When Nick Clegg says he "loves" Britain... I just don't believe him. Not at all. I suspect he quite likes parts of Britain, and is excited by the dynamism and diversity of London, but he could be just as happy living in Paris, Amsterdam or Barcelona.
That would be precisely right about me, but then I don't pretend anything else - I mildly like most places, basically. Clegg may still have correctly identified a niche market to improve on the current 10% for the LibDems - 27% who thought he won is more than 10. But he hasn't been very helpful for the cause he was supposedly supporting.
A fair summary I feel. He did far better in the first debate, and if he can have made a connection with the niche market he was going for, even losing the second one by a wider margin is not necessarily terrible, even if it hardly helps.
Seeing as most on here are giving it the full squirrel treatment. Is the 6% Labour lead an outlier, or the sign of things to come? Is 6 the new 1 or 2?
It's nothing to do with foreign grey vermin, YouGov just isn't important tonight.
However, if it had showed a 1% Labour lead, it would be...what TV Debate? Have you seen the subsections in tonights Yougov showing the Tory Party with a 10% lead among left handed men with black hair who masturbate on Thursdays and 25% more pensioners with one leg think Ed is crap than those that don't.....Tory majority nailed on!
The public want all four men to debate in 2015 and won't like it if any of them don't show.
Do we include the Greens? Or Respect?
I'd suggest the criteria for inclusion as something like:
1. Party standing in 500+ seats, and 2. Either: a. 20+ MPs at dissolution or b. (i) polling at an average of 10%+ over the last two years, and (ii) a national equivalent share of 10%+ at both of the most recent May/June elections.
There has to be some provision for breakthrough parties to get in (otherwise the SDP would have had no coverage in 1983 if coverage were based solely on how a party did last time), but it also has to be tough enough to prevent people like James Goldsmith buying their way on.
BBC News led with the Putin stuff about Farage.... even cutting off Farage's full quote! Then we had the UKIP red skin leaflet. 2 attacks on Farage. Then followed by a more neutral portrayal of immigration. 2 nil against Farage. Oh dear.
It's outrageous the number of times the BBC allowed Clegg to make a point without showing Farage's rebuttal in the summaries. The sooner they're broken up to allow more diverse ownership of news media in this country, the better.
I thought tonight was a much clearer win for Nigel Farage. Nick Clegg was all over the place. I think Clegg's honesty in particular has taken a real hit. He has repeated the three million jobs lie multiple time in these debates, which even the man that wrote the report it comes from has criticized. Clegg also keeps on claiming the EU is the "world's largest economy", which is nonsense: if you go with countries, it's the USA, and if you go with economic blocs, NAFTA is bigger. He also said EU migrants that came here would have to work, which is clearly untrue. If you want to come and beg on the streets, you have every right to do so. After three months, you can claim benefits.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
Seeing as most on here are giving it the full squirrel treatment. Is the 6% Labour lead an outlier, or the sign of things to come? Is 6 the new 1 or 2?
It's nothing to do with foreign grey vermin, YouGov just isn't important tonight.
Farage is going to have the big MO to get back the UKIP/CON backswitchers that were lost (temporarily) with the budget bounce.
I anticipate CLegg loses some LD/LAB backswitchers too.
Can't see my Q2 level poll bet being a winner right now, but it only needs 1 outlier so 5/2 still fair odds for the first half.
TSE - I can't see Farage standing in Hallam unless he thinks he and Clegg have a future as some kind of on the road political double act. Labour could do with a high profile celebrity supporter standing in Hallam but as I understand it they already have a candidate no-one has heard of.
6% lead.....Yep, this place will be full of polling squirrels tonight. There is more chance of people posting about the shape of cornflakes through history as there is of posts on this poll.
I don't know much about the shape of cornflakes through history but those in my box of TESCO Everyday Value cornflakes are noticeably smaller in size and, perhaps, more consistantly oval than those of the leading brands. But they taste OK - and you can't really go wrong at 31p for a 500g box.
I have no comment to make on the poll.
When I was three I thought cornflakes came from my grandmothers toe.
Seeing as most on here are giving it the full squirrel treatment. Is the 6% Labour lead an outlier, or the sign of things to come? Is 6 the new 1 or 2?
It's nothing to do with foreign grey vermin, YouGov just isn't important tonight.
However, if it had showed a 1% Labour lead, it would be...what TV Debate? Have you seen the subsection in tonights Yougov showing the Tory Party with a 10% lead among left handed men with black hair who masturbate on Thursdays.....Tory majority nailed on!
I don't think it would, tonight, 1% wouldn't have been viewed as too extreme. Now, if crossover had actually occurred.................
Seeing as most on here are giving it the full squirrel treatment. Is the 6% Labour lead an outlier, or the sign of things to come? Is 6 the new 1 or 2?
