And in 2009, Cameron was still nearer delivering that promise in both words and actions than Farage and UKIP are right now..... Its worth pointing out that while some of UKIP's more recent support might be coming from voters/non voters more interested in immigration, that message is beginning to resonate.
Many of the UKIP supporters on this site may be frit about another Conservative Government under Cameron's leadership who delivers an In/Out EU referendum because Cameron isn't espousing their BOO out mantra. But there are other voters who are definitely being turned on to the fact that he is the only main stream party Leader who believes in giving the UK a nailed on say on this contentious issue. With the Indy Ref coming up in September, this is fast becoming a very powerful message, and one that Ed Miliband and the Labour party have badly miscalculated in the run up to the 2015 GE.
Given the ever closing gap between UKIP and the conservatives I feel it is the right time to pose this question
Should the unlikely happen and UKIP overtake the conservatives in the GE polling and stay there can Mssr's Nabavi, ScottP etc all assure us now, given that they have been telling us all for weeks that we should vote for a party we despise in its current form and have little in common with in order to keep Milibrand and labour out, that they will indeed practice what they preach and hold their nose while putting a tick in the UKIP box?
Sure, if UKIP agrees to sensible policies, such as an In/Out referendum. Why not? Parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
My gripe with UKIP is that they are deliberately sabotaging what they claim to want. Either they are bonkers, or they don't actually want it. Or both, I suppose.
Or they don't trust Cameron.
As Mr Farage reminded us in his recent QT outing, Mr Cameron made exactly the same promise during the 2009 EU Parliament election.
The Mail's response to the UKIP rise in the polls:
Married UKIP politician, 70, accused of taking young female researcher to a strip club, threatening to 'trash' her reputation if she told and then pressuring her to resign
First PBer to guess the name of the UKIP MEP wins a free download of Conchita's winning Eurovision song.
For those still unable to identify the old roué, here is the original article: http://dailym.ai/RAEOke
Mr Farage said Ms Swann resigned when she wasn't selected as an MEP candidate. Lots of salt with that one.
The issue isn't UKIP policy on immigration nor is it the reason for Ms. Swann's resignation: it is whether Helmer's behaviour in relation to his 24 year old female research assistant was appropriate.
He doesn't even go to any length to deny or justify it:
Last night Mr Helmer said: ‘I have a vague recollection of what she might be referring to. ‘After a meal with my staff, she wanted to have another drink and I took her to a bar. It became clear it was a bit of a dodgy bar, so we finished our beers and left. The detail is frankly a load of nonsense.’ [From Mail article linked below]
A reader has to be somewhat naive to believe that a man in his sixties with a girl in her twenties can enter a bar called "Manhattan" in Brussels sit down and have a beer before realising it is is a strip joint!
Come on 'Dave!
The Independent article was provoked by Ms Swann saying she could no longer campaign for UKIP due to their immigration policy.
Speaking of which, is there a PB election night party where we hire out a pub or something with loads of screens? Because there should be, and we've got a year to plan one.
I am in two minds over this. I shall be going to the count in my local constituency just to see my local Tory MP get shafted, but I'd love to be with other PBers throughout the night and hear the banter as the results come in. Perhaps some of it could be posted online?
We did something like this for the US elections and had a great evening - one of the pbers worked in an online trading centre and welcomed us to his multi-screen den. If that's still available, it'd be very popular.
Sadly I'll be otherwise engaged. It's one way that being a candidate is a pain - you miss most of the fun in the rest of the country as you're too busy peering at the forms from Box 17.
We could all come to the Broxtowe count, Nick.
Actually I could do that. Not so far away from me !
You'll be too busy trading your Labour bets, Pulpie!
Backed alot of CON in the constituencies. Need the 'big 4' to remain in post from now till 2015. Hopefully Mr Balls won't go too far or too fast when he is trying a 3 point turn next time !
Wrong. Cameron led his party through the lobbies to vote yes to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty back before the last GE. Actions are what count, not words. And on this issue, Cameron's principles are far sounder than some of the UKIP posters on this site who constantly attempt to slag him off in an attempt to disguise their own dishonest agenda.
It's funny how Cameron's principles on this referendum that you salute as being a mark of a "real leader" only emerged with UKIP's rise in the poll. Sounds more like a follower than a leader to me.
