Cameron doesn't need a new Treaty to achieve legal renegotiation. Directive 2004/38/EC, for example, lays down the real framework for free movement, such as the period of an unqualified right to reside, the conditions placed on residence thereafter, and the extent to which EU non-discrimination law determines immigrants' right to benefits.
He does need a new treaty.
Many of the basic positions he apparently wishes to renegotiate including CAP and CFP as well as questions of the way the EU is financed and run are integral to existing treaties and could not be changed without treaty changes.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
LOL, what planet do you live on. The terrorist cell headquartered in Cameron's back garden noticed that the TV had gone off , what luck a power cut , let us attack immediately before SSE are ordered to drop everything to get round here pronto as Dave was enjoying "The Sound of Music".
Could be the other way around: If you plan an attack, you start by messing with the power to disable and/or confuse some of the security systems. Either way security-wise it seems like something you'd want to get to reasonably quickly, at least to figure out what happened.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Note: phones *do* run on electricity; however they are powered from the exchange and not the subscriber's home. It's quite a complex system nowadays.
A pure semi-educated guess on the secure comms question: any encryption / decryption system would probably require more voltage and current than is present on a phone line. I'd therefore expect it to have mains and/or battery power as well.
We'd need someone who knows more about the likes of STU-III, if they can actually talk. ;-)
But I could well be wrong on that. Telephony can be weird and counter-intuitive ...
If you need some "bollocks" phone Josias. Name any mobile phone that is powered from the exchange. Methinks you are getting a bit confused with powering a static phone line where the voltages are controlled from the exchange, beggar all to do with the phone. If you are using a standard plug in phone a power cut in the house means no loss of telephone access, only if using a wireless phone that uses mains voltage to talk to a control unit would be an issue. I seriously doubt he will be using a trimphone in any event, and his entourage will have many many mobile phones available.
The real story that you and other Tories are trying to obsfuscate is that as usual , rich Tory Toff jumps queue and shows how we are all equal and in it together in the wonderful UK.
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
LOL, probably has a strowger exchange chugging away in the dining room , keeping him in touch with all those important people he needs to talk to about those nasty terrorists who want to harm him. You should be on the stage or in a museum.
Pray tell me, what PBX's do not require mains power long-term?
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
Er no. The referendum to leave the EU, if it is being held in 2017, would be long before anyone would have had the chance to ratify any new treaty. There is no way on earth that Cameron would have any binding decisions on even developing a new treaty by the time of his planned referendum.
Sure, but whenever there is a Treaty there is always a staggered process over which various countries ratify it.
That doesn't matter - the decision is either does the UK accept it or not. As I said, if the final Treaty is substantially different from the version the vote is held on there needs to be a discussion.
Where it becomes difficult is if there is not a final, agreed (but not ratified) text - i.e. negotiations are ongoing.
Cameron doesn't need a new Treaty to achieve legal renegotiation. Directive 2004/38/EC, for example, lays down the real framework for free movement, such as the period of an unqualified right to reside, the conditions placed on residence thereafter, and the extent to which EU non-discrimination law determines immigrants' right to benefits.
He does need a new treaty.
Many of the basic positions he apparently wishes to renegotiate including CAP and CFP as well as questions of the way the EU is financed and run are integral to existing treaties and could not be changed without treaty changes.
I don't think anybody has the foggiest idea what he wants to renegotiate at this point. (Given the timetable the lack of clarity on this at this stage is sure sign that the whole thing is bullshit, IMHO.)
RobC Cameron should stay out, he is less popular than Darling in Scotland and it is Labour voters, not Tory or LD or SNP voters, who will decide the election
Scottish independence would have a limited impact on UK general elections contrary to myth, Attlee and Blair would have won all their elections without Scotland and Wilson 2/4, with Home winning in '64 and Heath in Feb '74, but Home was a Scot and a Heath win would have meant no Maggie!
Its also worth noting that where Scottish youngsters have actually taken part in Mock Indy Referendums in the last year, the results have resoundingly favoured NO vote.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for. If the effect is entirely due to a small sample of youngsters, scaled up because they couldn't find many bothered enough to give an opinion, the change may not be statistically significant.
That is a downright LIE, show us the proof, only last week in Ayrshire both schools went from NO to YES after the debate.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
In the event that this treaty could be magically agreed and signed by 2017 it would obviously be overwhelmingly likely that it would subsequently die unratified, so what you seem to be suggesting is that the voters would get two choices, "in" and "out", and having voted "in", they would get "out".
If there is a negotiated treaty why is it "overwhelmingly likely" to subsequently die unratified?
But in any event, if the terms on which the UK population vote to remain in the EU on are taken off the table, then I would assume - hypothetically - the natural solution is a second in/out referendum. One in which I suspect 'out' would be well placed since the idea of a deal being reneged on wouldn't - IMV - go down well with an already suspicious electorate
The Scots referendum is starting to have the experience we had in Wales when it was all down to the last result in Carmarthenshire and the yes vote got in by a handful of votes. This was not a satisfactory result for anyone and there gas remained in Wales a hard core of anti WG sentiment. I hope I am wrong and the result, either way, us clear cut.
Commentators on here really have lost it if they think the security services would not consider it an issue if the Prime Minister's house was without electricity for any length of time. Irrespective of what whatever party he is from.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Haha well he managed to phone the electricity company alright!
For goodness sake!
A call from a policeman to SSE on his mobile is not that secure a communication (although more likely they would have called Downing Street with some kind of code, because you wouldn't want to put out on an unsecure line that the PM's power is down). They would then have called SSE.
I'd be more worried if there had been an urgent situation - say a bomb on the South Bank over New Year - which couldn't be securely communicated to the PM.
Could be the other way around: If you plan an attack, you start by messing with the power to disable and/or confuse some of the security systems. Either way security-wise it seems like something you'd want to get to reasonably quickly, at least to figure out what happened.
Yes, some encryptors do indeed interpret fluctuating mains as an attack and shut down. It can be problematic
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
(a) this was a debate about regions, not cities. A separate parliament for a city doesn't make sense (b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Sorry, didn't realise that this was about regions and/or separate parliaments. I thought it was about territorially homogenous Labour areas. However, in the same way that England votes Tory, the North East and the North West vote Labour. If you are arguing that there are parts of both the NE and NW that vote Tory,. I agree; but then there are big parts of England that vote Labour. I believe that in an rUK there will be much more pressure from such regions for their wishes to be accommodated. And that sooner rather than later this will happen.
But that's my point: assuming you are not going down the route of a parliament for Newcastle, say, then you have to look to Northumbria. But that is not homogenously Labour voting.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Note: phones *do* run on electricity; however they are powered from the exchange and not the subscriber's home. It's quite a complex system nowadays.
A pure semi-educated guess on the secure comms question: any encryption / decryption system would probably require more voltage and current than is present on a phone line. I'd therefore expect it to have mains and/or battery power as well.
We'd need someone who knows more about the likes of STU-III, if they can actually talk. ;-)
But I could well be wrong on that. Telephony can be weird and counter-intuitive ...
If you need some "bollocks" phone Josias. Name any mobile phone that is powered from the exchange. Methinks you are getting a bit confused with powering a static phone line where the voltages are controlled from the exchange, beggar all to do with the phone. If you are using a standard plug in phone a power cut in the house means no loss of telephone access, only if using a wireless phone that uses mains voltage to talk to a control unit would be an issue. I seriously doubt he will be using a trimphone in any event, and his entourage will have many many mobile phones available.
