M'Lud, you are defending English & Welsh law again and leaving poor old "British Justice" to fend for herself.
What influence has the 2013 Defamation Act had on this case. I understand it removed "the presumption in favour of a jury trial" but does this mean that a judge rather than twelve good and true will decide on the matter of whether Andrew Mitchell uttered the word "pleb"?
If my thinking is right then British Justice really has been fed to the dogs.
Section 16 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides, in effect, that none of the preceding provisions of the Act apply in relation to a cause of action which accrued before the commencement of the Act. Subsection (7) provides that section 11 (which removes the presumption in favour of jury trial in defamation trials) does not apply in relation to proceedings instituted before the commencement of that section. The Act was brought into force in full on 1 January 2014.
Thus both the actions will be governed under the old law. Hence NGN have pleaded justification and a Reynolds defence (see Mitchell v NGN[2013] EWCA Civ 1537 at [3], per Lord Dyson MR). Both of those defences have been abolished by the 2013 Act (see sections 2 and 4 respectively). So in theory, there will be a presumption in favour of a jury trial in both actions. However, there has been a decided trend against jury trials in defamation cases, so it is probable that both actions will be tried by a Puisne Judge sitting alone.
Nevertheless, the point still stands. Would you prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, or that of the man on the street? As for "British justice", why taint the high standards of English common law with Scottish barbarisms...
No, I am not! As you well know. I do, however, have several things in common with the gallant and honourable gentleman including an utter contempt for the current occupant of No.10.
Mr. Isam, we'll see. I think Miliband's a proper EU-phile, and that the system's weighted enough in his favour that he'll need to work hard to avoid being at least the leader of the largest party after the election.
UKIP's broad and shallow electoral approach will do more harm than good, come the General Election.
In the plurality, surely? If UKIP get 51% - that would indeed be a moving of the tectonic plates!
Yes, plurality. Amazing to think that almost every other person will be voting UKIP. It shows that the British have a very healthy ability to critically assess the media which is great.
Bercow cut Cameron off before he'd finished an answer. When Dave said "I haven't finished" Bercow said "You have now". He was just bumptious throughout. I wonder how long he's go in the job?
Bercow was a breath of fresh air to begin with, but I think it's time for someone else now.
I'd also like to see exactly what Rowland's complaint is, and what Mitchell is being sued for.
Mitchell is being sued for slander (and libel where the allegation was made on television). 'Mr Rowland sues Mr Mitchell in respect of Mr Mitchell's allegation that Mr Rowland had lied in making his allegations against Mr Mitchell' (Mitchell v NGN; Rowland v Mitchell[2014] EWHC 879 (QB), per Tugendhat J at [1]).
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
The rise of UKIP is Labour's best chance of a majority, and you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
As I have said many times, is UKIP is the F*cking For Virginity Party - they will cause the destruction of all they say they are trying to preserve and protect.
Technological Advances.....In the old days two cops would have held you while the others took shots at kicking you in the nuts. This seems far more civilized
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
Plus it's a bit like when Dave appoints yet another OE. It's a gift for Lab. Imagine the story they will create around opposing anything that UKIP supports, whatever it is. In fact pleas for a referendum may be tainted by the time that Axl Rose gets through with them.
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
I have already put my money where my mouth is on this one, as you well know!
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
I have already put my money where my mouth is on this one, as you well know!
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
It may be against what Cam wants but it is exactly what a non-trivial proportion of his backbenchers and constituents want. What do Lab backbenchers want wrt EU?
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...
And Eck will force the Royal Navy to buy ships built in Scotland in the event of independence.
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
I am sure we have been here before, Mr. Navabi, and probably will be again and again and again over the next year or so. However, I'll plug on.
Suppose back in the early 1900s people who were trying to get the Labour Party off the ground listened to the Liberals who were telling them, "Stop, give up, otherwise you'll let the Conservatives in again. OK the Liberals don't actually represent your views but we are nearer than anyone else except the new party which can never be elected".
UKIP may well contain a few fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists but I doubt they have more of them than any other party. They may well take votes that might otherwise have gone to the Conservatives. They may well have an ill-formed, incomplete and indeed contradictory agenda for government. Their leader may well be a buffoon who spends his life three-parts pissed. However, they offer something that no other party does - the impression that they are on the side of the common man.
US GDP growth of 0.1%, oh dear. Things may become a little hairy for a while if the US economy doesn't pick up again.
All the feedback I was getting last week while I was there was that things were getting a lot better. Given the winter they have had the weather may well be a factor.
I'm sure some posters will come to be pouring scorn on that, as they did with Osborne when it was winter over 2011/12
There's winter and there's Polar Vortex. There can't have been much construction or any other outdoor work going on in the NE and mid-west for most of the first quarter of this year. Distribution will also have been badly hit. It was not a few days of snow and ice, it was month after month.
