Exactly. If you like referendums, you'll love referendums about referendums.
It works better when you've just come back from discussions with other EU governments and are explaining how you're shocked and astonished at their failure to immediately knock up a treaty changing the constitutional arrangements affecting 28 independent countries and get it past committee, upper and lower houses, constitutional court, presidential veto and possibly their own referendum. It buys you some time with your skeptics, who are getting a referendum even if it wasn't the one they wanted, and you can position it as a way of getting a mandate to light a fire under the arses of your dozy fellow member states.
Or so the theory goes and I suspect it would work if one were driving the narrative and ahead of the curve. Problem is Cameron is behind the curve and being dragged along by the narrative at which point the optimum word becomes 'Sceptic'. Those who he is trying to impress know it is not his plan and he is being driven rather than driving, They know its only a ploy by him to buy him time. They are not sympathetic (he abused them after all). They just push him harder to see how much further he will go and how much more they can wring out of him.
No, I think you're misreading there. About 80% of the Conservative Party would support Cameron if he can get the deal he's seeking. About 15% want withdrawal no matter what and maybe 5% actually like it as it is or would prefer greater integration. It's only under present terms of membership and EU priorities and policies that the number of members and (secretly) MPs who want Out increases markedly. Cameron wants the deal because if he can get it, apart from being good for Britain, it will finally put to bed the divisions that have plagued the party since the late 80s.
For the time being, the policy's good enough as most know and accept there's little he can do in coalition and want to see whether he can indeed deliver on his aims.
Being a protest party is working fine for UKIP for the time being. Why change what's a winning formula.
As for office, I'd be surprised if any party put them in office yet given that they have no track record and there are no personal working relationships. How do you judge whether they're up to it, which matters if your own reputation is on the line too? That said, I can see informal pacts and understandings developing pretty quickly where circumstances make that beneficial.
This from a party who invited into government a party who had not had a minister for 80 years. Of course there is wisdom in hindsight........
The Liberals did have ministers during WWII, but we'll let that pass.
The difference with UKIP is not just that they hadn't been ministers (or on local councils, Executive members) but that they're new to the whole thing. MPs of opposing parties have a good idea of what the respective leaderships are like; similarly with councils. On the other hand, a completely brand new group are an unknown quantity in terms of ability, both individually and collectively.
The UKIP bubble should not be over-analysed too deeply. Just as the Greens doing (relatively) well in the past did not mean that Labour needed to lurch to them, UKIP doing (relatively) well does not mean that the Tories need to lurch that way either.
Erm, they lurched massively. That's why we have the economic suicide bill.
@RichardNabavi GuidoFawkes @JGForsyth Was the same under Thatcher. Posh wets full of noblesse obilge, middle class Thatcherites who could connect with electorate.
Ted Heath was from an almost identical social background to Margaret Thatcher.
Were they equally capable of connecting with the electorate?
Ted Heath is not a popular figure, but he did win an election from behind in 1970, and a second one narrowly in 1974. He was not an electoral disaster at the time.
Ted Heath was also the driving force behind the Yes vote on EEC membership in 1975. This might not be something he's thanked for these days but it was nonetheless a significant political achievement of his given the public opinion before the campaigns started.
And for his trouble I believe something around 700,000 people ended their memberships (half the membership) with the Conservative Party. Heath lost more members than any other leader and started the process of perpetual decline in the party.
I find that difficult to believe given that EEC membership was applied for under Macmillan, with Douglas-Home as Foreign Secretary and was achieved under Heath in 1972. Why Heath's leadership of a cross-party Yes campaign (with Thatcher supporting him) would then cause half the membership to resign in protest against a policy the party had championed for over a decade doesn't make obvious sense? Do you have a source for that assertion?