Yes, I know that,and you'd have to be rather odd to construe anything different from what I've written. The words "however they are powered from the exchange and not the subscriber's home" might have been a clue. ;-)
My point is that any equipment on the end of the phone line, aside from basic receivers would probably need power. Even DECTs need power.
You are right about mobiles, but they also have rather limited battery life, especially if intensively used. I doubt they'd rely on mobile access for many things - they have problems and vulnerabilities when it comes to security. It would be a backup at best.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
In the event that this treaty could be magically agreed and signed by 2017 it would obviously be overwhelmingly likely that it would subsequently die unratified, so what you seem to be suggesting is that the voters would get two choices, "in" and "out", and having voted "in", they would get "out".
If there is a negotiated treaty why is it "overwhelmingly likely" to subsequently die unratified?
But in any event, if the terms on which the UK population vote to remain in the EU on are taken off the table, then I would assume - hypothetically - the natural solution is a second in/out referendum. One in which I suspect 'out' would be well placed since the idea of a deal being reneged on wouldn't - IMV - go down well with an already suspicious electorate
It's overwhelmingly likely to die unratified because EU treaties are incredibly hard to pass given a decent economy, reforms that are basically no-brainers that everyone agrees with and a long negotiation making sure there's something in it for everyone. This one would have been hurriedly cobbled together with a bunch of things most people were opposed to, and they'd be trying to get it past a bunch of electorates that are exceedingly narked off.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
They have just brought in John Barrowman , did his panto bit and insulted Alex Salmond, Better Together think it is awesome. Think I just might be wavering.
I watched the first couple of minutes.
The impression I got was that it was his standard Burns Night party piece, but that someone else had written in the (slightly pathetic) jabs at Salmond. They didn't seem to fit with the rest of the flow & he seemed much less comfortable with the lines.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
LOL, whathone planet do you live on. The terrorist cell headquartered in Cameron's back garden noticed that the TV had gone off , what luck a power cut , let us attack immediately before SSE are ordered to drop everything to get round here pronto as Dave was enjoying "The Sound of Music".
Could be the other way around: If you plan an attack, you start by messing with the power to disable and/or confuse some of the security systems. Either way security-wise it seems like something you'd want to get to reasonably quickly, at least to figure out what happened.
LOL, Terrorists get large storm to flood the country and have Cameron's power cutoff, whilst they are contacting Josias to find out how phones work , the dastardly terrorists swing into action, luckily they struggle to get past the assorted Range Rovers , Bentleys , etc and are thwarted when SSE turn up pronto and foil their cunning plan.
Commentators on here really have lost it if they think the security services would not consider it an issue if the Prime Minister's house was without electricity for any length of time. Irrespective of what whatever party he is from.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
Lol, weren't you saying the referendum was a done deal for No only yesterday?
Don't panic!
Not panicking at all but it is an argument that can be lost by default as this poll is hinting at. Fwiw I still think No will win but I am not sure a low profile campaign is the best tactic. I think some of us in England are guilty of shrugging their shoulders about the whole matter. We don't see that much that goes on in your local media - perhaps you can tell me if Charlie Kennedy has emerged above the parapet.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
In the event that this treaty could be magically agreed and signed by 2017 it would obviously be overwhelmingly likely that it would subsequently die unratified, so what you seem to be suggesting is that the voters would get two choices, "in" and "out", and having voted "in", they would get "out".
If there is a negotiated treaty why is it "overwhelmingly likely" to subsequently die unratified?
But in any event, if the terms on which the UK population vote to remain in the EU on are taken off the table, then I would assume - hypothetically - the natural solution is a second in/out referendum. One in which I suspect 'out' would be well placed since the idea of a deal being reneged on wouldn't - IMV - go down well with an already suspicious electorate
It is overwhelmingly likely because there is no way on earth every one of the other 27 countries are going to agree to the UK getting preferential treatment as a special case within the EU. Some might agree to it but I really don't see there is a cat in hells chance of every country agreeing to that without getting their own concessions.
And as long as it is not ratified by a large majority of the members it is meaningless.
As an American who has worked on two Presidential Campaigns and quite a few lower down ones, so I am used to upsets coming out of left-field, especially in areas that are divided culturally rather than ideologically, and I spent three years in Scotland for University.
My two cents on this is that YES has a good shot to win, because the SNP has properly exploited the major split in Scotland. Yes a majority of residents of Scotland are Unionist, but a majority of Scots are Pro-Independence. What do I mean?
There are two cultures almost co-existing in Scotland. Many members of the middle class sees themselves as Britons who happen to live in Scotland. They struggle to get their kids into good schools, and for them Oxford or Cambridge is the goal, followed, if those can't be achieved by LSE, KCL, Durham, Edinburgh, or St. Andrews. Even the latter two are filled with the students who look forward to migrating to London for work after graduation. To the extent they remain in Scotland, they live in Edinburgh and basically pretend they are in a smaller version of England.
The problem for them is that they don't vote. Bcause they see themselves as part of something greater, and because they tend to have high mobility within Scotland, they have little knowledge of local politics, who their councilors are. Holyrod is a weird place filled with strange people they like to mock and complain about, but would never bother voting. Interested in national politics, but because Scotland is largely Labour v. SNP they have little bone in that fight.
The key to the SNP's success has been the inability of any of the Unionist party's to mobilize these voters. The SNP has done better using them as a foil- it runs on resentment, portraying the local economic elite as an outside colonial force, culturally foreign, if not actually so. Labour is forced into the defense of a privileged group that is too lazy to defend itself.
As to how this plays in the referendum, the SNP has increasingly managed to make the referendum not about actual independence but about Scottish identity. Is Scotland little more than Cornwall or Essex, where parents shuffle to work so their kids can move to London for jobs, or is capable of running itself? That cultural appeal has enormous emotional resonance, and those it has resonance with will vote. Furthermore, all of the NO campaigns economic arguments tend to fall flat, because its the losers in Scotland, not the winners voting for independence, and there is an element of making everyone as miserable as they are, or at least making their miserableness the center of Scottish identity that is driving them.
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Of course the whole point of the story is that it is bad PR for Cameron. That's why The Mail contrasted his emergency with the 11,000 people who had to wait, and made great play of the fact the was watching The Sound Of Music
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
LOL, probably has a strowger exchange chugging away in the dining room , keeping him in touch with all those important people he needs to talk to about those nasty terrorists who want to harm him. You should be on the stage or in a museum.
Pray tell me, what PBX's do not require mains power long-term?
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Josias, most PBX's are not in people's houses and they always have PSU backup that would be expected to last a day or so. Even allowing he had a PBX , if he plugged a standard phone , ie NON mains into the socket it would work as the remote exchange supplies the voltages that work the static line. Failing that they could have used one of the 10 or so mobiles which Cameron and his flunkies would all have had at least one of.
The Scots referendum is starting to have the experience we had in Wales when it was all down to the last result in Carmarthenshire and the yes vote got in by a handful of votes. This was not a satisfactory result for anyone and there gas remained in Wales a hard core of anti WG sentiment. I hope I am wrong and the result, either way, us clear cut.
Very good point:
Scotland may be independent with a few "Unckie" votes but the cost will be immemorial, Stupid people do not understand how a 50.1 v 49.9 vote [Wee-Eck's best chance] will damage Scotland!
can also add that a Scots yes vote would make a similar vote in Wales within 10 years, inevitable.
I have to disagree with you Valleyboy.
