Its a better one with a better chance of success than hoping that we will ever get out of the EU whilst Cameron is in charge. Anyone who thinks he will ever accept us leaving the EU is utterly deluded.
Anyone who thinks Miliband in Downing Street is better for Eurosceptics than Cameron is UTTERLY deluded.
Hurrah! We have waited long enough but at last Scott expresses an opinion of his own! Just rejoice at that news.
BaF
Had a haircut today. £1.75 so £2.00 including the tip.
Lady said I was a generous tipper as it will pay off her mortgage.
Bumpkinland - where life is good.
( put a bit more overtime in BaF we need your taxes for the village Ox roast )
Salaam from Dubai. Strangest country ever. Not entirely horrible.
Helmer's 'controversial' comments on rape show the disconnect between the political classes and the public, and underline UKIP's appeal.
All he has said is that a woman who goes out drinking til two, and then encourages a man to believe she wants sex, before changing her mind, is more responsible for what happens if she gets raped , than some nun who gets raped at knifepoint in a convent. He's not saying rape can ever be excused, just that women can act in ways which make rape more likely and that is a factor when determining the punishment of the crime.
Probably 79% of the public would agree with this. Yet all the main parties are signed up to the ridiculous feminist notion that all rapes are the same and all rapists deserve 80 years in jail, and the woman's behaviour is totally irrelevant even if she drinks three crates of gin and walks naked into a jacuzzi full of rugby players saying Take Me Now.
How did we arrive at this position, where we are governed by an entire class of people whose views we find absurd?
Yep, you are right
It is because there didn't used to be an alternative.
If you park your car in a city centre and forget to lock it, would you be surprised if someone opened the door and stole some valuables?
What is the behaviour of some rape victims that you think is equivalent to leaving your car unlocked? How often do you think this behaviour happens?
Get rid of Cameron and it is possible (although of course not certain) that we will get a Tory party led by someone who will support our leaving the EU.
Get rid of the only leader who has offered a referendum in favour of a leader who will sign any and all treaties put in front of him.
UTTERLY DELUDED.
Those who are deluded are the ones who think that a referendum under Cameron will have any chance of resulting in a Brexit. Of course from what you have posted on here in the past I gather that would be okay with you though as you do not want us to leave anyway. So really you have everything to gain from Cameron's referendum.
Its a better one with a better chance of success than hoping that we will ever get out of the EU whilst Cameron is in charge. Anyone who thinks he will ever accept us leaving the EU is utterly deluded.
Anyone who thinks Miliband in Downing Street is better for Eurosceptics than Cameron is UTTERLY deluded.
Hurrah! We have waited long enough but at last Scott expresses an opinion of his own! Just rejoice at that news.
BaF
Had a haircut today. £1.75 so £2.00 including the tip.
Lady said I was a generous tipper as it will pay off her mortgage.
Bumpkinland - where life is good.
( put a bit more overtime in BaF we need your taxes for the village Ox roast )
Its a better one with a better chance of success than hoping that we will ever get out of the EU whilst Cameron is in charge. Anyone who thinks he will ever accept us leaving the EU is utterly deluded.
Anyone who thinks Miliband in Downing Street is better for Eurosceptics than Cameron is UTTERLY deluded.
Hurrah! We have waited long enough but at last Scott expresses an opinion of his own! Just rejoice at that news.
You noticed?
Shame that Tim is no longer here. He had a copied and pasted a whole database of Scott P goofs. Counter-productive doesn't even begin to describe Scott's "œuvre".
Get rid of Cameron and it is possible (although of course not certain) that we will get a Tory party led by someone who will support our leaving the EU.
Get rid of the only leader who has offered a referendum in favour of a leader who will sign any and all treaties put in front of him.
UTTERLY DELUDED.
Those who are deluded are the ones who think that a referendum under Cameron will have any chance of resulting in a Brexit. Of course from what you have posted on here in the past I gather that would be okay with you though as you do not want us to leave anyway. So really you have everything to gain from Cameron's referendum.
So you want to deny the rest of us a referendum as you have decided its not how you woild like it ?
Don't understand everyone's interested in the Euro election malarky when just a few days before students of the University of Oxford will vote on whether their student union will stay being affiliated the NUS.
Its a better one with a better chance of success than hoping that we will ever get out of the EU whilst Cameron is in charge. Anyone who thinks he will ever accept us leaving the EU is utterly deluded.
Anyone who thinks Miliband in Downing Street is better for Eurosceptics than Cameron is UTTERLY deluded.
Hurrah! We have waited long enough but at last Scott expresses an opinion of his own! Just rejoice at that news.
BaF
Had a haircut today. £1.75 so £2.00 including the tip.
Lady said I was a generous tipper as it will pay off her mortgage.
Bumpkinland - where life is good.
( put a bit more overtime in BaF we need your taxes for the village Ox roast )
' I have a feeling that the upper echelons of UKIP do not actually want a referendum as if one is held then UKIP have achieved their aim and are finished as a protest party as are their political careers.'
Spot on,UKIP MEP's enjoy the gravy train just like other politicians,turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Ah the favourite delusion of the Tories; that somehow UKIP are as corrupt, self serving and devoid of principles as Cameron and his coterie.