It's nothing to do with foreign grey vermin, YouGov just isn't important tonight.
However, if it had showed a 1% Labour lead, it would be...what TV Debate? Have you seen the subsection in tonights Yougov showing the Tory Party with a 10% lead among left handed men with black hair who masturbate on Thursdays.....Tory majority nailed on!
I don't think it would, tonight, 1% wouldn't have been viewed as too extreme. Now, if crossover had actually occurred.................
The public want all four men to debate in 2015 and won't like it if any of them don't show.
Do we include the Greens? Or Respect?
I'd suggest the criteria for inclusion as something like:
1. Party standing in 500+ seats, and 2. Either: a. 20+ MPs at dissolution or b. (i) polling at an average of 10%+ over the last two years, and (ii) a national equivalent share of 10%+ at both of the most recent May/June elections.
There has to be some provision for breakthrough parties to get in (otherwise the SDP would have had no coverage in 1983 if coverage were based solely on how a party did last time), but it also has to be tough enough to prevent people like James Goldsmith buying their way on.
David, forgive me but a lot of these standards people offer up seemed to be based on them deciding who the debaters should be and then fitting standards around that.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
As much as anything for me, however, was his complete lack of a credible answer (there is none) to the question of why we can't make our mind up for ourselves given the transformation of our relationship with europe since 1975.
More damaging still, and although it may not be the case, he gave the impression that he actually believes that we the British public shouldn't be asked about EU membership because we can' be trusted to give the right answer.
BBC news at 10 using all Clegg's best moments and cutting off Farage to alter his meaning. Veyr dubious editing which would leave most people wondering at the polls. And now they've glossed over the polls in preference to randomly selected (i;m sure) talking heads from the audience.
Which is why the scottish political sites are thriving and still raising record sums of money in their fundraisers.
You seem to be saying that worthwhile analysis cannot be made because of (1) the decline of North Sea Oil and (2) lower output from financial services after the collapse of the financial bubble.
Well here are the ONS stats for service sector productivity per hour:
I trust you will not claim that the decline in North Sea Oil has in any material way affected service sector productivity ?
As to the effect of the financial services bubble there is no evidence in the data that this had any effect on productivity as the credit bubble years do not have higher productivity growth than those which preceded them.
Now if we compare the ONS data for manufacturing productivity per hour:
We see a similar fall in productivity growth and something which cannot be excused away by either the decline in North Sea Oil or the bursting of a credit bubble.
My thoughts as to why this productivity problem is happening I will deal with in my next post.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
As much as anything for me, however, was his complete lack of a credible answer (there is none) to the question of why we can't make our mind up for ourselves given the transformation of our relationship with europe since 1975.
More damaging still, and although it may not be the case, he gave the impression that he actually believes that we the British public shouldn't be asked about EU membership because we can' be trusted to give the right answer.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
The public want all four men to debate in 2015 and won't like it if any of them don't show.
Do we include the Greens? Or Respect?
I'd suggest the criteria for inclusion as something like:
1. Party standing in 500+ seats, and 2. Either: a. 20+ MPs at dissolution or b. (i) polling at an average of 10%+ over the last two years, and (ii) a national equivalent share of 10%+ at both of the most recent May/June elections.
There has to be some provision for breakthrough parties to get in (otherwise the SDP would have had no coverage in 1983 if coverage were based solely on how a party did last time), but it also has to be tough enough to prevent people like James Goldsmith buying their way on.
David, forgive me but a lot of these standards people offer up seemed to be based on them deciding who the debaters should be and then fitting standards around that.
That's already how it works. We decide who the 'main' parties are and then explain how we define 'main'. Some definitions will have UKIP included, some won't. Some won't think the LDs should be included as 'main' because they have no chance of their leader becoming PM; I don't agree with that definition of 'main', but perhaps I have 'decided who [the main parties] should be and then fitting standards around that.
Multiple criteria are already applied to determine which definitions are currently used, and debating whether those criteria are still fair seems reasonable. I think fairly reasonable arguments can be made for keeping UKIP excluded, but I wouldn't protest profusely if they were included, and defining any others as 'main' requires serious mental gymnastics.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
I thought tonight was a much clearer win for Nigel Farage. Nick Clegg was all over the place. I think Clegg's honesty in particular has taken a real hit. He has repeated the three million jobs lie multiple time in these debates, which even the man that wrote the report it comes from has criticized. Clegg also keeps on claiming the EU is the "world's largest economy", which is nonsense: if you go with countries, it's the USA, and if you go with economic blocs, NAFTA is bigger. He also said EU migrants that came here would have to work, which is clearly untrue. If you want to come and beg on the streets, you have every right to do so. After three months, you can claim benefits.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
Agree,good post.
