Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
A party which can be lampooned this viciously and effectively has a problem - and I LIKE Farage and have sympathies for UKIP.
I don't think some bod calling UKIP 'nasty' is a problem for UKIP. And sneering at those opposed to open door immigration is not sneering at UKIP, that's sneering at the majority of the electorate.
Watch the whole thing: it is a brilliant, hilarious and brutal deconstruction of UKIP.
IMHO - chacun a son gout, of course.
We're not going to agree on this, but I did not think it was an effective attack on UKIP in any way.
To me, it came across as another rich London media bod sneering at provincial oinks.
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
To be fair, they are in Coalition and the LibDems opposed/voted against a referendum when it was proposed.
In 2011 the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party voted against a referendum.
The government's "Balance of Competences" review of the UK/EU policy split has not recommended any changes. They find nothing wrong with the status quo.
The parliamentary party voted against because they disagreed with the *tactics* not the strategy. You have a vote now, and OUT loses & I spend the rest of my life with Britain in the EU. Time it right and there may be a chance of OUT winning.
The "government" isn't a Tory government, it's a Coalition. In addition, the nature of our relationship with the EU is a political judgement, not one that will be decided by the civil service
The 'better off out' faction of the parliamentary Conservative Party is a minority, and they do not set the 'strategy' of the Conservative Party's EU policy.
The 8% LAB lead amongst all who responded is probably a better guide to the marginals where there be heavy GOTV operations designed.
How many marginals had a turnout of 79% at the last GE?
Come to think of it, how many constituencies of any type had a turnout of 79% last time? Even in Witney the turnout was only 73.3%, and I think it's normally higher in the Tory strongholds.
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
A party which can be lampooned this viciously and effectively has a problem - and I LIKE Farage and have sympathies for UKIP.
I don't think some bod calling UKIP 'nasty' is a problem for UKIP. And sneering at those opposed to open door immigration is not sneering at UKIP, that's sneering at the majority of the electorate.
Watch the whole thing: it is a brilliant, hilarious and brutal deconstruction of UKIP.
IMHO - chacun a son gout, of course.
To me, it came across as another rich London media bod sneering at provincial oinks.
Not oinks, 'Bumpkins'.
(Incidentally, Farage ticks the rich and London boxes, but swap 'media' for 'stockbroker')
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
Yet even the vaguest of Tory referendum promises is better than the NO F*CKING WAY, THE VOTERS ARE TOO DIM just enunciated by Ed Miliband.
For hardcore kippers, of course, this won't matter much, they hate everyone. But I don't think that many Brits are hardcore kippers - 5% max.
Talking of which, Stewart Lee (a lefty comedian who irritates and yet possesses genius) did a brilliant riff on UKIP at the weekend. It starts at eight minutes in and lasts about ten minutes (IIRC):
A party which can be lampooned this viciously and effectively has a problem - and I LIKE Farage and have sympathies for UKIP.
I don't think some bod calling UKIP 'nasty' is a problem for UKIP. And sneering at those opposed to open door immigration is not sneering at UKIP, that's sneering at the majority of the electorate.
Left wing comedian mocks UKIP? That's like ursines defecating in the woods. It will convince people who are already in agreement with him.
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
A party which can be lampooned this viciously and effectively has a problem - and I LIKE Farage and have sympathies for UKIP.
I don't think some bod calling UKIP 'nasty' is a problem for UKIP. And sneering at those opposed to open door immigration is not sneering at UKIP, that's sneering at the majority of the electorate.
Watch the whole thing: it is a brilliant, hilarious and brutal deconstruction of UKIP.
IMHO - chacun a son gout, of course.
To me, it came across as another rich London media bod sneering at provincial oinks.
Not oinks, 'Bumpkins'.
(Incidentally, Farage ticks the rich and London boxes, but swap 'media' for 'stockbroker')
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
To be fair, they are in Coalition and the LibDems opposed/voted against a referendum when it was proposed.
In 2011 the majority of the parliamentary Conservative Party voted against a referendum.
The government's "Balance of Competences" review of the UK/EU policy split has not recommended any changes. They find nothing wrong with the status quo.
The parliamentary party voted against because they disagreed with the *tactics* not the strategy. You have a vote now, and OUT loses & I spend the rest of my life with Britain in the EU. Time it right and there may be a chance of OUT winning.
The "government" isn't a Tory government, it's a Coalition. In addition, the nature of our relationship with the EU is a political judgement, not one that will be decided by the civil service
The 'better off out' faction of the parliamentary Conservative Party is a minority, and they do not set the 'strategy' of the Conservative Party's EU policy.
Sure. The strategy of the party is for a vote in 2017. Some of the BOO minority disagreed and want an earlier referendum and voted accordingly. Wanting to give the people a say doesn't automatically make you a BOOer.
No one actually wants an EU referendum as a good thing in itself.
Some people want Britain to leave the EU.
Some people want Britain to stay in the EU.
Those that want Britain to leave see a referendum as a mechanism for achieving that policy goal.
Those who want Britain in the EU already have their policy goal. Why on Earth would they have a referendum on changing from the policy they want to the policy they don't want?
All this claptrap about "denying the British people a say" is so much petty resentment from self-important whining children.
We all get to have our say on the future government of the UK in May 2015. If you want that future government to pull Britain out of the EU, vote UKIP.
I'm no Scottish Nationalist, but at least in Scotland it was quite clear that, if you wanted Scotland to leave the UK, you should vote SNP. It took them a while to get there, but now they have their referendum, and they didn't spend the years since devolution whining that Labour and the Lib Dems were "denying Scots their voice". They got on with winning the damned elections.
