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.
Hmm I think Labour gets a (very) comfortable majority on those figures under either AV or FPTP. No chance Cameron can get over the line on AV I think here.
It's all too high risk to put the entire fate of the eurosceptic movement on it.
As opposed to the risk of letting ed miliband in by voting UKIP. No risk there.
What a ludicrous comment.
A short term risk for sure, but if UKIP get a pair of MPs and continued momentum then their long term future is barely risked at all.
Not sure UKIP will poll over 10% in Scotland, whilst they will utterly pile up the votes in East and Southeast regions.
Agreed. They could win the Euros easily without a single Scotland MEP, though I suspect that if they do poll 35%+ they'll probably get one. I know they are much less popular Scotland, but there comes a point where their vote has to be very skewed indeed to stop them getting even a single Scottish MEP.
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"
@Socrates - Yeah, yeah, a whole raft of excuses to cover up the fact that UKIP don't actually want a referendum.
And here I was thinking the excuse making was coming from Tory supporters who are blaming UKIP for them not being able to get re-elected.
Incidentally, when people begin sentences with "yeah, yeah, yeah", it's a pretty good clue to the fact they don't want to engage with the actual arguments.
Miliband will be conscious of the fact that almost half of UKIPs vote are 2010 Tories.. in Lib-Con and Lab-Con marginals they would be more likely to go back to the Tories if no Labour Referendum is on offer.
That's my thinking anyway, and I have backed it up with cash
LDs get 4 (Lon, SE, SW, NW) because the fractions work in their favour, in particular C is on average less than 2x LD and so C only get allocated 1 seat before LD gets one. If C get just over 2x LD then the C get 2 seats before LD get one
In a region, if LD get 100 then optimal other parties would be say 199, 299 and 399. Non optimal would be 201, 301 & 395. This is based on a 10/20/30/40 split leaving nothing to the others, but illustrates the point.
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
It's all too high risk to put the entire fate of the eurosceptic movement on it.
As opposed to the risk of letting ed miliband in by voting UKIP. No risk there.
What a ludicrous comment.
A short term risk for sure, but if UKIP get a pair of MPs and continued momentum then their long term future is barely risked at all.
Not sure UKIP will poll over 10% in Scotland, whilst they will utterly pile up the votes in East and Southeast regions.
Agreed. They could win the Euros easily without a single Scotland MEP, though I suspect that if they do poll 35%+ they'll probably get one. I know they are much less popular Scotland, but there comes a point where their vote has to be very skewed indeed to stop them getting even a single Scottish MEP.
If UKIP win 35% nationwide, that probably puts them on 15-20% in Scotland, which would get them an MEP.
Apologies for the delay in responding to those who replied to my earlier post (Herself came home and I had to "do things" - no not that, but empty the kitchen bin and stand in the garden to frighten off the starlings so the blackbirds could feed, tell the cat off for sleeping all day, those sort of things). Anyway:
Mr. Navabi, yes UKIP might only be giving the impression they are on the side of the Common Man but, as I am sure you well know, in politics as in life generally perception is reality. Farage and his friends at least give the impression of caring about the same things that lots and lots of normal, ordinary, people do, which is more than can be said for the leaders of the three main parties. The likes of you and I can stand in our ivory towers and call Farage all the names under the sun, it won't make any difference. Indeed recent polls suggest that trying to slag off UKIP as racist etc is actually counter productive.
Mr. Lennon, I have no idea what UKIP's long term strategy might be, if indeed they have one (which I doubt). I am not even a member let alone privy to the innermost secrets of Farage & co. What I do think is that maybe it would be a good idea if the Conservatives (and to a lesser extent Labour) came up with a new way of countering the UKIP message. After all calling UKIP supporters names hasn't worked and saying, "Vote UKIP and get Labour" doesn't seem to be doing to well at the moment.
The Conservatives do seem to have a problem in that they have lumped themselves with a leader who is 15 years out of date and who defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief. Labour, by contrast, have got themselves a leader who doesn't/can't actually lead, has no meaningful policies other than to say he is a socialist and who looks like he has just shit himself every time he smiles (my thanks to Mr Jessop for that image). The Lib Dems, of course, have got Clegg - nuff said. Never mind Farage, my cat would look good up against those three - at least he purrs nicely and looks cute.
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
D'ancona is right!! He really should. Every time he opens his mouth to deride UKIP and its supporters he adds to their support. He really is the best recruiting advert that UKIP could ever wish for.
'In preparation for the European elections on May 22, Barbara Roche, the former Labour immigration minister, is leading a cross-party campaign condemning Ukip’s campaign as racist.'
I first read of Barbara Roche's 'racist' comments in the Guardian the other day and the claim that she speaks on behalf of a 'cross-party campaign' - anyone know the name of this alleged 'campaign' and who exactly the members she claims to represent are?
Regardless of the actual proposals (which I favour but have sympathy with Labour's line that they don't go far enough) Theresa May's shift to a softer position continues, whereas Cameron is soft on the outside but wants the hard line. Ultimately May's leadership challenge will be all the stronger for it.
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
D'ancona is right!! He really should. Every time he opens his mouth to deride UKIP and its supporters he adds to their support. He really is the best recruiting advert that UKIP could ever wish for.
I've often wondered if D'Ancona was the model for Harry Enfield's Tory Boy.
So UKIP on 38%. After 52 years of political campaigning that just confirms my impression that 38% of the electorate are 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.'