UKIP want a referendum they can win. They are campaigning for that and the best way they can get it is to make sure the Cameroons are destroyed.
That's a real wanker of a plan.
. Anyone who thinks he will ever accept us leaving the EU is utterly deluded.
Replace "Us" with "Scotland" and "EU" with "the UK"......how does that sound?
The difference is that Cameron has never said he will "not countenance Scotland leaving the UK". He has said that he 'will not countenance the UK leaving the EU".
Salaam from Dubai. Strangest country ever. Not entirely horrible.
Helmer's 'controversial' comments on rape show the disconnect between the political classes and the public, and underline UKIP's appeal.
All he has said is that a woman who goes out drinking til two, and then encourages a man to believe she wants sex, before changing her mind, is more responsible for what happens if she gets raped , than some nun who gets raped at knifepoint in a convent. He's not saying rape can ever be excused, just that women can act in ways which make rape more likely and that is a factor when determining the punishment of the crime.
Probably 79% of the public would agree with this. Yet all the main parties are signed up to the ridiculous feminist notion that all rapes are the same and all rapists deserve 80 years in jail, and the woman's behaviour is totally irrelevant even if she drinks three crates of gin and walks naked into a jacuzzi full of rugby players saying Take Me Now.
How did we arrive at this position, where we are governed by an entire class of people whose views we find absurd?
Yep, you are right
It is because there didn't used to be an alternative.
If you park your car in a city centre and forget to lock it, would you be surprised if someone opened the door and stole some valuables?
What is the behaviour of some rape victims that you think is equivalent to leaving your car unlocked? How often do you think this behaviour happens?
Sean, you slip from one thing to another. I don't think that "all rapes are the same and all rapists deserve 80 years in jail" and yet I also don't accept that the woman in your example bears either moral or legal responsibility for her rape.
I accept that "women can act in ways which make rape more likely" but that's factual causation, not legal or moral responsibility: the link is broken by the intervention of the rapist.
Then when it comes to sentencing, we do not need to ask what level of culpability the victim has, only the level of culpability of the attacker.
" The EU will remain committed to "closer union" and Britain's "special case" will not lead to treaty change in the near future, Jose Manuel Barroso has warned the Prime Minister.
In a major speech the president of the European Commission acknowledged Britain's longstanding hostility to the EU but rejected David Cameron's demand for a treaty renegotiation to give the UK a special status over the next year"
Miliband is only for 5 years. The EU is forever (if Cameron gets his way)
My toe is itching, so I will just cut off my leg for 5 years...
5 years of Miliband is 10 years too many. Not worth the cost at any price.
Again that is because you are happy for us to stay in the EU. I am not. Your analogy is actually the exact opposite. The leg has gangrene and a n operation is the only way to save it. You think the surgery is too dangerous and would rather die of gangrene.
I love seeing the Tories shitting their breeks over UKIP. I'd almost be willing to pay an entrance fee to watch them beating each other up. Wonderful spectator sport for us SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green types.
" The EU will remain committed to "closer union" and Britain's "special case" will not lead to treaty change in the near future, Jose Manuel Barroso has warned the Prime Minister.
In a major speech the president of the European Commission acknowledged Britain's longstanding hostility to the EU but rejected David Cameron's demand for a treaty renegotiation to give the UK a special status over the next year"
The leg has gangrene and a n operation is the only way to save it. You think the surgery is too dangerous and would rather die of gangrene.
And your plan is to sack the doctor who has offered the surgery, and replace him with someone who is guaranteed to poison the rest of you (for at least 5 years)
Miliband is a bigger danger to the Uk than the EU is.
More importantly, Miliband is a much bigger danger to your pocket than the EU is.
How many of UKIP's retired, home owning supporters realise that a Miliband led government will directly cost their kids approx £100k to £150k cash in their pocket if they die when Miliband is PM?
We here a lot of talk about cost of living this, cost of living that etc etc - Miliband is going to be taking LIFE CHANGING amounts from people's families if they die when he is PM.
If you are wondering how this is going to happen it's very simple - scrap IHT, tax all inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary and bingo - instead of your £300k home going tax free to your kids, Miliband takes £100k+.
Well, your disgust at Osborne's performance is even greater than mine, you can't stand Cameron either and you, and I, hold Labour beneath contempt. Where else are you going to go? Tricky ain't it, Mr. Brooke. I am in exactly the same situation complicated by some local issues - can't stand Herbert (though that has been moderated recently by information about how the police, the police ffs, treated him over his sexuality). So what are gentlemen like you and I to do?
Once upon a time, and not long ago, that really wasn't a question that needed much thought. We would hold our noses and vote Conservative. After all the chaps, especially those in the grey suits, would make sure things didn't go too far off the mark. But those chaps have let us down, they are no longer even there. So now what do the likes of you and I do? Shall we carry on voting for fools and buffoons simply because they have worked their way to a hollowed out Conservative tree?
Maybe, the time has come for those who care to get off their rather comfortable bottoms and do something. If not UKIP, what?
Get rid of Cameron and it is possible (although of course not certain) that we will get a Tory party led by someone who will support our leaving the EU.