Actually I was wrong I underestimated the damage Heath did. Under Heath Tory Party membership fell by 1.1 million from 2.25 million in 1965 to 1,12 million in 1975, He did lose more membership than any other leader. Thatcher managed to retain around 1 million voters throughout her leadership but between 1990 and 1992 another 500,000 left. Why they left is anyone's guess but given the way Europe has been a running sore in the party for as long as I can remember I imagine it would have been a significant motive.
@RichardNabavi GuidoFawkes @JGForsyth Was the same under Thatcher. Posh wets full of noblesse obilge, middle class Thatcherites who could connect with electorate.
Ted Heath was from an almost identical social background to Margaret Thatcher.
Were they equally capable of connecting with the electorate?
Ted Heath is not a popular figure, but he did win an election from behind in 1970, and a second one narrowly in 1974. He was not an electoral disaster at the time.
Ted Heath was also the driving force behind the Yes vote on EEC membership in 1975. This might not be something he's thanked for these days but it was nonetheless a significant political achievement of his given the public opinion before the campaigns started.
And for his trouble I believe something around 700,000 people ended their memberships (half the membership) with the Conservative Party. Heath lost more members than any other leader and started the process of perpetual decline in the party.
I find that difficult to believe given that EEC membership was applied for under Macmillan, with Douglas-Home as Foreign Secretary and was achieved under Heath in 1972. Why Heath's leadership of a cross-party Yes campaign (with Thatcher supporting him) would then cause half the membership to resign in protest against a policy the party had championed for over a decade doesn't make obvious sense? Do you have a source for that assertion?
Actually I was wrong I underestimated the damage Heath did. Under Heath Tory Party membership fell by 1.1 million from 2.25 million in 1965 to 1,12 million in 1975, He did lose more membership than any other leader. Thatcher managed to retain around 1 million voters throughout her leadership but between 1990 and 1992 another 500,000 left. Why they left is anyone's guess but given the way Europe has been a running sore in the party for as long as I can remember I imagine it would have been a significant motive.
That document suggests a rather different picture. Membership was broadly static between 1969 and at least the mid-1980s, suggesting that Heath's premiership didn't lose membership - and certainly his role in the 1975 referendum didn't. The figure you quote of 2.25m for 1965 was an estimate and given Tory electoral fortunes between 1966 and 1969 (when a more reliable one was published), has to be taken with a sizable pinch of salt.
There is absolutely no basis in fact for your original assertion that Heath's role in the EEC referendum campaign cost the Conservatives 700k members. Indeed, by the looks of the research, it had virtually no impact at all.
@RichardNabavi GuidoFawkes @JGForsyth Was the same under Thatcher. Posh wets full of noblesse obilge, middle class Thatcherites who could connect with electorate.
Ted Heath was from an almost identical social background to Margaret Thatcher.
Were they equally capable of connecting with the electorate?
Ted Heath is not a popular figure, but he did win an election from behind in 1970, and a second one narrowly in 1974. He was not an electoral disaster at the time.
Ted Heath was also the driving force behind the Yes vote on EEC membership in 1975. This might not be something he's thanked for these days but it was nonetheless a significant political achievement of his given the public opinion before the campaigns started.
And for his trouble I believe something around 700,000 people ended their memberships (half the membership) with the Conservative Party. Heath lost more members than any other leader and started the process of perpetual decline in the party.
I find that difficult to believe given that EEC membership was applied for under Macmillan, with Douglas-Home as Foreign Secretary and was achieved under Heath in 1972. Why Heath's leadership of a cross-party Yes campaign (with Thatcher supporting him) would then cause half the membership to resign in protest against a policy the party had championed for over a decade doesn't make obvious sense? Do you have a source for that assertion?
Actually I was wrong I underestimated the damage Heath did. Under Heath Tory Party membership fell by 1.1 million from 2.25 million in 1965 to 1,12 million in 1975, He did lose more membership than any other leader. Thatcher managed to retain around 1 million voters throughout her leadership but between 1990 and 1992 another 500,000 left. Why they left is anyone's guess but given the way Europe has been a running sore in the party for as long as I can remember I imagine it would have been a significant motive.