The cold weather in the US this winter did last a lot longer than the cold weather in the UK in the winter of 2010/11, but you are underplaying the severity of December 2010 in the UK: it was the second coldest December in the Central England Temperature series since 1659.
That is a seriously exceptionally cold month, and would have had a temporary impact on the UK economy.
Where there is a difference is that the cold weather in the US persisted for the entire winter, whereas the winter of 2010/11 in the UK wasn't exceptionally cold as a whole (much milder than 1979/80 for example), because January was near-average and February was notably warm.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
I have already put my money where my mouth is on this one, as you well know!
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
However, they offer something that no other party does - the impression that they are on the side of the common man.
Yes, you put it very well, that is exactly what they offer - an impression without any substance. Nothing to do with the EU, where if they were serious they'd be organising themselves to prepare and communicate the Out case for the 2017 referendum, and making sure the referendum happened by voting Conservative.
As the great antifrank perceptively said many months ago, the nearest parallel is Italy's Five Star Movement.
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
Kippers don't believe an In/Out referendum is nailed on at all with Cameron in charge. He's broken his promise on that topic once and they (and I, as it happens) see no guarantee he wouldn't do so again. The only way to guarantee a referendum is to make it impossible for one or ideally both parties to win an election without providing one. The only way to do that is to maximise the UKIP vote. If the Tories lose 2015 because of UKIP there will be enourmous pressure for them to ditch Cameron and replace him with a firm Eurosceptic who never wavers on the issue at all. Then when that man (presumably a man, though you never know) eventually is PM the referendum will happen.
The promise of a man who has made the same promise and lied before is not enough to get Kippers voting for a party they don't trust. And why should it be?
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...
And Eck will force the Royal Navy to buy ships built in Scotland in the event of independence.
"HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..."
You would have said the same this time last year if I had said UKIP were getting double the Tory score in the EU polls with a double digit lead
Do you want to bet about Labour offering a referendum in their manifesto?
I'm game, how much? You can have 1/2 that they dont
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
They aren't sabotaging anything. They're playing to win. The reason the SNP have a fair chance of victory in September is because they've won two elections, and built up a huge network of MSPs and Councillors. Had they agreed to stop contesting elections, in return for a promise from one of the Unionist parties of a referendum on Scottish independence, they'd have far less chance of winning.
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
Kippers don't believe an In/Out referendum is nailed on at all with Cameron in charge. He's broken his promise on that topic once ...
"Yes, you put it very well, that is exactly what they offer - an impression without any substance. Nothing to do with the EU, where if they were serious they'd be organising themselves to prepare and communicate the Out case for the 2017 referendum, and making sure the referendum happened by voting Conservative."
Yes, a sensible party should definitely be working to re-elect a government proven to be untrustworthy on EU issues, even if that meant putting themselves back a decade in future elections, leaving themselves up the creek without a paddle - or even a boat - if the referendum didn't happen.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
I have already put my money where my mouth is on this one, as you well know!
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
I have already put my money where my mouth is on this one, as you well know!
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
He was only prevented from carrying it out because all countries ratified the treaty before the GE.
But it was Labour who signed the treaty. And they would do another in a heartbeat, once UKIP let them back into power.
Prevented from carrying it out? Nonsense. Cameron could have held a referendum on it in 2010/11 and unratified or withdrawn if we'd voted so. The original EEC referendum was after joining, that didn't cause problems then and it wouldn't do so now. He only made that promise in the first place because he knew it was highly likely the treaty would be ratified pre-election and he'd be able to claim the EU-moral high ground without having to do anything.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
It's illogical to assume that if you vote against a Conservative candidate, you therefore intend that Labour should win.
It would be like Labour condemning people for voting Green or Lib Dem, and claiming that they intend the Conservatives to win.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
I'm confused.
Many right-leaning posters to this site are convinced that it was William Hague's courageous campaigning that prevented Blair from taking Britain into the Euro - rather than, say, Brown's opposition from the Treasury. This at a time when Blair had a huge majority in the Commons on >40% of the vote.
Now some right-leaning posters would have us believe that Miliband is such a toweringly strong political figure that if he became PM with a majority of two dozen on 35% of the vote he could ignore the massive electoral breakthrough of a new party on an explicitly anti-EU agenda.
He would bend. He would have to. Apart from anything else there are Eurosceptic MPs on the Labour benches too.
The last thing the Kippers want is a referendum - like Newark they are frit they would lose. Even worse they might win and not have anything to moan about anymore.
Do you want to bet about Labour offering a referendum in their manifesto?