Get rid of the only leader who has offered a referendum in favour of a leader who will sign any and all treaties put in front of him.
UTTERLY DELUDED.
Those who are deluded are the ones who think that a referendum under Cameron will have any chance of resulting in a Brexit.
Of course not!
The polls clearly show that Britons will vote to stay in the EU if Cameron negotiates a deal and says "I recommend this".
Mr. Star, Perhaps I can give it a try, though please be certain on this I am not a member of UKIP and carry no torch for them.
Cameron has promised a referendum on staying in the EU. He has also promised to renegotiate our terms of membership in less than two years despite every other major power saying that such a thing is impossible. He has also said that he cannot foresee the circumstances in which in will be in the UK's interests to leave. So if you believe that Britain will be better off out, Cameron's negotiate and choose referendum promise might seem, shall we say,slightly less than straightforward.
In terms of negotiation he has already blown it - by saying he wants to stay in regardless of the outcome he has ensured that no other player will take him seriously. He has also by the same means ensured that there is a significant chunk of people who believe him to be fundamentally dishonest.
UKIP by contrast do not want a referendum as a means to silence internal discussion, but as a means to get out of the EU. For them calling a referendum is a start of the discussion process that will see us out, for Cameron it is a means to end the discussion.
One other point. In the early 1900s there was a significant section of the population that had come to the realisation that the two major parties did not represent their interests that in fact they had no voice in how their country was governed. So they went to a new party that seemed to offer them that voice. Not immediately in parliament perhaps but maybe it would do so in time and in the interim their voice might be head and pressure might be brought so that those in power did listen and act accordingly.
Of course at the start this new party was written off as irrelevant. Then the major parties introduced one or two token policies that the new party wanted, at the same time shouting out that, "See we can give what you want, but vote for your new party and the other lot will get in and then you will be screwed". However, the new party persevered and because it was driven by the people who had no voice rather than by the people who were trying to stay in charge it grew. It grew in numbers and eventually in power till it finally achieved power (then because it was Labour it fecked the whole thing up, repeatedly, but one shouldn't push analogies too far).
Why is what cameron thinks relevant, he will give an in/out referendum. Its that simple. If you want out of Europe he will give you the chance to vote on it. If the vote is for out he will have to deal with it. Why don't ukip want this in/out referendum when it will give a chance for their one policy to be fulfilled.
Why is what cameron thinks relevant, he will give an in/out referendum. Its that simple. If you want out of Europe he will give you the chance to vote on it. If the vote is for out he will have to deal with it. Why don't ukip want this in/out referendum when it will give a chance for their one policy to be fulfilled.
Even if we left the EU with Cameron as PM he could still retain all of the parts of being a member that he likes. What is to stop him?
Secondly, do you think the Scot Nats have a better or worse chance of independence now that the SNP are so strong there? Or do you think if they had got a referendum by telling their supporters to vote Conservative their position would be as strong
No. Asian and Black UKIP candidates were called racists by UAF protestors last night. A mixed race guy was almost reduced to tears by being called a "fake" also
One of the abused called the protestors "leftards" in a tweet afterwards
Southam managed to turn the last thread into the reaction of the UKIP guy while no one mentioned the absurdity of the original insult
Oh my, SoWo was offended by being compared - a few places distant - to being a 'leftard'. How low has his intellect yet to fall...?
Why don't ukip want this in/out referendum when it will give a chance for their one policy to be fulfilled.
They fear the public would vote the wrong way. Can't take that risk.
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum. Meanwhile Europhile parties have been in power for decades and we haven't had a referendum. Yet supposedly UKIP should throw away their electoral chances based on a promise from a PM who has u-turned again and again.
Interesting article from Britain's leading black newspaper.
Thanks, Pulpstar; " Where were the political classes’ screams of bloody racism when, for example, black youth unemployment hit 50 per cent? Ironically, Nigel Farage is the only politician I have heard to ever point this statistic out on prominent national TV."
Well, your disgust at Osborne's performance is even greater than mine, you can't stand Cameron either and you, and I, hold Labour beneath contempt. Where else are you going to go? Tricky ain't it, Mr. Brooke. I am in exactly the same situation complicated by some local issues - can't stand Herbert (though that has been moderated recently by information about how the police, the police ffs, treated him over his sexuality). So what are gentlemen like you and I to do?
Once upon a time, and not long ago, that really wasn't a question that needed much thought. We would hold our noses and vote Conservative. After all the chaps, especially those in the grey suits, would make sure things didn't go too far off the mark. But those chaps have let us down, they are no longer even there. So now what do the likes of you and I do? Shall we carry on voting for fools and buffoons simply because they have worked their way to a hollowed out Conservative tree?
Maybe, the time has come for those who care to get off their rather comfortable bottoms and do something. If not UKIP, what?
Ditto Mr L. Like you I have a less than satisfactory MP, the kind of bloke who will lecture us on global warming while keeping his horses warm at taxpayer expense. The current blue crop really aren't up to much but then neither are the yellows, reds or purples. And don't start me on the tartans.
Currently NOTA is my preference but that doesn't really bring much satisfaction. As founder members of the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons I think we should be making our own plans for 2015 and lining up our recommendation to the nation. So lets get some debate going on who's worth voting for and give the frustrated voters of the UK something to vent their frustration on.
