Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My 25/1 tip for our next EU Commissioner
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My 25/1 tip for our next EU Commissioner
The primary reason I’ve been reluctant to heavily back Andrews Mitchell and Lansley (or any other Tory MP) is that I think David Cameron wants to avoid having an unnecessary by-election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
UKIP increases vote fivefold in a by-election, Tories and LibDems get hammered but @JohnRentoul frames UKIP as the loser. Really?
Also I think you could make the point about good relations with Cameron even stronger: Cameron owes Howard a huge favour for teeing things up for him, and Cameron is very loyal to his friends.
So the next question is whether Michael Howard wants the job. Maybe he could post in the thread to let us know?
I tipped the old Folkestone grave robber some time before you put you clammy paws all over him !!
Now, take you hands out of your pockets and take one hundred lines :
"JackW" is TOTY and TSE is a pale imitation in comparison
@malcolmg wrote :
"I think I can read unlike many on here who claim Carney ruled out a currency union. He merely pointed out the obvious in that both parties need to agree. It is far from certain that the Westminster Yellow Bellies will not agree once reality bites , they are well known for lies and u-turns. So it is perfectly reasonable to have as your plan A , a currency union.
Unionists seem unable to grasp what Carney really said and continually say he ruled out a currency union, as in arrogant guys like yourself coming out with the drivel above.
Stick to UKIP."
...........................................................................
I never said Carney ruled out a currency union. He's in no position to do so. His position is that should all parties agree then such a union is entirely possible. A perfectly sound position.
What you fail to understand is that one participant has expressly ruled out a currency union. Ergo no currency union is available to an independent Scotland.
Quite what relevance your "Stick to UKIP" final sentence means to me I have no idea ?!?
@MJW
3:32PM
If support for leaving the EU continues to grow and Salmond wins we could end up with the strange situation of rUK being in and wanting out, and Scotland being out but desperate to get in.
--------------------
He,he! that would be the complete confusion. However, the elite and nomenklatura are still desperate to keep Britain in the EU, come what may. On Marr (BBC) this morning, José Manuel Barroso boasted how hard it will be - almost impossible - to renegotiate any alterations to the US series of treaties. Cammo take note!
Only by voting UKIP will we eventually be allowed to decide in a free and fair referendum.
Re Rentoul. Absurd. UKIP get a 15% increase in vote share, they treble their actual vote despite the much smaller turnout, they get a small swing to them from Labour when Labour are in the ascendency in one of their heartland seats whilst Libdem and Tory votes have collapsed? I think everybody should avoid whatever Rentoul has been partaking of. Clearly it dulls the logic centre of the brain.
Failing to win a Westminster seat remains a big negative on the Ukip balance sheet and no amount of distant second places, as this by-election was, can avert the notion that they are flattering to deceive at this level.
However, Boris is unlikely to accept as he has ambitions as leader of the Conservatives.
Jack - do you see UKIP superseding the Conservatives the same way?
It is kippers that will prevent this by putting Milliband in Downing street, and not winning a single seat themselves.
I shall be voting to stay in if there were a referendum, and suspect that the Better Off Ins would win.
But this bit of fun certainly helps to raise their profile ..... hmmm.
I've followed you in Mike, with just a oncer at 25/1.
Is that good enough? Certainly good enough to keep making lots of noise, but sooner or later they need an earthquake, and there may be very few opportunities now before the 2015 GE.
Just a thought, but aren't the Euros a bit of an odd one in the respect that hardened Euro sceptics might not vote in them as they don't think them serious?
I would have thought Europhile parties should have a built in advantage in Euro elections
The Conservative party is the great survivor and it's notable that since WW1 the three main parties have remained so at Westminster level despite a variety of insurgents running their colours up the electoral mast.
That said, I've been genuinekly surprised how seriously Labour is taking it - the scale of leafleting and canvassing going on dwarfs any Euro election that I've seen, and I've been involved in every one since 1995 (when I was a candidate and had 1 helper for the whole of East Sussex and South Kent).