'In preparation for the European elections on May 22, Barbara Roche, the former Labour immigration minister, is leading a cross-party campaign condemning Ukip’s campaign as racist.'
I first read of Barbara Roche's 'racist' comments in the Guardian the other day and the claim that she speaks on behalf of a 'cross-party campaign' - anyone know the name of this alleged 'campaign' and who exactly the members she claims to represent are?
(snip) Labour, by contrast, have got themselves a leader who doesn't/can't actually lead, has no meaningful policies other than to say he is a socialist and who looks like he has just shit himself every time he smiles (my thanks to Mr Jessop for that image).
I won't ask if you got the image from seeing me smile, or if I once made that comparison ...
Apologies for the delay in responding to those who replied to my earlier post (Herself came home and I had to "do things" - no not that, but empty the kitchen bin and stand in the garden to frighten off the starlings so the blackbirds could feed, tell the cat off for sleeping all day, those sort of things). Anyway:
Mr. Navabi, yes UKIP might only be giving the impression they are on the side of the Common Man but, as I am sure you well know, in politics as in life generally perception is reality. Farage and his friends at least give the impression of caring about the same things that lots and lots of normal, ordinary, people do, which is more than can be said for the leaders of the three main parties. The likes of you and I can stand in our ivory towers and call Farage all the names under the sun, it won't make any difference. Indeed recent polls suggest that trying to slag off UKIP as racist etc is actually counter productive.
Mr. Lennon, I have no idea what UKIP's long term strategy might be, if indeed they have one (which I doubt). I am not even a member let alone privy to the innermost secrets of Farage & co. What I do think is that maybe it would be a good idea if the Conservatives (and to a lesser extent Labour) came up with a new way of countering the UKIP message. After all calling UKIP supporters names hasn't worked and saying, "Vote UKIP and get Labour" doesn't seem to be doing to well at the moment.
The Conservatives do seem to have a problem in that they have lumped themselves with a leader who is 15 years out of date and who defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief. Labour, by contrast, have got themselves a leader who doesn't/can't actually lead, has no meaningful policies other than to say he is a socialist and who looks like he has just shit himself every time he smiles (my thanks to Mr Jessop for that image). The Lib Dems, of course, have got Clegg - nuff said. Never mind Farage, my cat would look good up against those three - at least he purrs nicely and looks cute.
I won't ask if you got the image from seeing me smile, or if I once made that comparison ...
Mr. Jessop, we have not, so far as I am aware, ever met but you did make that comparison on this very site a few days ago and made me laugh like a drain. I apologise if my loose wording has caused you any embarrassment.
Apologies for the delay in responding to those who replied to my earlier post (Herself came home and I had to "do things" - no not that, but empty the kitchen bin and stand in the garden to frighten off the starlings so the blackbirds could feed, tell the cat off for sleeping all day, those sort of things). Anyway:
Mr. Navabi, yes UKIP might only be giving the impression they are on the side of the Common Man but, as I am sure you well know, in politics as in life generally perception is reality. Farage and his friends at least give the impression of caring about the same things that lots and lots of normal, ordinary, people do, which is more than can be said for the leaders of the three main parties. The likes of you and I can stand in our ivory towers and call Farage all the names under the sun, it won't make any difference. Indeed recent polls suggest that trying to slag off UKIP as racist etc is actually counter productive.
Mr. Lennon, I have no idea what UKIP's long term strategy might be, if indeed they have one (which I doubt). I am not even a member let alone privy to the innermost secrets of Farage & co. What I do think is that maybe it would be a good idea if the Conservatives (and to a lesser extent Labour) came up with a new way of countering the UKIP message. After all calling UKIP supporters names hasn't worked and saying, "Vote UKIP and get Labour" doesn't seem to be doing to well at the moment.
The Conservatives do seem to have a problem in that they have lumped themselves with a leader who is 15 years out of date and who defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief. Labour, by contrast, have got themselves a leader who doesn't/can't actually lead, has no meaningful policies other than to say he is a socialist and who looks like he has just shit himself every time he smiles (my thanks to Mr Jessop for that image). The Lib Dems, of course, have got Clegg - nuff said. Never mind Farage, my cat would look good up against those three - at least he purrs nicely and looks cute.
I won't ask if you got the image from seeing me smile, or if I once made that comparison ...
Mr. Jessop, we have not, so far as I aware, ever met but you did make that comparison on this very site a few days ago and made me laugh like a drain. I apologise if my loose wording has caused you any embarrassment.
I was wondering because I couldn't remember making the comparison. If I did, I rather like it. ;-)
It was probably during one of my code-addled interludes on PB. Many people chose to get addled on coke, but code's my drug of choice. A few lines of speedy JavaScript, of the psychedelia of assembler and I'm off ...
So UKIP on 38%. After 52 years of political campaigning that just confirms my impression that 38% of the electorate are 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.'
The ones who regularly vote Labour you mean? In that case I agree entirely. (Not really, just making a point)
I've just seen the Barbara Roche interview on Newsnight. I think Ukip should make her an life member - she must be a plant, surely?
I heard her on the radio yesterday and she was truly terrible. I'm no fan of UKIP (although I generally don't mind UKIPpers - there's a difference) but she simply just doesn't get it. It's as if her mind is incapable of even seeing why UKIP might be attractive to people.