I'm game, how much? You can have 1/2 that they dont
And who believes that Labour would actually DELIVER on any referendum pledge? Because if they do, then I have some nice bridges across the Thames I can sell them cheap....
I am sure we have been here before, Mr. Navabi, and probably will be again and again and again over the next year or so. However, I'll plug on.
Suppose back in the early 1900s people who were trying to get the Labour Party off the ground listened to the Liberals who were telling them, "Stop, give up, otherwise you'll let the Conservatives in again. OK the Liberals don't actually represent your views but we are nearer than anyone else except the new party which can never be elected".
UKIP may well contain a few fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists but I doubt they have more of them than any other party. They may well take votes that might otherwise have gone to the Conservatives. They may well have an ill-formed, incomplete and indeed contradictory agenda for government. Their leader may well be a buffoon who spends his life three-parts pissed. However, they offer something that no other party does - the impression that they are on the side of the common man.
To highlight the difference between your viewpoint and that of Richard Nabavi's - it is what do you think UKIP are for / are trying to achieve? Richard appears to think that they ONLY care about leaving the EU, and thus that the approach being taken is sub-optimal. You appear to think that they care about a much wider collection of things, leading to them aiming to effectively be a party in their own right potentially replacing the Tories. Which approach is most appropriate depends on what the 'ultimate' goal is, and the ultimate goal in politics is usually power.
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
If the Tories lose 2015 because of UKIP there will be enourmous pressure for them to ditch Cameron and replace him with a firm Eurosceptic who never wavers on the issue at all. Then when that man (presumably a man, though you never know) eventually is PM the referendum will happen.
Politics of the madhouse.
How many years are you prepared to wait? The UK will be so firmly integrated into the EU in a generation or so, post a Labour victory, that it will be too late anyway.
@Quincel - In that case they are even barmier then I said. There is not a snowflakes' chance in hell of the referendum promise being reneged on, if there's a Conservative majority. The fact that to convince themselves that there is, they have to rewrite history and pretend that Cameron committed to a retrospective referendum is further evidence of their barminess. As I've pointed out before, not a single journalist or serious observer ever thought that Cameron had done so at the time, and there were multiple speeches and interviews discussing the question of what might happen if it were ratified under Labour - in every single one of which, it was made clear, long before ratification, that there was no such commitment.
In any case, how exactly does putting Labour into power help?
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
Yes it's either the long game we hate you all we're different
or
our only aim is an in/out referendum (assuming the manifesto won't contain a commitment to out only).
Which latter makes no sense as you say.
In reality they are going through birthing pains and that's fine but as their flagship policy contains such a contradiction it is even more important for them to develop a range of policies about health, education, defence, the deficit, etc. I doubt they will to a required level of coherence and therefore IMO normal service will be resumed with UKIP as NOTA and lower support at GE2015.
I mean I adore and trust the Great British Public but even they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a party which has one policy they can't deliver, but which another party can, and no other policies besides that one.
No top down reorganisation of the NHS. No cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Child benefit would remain untouched. Cameron would be a liberal Conservative Prime Minister. VAT will not increase. A bigger army for a safer Britain.
And yet UKIP should abandon their hopes as a political party because Cameron has promised he'll hold a referendum.
You honestly think that UKIP success wont push Labour policy don't you?
You honestly think that if Labour get a majority, they will do anything other than point and laugh at UKIP?
Get real.
Yes, this really is the oddest piece of self-deception. Even people like Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall seem to have fallen into it. The logic is so utterly barmy that one has to wonder what exactly is going on.
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
It's illogical to assume that if you vote against a Conservative candidate, you therefore intend that Labour should win.
It would be like Labour condemning people for voting Green or Lib Dem, and claiming that they intend the Conservatives to win.
Noticed the relative absence of Labour posters are on this thread? How quiet they are?
They're watching, laughing and rubbing their hands in expectation, as the Right splits.
Incidentally, if any reputable credit-worthy punters want a bet on this, I'm happy to offer £1000, perhaps more, at Evens that the referendum promise will be honoured, by the end of 2017, if there's a Conservative majority in 2015, bet void if no majority.
Do you want to bet about Labour offering a referendum in their manifesto?
I'm game, how much? You can have 1/2 that they dont
And who believes that Labour would actually DELIVER on any referendum pledge? Because if they do, then I have some nice bridges across the Thames I can sell them cheap....
Do you want to bet that they will offer one?
Or too scared like the others I have challenged to put money where mouth is?
Noticed the relative absence of Labour posters are on this thread? How quiet they are?
They're watching, laughing and rubbing their hands in expectation, as the Right splits.