But if you really think Ed and Nick are "denying the British people a say" by putting forward their policies prior to the general election and not having a referendum on one particular policy afterwards, here are a few other matters on which not only Nick and Ed, but also Dave and Nigel are "denying the British people a say":
Welfare Pensions The NHS The BBC Scientific and medical research Defence policy Our continued membership of NATO Our continued membership of the UN International development Immigration Carbon emissions reduction Our continued membership of the European Space Agency Communications interception Criminal justice
...some of which are quite important. Shall we have a referendum on each of them? Or shall we continue to have a representative democracy, with all its foibles?
The logic of your argument is that Scots shouldn't get a vote on independence.
Sure. The strategy of the party is for a vote in 2017. Some of the BOO minority disagreed and want an earlier referendum and voted accordingly. Wanting to give the people a say doesn't automatically make you a BOOer.
As I understood it, your point was that a 2017 date was chosen to make 'Out' a more likely outcome. In 2011 there was no mention of any alternative referendum date at all.
"The parliamentary party voted against because they disagreed with the *tactics* not the strategy. You have a vote now, and OUT loses & I spend the rest of my life with Britain in the EU. Time it right and there may be a chance of OUT winning."
Sure. The strategy of the party is for a vote in 2017. Some of the BOO minority disagreed and want an earlier referendum and voted accordingly. Wanting to give the people a say doesn't automatically make you a BOOer.
As I understood it, your point was that a 2017 date was chosen to make 'Out' a more likely outcome. In 2011 there was no mention of any alternative referendum date at all.
"The parliamentary party voted against because they disagreed with the *tactics* not the strategy. You have a vote now, and OUT loses & I spend the rest of my life with Britain in the EU. Time it right and there may be a chance of OUT winning."
May be I am muddling up some of the various tries the anti-Cameroons have made, but I thought 2011 was demanding a vote before the General Election?
My point is that to maximise the chance of a BOO vote you need to demonstrate to the (thoughtful and fair-minded) British voters that reform has been tried and resisted. "Stay in and reform it" is the strongest argument for remaining in.
To me, it came across as another rich London media bod sneering at provincial oinks.
Me too. He lost me when he sneered at the UKIP position that immigration costs more in public services than it funds. This is of course exactly what has happened, but Lee just mentioned it and moved on. He even had to concede it in way later, when he said his daughter's school celebrates lots of cultures; OK, Stewart, so have there or have there not been lots of recent immigrants? And do their taxes fully fund the births and the healthcare and the public education, or are they a net cost? And does he pay his share of these taxes, or are they borne by people he sneers at while he does a Jimmy Carr tax fiddle?
It got worse when he suggested that there won't be a lot of immigration from Bulgaria. We've been here before, when Migrationwatch said there'd be lots of Polish, were sneered at and were then proven exactly right.
There are arguments - many of them - to be made against the typical ukipper's world view. If I were a poverty-stricken Bulgarian, I'd be headed over here too, and so would most ukippers. But when I see someone with Stewart Lee's attitude, I tend to want to disagree with him no matter what he's saying, even if he's saying grass is green and the sky is blue.
Erm...apart from the big tax shortfall from the North Sea being due to unplanned facility downtime the nat's message was spot on...
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Mr. Bond, I saw a glowing review of Lee's programme. Didn't plan on watching it beforehand, and the review put me off, as he compared current immigration levels with historic immigration (which did often coincide with quite a lot of killing). The review, which was very positive, made him sound like a self-satisfied tunc.
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Eck has had a vision of the future, and it does not include these things.
No one actually wants an EU referendum as a good thing in itself.
Some people want Britain to leave the EU.
Some people want Britain to stay in the EU.
Those that want Britain to leave see a referendum as a mechanism for achieving that policy goal.
Those who want Britain in the EU already have their policy goal. Why on Earth would they have a referendum on changing from the policy they want to the policy they don't want?
All this claptrap about "denying the British people a say" is so much petty resentment from self-important whining children.
We all get to have our say on the future government of the UK in May 2015. If you want that future government to pull Britain out of the EU, vote UKIP.
I'm no Scottish Nationalist, but at least in Scotland it was quite clear that, if you wanted Scotland to leave the UK, you should vote SNP. It took them a while to get there, but now they have their referendum, and they didn't spend the years since devolution whining that Labour and the Lib Dems were "denying Scots their voice". They got on with winning the damned elections.
But if you really think Ed and Nick are "denying the British people a say" by putting forward their policies prior to the general election and not having a referendum on one particular policy afterwards, here are a few other matters on which not only Nick and Ed, but also Dave and Nigel are "denying the British people a say":
Welfare Pensions The NHS The BBC Scientific and medical research Defence policy Our continued membership of NATO Our continued membership of the UN International development Immigration Carbon emissions reduction Our continued membership of the European Space Agency Communications interception Criminal justice
...some of which are quite important. Shall we have a referendum on each of them? Or shall we continue to have a representative democracy, with all its foibles?
Moron.
That's not up to your usual standards, Sean. It's short and pithy, but lacks a killer blow. I'm disappointed.
He could even have gone into the GE with a vague promise of a vote IF there is a BIG Treaty (knowing that no such thing will occur, and also that it would be up to him to define BIG).
Er, you do realise that is his position?
Basically he's accepted the Coalition policy to have a referendum if there's ever another treaty that transfers powers from Westminster to Brussels, with the modest tweak that such a referendum would be an in/out referendum.
I do wonder why those posters who want out of the EU are clinging to Cameron as their standard-bearer though. In their ideal worlds the three leaders of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband would choose precisely the same scenario for the EU in 2020 - no change on the status quo and no time wasted on faffing around with it.
It's only because Cameron has such a large faction of MPs who want out completely that he's been forced to bend at all.
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Eck has had a vision of the future, and it does not include these things.