You might be able to get away with it if it's something you're claiming UKIP said at a prior occasion. But at one point Nick Clegg misrepresented Farage's argument from earlier on in the debate. The audience aren't stupid Nick - they were there to hear what Farage actually said and can tell you're lying about it! It's slipped my mind exactly what it was now - it's hard to remember all of Clegg's untruths.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
That might be the case, but I'd suggest that most people just see Clegg and the LDs as the party of the EU.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy.
That is simply untrue. He made the point about too much red tape and how we could only change things from working within it and so on.
He made woolly and I found unconvincing arguments on the possibility of reforming the EU and current issues with the EU, but it is categorically false to say he did not concede for one moment that there are any issues.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
As much as anything for me, however, was his complete lack of a credible answer (there is none) to the question of why we can't make our mind up for ourselves given the transformation of our relationship with europe since 1975.
More damaging still, and although it may not be the case, he gave the impression that he actually believes that we the British public shouldn't be asked about EU membership because we can' be trusted to give the right answer.
Exactly
Clegg lost because he's toxic but luckily that doesn't matter in politics because nobody cares about politics. Or some such delusional twaddle.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
Have they got anything to show for it? The Tories and the Lib Dems are like the "mate" who owes you a tenner and keep promising repayment is just round the corner. Reform is one instance. Referendums are another. They're always promised but only on a condition they know will never be fulfilled.
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
Have they got anything to show for it? The Tories and the Lib Dems are like the "mate" who owes you a tenner and keep promising repayment is just round the corner. Reform is one instance. Referendums are another. They're always promised but only on a condition they know will never be fulfilled.
I agree with that, but Clegg did actually push that tired line, when the claim was he'd not even done that.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
'Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy.'
Plus the same old stuff about the loss of millions of jobs we were told would happen if we didn't join the euro.
Surprised Farage didn't pick up Clegg's rubbish about not being able to extradite criminals if we were no longer in the EU.
The public want all four men to debate in 2015 and won't like it if any of them don't show.
Do we include the Greens? Or Respect?
I'd suggest the criteria for inclusion as something like:
1. Party standing in 500+ seats, and 2. Either: a. 20+ MPs at dissolution or b. (i) polling at an average of 10%+ over the last two years, and (ii) a national equivalent share of 10%+ at both of the most recent May/June elections.
There has to be some provision for breakthrough parties to get in (otherwise the SDP would have had no coverage in 1983 if coverage were based solely on how a party did last time), but it also has to be tough enough to prevent people like James Goldsmith buying their way on.
David, forgive me but a lot of these standards people offer up seemed to be based on them deciding who the debaters should be and then fitting standards around that.
I'm sure that's true, though I've tried to be relatively impartial. I certainly don't have any axe to grind for UKIP and it would help all three Westminster parties to keep Farage off-stage.
However, any fair criteria for inclusion must surely balance past performance with current performance and future impact. My reasoning is that they're supposed to be PM debates, so it makes sense that a party (or pact of parties, as per the Liberals/SDP), has to stand in well over half the seats if they're to be considered.
In addition, presence isn't enough; likely impact has to be taken into account, which is where it gets trickier. Do you only include proven general election performance - a statistic almost five years old at the time - when much more recent solid voting evidence may point to a seismic shift since then? Hence the 20 MPs / 2x10% suggestion. The former indicates a proven ability to win seats, the latter suggests a future ability to do so.
I completely agree that any change now will be viewed in the light of the practical effect it would have, and rightly so. I'm sure the authorities will also do their level best to not change their existing policies. Even so, after today, I think we can expect more UKIP lobbying for them to do so. Depending on how the election results end up, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a legal challenge from them on the basis that the guidance is outdated and biased against them.
I heard the second half of the debate as I was driving home. OK, it's radio, not TV, so I didn't get the body language bit. Anyway, I had two main reactions:
1) I thought they were both good. Clegg made a passionate case for the EU, Farage made a passionate case against. Both argued well (albeit with, in both cases, a somewhat flexible interpretation of the actualité).
2) However, all that was swept away, as far as I was concerned, by Farage's remarks in the last few minutes. He did a brilliant job arguing for a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible (in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com).
So why the hell is he working to prevent a referendum being called?
As someone who's quite pro-EU and would really like to see Farage taken to task for some of his wilder assertions and the logical consequences of his politics I thought Clegg was embarrassingly bad, offensively so for those of us who he's saying he represents as 'The Party of 'IN' (which all the main parties are Nick).
He completely personified the idea of a Westminster elite who think they know best then make slightly glib cliched comments about the 'national interest' as if an argument's veracity rests upon the fact that they're making it, and I say that as someone who broadly agrees with his point of view on Europe.
Low points
- When he tried his old trick of talking directly to the audience member, but couldn't work out where 'Clive' was.