Yes, posters of a political stripe shrinking from posting is famously due to the fact they're so happy about things. It must also be why Labour are the main force for a cross-party anti-UKIP campaign.
Incidentally, if any reputable credit-worthy punters want a bet on this, I'm happy to offer £1000, perhaps more, at Evens that the referendum promise will be honoured, by the end of 2017, if there's a Conservative majority in 2015, bet void if no majority.
I think he will honour it if he gets a majority, so not for me.
But how about doubling our Labour referendum pledge bet?
Incidentally, if any reputable credit-worthy punters want a bet on this, I'm happy to offer £1000, perhaps more, at Evens that the referendum promise will be honoured, by the end of 2017, if there's a Conservative majority in 2015, bet void if no majority.
I think he will honour it if he gets a majority, so not for me.
But how about doubling our Labour referendum pledge bet?
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Except that they don't need to wait a generation. Unlike (say) the Greens - where the pressure-group line makes sense - the Kippers, if they really do want us to leave the EU, have an unprecedented opportunity, a nailed-on certainty of an In/Out referendum by the end of 2017 if enough of them they lend their votes to the Tories in 2015. And they are deliberately setting out to sabotage this.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
If the Tories lose 2015 because of UKIP there will be enourmous pressure for them to ditch Cameron and replace him with a firm Eurosceptic who never wavers on the issue at all. Then when that man (presumably a man, though you never know) eventually is PM the referendum will happen.
Politics of the madhouse.
How many years are you prepared to wait? The UK will be so firmly integrated into the EU in a generation or so, post a Labour victory, that it will be too late anyway.
Kippers thought we were too closely integrated many years ago, but still think we could withdraw now. Trying to achieve your goals by doing anything other than maximising your votes and elected officials is what's mad.
I'm actually an Anarchist-Tory - I really quite it enjoy it when the pre-ordained scheme of things falls to bits. So I do find much to enjoy in the rise of UKIP.
But the delusion amongst UKIP supporters is extraordinary. I just hope there are enough blood pressure meds in the country from May 2015, because if - God forbid - Ed Miliband does get in to power, there is going to be such a wailing and a gnashing of teeth as this country has not seen in a long time, from those very people who caused him to be elected on an insane notion that they could make Labour "bend in the political wind".
"But he can't do THAT....!!!!! Make it stop!!!'
UKIP Buyer's Remorse will be a thing to behold. They really will have something to moan about. And it won't be David Cameron and his reduced band of Conservative MPs. No, they will be standing on the sidelines, hands on hips, saying "we f*cking TOLD YOU SO...."
If UKIP do achieve 38% of the vote, perhaps the Conservatives should stand down in seats where they're in danger of splitting the centre-right vote.
:-) With these poll leads wouldn't that be most of them... (including Witney)
Also, and I appreciate that Euro Elections and GE are different, but what happens in the scenario that UKIP keep a Poll lead from the Euros through to the GE and are still denied a place in the debates?
However, two thirds of 2010 Conservatives (67%) now saying they would vote Ukip say that they are likely to stay with their new party for the General Election.
@Quincel - In that case they are even barmier then I said. There is not a snowflakes' chance in hell of the referendum promise being reneged on, if there's a Conservative majority. The fact that to convince themselves that there is, they have to rewrite history and pretend that Cameron committed to a retrospective referendum is further evidence of their barminess. As I've pointed out before, not a single journalist or serious observer ever thought that Cameron had done so at the time, and there were multiple speeches and interviews discussing the question of what might happen if it were ratified under Labour - in every single one of which, it was made clear, long before ratification, that there was no such commitment.
In any case, how exactly does putting Labour into power help?
Putting Labour into power guarantees the Tories never doubt the threat or seriousness of UKIP ever again.
And how about Cameron's promise to hold a referendum if any substantial transfer of powers took place this parliament? As far as Kippers are concerned either he's broken that promise or he has a very different idea of substantial powers than they do. Either way, why keep him in power?
@BBCJLandale: Nigel Farage pulls out of Swansea walkabout after 10 Socialist Workers come to protest. Security risk say UKIP. No bottle say protestors.
And how about Cameron's promise to hold a referendum if any substantial transfer of powers took place this parliament? As far as Kippers are concerned either he's broken that promise or he has a very different idea of substantial powers than they do. Either way, why keep him in power?
Err, he's passed the Act, as he promised. He even managed to do so when in coalition with our Europhile LibDem friends. It's another good example of the Kippers looking at an apple and deciding it must be a bacon butty because Cameron called it an apple.
I'm actually an Anarchist-Tory - I really quite it enjoy it when the pre-ordained scheme of things falls to bits. So I do find much to enjoy in the rise of UKIP.