We could debate the economics of whether an independent Scotland can pay for itself but in Wales the argument is much more clear cut. Wales is subsidised by England.
In order to be independent Wales would need to go through an economic upheaval similar to Greece which its chief politicians could never countenance.
Economically, there may be a stronger sentiment towards caution than would otherwise be the case. I doubt many will soon forget the financial crisis or what happened with Greece and Italy.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
LOL, whathone planet do you live on. The terrorist cell headquartered in Cameron's back garden noticed that the TV had gone off , what luck a power cut , let us attack immediately before SSE are ordered to drop everything to get round here pronto as Dave was enjoying "The Sound of Music".
Could be the other way around: If you plan an attack, you start by messing with the power to disable and/or confuse some of the security systems. Either way security-wise it seems like something you'd want to get to reasonably quickly, at least to figure out what happened.
LOL, Terrorists get large storm to flood the country and have Cameron's power cutoff, whilst they are contacting Josias to find out how phones work , the dastardly terrorists swing into action, luckily they struggle to get past the assorted Range Rovers , Bentleys , etc and are thwarted when SSE turn up pronto and foil their cunning plan.
The terrorists don't have to actually cause the storm. Say you have someone on the inside who can mess with the power, and you use the storm for cover. Terrorist paranoia in Britain is normally over-the-top, but a PM is a serious target, and one nearly got blown up not too long ago.
The Scots referendum is starting to have the experience we had in Wales when it was all down to the last result in Carmarthenshire and the yes vote got in by a handful of votes. This was not a satisfactory result for anyone and there gas remained in Wales a hard core of anti WG sentiment. I hope I am wrong and the result, either way, us clear cut.
Very good point:
Scotland may be independent with a few "Unckie" votes but the cost will be immemorial, Stupid people do not understand how a 50.1 v 49.9 vote [Wee-Eck's best chance] will damage Scotland!
:buy-pop-corn-and monkey-nut-shares:
Quebec narrowly missed that in 1995, with the additional issue of a highly unclear question and threats by Montreal to secede from Quebec. Ottawa was apparently preparing to ignore the results and potentially use force. Avoided 50.6-49.4.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
That really is an idiotic posting and smacks of desperation.
My support for Scots independence has nothing to do with my UKIP membership nor my dislike for Cameron beyond the fact that both causes are informed by the same intellectual root - that of a Libertarian belief in extremely small/limited government and the right of self determination.
I have long argued on here that the Anti-EU pro Unionist position advocated by many - including the UKIP leadership - is incoherent since the same arguments against membership of the EU should apply to the Union.
I know you are desperate for some grand conspiracy here but the simple fact is that my pro Scots Independence position, whilst internally consistent with my beliefs, is at odds with most other UKIP members and the UKIP leadership.
I think you need to go back and think that one through again.
Really - so the newkippers that are supposed to be the emerging force in your party are also all dyed in the wool unionists. Either way the fact is if Cameron loses the referendum on his watch on the way to losing the 2015 GE it is supremely good news for his enemies on the realign the right brigade whether they currently reside in UKIP or in the parliamentary Tory party.
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Of course the whole point of the story is that it is bad PR for Cameron. That's why The Mail contrasted his emergency with the 11,000 people who had to wait, and made great play of the fact the was watching The Sound Of Music
LOL, probably has a strowger exchange chugging away in the dining room , keeping him in touch with all those important people he needs to talk to about those nasty terrorists who want to harm him. You should be on the stage or in a museum.
Pray tell me, what PBX's do not require mains power long-term?
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Josias, most PBX's are not in people's houses and they always have PSU backup that would be expected to last a day or so. Even allowing he had a PBX , if he plugged a standard phone , ie NON mains into the socket it would work as the remote exchange supplies the voltages that work the static line. Failing that they could have used one of the 10 or so mobiles which Cameron and his flunkies would all have had at least one of.
He's not an ordinary person - he's the PM. I've no idea if he has a PBX in the house, but it's certainly possible given the comms equipment that might be fitted out. Add in the security equipment (e.g. CCTV cameras, motion sensors and goodness knows what else), and you can see why it might be rather important to get the power back on.
You also apparently missed the bit where I said:
"If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line."
If you're going to argue with someone, at least read what they write ...
It seems to me, whatever the result of the Scottish referendum, that a large minority of the people of Scotland (on whichever side loses) are going to feel traumatized for a long time to come. As a close result seems likely then maybe it's time that politicians on both sides of the argument remember that they have a duty of care to the people that they all represent?
As an outsider I'll freely admit that I'm not closely observing the campaigns but if the stuff being reported here on PB is representative then both sides really do need to turn things down a few notches and cease their wilder claims and scare stories. I don't expect them to do so though - modern politics is the art of creating false divisions and cynically exploiting them.
The Scots referendum is starting to have the experience we had in Wales when it was all down to the last result in Carmarthenshire and the yes vote got in by a handful of votes. This was not a satisfactory result for anyone and there gas remained in Wales a hard core of anti WG sentiment. I hope I am wrong and the result, either way, us clear cut.
Very good point:
Scotland may be independent with a few "Unckie" votes but the cost will be immemorial, Stupid people do not understand how a 50.1 v 49.9 vote [Wee-Eck's best chance] will damage Scotland!
:buy-pop-corn-and monkey-nut-shares:
Fluffy, it is due to stupid people , aka like your good self that we are where we are. The cost cannot be more than we pay today and so it is a simple vote and can only go one way. Watch the odds tumble over the next months.
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Of course the whole point of the story is that it is bad PR for Cameron. That's why The Mail contrasted his emergency with the 11,000 people who had to wait, and made great play of the fact the was watching The Sound Of Music
Pathetic stuff.
A lot of key swing voters are pathetically uninformed, and this is just the kind of bullshit that can swing them.
What I want is for the UK to leave the EU and will go with whatever method is most likely top achieve that eventuality. That is not Cameron's referendum. He will not achieve any real concessions from the EU but will return claiming victory. When it comes to the EU he is thoroughly dishonest with the British people about both what he wants and what is possible. As such the first objective of any Eurosceptic who wants out of the EU should be to get rid of Cameron.
I know your fanatical support for Cameron won't let you see this but he has become the problem not the answer.
But since you seem to think his renegotiation ploy is genuine do tell me exactly how you think he is going to be able to win any meaningful and binding change from the EU before 2017? I would love to hear how you think he will persuade the other 27 members unanimously to support repatriation of powers and get it all passed and ratified by a treaty before 2017?
You are obsessed with David Cameron. Look, it's simple: if there's a Conservative majority, there will be an In/Out referendum. That is all you need to know. You and UKIP have been banging on about wanting an In/Out a referendum: what part of the word 'Yes' do you not understand? David Cameron is a complete irrelevance from your point of view.
As for how successful renegotiation will be, I don't know. You might well be right that nothing much comes of it. (That's GOOD from your point of view, of course). David Cameron can't work miracles: we shouldn't have started from here, and the people to blame for the sorry mess the country is in are the people you are working to put back into government: the Labour Party which signed and ratified Lisbon on terms which should never have been accepted, and which did not need to be accepted. I have never claimed that getting us out of that mess will be simple: it's hugely difficult. If we don't succeed, then I will consider voting to leave.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 7 mins CON voter splut on the Ed Balls plan to bring back the 50% tax rate for top earners 40% Agree 33% Disagree @Survation Mail on Sunday
I said yesterday it was an entirely political move. That is VERY good news for Labour though if CON voters are in favour - politically speaking. I'd have expected the dividing line to be between Con and Lab voters - not somewhere within the Conservative party.