- The fact he was quite often appealing to the Tory line on the EU for cover, and even got in a 'sorting out the economic mess', the preserve of the floundering coalitionista on Question Time (whether it's true or not). Hence the Labour win for Farage in the polling I think - he forgot to make the case to those to the left of him who don't automatically think he's a nice man 'doing the right thing'.
-That Putin gag... eurggh.
- The W.G Grace gag. Guaranteed to fall flat at a time most of us would kill to have the good doctor in the England team, despite his current skeletal appearance.
-The leaflet attack - if there's one thing that's guaranteed to come back and bite a Lib Dem it's a dodgy leaflet attack. It wasn't a pleasant leaflet, but it's not like we don't already know that Ukip have an eccentric past and are still a little rough around the margins.
To adapt a line about the late Lord George-Brown, Charles Kennedy drunk is a better man than Nick Clegg sober.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
If we do end up with a fascist regime in your lifetime, then that'd be entirely the fault of weak ineffective parties like yours, and the Tories and Labour.
Oh, I remember the other lie now. Farage said that the EU wants its own army and navy, which is clearly true. Clegg later claimed Farage had said we were getting an EU army and navy. It was ridiculous. Clegg was tilting at windmills all night.
Surely we can have one debate with Miliband v Cameron, and one debate with Clegg, Farage and Natalie Bennett (parties with MPs or polling at least 5% and standing candidates UK wide)
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
That might be the case, but I'd suggest that most people just see Clegg and the LDs as the party of the EU.
Probably, things tend to get simplified down like that.
I heard the second half of the debate as I was driving home. OK, it's radio, not TV, so I didn't get the body language bit. Anyway, I had two main reactions:
1) I thought they were both good. Clegg made a passionate case for the EU, Farage made a passionate case against. Both argued well (albeit with, in both cases, a somewhat flexible interpretation of the actualité).
2) However, all that was swept away, as far as I was concerned, by Farage's remarks in the last few minutes. He did a brilliant job arguing for a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible (in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com).
So why the hell is he working to prevent a referendum being called?
Somewhat more pointedly, why on earth doesn't he believe Cameron's Cast Iron Pledges?
It's not as if stupendously gullible tory eurosceptics have been made a fool of before by Cammie on the EU. Again and again and again and again and again.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
You know the Europhiles are having a bad night when they have to retreat to "BUT... BUT... YOU'RE BASICALLY HITLER!"
I'm not usually violent, but I could ruin a good cricket bat on Jacqui Smith. Mind you, I reckon she could probably disarm me and give me a half decent shoeing.
Surely we can have one debate with Miliband v Cameron, and one debate with Clegg, Farage and Natalie Bennett (parties with MPs or polling at least 5% and standing candidates UK wide)
Surely we can have one debate with Miliband v Cameron, and one debate with Clegg, Farage and Natalie Bennett (parties with MPs or polling at least 5% and standing candidates UK wide)
I do think that definition of minor parties is reasonable, however I cannot see how if Clegg met criteria for the big boy's debate last time, he cannot be included this time. He was just as unlikely to be PM last time as well.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
If we do end up with a fascist regime in your lifetime, then that'd be entirely the fault of weak ineffective parties like yours, and the Tories and Labour.
Exactly right. The establishment line that anyone who is anti-EU (not Europe, the EU) is some sort of racist dinosaur out to destroy the economy is infuriatingly stupid. There are a lot of decent people who feel liking voting UKIP just to stick two fingers up to the three main parties and the patronising drivel they spout about the EU.
Now that the evidence for the productivity problem is clear the reasons behind it must be discussed.
My thoughts are that involves these factors, in amounts which vary from one part of the economy to another:
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com
A misrepresentation of Nick Clegg. I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
Mr. Llama, rejected? After the Second Punic War, he became leader of Carthage.
That's the difference between Hannibal and Caesar. After defeat, Hannibal became more powerful. After victory, Caesar was killed by his own side.
Incidentally, have you read Theodore Dodge's biographies of Alexander, Hannibal and for Caesar].
Farage = Morris dancer
Clegg = Morris Dancer
Mr. Brooke, that is a very unkind and inaccurate remark. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Dancer was making a valid point, he was talking b0llocks admittedly (if Hannibal was so good how come he had to leg it from Carthage, take work as a mecenary etc etc.), but he was making a serious point.
I shall add your recommendations to my reading list, but unless they are available on Kindle it will be a long time before I'll be able to buy those books (we are back to the "one in one out" lock down again).
haha Mr Llama since I have been down here in the SE ( Ashford ) I have lost all sense of e house which will appreciate at 30% a month. Then I shall buy Poland.
*Sniggers*
Don't forget, if you are heading this way to visit Mrs. Brooke's old stamping ground do stop off for a small, sweet, sherry.
