UKIP's ranks of ex-Tory old duffers will probably turn out, angrily etching their cross into the ballot paper as if it's the face of an immigrant or A Gay.
A false stereotype peddled by many Labour people from tim/Hugh all the way up to Gordon Brown and Bigotgate.
The problem lies not with immigrants, who are no better or worse in any form of measurement you wish to judge them by than English people, but with the politicians who let too many in.
I dare say if a government had evacuated everyone from Dagenham and housed them in Rainham, the Rainhamites, both the English and the immigrants, would be saying the same about the Dagenhamites as they do about foreign immigrants now. the problem is of pressure on wages, overcrowding (tim always talked about the need for more housing, maybe on flood plains(?!) ), and a rapid change in the nature of an area that people who lived there were used to a certain way, the feeling that there is nothing they can do about it, and that they are abused as racist for talking about it.
Labour will lose plenty of votes to UKIP as well, and that is fuelled by comments that sneer at their ex voters for think of leaving. You'd think they'd learn from the Tories mistakes
Out of interest, why are you planning to vote for UKIP in the Euro's? Surely it cannot be on the back of their less than stellar performance as a party in the EU Parliament?
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
So with this new car smoking ban. What happens if police pull over a 17 year old driver who is smoking, with no passengers?
I think the law applies only to passengers. However, they would probably do him for driving without due care and attention on the basis that whilst looking for the in-built cigarette lighter, said 17 year old had managed to turn on the fog lights, get the windscreen-wipers going full speed and accidentally set off the ejector seat....which is where his passenger should have been.
December 2013 EU referendum poll: "...three-quarters of people want to see some renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU, but are split over how extensive it needs to be. 24% think our current relationship is broadly okay as it is, and just needs some reassurances and rule changes. 27% want to see more substantial renegotiation with opt outs or changes to EU powers. 25% think there needs to be massive and fundamental changes for EU membership to be in British interests."
What about the horrendous foot and mouth crisis under the last Government as a domestic example of prolonged bad news, or the Foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to give us some perspective here? Way back when this Government was under equal pressure from the media to get British Nationals out of Libya, there was wall to wall criticism of the Government effort. In fact the media trailed out relative after relative criticising the Government for not getting their relatives working in deepest Libya out quick enough, it turns out that the military were planning on doing just that with a highly organised operation that took them into Libyan airspace to extract our workers from those oil fields.
I think the floods are going to drown the hopes of the Tory party at the GE. It's wall to wall bad coverage, and that will surely feed the narrative that Cameron is, well, just not very good, and that his government is incompetent. The Mail are launching a petition to get Foreign Aid money diverted back to British flood victims, and given that there's more bad weather forecasted, the coverage can only get worse.
I have sympathy for the government, as its been raining cats'n'dogs for ages, successive governments have fumbled the ball, and houses get built on floodplains, but the music has stopped on this government's watch, and there ain't any chairs left. It's going to take some serious PR magic to turn this around, but I don't think they'll manage it.
Mr. Stopper, the immense and prolonged nature of the rain probably helps rather than hinders the Government. If it had been a single deluge and then nothing happened for weeks it might be different, but the Government can't wave a magic wand and make the water disappear overnight. Things can be done, but there's a huge quantity of water on saturated, low-lying ground. At this stage there's a limit as to what can be done.
I agree entirely, but, houses damaged by floodwater take about 6 months to get back to the stage where residents can move back in, taking into account drying time, replastering, new floors, decorating and the like, and Sky News will be with them every step of the way.
The biggest problem for the government is how they've conducted themselves. They have no control over the weather, but they can control their behaviour. Sadly, they seemed a little too keen to start blaming each other, and residents who'd had the temerity to actually live in places that flood. It doesn't look good, when they're fighting like ferrets in a sack.
Sorry but who is fighting like ferrets in a sack? The media have been pushing the blame game narrative for weeks, if you watched the start of the ITV news last night at 6.30 all the presenter in his wellies in Surrey was saying was that residents were blaming the government for the flooding. How on earth can this be the governments fault? Reading blogs/news websites all you get is people complaining that there is no one to help them get the water out of their house. A sense of realism has disappeared in this country. This is the wettest winter for 250 years and people who live on flood plains or near a river are getting flooded. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. It makes me sick watching these people with an incredible sense of entitlement demanding that someone comes to help. help with what? The fire service have rescued them, their houses will remain flooded until the water subsides. Its a natural disaster, thats it. My favorite news story was a couple who live on a island in the thames where everyone apart from them is flooded, they built their house on stilts so they are unaffected.
Morris, I cannot understand a vote for UKIP in these Euro elections considering their woeful performance in the EU Parliament on the back of their last Euro election results. That was a golden opportunity for Farage and UKIP to really start acting like a serious party, instead their performance has failed to set the heather on fire by a very long margin. Which is all the more insulting to those that voted for them when you consider UKIP's last election performance was based on an expenses scandal focussed on the Westminster Parliament. It seems bizarre to me to want to punish the Conservatives at Westminster by rewarding another party who has failed to deliver in the actual EU Parliament elections you are voting in.
The Conservatives have offered both renegotiation of our membership in the EU and a future In/Out Referendum. I think that trumps anything that UKIP can offer or achieve in either Parliament.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
I'm still not sure whether the floods will have a major electoral impact or not, but don't think that the foot and mouth incident is necessarily a good comparator. Like it or not, that was seen as "other" by much of the electorate (a problem for farmers and those who live in deepest darkest countryside) and even among those who recognise the seriousness of the issue, it was hard to tell whether the government reaction was good or bad. In addition, shifting the countryside to a virtual war footing, delaying the election and so on meant it gave the government an opportunity to appear statesmanlike, deplore "politics" and win the election more easily without too much of a battle.
In some respects the same sense of "otherness" goes for the flooding of remote villages on reclaimed land in Somerset, or the far-distant Cornish mainline falling into the sea, but once you see pictures of housing estates and high streets underwater it becomes an image that everyone can identify with. If the government is seen as handling it well there's only minimal downside (in the sense that the government of the day owns any problem, but that downside is factored into the idea of incumbency bonus already) - but if it's another area where they can demonstrate their incompetence and inability to take responsibility then it could gain a higher salience and feed into a general feeling that we have a government that can't be trusted to look after "normal people".
That said, I can't imagine the polling will ever tell us much about this assumption: if the Tories fall in the polls over the coming week, those who believe that biodiversity directives are leading to the EU deciding which bits of the UK get flooded next will claim it as support for their view that the public have Discovered The Conspiracy, others will say it's the flooding/competence issue, and still others will draw our attention to that magnificent specimen of a squirrel outside their window.
The reality is that precious few people live in the countryside, for many it is a nice place to visit but they would never have any inclination to actually live there. I love the great outdoors - but the remoteness, the insularity and the sheer lack of people or anything happening make it a poor place to carve out a life and career.
