blame-for-floods-because-he-made-gay-marriage-legal/
Of course Mike Smithson was a wholehearted supporter of the ERM at the time and a wholehearted advocate of joining the Euro afterwards.
Most people think that what they are interested in other people are also interested in. And that the things they care a lot about other people also care a lot about.
It doesn't just apply to political issues - it applies to all subjects.
Which is why these Tory MPs will never ever get the message. Their brains cannot digest the information.
The Tories are too split on this issue and I think a referendum in 2017, if it happens, should settle them down. The problem is that the Tories are unlikely to win in 2015 and there will probably not be any referendum. People blame Cameron, but I cannot see it being any different under another leader. Should Cameron try to do a deal with Farage, so that UKIP does not field a candidate in marginals the Tories need to hold or win, so at least the Tories have a chance of winning a majority. This would surely be in the interest of Tories and UKIP.
Both are equally absurd.
Personally I would be in favour of UKIP not standing against - or even going so far as to endorse - any candidate, Labour or Conservative, who advocated leaving the EU in their manifesto. But I am pretty sure that under the current leadership that will not happen.
Thanking God for saving your family from a natural disaster is akin to thanking a serial killer for knifing the family next door.
Just because a Conservative or Labour MP might suport leaving the EU doesn't mean that their other views might not be objectionable to UKIP supporters.
Mr. Tyndall, it does seem peculiar that the current monotheistic believers might thank God in that, but not blame him if they do lose someone in such a tragedy.
I quite like the old Greek polytheism (which is making something of a comeback, reportedly) in that regard. If someone you knew drowned then obviously it's Poseidon's fault.
So a UKIP that put leaving the EU back at the top of its list of priorities and chose its opponents on that basis would be far more in keeping with my view of what the party should stand for than just a blanket candidate list in all constituencies irrespective of the views of the sitting MP.
If not then its position is "we don't like it but we wont ban it" which is perfectly liberatarian.
Mr. Tyndall, that's my view on UKIP standing or not in specific constituencies. There's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
So potentially interesting sub questions though on the agree/disagree front...everyone should find something to froth over
George Osborne is right to seek a further £12 billion in public spending cuts through reducing welfare benefits
Ed Miliband is an old-style left-winger
Middle-class families have become worse off under the coalition Government than they would have been under Labour
Middle-class families would be worse off if Ed Miliband becomes prime minister in 2015 than if David Cameron is re-elected
Theresa May would make a better prime minister than Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson would make a better prime minister than Theresa May
Scotland should be an independent country
There is too much bad language on TV and in films
As a supposedly serious political party they should not have a position on something unless they propose doing something about it. They might as well have a position on who should be ejected from the Big Brother household in that case.
When you hear something surprising/unexpected that makes you drop the jar of jam you're holding.
Anyone know the difference between jam and marmalade?
Ahem.
Matthew Parris in the Times has picked your theme on the UKIP fifth columnists in the Tory party.
John Rentoul blogs upon it
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/18/the-tory-fifth-column/
We also asked people if they agreed or disagreed with the following statements. Fame and acclaim to the person with the best guesses for the “agree” percentages.
George Osborne is right to seek a further £12 billion in public spending cuts through reducing welfare benefits
Ed Miliband is an old-style left-winger
Middle-class families have become worse off under the coalition Government than they would have been under Labour
Middle-class families would be worse off if Ed Miliband becomes prime minister in 2015 than if David Cameron is re-elected
Theresa May would make a better prime minister than Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson would make a better prime minister than Theresa May
Scotland should be an independent country
There is too much bad language on TV and in films
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/01/18/poll-alert-39/
Marmalade is made from citrus fruits and jam is made from berries I believe is the difference
Either it's super soar away (10-12%?) or neck and neck (0-2%?). I'll guess the latter....but either way it's therefore probably an outlier.
Con 29, Lab 36, LD 8, UKIP 18.
So would take a heavy shift for a Con/Lab crossover or a Con/UKIP Crossover.
Lab 36, Con 29, LD 8, UKIP 18.
ComRes do have high UKIP scores so could it be a very good one for UKIP?
Lab lead of 7% last time is very near current average (approx 6%) so would be surprising if it's way off that.
I think its perfectly tolerant to say you oppose something but aren't going to outlaw it.
For example I think its wrong for guesthouse owners to ban homosexual couples but I wouldn't make it illegal for them to do so.