Burn the heretic!
Eck has had a vision of the future, but the currency bit of it was something of a dream sequence and all a bit squirrelly. Maybe he had too much cheese or beer or acid or something before he hit the sack. Anyway, when he wakes up no doubt he'll promptly clear the matter up and let everyone know what currency an independent Scotland would use.
Mr. Bond, I saw a glowing review of Lee's programme. Didn't plan on watching it beforehand, and the review put me off, as he compared current immigration levels with historic immigration (which did often coincide with quite a lot of killing). The review, which was very positive, made him sound like a self-satisfied tunc.
Yes, and of course many of the previous episodes were either on proportionately a much smaller scale, or were actual violent invasions.
To me, it is something of a litmus test of intellectual honesty to ask a lefty if immigration (or diversity) is ever bad thing, and if so how. In my experience - admittedly limited, because this can be a hostile thing to ask someone about - they often struggle with this. The honest answer is yes, and you can point to white immigration into South Africa if need be. But instinctively they want to say "no" because to say "yes" invites obvious further inquiry that are even more uncomfortable. .
Lee's show is safe, safe, safe. I have long thought a really edgy new soap opera would be one called "EastEnders" in which everyone is from Bangladesh or eastern Europe and speaks their own language without subtitles. The BBC's effort of that name seems to be based in the 1950s.
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Eck has had a vision of the future, and it does not include these things.
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
Con Plus 5, Lab minus 5, LD plus 2, Kippers minus 2
All voters
Con plus 1, Lab minus 2, LD no change, Kippers minus 1
Leader ratings
Dave plus 11
Ed plus 1
Nick plus 12
Nigel minus 19
Really?
Wow, those were not the changes I was expecting wrt UKIP. How out of phase was the poll from a year ago with this one? (it might be interesting to compare this latest poll with the average of the three centred on a year ago).
I know I'm technically breaking my rule not to comment on individual polls. But as this is a comparison between two polls, I think I can just about get away with it.
Farage increasingly looks like a lightweight and a time waster (saying the 2010 manifesto was drivel, dissing Neil Hamilton) and I think will look even more so after the Clegg debates. The electorate does like politicians who at least pretend to take it seriously.
Someone who disses Neil Hamilton (which I missed, btw) is, by definition, a lightweight.
Most serious people don't notice him
That was shorthand for "appointing him deputy chairman and campaign director of Ukip and then dissing him".
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
The Conservatives are reported to have scheduled the transfer of Justice and Home Affairs powers to the EU after the May elections.
A few random musings after watching my third Cheltenham bet of the week fail to finish - perhaps I should stick to flat racing.
The MORI numbers vary from YouGov which have nearly 3/4 supporting the two main parties and that's a big difference.
The larger poll number should worry the Conservatives - I recall research done after 2001 and 2005 which showed a strong Labour lead among those not voting - I've not seen any figures from 2010 - and while the current electoral arrangements maximise the Conservative vote, that's not to say there can't or won't be a higher turnout IF the election appears close next time.
As usual for Labour, their problem will be getting their vote out - it's there and plenty enough at this stage for a healthy majority but that's useless if they don't vote.
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
The Conservatives are reported to have scheduled the transfer of Justice and Home Affairs powers to the EU after the May elections.
For eurosceptics, UKIP is the only anti-EU option. All of the other parties promise referendums, but they never actually deliver.
Ok, so you choose to worry about that and overlook the fact that a Labour Govt after the GE will not have a referendum by end of 2017. Other UKIP activists who I know (small sample of 3) are starting to reassess their support as they choose to look at the big picture. Cameron for all his many faults has to deliver a referendum if in Govt after the next GE. That commitment is backed by his MPs the majority of which are eurosceptic. That is the political reality.
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
The Conservatives are reported to have scheduled the transfer of Justice and Home Affairs powers to the EU after the May elections.
For eurosceptics, UKIP is the only anti-EU option. All of the other parties promise referendums, but they never actually deliver.
Ok, so you choose to worry about that and overlook the fact that a Labour Govt after the GE will not have a referendum by end of 2017. Other UKIP activists who I know (small sample of 3) are starting to reassess their support as they choose to look at the big picture. Cameron for all his many faults has to deliver a referendum if in Govt after the next GE. That commitment is backed by his MPs the majority of which are eurosceptic. That is the political reality.
? The Conservatives' rhetoric does not match their actions.
They say they are concerned about the amount of power centralised in Brussels, and that UK voters should be consulted before there is any further transfer of power from the UK to Brussels. Then they transfer more power from UK > Brussels without holding the referendum.
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Eck has had a vision of the future, and it does not include these things.
Oh yes, the Daily Mail. Well known to be a highly influential source of information for Scottish swing-voters of the Labour-sympathetic, devo-max persuasion. Not.
Feel free to preach to the converted. Meanwhile, the Yes campaign are talking with the undecided voters in the middle. Rubs chin... I wonder which camp has the wiser strategy?
UKIP supporters want to exit from the EU. But will a Cameron as PM referendum, with Cameron campaigning to stay in the EU, give that result? Or is the chance of a Miliband as PM referendum following a proposal to transfer powers to the EU with Miliband leading the stay in side better?
Ok, so you choose to worry about that and overlook the fact that a Labour Govt after the GE will not have a referendum by end of 2017. Other UKIP activists who I know (small sample of 3) are starting to reassess their support as they choose to look at the big picture. Cameron for all his many faults has to deliver a referendum if in Govt after the next GE. That commitment is backed by his MPs the majority of which are eurosceptic. That is the political reality.
The problem though is we don't know what kind of "renegotiated package" Cameron would return with from Brussels and what the process will do to a febrile, albeit victorious, Conservative Party after 2015. History tells us that the 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to schism within Labour after 1979.