You could argue that the modern Tory party's main strategic failing is looking after the needs of its rural heartlands without giving town mice much of a reason to vote for it. Look at the insane debate over planning - big urban areas are expected to forever take thousands more houses while villages kick up a gigantic fuss over just a few. That's a classic town vs country problem, but local Tories end up in their comfort zone trying to preserve their strongholds in aspic while people who live together, vote together in the sprawling Labour cities.
December 2013 EU referendum poll: "...three-quarters of people want to see some renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU, but are split over how extensive it needs to be. 24% think our current relationship is broadly okay as it is, and just needs some reassurances and rule changes. 27% want to see more substantial renegotiation with opt outs or changes to EU powers. 25% think there needs to be massive and fundamental changes for EU membership to be in British interests."
I don't follow the numbers. A quarter don't want a renegotiation, a quarter want minor changes, a quarter want substantial and a quarter want fundamental change. Yet if substantial changes were agreed, just 52% would vote to stay in. Am I missing something?
Morris, I cannot understand a vote for UKIP in these Euro elections considering their woeful performance in the EU Parliament on the back of their last Euro election results. That was a golden opportunity for Farage and UKIP to really start acting like a serious party, instead their performance has failed to set the heather on fire by a very long margin. Which is all the more insulting to those that voted for them when you consider UKIP's last election performance was based on an expenses scandal focussed on the Westminster Parliament. It seems bizarre to me to want to punish the Conservatives at Westminster by rewarding another party who has failed to deliver in the actual EU Parliament elections you are voting in.
The Conservatives have offered both renegotiation of our membership in the EU and a future In/Out Referendum. I think that trumps anything that UKIP can offer or achieve in either Parliament.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
How many people vote in the euro's on the basis of what goes in in the European Parliament..
Mr. Stopper, the immense and prolonged nature of the rain probably helps rather than hinders the Government. If it had been a single deluge and then nothing happened for weeks it might be different, but the Government can't wave a magic wand and make the water disappear overnight. Things can be done, but there's a huge quantity of water on saturated, low-lying ground. At this stage there's a limit as to what can be done.
I agree entirely, but, houses damaged by floodwater take about 6 months to get back to the stage where residents can move back in, taking into account drying time, replastering, new floors, decorating and the like, and Sky News will be with them every step of the way.
The biggest problem for the government is how they've conducted themselves. They have no control over the weather, but they can control their behaviour. Sadly, they seemed a little too keen to start blaming each other, and residents who'd had the temerity to actually live in places that flood. It doesn't look good, when they're fighting like ferrets in a sack.
Sorry but who is fighting like ferrets in a sack? The media have been pushing the blame game narrative for weeks, if you watched the start of the ITV news last night at 6.30 all the presenter in his wellies in Surrey was saying was that residents were blaming the government for the flooding. How on earth can this be the governments fault? Reading blogs/news websites all you get is people complaining that there is no one to help them get the water out of their house. A sense of realism has disappeared in this country. This is the wettest winter for 250 years and people who live on flood plains or near a river are getting flooded. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. It makes me sick watching these people with an incredible sense of entitlement demanding that someone comes to help. help with what? The fire service have rescued them, their houses will remain flooded until the water subsides. Its a natural disaster, thats it. My favorite news story was a couple who live on a island in the thames where everyone apart from them is flooded, they built their house on stilts so they are unaffected.
You missed the bit where Pickles "apologised" for the EA purporting to be flooding experts but actually being to blame for everything that's gone wrong, then Chris Smith took to the airwaves to describe Pickles as a knob of the highest order (I paraphrase) and point out that Osborne's funding rules had prevented the EA from following experts' advice, then Owen complained to Dave that Eric was being a bit mean (and probably helping the badgers move goalposts around to boot) and then Dave declined to back Chris.... etc, then?
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
One of my more multi-lingual friends was pointing out yesterday that we are, as usual, being somewhat parochial about all this. That horrendous storm picture that someone linked to the other day has caused massive and extensive flooding right down the atlantic coast of France. It puts our blame game into some sort of perspective. Sh1t happens.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
Their current strategy will absolutely prevent any EU referendum vote in the UK. Cameron's referendum will not happen; if it does they won't win; if they win it won't be implemented.
While they may eventually get their wish of UK withdrawal, I think this is likelier against a background of some sort of general EU failure, with other countries leaving first. The Netherlands is the most obvious candidate to do so, but ISTR Denmark is unimpressed too.
A lacklustre performance in the Euros will be all it takes to dishearten their supporters so their bubble collapses as fast as it has inflated. To judge by the comments on the DT, the average UKIPper is an early 80s Thatcherite who hasn't noticed that Thatcher herself wouldn't be applying 1979 Thatcherism to 2014 issues. I sense that many would gain almost as much satisfaction from abstaining as from voting UKIP, so GVYO must be a major issue (and would be even if they weren't all in their 70s).
This to me bespeaks deep political ineptitude. UKIP do not appear to have developed a strategy for achieving their goal that takes account of the actual facts. They will win no seats, for example, so how do they get their agenda implemented? Entryism is the obvious strategy, but they aren't doing even that. They seem to imagine that harassing a handful of Tory seats is going to do it for them, but I see no sign of this happening; I also suspect they enjoy whining about the electoral system and this, like abstaining, is to the average UKIPper a quite satisfying second best.
I was about to offer an extremely vulgar analogy so I'd better stop there.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
It's patronising abuse like that which is why In is losing the argument. Keep going along those lines and Britain will be out and you'll still be wondering how it happened.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
It's true. Places like Norway and Switzerland are economic disaster zones that no businessman goes near.
While they [UKIP] may eventually get their wish of UK withdrawal, I think this is likelier against a background of some sort of general EU failure, with other countries leaving first.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
The three main parties, the CBI, and the TUC aren't as popular or respected as they used to be.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
It's patronising abuse like that which is why In is losing the argument. Keep going along those lines and Britain will be out and you'll still be wondering how it happened.
With very few exceptions, this is the pro-EU side of the debate. It's like marijuana legalisation or gay marriage. In all cases, one side just knows the issues far better and has far more sophisticated arguments, while the other just comes across as not having thought about it very much. They're thus just left with knee jerk platitudes, or made-up scare stories like the three million jobs bollocks.
UKIP's ranks of ex-Tory old duffers will probably turn out, angrily etching their cross into the ballot paper as if it's the face of an immigrant or A Gay.
And, plenty of ex-Labour, and ex-Lib Dem voters will join them.
The "three million jobs" argument is based on the view that all our exports to the EU cease, and we lose every job from that, yet all our imports from the EU continue, and also that trade from elsewhere does not increase due to our ability to sign other trade deals. It's a lie worthy of Fox News, and the fact Nick Clegg is willing to use it again and again really goes straight to the heart of his reputation as being an honest straight talker.
Most economic arguments in relation to constitutional issues are crap in any case. Whether the UK is part of the EU or not, it will remain a prosperous country (or rather, prosperity will depend on the actions of the government). At best/worst, you're looking at a shift of a couple of per cent in GDP in either direction.