Regrettably Mr L I'm not heading your way this week. Mrs B wants to go to Canterbury and be back. I have however enjoyed Tenterden and Cranbrook and popping in to vineyards. Given another few decades you could soon be civilised :-)
Fair enough. If you are going to Canterbury I do hope you visit the Cathedral. For my money it is one of the most magnificent buildings in Europe and one of the top three in England (a toss-up between it and Durham for second place to the Abbey).
Mr L Ive done Durham, York and Canterbury cathedrals all before. generally though I tend to find the smaller churches much more spiritual. Though of the cathedrals I enjoyed the Anglican at Cape Town most. It's about the size of a small UK one, but when I visited I had the whole place to myself for about 20 minutes, very moving in its own way.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
In other news... EdM had a selfie taken with Joey Essex at some do or other, and Dave 'lavished praise on Waitrose, lauding customers of the upmarket store as more "talkative and engaged" than those who shop elsewhere.' (Telegraph).
Surely we can have one debate with Miliband v Cameron, and one debate with Clegg, Farage and Natalie Bennett (parties with MPs or polling at least 5% and standing candidates UK wide)
No, no, no. I wouldn't mind one debate being Cameron and Miliband, but there needs to be at least one when those two muppets get scrutinised by the rest.
Mr. Stopper, her appearances on the Sky paper review (not watching it at the minute) always anger me. Her abuse of expenses was notably despicable.
What's she done to earn your ire?
She is the poster girl for everything that was wrong about the Brown administration. Crap at her job, sycophantic, never admitted any mistakes, it was always someone else's fault, and her expenses speak for themselves.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
Gotta agree with you there. You're clearly not young, indeed you possibly have Alzheimer's.
My parents had Alzheimers so I am probably on the cusp. But at the moment I am still compos mentis. I just feel we are teetering on the brink of a major national nervous breakdown which could have disastrous results. I have been knocking on doors for 50 years and I have never felt so remote from what people are saying. There is an irrationality in the air. Hence the pessimism.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
Gotta agree with you there. You're clearly not young, indeed you possibly have Alzheimer's.
My parents had Alzheimers so I am probably on the cusp. But at the moment I am still compos mentis. I just feel we are teetering on the brink of a major national nervous breakdown which could have disastrous results. I have been knocking on doors for 50 years and I have never felt so remote from what people are saying. There is an irrationality in the air. Hence the pessimism.
The bloody plebs not knowing what's good for them, eh?
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
Thanks Slade, this is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Only problem is I won't be able to sleep laughing, by the way what is a racialist?
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
As a side note, people say racialist? I thought that went out of fashion 80 years ago.
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
Gotta agree with you there. You're clearly not young, indeed you possibly have Alzheimer's.
My parents had Alzheimers so I am probably on the cusp. But at the moment I am still compos mentis. I just feel we are teetering on the brink of a major national nervous breakdown which could have disastrous results. I have been knocking on doors for 50 years and I have never felt so remote from what people are saying. There is an irrationality in the air. Hence the pessimism.
The bloody plebs not knowing what's good for them, eh?
"We'd have got away with it, if it wasn't for them pesky voters!"
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
With respect, totally wrong. The British have proved themselves down the ages to be the LEAST extreme of peoples. And I don't think Farage is extreme either.
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
I should add that, as I have said before, as a Libertarian I am not enamored with the idea of a UKIP government. But it would be because it would, in its current form, probably set back individual freedom to some small extent. The idea that it would result in a fascist government is completely loopy.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
Now that the evidence for the productivity problem is clear the reasons behind it must be discussed.
My thoughts are that involves these factors, in amounts which vary from one part of the economy to another:
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
A lot of good points there, particularly point 3. Also I would add that lack of apprenticeship training / poor skills is behind the malaise as well, although to be fair to this government, they have tried harder to address this point than most.
I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
No, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall have both argued against a referendum (how could they do otherwise, and still support UKIP?)
The Tories won't be out of power in the next parliament if those who particularly want a referendum vote for what they want. It's entirely up to them.
I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
No, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall have both argued against a referendum (how could they do otherwise, and still support UKIP?)
The Tories won't be out of power in the next parliament if those who particularly want a referendum vote for what they want. It's entirely up to them.
Nice to see you've got your scapegoat set up early. If all eurosceptics that wanted out of Europe voted UKIP, we'd be out by 2016.
I heard the second half of the debate as I was driving home. OK, it's radio, not TV, so I didn't get the body language bit. Anyway, I had two main reactions:
1) I thought they were both good. Clegg made a passionate case for the EU, Farage made a passionate case against. Both argued well (albeit with, in both cases, a somewhat flexible interpretation of the actualité).