But the delusion amongst UKIP supporters is extraordinary. I just hope there are enough blood pressure meds in the country from May 2015, because if - God forbid - Ed Miliband does get in to power, there is going to be such a wailing and a gnashing of teeth as this country has not seen in a long time, from those very people who caused him to be elected on an insane notion that they could make Labour "bend in the political wind".
"But he can't do THAT....!!!!! Make it stop!!!'
UKIP Buyer's Remorse will be a thing to behold. They really will have something to moan about. And it won't be David Cameron and his reduced band of Conservative MPs. No, they will be standing on the sidelines, hands on hips, saying "we f*cking TOLD YOU SO...."
Well, it would be Tories own ####ing fault for standing by an electoral system that allows this sort of thing to happen. Had they listened to UKIP and backed AV, we wouldn't have been here. David Cameron from the get-go has pissed off his own supporters, whether they've been eurosceptics, civil libertarians, or traditionalist Tories.
Incidentally, if any reputable credit-worthy punters want a bet on this, I'm happy to offer £1000, perhaps more, at Evens that the referendum promise will be honoured, by the end of 2017, if there's a Conservative majority in 2015, bet void if no majority.
I think he will honour it if he gets a majority, so not for me.
But how about doubling our Labour referendum pledge bet?
Or too scared like the others I have challenged to put money where mouth is?
I will offer you the usual gold sovereign bet - that a Labour Govt. will not have undertaken an in-out referendum across the UK (whatever countries that then comprises) on membership of the European Union by 31st December 2017.
@antifrank - I take it that you don't think my offer is terribly generous
I'll be polite and say that I don't think your offer is terribly generous. I could put it slightly stronger than that.
No, well quite. I wasn't trying to be generous, but, if you listen to the Kippers, they seem to have convinced themselves that it's a nailed-on certainty that Cameron will somehow renege on the commitment. Nuts.
@Richard_Nabavi; @Isam Are you chaps betting on what Labour will put in their manifesto (EU referendum) or what they'll actually do in the event they get a majority ?
perhaps the Conservatives should stand down in seats where they're in danger of splitting the centre-right vote.
UKIP are a centre right party??? Really?? Promising to protect benefits in Wythenshaw?? Promising to hammer growing firms by banning immigration and exacerbating skill shortages?? Promising to stoke up a wage inflation spiral??
@Richard_Nabavi; @Isam Are you chaps betting on what Labour will put in their manifesto (EU referendum) or what they'll actually do in the event they get a majority ?
@antifrank - I take it that you don't think my offer is terribly generous
I'll be polite and say that I don't think your offer is terribly generous. I could put it slightly stronger than that.
No, well quite. I wasn't trying to be generous, but, if you listen to the Kippers, they seem to have convinced themselves that it's a nailed-on certainty that Cameron will somehow renege on the commitment. Nuts.
We're in a very silly season. Personally I think Nigel Farage made a serious mistake this morning in not standing in Newark, because in all likelihood that by-election now will bring a close to the UKIPalpyse rather than have a decent chance of sustaining it. But I recognise that's a minority view.
@antifrank - I take it that you don't think my offer is terribly generous
I'll be polite and say that I don't think your offer is terribly generous. I could put it slightly stronger than that.
No, well quite. I wasn't trying to be generous, but, if you listen to the Kippers, they seem to have convinced themselves that it's a nailed-on certainty that Cameron will somehow renege on the commitment. Nuts.
Who has said it is nailed-on? I think Cameron would probably keep his commitment if he had a majority, but there's a sizable risk that something else would happen. Perhaps some serious tragic event could cause him to delay it, as "now would not be the appropriate time". Perhaps the Germans say they are open to more renegotiation but need a few more years. There are also reasons why the referendum could fail to happen, even if UKIP did refuse to stand at the next election. The Tories might not get a majority. The Tories might get a majority but Cameron gets removed from leadership for some reason, and his replacement isn't bound by the pledge. It's all too high risk to put the entire fate of the eurosceptic movement on it. If UKIP didn't stand at the next election, they'd never recover.
perhaps the Conservatives should stand down in seats where they're in danger of splitting the centre-right vote.
UKIP are a centre right party??? Really?? Promising to protect benefits in Wythenshaw?? Promising to hammer growing firms by banning immigration and exacerbating skill shortages?? Promising to stoke up a wage inflation spiral??
Promising to reintroduce the spare room subsidy ??
And how about Cameron's promise to hold a referendum if any substantial transfer of powers took place this parliament? As far as Kippers are concerned either he's broken that promise or he has a very different idea of substantial powers than they do. Either way, why keep him in power?
Err, he's passed the Act, as he promised. He even managed to do so when in coalition with our Europhile LibDem friends. It's another good example of the Kippers looking at an apple and deciding it must be a bacon butty because Cameron called it an apple.