I did – but it really doesn’t answer my question I’m afraid - unless the ‘cross-party campaign’ consist solely of an Ex Labour minister smearing another party as racist in an attempt to close down any debate on immigration? – we’ve had enough of that over the past decade.
I think the public can sense this reticence a mile off and it is massively to Cameron’s disadvantage. In 2006, he said that Ukip was a “bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”, and did so with panache and conviction. He should say so again, as soon and as often as possible. It is what he thinks, which the voters would grasp. And it has the merit — always handy — of being true.
D'ancona is right!! He really should. Every time he opens his mouth to deride UKIP and its supporters he adds to their support. He really is the best recruiting advert that UKIP could ever wish for.
I've often wondered if D'Ancona was the model for Harry Enfield's Tory Boy.
Doesn't seem right if only because I am sure Tory Boy went back to the early 1990s at least, perhaps the 1980s. And on checking Wiki he was allegedly modelled in part on Mr Hague ... 'Tory Boy was a repulsive fifteen-year-old with glaringly out-of-date ideas about the world, based on a cross between a snobbish, unpopular boy who went to school with Enfield, and a younger version of Hague. Enfield also claimed to have mixed more recent Conservative politicians as Michael Howard and Michael Portillo together in the character, on the allegation that they were "Tory Boys who have never grown up."'
I was wondering because I couldn't remember making the comparison. If I did, I rather like it. ;-)
It was probably during one of my code-addled interludes on PB. Many people chose to get addled on coke, but code's my drug of choice. A few lines of speedy JavaScript, of the psychedelia of assembler and I'm off ...
I'll get my coat.
Linked lists, if then statements, recursive calls and memory management routines ... I know what you mean. But you be careful, they can be addictive and I should hate for Mrs. Jessop to be left a grieving widow.
I was wondering because I couldn't remember making the comparison. If I did, I rather like it. ;-)
It was probably during one of my code-addled interludes on PB. Many people chose to get addled on coke, but code's my drug of choice. A few lines of speedy JavaScript, of the psychedelia of assembler and I'm off ...
I'll get my coat.
Linked lists, if then statements, recursive calls and memory management routines ... I know what you mean. But you be careful, they can be addictive and I should hate for Mrs. Jessop to be left a grieving widow.
Case blocks were recently by buzz of choice - but Python doesn't have any!
I heard this morning about a poor chap addicted to FOBTs. When the presenter got onto his finances, he said he had almost six figures on a credit card.
I thought to myself that as there is no way he can ever pay that off the balance is bound to be written off at some point. And that ultimately it is the taxpayer who stands behind his debt...
''(Cameron) defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief.''
??.....Such as.......?? (Puts on tin helmet)...
How about 0.7% of GDP given away every year? Of course we have to borrow the money and our grandchildren will be paying it back.
Sadly, I disagree with you there. I like spending a small amount of our treasure on foreign aid, even if I sometimes don't quite like how it's spent. I favour disaster relief and prevention, medicine, boys' and especially girls' education, and clean water schemes. But I can see why people don't like it.
As a matter of interest, did you get my PM last night?
Are you accusing Cameron of been too principled, or not principled enough?
Like most of his critics, you accuse him of pandering to whatever the latest opinion polls say, and then cite in support of your dislike of him an excellent example of an issue on which he has been 100% consistent since he first came to notice in the leadership contest a decade ago, and which you think "leaves the common man open-mouthed in disbelief".
I heard this morning about a poor chap addicted to FOBTs. When the presenter got onto his finances, he said he had almost six figures on a credit card.
I thought to myself that as there is no way he can ever pay that off the balance is bound to be written off at some point. And that ultimately it is the taxpayer who stands behind his debt...
If he goes bankrupt, then his creditors are the ones that lose out. In this case the credit card company. I don't see how the taxpayer is involved in that.
An interesting article by Matt d'Ancona, linked to by @SimonStClare above.
I can see his point, but I think he's wrong. Attacking UKIP in terms of racism, homophobia etc - whilst tempting - is indeed attacking many decent people and is counter-productive.
I think that the Conservative leadership have actually found a good formulation: 'UKIP can't deliver'. That has the merit of being true, without attacking the motives and aspirations of those tempted to vote for them.
Admittedly it won't help much in respect of the Euro elections, but it prepares the ground for the response after the results are announced: "Yes, lots of people have shown they are concerned about Europe which is why we need to renegotiate terms and then put the issue to the British people to decide on"
In any case, plenty of others - the Beeb etc - will be running the racism attacks. The Tories don't need to get involved.
The jury at the Central Criminal Court has retired to consider its verdict in the retrial of Constance Briscoe on three counts of perverting the course of public justice.
Are you accusing Cameron of been too principled, or not principled enough?
Like most of his critics, you accuse him of pandering to whatever the latest opinion polls say, and then cite in support of your dislike of him an excellent example of an issue on which he has been 100% consistent since he first came to notice in the leadership contest a decade ago, and which you think "leaves the common man open-mouthed in disbelief".
You can't have it both ways, can you?
Mr. Navabi, I think I have been consistent in my dislike of Cameron and I am damn certain I have always been opposed to the DfID nonsense. If you think Cameron has been as consistent in his words and deeds is a matter for you.
An interesting article by Matt d'Ancona, linked to by @SimonStClare above.
I can see his point, but I think he's wrong. Attacking UKIP in terms of racism, homophobia etc - whilst tempting - is indeed attacking many decent people and is counter-productive.