So how come an in-out EU referendum wasn't in their 2010 manifesto then?
Cameron was the Conservative Leader who led his party through the Yes Lobby on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty while the last Labour Government reneged on its promise and the Libdems literally sat on their hands wringing them as if it was student union debate.
Well, he's Prime Minister now, "Best in 50 years", where's that f_ing referendum, then?
But trying to find a UKIP supporter on this site that can even recognise let alone praise what a party leader supporting and offering real democracy on our membership of the EU is like is like trying to find hens teeth.
I'll take it by now you realise that your sh1t isn't selling?
Perhaps you could answer me a question. What's to stop Cameron taking all these Ukippers voting for him as a personal endorsement of himself and his policies? And how do you distinguish between a Tory-voting Tory and a Tory-voting Ukipper? The ballots all look the same.
TSE The British public overwhelmingly backed military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, even if they may now regret it, but it was the right thing to do and the high turnout in the Afghan elections this year suggests the new government and president will have a clear mandate and backing from the 10,000 Nato troops that remain. However, the British people have now clearly tired of war after Iraq too and with troops now withdrawn from both those countries and the overwhelming opposition to action in Syria which prevented intervention there there is unlikely to be any significant further interventions overseas for a decade or two if not longer
Cameron became an MP, he then became a Leader of his party, he is now the current PM of the UK. Nigel Farage MEP on the other hand, hasn't yet even managed to pick a seat for the upcoming GE, never mind had the guts to stand in the countless Westminster by-elections we have had over this Parliament. But hey, I understand why UKIPpers on here are desperate to try and portray Cameron as too frit to go up against Farage/UKIP in a televised debate when their guy cannot even get up the courage to run as an MP in Westminster.....and UKIP has yet to even win a seat.
Given the ever closing gap between UKIP and the conservatives I feel it is the right time to pose this question
Should the unlikely happen and UKIP overtake the conservatives in the GE polling and stay there can Mssr's Nabavi, ScottP etc all assure us now, given that they have been telling us all for weeks that we should vote for a party we despise in its current form and have little in common with in order to keep Milibrand and labour out, that they will indeed practice what they preach and hold their nose while putting a tick in the UKIP box?
Sure, if UKIP agrees to sensible policies, such as an In/Out referendum. Why not? Parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
My gripe with UKIP is that they are deliberately sabotaging what they claim to want. Either they are bonkers, or they don't actually want it. Or both, I suppose.
Or they don't trust Cameron.
As Mr Farage reminded us in his recent QT outing, Mr Cameron made exactly the same promise during the 2009 EU Parliament election.
Speaking of which, is there a PB election night party where we hire out a pub or something with loads of screens? Because there should be, and we've got a year to plan one.
I am in two minds over this. I shall be going to the count in my local constituency just to see my local Tory MP get shafted, but I'd love to be with other PBers throughout the night and hear the banter as the results come in. Perhaps some of it could be posted online?
We did something like this for the US elections and had a great evening - one of the pbers worked in an online trading centre and welcomed us to his multi-screen den. If that's still available, it'd be very popular.
Sadly I'll be otherwise engaged. It's one way that being a candidate is a pain - you miss most of the fun in the rest of the country as you're too busy peering at the forms from Box 17.
We could all come to the Broxtowe count, Nick.
Actually I could do that. Not so far away from me !
You'll be too busy trading your Labour bets, Pulpie!
Backed alot of CON in the constituencies. Need the 'big 4' to remain in post from now till 2015. Hopefully Mr Balls won't go too far or too fast when he is trying a 3 point turn next time !
Balls is safe.
He made no attempt to lie about his actions nor claim Yvette was driving his car.
His story was even credible.
He is probably safer than EdM.
Which makes me wonder whether EdM has a driving licence. He looks the type that has never driven.
Cameron became an MP, he then became a Leader of his party, he is now the current PM of the UK. Nigel Farage MEP on the other hand, hasn't yet even managed to pick a seat for the upcoming GE, never mind had the guts to stand in the countless Westminster by-elections we have had over this Parliament.
Remind me, how many seats have the Tories won since 2010? -1, to be precise. So, the Tories have won fewer than UKIP!
This comment is too good to waste on a mindless apparatchik like yourself, but has anyone noticed the Tories underperform against UKIP when there is an actual election on since about 2012? Council by-elections, parliamentary by-elections, county council elections and, now, Euro elections. The Tories seem fine as long the pretence that UKIP don't exist is sustainable.