It was an unwinnable seat, Labour were 1/10 or shorter to win right from the off.
There will be no referendum because there will not be a Tory Government and there won't be a Tory government because of the Libdems.
Meanwhile here in Scotland the SNP leadership has gone into fullscale denial. Some are even suggesting the President of the European Commission doesn't know what he is talking about when he says an independent Scotland will not be an EU member, will have to apply to join and in his opinion will be very difficult, if not impossible. Apparently later when contacted by Andrew Neil before the Politics Show he said he was giving an express warning to the YES camp in Scotland that no special treatment or status would be given to a part of a member state which leaves and becomes a state in its own right as it would not be a member state.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/now-scots-know-an-independent-scotland-wont-be-salmonds-same-but-slightly-different-vision/
The Tories have been in a dysfunctional mess for over 20 years. If they cannot sort themselves out they have to be favourite to follow the Libdems into the political hinterlands and who knows what would happen in the vacuum that such a demise would create?
However another by-election has passed by and despite adding very considerably to their vote the strategic result was a very distant second and certainly no OMG moment.
It's big boys' rules from now on.
Blubbing and bleating about beastly bullies won't cut it any more.
Er .... No, yet again it's the sound of the voters slamming the FPTP door in the face of yet another Westminster wannabe.
More infantile hysteria from the leader of the pointless party......
On Clegg: he must be worried that his beloved Brussels might be attacked by the mean, nasty UKIP types.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that for all the polling UKIP is still lagging (in real terms, such as councillors and so forth) a long way behind the major parties. It does need some sort of breakthrough.
Did I touch a nerve? We'll see how hard the voter slams the door next year (I don't think ambitious Tory wannabees will be queing up for Thanet South, for example).
That said unless the divided dysfunctional Tories get their act together convincingly (nobody believes they won't fracture into several pieces if they ever do have an EU referendum) then they are going to become the 'Broken Tories'.
Basically if you can't change your own vote (and the lib dems flatlining at 10% since late 2010 speaks for itself) try to change someone elses.
In this case the soft tory kipper waverers who are hardly likely to be swayed to vote lib dem by Cammie's coalition partner Clegg lecturing them on the EU but they might just get annoyed enough to protest against Cammie.
There's no other reason for Clegg to keep focusing on Farage and UKIP. All it does is highlight just how much of an irrelevance the lib dems are after results like Wythenshawe.
FPTP is a mighty harsh mistress. Ask any Lib/LibDem who have over the past 60 years seen by-election triumphs (not second places) turn to dust at the national level at the subsequent general election.
Since the Torrington by-election in 1957 it has taken the Liberals 53 years to enter national government with a plethora of false dawns and "return to your constituencies and prepare for government" moments.
One general election Thanet South moment for Ukip, should it come, simply isn't going to cut it.
Or to put it another way, Nick Clegg wines and dines an innocent business man who helped Rolls Royce win export orders in India.
As I mentioned the other day a politician of a similar mould is Michael Forsyth who has the advantage of being a more sprightly 60 this year. He has very strong business credentials and cabinet experience, albeit not at the heights of Howard. There may also be a love bomb aspect to the Scots as well although Forsyth was distinctly marmite when the MP for Stirling.
Despite his business interests Forsyth has been active in the Lords. Obviously not nearly as close to Cameron as Howard but ticks most of the other boxes.
You are over-thinking things.
There are 55 or so Liberal Democrat MPs.
All they care about is keeping their jobs.
"Third party" means nothing to someone who faces being kicked out by their local electorate as the left wing of their 2010 voters returns to the Labour Party.
They don't care about stopping UKIP.
They care about finding a message (any message) that will resonate with just enough voters to allow them to keep their seats.
An "anti-UKIP" message might be just what is needed for the LibDems to hold on to seats like Kingston, Cambridge and Twickenham.
This is what Clegg and the 55 other desperate Liberal Democrat MPs are thinking, and which is why the Libs will (a) be bigging UKIP up; (b) will pose themselves as the "only people fighting UKIP" and (c) will support UKIP participating in the debates
The death of the Labour-Conservative duopoly has been widely anticipated over the past 40 years and it hasn't happened. The SDP threatened momentarily while the Tories walked to the edge of the abyss with IDS but in 2010 the two main parties still won over 550 seats between them on 65% of the vote.