2) However, all that was swept away, as far as I was concerned, by Farage's remarks in the last few minutes. He did a brilliant job arguing for a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible (in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com).
So why the hell is he working to prevent a referendum being called?
I completely agree. I am a pro-EU Lib Dem, but the consequences of Nigel Farages party taking power would not be a risk of Fascism. Fascism has never had much following here.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
I have said it before and I will say it again- Nick Clegg is not a politician. He had so many opportunities tonight to nail Nigel Farage but he could not do it. He came across as a spokesman for the EU bureaucracy. As a Lib Dem I dispair that a racialist and xenophobic phoney could win the debate. But then why be surprised? Over the centuries the Brits have demonstrated that they are capable of extreme views. Whether it is anti Jews, anti Chinese, anti West Indians - they have all been manifest. If UKIP win the argument over Europe I can see a fascist regime in Britain within my lifetime - and I am not a young man.
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
We now have some Conservatives claiming that its better to have government subsised higher employment and lower productivity.
Which ironically is what Scargill was saying in 1984 or for that matter British Leyland shop stewards during the 1970s.
This may seem a worthwhile tradeoff but its one guaranteed to fail in the medium/long term for these reasons:
1) Other countries are increasing their productivity - as they do so they will take more trade and hence more wealth from Britain.
2) Without productivity growth there can be no genuine increases in earnings and so wealth differences between the top 1% and the rest will grow leading to increased social disharmony.
3) The government spending and debt forecasts are based upon economic growth which can only be achieved through historic and not present levels of productivity growth. Reduced productivity growth will lead to spending cuts and broken government pledges within a few years.
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
The fact that it is true is a lot better than Nick the porky teller and his 7% blatant lie, so glad Farage confronted him about that
What was most obviously dishonest, however, was Clegg repeatedly misrepresenting Farage's position. He said that Farage had claimed almost 500 million would come here from Eastern Europe, when Farage had only said, correctly, that that number had the right to come here. That was just one of a number where he knows full well what Farage had said and then chose to lie about it.
I take issue with that. Yes, it's literally true - just as it's literally true that, even if we had the world's strictest immigration policy, it would be true that 64 million people have the right to live in Hay-on-Wye. But why on earth mention such a nonsensical figure at all, unless you're deliberately trying to mislead?
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy. You don't have to be a signed up eurosceptic to see the flaw in that approach.
I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
Fair enough: but it ain't happening. We still spend 37% of the EU budget on agriculture - probably appropriate for 1814 not 2014, I still have no realistic say on how the likes of Barroso, van Rompuy, and Ashton are appointed let alone fired via the ballot box.
The stench of mistrusting the voters is palpable. It hangs around Clegg et al like a bad egg smell. That's what Farage is tapping in to - for all his faults.
I'm pretty sure all of us that support UKIP on European matters are ardent supporters of an immediate referendum. But, surprise, surprise, the Tories want one only after the next election, when they know they'll be out of power...
No, Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall have both argued against a referendum (how could they do otherwise, and still support UKIP?)
The Tories won't be out of power in the next parliament if those who particularly want a referendum vote for what they want. It's entirely up to them.
Excuse me. That is an outright lie. I have not argued against a referendum. What I have said is that a referendum under Cameron will be so fixed as to be worthless. We are seeing the start of that process now with meaningless platitudes from Germany and Italy in support of Cameron which we know are completely worthless - as will be any 'deal' Cameron brings back from his 'negotiations'.
In the end I still want a referendum. But before that happens I want to make sure that Cameron is not in a position to continue to fix the result before a single vote has been cast.
Because you're voicing the madness of it: a huge number have the right to come here, and we have no control over how many do. It's farming out our immigration levels down to the aggregation decisions of millions of Eastern Europeans. Do you really think the public are too thick to understand the difference between "have the right to come" and "will come"? And even if you do, then make clear the distinction: don't claim that the person that said "have the right to come" said "will come".
Come off it: you're claiming that it would be reasonable to stand up in a Tea Party convention in Idaho and say that it is madness that 314 million people have the right to live in Idaho?
Anyone who thinks the Conservative Party would renege on that commitment is really far, far out with the fairies.
They don't need to renege on it. They know they won't win the next election, and they know the Lib Dems won't enter coalition with them.
If you don't think the Tories are being cynical about this, then I guess you would be appalled if they didn't commit to the same policy again should they lose in 2015? It's my belief they won't do it if they think they're in a position to win. I guess you feel otherwise?
One thing Farage missed in the debate was the 29 million people in Romania / Bulgaria point that Clegg brought up again, when 2 million of them have already emigrated, largely to Spain and Italy, which Farage rebutted well in the 1st debate last week. That was one error that Farage made over the past year that many Romanians / Bulgarians were going to come to the UK, when they are a latin people, hence Italy and Spain much more appealing destinations to them, rather than a repeat of the Polish experience.