The kipper pitch is a bit like one of those old Bird and Fortune interviews.
George Parr...you are a representative of UKIP. Won;t voting for you lead to the opposite of what you're advocating??
Well yes, in order for things to....er....start to to get better...they are in effect, going to have to get worse...
er....worse you say?
Quite....and very much worse. The way we see it, in order to get what we want, we first have to present the public with the opposite of what we want....
er...the opposite of what you want???
Absolutely...because then, you see, the voters will want what we want all the more....and of course be much more grateful when...er....they get it.
And when will they get it??
Well.....the voters will have to be subjected to the opposite of what we want for quite a long time to get them to vote in much greater numbers for what we want....we reckon five years at least.
What if the voters in that time decide they like the opposite of what you want??
Well we think that's very unlikely, because everybody wants what we want deep down.
If that's the case, why aren;t more of them prepared to vote for you now????
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum.
UKIP aren't going to be in power.
The choice is between a PM who has offered a referendum and the most Europhile PM in a generation, and the Kippers who have expressed a preference want the Europhile
I love seeing the Tories shitting their breeks over UKIP. I'd almost be willing to pay an entrance fee to watch them beating each other up. Wonderful spectator sport for us SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green types.
You forming a bond with other personality cult parties ?
Why don't ukip want this in/out referendum when it will give a chance for their one policy to be fulfilled.
They fear the public would vote the wrong way. Can't take that risk.
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum. Meanwhile Europhile parties have been in power for decades and we haven't had a referendum. Yet supposedly UKIP should throw away their electoral chances based on a promise from a PM who has u-turned again and again.
So you genuinely think that if Cameron won a majority he would not hold the referendum
Get rid of Cameron and it is possible (although of course not certain) that we will get a Tory party led by someone who will support our leaving the EU.
Get rid of the only leader who has offered a referendum in favour of a leader who will sign any and all treaties put in front of him.
UTTERLY DELUDED.
Those who are deluded are the ones who think that a referendum under Cameron will have any chance of resulting in a Brexit.
Of course not!
The polls clearly show that Britons will vote to stay in the EU if Cameron negotiates a deal and says "I recommend this".
What is your objection?
To the democratic principle, or something else?
Two things are certain and both are addressed in your comment.
1. Any deal Cameron can get in the time he has allowed will be unenforcable once the threat of a British exit has gone - note the ECJ ruling a couple of days ago that negated one of our supposed opt outs.
2. No matter how bad any deal is - or even if there is no deal at all - Cameron will still recommend it in order to win a referendum.
Your figures actually undermine your own argument.
So you genuinely think that if Cameron won a majority he would not hold the referendum
Richard is worried Cameron would hold the referendum, which is why he wants Miliband. Can't take the risk of the public voting the wrong way.
That's not quite fair - Richard believes Cameron will hold an in/out referendum, but without Cameron supporting wholeheartedly the 'better off out brigade' they cannot win it.
Quite honestly I'm not sure the country is prepared to vote to leave the EU, with or without Cameron's input, but that's another story entirely.
Anthony Wells: "Newark – coming shortly after the European elections we have the Newark by-election. The Conservatives have a fairly chunky majority, it’s not ideal territory for UKIP and they’ve picked a candidate who plays to UKIP stereotypes rather than challenging them like Diane James did in Eastleigh, but the timing means UKIP will likely still be enjoying a big boost."
That's not quite fair - Richard believes Cameron will hold an in/out referendum, but without Cameron supporting wholeheartedly the 'better off out brigade' they cannot win it.
The choice at the election is Referendum (which may or may not be won) or No referendum (which can never be won)
if Cameron negotiates a package (unlikely), and the people say 'yes', I think the Tories will end up in civil war (if there are any pro europeans left in the party).
That's not quite fair - Richard believes Cameron will hold an in/out referendum, but without Cameron supporting wholeheartedly the 'better off out brigade' they cannot win it.
The choice at the election is Referendum (which may or may not be won) or No referendum (which can never be won)
The Kippers explicitly choose not winning
You don't even engage with the counter arguments. You just hear them and then say your original point again. It's pointless trying to debate with you.
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum.
UKIP aren't going to be in power.
The choice is between a PM who has offered a referendum and the most Europhile PM in a generation, and the Kippers who have expressed a preference want the Europhile
Another evening of anti kipper frenzy on PB as it finally dawns on the champions of the Lab/Lib/Con party that UKIP are here for keeps and their hegemony over British politics for a century is about to be compromised.
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
Get rid of Cameron and it is possible (although of course not certain) that we will get a Tory party led by someone who will support our leaving the EU.
Get rid of the only leader who has offered a referendum in favour of a leader who will sign any and all treaties put in front of him.
UTTERLY DELUDED.
Those who are deluded are the ones who think that a referendum under Cameron will have any chance of resulting in a Brexit.
Of course not!
The polls clearly show that Britons will vote to stay in the EU if Cameron negotiates a deal and says "I recommend this".
What is your objection?
To the democratic principle, or something else?
Two things are certain and both are addressed in your comment.