And yet despite what they'd see as a substantial transfer of powers I see no referendum.
perhaps the Conservatives should stand down in seats where they're in danger of splitting the centre-right vote.
UKIP are a centre right party??? Really?? Promising to protect benefits in Wythenshaw?? Promising to hammer growing firms by banning immigration and exacerbating skill shortages?? Promising to stoke up a wage inflation spiral??
So now mass immigration is needed to prevent a wage inflation spiral? I thought we had central bank monetary targeting for that.
@antifrank - He certainly made a mistake in not squashing the speculation straightaway. In fact he even seemed to encourage it, which was very silly. And it's not as though there wasn't plenty of warning of the possibility of this coming up, so he hasn't even got the excuse of being caught unawares.
As to whether he should have taken the risk, I'm not surprised that he didn't take it. It would have been a 'Double or Quits' bet. On balance you might be right that it would have been a risk worth taking - assuming of course that he's serious about changing the political landscape.
Or too scared like the others I have challenged to put money where mouth is?
I will offer you the usual gold sovereign bet - that a Labour Govt. will not have undertaken an in-out referendum across the UK (whatever countries that then comprises) on membership of the European Union by 31st December 2017.
@antifrank - He certainly made a mistake in not squashing the speculation straightaway. In fact he even seemed to encourage it, which was very silly. And it's not as though there wasn't plenty of warning of the possibility of this coming up, so he hasn't even got the excuse of being caught unawares.
As to whether he should have taken the risk, I'm not surprised that he didn't take it. It would have been a 'Double or Quits' bet. On balance you might be right that it would have been a risk worth taking - assuming of course that he's serious about changing the political landscape.
The leader of a party who is accused of being a one man band, who comes from from London/Kent, parachuting himself into a Nottinghamshire seat in a blaze of publicity whilst saying he represents "A People's Army"
I suspect the Labour party manifesto will 'promise a referendum' "in the event of a further transfer of powers to Brussels", or words to that effect.
I hope your settlement criteria clearly indicates who has won and lost should this be the case.
That wouldn't count as a referendum promise for the purposes of this bet. The bet is on them changing their current position and promising an In/Out referendum in the next parliament.
UKIP first or joint first in seats in every region, including Scotland and Wales...
Surprising if Scotland gets two UKIP. One maybe but two? The ComRes poll in the header has SNP 35% and UKIP 7% - I know, subsample of 186, online and all that. But that is a massive difference.
I suspect the Labour party manifesto will 'promise a referendum' "in the event of a further transfer of powers to Brussels", or words to that effect.
I hope your settlement criteria clearly indicates who has won and lost should this be the case.
That wouldn't count as a referendum promise for the purposes of this bet. The bet is on them changing their current position and promising an In/Out referendum in the next parliament.
If that is the case then you're on the correct side of the bet I suspect !
The leader of a party who is accused of being a one man band, who comes from from London/Kent, parachuting himself into a Nottinghamshire seat in a blaze of publicity whilst saying he represents "A People's Army"
The leader of a party who is accused of being a one man band, who comes from from London/Kent, parachuting himself into a Nottinghamshire seat in a blaze of publicity whilst saying he represents "A People's Army"
I'm actually an Anarchist-Tory - I really quite it enjoy it when the pre-ordained scheme of things falls to bits. So I do find much to enjoy in the rise of UKIP.
But the delusion amongst UKIP supporters is extraordinary. I just hope there are enough blood pressure meds in the country from May 2015, because if - God forbid - Ed Miliband does get in to power, there is going to be such a wailing and a gnashing of teeth as this country has not seen in a long time, from those very people who caused him to be elected on an insane notion that they could make Labour "bend in the political wind".
"But he can't do THAT....!!!!! Make it stop!!!'
UKIP Buyer's Remorse will be a thing to behold. They really will have something to moan about. And it won't be David Cameron and his reduced band of Conservative MPs. No, they will be standing on the sidelines, hands on hips, saying "we f*cking TOLD YOU SO...."
Well, it would be Tories own ####ing fault for standing by an electoral system that allows this sort of thing to happen. Had they listened to UKIP and backed AV, we wouldn't have been here. David Cameron from the get-go has pissed off his own supporters, whether they've been eurosceptics, civil libertarians, or traditionalist Tories.
That's certainly true.
Just imagine what the result of the next general election would look like under AV, with the latest ICM figures (with changes from GE2010 in brackets):
Cameron's referendum pledge would probably be pretty good for UKIP second preferences, and with a bit of swing-back it would probably put them over the line. Miliband was certainly lucky he wasn't able to win the AV referendum.