.
Such attacks only resonate, in any case, with GMW voters, who aren't going to be tempted to vote for UKIP in the first place.
An interesting article by Matt d'Ancona, linked to by @SimonStClare above.
I can see his point, but I think he's wrong. Attacking UKIP in terms of racism, homophobia etc - whilst tempting - is indeed attacking many decent people and is counter-productive.
I think that the Conservative leadership have actually found a good formulation: 'UKIP can't deliver'. That has the merit of being true, without attacking the motives and aspirations of those tempted to vote for them.
Admittedly it won't help much in respect of the Euro elections, but it prepares the ground for the response after the results are announced: "Yes, lots of people have shown they are concerned about Europe which is why we need to renegotiate terms and then put the issue to the British people to decide on"
In any case, plenty of others - the Beeb etc - will be running the racism attacks. The Tories don't need to get involved.
So the Tories can deliver on cutting immigration from Eastern Europe then?
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
The problem with this is that we had an actual debate on actual policies between Nigel Farage and the Deputy Prime Minister. Farage wiped the floor with him. And not just on the show: a large majority of the British public thought the content of his arguments were better.
''(Cameron) defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief.''
??.....Such as.......?? (Puts on tin helmet)...
How about 0.7% of GDP given away every year? Of course we have to borrow the money and our grandchildren will be paying it back.
Sadly, I disagree with you there. I like spending a small amount of our treasure on foreign aid, even if I sometimes don't quite like how it's spent. I favour disaster relief and prevention, medicine, boys' and especially girls' education, and clean water schemes. But I can see why people don't like it.
As a matter of interest, did you get my PM last night?
Fair enough, Mr. J. and if asked to dig into my pocket to fund education/clean water projects I would probably cough up willingly. The idea that we are going to borrow to give away x amount of money every year is, however, a totally different cauldron of octopus. It is in fact lunacy and probably the best guarantee that the people who really need the money never get it. For an initial critique of the DfID spending have a look at Carswell's article in todays' Telegraph.
So the Tories can deliver on cutting immigration from Eastern Europe then?
Yes, of course, to the extent that the Welfare system encourages it, but not on the principle of free movement of workers if we remain in the EU.
Alternatively, to make a substantial change, we'd need to leave the EU and negotiate (as discussed over the last few days) a trade deal with the EU with appropriate provisions. There's one way, and one way only, in which that can be delivered: a Conservative win in 2015,a referendum in 2017, an Out result, and a suitable trade deal. UKIP could help deliver the third and fourth parts of that, if they weren't intent on sabotaging the first and second.
I used to think Overseas aid was good until the India jet fighter deal.
Our aid to India was a huge multiple of France's - and they gave a massive contract to the French.
That destroyed the central argument of aid, that it buys us trade. I reckon it was actually counterproductive. The days when the third world wants to be patronised by a former colonial power are long gone.
International aid is just an expensive sop to middle class consciences.
Matthew d'Ancona is the British Mike Allen: the commensurate insider who is so immersed in the politico bubble he has completely lost touch with how things appear outside that.
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
The problem with this is that we had an actual debate on actual policies between Nigel Farage and the Deputy Prime Minister. Farage wiped the floor with him. And not just on the show: a large majority of the British public thought the content of his arguments were better.
The quality of Massie's argument is demonstrated by his first paragraph:-
"Yes, yes, yes, some young ‘uns support UKIP. Just as a few black people do too. But come on. We all know – because the polling tells us so – that UKIP supporters are likely to be older and whiter than the average voter and, most importantly, also more certain that the whole bleedin’ country is going to the dogs. The sodding dogs, I tell you."
According to Com Res 30% of 18-44 year olds plan to vote UKIP. Do you think it's because they yearn for the return of the British Empire?
So the Tories can deliver on cutting immigration from Eastern Europe then?
Yes, of course, to the extent that the Welfare system encourages it, but not on the principle of free movement of workers if we remain in the EU.
Are you really peddling this after you got on your high horse about misleading arguments? What percentage of Eastern Europeans do you think are really coming to exploit the welfare state? It's a very small number. And while it is right the government takes action to prevent those exploiting it, the welfare changes in the world are only going to marginally affect the aggregate number. And we can't even do all the welfare changes in the world - the most they've been able to do so far is make you wait three months, as if those planning to spend the rest of their lives on the British taxpayer dime are going to be put off by that.
Alternatively, to make a substantial change, we'd need to leave the EU and negotiate (as discussed over the last few days) a trade deal with the EU with appropriate provisions. There's one way, and one way only, in which that can be delivered: a Conservative win in 2015,a referendum in 2017, an Out result, and a suitable trade deal. UKIP could help deliver the third and fourth parts of that, if they weren't intent on sabotaging the first and second.
Yes, but the first part of that is not going to happen. The Tories are simply not going to win a majority, which is what they'd need to have a referendum, as the Lib Dems will refuse to sign up for a coalition on that basis. Thus we're having to look to 2020 to do that. And the best way to keep the pressure up for a referendum post 2020 is a strong UKIP. If they fade away, then people who don't like their message (e.g. the entire political-media establishment) will say they were just a flash in the pan and the big parties don't need to care about euroscepticism any more.
I used to think Overseas aid was good until the India jet fighter deal.
Our aid to India was a huge multiple of France's - and they gave a massive contract to the French.