This is a tricky one to assess. I'd be surprised if Labour get anything like 35%; their performance in recent Euro elections has been dire because their supporters don't turn out, and their national-equivalent vote share in the last two local elections has also been disappointing for them. We could easily see UKIP, Labour and the Conservatives fairly close to each other on around a quarter of the vote each. If you put a gun to my head I'd say Labour first, then UKIP, then the Conservatives, but it's not a prediction I'd make with a great deal of confidence.
In some respects the same sense of "otherness" goes for the flooding of remote villages on reclaimed land in Somerset, or the far-distant Cornish mainline falling into the sea, but once you see pictures of housing estates and high streets underwater it becomes an image that everyone can identify with. I
The issue is when it becomes an image that those in the media can identify with - especially when the water starts lapping at their own front doors, then SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!
Pretty well every Tuesday, YouGov ask the question that should Cameron's renegotiations be such that he would recommend the UK to remain in the EU, the putative 'yes' vote in a referendum is consistently in the high 40s and the 'nos' in the high 20s. Today's is 47-27
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
It's patronising abuse like that which is why In is losing the argument. Keep going along those lines and Britain will be out and you'll still be wondering how it happened.
With very few exceptions, this is the pro-EU side of the debate. It's like marijuana legalisation or gay marriage. In all cases, one side just knows the issues far better and has far more sophisticated arguments, while the other just comes across as not having thought about it very much. They're thus just left with knee jerk platitudes, or made-up scare stories like the three million jobs bollocks.
Oh really, I'm sure I've read on PB that anyone who wants the UK to remain in the EU wants the English to become a minority in England.
I've also seen Pro-Europeans compared to Nazis and Stalin.
The "three million jobs" argument is based on the view that all our exports to the EU cease, and we lose every job from that, yet all our imports from the EU continue, and also that trade from elsewhere does not increase due to our ability to sign other trade deals. It's a lie worthy of Fox News, and the fact Nick Clegg is willing to use it again and again really goes straight to the heart of his reputation as being an honest straight talker.
Most economic arguments in relation to constitutional issues are crap in any case. Whether the UK is part of the EU or not, it will remain a prosperous country (or rather, prosperity will depend on the actions of the government). At best/worst, you're looking at a shift of a couple of per cent in GDP in either direction.
The other issue is that even the good economic studies always assume that you don't replace EU membership with anything else. It's like asking whether you should move out of your house and people saying "That's insane! Your house is really important for providing shelter and being homeless has serious side effects on your health."
Miss Fitalass, I'm disappointed with Cameron/the Conservatives and (as you will have noticed) want us out of the EU. Come the GE, I'll be voting blue (purple there's a wasted vote, and as my constituency is Balls Vs Conservative it's a rather obvious choice).
Only rampant ideologues with no discernable business interests would advocate total withdrawal from the EU.
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
It's patronising abuse like that which is why In is losing the argument. Keep going along those lines and Britain will be out and you'll still be wondering how it happened.
With very few exceptions, this is the pro-EU side of the debate. It's like marijuana legalisation or gay marriage. In all cases, one side just knows the issues far better and has far more sophisticated arguments, while the other just comes across as not having thought about it very much. They're thus just left with knee jerk platitudes, or made-up scare stories like the three million jobs bollocks.
Oh really, I'm sure I've read on PB that anyone who wants the UK to remain in the EU wants the English to become a minority in England.
I've also see Pro-Europeans compared to Nazis and Stalin.
Hyperbole is not exclusive to one side.
I'm not saying hyperbole doesn't exist on both sides. I'm just saying that if you put the main debaters up on each side - say Nick Clegg versus Dan Hannan - one side clearly has more in-depth arguments.
Pretty well every Tuesday, YouGov ask the question that should Cameron's renegotiations be such that he would recommend the UK to remain in the EU, the putative 'yes' vote in a referendum is consistently in the high 40s and the 'nos' in the high 20s. Today's is 47-27
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
But nowhere near as keen as the Tories are to lose 2015.
Lab 28% UKIP 25% Con 23% LD 8% Green 8% Nats 3% Bits'n'bobs 5%
I think that Other 'Others' might be higher than 5% - when faced with such a large choice, more people than you expect will vote for the minor parties. (Certainly the evidence historically is that that is the case - in 2009 8% or so voted for minor (Excl. BNP))
We shall see - but don't forget this also kicks the can down the road for a couple of years. Given that everywhere - except France - in the Eurozone is improving, then if the OMT is ruled unconstitutional in late 2016, it may all be moot.
Maybe that's the outcome they're hoping for. Letting institutions pull sweeping new powers out of their arses isn't a precedent anyone will want set, but they also won't want to take responsibility for causing a new economic wobble. Play for time for a couple of years, wait until the problems that the ECB's coup d'état solve are mostly solved, then draw a line to reduce the chances of other institutions getting cute in the future.
I'm not saying hyperbole doesn't exist on both sides. I'm just saying that if you put the main debaters up on each side - say Nick Clegg versus Dan Hannan - one side clearly has more in-depth arguments.
Now that's an unfair match. You've chosen one of the least convincing pro-EU politicians.
A fair match would be Peter Mandelson vs Dan Hannan.
Pretty well every Tuesday, YouGov ask the question that should Cameron's renegotiations be such that he would recommend the UK to remain in the EU, the putative 'yes' vote in a referendum is consistently in the high 40s and the 'nos' in the high 20s. Today's is 47-27
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
It's a bit of a one sided question though. What if Cameron's renegotiations are such that he recommends the UK stay in the EU, but several media outlets say he hasn't achieved that much? If you ask that, it will be far more split.
I think that Other 'Others' might be higher than 5% - when faced with such a large choice, more people than you expect will vote for the minor parties. (Certainly the evidence historically is that that is the case)
Maybe - certainly last time they were a lot higher, but that was partly the expenses scandal. The collapse of the BNP is a factor to take into account, though.
If there's a loser in the floods it is surely big government.
People have watched as a horde of extremely well funded and highly paid politicians and bureaucrats have either done nothing, or through their own political agendas in the past actually exacerbated the suffering of ordinary people.
You missed the bit where Pickles "apologised" for the EA purporting to be flooding experts but actually being to blame for everything that's gone wrong, then Chris Smith took to the airwaves to describe Pickles as a knob of the highest order (I paraphrase) and point out that Osborne's funding rules had prevented the EA from following experts' advice, then Owen complained to Dave that Eric was being a bit mean (and probably helping the badgers move goalposts around to boot) and then Dave declined to back Chris.... etc, then?
Did you watch the Pickles interview?
The media have been trying to get people in government to blame each other for weeks and as soon as there is a hint of this they start running stories of how the government are blaming each other rather than helping those who are flooded, when in fact its the media who have been desperate for the blame game to start. They spend all day interviewing people desperate for them to blame the government, as soon as they do they put them on live TV.. The polls since the flood started have been interesting, the tories have edged up a bit, maybe it is because sensible people realise that this is a natural disaster, the government is doing all it can and that the sense of entitlement that some victims of the flood have is totally unrealistic.