Comments
Thus both the actions will be governed under the old law. Hence NGN have pleaded justification and a Reynolds defence (see Mitchell v NGN [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 at [3], per Lord Dyson MR). Both of those defences have been abolished by the 2013 Act (see sections 2 and 4 respectively). So in theory, there will be a presumption in favour of a jury trial in both actions. However, there has been a decided trend against jury trials in defamation cases, so it is probable that both actions will be tried by a Puisne Judge sitting alone.
Nevertheless, the point still stands. Would you prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, or that of the man on the street? As for "British justice", why taint the high standards of English common law with Scottish barbarisms...
"Mr. Llama, are you Patrick Mercer disguise?"
No, I am not! As you well know. I do, however, have several things in common with the gallant and honourable gentleman including an utter contempt for the current occupant of No.10.
UKIP's broad and shallow electoral approach will do more harm than good, come the General Election.
Steady on. Think back to the Cleggasm and ponder on where that party is just a few years later.
Get real.
Referendum? Nein chance.
We'll see
One more time... the UKIP idea is that, by damaging the Conservatives and putting Ed Miliband into No 10, that they can force Ed Miliband to do something which is totally against his political beliefs, which would be unpopular in his party, which is opposed by the unions and by his fellow left-wing parties in the rest of Europe, and which is a no-win for him either way. Oh, and which would close down the issue which divides the right, and thereby reduce his chance of a second term.
Run the logic past us one more time, Kippers. How exactly does the pressure on Miliband operate?
As I have said many times, is UKIP is the F*cking For Virginity Party - they will cause the destruction of all they say they are trying to preserve and protect.
Nigel Farage is the EU's useful idiot.
Who would you vote for if you were in Eastleigh at the next General Election ?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/apr/30/pc-lee-birch-firing-taser-naked-man-video
The reality is that I get the long game, I get the pressure group agitating but what I don't get is the belief that a vote for UKIP if you were a Cons is anything other than a helping hand to EdM and a Lab govt for the next few years if not a generation.
Perhaps that is why UKIP are going so hard at the labour vote. They know they are vulnerable to the 'vote Nige - get Ed charge'.
If UKIP an show they are hurting Labour too, that might persuade some converters to stick with them.
UKIP have already forced David Cameron to do something that is totally against his political beliefs, get out of the bubble and open your mind Richard
Labour will dance to the UKIP tune if the snowball keeps snowballing
If you like, lets double our bet on Labour offering an EU referendum in their manifesto.
I've no time for insulting people just because we disagree on political theory, money talks!
And Eck will force the Royal Navy to buy ships built in Scotland in the event of independence.
Has there ever been a barmier large-scale political party in the history of modern democracy?
Suppose back in the early 1900s people who were trying to get the Labour Party off the ground listened to the Liberals who were telling them, "Stop, give up, otherwise you'll let the Conservatives in again. OK the Liberals don't actually represent your views but we are nearer than anyone else except the new party which can never be elected".
UKIP may well contain a few fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists but I doubt they have more of them than any other party. They may well take votes that might otherwise have gone to the Conservatives. They may well have an ill-formed, incomplete and indeed contradictory agenda for government. Their leader may well be a buffoon who spends his life three-parts pissed. However, they offer something that no other party does - the impression that they are on the side of the common man.
That is a seriously exceptionally cold month, and would have had a temporary impact on the UK economy.
Where there is a difference is that the cold weather in the US persisted for the entire winter, whereas the winter of 2010/11 in the UK wasn't exceptionally cold as a whole (much milder than 1979/80 for example), because January was near-average and February was notably warm.
2 June 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8078637.stm
Did UKIP make him do that? No.
He was only prevented from carrying it out because all countries ratified the treaty before the GE.
But it was Labour who signed the treaty. And they would do another in a heartbeat, once UKIP let them back into power.
As the great antifrank perceptively said many months ago, the nearest parallel is Italy's Five Star Movement.
The promise of a man who has made the same promise and lied before is not enough to get Kippers voting for a party they don't trust. And why should it be?
You would have said the same this time last year if I had said UKIP were getting double the Tory score in the EU polls with a double digit lead
Do you want to bet about Labour offering a referendum in their manifesto?
I'm game, how much? You can have 1/2 that they dont
So it is with UKIP.
Yes, a sensible party should definitely be working to re-elect a government proven to be untrustworthy on EU issues, even if that meant putting themselves back a decade in future elections, leaving themselves up the creek without a paddle - or even a boat - if the referendum didn't happen.
It would be like Labour condemning people for voting Green or Lib Dem, and claiming that they intend the Conservatives to win.