1. Any deal Cameron can get in the time he has allowed will be unenforcable once the threat of a British exit has gone - note the ECJ ruling a couple of days ago that negated one of our supposed opt outs.
2. No matter how bad any deal is - or even if there is no deal at all - Cameron will still recommend it in order to win a referendum.
Your figures actually undermine your own argument.
Any deal Cameron can get in the time he has allowed
but you're allowing 5 years more, so it's not exactly that you're in a hurry.
Furthermore since Cameron imo is unlikely to be a three term PM what exactly is the point of focussing on him ? he'll either lose in 2015 and you have no control over what replaces him or he's in coalition, will prat about for a few years, and then go. So how exactly do you plan to get a kipper stooge to head another party ? It's just go so many ifs and buts it's not credible.
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
I love seeing the Tories shitting their breeks over UKIP. I'd almost be willing to pay an entrance fee to watch them beating each other up. Wonderful spectator sport for us SNP, Labour, Lib Dem and Green types.
You forming a bond with other personality cult parties ?
That's not quite fair - Richard believes Cameron will hold an in/out referendum, but without Cameron supporting wholeheartedly the 'better off out brigade' they cannot win it.
Quite honestly I'm not sure the country is prepared to vote to leave the EU, with or without Cameron's input, but that's another story entirely.
Thanks for your support Simon. All I would say is that it is not just a case of Cameron not wholeheartedly supporting BOO. It is rather that he will be dishonest about what he has achieved (he has to be since he can achieve nothing concrete in the timescale he has allowed) and will actively campaign to stay in based upon falsely representing what it means for Britain.
My earlier computer paranoia proved prudent. Somehow or other I have/had FBdownloader, some damned virus or other on. No idea where it came from (never had a download screen). Trying to get rid of it now. If any of you have Chrome and a new tab doesn't feature the Google search bar that could mean you've got it (similarly, the homepage will shift to a search related to FBdownloader).
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
I don't see why you just didn't all vote Tory, surely your position would be as strong?
Err... are you adressing me? Not sure what you are trying to say there.
The advice on here for kippers seems to be that the way to win a referendum is to vote for someone who wants you to lose it, and have as little say in parliament as possible
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
I don't see why you just didn't all vote Tory, surely your position would be as strong?
Err... are you adressing me? Not sure what you are trying to say there.
The advice on here for kippers seems to be that the way to win a referendum is to vote for someone who wants you to lose it, and have as little say in parliament as possible
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum.
UKIP aren't going to be in power.
The choice is between a PM who has offered a referendum and the most Europhile PM in a generation, and the Kippers who have expressed a preference want the Europhile
UTTERLY DELUDED
Bit early to be panicking isn't it?
You haven't even lost Newark yet but you already getting your retaliation in early.
To all those saying people who vote ukip are responsible for labour winning
bollocks the only people responsible for labour winning is the conservative party and its apologists. Here's a thought perhaps the conservatives could actually try and decide on some policies that make them worth voting for and convincing people they would actually follow through and implement them.
The voters cannot be wrong if Cameron loses it is because he and the conservatives are not worth voting for.
Not looked back too far on this, so apologies if duplicated but I saw the “An Independence for whatever it is” Party broadcast tonight. If I was kipper minded it would certainly encourage me to vote for them. Even more “Back to the 50’s” than the original! Empire preference, the lot!
Alternatively if I was into conspiracy theory I would suspect that “An independence” was Tory funded as a splitter!
That's not quite fair - Richard believes Cameron will hold an in/out referendum, but without Cameron supporting wholeheartedly the 'better off out brigade' they cannot win it.
Quite honestly I'm not sure the country is prepared to vote to leave the EU, with or without Cameron's input, but that's another story entirely.
Thanks for your support Simon. All I would say is that it is not just a case of Cameron not wholeheartedly supporting BOO. It is rather that he will be dishonest about what he has achieved (he has to be since he can achieve nothing concrete in the timescale he has allowed) and will actively campaign to stay in based upon falsely representing what it means for Britain.
Cynical post, kipper syndrome. I don't see why Cameron needs to be "dishonest" or "falsely represent" anything. He could say that he did not achieve all he wanted but the balance is to stay in and work for more change. I may not agree with him!
Give me a break. The moment UKIP are in power we would have a referendum.
UKIP aren't going to be in power.
The choice is between a PM who has offered a referendum and the most Europhile PM in a generation, and the Kippers who have expressed a preference want the Europhile
UTTERLY DELUDED
Bit early to be panicking isn't it?
You haven't even lost Newark yet but you already getting your retaliation in early.
I accept that "women can act in ways which make rape more likely" but that's factual causation, not legal or moral responsibility: the link is broken by the intervention of the rapist.
Then when it comes to sentencing, we do not need to ask what level of culpability the victim has, only the level of culpability of the attacker.
Let's draw an analogy with murder. Someone who kills and intended to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm is entitled to an acquittal of murder and a conviction for manslaughter, if they can demonstrate loss of control (s. 54-55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, replacing provocation under the pre-2010 law). The statute is fairly impenetrable, but it is clear that someone's criminal liability in a murder case can dependent on the actions of the "victim". Moreover, the actions of the "victim" in such a case are plainly relevant to sentence. If such an approach to murder is in principle justifiable why can it not be justified in respect of rape?