Pretty well every Tuesday, YouGov ask the question that should Cameron's renegotiations be such that he would recommend the UK to remain in the EU, the putative 'yes' vote in a referendum is consistently in the high 40s and the 'nos' in the high 20s. Today's is 47-27
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
It's a bit of a one sided question though. What if Cameron's renegotiations are such that he recommends the UK stay in the EU, but several media outlets say he hasn't achieved that much? If you ask that, it will be far more split.
No, my hunch on the outcome takes all that into account. I imagine much of the dead tree press will be for withdrawal with only the Mirror, Guardian, FT, Indy and just possibly the Times in favour of staying in.
Yep, we finally have some snow on the ground too today. This is one of the mildest/wettest winters that I can remember, not least because of the complete lack of snow/ice or frost on my patch which is usually the norm. Yet when we occasional get a glimpse when the clouds/rain lifts, I have a view of stunning white mountains which have had an incredible dump of snow in recent weeks. The BBC weather guy last week said that the Cairngorms were almost matching the European snow resorts for snow fall!
But nowhere near as keen as the Tories are to lose 2015.
I can see why Mr Churchill was so frequently enraged with your curmudgeonly misanthropic Ulster ways.
So not a denial then :-)
Weary sigh (I am far less tolerant of your aberrant meanderings than Avery - I'd chuck those bloody yellow boxes straight through your conservatory window!)....it's a denial
the sense of entitlement that some victims of the flood have is totally unrealistic.
We've had this argument before but the expectation of voters not unrealistic at all. The social contract at the moment is high taxes for good services. People have paid and they want to see some action,
The environment agency is arguably in the process of changing that social contract. That for me is the real impact of the floods.
Do we believe the ICM EU election poll? Since both Survation and YouGov also record Labour in the 30s, it seems reasonable to believe that is indeed where Labour stand for this election, whatever our default prejudices might suggest about Labour's past poor record in this election (indeed, I expect the pollsters have made suitable adjustments to allow for just that). That in turn means that the 6/4 on Labour to finish top is an outstanding bet. Even if their vote share flakes, it has a long way to flake away before it is overtaken by UKIP or the Conservatives.
There must be a ceiling on UKIP's maximum conceivable support. We don't really know what that is though. Could they conceivably get past 30% nationally, even in a low turnout election? Because if they can't, their chances of finishing top with the Lib Dems and other others apparently in freefall aren't that great.
Labour and the Conservatives will both be pleased with the ICM poll. If the Conservatives polled only 3% less in the EU elections than in 2009 (when they were flying high in the normal opinion polls), they would be pretty chuffed.
There's nothing but ashes for the Lib Dems though.
I guess we should watch to see if the Greens can make some form of emergence. Right now there's no reason to assume that they can.
But nowhere near as keen as the Tories are to lose 2015.
I can see why Mr Churchill was so frequently enraged with your curmudgeonly misanthropic Ulster ways.
So not a denial then :-)
Weary sigh (I am far less tolerant of your aberrant meanderings than Avery - I'd chuck those bloody yellow boxes straight through your conservatory window!)....it's a denial
Hmmmm it's not a very good one, haven't you got anything better ?
You missed the bit where Pickles "apologised" for the EA purporting to be flooding experts but actually being to blame for everything that's gone wrong, then Chris Smith took to the airwaves to describe Pickles as a knob of the highest order (I paraphrase) and point out that Osborne's funding rules had prevented the EA from following experts' advice, then Owen complained to Dave that Eric was being a bit mean (and probably helping the badgers move goalposts around to boot) and then Dave declined to back Chris.... etc, then?
Did you watch the Pickles interview?
The media have been trying to get people in government to blame each other for weeks and as soon as there is a hint of this they start running stories of how the government are blaming each other rather than helping those who are flooded, when in fact its the media who have been desperate for the blame game to start. They spend all day interviewing people desperate for them to blame the government, as soon as they do they put them on live TV.. The polls since the flood started have been interesting, the tories have edged up a bit, maybe it is because sensible people realise that this is a natural disaster, the government is doing all it can and that the sense of entitlement that some victims of the flood have is totally unrealistic.
Yes, I did watch it. It's barely a paraphrase to say that Pickles said "the only thing we did wrong was to follow the advice of so-called experts at the Environment Agency, and then it turns out that they didn't know what they were talking about". That's a demonstrably false statement (the EA weren't provided with funds to implement the expert advice) and it's also pretty imbecilic to dismiss your entire specialist team as not having a clue.
The attitude of victims is an interesting one - for example, it's true that the Levels are reclaimed land, and therefore there is a risk of flooding, but they are managed land where there could be a reasonable expectation that the government will continue to carry out the necessary management to minimise flood risk. If you chose to live there when the management was working, and then the government of the day stopped dredging the drains and running the pump stations, thereby changing the flood risk, wouldn't a sense of "entitlement" be reasonable?
Pretty well every Tuesday, YouGov ask the question that should Cameron's renegotiations be such that he would recommend the UK to remain in the EU, the putative 'yes' vote in a referendum is consistently in the high 40s and the 'nos' in the high 20s. Today's is 47-27
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
It's a bit of a one sided question though. What if Cameron's renegotiations are such that he recommends the UK stay in the EU, but several media outlets say he hasn't achieved that much? If you ask that, it will be far more split.
This one needs focus grouping rather than polling. The voters haven't thought about it enough, so you mostly get middle option bias.
I think Currystar is right. The media are very interested in getting politicians to play the blame game. Phil Hammond was good this morning when he said that now was not the time to blame anyone, but to work together.
Do we believe the ICM EU election poll? Since both Survation and YouGov also record Labour in the 30s, it seems reasonable to believe that is indeed where Labour stand for this election, whatever our default prejudices might suggest about Labour's past poor record in this election (indeed, I expect the pollsters have made suitable adjustments to allow for just that). That in turn means that the 6/4 on Labour to finish top is an outstanding bet. Even if their vote share flakes, it has a long way to flake away before it is overtaken by UKIP or the Conservatives.
There must be a ceiling on UKIP's maximum conceivable support. We don't really know what that is though. Could they conceivably get past 30% nationally, even in a low turnout election? Because if they can't, their chances of finishing top with the Lib Dems and other others apparently in freefall aren't that great.
Labour and the Conservatives will both be pleased with the ICM poll. If the Conservatives polled only 3% less in the EU elections than in 2009 (when they were flying high in the normal opinion polls), they would be pretty chuffed.
There's nothing but ashes for the Lib Dems though.
I guess we should watch to see if the Greens can make some form of emergence. Right now there's no reason to assume that they can.
"Certain to vote" took the YouGov to Lab 32%, UKIP 30%.
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
The sense of entitlement is entirely reasonable and politicians' own fault, because since the blair government started politicians have championed the abilities of the state themselves.