Cameron will presumably come back with a plan he will "recommend" to the country in 2017 but I suspect nothing will satisfy those determined to vote to withdraw and what will that mean for those Conservatives determined to support the "No" option. There will be Conservatives on both platforms (and Labour supporters too) while Cameron himself will not be able to adopt Wilsonian neutrality as it will be his proposal.
I suspect for all his sniping at Ed Miliband the last thing Cameron wants or needs is a referendum dominating the first half of his second Government especially against a background of rising interest rates and public spending cuts which will colour the EU Referendum as less a serious debate on Britain's role in the world than an opportunity to kick the Government (though I suspect the "No" camp will wish this fervently).
I'm also inferring that the Referendum in 2017 would be on a re-negotiated membership (if agreed) or on a straight In-Out question if nothing is agreed. If the re-negotiated membership deal passes, that's it - if it fails, do we then move to an In-Out vote and, if so, when and what would the rejection of his negotiated deal mean for the political authority of the Prime Minister ?
The Conservative position is more complex than it appears - the best route for an In-Out referendum would be for UKIP to gain a substantial number of votes and MPs and be able to trade this for support for another party in Government. The trouble is, at 11-13%, UKIP won't be in a position to do anything. IF UKIP supporters hold their noses and vote Conservative, there's no guarantee they'll get the question they want.
UKIP supporters want to exit from the EU. But will a Cameron as PM referendum, with Cameron campaigning to stay in the EU, give that result? Or is the chance of a Miliband as PM referendum following a proposal to transfer powers to the EU with Miliband leading the stay in side better?
Miliband has said that a referendum in the next parliament is unlikely if there is a Labour Govt so we should face up to that reality.
Stodge "Cameron will presumably come back with a plan he will "recommend" to the country in 2017 but I suspect nothing will satisfy those determined to vote to withdraw and what will that mean for those Conservatives determined to support the "No" option. There will be Conservatives on both platforms (and Labour supporters too) while Cameron himself will not be able to adopt Wilsonian neutrality as it will be his proposal." YES to all. "I suspect for all his sniping at Ed Miliband the last thing Cameron wants or needs is a referendum dominating the first half of his second Government ..." Yes I'm also inferring that the Referendum in 2017 would be on a re-negotiated membership (if agreed) or on a straight In-Out question if nothing is agreed. If the re-negotiated membership deal passes, that's it - if it fails, do we then move to an In-Out vote" Yes " and, if so, when and what would the rejection of his negotiated deal mean for the political authority of the Prime Minister ?" Yes
Stodge "The Conservative position is more complex than it appears - the best route for an In-Out referendum would be for UKIP to gain a substantial number of votes and MPs and be able to trade this for support for another party in Government. The trouble is, at 11-13%, UKIP won't be in a position to do anything." AGREED "IF UKIP supporters hold their noses and vote Conservative, there's no guarantee they'll get the question they want." Not just about votes, it starts with Cash and Activists. There will, at least , be an IN/OUT. Which will settle the matter for a generation.
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
The Conservatives are reported to have scheduled the transfer of Justice and Home Affairs powers to the EU after the May elections.
Con Plus 5, Lab minus 5, LD plus 2, Kippers minus 2
All voters
Con plus 1, Lab minus 2, LD no change, Kippers minus 1
Leader ratings
Dave plus 11
Ed plus 1
Nick plus 12
Nigel minus 19
Really?
Wow, those were not the changes I was expecting wrt UKIP. How out of phase was the poll from a year ago with this one? (it might be interesting to compare this latest poll with the average of the three centred on a year ago).
I know I'm technically breaking my rule not to comment on individual polls. But as this is a comparison between two polls, I think I can just about get away with it.
Farage increasingly looks like a lightweight and a time waster (saying the 2010 manifesto was drivel, dissing Neil Hamilton) and I think will look even more so after the Clegg debates. The electorate does like politicians who at least pretend to take it seriously.
Someone who disses Neil Hamilton (which I missed, btw) is, by definition, a lightweight.
Most serious people don't notice him
That was shorthand for "appointing him deputy chairman and campaign director of Ukip and then dissing him".
Con Plus 5, Lab minus 5, LD plus 2, Kippers minus 2
All voters
Con plus 1, Lab minus 2, LD no change, Kippers minus 1
Leader ratings
Dave plus 11
Ed plus 1
Nick plus 12
Nigel minus 19
Really?
Wow, those were not the changes I was expecting wrt UKIP. How out of phase was the poll from a year ago with this one? (it might be interesting to compare this latest poll with the average of the three centred on a year ago).
I know I'm technically breaking my rule not to comment on individual polls. But as this is a comparison between two polls, I think I can just about get away with it.
Farage increasingly looks like a lightweight and a time waster (saying the 2010 manifesto was drivel, dissing Neil Hamilton) and I think will look even more so after the Clegg debates. The electorate does like politicians who at least pretend to take it seriously.
Someone who disses Neil Hamilton (which I missed, btw) is, by definition, a lightweight.
Most serious people don't notice him
That was shorthand for "appointing him deputy chairman and campaign director of Ukip and then dissing him".
Could one effect of the Ed M announcement of "no referendum unless powers go.." be on UKIP activists and UKIP donors? It reinforces the doubts in some of their minds that what they are doing with UKIP will actually bring about a referendum rather than pushing it into the remote future. Eurosceptic Conservatives will be less friendly towards UKIP and defections may even start to reverse. It is not just about the voters, it is also about the key supporters.
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
Very few people in UKIP or the Conservatives would disagree, whereas some in Lab and the LDs would. But that is not the issue now. The issue is how UKIP will be affected by the clarification by EdM. To date the debate after the Ed statement is about the voters, not about the workers and cash.