Good YouGov for Lab (38) and poor for Con (31) - but Ed is, well, you know :
Who do you think is more intellectually confident: Cameron: 50 Miliband: 22
That said, his populist policies are, well, popular, and only his brother scores highly as a potential replacement: net better leader (don't know enough):
Balls: -28 (29) Cooper: -13 (46) Miliband Sr: +23 (31) Umunna: -8 (57) - to add insult to injury YouGov spelt it Umanna..... Burnham: -6 (52)
Speaking of which, is there a PB election night party where we hire out a pub or something with loads of screens? Because there should be, and we've got a year to plan one.
I am in two minds over this. I shall be going to the count in my local constituency just to see my local Tory MP get shafted, but I'd love to be with other PBers throughout the night and hear the banter as the results come in. Perhaps some of it could be posted online?
We did something like this for the US elections and had a great evening - one of the pbers worked in an online trading centre and welcomed us to his multi-screen den. If that's still available, it'd be very popular.
Sadly I'll be otherwise engaged. It's one way that being a candidate is a pain - you miss most of the fun in the rest of the country as you're too busy peering at the forms from Box 17.
We could all come to the Broxtowe count, Nick.
Actually I could do that. Not so far away from me !
You'll be too busy trading your Labour bets, Pulpie!
Backed alot of CON in the constituencies. Need the 'big 4' to remain in post from now till 2015. Hopefully Mr Balls won't go too far or too fast when he is trying a 3 point turn next time !
Balls is safe.
He made no attempt to lie about his actions nor claim Yvette was driving his car.
His story was even credible.
He is probably safer than EdM.
Which makes me wonder whether EdM has a driving licence. He looks the type that has never driven.
I think we should see our leaders topless: the most hairy-chested one is obviously the one who should be running the country... it would save all the expense of an election, too!
The polls this week have been hilarious. Taunting us with nigh on crossover and then tonight making it look like Labour will have a majority of 50+.
Titter. Yes, if Labour has a 7-point lead anyway, it doesn't really matter what voters think about Ed in the same poll.
That said, we should all be a bit careful about polls over the next few weeks - it's like conference season, with two big events (Euros and Newark) which may shift opinion in very unexpected directions.
I'm sure that's what SLAB supporters said in 2010 and 2011 when SLAB led SNP in the Holyrood VI polls, but Iain Gray trailed Alex Salmond in these sorts of questions.
Unfortunately for the blue team, David Cameron is no Alex Salmond.
...has anyone noticed the Tories underperform against UKIP when there is an actual election on since about 2012? Council by-elections, parliamentary by-elections, county council elections and, now, Euro elections. The Tories seem fine as long the pretence that UKIP don't exist is sustainable.
I'm hoping UKIP can beat the Conservatives in the May local elections as well as the EU Parliament.
They were only 2/3 points behind in 2013 locals, and in the EU Parliament VI they're 10 points clear.
can Mssr's Nabavi, ScottP etc all assure us now, given that they have been telling us all for weeks that we should vote for a party we despise in its current form and have little in common with in order to keep Milibrand and labour out
I have never said that.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for Miliband, but that is your choice, not mine.
That is akin to telling Holyrood voters that a vote for the Scottish Conservatives is a vote for FM Johann Lamont. I look forward to Scott P pushing that line every five minutes prior to the next Scottish general election.
If UKIP haven't faded 6 months after the EU Parliament election, I wonder if YouGov etc will change their treatment of UKIP, and start including them in the prompt?
I see parallels here with the rise of the DUP in Northern Ireland. The old establishment conservative party, the Ulster Unionists, lost the trust of the people, primarily over the issue of National Sovereignty and the DUP grew from a fringe party and eventually took over, leaving the UUP on the margins. It is now happening in England with UKIP.
There's also a 6-point net improvement in Ed's rating. But one can over-analyse one poll. What's a bit curious is that all the polls last night moced against the Tories. I can't see a particular reason for a sudden shift - the "HMRC can raid your bank account" thing?
I see parallels here with the rise of the DUP in Northern Ireland. The old establishment conservative party, the Ulster Unionists, lost the trust of the people, primarily over the issue of National Sovereignty and the DUP grew from a fringe party and eventually took over, leaving the UUP on the margins. It is now happening in England with UKIP.