I'm tempted to have bet on UKIP in Newark, even though my knowledge is limited to what I've read here and elsewhere on the internet.
Some factors:
As already stated the result of the EU election (assuming it's good for UKIP) could change the mood a lot and encourage non-postal-voters to jump on the winning UKIP band-wagon. People like voting for winners. And demoralised voters of losing Euro parties might not want to go through the exercise again two weeks later, especially if they can see that the nation at large has given UKIP big-time legitimacy at the Euro polls.
Helmer is outspoken and has a natural, unaffected way with words. That's a big net positive when compared to the identikit alternatives, no matter what the media pundits say. I don't think he will say anything stupid. He's no Godfrey Bloom. I think he's more likely to make some well-reasoned nuanced points that the other candidates wouldn't be capable of making.
Cameron is sounding desperate re the Euros - does he know something we don't - is it even worse than the polls show? I think he's been in contact with Barroso re the latter's speech today. I'm suspicious of Barroso's use of 'special one' to describe the UK. If he thinks it's going to make people love him or the EU like Jose Mourhino then he's sadly mistaken.
The head-start that the incumbent party usually has on getting the campaign going and the postal votes in will be less for this election because we're already in the Euro campaign, so the UKIP message is already out there. It's everywhere. Moreover, Conservative activists are going to come up against a lot of usual-Tory Westminster voters who are going to be voting UKIP on May 22 which is hardly going to help and may lead to an increase in lying to Tory canvassers who knock on the door.
UKIPs may not like Cameron, but he really is their best shot at a referendum to leave the EU.
Read the thread. Kippers do not want a referendum.
Or in other words vote Tory or milibrand gets in
what a totally pathetic reason to give for voting Tory is that really the best reason you can come up with. Just goes to show the sorry state of the conservative party but then what can you expect from a tory party led by a new labour disciple like Cameron.
'David Cameron defends decision to allow Scottish independence vote' - Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
"Currently NOTA is my preference but that doesn't really bring much satisfaction. As founder members of the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons I think we should be making our own plans for 2015 and lining up our recommendation to the nation. So lets get some debate going on who's worth voting for and give the frustrated voters of the UK something to vent their frustration on."
Apologies for the delay - this wretched system logged me off for no apparent reason and then refused to let me back on until I changed my password with all that entails. I do hope OGH isn't actually paying for this vanilla nonsense
Anyway, founding the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons sounds like a good idea, being a member of the CCC might have a certain something in some circles. However, in terms of practical politics its impact may be a bit thin. Perhaps, hmm?
Whilst I was waiting for the system to let me back on I mentioned your idea to Herself. Her reply was not altogether encouraging, "What's the difference between that and you and your cronies down the pub?" I think she meant the Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association of which I am, as previously advertised, the Hon. Sec. of the Outings Committee. She is wrong, of course, that society is very much apolitical and welcomes members from all different points of the political compass. Nevertheless, to an outsider like Herself it could well be seen as a bunch of grumpy old men going off on the piss and therefore a comparison with your proposed CCC might seem all to obvious.
Then there is the problem of differentiation. For some, including, alas, some on this board, UKIP is a collection of Grumpy old men. How would CCC differ? Is there not a danger that we would be entering the already crowded field of the "People Judean Front" splitters?
Comments
Had a haircut today. £1.75 so £2.00 including the tip.
Lady said I was a generous tipper as it will pay off her mortgage.
Bumpkinland - where life is good.
( put a bit more overtime in BaF we need your taxes for the village Ox roast )
Shame that Tim is no longer here. He had a copied and pasted a whole database of Scott P goofs. Counter-productive doesn't even begin to describe Scott's "œuvre".
Feart...
BNP, UKIP, AIFE, CON so far.
Nothing from Labour, which is a bit odd considering how strong they are here.
Don't understand everyone's interested in the Euro election malarky when just a few days before students of the University of Oxford will vote on whether their student union will stay being affiliated the NUS.
That's obviously the more important issue.
Kippers probably disagree.
Kippers have not worked out yet that this is the choice that faces them.
I accept that "women can act in ways which make rape more likely" but that's factual causation, not legal or moral responsibility: the link is broken by the intervention of the rapist.
Then when it comes to sentencing, we do not need to ask what level of culpability the victim has, only the level of culpability of the attacker.
The Kipper pitch to the voters in 2015 is, in effect,
'in order for things to start to get better, they must first become immeasurably worse - and for at least five years....'
5 years of Miliband is 10 years too many. Not worth the cost at any price.
Catchy !
"An Independence from Europe" is trending following their octopus-based PPB. Quite the effect of which I'm not sure, since Twitter is stacked against.
Nick Robinson? Andrew Neil?
I read the article and it says the complete opposite
UTTERLY DELUDED
How many of UKIP's retired, home owning supporters realise that a Miliband led government will directly cost their kids approx £100k to £150k cash in their pocket if they die when Miliband is PM?
We here a lot of talk about cost of living this, cost of living that etc etc - Miliband is going to be taking LIFE CHANGING amounts from people's families if they die when he is PM.