LOL, probably has a strowger exchange chugging away in the dining room , keeping him in touch with all those important people he needs to talk to about those nasty terrorists who want to harm him. You should be on the stage or in a museum.
Pray tell me, what PBX's do not require mains power long-term?
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Josias, most PBX's are not in people's houses and they always have PSU backup that would be expected to last a day or so. Even allowing he had a PBX , if he plugged a standard phone , ie NON mains into the socket it would work as the remote exchange supplies the voltages that work the static line. Failing that they could have used one of the 10 or so mobiles which Cameron and his flunkies would all have had at least one of.
He's not an ordinary person - he's the PM. I've no idea if he has a PBX in the house, but it's certainly possible given the comms equipment that might be fitted out. Add in the security equipment (e.g. CCTV cameras, motion sensors and goodness knows what else), and you can see why it might be rather important to get the power back on.
You also apparently missed the bit where I said:
"If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line."
If you're going to argue with someone, at least read what they write ...
Josias, I read it and it was bollocks. All you need , ignoring mobile phones , is a standard handset. The static phone line is powered by the BT exchange. If you add in the in car comms the police would have , mobile phones , back up power etc etc , just bollocks.
What I want is for the UK to leave the EU and will go with whatever method is most likely top achieve that eventuality. That is not Cameron's referendum. He will not achieve any real concessions from the EU but will return claiming victory. When it comes to the EU he is thoroughly dishonest with the British people about both what he wants and what is possible. As such the first objective of any Eurosceptic who wants out of the EU should be to get rid of Cameron.
I know your fanatical support for Cameron won't let you see this but he has become the problem not the answer.
But since you seem to think his renegotiation ploy is genuine do tell me exactly how you think he is going to be able to win any meaningful and binding change from the EU before 2017? I would love to hear how you think he will persuade the other 27 members unanimously to support repatriation of powers and get it all passed and ratified by a treaty before 2017?
You are obsessed with David Cameron. Look, it's simple: if there's a Conservative majority, there will be an In/Out referendum. That is all you need to know. You and UKIP have been banging on about wanting an In/Out a referendum: what part of the word 'Yes' do you not understand? David Cameron is a complete irrelevance from your point of view.
As for how successful renegotiation will be, I don't know. You might well be right that nothing much comes of it. (That's GOOD from your point of view, of course). David Cameron can't work miracles: we shouldn't have started from here, and the people to blame for the sorry mess the country is in are the people you are working to put back into government: the Labour Party which signed and ratified Lisbon on terms which should never have been accepted, and which did not need to be accepted. I have never claimed that getting us out of that mess will be simple: it's hugely difficult. If we don't succeed, then I will consider voting to leave.
I do so love the way you only read what you want to read whether it is there or not. Try actually looking at what people are writing rather than falling back on your bigoted stereotypes all the time.
David Cameron will do everything in his power to ensure we stay in the EU. He has explicitly said he will never support us leaving - no ifs, no buts.
As a fanatical Cameroon I know you desperately want Dear Dave to be loved by all but many of us see through his lies. Whilst he is in power we will never leave the EU. It is as simple as that. And as a result getting rid of Cameron must be a priority for anyone who genuinely wants out of the EU.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for.
Excellent. If the most obsequious Cameroonian spinners weren't trying to rubbish it then PB might cease to be the comically out of touch place where Osbrowne's omnishambles was hailed as a triumph by the PB tories.
So if I'm reading the thread right Mick thinks the ICM represents a trend and Richard thinks it's noise. The next ICM should settle this - If Mick is right the lead will keep shrinking, and if Richard is right it will grow as it reverts to the mean. Maybe you guys could bet on it? FWIW I'd rather be on Richard's side of that one.
If by "reading this thread right" you actually mean ignoring what is said and making up your own straw man, then yes. It's self-evidently a very good poll for Yes from the supposed Gold Standard pollster. I was the one who posted the info from scot goes pop on the possibility of another poll fairly soon. The most out of touch Cameroons trying to rubbish the poll is absolutely as unsurprising as their inept and doomed attempts to spin the omnishambles as a triumph for Osbrowne.
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Of course the whole point of the story is that it is bad PR for Cameron. That's why The Mail contrasted his emergency with the 11,000 people who had to wait, and made great play of the fact the was watching The Sound Of Music
Pathetic stuff.
The point of linking to it on here was to show how Cameron is viewed by The Mail, not to make a point about security, that was a strawman attack from Tories who tried to say that I personally had suggested the Prime Minister should be without electricity!
Personally I think it would be weird if the PM didn't get speedier service than the rest of us, he isn't just a normal bloke
Setting aside the pros and cons of SSE moving to quickly reset Cameron's trip switch, this story is disastrous PR for him. There are thousands of people in a similar , or far worse, situation to this, and the power companies ain't racing to their rescue. During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
Of course the whole point of the story is that it is bad PR for Cameron. That's why The Mail contrasted his emergency with the 11,000 people who had to wait, and made great play of the fact the was watching The Sound Of Music
Sam,this from the daily mail article -
The SSE spokesman told MailOnline: ‘The Prime Minister did not receive any preferential treatment when we attended his property.
'And further, this visit was not to the detriment of any other customers who may have been without power. To suggest otherwise would be absolutely false.'
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this,would PM miliband or president Obama receive the same coverage or p!ss take.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
That really is an idiotic posting and smacks of desperation.
My support for Scots independence has nothing to do with my UKIP membership nor my dislike for Cameron beyond the fact that both causes are informed by the same intellectual root - that of a Libertarian belief in extremely small/limited government and the right of self determination.
I have long argued on here that the Anti-EU pro Unionist position advocated by many - including the UKIP leadership - is incoherent since the same arguments against membership of the EU should apply to the Union.
I know you are desperate for some grand conspiracy here but the simple fact is that my pro Scots Independence position, whilst internally consistent with my beliefs, is at odds with most other UKIP members and the UKIP leadership.
I think you need to go back and think that one through again.
Really - so the newkippers that are supposed to be the emerging force in your party are also all dyed in the wool unionists. Either way the fact is if Cameron loses the referendum on his watch on the way to losing the 2015 GE it is supremely good news for his enemies on the realign the right brigade whether they currently reside in UKIP or in the parliamentary Tory party.
You specifically made accusations about me regarding my support for Scottish Independence being informed by my UKIP membership even though UKIP are opposed to Independence. It was a particularly stupid post and you should at least the decency to accept it was wrong.
Of course you won't since like Nabavi you are only interested in stereotypes.
Pray tell me, what PBX's do not require mains power long-term?
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Josias, most PBX's are not in people's houses and they always have PSU backup that would be expected to last a day or so. Even allowing he had a PBX , if he plugged a standard phone , ie NON mains into the socket it would work as the remote exchange supplies the voltages that work the static line. Failing that they could have used one of the 10 or so mobiles which Cameron and his flunkies would all have had at least one of.
He's not an ordinary person - he's the PM. I've no idea if he has a PBX in the house, but it's certainly possible given the comms equipment that might be fitted out. Add in the security equipment (e.g. CCTV cameras, motion sensors and goodness knows what else), and you can see why it might be rather important to get the power back on.
You also apparently missed the bit where I said:
"If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line."
If you're going to argue with someone, at least read what they write ...