Exactly. If you like referendums, you'll love referendums about referendums.
It works better when you've just come back from discussions with other EU governments and are explaining how you're shocked and astonished at their failure to immediately knock up a treaty changing the constitutional arrangements affecting 28 independent countries and get it past committee, upper and lower houses, constitutional court, presidential veto and possibly their own referendum. It buys you some time with your skeptics, who are getting a referendum even if it wasn't the one they wanted, and you can position it as a way of getting a mandate to light a fire under the arses of your dozy fellow member states.
Or so the theory goes and I suspect it would work if one were driving the narrative and ahead of the curve. Problem is Cameron is behind the curve and being dragged along by the narrative at which point the optimum word becomes 'Sceptic'. Those who he is trying to impress know it is not his plan and he is being driven rather than driving, They know its only a ploy by him to buy him time. They are not sympathetic (he abused them after all). They just push him harder to see how much further he will go and how much more they can wring out of him.
No, I think you're misreading there. About 80% of the Conservative Party would support Cameron if he can get the deal he's seeking. About 15% want withdrawal no matter what and maybe 5% actually like it as it is or would prefer greater integration. It's only under present terms of membership and EU priorities and policies that the number of members and (secretly) MPs who want Out increases markedly. Cameron wants the deal because if he can get it, apart from being good for Britain, it will finally put to bed the divisions that have plagued the party since the late 80s.
For the time being, the policy's good enough as most know and accept there's little he can do in coalition and want to see whether he can indeed deliver on his aims.
If we were back in 2009 and this was Cameron's big EU plan I would wholly agree with you. However events have moved on and now all this activity on the EU is now driven by the Tory need to try and recover lost Conservative votes (not those still retained by the party) most of which have temporarily or not so temporarily have moved to UKIP. My point is that those votes will not be so easily impressed as they once were and now being linked with UKIP (particularly considering the EU's recent economic track record) may well be looking for a far more decisive approach to the EU than once was contemplated. Offering a referendum on a referendum is offering very little and is open to immense criticism (austerity - wasting money on referendums for referendums sake etc etc)
I am an example of that lost Conservative vote. In 2009 I would have bought that deal but now I really don't believe it's in the countries long term interests to remain in the EU. So consequently the price for the Tories in terms of the EU to borrow my vote again is beyond what Cameron would likely be willing to offer. And thats not even considering the obstacles to any progress Libdems and Labour will do about any EU machinations on the Conservative part nor Camerons 'stained' track record on the EU.
There was a point when Cameron could have made his life relatively straightforward on the EU but like many other things he's made a complete mess of it. I put it down to a lack of conviction one way or another on the issue. He has never really had a clear view of where he wanted to get to (or if he did his expectations were far more modest than most of those around him). As a result he has almost always been behind the curve on the EU within his party and as such has been driven rather than driving..
AndyJS - Parris is usually pretty sharp, I think he is warning Cameron against moving too far to the right, but I think he is missing the need for Cameron to regain and shore up his base
I think I took issue a few days ago with a quote from Rob Wood, Chief Economist of Berenberg Bank in London, who is favoured as a source of comment on UK affairs by Bloomberg.
Well here he is again on the Farage advance:
“The surge in support for UKIP will work against the efforts of Chancellor George Osborne to attract investment to the U.K.,” Rob Wood, chief economist at Berenberg Bank in London, said in a briefing note. “The strength of the anti-EU vote slightly raises the uncertainty about the U.K.’s prospects of remaining in the EU after 2017, which can’t be a good thing for companies thinking about investing in the Britain.”
The significance of the quote is not in its accuracy - it is, after all, a knee jerk reaction with no basis in objective research - but as a typical prejudice that will be held by many market commentators and frequently trotted out to express support for the UK remaining within the EU,
Regardless of its truth, its repetition is likely to be very marginally damaging to inbound foreign investment in the UK.