If you are wondering how this is going to happen it's very simple - scrap IHT, tax all inheritance as income in the hands of the beneficiary and bingo - instead of your £300k home going tax free to your kids, Miliband takes £100k+.
And it is already official LD policy.
"On paper I should be a kipper voter... "
Well, your disgust at Osborne's performance is even greater than mine, you can't stand Cameron either and you, and I, hold Labour beneath contempt. Where else are you going to go? Tricky ain't it, Mr. Brooke. I am in exactly the same situation complicated by some local issues - can't stand Herbert (though that has been moderated recently by information about how the police, the police ffs, treated him over his sexuality). So what are gentlemen like you and I to do?
Once upon a time, and not long ago, that really wasn't a question that needed much thought. We would hold our noses and vote Conservative. After all the chaps, especially those in the grey suits, would make sure things didn't go too far off the mark. But those chaps have let us down, they are no longer even there. So now what do the likes of you and I do? Shall we carry on voting for fools and buffoons simply because they have worked their way to a hollowed out Conservative tree?
Maybe, the time has come for those who care to get off their rather comfortable bottoms and do something. If not UKIP, what?
The polls clearly show that Britons will vote to stay in the EU if Cameron negotiates a deal and says "I recommend this".
What is your objection?
To the democratic principle, or something else?
Interesting article from Britain's leading black newspaper.
:tumbleweed:
Ther aren't as many UKIP politicians as there are the three old parties, so what you gonna do?
" Where were the political classes’ screams of bloody racism when, for example, black youth unemployment hit 50 per cent? Ironically, Nigel Farage is the only politician I have heard to ever point this statistic out on prominent national TV."
Currently NOTA is my preference but that doesn't really bring much satisfaction. As founder members of the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons I think we should be making our own plans for 2015 and lining up our recommendation to the nation. So lets get some debate going on who's worth voting for and give the frustrated voters of the UK something to vent their frustration on.
George Parr...you are a representative of UKIP. Won;t voting for you lead to the opposite of what you're advocating??
Well yes, in order for things to....er....start to to get better...they are in effect, going to have to get worse...
er....worse you say?
Quite....and very much worse. The way we see it, in order to get what we want, we first have to present the public with the opposite of what we want....
er...the opposite of what you want???
Absolutely...because then, you see, the voters will want what we want all the more....and of course be much more grateful when...er....they get it.
And when will they get it??
Well.....the voters will have to be subjected to the opposite of what we want for quite a long time to get them to vote in much greater numbers for what we want....we reckon five years at least.
What if the voters in that time decide they like the opposite of what you want??
Well we think that's very unlikely, because everybody wants what we want deep down.
If that's the case, why aren;t more of them prepared to vote for you now????
The choice is between a PM who has offered a referendum and the most Europhile PM in a generation, and the Kippers who have expressed a preference want the Europhile
UTTERLY DELUDED
1. Any deal Cameron can get in the time he has allowed will be unenforcable once the threat of a British exit has gone - note the ECJ ruling a couple of days ago that negated one of our supposed opt outs.
2. No matter how bad any deal is - or even if there is no deal at all - Cameron will still recommend it in order to win a referendum.
Your figures actually undermine your own argument.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/mep-mike-nattrass-join-english-6062459
Quite honestly I'm not sure the country is prepared to vote to leave the EU, with or without Cameron's input, but that's another story entirely.
"Newark – coming shortly after the European elections we have the Newark by-election. The Conservatives have a fairly chunky majority, it’s not ideal territory for UKIP and they’ve picked a candidate who plays to UKIP stereotypes rather than challenging them like Diane James did in Eastleigh, but the timing means UKIP will likely still be enjoying a big boost."
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8772
The Kippers explicitly choose not winning
LOUD NOISES.
- Prime minister says he had no choice but to authorise vote after Scottish National party won majority in Holyrood in 2011
David Cameron has mounted a robust defence of his decision to support a referendum on Scottish independence, saying that an "almighty and disastrous battle" would have erupted between Westminster and Holyrood if he had blocked a vote.
... He also gave a taste of the arguments he will deploy in the event of a yes vote when he explained, during a question and answer session at an engineering firm in Stroud, why he had decided to "risk" granting the Scottish parliament the power to hold a referendum.
... Cameron's remarks indicate that he has given a great deal of thought to the response he will give if Scotland votes for independence. Some senior Tories have been saying in private that he would have to resign on the grounds that he would be the prime minister who broke up the UK 307 years after the Acts of Unions created Great Britain. Cameron's critics believe the referendum was a reckless gamble.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/david-cameron-defends-decision-scottish-independence-referendum
but you're allowing 5 years more, so it's not exactly that you're in a hurry.
Furthermore since Cameron imo is unlikely to be a three term PM what exactly is the point of focussing on him ? he'll either lose in 2015 and you have no control over what replaces him or he's in coalition, will prat about for a few years, and then go. So how exactly do you plan to get a kipper stooge to head another party ? It's just go so many ifs and buts it's not credible.
The last party to break the mould of British politics and achieve real power was labour.
Keir hardie became their first MP in 1894.
They first formed a government in 1924. That's thirty years.