We have enough problems with governments 'doing' things and imposing their views upon others.
.
There is no doubt about it - the position is crystal clear and has been for a very long time.
Only solution is to throw these people out of the Party. It cannot be acceptable to continue as a Conservative MP if everything you do is designed to lose the party the GE.
For a start, we tend to live amongst people who think like us, which is why most constituencies are not marginal, especially when you get to the ward level. Worse, we tend to socialise with and even marry people who think like us.
We read newspapers and blogs which reinforce our views; on Twitter we follow those whose opinions we already support.
More subtly, search engines tailor their results in line with our previous activity.
There was research published after the Bush/Gore election showing that Democrat and Republican voters did not just have different opinions, they had different facts.
Of course, in America, television news is not required to be impartial but the phenomena listed above probably mean the same is true here. (Are any aspiring politics PhD students looking for a thesis topic?) Is Britain skint because of the global financial crisis which started in America or because Gordon Brown did not fix the roof while the sun shone? Is the world heating or cooling?
That's the problem -- Tory MPs (and Labour ones) mix with like-minded people who share the same analyses of the EU, immigration or VAT on pasties.
It was Jane Merrick, the political editor.
John Rentoul is very good at not hyping MoE changes, he's one of the very few media bods who understands MoE shifts and polling in general.
So 13 polls have had the lead between 4% and 8%.
It's been very stable - if the ComRes lead is 2% or 10% then it surely has to be an outlier.
Take a look around the world and you'll see how dangerous that position of yours is.
My viewpoint helps homsexuals in much of the world while your's oppresses them.
Its easy to congratulate yourself on your 'progressive' views when you live in the Sheffield Hallam of 2014 but if you lived in a different time or place you'd be cheering at gays being stoned.
Tolerance is about allowing things you don't like not imposing your views upon others.
Putting aside that the EU outweighs just about every issue that the Libdems bang on about (electoral reform, taxation, climate change etc) and much as we know that OGH has long since prostrated himself at the alter of 'Ever Closer Union', the reality is that the EU issue is important enough to Tories to make a difference.
Firstly he persists in ignoring that the EU is heavily linked to the immigration issue which if I recall was only 2points behind the economy (39-37) in the Mori issues index as the most important issue there is.
Secondly, even if we do as OGH and ignore that and just look at his salami sliced statistics 12% of 2010 Conservatives rate it in their top three. That's 1.3 million votes if fully projected. Can the Tories afford to lose 1.3 million votes? Can they win the election with just 9.4 million votes? Of course not. As much as OGH wants the issue to go away for the Tories it cannot.
I appreciate that Libdems are utterly on the wrong side of this issue and just want the Euros to go away but when is OGH going to give up this futile and generally disingenuous (given the importance of the EU in political terms) propaganda?
I'm sure if you lived in a different time or era, you'd be cheering Jim Crow.
See we can all play this game.
The properly Libertarian view is that the Government has removed legislation from an area of people's lives that it has no place intruding upon.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100254045/the-tories-dont-have-a-coherent-economic-policy-we-need-to-find-one-fast/
"Two senior members of Gov. Chris Christie's administration warned a New Jersey mayor earlier this year that her town would be starved of hurricane relief money unless she approved a lucrative redevelopment plan favored by the governor, according to the mayor and emails and personal notes she shared with MSNBC."
"In this account -- supported by email, public records and Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer's own diary entries -- Christie's inner circle was willing to cut off devastated constituents, muscle a friendly mayor and arrange public funds to finance a study for a project the governor supported."
Deadline to send CVs: Monday 20t (10 AM)
Shortlisting interviews: January 22
Selection: January 24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2011
Alternatively, you could point to the fact that ERM exit was (almost) coincident with the Labour Party getting Blair as leader.
Alternatively, it could be the time when a group of youngsters (like me) got the vote and (perhaps unlike me) were vehmently anti-Tory.
Beware of reading too much into correlations.
I don't approve of bigotry ** in its many forms - for example that bigoted little song you sing about the French rugby team.
I suspect you'd be loudly applauding Jim Crow laws though as long as you thought there was a political point to be scored through it.
BTW Eagles have you resigned from the Conservative party yet:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10578079/Defence-cuts-threaten-US-UK-partnership-says-Robert-Gates.html
** I dare say I fall into bigotry on occassions and for so doing I criticize myself for not being more tolerant.
As for the thread, the 33rd most influential 50+ on Twitter talking biased shit once again. He obviously isn't stupid so why portray himself so?