That destroyed the central argument of aid, that it buys us trade. I reckon it was actually counterproductive. The days when the third world wants to be patronised by a former colonial power are long gone.
International aid is just an expensive sop to middle class consciences.
The central argument for aid is that it causes huge amounts of good for very little investment. Which is why Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are pumping their billions into it.
''(Cameron) defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief.''
??.....Such as.......?? (Puts on tin helmet)...
How about 0.7% of GDP given away every year? Of course we have to borrow the money and our grandchildren will be paying it back.
Sadly, I disagree with you there. I like spending a small amount of our treasure on foreign aid, even if I sometimes don't quite like how it's spent. I favour disaster relief and prevention, medicine, boys' and especially girls' education, and clean water schemes. But I can see why people don't like it.
As a matter of interest, did you get my PM last night?
I agree that as a wealthy nation in GDP per capita terms we should be able to find a way to help others in the world - and given our history in relation to famine in the 19th century I also think that we have a duty to ensure that our past mistakes are not repeated.
However, I am given pause by your use of the phrase "our treasure" bearing in mind that HMG have been running a chunky deficit since 2002/3 (twelve years) and a stupendous deficit since 2008/9 (six years). It does feel a bit like we are borrowing lots of money so that the politicians can make themselves feel like they are generous people.
When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.
I have a similar problem. I shall either vote Green or Lib Dem, probably depending on my mood on the day.
My problem is that my region (East Midlands) has only 5 MEPs. My natural instinct in a Euro election is the Liberal Democrats - but on these polling figures they don't stand a chance in the East Midlands (likewise Greens). So that just leaves Conservative and Labour. I'll probably vote Conservative in the locals but I can't support them in a Euro election. As for Labour... well I've never voted Labour in my life. I might have to force myself to though.
So UKIP on 38%. After 52 years of political campaigning that just confirms my impression that 38% of the electorate are 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.'
The ones who regularly vote Labour you mean? In that case I agree entirely. (Not really, just making a point)
Precisely Richard. Before, they spread their votes across the parties - now they are concentrating them on UKIP.
Appears that UKIP may have a CRICK in the neck this evening...
Speaking of Crick has he or Channel 4 got round to door-stepping Hancock yet?
Also, I wonder how much air time the BBC will give to reporting why a sitting LibLabCon MP has resigned in between their 4,512th report on Ukip council candidates?
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
The problem with this is that we had an actual debate on actual policies between Nigel Farage and the Deputy Prime Minister. Farage wiped the floor with him. And not just on the show: a large majority of the British public thought the content of his arguments were better.
Do the polls tell us how many Labour and LD 2010s are supporting UKIP in the Euros?
Yes, although iirc they don't do tell us who they supported at the last euros (although you could look back at historical cross cuts to try and comare).
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
The problem with this is that we had an actual debate on actual policies between Nigel Farage and the Deputy Prime Minister. Farage wiped the floor with him. And not just on the show: a large majority of the British public thought the content of his arguments were better.
Did they? On the content?
Yes, a large number thought his arguments were better. You can go back to the thread on the day of the debate to find the poll if you like.
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
The problem with this is that we had an actual debate on actual policies between Nigel Farage and the Deputy Prime Minister. Farage wiped the floor with him. And not just on the show: a large majority of the British public thought the content of his arguments were better.
Did they? On the content?
Yes, a large number thought his arguments were better. You can go back to the thread on the day of the debate to find the poll if you like.
I must admit I've just done that and couldn't find that information. The polls I found only seemed to have party breakdown, not anything beyond who won overall for each voter.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
You think there was no coincidence.... ok!
Yes, I think there was no coincidence. UKIP MEP with repeatedly expressed controversial views about homosexuality gets called up by tabloid to elicit controversial views about homosexuality was a pretty likely occurrence.
Appears that UKIP may have a CRICK in the neck this evening...
Speaking of Crick has he or Channel 4 got round to door-stepping Hancock yet?
Also, I wonder how much air time the BBC will give to reporting why a sitting LibLabCon MP has resigned in between their 4,512th report on Ukip council candidates?
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
You think there was no coincidence.... ok!
Yes, I think there was no coincidence. UKIP MEP with repeatedly expressed controversial views about homosexuality gets called up by tabloid to elicit controversial views about homosexuality was a pretty likely occurrence.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
No no no !
This is the (Stuart) Truth :
The ruling monarch-monopolists have near total control of ALL western media and actively steer all of the rigged 'debate'. Every year a satan servants cult selects 15 new members from the junior class of Yale. For the next 50 years these occult elitists work to defeat freedom, and (50) x (15) = 750 ACTIVE TRAITORS that have been at this process since the 1820s. See "Skull and Bone, the Order at Yale Revealed" by Charlotte Thompson Iseberyt.
Section 16 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides ...
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...
Thanks for the information.
I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone.
It is likely the case will be tried on the credibility of the defendant's evidence against that of the plaintiff. There appear to be no third party witnesses or other reliable means of establishing the veracity of each account. So it will boil down to a judgement based on who is more credible. I would prefer that decision to be taken by a jury rather than a judge.
The judge can direct a jury on the basis of law and advise them of the best way to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. The great merit of a jury trial is that, when perceived to be necessary and in the interests of 'justice', a jury can go beyond the limitations of the law and the trial judge's directions. Lawyers and judges may not like this liberty but it is an essential part of our freedom.