The LDs, UKIP, Greens and others may threaten periodically and succeed in by-elections but it will take either a significant schism in either Labour or Conservative parties (unlikely but not inconceivable) or the emergence of a mass political movement able to effectively fight by-election style campaigns in 400 seats simultaneously (also unlikely but not inconceivable).
He must be ancient. Still, a big Marley fan, so respect.
I'll grant you that Clegg is more than a bit clueless when it comes to strategy but even he knows perfectly well from his time as the third party that the most effective way to maginalise and blunt the effectiveness of a smaller party is to completely ignore them. The reason Clegg got his temporary surge during the 2010 campaign was precisely because he was on stage in the debate with the other two party leaders and could no longer be ignored. Now Clegg is even making noises about the 2015 debate with Farage and that certainly isn't to please his coalition partner Cammie.
The kippers are where they are right now because they can no longer be ignored by the tories.
True but I can't see how Clegg is doing anything other than trying to help the kipper vote in lib dem tory marginals by trying to make the EU elections all about Farage and UKIP.
There is absolutely going to be kipper voting that hurts the tories in marginals. That's a natural consequence of being in complete opposition to the Cameroons. Nor can UKIP be apologetic for it since those aren't anyone's votes by some absurd divine right. If you get them they are yours for just as long as they keep voting for you. There will also be kipper voting which hurts labour and even the lib dems in certain places. Nowhere near as much perhaps but that is also unavoidable and something I'm sure Farage will not lose any more sleep over than when it hurts Cammie.
I would say that for 18-24 hours the response of authorities was disorganised, piecemeal and often shambolic based on a lack of understanding of what had happened, was happening and was going to happen.
The Thames reclaimed areas of its flood plain (well documented) that it had not reached for many years. However, standing by the fast-flowing river in Kingston last Monday, it seemed to this observer that the flow east of Hampton was being managed which made me wonder whether in trying to manage the flow of water moving toward and through London from Kingston, the EA had been forced to allow the river to overtop to keep the flow under control to the west. There was also, I believe, some overtopping of reservoirs.
I've no evidence for this assertion but the lack of serious flooding around Kingston and points downstream suggests to me that water was held upstream and allowed to overtop in order to manage the downstream flow.
In terms of other politics I would not be too unhappy with a Miliband govt, particularly if it was a minority one needing LD support.
Voters are free to choose. Those that are unhappy with the nessecary compromises of government will not stay with Labour long.
Things like Europe, HS2 through the Tory shires, the sheer contempt with which Cameron treats the rank and file, they all contribute to the possible collapse of the Tory party.
If as expected they lose in 2015 then I expect them to split for ever, Cameron and his mob going one way and Davies, Redwood etc heading towards the UKIP stance.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/paul-nuttall-interview-i-dont-want-to-lead-ukip/
Care to try some ostrich spin on this too? Bit of a pattern developing, isn't it?
Much like Rennard and Hancock.
There is nothing strange about UKIP wanting to take on the mantle of the 3rd Party and as a result become the primary alternative to the two major parties. Similarly there is nothing strange about Clegg trying to do everything he can to retain it. He has councillors out there who are not in constituencies where they have the MP. Are you suggesting he is sacrificing them in order to save MPs, some of which (those up against Labour/SNP) are probably doomed already?
Frankly I'd be a pretty disappointed Libdem councillor if I thought my leader was hanging me out to dry. Yes Clegg will try and protect his MP's but he should also protect his councillors and the party's status. All three are interconnected.
Present seat result : Ukip - 0 .. Other Parties 650
Is your idea not easily tested ? Go and have a look at the sluice gates at Molesey Weir, if they are not all wide open then water is being held back above Kingston.
What you have just done is confirm they will split in two.
Your reply would suggest not.