How on earth is singing Ou Est La Papier bigoted? Are you sure you're not an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation, 'cause that's the kind of bollocks I'd expect, either that, or you've fallen down and hit your head very hard?
Please tell me how this is bigoted, I'd love to know.
You seem to miss my qualification to the Tory party, and focus upon one part of my red line.
I said, if Cameron did a Blair, and sent troops under-resourced into new wars, then that's my red line.
If I don't respond for a while, don't be offended, I have to go change a nappy, and I maybe some time.
I have 5 Man City goals at 13/2 and 6 at 15/2
My other bets for this weekend are
Newcastle to beat West Ham
Villa to beat Liverpool, Suarez to score at least,
Swansea to beat Spurs and England to beat Aus.
Oh balls it is for Cardiff.
As was once wisely observed 'The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis' and we should not underestimate the eagerness of some of them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....
Lord Ashcroft has tried to set them straight several times, but I fear they are beyond help....
I believe that people with good manners show respect to visitors and to their national anthems.
And don't replace the words with a song about having a sh1t.
If I was French I would have been deeply offended and would have assumed that bigoted English people were abusing my country, and thought worse of England because of it.
Clearly you see nothing wrong with the song whereas I do.
Which of us is right ? Perhaps we're both are in different ways but who is to judge and I have no wish to impose my views upon you.
So while I deeply disapprove of the song and I wouldn't stop you singing it. Instead in two weeks time (almost to the minute) I'll be thinking "Eagles is singing that song again, I wish he'd stop".
That's what I mean about tolerating things you disapprove of.
If that means I share some views with 'an equal opportunities officer for some uber left wing organisation' then so be it. I form my own views from my own thoughts, knowledge and experience and don't just repeat whatever is the latest fashionable thinking or government decree.
Perhaps an odd state of mind in the modern world but its the one I've got.
And with that I have to depart for some time, I hope the nappy changing was successful.
Cue shrieks from cybernats, the digital wing of the SNP, masters of coordinated outrage.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100255404/alex-salmond-the-snp-and-fascist-scotland/
Let's remember what a massive boost this gave to the Tories in the polls and them at GE1992.
What sparked off the sceptic split was the Danish referendum in, I think, June 1992.
Basically, indecisive voters, on the cusp of switching parties, or unsure whether to bother voting at all, will often end up deciding on the basis of minor issues, because all the major issues cancel out for them. (If they didn't, the wouldn't be undecided.) This can mean going for the candidate who looks most authoritative, or deciding they might might as well vote since the dog needs walking, or even deciding that while there's nothing to choose between the main parties of all the important issues, Cameron talks more sense on the EU.
Of course the Tories are in no position to comment over this given that they were happy for Ken Gregory to continue as a Councillor after he left phone messages hoping that an opponent died of aids.
Alls fair in love, war and Rugby.
But just for you, I'll never sing it again.
Some of us have been advocates of gay rights even before it was unfashionable in Tory circles, but that's because one of my friends had a very troubling coming out when when we were sixteen, so it is an issue that has always been close to my heart.
Nappy changing is fun nowadays, I now change nappies whilst wearing either my Iron Man or Darth Vader helmets as it gives me protection.
Honestly, I have a son, that times his weeing to the exact moment I remove his nappy.
Swansea also to win sadly...
I had the ultimate floating voter on the doorstep this afternoon - a libertarian (so LibDem) pro-trade union (so Labour) Eurosceptic (so Tory) and disillusioned with traditional parties (so UKIP). He so needs a Swiss referendum system to express his views precisely.
Europe is a symptom rather than the key issue for most UKIP supporters that I meet - "The elite does what it likes, look at immigration, look at Europe, etc." I don't think any particular policy on any issue will really bring them back - what they want is a tub-thumping populist (Boris is probably the closest the Tories have to it). It's important in the opposite sense to the Guardian wing of Labour too - I raised £160 today at a lunch discussion of the EU with local voters, and I was the least solidly Europhile person in the room, as I cautiously suggested the EU wasn't perfect.
I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies though. At least Mike has stopped trying to make that ludicrous claim that no one gives a monkeys about the EU.
Cathy Newman @cathynewman 1m
Rennard says he "considered" an apology "years ago", & brother accuses critics of a witch hunt "worthy of the ku klux klan" #c4news 6.05