Once the judge has said his bit and the jury have considered the evidence before them, a decision will have to be made on who is more trustworthy in their accounts of this particular incident? A policeman or a cabinet minister?
There was a time when juries would be biased in favour of the senior ranked. I doubt this applies nearly so much today. I would expect a jury to make a decision on the basis of all the facts known about the incidents; media reports thereon; and all official actions taken after the even in relation to other individuals involved whether directly relevant to this case or not. Of course a judge would direct them not to rely on such sources, but isn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?
''(Cameron) defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief.''
??.....Such as.......?? (Puts on tin helmet)...
How about 0.7% of GDP given away every year? Of course we have to borrow the money and our grandchildren will be paying it back.
Sadly, I disagree with you there. I like spending a small amount of our treasure on foreign aid, even if I sometimes don't quite like how it's spent. I favour disaster relief and prevention, medicine, boys' and especially girls' education, and clean water schemes. But I can see why people don't like it.
As a matter of interest, did you get my PM last night?
I agree that as a wealthy nation in GDP per capita terms we should be able to find a way to help others in the world - and given our history in relation to famine in the 19th century I also think that we have a duty to ensure that our past mistakes are not repeated.
However, I am given pause by your use of the phrase "our treasure" bearing in mind that HMG have been running a chunky deficit since 2002/3 (twelve years) and a stupendous deficit since 2008/9 (six years). It does feel a bit like we are borrowing lots of money so that the politicians can make themselves feel like they are generous people.
When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.
I used "treasure" on purpose. ;-)
Just because something is a number one priority, does not mean that all the other priorities have to be ignored. If that was the case it would be an only priority.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
Apart from the facts that the interview wasn't actually conducted by the political editor and that every political journalist in the country is searching for nutty Kippers (viz Michael Crick again tonight), it's a watertight theory.
No no no !
This is the (Stuart) Truth :
The ruling monarch-monopolists have near total control of ALL western media and actively steer all of the rigged 'debate'. Every year a satan servants cult selects 15 new members from the junior class of Yale. For the next 50 years these occult elitists work to defeat freedom, and (50) x (15) = 750 ACTIVE TRAITORS that have been at this process since the 1820s. See "Skull and Bone, the Order at Yale Revealed" by Charlotte Thompson Iseberyt.
It must have been the Illuminati who sabotaged Farage's Cessna, that fateful day in 2010.
Yes, but the first part of that is not going to happen. The Tories are simply not going to win a majority, which is what they'd need to have a referendum, as the Lib Dems will refuse to sign up for a coalition on that basis.
Actually I'm not so sure about the LibDems - I think they might agree, especially if the numbers are such that a Lab/LD coalition is not practical . Are they really going to crash out of government in order to enforce the principle that the public shouldn't get a say?
Still, it's certainly true that the only sure way of getting the referendum is a Tory majority. It's a very odd argument to use in favour voting UKIP, whose support, on current polls, is easily sufficient to make the difference.
In any case UKIP make no secret of the fact that their aim is to destabilise the Conservatives and deny a Conservative government, i.e. to put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's up to them, of course, people can vote how they like. All I'm doing is pointing out the reality.
@Richard_Nabavi Clearly Labour's 'red lines' on Europe are very wibbly, but if the numbers are there for a continuation of the coalition (More likely I reckon than CON majority), and the Lib Dems insist on 'no referendum' as a red line even to confidence and supply then what happens ! (May seem petty on such a question but perfidious Lib Demmery...)
I have a similar problem. I shall either vote Green or Lib Dem, probably depending on my mood on the day.
My problem is that my region (East Midlands) has only 5 MEPs. My natural instinct in a Euro election is the Liberal Democrats - but on these polling figures they don't stand a chance in the East Midlands (likewise Greens). So that just leaves Conservative and Labour. I'll probably vote Conservative in the locals but I can't support them in a Euro election. As for Labour... well I've never voted Labour in my life. I might have to force myself to though.
There's something to be said for taking opportunities to vote for each mainstream party just for the mind-widening effect - I hope one day to vote for a Tory where the only competitor is further right! But yes, it's a pity that we've got a PR system that doesn't deliver PR. The E Mids result looked certain to be 2-2-1 UKIP/Con/Lab, but on these figures might be 3-1-1 or 3-2-0. Can't see LibDems or Greens coming close here, though London and the SW are another matter.
I look forward to the Sun continuing it's Lib Dem support and endorsement at the next euros...
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
I think its only when its the political editors Dad that they get involved
But I've been hearing for ages from UKIP supporters that all the mainstream media are out to get them?
They are.. and look where its getting them!
Or alternatively, UKIP's now being treated to the same level of scrutiny that the established parliamentary parties receive.
Except of course we can pop online for 30 seconds or so and find many examples from the other parties - and the Tories in particular - of action and statements by councillors that have been as bad if not worse than those ascribed to UKIP and which have resulted in no action by those parties. Indeed, what sets UKIP apart from the other parties is their lack of tolerance for such behavior. Racist and homophobes are apparently welcome as councillors in the Tory party whilst they kicked out of UKIP.
Comments
So 300% better than Faragekip
Incidentally, when people begin sentences with "yeah, yeah, yeah", it's a pretty good clue to the fact they don't want to engage with the actual arguments.
That's my thinking anyway, and I have backed it up with cash
Kudos to @Richard_Nabavi for taking on the bet...