If UKIP haven't faded 6 months after the EU Parliament election, I wonder if YouGov etc will change their treatment of UKIP, and start including them in the prompt?
A couple of thoughts this morning - first, the Conservative Party has always had a strong sense of self-preservation but has never been challenged by an insurgent party of the nature of UKIP in its history. Paul offers the example of Ulster and obviously someone will mention Canada where a traditional centre-right party was absorbed by a newer and arguably more radical party.
Yet I'm not quite sure UKIP is or are the "New Tories" - indeed, some of their policy positions don't strike me as very conservative at all - and I'm also sure that IF the Conservatives are out of power after 2015, the prime task of any new Conservative Party leader will be to neutralise the threat of UKIP.
Second thought, Survation/Opinium seem so out of line with the other pollsters. Only 62% back the two main parties (69% with YouGov). I've always thought that below 60% and things would get very interesting but that's a huge difference and part explained by the Labour share.
This morning's YouGov (which looks an outlier compared to recent) would put Labour in with a near-landslide but this time next year none of this will be of the slightest consequence.
A couple of thoughts this morning - first, the Conservative Party has always had a strong sense of self-preservation but has never been challenged by an insurgent party of the nature of UKIP in its history. Paul offers the example of Ulster and obviously someone will mention Canada where a traditional centre-right party was absorbed by a newer and arguably more radical party.
Yet I'm not quite sure UKIP is or are the "New Tories" - indeed, some of their policy positions don't strike me as very conservative at all - and I'm also sure that IF the Conservatives are out of power after 2015, the prime task of any new Conservative Party leader will be to neutralise the threat of UKIP.
Survation have UKIP as the preferred choice for swing voters from all the main parties: 2010 Con, 2010 Lab, and 2010 LD.
What's a bit curious is that all the polls last night moced against the Tories. I can't see a particular reason for a sudden shift - the "HMRC can raid your bank account" thing?
Happy birthday Mike!
Yes, it's the sort of move you'd expect in the wake of a well publicised cock-up - but there hasn't been anything that particularly stands out - perhaps just MOE to the lower level of Con support simultaneously - or, as UKIP build momentum, more Tories feel tempted to "give them a go" as "wasted vote" fears diminish - and that would be concerning......
Survation have UKIP as the preferred choice for swing voters from all the main parties: 2010 Con, 2010 Lab, and 2010 LD.
All that does is confirm that UKIP have taken on the role of the pre-Coalition LDs as a home for the disaffected and disillusioned from all parties.
IF the LDs were outside the Government, what would they be polling now - 25%, 30% ? They've done this in the past - 1986, 1993 as a couple of examples. The problem with that is the nature of that "support" is a mile wide and an inch deep and at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder it leaks back to its former homes.
UKIP face the same problem from the autumn onward when the GE campaign starts. The question is how much of their vote can they retain and which of the other parties will it damage the most ?
Survation have UKIP as the preferred choice for swing voters from all the main parties: 2010 Con, 2010 Lab, and 2010 LD.
All that does is confirm that UKIP have taken on the role of the pre-Coalition LDs as a home for the disaffected and disillusioned from all parties.
IF the LDs were outside the Government, what would they be polling now - 25%, 30% ? They've done this in the past - 1986, 1993 as a couple of examples. The problem with that is the nature of that "support" is a mile wide and an inch deep and at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder it leaks back to its former homes.
UKIP face the same problem from the autumn onward when the GE campaign starts. The question is how much of their vote can they retain and which of the other parties will it damage the most ?
UKIP do stand for something though. The LDs never did.
UKIP do stand for something though. The LDs never did.
No.
UKIP's entire pitch is AGAINST others.
That's not how I see them. They stand for democratic accountability of power. They are on the other side of that argument to the three main parties, but it's a stand _for_ something.
What's a bit curious is that all the polls last night moced against the Tories. I can't see a particular reason for a sudden shift - the "HMRC can raid your bank account" thing?
Happy birthday Mike!
Yes, it's the sort of move you'd expect in the wake of a well publicised cock-up - but there hasn't been anything that particularly stands out - perhaps just MOE to the lower level of Con support simultaneously - or, as UKIP build momentum, more Tories feel tempted to "give them a go" as "wasted vote" fears diminish - and that would be concerning......