If you ask the public if they wanted a referendum on the colour of milk tops they'd probably say yes.
Why? There's a clear, concise system for colours of milk- Blue for Full Fat, Red for Skimmed, Green for Semi, and so on. People know what they're getting with milk.
The EU, on the other hand, we don't really know what we're getting.
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
I was shocked to see Orange Top (1% fat) introduced without a plebiscite.
Would never have happened in Switzerland.
Joking aside, what's wrong with the British public having the chance to pause and think about how the EU is going? It's vastly different to what the EEC was, when I was a lad in the 70s Forget barmy Daily Mail stories about straight bananas or asylum seeking cats, let's focus on things like ever closer integration, the Euro crisis, migration and immigration, and the ECHR. Isn't it time that our politicians sold the EU to us? I'd probably vote to stay in, but I know more people who are in the out camp. A referendum would give the public the chance to engage with politicians on both sides. Who knows, maybe we'd learn to love the EU?
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
It was discussed this afternoon when it came out Stuart. Basically yes and no both up 1% with no still comfortably in the lead. Yes needing to win more than 90% of the remaining undecided now to win.
16% of SNP voters voting no? Tartan tories? It could make the difference.
I was shocked to see Orange Top (1% fat) introduced without a plebiscite.
Would never have happened in Switzerland.
It's purple in some places.
We need the EU to urgently form a committee to recommend a series of debates on how they will form a working group to agree on the mechanism that will allow standardisation of the colours of: 1) milk tops 2) tank tops 3) carrot tops
It may sound barmy, but whilst they're wasting time on this, they can't be doing any serious damage elsewhere ...
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
We also know that Cameron's formative political experience was watching his party implode over Europe in the 1990s from the removal of Margaret Thatcher through the events of September 1992 (in which he was a witness) to the landslide defeat and his own personal humiliation in 1997.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
The problem will start when the Referendum is called - IF he comes back from the re-negotiations with something that will satisfy 90% of the party, he will be happy as, with Labour and LD support, it will likely carry a Referendum.
BUT if he comes back with a plan which fails to satisfy the Conservative Parliamentary Party and then goes on to see that policy sunk in a Referendum, his authority will have gone.
IF he fails to come back with any agreement, he can justifiably wring his hands and say "I tried..." and then has to weigh up the politics of an in-Out Referendum and decide which side he will support (remembering how neutrality did Wilson no favours in 1975).
Mrs Thatcher became a public figure on the back of the 1975 Referendum but because she was on the right side of opinion - Nick Clegg's credibility was destroyed by being on the wrong side of the AV argument. In calling an In-Out Referendum, Cameron has to figure out how to be on the right side of the result and how to deal with the wounds his Party will inflict on itself during the campaign.
All eyes on tonight's YouGov. Will it show the Tory surge?
Nah, it'll be back up to around a 7% Lab Lead.
Hope you are right but I think Lab may take a short term hit over this referendum stuff.
There is a tendency for people to underestimate the time before an event is reflected in the polls. There was a lot of conversation about this on this site on the run up to the 2010 general election and the consensus then was, if memory serves, it takes about two weeks.
I was shocked to see Orange Top (1% fat) introduced without a plebiscite.
Would never have happened in Switzerland.
Joking aside, what's wrong with the British public having the chance to pause and think about how the EU is going? It's vastly different to what the EEC was, when I was a lad in the 70s Forget barmy Daily Mail stories about straight bananas or asylum seeking cats, let's focus on things like ever closer integration, the Euro crisis, migration and immigration, and the ECHR. Isn't it time that our politicians sold the EU to us? I'd probably vote to stay in, but I know more people who are in the out camp. A referendum would give the public the chance to engage with politicians on both sides. Who knows, maybe we'd learn to love the EU?
+1
Of course, having to sell the EU to the electorate may be what the Europhiles are afraid of ...
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
We also know that Cameron's formative political experience was watching his party implode over Europe in the 1990s from the removal of Margaret Thatcher through the events of September 1992 (in which he was a witness) to the landslide defeat and his own personal humiliation in 1997.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
The problem will start when the Referendum is called - IF he comes back from the re-negotiations with something that will satisfy 90% of the party, he will be happy as, with Labour and LD support, it will likely carry a Referendum.
BUT if he comes back with a plan which fails to satisfy the Conservative Parliamentary Party and then goes on to see that policy sunk in a Referendum, his authority will have gone.
IF he fails to come back with any agreement, he can justifiably wring his hands and say "I tried..." and then has to weigh up the politics of an in-Out Referendum and decide which side he will support (remembering how neutrality did Wilson no favours in 1975).
Mrs Thatcher became a public figure on the back of the 1975 Referendum but because she was on the right side of opinion - Nick Clegg's credibility was destroyed by being on the wrong side of the AV argument. In calling an In-Out Referendum, Cameron has to figure out how to be on the right side of the result and how to deal with the wounds his Party will inflict on itself during the campaign.
That's a good post. I suppose he just wishes the issue would disappear.
Sky: Satellites picked up a ping from the 777 shortly after contact was lost.
'Following days of mystery, the United States has stepped forward and announced that authorities have seen an “indication” that the Malaysia Airlines jetliner may actually have crashed into the Indian Ocean.
A senior Pentagon official said to ABC that the USS Kidd is moving into the area to kick off a search.'
I was shocked to see Orange Top (1% fat) introduced without a plebiscite.
Would never have happened in Switzerland.
Joking aside, what's wrong with the British public having the chance to pause and think about how the EU is going? It's vastly different to what the EEC was, when I was a lad in the 70s Forget barmy Daily Mail stories about straight bananas or asylum seeking cats, let's focus on things like ever closer integration, the Euro crisis, migration and immigration, and the ECHR. Isn't it time that our politicians sold the EU to us? I'd probably vote to stay in, but I know more people who are in the out camp. A referendum would give the public the chance to engage with politicians on both sides. Who knows, maybe we'd learn to love the EU?