Give us your taxes and we will do the job
The environment agency is in the process of running a coach and horses through that doctrine.
This is a problem for labour, because they are the main champions of this sort of government.
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
Funny how living in the lush pastures of Surrey impacts on views of political reality.
If Esher is okay for the Tories then so must everywhere.
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
Funny how living in the lush pastures of Surrey impacts on views of political reality.
If Esher is okay for the Tories then so must everywhere.
The sense of entitlement is entirely reasonable and politicians' own fault, because since the blair government started politicians have championed the abilities of the state themselves.
Give us your taxes and we will do the job
The environment agency is in the process of running a coach and horses through that doctrine.
This is a problem for labour, because they are the main champions of this sort of government.
Wow, I had no idea that the idea of any kind of social contract/collective activity started a mere 17 years ago...
Seriously, how do you manage waterways that cross a number of counties without some kind of "state" solution? I guess that a party that said "vote for us and we'll reduce your taxes so you can build your own flood defences round your garden" might get some traction, but it sounds like a difficult sell. Has any political party in the UK *not* championed a form of government which involves giving them taxes in order to do a job?
Times diary reports that 42 of first 45 bets on Ladbrokes next EU Commissioner mkt have been on Lansley. He was 16/1 - now 5/1 2nd FAV
That piece begins by pointing out the last time the Times Diary did a piece on unusual betting patterns, it was when bets were being placed on Peter Capaldi to be the next Doctor.
Which turned out to be true, so they're calling our next EU Commissioner as Lansley.
You are right of course - I will stick around. My apologies.
There is a certain house style at pb.com that can take a little while to navigate around. It also has quite a lot of back history that is frequently referenced by those in the know.
This history can often be tracked back through posters who have been commenting for a number of general elections, and indeed, quite a few who go as far back as Jacobitism and even to the Punic Wars....
It also has a number of people who have no interest in betting on politics, but like to vent their two-penneth, which can be revealing to those who do bet. There is also a fair bit of expertise on sports (tennis and F1 have shared some profitable tips in the past, football more recently - horse-racing less so!!) and for example Roger on the Oscars.
There is also a bizarre wealth of expertise here in the most esoteric of matters, so if you need a restaurant recommendation in Gabon, for example, someone will put you right.
Do stick around. You'll get the hang of it. Just don't expect it to be 100% current politics. Or 100% serious. Somewhere nearer to 14% is about par....
You are right of course - I will stick around. My apologies.
There is a certain house style at pb.com that can take a little while to navigate around. It also has quite a lot of back history that is frequently referenced by those in the know.
This history can often be tracked back through posters who have been commenting for a number of general elections, and indeed, quite a few who go as far back as Jacobitism and even to the Punic Wars....
It also has a number of people who have no interest in betting on politics, but like to vent their two-penneth, which can be revealing to those who do bet. There is also a fair bit of expertise on sports (tennis and F1 have shared some profitable tips in the past, football more recently - horse-racing less so!!) and for example Roger on the Oscars.
There is also a bizarre wealth of expertise here in the most esoteric of matters, so if you need a restaurant recommendation in Gabon, for example, someone will put you right.
Do stick around. You'll get the hang of it. Just don't expect it to be 100% current politics. Or 100% serious. Somewhere nearer to 14% is about par....
Don't forget my reality TV bets, a very sad skill I have developed through allowing my wife to watch endless hours of utter dross on TV.
I figured if we have to watch I may as well try and make money from it.
Mr Mark, if we keep on serving up the juicy half-volleys, I trust we can rely on you to continue hammering them away through cover point? (In the classically dour style of Cook, rather than the disloyally flamboyant manner of KP, of course).
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
John in your noncy southern ways you're just so soft you've forgotten what scrutiny looks like. Dave being PM and a Conservative victory are 2 different things as we can see at present. I'm afraid for Dave to be PM in his own right he needs to get out and experience life away from his comfort zone. So convincing maudlin midlanders, negative northerners and surly scots is the only way he's going to do it. At present he's too far removed to have a chance since he's not offering much that's relevant to voters above the Cherwell. Quite why you southern guys insist on high tax bills to subsidise Pontefract is beyond me but there we are.
Anyway if you want to get Dave back into power I've got just the election slogan for you - " I agree with Nick" . Happy hunting :-)
Times diary reports that 42 of first 45 bets on Ladbrokes next EU Commissioner mkt have been on Lansley. He was 16/1 - now 5/1 2nd FAV
That piece begins by pointing out the last time the Times Diary did a piece on unusual betting patterns, it was when bets were being placed on Peter Capaldi to be the next Doctor.
Which turned out to be true, so they're calling our next EU Commissioner as Lansley.
Lansley to EU commissioner, Andrew Mitchell to Enviroment ??!!
One factor which needs to be taken into consideration in the Euro elections is the fact that the local elections, are on the same day.The councils involved are very different from the Tory shire elections of last year. http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/elec2014.htm
Times diary reports that 42 of first 45 bets on Ladbrokes next EU Commissioner mkt have been on Lansley. He was 16/1 - now 5/1 2nd FAV
That piece begins by pointing out the last time the Times Diary did a piece on unusual betting patterns, it was when bets were being placed on Peter Capaldi to be the next Doctor.
Which turned out to be true, so they're calling our next EU Commissioner as Lansley.
Lansley to EU commissioner, Andrew Mitchell to Enviroment ??!!
Nah, I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up Lord Howard for me.
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
John in your noncy southern ways you're just so soft you've forgotten what scrutiny looks like. Dave being PM and a Conservative victory are 2 different things as we can see at present. I'm afraid for Dave to be PM in his own right he needs to get out and experience life away from his comfort zone. So convincing maudlin midlanders, negative northerners and surly scots is the only way he's going to do it. At present he's too far removed to have a chance since he's not offering much that's relevant to voters above the Cherwell. Quite why you southern guys insist on high tax bills to subsidise Pontefract is beyond me but there we are.
Anyway if you want to get Dave back into power I've got just the election slogan for you - " I agree with Nick" . Happy hunting :-)
I will generously award you full marks for alliteration.
Seriously, how do you manage waterways that cross a number of counties without some kind of "state" solution?
Go down to Somerset with that campaign and see how far you get. See what their opinion of the environment agency is. See what the level of support for your overarching state solution is.
Times diary reports that 42 of first 45 bets on Ladbrokes next EU Commissioner mkt have been on Lansley. He was 16/1 - now 5/1 2nd FAV
That piece begins by pointing out the last time the Times Diary did a piece on unusual betting patterns, it was when bets were being placed on Peter Capaldi to be the next Doctor.
Which turned out to be true, so they're calling our next EU Commissioner as Lansley.
Lansley to EU commissioner, Andrew Mitchell to Enviroment ??!!
Nah, I'm going to ask Shadsy to price up Lord Howard for me.
Best suggestion here so far by a long way. Unimpeachably right-wing, heavyweight, non-bonkers, no by-election, Cameron owes him. Getting on a bit admittedly.