Lets say you do it 10 years quicker than labour.
That means from first MP (let's say 2015 for arguments sake), you are on course to form a government in 2035.
Well, its a plan.....
Prime minister 'wooing' Democratic Unionists in case of hung parliament
David Cameron hosted MPs from fourth largest party at Westminster in lavish reception at Downing Street
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/08/david-cameron-hosts-dup-mps-in-lavish-downing-street-reception
My earlier computer paranoia proved prudent. Somehow or other I have/had FBdownloader, some damned virus or other on. No idea where it came from (never had a download screen). Trying to get rid of it now. If any of you have Chrome and a new tab doesn't feature the Google search bar that could mean you've got it (similarly, the homepage will shift to a search related to FBdownloader).
Damned viruses.
Personally, I think it's likely that we'll either switch to a form of PR, or a eurosceptic Tory leader will merge with UKIP.
The last party to break the mould of British politics and achieve real power was the Scottish National Party.
We are in government in Scotland (pop. 5.3 m).
Labour are in government in Wales (pop. 3.1 m).
You haven't even lost Newark yet but you already getting your retaliation in early.
bollocks the only people responsible for labour winning is the conservative party and its apologists. Here's a thought perhaps the conservatives could actually try and decide on some policies that make them worth voting for and convincing people they would actually follow through and implement them.
The voters cannot be wrong if Cameron loses it is because he and the conservatives are not worth voting for.
Empire preference, the lot!
Alternatively if I was into conspiracy theory I would suspect that “An independence” was Tory funded as a splitter!
It seems most of the ballots were DA votes.
The IEC is trying to establish the authenticity of the ballot papers, reports EWN."
http://www.news24.com/elections/news/da-ballots-found-dumped-report-20140508
mobile.twitter.com/ewnupdates/status/464437080601661440/photo/1
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b21a530043ecf5308182b5866b9bf97e/Zille-seeks-enquiry-into-dumped-ballot-scandal
UKIP was founded in 1993. If we wait for them to form a government, it will be 2073 before we see a referendum.
UKIPs may not like Cameron, but he really is their best shot at a referendum to leave the EU.
Some factors:
As already stated the result of the EU election (assuming it's good for UKIP) could change the mood a lot and encourage non-postal-voters to jump on the winning UKIP band-wagon. People like voting for winners. And demoralised voters of losing Euro parties might not want to go through the exercise again two weeks later, especially if they can see that the nation at large has given UKIP big-time legitimacy at the Euro polls.
Helmer is outspoken and has a natural, unaffected way with words. That's a big net positive when compared to the identikit alternatives, no matter what the media pundits say. I don't think he will say anything stupid. He's no Godfrey Bloom. I think he's more likely to make some well-reasoned nuanced points that the other candidates wouldn't be capable of making.
Cameron is sounding desperate re the Euros - does he know something we don't - is it even worse than the polls show? I think he's been in contact with Barroso re the latter's speech today. I'm suspicious of Barroso's use of 'special one' to describe the UK. If he thinks it's going to make people love him or the EU like Jose Mourhino then he's sadly mistaken.
The head-start that the incumbent party usually has on getting the campaign going and the postal votes in will be less for this election because we're already in the Euro campaign, so the UKIP message is already out there. It's everywhere. Moreover, Conservative activists are going to come up against a lot of usual-Tory Westminster voters who are going to be voting UKIP on May 22 which is hardly going to help and may lead to an increase in lying to Tory canvassers who knock on the door.
what a totally pathetic reason to give for voting Tory is that really the best reason you can come up with. Just goes to show the sorry state of the conservative party but then what can you expect from a tory party led by a new labour disciple like Cameron.
"Currently NOTA is my preference but that doesn't really bring much satisfaction. As founder members of the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons I think we should be making our own plans for 2015 and lining up our recommendation to the nation. So lets get some debate going on who's worth voting for and give the frustrated voters of the UK something to vent their frustration on."
Apologies for the delay - this wretched system logged me off for no apparent reason and then refused to let me back on until I changed my password with all that entails. I do hope OGH isn't actually paying for this vanilla nonsense
Anyway, founding the Confederation of Cantankerous Curmudgeons sounds like a good idea, being a member of the CCC might have a certain something in some circles. However, in terms of practical politics its impact may be a bit thin. Perhaps, hmm?
Whilst I was waiting for the system to let me back on I mentioned your idea to Herself. Her reply was not altogether encouraging, "What's the difference between that and you and your cronies down the pub?" I think she meant the Hurstpierpoint and District Gentlemen's Temperance Association of which I am, as previously advertised, the Hon. Sec. of the Outings Committee. She is wrong, of course, that society is very much apolitical and welcomes members from all different points of the political compass. Nevertheless, to an outsider like Herself it could well be seen as a bunch of grumpy old men going off on the piss and therefore a comparison with your proposed CCC might seem all to obvious.
Then there is the problem of differentiation. For some, including, alas, some on this board, UKIP is a collection of Grumpy old men. How would CCC differ? Is there not a danger that we would be entering the already crowded field of the "People Judean Front" splitters?
DA: 325,594
ANC: 317,781
UKIP have nearly 40,000 and most of those joined the party in recent months and years.