Comments
1. Party standing in 500+ seats, and
2. Either:
a. 20+ MPs at dissolution
or
b. (i) polling at an average of 10%+ over the last two years, and
(ii) a national equivalent share of 10%+ at both of the most recent May/June elections.
There has to be some provision for breakthrough parties to get in (otherwise the SDP would have had no coverage in 1983 if coverage were based solely on how a party did last time), but it also has to be tough enough to prevent people like James Goldsmith buying their way on.
I anticipate CLegg loses some LD/LAB backswitchers too.
Can't see my Q2 level poll bet being a winner right now, but it only needs 1 outlier so 5/2 still fair odds for the first half.
Enjoy your breakfast!
Page 50 here
http://www.polishcityclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Electoral-campaign-2014-Ipsos.pdf
As much as anything for me, however, was his complete lack of a credible answer (there is none) to the question of why we can't make our mind up for ourselves given the transformation of our relationship with europe since 1975.
More damaging still, and although it may not be the case, he gave the impression that he actually believes that we the British public shouldn't be asked about EU membership because we can' be trusted to give the right answer.
You seem to be saying that worthwhile analysis cannot be made because of (1) the decline of North Sea Oil and (2) lower output from financial services after the collapse of the financial bubble.
Well here are the ONS stats for service sector productivity per hour:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=DJP9&dataset=prdy&table-id=1
It gives annual data from 1997 onwards and quarterly data from 1994Q1.
This allows almost two ten year spreads:
1994Q1 75.2
2003Q4 94.1 +25%
2004Q1 93.4
2013Q4 99.4 +6%
I trust you will not claim that the decline in North Sea Oil has in any material way affected service sector productivity ?
As to the effect of the financial services bubble there is no evidence in the data that this had any effect on productivity as the credit bubble years do not have higher productivity growth than those which preceded them.
Now if we compare the ONS data for manufacturing productivity per hour:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=DJK6&dataset=prdy&table-id=1
1994Q1 62.0
2003Q4 83.2 +34%
2004Q1 85.0
2013Q4 99.5 +17%
We see a similar fall in productivity growth and something which cannot be excused away by either the decline in North Sea Oil or the bursting of a credit bubble.
My thoughts as to why this productivity problem is happening I will deal with in my next post.
THE TIMES:Pressure on Cameron to bar Scots at next election #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers pic.twitter.com/zCOQCMg1kz
twitter.com/hendopolis/status/451470744741228544
Clegg's long been pushing the "we need to reform the EU, but from the inside" line.
Multiple criteria are already applied to determine which definitions are currently used, and debating whether those criteria are still fair seems reasonable. I think fairly reasonable arguments can be made for keeping UKIP excluded, but I wouldn't protest profusely if they were included, and defining any others as 'main' requires serious mental gymnastics.
Which one? Sharapova's arse? Nigella barred from the US?
He made woolly and I found unconvincing arguments on the possibility of reforming the EU and current issues with the EU, but it is categorically false to say he did not concede for one moment that there are any issues.
*chortle*
Nick's not lying"
twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/451430915554963457
He is a constructive critical friend of the EU.
'Clegg lost it because he not for one moment conceded that there are any issues surrounding our membership of the EU and that everything in the garden is rosy.'
Plus the same old stuff about the loss of millions of jobs we were told would happen if we didn't join the euro.
Surprised Farage didn't pick up Clegg's rubbish about not being able to extradite criminals if we were no longer in the EU.
However, any fair criteria for inclusion must surely balance past performance with current performance and future impact. My reasoning is that they're supposed to be PM debates, so it makes sense that a party (or pact of parties, as per the Liberals/SDP), has to stand in well over half the seats if they're to be considered.
In addition, presence isn't enough; likely impact has to be taken into account, which is where it gets trickier. Do you only include proven general election performance - a statistic almost five years old at the time - when much more recent solid voting evidence may point to a seismic shift since then? Hence the 20 MPs / 2x10% suggestion. The former indicates a proven ability to win seats, the latter suggests a future ability to do so.
I completely agree that any change now will be viewed in the light of the practical effect it would have, and rightly so. I'm sure the authorities will also do their level best to not change their existing policies. Even so, after today, I think we can expect more UKIP lobbying for them to do so. Depending on how the election results end up, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a legal challenge from them on the basis that the guidance is outdated and biased against them.
I heard the second half of the debate as I was driving home. OK, it's radio, not TV, so I didn't get the body language bit. Anyway, I had two main reactions:
1) I thought they were both good. Clegg made a passionate case for the EU, Farage made a passionate case against. Both argued well (albeit with, in both cases, a somewhat flexible interpretation of the actualité).