Seriously, how do you manage waterways that cross a number of counties without some kind of "state" solution?
Go down to Somerset with that campaign and see how far you get. See what their opinion of the environment agency is. See what the level of support for your overarching state solution is.
Fair enough. What approach do you think the fine people of Somerset would opt for? Each digging out a channel in front of their own garden and praying the guy downstream does the same thing?
Obviously not quite the same situation in Cornwall, but there's definitely a preference for government agencies to rebuild sea defences and (ideally) construct an inland alternative to the Dawlish Amphibious Railway, rather than a tax reduction to let us do it locally.
I love the fact that Fulham with a stadium of 20k have to cancel, but Arsenal with a capacity of 60k have no plans to cancel.
It's due to the transport links. Look on a map and you'll see that Craven Cottage is nowhere near a railway station, so no alternative to tube available. Whereas the Emirates Stadium is right next to Drayton Park railway station.
Seriously, how do you manage waterways that cross a number of counties without some kind of "state" solution?
Go down to Somerset with that campaign and see how far you get. See what their opinion of the environment agency is. See what the level of support for your overarching state solution is.
</blockquote
The same way they were run very succesfully until 1989 when the National Rivers Authority was formed
Their current strategy will absolutely prevent any EU referendum vote in the UK. Cameron's referendum will not happen; if it does they won't win; if they win it won't be implemented.
While they may eventually get their wish of UK withdrawal, I think this is likelier against a background of some sort of general EU failure, with other countries leaving first. The Netherlands is the most obvious candidate to do so, but ISTR Denmark is unimpressed too.
A lacklustre performance in the Euros will be all it takes to dishearten their supporters so their bubble collapses as fast as it has inflated. To judge by the comments on the DT, the average UKIPper is an early 80s Thatcherite who hasn't noticed that Thatcher herself wouldn't be applying 1979 Thatcherism to 2014 issues. I sense that many would gain almost as much satisfaction from abstaining as from voting UKIP, so GVYO must be a major issue (and would be even if they weren't all in their 70s).
This to me bespeaks deep political ineptitude. UKIP do not appear to have developed a strategy for achieving their goal that takes account of the actual facts. They will win no seats, for example, so how do they get their agenda implemented? Entryism is the obvious strategy, but they aren't doing even that. They seem to imagine that harassing a handful of Tory seats is going to do it for them, but I see no sign of this happening; I also suspect they enjoy whining about the electoral system and this, like abstaining, is to the average UKIPper a quite satisfying second best.
I was about to offer an extremely vulgar analogy so I'd better stop there.
That's funny... because at virtually every election we hear that Ukip have peaked and yet nothing of the sort happens, their vote share continues to increase. Maybe you ought to rephrase as 'I wish Ukip would peak' rather than making an assumption that seems to be backed by no real evidence.
But as for what Ukip hope to achieve against the Tories, as a 20-something young male from a Labour area, let me tell you. In my opinion, Ukip - and more so Farage who has met with Presten Manning - are aiming to do something along the lines of what happened in Canada in the early 1990s whereby the Progressive Conservative Party was wiped out by the Reform Party under a FPTP system. Today, the Reform Party (renamed) is now the Government of Canada. That to me is my aim by voting for Ukip and why?
Because under FPTP - as Peter Hitchens has pointed out - we're stuck with two parties. Therefore, if somebody like me who wants immigration controls, national sovereignty returned and grammar schools returned votes in an election then it's pretty worthless unless we control one of the main parties. As the Tory Party is a dying brand and we haven't a hope of taking over it, the simple answer is this: to destroy it.
Brookie - I remain confident that Dave will still be at the helm in June 2015, not least thanks to the near brilliance of our Chancellor.
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
John in your noncy southern ways you're just so soft you've forgotten what scrutiny looks like. Dave being PM and a Conservative victory are 2 different things as we can see at present. I'm afraid for Dave to be PM in his own right he needs to get out and experience life away from his comfort zone. So convincing maudlin midlanders, negative northerners and surly scots is the only way he's going to do it. At present he's too far removed to have a chance since he's not offering much that's relevant to voters above the Cherwell. Quite why you southern guys insist on high tax bills to subsidise Pontefract is beyond me but there we are.
Anyway if you want to get Dave back into power I've got just the election slogan for you - " I agree with Nick" . Happy hunting :-)
I will generously award you full marks for alliteration.
I'm a compassionate Conservative.
Ah John if only your compassion extended to policies which get our regions back up on their own 2 feet and away from living on handouts you might make some progress.
Yes, I did watch it. It's barely a paraphrase to say that Pickles said "the only thing we did wrong was to follow the advice of so-called experts at the Environment Agency, and then it turns out that they didn't know what they were talking about". That's a demonstrably false statement (the EA weren't provided with funds to implement the expert advice) and it's also pretty imbecilic to dismiss your entire specialist team as not having a clue.
The attitude of victims is an interesting one - for example, it's true that the Levels are reclaimed land, and therefore there is a risk of flooding, but they are managed land where there could be a reasonable expectation that the government will continue to carry out the necessary management to minimise flood risk. If you chose to live there when the management was working, and then the government of the day stopped dredging the drains and running the pump stations, thereby changing the flood risk, wouldn't a sense of "entitlement" be reasonable?
The key thing is that this is the wettest winter for 250 years. i think it is a miracle and testament to the excellent flood defences we have that hundreds of thousands of properties are not flooded. If this level of rainfall had happened in the 1970s then huge areas of the UK would be under water and there would be a national crisis of epic proportions. Nature is a wonderful but deadly thing sometimes and this year it has decided to pick on the UK. Its just one of those things. Lets take the people who live on the banks of the thames, how can it be the governments fault that this biblical rainfall that we have had has caused the flooding of their homes? The water table is at record high levels throughout the south of england. The blame culture in this country needs to change, its embarrassing.
I love the fact that Fulham with a stadium of 20k have to cancel, but Arsenal with a capacity of 60k have no plans to cancel.
Arsenal did cancel vs West Ham on Boxing Daŷ last year because of a tube strike. I guess the trains weren't running either that day.
t is easy to get to Arsenal on the train rather than tube though. Drayton Pk is next door, Finsbury Park & Highbuty and Islington are ten minute walk away
Comments
The problem lies not with immigrants, who are no better or worse in any form of measurement you wish to judge them by than English people, but with the politicians who let too many in.
I dare say if a government had evacuated everyone from Dagenham and housed them in Rainham, the Rainhamites, both the English and the immigrants, would be saying the same about the Dagenhamites as they do about foreign immigrants now. the problem is of pressure on wages, overcrowding (tim always talked about the need for more housing, maybe on flood plains(?!) ), and a rapid change in the nature of an area that people who lived there were used to a certain way, the feeling that there is nothing they can do about it, and that they are abused as racist for talking about it.