Josias, I read it and it was bollocks. All you need , ignoring mobile phones , is a standard handset. The static phone line is powered by the BT exchange. If you add in the in car comms the police would have , mobile phones , back up power etc etc , just bollocks.
"The static phone line is powered by the BT exchange. "
As I said in the first place - see below. But the things off that basic subscriber line are not powered from the exchange. Besides, as I've said below, there may also be non-communications equipment that needs powering, such as alarms, CCTV etc.
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
(a) this was a debate about regions, not cities. A separate parliament for a city doesn't make sense (b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Sorry, didn't realise that this was about regions and/or separate parliaments. I thought it was about territorially homogenous Labour areas. However, in the same way that England votes Tory, the North East and the North West vote Labour. If you are arguing that there are parts of both the NE and NW that vote Tory,. I agree; but then there are big parts of England that vote Labour. I believe that in an rUK there will be much more pressure from such regions for their wishes to be accommodated. And that sooner rather than later this will happen.
But that's my point: assuming you are not going down the route of a parliament for Newcastle, say, then you have to look to Northumbria. But that is not homogenously Labour voting.
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this
Or perhaps it's also because it's not exactly difficult to tell that the former PR man Cammie is obsessed by political PR and spin, yet tragically for him, usually laughably incompetent at it.
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this,would PM miliband or president Obama receive the same coverage or p!ss take.
Exactly.
Some papers like to have a go about "his chauffeur driven limo" whenever he goes anywhere, ignoring that he has any armoured Jaguar with a police driver for his safety.
It's just drivel, and the Mirror in particular is a repeat offender with these sort of stories.
Regional parliaments within England are a bloody despicable idea. An English Parliament is fine, and perhaps needed, but a Yorkshire Parliament would be ridiculous.
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this
Or perhaps it's also because it's not exactly difficult to tell that the former PR man Cammie is obsessed by political PR and spin, yet tragically for him, usually laughably incompetent at it.
Scotland votes YES, and then they go and vote in some SLAB anyway - bear with me on this - I think there are Scottish voters who would go with the red team should it be the devil himself on the ballot paper.
Labour has a good but not great night in England and the make up of Westminster is that Labour have 305 seats. Meanwhile the Conservatives lost their only Scottish seat to the SNP but in England and Wales have claimed 296 seats. They've made gains from the Lib Dems but lost to Labour.
The SNP has made gains but failed to batter down the SLAB stronghold where the most cling to nurse NO Labour voters are (The referendum turnout was a bit lower than expected - central belt voters still in love with Labour), they are on 20 seats.
UKIP has had a decent night too picking up 2 seats, Thanet South and North. Farage is an MP and hopes to build on his position.
Meanwhile Danny Alexander has lost his seats, the SNP even threatened to take Orkney and Shetland at one point but Carmichael held on. They've fared dreadfully in England too and have ended up with 9 seats. Faron, Clegg, Carmichael and a few others form a rump.
18 NI MPs.
Which Goverment is formed in this scenario ?
Labour would not win 305 seats in rUK in 2015 under that scenario. It would require them to do proportionately as well in England as they did in 2005 under Blair.
My fayher is planning to vote UKIP, but is pro EU, so one of the 6%. So far as I can tell he wants to give both LibDems and Tories a kicking. He lives in Romsey so it is an LD/Con marginal.
He mostly is against the "political correctness" and similar metropolitanism of the other three parties.
As an aside, does anyone have links to recent UK polling on EU membership?
Cheers in advance.
The latest I have seen is from November which was a yougov poll. This was the first poll for many months that showed in and out equal. Almost all previous polls since 2011 had shown out ahead.
Annoyingly yougov ask a second question on what the answer would be if Cameron recommended we stay in after 'renegotiation' but fail to ask what the answer would be if the renegotiations failed.
Thanks.
On a sidenote, I find the 6% of UKIP voters who'd want to stay in the EU intriguing. It would be interesting to see if this percentage increases, as it might be a sign that UKIP's offer is becoming about more than just Europe.
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this
Or perhaps it's also because it's not exactly difficult to tell that the former PR man Cammie is obsessed by political PR and spin, yet tragically for him, usually laughably incompetent at it.
Unless you are a Scot who does have a British identity it's hard to see why you would vote No to independence. It's a chance to start again. I feel British, work with people from all parts of the UK and culturally, socially and in almost every other "ly" I can think of see no real difference between us, and as someone on the centre left I instinctively recoil at the idea of seeking to create differences that do not really exist based on a line on a map, but if I were up in Scotland I suspect that I would feel somewhat differently. Seen from there, there is a chance to get rid of the dominant place the SE of England has economically and politically in the UK, and to create something new. Why wouldn't you take it, even if it does leave you slightly worse off in the short term?
The truth is that none of us really have a good "feel" for what Scots think, aside from the enthusiastic nationalists on here, because we don't live in Scotland and aren't Scottish.
I did live in Scotland for 6 years in the 1990s, so my perspective is hopelessly out of date. Even then, though, I saw much through Scottish eyes: Scottish Sun newspaper, BBC Scotland, Scottish news, Scottish education spending, Scottish pounds etc - so there was a very different view. However, as you say, cultural, socially, linguistically (even) it didn't feel very different.
It's also a bit of a myth that they are all hugely left-wing too.
The fact is that the Scots are pretty much like the English, who are pretty much like the Welsh. But nationalism is all about playing on small differences and it is effective - the SNP are particularly good at it, largely because they are clearly a nationalist party before they are a centre left one. And they do have a compelling story to tell on, for example, how the Tories and Labour wasted the North Sea oil bonanza.
I suspect that should Scotland go - and who would bet against it now? _ we will see a much greater level of regional identity emerging in England. I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
It's very hard to believe that following a Scottish Yes, we will not see a fundamental reorganisation of the rUK's political system. It will do us all a power of good should it happen.
I agree that it might throw the FPTP voting system up in the air and lead to a realignment of all the main political parties. I don't see any evidence that an independent Scotland would lead to a rush of enthusiasm for regional government within England.
Who was driving and parking this time, it wasn't Osborne last time although he got the blame? And will the Daily Mirror make it a front page headline tomorrow?
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
Lol, weren't you saying the referendum was a done deal for No only yesterday?
Don't panic!
Not panicking at all but it is an argument that can be lost by default as this poll is hinting at. Fwiw I still think No will win but I am not sure a low profile campaign is the best tactic. I think some of us in England are guilty of shrugging their shoulders about the whole matter. We don't see that much that goes on in your local media - perhaps you can tell me if Charlie Kennedy has emerged above the parapet.
Re. Charlie Kennedy, not at all afaicr. Opinions differ but I think he'd be an asset to the BT campaign. I assume either he has too much baggage, or he's luke warm about the prospect.
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this
Or perhaps it's also because it's not exactly difficult to tell that the former PR man Cammie is obsessed by political PR and spin, yet tragically for him, usually laughably incompetent at it.
Regional parliaments within England are a bloody despicable idea. An English Parliament is fine, and perhaps needed, but a Yorkshire Parliament would be ridiculous.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 7 mins CON voter splut on the Ed Balls plan to bring back the 50% tax rate for top earners 40% Agree 33% Disagree @Survation Mail on Sunday
I said yesterday it was an entirely political move. That is VERY good news for Labour though if CON voters are in favour - politically speaking. I'd have expected the dividing line to be between Con and Lab voters - not somewhere within the Conservative party.