Happy Birthday OGH - and the coalition!
In all fairness I think it's just a common or garden outlier. And yes, many happy returns Mike.
UKIP do stand for something though. The LDs never did.
No.
UKIP's entire pitch is AGAINST others.
That's right - it's true of all parties to some extent, unfortunately, but UKIP especially. The LibDems based a lot of their appeal on being vaguely idealistic - voting LibDem despite the unlikelihood of power made people feel good. The main damage done by Clegg has been to undermine that - it's not at all easy to think of things that he absolutely wouldn't agree to or would absolutely insist upon, except as part of a final-year differentiation strategy.
Let's stand back. A long time ago I was taught that there are three sources of political cleavage - race, class and religion.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
UKIP do stand for something though. The LDs never did.
No.
UKIP's entire pitch is AGAINST others.
That's right - it's true of all parties to some extent, unfortunately, but UKIP especially. The LibDems based a lot of their appeal on being vaguely idealistic - voting LibDem despite the unlikelihood of power made people feel good. The main damage done by Clegg has been to undermine that - it's not at all easy to think of things that he absolutely wouldn't agree to or would absolutely insist upon, except as part of a final-year differentiation strategy.
Thinking back, there’s some justification for that Mr P. I can recall, back in the 60/70/80’s when things were being done that my friends didn’t like smugly saying “well, I didn’t vote for them!”
Chickens roosting now I suppose!
Mind I DIDN’T LIKE my country starting the Iraq War, either. Take me a while to get over that.
Let's stand back. A long time ago I was taught that there are three sources of political cleavage - race, class and religion.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
In the nineteenth contrary the big split was free trade/protectionism. In the last century it was freedom vs totalitarianism (power of the state).
The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live.
Just look at Scotland. An SNP government elected on a manifesto of 'getting rid of the English oppressors' and the bitterness that has ensued. Either way the damage will take years to repair.
Married UKIP politician, 70, accused of taking young female researcher to a strip club, threatening to 'trash' her reputation if she told and then pressuring her to resign Former UKIP researcher accuses MEP of sacking her after strip club visit
The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live.
Just look at Scotland. An SNP government elected on a manifesto of 'getting rid of the English oppressors' and the bitterness that has ensued. Either way the damage will take years to repair.
A couple of thoughts this morning - first, the Conservative Party has always had a strong sense of self-preservation but has never been challenged by an insurgent party of the nature of UKIP in its history.
Did Bromley (now on-Bow) Boy really post that? Seriously!
I can understand how an european-[MODERATED] could ignore the facts surrounding 'The Great Reform Act (1832)'. What I cannot understand is how such ill-informed children are allowed to post in OGH's nursery....
Let's stand back. A long time ago I was taught that there are three sources of political cleavage - race, class and religion.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
In the nineteenth contrary the big split was free trade/protectionism. In the last century it was freedom vs totalitarianism (power of the state).
Aren’t you both right? In the 19th C Anglicans, because they were the ruling class, and involved in land issues, tended to be protectionist. Non-conformists, because they were prevented from going to University, tended to become merchants and therefore in favour of free trade. In the 20th C is was rights for all, not just the middle and rich.
The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live.
Just look at Scotland. An SNP government elected on a manifesto of 'getting rid of the English oppressors' and the bitterness that has ensued. Either way the damage will take years to repair.
That is a straightforward lie.
Quite. Not least because of the problems caused by the Unionists and their campaign strategies. The Sunday Herald today has several very interesting articles on indyref and the politics around it - notably in the extract from Iain Macwhirter's new book on the catastrophic misjudgement by Messrs Cameron and Osborne when they decided to send Mr Osborne to lecture the Scots on the pound. As Mr Macwhirter says, they completely missed the fundamental issue that this denied the nature of the UK as an equal union between England and Scotland, and Osborne thereby damaged the Anglo-Scottish relationship severely, perhaps forever. I was also very interested to see his remarks on the myth of 'separatism'.
The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live.
Just look at Scotland. An SNP government elected on a manifesto of 'getting rid of the English oppressors' and the bitterness that has ensued. Either way the damage will take years to repair.
LOL what a sad liar you are. Bitterness is the Tories , annoyed that there are more panda's than Tories in parliament and in Holyrood they must depend on list to get a few of their numpties in. Feeble and unimportant and not even bright enough to see that a YES vote would give them a chance to get out of the gutters.