And as I am clearly not a liberal democrat, your "nerve tweaked" comment was pretty bizarre.
Will they? People's memories are not that short and they are not that naive. It would take some pretty strong symbolism to reverse the mess they have made of their EU position in this government and you can be pretty sure that Labour will try and exploit the enormous divisions that remain in the Tory party over Europe if it will keep voters from voting Tory.
'Jack there is a simple reason why UKIP will prosper when previous insurgency party's haven't. It's called the EU and unless one of the main party's suddenly becomes secessionist then UKIP's future is secured.'
But if we do get an EU referendum it will result in the demise of UKIP,hence,their trying to kick it into the long grass.
I take his analysis seriously - whilst not always agreeing with it of course.
@RCS1000 accept my apologies but you are I think too dismissive of the wider considerations that arty leaders have.
But the facts are if after 13 years in the wilderness they get hammered after one term then there will be repercussions.
Now personally I disagree with this fundamentally, not least because I suspect that once the EU issue is resolved they will become a far more reactionary party even than they are now and the Libertarian element like me will abandon them.
But whatever my personal views I have to accept that I appear to be in the minority and that UKIP intends to remain as a reactionary force within British politics for the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure Cameron will go for him but it would be a superb appointment.
73 isn't particularly old these days. Time's Man of the Year is 77 and I don't think anyone is exactly suggesting right now that he isn't up to the job.
This is not something abstract like a voting system, The EU is a part of our lives and as UKIP argue not a positive part. That will not go away by just having a referendum. If we have a referendum and I still do not believe that there is a chance of there being one and it is lost (i.e. we remain within the EU) that is only valid until the next time the EU substantively impacts our lives negatively. In such circumstances, losing the referendum would be a setback for UKIP but not the end of the world.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10642228/Germany-must-accept-higher-inflation-says-OECD.html
Thank you for your words below.
For the record, I think UKIP's white paper on taxation should be read by all aspiring economics commentators. It is about 100x more credible than anything put out by the libs. I shall remain silent on my views on the sovereign wealth fund...
It is a valid political course to take if they want to be successful, at least in the short term, but it is not one that I am at all comfortable with.
You are deluding yourself. The tories have had plenty of opportunity to split over Europe in the last 20 years and have not done so. Anna Soubry, Ken Clark, John Redwood and Dan Hannan all remain in the same party. They have their differences but more in common.
There have been no serious opportunities to split because
a) Unless they went on mass as the SDP did where would Euroscpetics split to? Until UKIP became a credible alternative Eurosceptics had nowhere to go.
b) The Tories have spent the larger part of that 20 years in opposition when they could gloss over their differences and make generic Eurosceptic noises without any real possibility of actually having to do anything.
c) Until the EU issue comes to a head - e.g. A referendum or major treaty when they are in power (unlikely granted) the strength of the Tories wider unity has not really been tested.
Basically their division on the issue has in many ways insulated them from the worst case outcome of such differences. So far that is, but how long they can equivocate over it is another matter.
At each bounce it loses a particular percentage of its momentum.
The ball will, theoretically, do an infinite number of bounces, since it is not losing 100% of its momentum on any bounce. But it will have stopped bouncing after a finite time.
I think Mr Llama meant "ad nauseam".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/cabinet-expenses/10642222/MPs-expenses-Maria-Miller-criticised-for-90000-claim-by-parliamentary-watchdog.html
But surely his age is going to stop him because of the travelling involved. By its nature the job is presumably going to require him to be in Brussels most of the time plus there may well be a need for a fair amount of additional travel around Europe.
Is he really going to want to do the above from age 73 to 78? Seems very unlikely to me.
If the job was based in Central London then it would be a completely different matter.
A great shame as Howard would be the perfect choice.
But I think the thread is on to something - I would have thought Cameron will be looking for a high ranking Conservative who is not an MP.
Who else can the experts on here identify?
They remaind one party depite Maastricht in government or Lisbon in opposition. Why would a further treaty be more stressful than those?
Infighting yes, but a split? No way.
However, that said if they do become the party you think I may be following you out of the door.