Well the 2.8 million membership in 1953 is not an estimate and nor is the 1.1 to 1.3 million in 1969. So if Heath wasn't leader when those members departed you are suggesting that those Tories left the party in their droves (1.5 million of them) under Churchill, Eden, MacMillan and Douglas- Holme when the Tories were returned to government twice before being defeated in 1964. Well fair enough then. It couldn't possibly be Heath at all.
Of course its very difficult when the Tories don't keep proper membership records. Perhaps if they did they wouldn't have lost so many members over the years?
Bizarre scenes at the end the the Huddersfield - Barnsley match. It was 2-2 when news came through that Peterborough had lost. Both sets of fans started singing 'We're staying up'. The ball went through to the Barnsley keeper and both management teams and half the players told him to keep it. So for about 3 minutes he dribbled the ball back and forwards across his penalty area until the referee blew for time.
Comments
For the time being, the policy's good enough as most know and accept there's little he can do in coalition and want to see whether he can indeed deliver on his aims.
The difference with UKIP is not just that they hadn't been ministers (or on local councils, Executive members) but that they're new to the whole thing. MPs of opposing parties have a good idea of what the respective leaderships are like; similarly with councils. On the other hand, a completely brand new group are an unknown quantity in terms of ability, both individually and collectively.
This Parliamentary briefing refers:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05125
There is absolutely no basis in fact for your original assertion that Heath's role in the EEC referendum campaign cost the Conservatives 700k members. Indeed, by the looks of the research, it had virtually no impact at all.
page 7, section 2.3 membership revenues
Con membership revenue has been falling since 2008.
I am an example of that lost Conservative vote. In 2009 I would have bought that deal but now I really don't believe it's in the countries long term interests to remain in the EU. So consequently the price for the Tories in terms of the EU to borrow my vote again is beyond what Cameron would likely be willing to offer. And thats not even considering the obstacles to any progress Libdems and Labour will do about any EU machinations on the Conservative part nor Camerons 'stained' track record on the EU.
There was a point when Cameron could have made his life relatively straightforward on the EU but like many other things he's made a complete mess of it. I put it down to a lack of conviction one way or another on the issue. He has never really had a clear view of where he wanted to get to (or if he did his expectations were far more modest than most of those around him). As a result he has almost always been behind the curve on the EU within his party and as such has been driven rather than driving..
Well here he is again on the Farage advance:
“The surge in support for UKIP will work against the efforts of Chancellor George Osborne to attract investment to the U.K.,” Rob Wood, chief economist at Berenberg Bank in London, said in a briefing note. “The strength of the anti-EU vote slightly raises the uncertainty about the U.K.’s prospects of remaining in the EU after 2017, which can’t be a good thing for companies thinking about investing in the Britain.”
The significance of the quote is not in its accuracy - it is, after all, a knee jerk reaction with no basis in objective research - but as a typical prejudice that will be held by many market commentators and frequently trotted out to express support for the UK remaining within the EU,
Regardless of its truth, its repetition is likely to be very marginally damaging to inbound foreign investment in the UK.
"Why I can no longer face tutoring the progeny of the rich and aspirational
Demanded by the uber-rich and panicking, salaried parents, private tutoring only widens the gap in our education system":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/03/no-longer-tutor-progeny-rich-aspirational
Well the 2.8 million membership in 1953 is not an estimate and nor is the 1.1 to 1.3 million in 1969. So if Heath wasn't leader when those members departed you are suggesting that those Tories left the party in their droves (1.5 million of them) under Churchill, Eden, MacMillan and Douglas- Holme when the Tories were returned to government twice before being defeated in 1964. Well fair enough then. It couldn't possibly be Heath at all.
Of course its very difficult when the Tories don't keep proper membership records. Perhaps if they did they wouldn't have lost so many members over the years?