Whats happening @TheWatcher @MarqueeMark ??
I win - you owe me a gold sov. You win - I owe you a gold sov.
***EDIT Hills are 10/3 a referendum during lifetime of next government!****
That's I win I get 3.3 gold sovs, I lose, I lose one...
Want to reconsider that offer??
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/04/nigel-farage-is-just-russell-brand-for-old-people/
"It is a kind of pose – and a vainglorious pose at that. A piece of sneering hoodwinkery peddled by a brace of charlatans who, whatever their apparent differences, have much more in common than you might initially think. Fine for getting on Newsnight but neither the sort of thing that wins elections that actually matter nor a useful platform for the messy, difficult, complex business of actual government.
Even pensioners can be adolescents and anti-politics is no replacement for actual politics."
Call me a scaredy cat but I don't fancy paying £50 for something I can buy for £23
Actually, what he really needs to do is to form a cross-party coalition to denounce UKIP. I feel sure that would be a winning strategy.
To be fair, being lairy and taking under the odds is fine, your point is proven, as I have shown with Mark Senior and OGH
But being lairy and trying to take Evs about a 3/10 shot.. not so flash
Mr. Navabi, yes UKIP might only be giving the impression they are on the side of the Common Man but, as I am sure you well know, in politics as in life generally perception is reality. Farage and his friends at least give the impression of caring about the same things that lots and lots of normal, ordinary, people do, which is more than can be said for the leaders of the three main parties. The likes of you and I can stand in our ivory towers and call Farage all the names under the sun, it won't make any difference. Indeed recent polls suggest that trying to slag off UKIP as racist etc is actually counter productive.
Mr. Lennon, I have no idea what UKIP's long term strategy might be, if indeed they have one (which I doubt). I am not even a member let alone privy to the innermost secrets of Farage & co. What I do think is that maybe it would be a good idea if the Conservatives (and to a lesser extent Labour) came up with a new way of countering the UKIP message. After all calling UKIP supporters names hasn't worked and saying, "Vote UKIP and get Labour" doesn't seem to be doing to well at the moment.
The Conservatives do seem to have a problem in that they have lumped themselves with a leader who is 15 years out of date and who defines himself by policies that the leave the common man open-mouthed in disbelief. Labour, by contrast, have got themselves a leader who doesn't/can't actually lead, has no meaningful policies other than to say he is a socialist and who looks like he has just shit himself every time he smiles (my thanks to Mr Jessop for that image). The Lib Dems, of course, have got Clegg - nuff said. Never mind Farage, my cat would look good up against those three - at least he purrs nicely and looks cute.
D'ancona is right!! He really should. Every time he opens his mouth to deride UKIP and its supporters he adds to their support. He really is the best recruiting advert that UKIP could ever wish for.
I first read of Barbara Roche's 'racist' comments in the Guardian the other day and the claim that she speaks on behalf of a 'cross-party campaign' - anyone know the name of this alleged 'campaign' and who exactly the members she claims to represent are?
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/matthew-dancona-stop-pandering-to-nigel-farage-and-tell-it-how-it-is-9305108.html
Regardless of the actual proposals (which I favour but have sympathy with Labour's line that they don't go far enough) Theresa May's shift to a softer position continues, whereas Cameron is soft on the outside but wants the hard line. Ultimately May's leadership challenge will be all the stronger for it.
I've often wondered if D'Ancona was the model for Harry Enfield's Tory Boy.
Paxman was!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeUucJ_txKw
It was probably during one of my code-addled interludes on PB. Many people chose to get addled on coke, but code's my drug of choice. A few lines of speedy JavaScript, of the psychedelia of assembler and I'm off ...
I'll get my coat.
I did – but it really doesn’t answer my question I’m afraid - unless the ‘cross-party campaign’ consist solely of an Ex Labour minister smearing another party as racist in an attempt to close down any debate on immigration? – we’ve had enough of that over the past decade.
Doesn't seem right if only because I am sure Tory Boy went back to the early 1990s at least, perhaps the 1980s. And on checking Wiki he was allegedly modelled in part on Mr Hague ... 'Tory Boy was a repulsive fifteen-year-old with glaringly out-of-date ideas about the world, based on a cross between a snobbish, unpopular boy who went to school with Enfield, and a younger version of Hague. Enfield also claimed to have mixed more recent Conservative politicians as Michael Howard and Michael Portillo together in the character, on the allegation that they were "Tory Boys who have never grown up."'
"With enemies like you, who needs friends?"
??.....Such as.......?? (Puts on tin helmet)...
I thought to myself that as there is no way he can ever pay that off the balance is bound to be written off at some point. And that ultimately it is the taxpayer who stands behind his debt...
As a matter of interest, did you get my PM last night?
Are you accusing Cameron of been too principled, or not principled enough?
Like most of his critics, you accuse him of pandering to whatever the latest opinion polls say, and then cite in support of your dislike of him an excellent example of an issue on which he has been 100% consistent since he first came to notice in the leadership contest a decade ago, and which you think "leaves the common man open-mouthed in disbelief".
You can't have it both ways, can you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE
I can see his point, but I think he's wrong. Attacking UKIP in terms of racism, homophobia etc - whilst tempting - is indeed attacking many decent people and is counter-productive.
I think that the Conservative leadership have actually found a good formulation: 'UKIP can't deliver'. That has the merit of being true, without attacking the motives and aspirations of those tempted to vote for them.