Many right-leaning posters to this site are convinced that it was William Hague's courageous campaigning that prevented Blair from taking Britain into the Euro - rather than, say, Brown's opposition from the Treasury. This at a time when Blair had a huge majority in the Commons on >40% of the vote.
Now some right-leaning posters would have us believe that Miliband is such a toweringly strong political figure that if he became PM with a majority of two dozen on 35% of the vote he could ignore the massive electoral breakthrough of a new party on an explicitly anti-EU agenda.
He would bend. He would have to. Apart from anything else there are Eurosceptic MPs on the Labour benches too.
How many years are you prepared to wait? The UK will be so firmly integrated into the EU in a generation or so, post a Labour victory, that it will be too late anyway.
In any case, how exactly does putting Labour into power help?
or
our only aim is an in/out referendum (assuming the manifesto won't contain a commitment to out only).
Which latter makes no sense as you say.
In reality they are going through birthing pains and that's fine but as their flagship policy contains such a contradiction it is even more important for them to develop a range of policies about health, education, defence, the deficit, etc. I doubt they will to a required level of coherence and therefore IMO normal service will be resumed with UKIP as NOTA and lower support at GE2015.
I mean I adore and trust the Great British Public but even they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a party which has one policy they can't deliver, but which another party can, and no other policies besides that one.
And yet UKIP should abandon their hopes as a political party because Cameron has promised he'll hold a referendum.
They're watching, laughing and rubbing their hands in expectation, as the Right splits.
Or too scared like the others I have challenged to put money where mouth is?
But how about doubling our Labour referendum pledge bet?
But the delusion amongst UKIP supporters is extraordinary. I just hope there are enough blood pressure meds in the country from May 2015, because if - God forbid - Ed Miliband does get in to power, there is going to be such a wailing and a gnashing of teeth as this country has not seen in a long time, from those very people who caused him to be elected on an insane notion that they could make Labour "bend in the political wind".
"But he can't do THAT....!!!!! Make it stop!!!'
UKIP Buyer's Remorse will be a thing to behold. They really will have something to moan about. And it won't be David Cameron and his reduced band of Conservative MPs. No, they will be standing on the sidelines, hands on hips, saying "we f*cking TOLD YOU SO...."
Also, and I appreciate that Euro Elections and GE are different, but what happens in the scenario that UKIP keep a Poll lead from the Euros through to the GE and are still denied a place in the debates?
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-04-30/1-4-ukip-voters-unlikely-to-stick-with-party-after-euros/
And how about Cameron's promise to hold a referendum if any substantial transfer of powers took place this parliament? As far as Kippers are concerned either he's broken that promise or he has a very different idea of substantial powers than they do. Either way, why keep him in power?
The local candidate has broken his hip and so I am dishing them out in Upminster!
Too scared to take it?
UKIP are a centre right party??? Really?? Promising to protect benefits in Wythenshaw?? Promising to hammer growing firms by banning immigration and exacerbating skill shortages?? Promising to stoke up a wage inflation spiral??
Still, I'm enjoying the carnival atmosphere.
They are the most left wing party out there.
As to whether he should have taken the risk, I'm not surprised that he didn't take it. It would have been a 'Double or Quits' bet. On balance you might be right that it would have been a risk worth taking - assuming of course that he's serious about changing the political landscape.
As opposed to the risk of letting ed miliband in by voting UKIP. No risk there.
What a ludicrous comment.
UKIP 32 (+19)
Lab 21 (+8)
Con 12 (-14)
LD 2 (-9)
Grn* 0 (-2)
SNP 2 (nc)
Plaid 1 (nc)
* no Green figure given
UKIP first or joint first in seats in every region, including Scotland and Wales...
Yeah that would have played out well
I suspect the Labour party manifesto will 'promise a referendum' "in the event of a further transfer of powers to Brussels", or words to that effect.
I hope your settlement criteria clearly indicates who has won and lost should this be the case.
UKIP 30 (+17)
Lab 22 (+9)
Con 11 (-14)
LD 4 (-7)
Grn* 0 (-2)
SNP 2 (nc)
Plaid 1 (nc)
* no Green figure given
UKIP first or joint first in seats in every region, except the North East...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosby_by-election,_1981
I did say UNS.
We all know Scotland (for one) will be quite a bit off that...
1 SE, 1 Lon, 1 SW, 1 NW
Just imagine what the result of the next general election would look like under AV, with the latest ICM figures (with changes from GE2010 in brackets):
Con 32% (-5)
Lab 37% (+7)
LD 12% (-12)
UKIP 11% (+8)
Cameron's referendum pledge would probably be pretty good for UKIP second preferences, and with a bit of swing-back it would probably put them over the line. Miliband was certainly lucky he wasn't able to win the AV referendum.