Labour will lose plenty of votes to UKIP as well, and that is fuelled by comments that sneer at their ex voters for think of leaving. You'd think they'd learn from the Tories mistakes
"...three-quarters of people want to see some renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU, but are split over how extensive it needs to be. 24% think our current relationship is broadly okay as it is, and just needs some reassurances and rule changes. 27% want to see more substantial renegotiation with opt outs or changes to EU powers. 25% think there needs to be massive and fundamental changes for EU membership to be in British interests."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8569
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/europe
I think UKIP look set for >25%.
My favorite news story was a couple who live on a island in the thames where everyone apart from them is flooded, they built their house on stilts so they are unaffected.
The Conservatives have offered both renegotiation of our membership in the EU and a future In/Out Referendum. I think that trumps anything that UKIP can offer or achieve in either Parliament.
I blame global warming.
(retreats back to work)
I'm still not sure whether the floods will have a major electoral impact or not, but don't think that the foot and mouth incident is necessarily a good comparator. Like it or not, that was seen as "other" by much of the electorate (a problem for farmers and those who live in deepest darkest countryside) and even among those who recognise the seriousness of the issue, it was hard to tell whether the government reaction was good or bad. In addition, shifting the countryside to a virtual war footing, delaying the election and so on meant it gave the government an opportunity to appear statesmanlike, deplore "politics" and win the election more easily without too much of a battle.
In some respects the same sense of "otherness" goes for the flooding of remote villages on reclaimed land in Somerset, or the far-distant Cornish mainline falling into the sea, but once you see pictures of housing estates and high streets underwater it becomes an image that everyone can identify with. If the government is seen as handling it well there's only minimal downside (in the sense that the government of the day owns any problem, but that downside is factored into the idea of incumbency bonus already) - but if it's another area where they can demonstrate their incompetence and inability to take responsibility then it could gain a higher salience and feed into a general feeling that we have a government that can't be trusted to look after "normal people".
That said, I can't imagine the polling will ever tell us much about this assumption: if the Tories fall in the polls over the coming week, those who believe that biodiversity directives are leading to the EU deciding which bits of the UK get flooded next will claim it as support for their view that the public have Discovered The Conspiracy, others will say it's the flooding/competence issue, and still others will draw our attention to that magnificent specimen of a squirrel outside their window.
The reality is that precious few people live in the countryside, for many it is a nice place to visit but they would never have any inclination to actually live there. I love the great outdoors - but the remoteness, the insularity and the sheer lack of people or anything happening make it a poor place to carve out a life and career.
You could argue that the modern Tory party's main strategic failing is looking after the needs of its rural heartlands without giving town mice much of a reason to vote for it. Look at the insane debate over planning - big urban areas are expected to forever take thousands more houses while villages kick up a gigantic fuss over just a few. That's a classic town vs country problem, but local Tories end up in their comfort zone trying to preserve their strongholds in aspic while people who live together, vote together in the sprawling Labour cities.
Not even double figures probably..
In would win any vote at a canter - you'd have all three main parties, the CBI and the TUC on one side and Bob Crow and Morris Dancer on the other*
*I'm certain that both Bob (in private) and Morris are very nice blokes but I doubt they would swing a vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union#2013
If I recall correctly Nigel Lawson, and Denis Healy have both endorsed "out". There will be business advocates on both sides.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/setting-out-the-british-option-a-business-proposal-for-eu-renegotiation/
http://businessforbritain.org
Their current strategy will absolutely prevent any EU referendum vote in the UK. Cameron's referendum will not happen; if it does they won't win; if they win it won't be implemented.
While they may eventually get their wish of UK withdrawal, I think this is likelier against a background of some sort of general EU failure, with other countries leaving first. The Netherlands is the most obvious candidate to do so, but ISTR Denmark is unimpressed too.
A lacklustre performance in the Euros will be all it takes to dishearten their supporters so their bubble collapses as fast as it has inflated. To judge by the comments on the DT, the average UKIPper is an early 80s Thatcherite who hasn't noticed that Thatcher herself wouldn't be applying 1979 Thatcherism to 2014 issues. I sense that many would gain almost as much satisfaction from abstaining as from voting UKIP, so GVYO must be a major issue (and would be even if they weren't all in their 70s).
This to me bespeaks deep political ineptitude. UKIP do not appear to have developed a strategy for achieving their goal that takes account of the actual facts. They will win no seats, for example, so how do they get their agenda implemented? Entryism is the obvious strategy, but they aren't doing even that. They seem to imagine that harassing a handful of Tory seats is going to do it for them, but I see no sign of this happening; I also suspect they enjoy whining about the electoral system and this, like abstaining, is to the average UKIPper a quite satisfying second best.
I was about to offer an extremely vulgar analogy so I'd better stop there.
Lab 31 (+18)
Con 19 (-7)
UKIP 14 (+1)
Green 2 (nc)
LibDem 1 (-10)
SNP 2 (nc)
Plaid 1 (nc)
I would imagine the actual result would be around 60-40 (57-43?), somewhat lower than in 1975, but comfortable enough.
That's why UKIP are so desperate for the Tories to lose in 2015.
I've also seen Pro-Europeans compared to Nazis and Stalin.
Hyperbole is not exclusive to one side.
Lab 28%
UKIP 25%
Con 23%
LD 8%
Green 8%
Nats 3%
Bits'n'bobs 5%
A fair match would be Peter Mandelson vs Dan Hannan.
People have watched as a horde of extremely well funded and highly paid politicians and bureaucrats have either done nothing, or through their own political agendas in the past actually exacerbated the suffering of ordinary people.
And these people are funded by voters.
You missed the bit where Pickles "apologised" for the EA purporting to be flooding experts but actually being to blame for everything that's gone wrong, then Chris Smith took to the airwaves to describe Pickles as a knob of the highest order (I paraphrase) and point out that Osborne's funding rules had prevented the EA from following experts' advice, then Owen complained to Dave that Eric was being a bit mean (and probably helping the badgers move goalposts around to boot) and then Dave declined to back Chris.... etc, then?
Did you watch the Pickles interview?
The media have been trying to get people in government to blame each other for weeks and as soon as there is a hint of this they start running stories of how the government are blaming each other rather than helping those who are flooded, when in fact its the media who have been desperate for the blame game to start. They spend all day interviewing people desperate for them to blame the government, as soon as they do they put them on live TV.. The polls since the flood started have been interesting, the tories have edged up a bit, maybe it is because sensible people realise that this is a natural disaster, the government is doing all it can and that the sense of entitlement that some victims of the flood have is totally unrealistic.
http://t.co/4FH2Oryd8I
http://t.co/kgpj75T0LY
http://t.co/XRvaZJDnTL
Check this out for a disguised Russia-Turkey Juggernaught (If you can see) ! I am Germany btw.
Hurstllama is trying to drum up support for a PB novices game btw - all new(ish) players welcome.
We've had this argument before but the expectation of voters not unrealistic at all. The social contract at the moment is high taxes for good services. People have paid and they want to see some action,
The environment agency is arguably in the process of changing that social contract. That for me is the real impact of the floods.