Some of the Omnishambles polling (there were quite a few polls) wasn't that different when 50p came up. (It was of course ignored by the most amusingly loyal Cameroons) Though to be honest the biggest drop in tory party polling this entire parliament which came after the 50p and Osbrowne's omnishambles, does tend to speak for itself.
The most sensible policy for devolution in England is the city aind county councils, restoring some powers to these would be more sensible than any invented regions.
Regional parliaments within England are a bloody despicable idea. An English Parliament is fine, and perhaps needed, but a Yorkshire Parliament would be ridiculous.
The most sensible policy for devolution in England is the city aind county councils, restoring some powers to these would be more sensible than any invented regions.
Regional parliaments within England are a bloody despicable idea. An English Parliament is fine, and perhaps needed, but a Yorkshire Parliament would be ridiculous.
I'm with Mili on this. You can't put a temporary measure in place to address deficits - it's practically a contradiction in terms. (Some Tory fool came out with the same guff over the Child Benefit cut for millionaires, before Ozzy rightly slapped him down.) Nevertheless, it sounds as if Balls is getting cold feet over the policy. The leadership need to get their story straight, and pronto, or this could blow up in their faces.
No they didn't. I think you're the one guilty of believing their spin if you 'credit' them with that. It's always been around. What you are referring to is the Clinton model that Blair and Gould stole wholesale of focus groups and triangulation. That Blair embraced with a passion as has his disciple Cameron. But spin has always been around. Call it propaganda, the official line or whatever.
In the beginning Gord created the debt and the deficit. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Gord moved upon the face of the waters.
But the son of Gord saw the darkness and the deep, and he was sore afraid.
So the son of Gord decided there must be light, and he sought to divide the land from the deep; and he decreed a freeze upon all the waters.
But the waters flowed all over the lands, right into the houses of the mighty, and it flowed e'en unto the sources of light, and the darkness and the waters remained.
So the Son of Gord, saith unto Satan, who sitteth on his far left hand side, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the blue water from the slime and the mud.”
And Satan made the expanse, and divided the waters into halves; the hordes which were under the moiety from the few which were above the motley: and it was so.
And Satan ordered a tax upon this few.
But darkness fell again upon the face of the earth, this night threatening to last for five long years, with the sun blotted from the intellectual heaven, and every star extinguished, and there fell upon the world that shadow — that midnight, known as the Kingdom of Gord.
But Dave said, Let there be light: and their was light. And SSE created the light.
And Dave called the light blue, and the darkness he called red.
And the son of Gord saw that the light was blue, and that it was good: And that Dave had divided the light from the darkness, and the earth from the deep.
And the Gord, the Son of Gord and Satan were greatly jealous, and, quite frankly, in a right old strop, and thus they remained forever in the darkness and the deep.
Here endeth the reading for the second Sunday after Epiphany.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
Lol, weren't you saying the referendum was a done deal for No only yesterday?
Don't panic!
Not panicking at all but it is an argument that can be lost by default as this poll is hinting at. Fwiw I still think No will win but I am not sure a low profile campaign is the best tactic. I think some of us in England are guilty of shrugging their shoulders about the whole matter. We don't see that much that goes on in your local media - perhaps you can tell me if Charlie Kennedy has emerged above the parapet.
Re. Charlie Kennedy, not at all afaicr. Opinions differ but I think he'd be an asset to the BT campaign. I assume either he has too much baggage, or he's luke warm about the prospect.
Agree that he's been very quiet lately - I can't remember any recent intervention of significance.
Irrespective of his merits or otherwise, If they fronted him, in any case, I think it'd only be seen as emphasising how it is only the LD and Labour penal battalions fronting for Tories who were afraid to come and get involved (as opposed to doing a seagull, ie. fly in, squawk, and fly out again before the locals can react, like Mr Hague a few days ago).
No they didn't. I think you're the one guilty of believing their spin if you 'credit' them with that. It's always been around. What you are referring to is the Clinton model that Blair and Gould stole wholesale of focus groups and triangulation. That Blair embraced with a passion as has his disciple Cameron. But spin has always been around. Call it propaganda, the official line or whatever.
In the beginning Gord created the debt and the deficit.
What’s interesting about Ed Balls’ denial is that even the IMF now admits that the problem came before the crash – the below graph shows that the UK economy, under Labour, suffered its worst-ever overheating. It’s IMF data, but the IMF missed this at the time (the graph in pink is what it said then: i.e., no overheating, everything perfect). The IMF has changed its view, in the light of new economic data. Balls has not.
No they didn't. I think you're the one guilty of believing their spin if you 'credit' them with that. It's always been around. What you are referring to is the Clinton model that Blair and Gould stole wholesale of focus groups and triangulation. That Blair embraced with a passion as has his disciple Cameron. But spin has always been around. Call it propaganda, the official line or whatever.
No they didn't. I think you're the one guilty of believing their spin if you 'credit' them with that. It's always been around. What you are referring to is the Clinton model that Blair and Gould stole wholesale of focus groups and triangulation. That Blair embraced with a passion as has his disciple Cameron. But spin has always been around. Call it propaganda, the official line or whatever.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
Lol, weren't you saying the referendum was a done deal for No only yesterday?
Don't panic!
Not panicking at all but it is an argument that can be lost by default as this poll is hinting at. Fwiw I still think No will win but I am not sure a low profile campaign is the best tactic. I think some of us in England are guilty of shrugging their shoulders about the whole matter. We don't see that much that goes on in your local media - perhaps you can tell me if Charlie Kennedy has emerged above the parapet.
Re. Charlie Kennedy, not at all afaicr. Opinions differ but I think he'd be an asset to the BT campaign. I assume either he has too much baggage, or he's luke warm about the prospect.
Agree that he's been very quiet lately - I can't remember any recent intervention of significance.
Irrespective of his merits or otherwise, If they fronted him, in any case, I think it'd only be seen as emphasising how it is only the LD and Labour penal battalions fronting for Tories who were afraid to come and get involved (as opposed to doing a seagull, ie. fly in, squawk, and fly out again before the locals can react, like Mr Hague a few days ago).
It is truly astonishing that so many of lib dems at westminster either haven't noticed that or just don't seem to care. It is blatantly obvious on scottish TV and media with Rennie and Carmichael the go-to daily rent a quotes for the coalition/No campaign. They must have a radio mic permanently wired into them by now. If the lib dems elsewhere ever stopped for a second to wonder just why they are finishing behind the kippers in scotland they might eventually work it out.
Reports from Chez Cameron that his kettle has blown a fuse......which of the utility companies does he need to call to get it sorted?
There are people having their houses flooded and he is either too stupid, sees it as below him or he can't be arsed to go and see if he has tripped a fuse.....what a complete and utter bellend.
From my perspective, as someone with a considerable interest in Thailand, I think SeanT is right. About Thailand, anyway. I think the only thing he's missed, and that may be deliberate, is that there's possibly a succession issue in this.
Now, now. Mr Nick Palmer was praising you the other day for being the site's permanent ray of sunshine, bestowing cheer and optimism at every opportunity. What's gone wrong?
Not panicking at all but it is an argument that can be lost by default as this poll is hinting at. Fwiw I still think No will win but I am not sure a low profile campaign is the best tactic. I think some of us in England are guilty of shrugging their shoulders about the whole matter. We don't see that much that goes on in your local media - perhaps you can tell me if Charlie Kennedy has emerged above the parapet.
Re. Charlie Kennedy, not at all afaicr. Opinions differ but I think he'd be an asset to the BT campaign. I assume either he has too much baggage, or he's luke warm about the prospect.