I agree with you Mr Stopper. The argument that a debate and a decision on this needs to wait for a particular treaty or a particular set of reforms is a convenient fallacy. The underlying issues are much more important and are available for debate now or at any convenient point.
Do we wish to pool our sovereignty?
Do we think that a single market is worth putting up with such a volume of legislation and regulation?
Are we willing to accept the consequences of freedom of movement?
Do we consider the EU undemocratic?
Are there viable alternatives and, if so, what?
There is room for lots of different views on these points but it is vanishingly unlikely any one set of changes or reforms is going to swing the balance one way or another.
Ashcroft is right. The more the Tories are seen to be obsessing over Europe the more it helps Miliband.
It's not the obsession per se, but the almost ubiquitous division it generates.
But now (cf my prior post) there is less reason for division. Miliband has made himself the common enemy. He will not give Brits a vote. The Tories have an opposite and settled position - they WILL offer an in/out referendum.
Of course when/if this referendum arrives it will smash the Tory party into pieces - but that's tomorrow's problem. For the moment and up to the GE there is no reason for them to bicker and every reason for them to work together to defeat voter-hating, europerving Labour.
The Tories will be claiming they'll offer a referendum. But after being in government for five years when they did not offer a referendum, that's not a very credible pitch.
You ARE joking of course. Those gullible enough to believe Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges certainly haven't been made to look like amusing fools again and again and again and again and again.
You can't SERIOUSLY be suggesting the same halfwits who were wetting themselves over Cammie's Veto Flounce/EU speech/Immigration Pledge/EU referendum Bill/Lisbon Pledge etc. were in some way a hilarious bunch of gullible chumps?
After all, if John Major Cammie's own backbench MPs trust him so implicity on the EU then why on earth wouldn't tory kipper waverers?
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Stuart, you always find something positive to say about every new opinion poll on Scottish Independence, and yet YES is still trailing by 9%.
Despite the fact that I could be living in Scotland before the end of the year I fail to get interested by such a glacial* rate of progress.
* Note that glacier's have sped up considerably in recent years due to global warming, but they're still slow!
If support for a No vote was at its highest level this year then we would never hear the end of it here at PB. Yet the same story for Yes creates a wall of silence. The Brit nats just can't figure it out.
My advice? Send Osborne back to the frontline. He is a sterling chap and is bound to come out victorious over the rebellious jocks.
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
Actually as you were advised earlier the poll was noted and linked but as the movement was microscopic PB declared it Scottish Squirrel Time" and moved on to more weighty discussions on relationship between Bobby Charlton, goalposts and Ed Miliband.
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
Actually as you were advised earlier the poll was noted and linked but as the movement was microscopic PB declared it Scottish Squirrel Time" and moved on to more weighty discussions on relationship between Bobby Charlton, goalposts and Ed Miliband.
There is certainly a heck of a lot of squirrel-spotting going on around here, but it is all coming from the No camp. Your behaviour greatly pleases me, because it shows that you really haven't got the faintest idea what is happening out there. Long may that remain the case.
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
Actually as you were advised earlier the poll was noted and linked but as the movement was microscopic PB declared it Scottish Squirrel Time" and moved on to more weighty discussions on relationship between Bobby Charlton, goalposts and Ed Miliband.
There is certainly a heck of a lot of squirrel-spotting going on around here, but it is all coming from the No camp. Your behaviour greatly pleases me, because it shows that you really haven't got the faintest idea what is happening out there. Long may that remain the case.
What is 'happening out there' that is not showing in the polls?
We should know by now that Cameron is not a Eurosceptic.
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I don't think Mr Cameron is trying to keep everyone in the tent.
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up, so the Cameroons are now trying to convince the voters they rejected, that Mr Miliband is somehow a worse option than Mr Cameron.
The Cameroon's policies however are all pitched at the Guardian readers.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up
But they added up better than playing to the base did?
OK, it's been several hours now and has become obvious that none of the Unionists are interested in discussing it, so here is the Survation poll:
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
Actually as you were advised earlier the poll was noted and linked but as the movement was microscopic PB declared it Scottish Squirrel Time" and moved on to more weighty discussions on relationship between Bobby Charlton, goalposts and Ed Miliband.
There is certainly a heck of a lot of squirrel-spotting going on around here, but it is all coming from the No camp. Your behaviour greatly pleases me, because it shows that you really haven't got the faintest idea what is happening out there. Long may that remain the case.
We in the NO camp are great animal lovers. There's nothing finer in Scottish culinary fayre than JackW roasting Pork with a side portion of Swede.
Further we continue the hunt for the elusive tartan squirrel last seen desporting itself around Scotland with the SNP's latest proposal for a post independence currency. This rascal of a bushy tailed rodent is widely reported to have found the answer and its' nuts !!
Comments
To me, it came across as another rich London media bod sneering at provincial oinks.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/13/mixed-response-ed-miliband-eu-proposal/
Come to think of it, how many constituencies of any type had a turnout of 79% last time? Even in Witney the turnout was only 73.3%, and I think it's normally higher in the Tory strongholds.
(Incidentally, Farage ticks the rich and London boxes, but swap 'media' for 'stockbroker')
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580030/Scotland-plunged-12billion-red-catastrophic-collapse-oil-cash-shattering-Salmonds-claims-riches.html
@windsweptfield: An important message from the UK chancellor. http://t.co/xSrTnByc5K
"The parliamentary party voted against because they disagreed with the *tactics* not the strategy. You have a vote now, and OUT loses & I spend the rest of my life with Britain in the EU. Time it right and there may be a chance of OUT winning."