There must be a ceiling on UKIP's maximum conceivable support. We don't really know what that is though. Could they conceivably get past 30% nationally, even in a low turnout election? Because if they can't, their chances of finishing top with the Lib Dems and other others apparently in freefall aren't that great.
Labour and the Conservatives will both be pleased with the ICM poll. If the Conservatives polled only 3% less in the EU elections than in 2009 (when they were flying high in the normal opinion polls), they would be pretty chuffed.
There's nothing but ashes for the Lib Dems though.
I guess we should watch to see if the Greens can make some form of emergence. Right now there's no reason to assume that they can.
The media have been trying to get people in government to blame each other for weeks and as soon as there is a hint of this they start running stories of how the government are blaming each other rather than helping those who are flooded, when in fact its the media who have been desperate for the blame game to start. They spend all day interviewing people desperate for them to blame the government, as soon as they do they put them on live TV.. The polls since the flood started have been interesting, the tories have edged up a bit, maybe it is because sensible people realise that this is a natural disaster, the government is doing all it can and that the sense of entitlement that some victims of the flood have is totally unrealistic.
Yes, I did watch it. It's barely a paraphrase to say that Pickles said "the only thing we did wrong was to follow the advice of so-called experts at the Environment Agency, and then it turns out that they didn't know what they were talking about". That's a demonstrably false statement (the EA weren't provided with funds to implement the expert advice) and it's also pretty imbecilic to dismiss your entire specialist team as not having a clue.
The attitude of victims is an interesting one - for example, it's true that the Levels are reclaimed land, and therefore there is a risk of flooding, but they are managed land where there could be a reasonable expectation that the government will continue to carry out the necessary management to minimise flood risk. If you chose to live there when the management was working, and then the government of the day stopped dredging the drains and running the pump stations, thereby changing the flood risk, wouldn't a sense of "entitlement" be reasonable?
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-02/11/ukip-on-the-campaign-trail
Does that mean Fulham v Liverpool is on ?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/455812/Let-it-rain-Winter-deluge-means-there-will-be-NO-hosepipe-bans-in-Britain-for-YEARS
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8594
That this will eventuate without your (or that from Another Richard who has been permanently proscribed by law - though not yet his immediate family - from voting Conservative) assent is but a trifling distraction. We'll get over it.
All this renovation activity - is it economic stimulus ?
The sense of entitlement is entirely reasonable and politicians' own fault, because since the blair government started politicians have championed the abilities of the state themselves.
Give us your taxes and we will do the job
The environment agency is in the process of running a coach and horses through that doctrine.
This is a problem for labour, because they are the main champions of this sort of government.
If Esher is okay for the Tories then so must everywhere.
It's the rain...
Lansley might already have the job.ough ?
Could be insider knowledge. Or could be people following your tips...
I think there is a fair chance the next commissioner might be named "Andrew" at any rate, I'm on both.
Seriously, how do you manage waterways that cross a number of counties without some kind of "state" solution? I guess that a party that said "vote for us and we'll reduce your taxes so you can build your own flood defences round your garden" might get some traction, but it sounds like a difficult sell. Has any political party in the UK *not* championed a form of government which involves giving them taxes in order to do a job?
But then tim left....
Which turned out to be true, so they're calling our next EU Commissioner as Lansley.
I figured if we have to watch I may as well try and make money from it.
I'm afraid for Dave to be PM in his own right he needs to get out and experience life away from his comfort zone. So convincing maudlin midlanders, negative northerners and surly scots is the only way he's going to do it. At present he's too far removed to have a chance since he's not offering much that's relevant to voters above the Cherwell. Quite why you southern guys insist on high tax bills to subsidise Pontefract is beyond me but there we are.
Anyway if you want to get Dave back into power I've got just the election slogan for you - " I agree with Nick" . Happy hunting :-)
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/elec2014.htm
I'm a compassionate Conservative.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-we-have-just-100-days-to-stop-ukip-becoming-a-major-force-9120264.html
Looking at the comments, eitherTelegraph andMail readers also read the Indy, or UKIP are reaching a broader range of people than some like to admit
Go down to Somerset with that campaign and see how far you get. See what their opinion of the environment agency is. See what the level of support for your overarching state solution is.
Gorgeous George
Calamity Clegg
and
Omnishambles Osborne
To these I propose adding:
Mistaken Miliband
Crimson Cameron
Bonkers Boris
Fruitcake Farage
and
Lucky Lucas (hopefully!)
I can't think of anything suitable for Salmond, though.
Obviously not quite the same situation in Cornwall, but there's definitely a preference for government agencies to rebuild sea defences and (ideally) construct an inland alternative to the Dawlish Amphibious Railway, rather than a tax reduction to let us do it locally.
But as for what Ukip hope to achieve against the Tories, as a 20-something young male from a Labour area, let me tell you. In my opinion, Ukip - and more so Farage who has met with Presten Manning - are aiming to do something along the lines of what happened in Canada in the early 1990s whereby the Progressive Conservative Party was wiped out by the Reform Party under a FPTP system. Today, the Reform Party (renamed) is now the Government of Canada. That to me is my aim by voting for Ukip and why?
Because under FPTP - as Peter Hitchens has pointed out - we're stuck with two parties. Therefore, if somebody like me who wants immigration controls, national sovereignty returned and grammar schools returned votes in an election then it's pretty worthless unless we control one of the main parties. As the Tory Party is a dying brand and we haven't a hope of taking over it, the simple answer is this: to destroy it.
Yes, I did watch it. It's barely a paraphrase to say that Pickles said "the only thing we did wrong was to follow the advice of so-called experts at the Environment Agency, and then it turns out that they didn't know what they were talking about". That's a demonstrably false statement (the EA weren't provided with funds to implement the expert advice) and it's also pretty imbecilic to dismiss your entire specialist team as not having a clue.
The attitude of victims is an interesting one - for example, it's true that the Levels are reclaimed land, and therefore there is a risk of flooding, but they are managed land where there could be a reasonable expectation that the government will continue to carry out the necessary management to minimise flood risk. If you chose to live there when the management was working, and then the government of the day stopped dredging the drains and running the pump stations, thereby changing the flood risk, wouldn't a sense of "entitlement" be reasonable?
The key thing is that this is the wettest winter for 250 years. i think it is a miracle and testament to the excellent flood defences we have that hundreds of thousands of properties are not flooded. If this level of rainfall had happened in the 1970s then huge areas of the UK would be under water and there would be a national crisis of epic proportions. Nature is a wonderful but deadly thing sometimes and this year it has decided to pick on the UK. Its just one of those things. Lets take the people who live on the banks of the thames, how can it be the governments fault that this biblical rainfall that we have had has caused the flooding of their homes? The water table is at record high levels throughout the south of england. The blame culture in this country needs to change, its embarrassing.
t is easy to get to Arsenal on the train rather than tube though. Drayton Pk is next door, Finsbury Park & Highbuty and Islington are ten minute walk away