Agree that he's been very quiet lately - I can't remember any recent intervention of significance.
Irrespective of his merits or otherwise, If they fronted him, in any case, I think it'd only be seen as emphasising how it is only the LD and Labour penal battalions fronting for Tories who were afraid to come and get involved (as opposed to doing a seagull, ie. fly in, squawk, and fly out again before the locals can react, like Mr Hague a few days ago).
It is truly astonishing that so many of lib dems at westminster either haven't noticed that or just don't seem to care. It is blatantly obvious on scottish TV and media with Rennie and Carmichael the go-to daily rent a quotes for the coalition/No campaign. They must have a radio mic permanently wired into them by now. If the lib dems elsewhere ever stopped for a second to wonder just why they are finishing behind the kippers in scotland they might eventually work it out.
As far as I can recall the No campaign haven't even wheeled out the sole Tory MP in Scotland, David Mundell - although Ruth Davidson MSP was on Question Time the other week.
There are 11 LD MPs in Scottish seats but Michael Moore is hors de combat and Jo Swinson has just had a baby and when one ticks off Messrs Alexander and Carmichael that leaves 6 plus Mr Kennedy, all backbenchers. Is it my imagination or are those six also being quieter in the debate than one might perhaps expect?
As it should now be obvious that the europhile political and media class have decided that apart from being dead there is no minimum standard of MP behaviour any more as long as there's the slightest chance of Ukip winning the by-election I think MPs in seats like that should think about taking advantage of this unique opportunity.
So if any MP has ever fancied a spot of human sacrifice or cannibalism now's the time. As long as their seat is Ukip-able they could do it outside parliament, naked and covered in blood and the telly media will totally ignore it.
From my perspective, as someone with a considerable interest in Thailand, I think SeanT is right. About Thailand, anyway. I think the only thing he's missed, and that may be deliberate, is that there's possibly a succession issue in this.
SeanT has always been a bit of a Blood and Iron kinda guy. It gives him the horn!
I am surprised he did not find a way to blame The Guardian and lefties for Thailand's woes.
From my perspective, as someone with a considerable interest in Thailand, I think SeanT is right. About Thailand, anyway. I think the only thing he's missed, and that may be deliberate, is that there's possibly a succession issue in this.
Industrialization creates a tension between town and country. Always does.
While I agree with our missing friend that it's not a simple Left/Right issue IMHO the "revolutionaries" would be felt in the West to have a lot more "Right-ish" elements than the current Thai government.
Comments
Many of the basic positions he apparently wishes to renegotiate including CAP and CFP as well as questions of the way the EU is financed and run are integral to existing treaties and could not be changed without treaty changes.
I seriously doubt he will be using a trimphone in any event, and his entourage will have many many mobile phones available.
The real story that you and other Tories are trying to obsfuscate is that as usual , rich Tory Toff jumps queue and shows how we are all equal and in it together in the wonderful UK.
During heavy storms, we always get called out to water dripping on to electrics, usually after the homeowner has called the Lecky board, and been told there's a 4 hour wait. We just shut it off, and tell 'em to wait for the engineer.
What people are saying is that the security around any high-profile government person - be it Cameron or Salmond - probably requires mains power. There might be UPS's, but they have limited power and duration.
We can hopefully all agree that the top people in government do have threats against them, and that they should be kept as safe and secure from that risk as possible.
In addition, they need to be able to do their jobs, where a crisis might strike at any moment.
As an example, Chequers has security cameras guarding the Ridgeway, which crosses its grounds. I had some fun with those once. ;-)
Salmond's personal security has recently been reviewed, including strengthening security at his homes. There's absolutely no problem with that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/fears-for-salmonds-safety-prompts-police-review.21443587
That doesn't matter - the decision is either does the UK accept it or not. As I said, if the final Treaty is substantially different from the version the vote is held on there needs to be a discussion.
Where it becomes difficult is if there is not a final, agreed (but not ratified) text - i.e. negotiations are ongoing.
Scottish independence would have a limited impact on UK general elections contrary to myth, Attlee and Blair would have won all their elections without Scotland and Wilson 2/4, with Home winning in '64 and Heath in Feb '74, but Home was a Scot and a Heath win would have meant no Maggie!
You're forgetting this could have been serious.
The temperatures in the wine storage units could have been affected.
Scots face less opposition to an independent Scotland from across the border than they might expect, a Sky News poll suggests.
http://news.sky.com/story/1201211/scottish-independence-46-percent-dont-mind
But in any event, if the terms on which the UK population vote to remain in the EU on are taken off the table, then I would assume - hypothetically - the natural solution is a second in/out referendum. One in which I suspect 'out' would be well placed since the idea of a deal being reneged on wouldn't - IMV - go down well with an already suspicious electorate
I hope I am wrong and the result, either way, us clear cut.
Bloody stupid story.
A call from a policeman to SSE on his mobile is not that secure a communication (although more likely they would have called Downing Street with some kind of code, because you wouldn't want to put out on an unsecure line that the PM's power is down). They would then have called SSE.
I'd be more worried if there had been an urgent situation - say a bomb on the South Bank over New Year - which couldn't be securely communicated to the PM.
But that's my point: assuming you are not going down the route of a parliament for Newcastle, say, then you have to look to Northumbria. But that is not homogenously Labour voting.
My point is that any equipment on the end of the phone line, aside from basic receivers would probably need power. Even DECTs need power.
You are right about mobiles, but they also have rather limited battery life, especially if intensively used. I doubt they'd rely on mobile access for many things - they have problems and vulnerabilities when it comes to security. It would be a backup at best.
The impression I got was that it was his standard Burns Night party piece, but that someone else had written in the (slightly pathetic) jabs at Salmond. They didn't seem to fit with the rest of the flow & he seemed much less comfortable with the lines.
And as long as it is not ratified by a large majority of the members it is meaningless.
If the power goes out suddenly, don't you think they would consider the possibility of an external threat and respond accordingly?
My two cents on this is that YES has a good shot to win, because the SNP has properly exploited the major split in Scotland. Yes a majority of residents of Scotland are Unionist, but a majority of Scots are Pro-Independence. What do I mean?
There are two cultures almost co-existing in Scotland. Many members of the middle class sees themselves as Britons who happen to live in Scotland. They struggle to get their kids into good schools, and for them Oxford or Cambridge is the goal, followed, if those can't be achieved by LSE, KCL, Durham, Edinburgh, or St. Andrews. Even the latter two are filled with the students who look forward to migrating to London for work after graduation. To the extent they remain in Scotland, they live in Edinburgh and basically pretend they are in a smaller version of England.
The problem for them is that they don't vote. Bcause they see themselves as part of something greater, and because they tend to have high mobility within Scotland, they have little knowledge of local politics, who their councilors are. Holyrod is a weird place filled with strange people they like to mock and complain about, but would never bother voting. Interested in national politics, but because Scotland is largely Labour v. SNP they have little bone in that fight.
The key to the SNP's success has been the inability of any of the Unionist party's to mobilize these voters. The SNP has done better using them as a foil- it runs on resentment, portraying the local economic elite as an outside colonial force, culturally foreign, if not actually so. Labour is forced into the defense of a privileged group that is too lazy to defend itself.