Admittedly it won't help much in respect of the Euro elections, but it prepares the ground for the response after the results are announced: "Yes, lots of people have shown they are concerned about Europe which is why we need to renegotiate terms and then put the issue to the British people to decide on"
In any case, plenty of others - the Beeb etc - will be running the racism attacks. The Tories don't need to get involved.
International aid. Was ever a policy so generally agreed on in parliament, and yet so widely rejected in the country?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/simpletons-of-newark-bereft-2014043086126
"THE stupidest people in Newark were bereft today after being denied the chance to vote for Nigel Farage.
The town’s simpletons will still be able to vote for a UKIP candidate, just not the famous one off the television whose mouth is full of ‘sense’.
Bill McKay, the 17th stupidest person in Newark, said: “Nigel pint fag pub straight talking I really hate brown people and Spanish vegetables."
Not that I've seen. But then again I've seen mainstream politicos try to defend it on question time.
It is not a pretty sight.
If I wasn't already very confused about what to do with my vote on 22nd (which I certainly was) then I certainly am now (so no change there).
Alternatively, to make a substantial change, we'd need to leave the EU and negotiate (as discussed over the last few days) a trade deal with the EU with appropriate provisions. There's one way, and one way only, in which that can be delivered: a Conservative win in 2015,a referendum in 2017, an Out result, and a suitable trade deal. UKIP could help deliver the third and fourth parts of that, if they weren't intent on sabotaging the first and second.
Our aid to India was a huge multiple of France's - and they gave a massive contract to the French.
That destroyed the central argument of aid, that it buys us trade. I reckon it was actually counterproductive. The days when the third world wants to be patronised by a former colonial power are long gone.
International aid is just an expensive sop to middle class consciences.
"Yes, yes, yes, some young ‘uns support UKIP. Just as a few black people do too. But come on. We all know – because the polling tells us so – that UKIP supporters are likely to be older and whiter than the average voter and, most importantly, also more certain that the whole bleedin’ country is going to the dogs. The sodding dogs, I tell you."
According to Com Res 30% of 18-44 year olds plan to vote UKIP. Do you think it's because they yearn for the return of the British Empire?
However, I am given pause by your use of the phrase "our treasure" bearing in mind that HMG have been running a chunky deficit since 2002/3 (twelve years) and a stupendous deficit since 2008/9 (six years). It does feel a bit like we are borrowing lots of money so that the politicians can make themselves feel like they are generous people.
When it comes to the next election, I'm sure Cameron will find a lot of things to brag about to the voters in terms of what he has achieved, and no doubt he will be quite proud of increasing the international aid budget. But I remember the number of times before the election that he said that the deficit would be the number one priority and, well, he's blown that.
Also, I wonder how much air time the BBC will give to reporting why a sitting LibLabCon MP has resigned in between their 4,512th report on Ukip council candidates?
Then realised I am in it!
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/30/So-how-come-The-Sun-slammed-Helmer-today
Helmer iirc was already on record re:homosexuality so not a surprise he got doorstepped over it.
Crick can join the visitors queue behind Farage.
This is the (Stuart) Truth :
The ruling monarch-monopolists have near total control of ALL western media and actively steer all of the rigged 'debate'. Every year a satan servants cult selects 15 new members from the junior class of Yale. For the next 50 years these occult elitists work to defeat freedom, and (50) x (15) = 750 ACTIVE TRAITORS that have been at this process since the 1820s. See "Skull and Bone, the Order at Yale Revealed" by Charlotte Thompson Iseberyt.
Section 16 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides ...
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...
Thanks for the information.
I would prefer the verdict of a properly-directed jury which has heard all the evidence, not only to that of the man on the street but, more importantly, to that of a Puisne Judge sitting alone.
It is likely the case will be tried on the credibility of the defendant's evidence against that of the plaintiff. There appear to be no third party witnesses or other reliable means of establishing the veracity of each account. So it will boil down to a judgement based on who is more credible. I would prefer that decision to be taken by a jury rather than a judge.
The judge can direct a jury on the basis of law and advise them of the best way to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. The great merit of a jury trial is that, when perceived to be necessary and in the interests of 'justice', a jury can go beyond the limitations of the law and the trial judge's directions. Lawyers and judges may not like this liberty but it is an essential part of our freedom.
Once the judge has said his bit and the jury have considered the evidence before them, a decision will have to be made on who is more trustworthy in their accounts of this particular incident? A policeman or a cabinet minister?
There was a time when juries would be biased in favour of the senior ranked. I doubt this applies nearly so much today. I would expect a jury to make a decision on the basis of all the facts known about the incidents; media reports thereon; and all official actions taken after the even in relation to other individuals involved whether directly relevant to this case or not. Of course a judge would direct them not to rely on such sources, but isn't the 'right' to ignore judicial direction the reason why we have jury trials?
Just because something is a number one priority, does not mean that all the other priorities have to be ignored. If that was the case it would be an only priority.
Still, it's certainly true that the only sure way of getting the referendum is a Tory majority. It's a very odd argument to use in favour voting UKIP, whose support, on current polls, is easily sufficient to make the difference.
In any case UKIP make no secret of the fact that their aim is to destabilise the Conservatives and deny a Conservative government, i.e. to put Ed Miliband into No 10. That's up to them, of course, people can vote how they like. All I'm doing is pointing out the reality.