My point is that to maximise the chance of a BOO vote you need to demonstrate to the (thoughtful and fair-minded) British voters that reform has been tried and resisted. "Stay in and reform it" is the strongest argument for remaining in.
It got worse when he suggested that there won't be a lot of immigration from Bulgaria. We've been here before, when Migrationwatch said there'd be lots of Polish, were sneered at and were then proven exactly right.
There are arguments - many of them - to be made against the typical ukipper's world view. If I were a poverty-stricken Bulgarian, I'd be headed over here too, and so would most ukippers. But when I see someone with Stewart Lee's attitude, I tend to want to disagree with him no matter what he's saying, even if he's saying grass is green and the sky is blue.
I wonder if an independent Scotland would ever suffer facility uptime problems. I wonder if a Scottish chancellor would ever decide to mount a raid (and I'm not talking about Brown!).
Burn the heretic!
If these numbers are true then tory England is subsidising Labour Scotland and Wales to the tune of almost 30bn combined.
This is utterly nonsensical, because the tories are in fact helping their enemies to maintain the delusion that socialism can work
Basically he's accepted the Coalition policy to have a referendum if there's ever another treaty that transfers powers from Westminster to Brussels, with the modest tweak that such a referendum would be an in/out referendum.
I do wonder why those posters who want out of the EU are clinging to Cameron as their standard-bearer though. In their ideal worlds the three leaders of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband would choose precisely the same scenario for the EU in 2020 - no change on the status quo and no time wasted on faffing around with it.
It's only because Cameron has such a large faction of MPs who want out completely that he's been forced to bend at all.
More good news on health from labour's socialist paradise
To me, it is something of a litmus test of intellectual honesty to ask a lefty if immigration (or diversity) is ever bad thing, and if so how. In my experience - admittedly limited, because this can be a hostile thing to ask someone about - they often struggle with this. The honest answer is yes, and you can point to white immigration into South Africa if need be. But instinctively they want to say "no" because to say "yes" invites obvious further inquiry that are even more uncomfortable. .
Lee's show is safe, safe, safe. I have long thought a really edgy new soap opera would be one called "EastEnders" in which everyone is from Bangladesh or eastern Europe and speaks their own language without subtitles. The BBC's effort of that name seems to be based in the 1950s.
(Central forecast)
Con vote lead 7.0%
Con seat lead 52 seats
(10000 Monte Carlo simulations)
Chance of Tory vote lead: 100.0%
Chance of a Tory seat lead: 96.1%
Chance of a Hung Parliament: 70.1%
Chance of a Tory majority: 29.9%
Chance of a Labour majority: 0.0%
The position remains more or less where it's been since May 2013...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580030/Scotland-plunged-12billion-red-catastrophic-collapse-oil-cash-shattering-Salmonds-claims-riches.html
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-02-28/farage-dubs-neil-hamilton-a-ukip-back-room-boy/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100260182/the-next-tory-plot-to-embarrass-david-cameron-on-europe-is-already-taking-shape/
UKIP is the only anti-EU option.
Another of Barraco Barner's red lines?
A few random musings after watching my third Cheltenham bet of the week fail to finish - perhaps I should stick to flat racing.
The MORI numbers vary from YouGov which have nearly 3/4 supporting the two main parties and that's a big difference.
The larger poll number should worry the Conservatives - I recall research done after 2001 and 2005 which showed a strong Labour lead among those not voting - I've not seen any figures from 2010 - and while the current electoral arrangements maximise the Conservative vote, that's not to say there can't or won't be a higher turnout IF the election appears close next time.
As usual for Labour, their problem will be getting their vote out - it's there and plenty enough at this stage for a healthy majority but that's useless if they don't vote.
They say they are concerned about the amount of power centralised in Brussels, and that UK voters should be consulted before there is any further transfer of power from the UK to Brussels. Then they transfer more power from UK > Brussels without holding the referendum.
Feel free to preach to the converted. Meanwhile, the Yes campaign are talking with the undecided voters in the middle. Rubs chin... I wonder which camp has the wiser strategy?
Cameron will presumably come back with a plan he will "recommend" to the country in 2017 but I suspect nothing will satisfy those determined to vote to withdraw and what will that mean for those Conservatives determined to support the "No" option. There will be Conservatives on both platforms (and Labour supporters too) while Cameron himself will not be able to adopt Wilsonian neutrality as it will be his proposal.
I suspect for all his sniping at Ed Miliband the last thing Cameron wants or needs is a referendum dominating the first half of his second Government especially against a background of rising interest rates and public spending cuts which will colour the EU Referendum as less a serious debate on Britain's role in the world than an opportunity to kick the Government (though I suspect the "No" camp will wish this fervently).
I'm also inferring that the Referendum in 2017 would be on a re-negotiated membership (if agreed) or on a straight In-Out question if nothing is agreed. If the re-negotiated membership deal passes, that's it - if it fails, do we then move to an In-Out vote and, if so, when and what would the rejection of his negotiated deal mean for the political authority of the Prime Minister ?
The Conservative position is more complex than it appears - the best route for an In-Out referendum would be for UKIP to gain a substantial number of votes and MPs and be able to trade this for support for another party in Government. The trouble is, at 11-13%, UKIP won't be in a position to do anything. IF UKIP supporters hold their noses and vote Conservative, there's no guarantee they'll get the question they want.
YES to all.
"I suspect for all his sniping at Ed Miliband the last thing Cameron wants or needs is a referendum dominating the first half of his second Government ..."