As to how this plays in the referendum, the SNP has increasingly managed to make the referendum not about actual independence but about Scottish identity. Is Scotland little more than Cornwall or Essex, where parents shuffle to work so their kids can move to London for jobs, or is capable of running itself? That cultural appeal has enormous emotional resonance, and those it has resonance with will vote. Furthermore, all of the NO campaigns economic arguments tend to fall flat, because its the losers in Scotland, not the winners voting for independence, and there is an element of making everyone as miserable as they are, or at least making their miserableness the center of Scottish identity that is driving them.
Scotland may be independent with a few "Unckie" votes but the cost will be immemorial, Stupid people do not understand how a 50.1 v 49.9 vote [Wee-Eck's best chance] will damage Scotland!
:buy-pop-corn-and monkey-nut-shares:
I have to disagree with you Valleyboy.
We could debate the economics of whether an independent Scotland can pay for itself but in Wales the argument is much more clear cut. Wales is subsidised by England.
In order to be independent Wales would need to go through an economic upheaval similar to Greece which its chief politicians could never countenance.
England/Scotland:
Would be:
Delighted: 11 / 25
Dismayed: 34 / 46
Don't Mind: 46 / 17
Economically, there may be a stronger sentiment towards caution than would otherwise be the case. I doubt many will soon forget the financial crisis or what happened with Greece and Italy.
You also apparently missed the bit where I said: If you're going to argue with someone, at least read what they write ...
As an outsider I'll freely admit that I'm not closely observing the campaigns but if the stuff being reported here on PB is representative then both sides really do need to turn things down a few notches and cease their wilder claims and scare stories. I don't expect them to do so though - modern politics is the art of creating false divisions and cynically exploiting them.
As for how successful renegotiation will be, I don't know. You might well be right that nothing much comes of it. (That's GOOD from your point of view, of course). David Cameron can't work miracles: we shouldn't have started from here, and the people to blame for the sorry mess the country is in are the people you are working to put back into government: the Labour Party which signed and ratified Lisbon on terms which should never have been accepted, and which did not need to be accepted. I have never claimed that getting us out of that mess will be simple: it's hugely difficult. If we don't succeed, then I will consider voting to leave.
Josias, I read it and it was bollocks. All you need , ignoring mobile phones , is a standard handset. The static phone line is powered by the BT exchange. If you add in the in car comms the police would have , mobile phones , back up power etc etc , just bollocks.
David Cameron will do everything in his power to ensure we stay in the EU. He has explicitly said he will never support us leaving - no ifs, no buts.
As a fanatical Cameroon I know you desperately want Dear Dave to be loved by all but many of us see through his lies. Whilst he is in power we will never leave the EU. It is as simple as that. And as a result getting rid of Cameron must be a priority for anyone who genuinely wants out of the EU.
Personally I think it would be weird if the PM didn't get speedier service than the rest of us, he isn't just a normal bloke
The SSE spokesman told MailOnline: ‘The Prime Minister did not receive any preferential treatment when we attended his property.
'And further, this visit was not to the detriment of any other customers who may have been without power. To suggest otherwise would be absolutely false.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546165/Engineers-sent-David-Camerons-house-fix-power-suffered-blackout.html
When it come's to Cameron,I think he's a easy target because of his background with stories like this,would PM miliband or president Obama receive the same coverage or p!ss take.
Of course you won't since like Nabavi you are only interested in stereotypes.
"The static phone line is powered by the BT exchange. "
As I said in the first place - see below. But the things off that basic subscriber line are not powered from the exchange. Besides, as I've said below, there may also be non-communications equipment that needs powering, such as alarms, CCTV etc.
Neither is England, which is my point.
http://survation.com/2014/01/ed-balls-labours-fiscal-policy-economic-trust/
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/10/08/article-0-0B888844000005DC-33_634x422.jpg
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cameron-fish-counter-460.jpg
Some papers like to have a go about "his chauffeur driven limo" whenever he goes anywhere, ignoring that he has any armoured Jaguar with a police driver for his safety.
It's just drivel, and the Mirror in particular is a repeat offender with these sort of stories.
I think that lot means that Annie Power goes for the World Hurdle with Ruby riding both the Fly and Annie Power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeGWNJ5sbuw
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00278/104399983__278647b.jpg
He mostly is against the "political correctness" and similar metropolitanism of the other three parties.
He always has and he always will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCovGqMiZyA
labour invented it and the greggs stunt is laughable.
No they didn't. I think you're the one guilty of believing their spin if you 'credit' them with that. It's always been around. What you are referring to is the Clinton model that Blair and Gould stole wholesale of focus groups and triangulation. That Blair embraced with a passion as has his disciple Cameron. But spin has always been around. Call it propaganda, the official line or whatever.
Of course it was. Pasty faced hilarity. Yet who was it that was the laughing stock after the omnishambles? There's a reason for that.
"Does turmoil in Thailand signal the failure of global democracy?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100256601/does-turmoil-in-thailand-signal-the-failure-of-global-democracy/
And the earth was without form, and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of Gord moved upon the face of the waters.
But the son of Gord saw the darkness and the deep,
and he was sore afraid.
So the son of Gord decided there must be light,
and he sought to divide the land from the deep;
and he decreed a freeze upon all the waters.
But the waters flowed all over the lands,
right into the houses of the mighty,
and it flowed e'en unto the sources of light,
and the darkness and the waters remained.
So the Son of Gord, saith unto Satan,
who sitteth on his far left hand side,
“Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters,
and let it separate the blue water from the slime and the mud.”
And Satan made the expanse,
and divided the waters into halves;
the hordes which were under the moiety
from the few which were above the motley:
and it was so.
And Satan ordered a tax upon this few.
But darkness fell again upon the face of the earth,
this night threatening to last for five long years,
with the sun blotted from the intellectual heaven,
and every star extinguished, and there fell upon the
world that shadow — that midnight, known as
the Kingdom of Gord.
But Dave said, Let there be light: and their was light.
And SSE created the light.
And Dave called the light blue, and the darkness he called red.
And the son of Gord saw that the light was blue,
and that it was good:
And that Dave had divided the light from the darkness,
and the earth from the deep.
And the Gord, the Son of Gord and Satan were greatly jealous,
and, quite frankly, in a right old strop,
and thus they remained forever in the darkness and the deep.
Here endeth the reading for the second Sunday after Epiphany.
Irrespective of his merits or otherwise, If they fronted him, in any case, I think it'd only be seen as emphasising how it is only the LD and Labour penal battalions fronting for Tories who were afraid to come and get involved (as opposed to doing a seagull, ie. fly in, squawk, and fly out again before the locals can react, like Mr Hague a few days ago).
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4017107/Ed-Balls-PR-prop-pop-barely-a-day-after-Ed-Miliband-did.html
Pffft. Mere verbal posturing. This is surely more what you were after.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/30/article-0-197C300E000005DC-184_634x400.jpg
Pallet man.
They had and have every intention of letting it rest there.
There are people having their houses flooded and he is either too stupid, sees it as below him or he can't be arsed to go and see if he has tripped a fuse.....what a complete and utter bellend.
There are 11 LD MPs in Scottish seats but Michael Moore is hors de combat and Jo Swinson has just had a baby and when one ticks off Messrs Alexander and Carmichael that leaves 6 plus Mr Kennedy, all backbenchers. Is it my imagination or are those six also being quieter in the debate than one might perhaps expect?
So if any MP has ever fancied a spot of human sacrifice or cannibalism now's the time. As long as their seat is Ukip-able they could do it outside parliament, naked and covered in blood and the telly media will totally ignore it.
I am surprised he did not find a way to blame The Guardian and lefties for Thailand's woes.
So Sean must have tried!