2) However, all that was swept away, as far as I was concerned, by Farage's remarks in the last few minutes. He did a brilliant job arguing for a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible (in direct contradiction, I couldn't help noticing, of the views of our distinguished Kippers here on PB.com).
So why the hell is he working to prevent a referendum being called?
He completely personified the idea of a Westminster elite who think they know best then make slightly glib cliched comments about the 'national interest' as if an argument's veracity rests upon the fact that they're making it, and I say that as someone who broadly agrees with his point of view on Europe.
Low points
- When he tried his old trick of talking directly to the audience member, but couldn't work out where 'Clive' was.
- The fact he was quite often appealing to the Tory line on the EU for cover, and even got in a 'sorting out the economic mess', the preserve of the floundering coalitionista on Question Time (whether it's true or not). Hence the Labour win for Farage in the polling I think - he forgot to make the case to those to the left of him who don't automatically think he's a nice man 'doing the right thing'.
-That Putin gag... eurggh.
- The W.G Grace gag. Guaranteed to fall flat at a time most of us would kill to have the good doctor in the England team, despite his current skeletal appearance.
-The leaflet attack - if there's one thing that's guaranteed to come back and bite a Lib Dem it's a dodgy leaflet attack. It wasn't a pleasant leaflet, but it's not like we don't already know that Ukip have an eccentric past and are still a little rough around the margins.
To adapt a line about the late Lord George-Brown, Charles Kennedy drunk is a better man than Nick Clegg sober.
It's not as if stupendously gullible tory eurosceptics have been made a fool of before by Cammie on the EU. Again and again and again and again and again.
My thoughts are that involves these factors, in amounts which vary from one part of the economy to another:
1) An economy dominated by consumer spending is fundamentally liable to lower productivity growth as better consumer service often requires more labour supplying that service. An example would be supermarket checkouts - the more checkouts in operation the better the service but the lower the overall productivity. With the government subsidising consumer spending to record amounts (see the government debt as evidence) the incentive to higher productivity is reduced. By comparison government cuts in parts of the public sector have seen improved public sector productivity contrary to the overall national productivity.
2) An effectively unlimited amount of willing and cheap unskilled economic migrants acts as a disincentive for business to invest in new equipment and technology.
3) The continuance of zero interest rates and debt forbearance has led to zombie businesses survival and malinvestment remaining. Creative destruction is a necessary part of healthy free market capitalism as it frees up factors of production (capital, labour, land etc) for more useful employment.
4) The steady increase in government regulations, QA requirements etc means a higher proportion of labour output is used for 'overhead' purposes and not in the production of useful goods or services.
What's she done to earn your ire?
What a ludicrous and bigoted post from start to finish. Forget despair, what you should be feeling is deep shame.
Only problem is my credit card has changed since the last time I betted with Ladbrokes and it won't let me deposit.
Crap at her job, sycophantic, never admitted any mistakes, it was always someone else's fault, and her expenses speak for themselves.
We could look forward to a world where taxi drivers wore uniforms and trains were in 1920's livery, but it would not be a Fascist place
Only problem is I won't be able to sleep laughing, by the way what is a racialist?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkShPKgAbw
If the true Labour lead is about 3%, and remains stable, I estimate the chance of a Tory lead in at least one poll before the end of May at 53%.
Before the end of April, 31%...
LOL
The Tories won't be out of power in the next parliament if those who particularly want a referendum vote for what they want. It's entirely up to them.
Dimwits.
*chuckles*
Old maids bicycling to communion in the morning mist was an Orwell quote.
We now have some Conservatives claiming that its better to have government subsised higher employment and lower productivity.
Which ironically is what Scargill was saying in 1984 or for that matter British Leyland shop stewards during the 1970s.
This may seem a worthwhile tradeoff but its one guaranteed to fail in the medium/long term for these reasons:
1) Other countries are increasing their productivity - as they do so they will take more trade and hence more wealth from Britain.
2) Without productivity growth there can be no genuine increases in earnings and so wealth differences between the top 1% and the rest will grow leading to increased social disharmony.
3) The government spending and debt forecasts are based upon economic growth which can only be achieved through historic and not present levels of productivity growth. Reduced productivity growth will lead to spending cuts and broken government pledges within a few years.
Anyone who thinks the Conservative Party would renege on that commitment is really far, far out with the fairies.
The stench of mistrusting the voters is palpable. It hangs around Clegg et al like a bad egg smell. That's what Farage is tapping in to - for all his faults.
In the end I still want a referendum. But before that happens I want to make sure that Cameron is not in a position to continue to fix the result before a single vote has been cast.
If you don't think the Tories are being cynical about this, then I guess you would be appalled if they didn't commit to the same policy again should they lose in 2015? It's my belief they won't do it if they think they're in a position to win. I guess you feel otherwise?