Yes
I'm also inferring that the Referendum in 2017 would be on a re-negotiated membership (if agreed) or on a straight In-Out question if nothing is agreed. If the re-negotiated membership deal passes, that's it - if it fails, do we then move to an In-Out vote"
Yes
" and, if so, when and what would the rejection of his negotiated deal mean for the political authority of the Prime Minister ?"
Yes
AGREED
"IF UKIP supporters hold their noses and vote Conservative, there's no guarantee they'll get the question they want."
Not just about votes, it starts with Cash and Activists. There will, at least , be an IN/OUT. Which will settle the matter for a generation.
Con minus 2, Lab minus 2, LD plus 3, UKIP no change
All voters
Con plus 1, Lab minus 3, LD plus 2, UKIP plus 1
Bad day here so far !
Take yesterday, I did a deep analysis, looked at what all the tipsters are backing and followed the consensus. Not a sodding winner.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10692247/Nigel-Farage-employs-both-his-wife-and-mistress-at-public-expense.html
Farage is a pretty good politician, although I suspect a one-trick pony who gets flustered under pressure. But he'd be a crap minister or MP.
Agreed. What a bunch of stupid t8ssers. The X factor, cider, benefits and sink schools are good enough for the likes of them.
The EU, on the other hand, we don't really know what we're getting.
Hope you are right but I think Lab may take a short term hit over this referendum stuff.
Would never have happened in Switzerland.
Most are residential. That's a lorra flats.
'Independence referendum: Support for Yes vote at highest level this year'
Almost a quarter of Scottish Labour voters – 24.1 per cent – who voted for the party in the 2011 Holyrood election are planning to vote Yes in the referendum.
In comparison only 16 per cent of SNP voters are planning to vote No.
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/independence-referendum-support-yes-vote-3237826
Forget barmy Daily Mail stories about straight bananas or asylum seeking cats, let's focus on things like ever closer integration, the Euro crisis, migration and immigration, and the ECHR.
Isn't it time that our politicians sold the EU to us? I'd probably vote to stay in, but I know more people who are in the out camp.
A referendum would give the public the chance to engage with politicians on both sides. Who knows, maybe we'd learn to love the EU?
16% of SNP voters voting no? Tartan tories? It could make the difference.
1) milk tops
2) tank tops
3) carrot tops
It may sound barmy, but whilst they're wasting time on this, they can't be doing any serious damage elsewhere ...
He knows that Europe is the one issue which can fracture the Conservative coalition just as it (along with nuclear disarmament) did Labour from 1975 to 1981.
He has spent his entire leadership trying to play both ends against the middle on this one. He knows that nothing short of withdrawal will satisfy a significant minority but equally there are those both within the party and among its donor base who are pro-EU. His current policy is maintaining that posture by trying to keep everyone in the tent.
The problem will start when the Referendum is called - IF he comes back from the re-negotiations with something that will satisfy 90% of the party, he will be happy as, with Labour and LD support, it will likely carry a Referendum.
BUT if he comes back with a plan which fails to satisfy the Conservative Parliamentary Party and then goes on to see that policy sunk in a Referendum, his authority will have gone.
IF he fails to come back with any agreement, he can justifiably wring his hands and say "I tried..." and then has to weigh up the politics of an in-Out Referendum and decide which side he will support (remembering how neutrality did Wilson no favours in 1975).
Mrs Thatcher became a public figure on the back of the 1975 Referendum but because she was on the right side of opinion - Nick Clegg's credibility was destroyed by being on the wrong side of the AV argument. In calling an In-Out Referendum, Cameron has to figure out how to be on the right side of the result and how to deal with the wounds his Party will inflict on itself during the campaign.
Despite the fact that I could be living in Scotland before the end of the year I fail to get interested by such a glacial* rate of progress.
* Note that glacier's have sped up considerably in recent years due to global warming, but they're still slow!
Of course, having to sell the EU to the electorate may be what the Europhiles are afraid of ...
That's a good post. I suppose he just wishes the issue would disappear.
A senior Pentagon official said to ABC that the USS Kidd is moving into the area to kick off a search.'
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/us-orders-uss-kidd-indian-ocean-search-malaysia-pl/
Do we wish to pool our sovereignty?
Do we think that a single market is worth putting up with such a volume of legislation and regulation?
Are we willing to accept the consequences of freedom of movement?
Do we consider the EU undemocratic?
Are there viable alternatives and, if so, what?
There is room for lots of different views on these points but it is vanishingly unlikely any one set of changes or reforms is going to swing the balance one way or another.
You ARE joking of course. Those gullible enough to believe Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges certainly haven't been made to look like amusing fools again and again and again and again and again.
You can't SERIOUSLY be suggesting the same halfwits who were wetting themselves over Cammie's Veto Flounce/EU speech/Immigration Pledge/EU referendum Bill/Lisbon Pledge etc. were in some way a hilarious bunch of gullible chumps?
After all, if John Major Cammie's own backbench MPs trust him so implicity on the EU then why on earth wouldn't tory kipper waverers?
*chortle*
My advice? Send Osborne back to the frontline. He is a sterling chap and is bound to come out victorious over the rebellious jocks.
I think he's seen his role as the leader of faction within the Conservative Party, rather than as the leader of the entire Conservative Party.
The logic of Cameroon-modernisation appears to have been factional. To drive out the voters the Cameroons disliked, and welcome in the Guardianista voters they do like.
The numbers did not add up, so the Cameroons are now trying to convince the voters they rejected, that Mr Miliband is somehow a worse option than Mr Cameron.
The Cameroon's policies however are all pitched at the Guardian readers.
Further we continue the hunt for the elusive tartan squirrel last seen desporting itself around Scotland with the SNP's latest proposal for a post independence currency. This rascal of a bushy tailed rodent is widely reported to have found the answer and its' nuts !!