All of whom were democratically elected by Scottish voters.
Why do you hate democracy so much?
They made the Scots suffer the Poll Tax. The reason why, even today, you only have one MP.
It's actually an electoral fallacy that the Poll Tax did for the Conservatives in Scotland. Indeed in the 92 GE the Scottish Tories gained a seat to eleven in total and increased their vote share to over 25%.
The collapse in Scottish Conservative seats in 97 to nil was due to tactical voting on a vast scale.
What I like about UKIP is that they have identified a key mood (bloody politicians, they're all the same) and a key complaint (I'm not doing as well as someone else) and found away to distil it down to a single issue which gets traction across the political spectrum.
Personally I may not like the petty bigotry, but for too long politicians have tried to pretend it isn't there taking their respective chunks of the electorate for granted. Farage has done a great job in harnessing the anger created by an unfair economic system and a democratic deficit and bringing them together in what many dismiss as a single issue party but their supporters see as THE issue.
TSE The British public overwhelmingly backed military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, even if they may now regret it, but it was the right thing to do and the high turnout in the Afghan elections this year suggests the new government and president will have a clear mandate and backing from the 10,000 Nato troops that remain. However, the British people have now clearly tired of war after Iraq too and with troops now withdrawn from both those countries and the overwhelming opposition to action in Syria which prevented intervention there there is unlikely to be any significant further interventions overseas for a decade or two if not longer
I think there is a need to differentiate the two parts of our latest involvement in Afghnaistan.
First there was the action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This was limited in scope with a clear desired outcome, sufficient forces required to achieve that outcome were committed and the objectives were met. This bit carried popular support and if we had stopped there everyone would have been happy.
There was the 2006-2014 campaign. This was an insane operation commenced on the back of political hubris, with no clear desired outcome, at least not one that could be stated in military terms. Insufficient troops, inadequately equipped and supported were put in to do an ill-defined job and the whole thing turned, predictably, into a bloody mess. The public have supported the troops on the ground and Cameron's decision to declare victory and get out, but that is about all. Frankly, the generals, all now safely retired, who agreed to this campaign rather than resign should be impeached as should the politicians who wanted it and then failed to support the troops on the ground properly (notably Blair, Reid and Brown).
Mr. Carnyx, you don't get to demand a divorce and then insist you'll share the marital bed.
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live.
Just look at Scotland. An SNP government elected on a manifesto of 'getting rid of the English oppressors' and the bitterness that has ensued. Either way the damage will take years to repair.
That is a straightforward lie.
Quite. Not least because of the problems caused by the Unionists and their campaign strategies. The Sunday Herald today has several very interesting articles on indyref and the politics around it - notably in the extract from Iain Macwhirter's new book on the catastrophic misjudgement by Messrs Cameron and Osborne when they decided to send Mr Osborne to lecture the Scots on the pound. As Mr Macwhirter says, they completely missed the fundamental issue that this denied the nature of the UK as an equal union between England and Scotland, and Osborne thereby damaged the Anglo-Scottish relationship severely, perhaps forever. I was also very interested to see his remarks on the myth of 'separatism'.
Let's stand back. A long time ago I was taught that there are three sources of political cleavage - race, class and religion.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
In the nineteenth contrary the big split was free trade/protectionism. In the last century it was freedom vs totalitarianism (power of the state).
Aren’t you both right? In the 19th C Anglicans, because they were the ruling class, and involved in land issues, tended to be protectionist. Non-conformists, because they were prevented from going to University, tended to become merchants and therefore in favour of free trade. In the 20th C is was rights for all, not just the middle and rich.
Protection was opposed by leaders of both Parties in the 19th century until Joe Chamberlain (otherwise a "Red Tory") espoused it - come to think of it, he'd have made a spiffing leader for UKIP to-day! Oxford University, at least, had no religious bar after the Act of 1854.
However, the whole point of looking at sources of political cleavage is to stand back from particular policy interests, so who backed what when doesn't really matter. As to the suggestion that the State is the only threat to liberty - tell that to any victim of violent crime. Another Dave is entitled to his view that taxation is theft, but he can hardly expect much support for it.
Mr. Carnyx, you don't get to demand a divorce and then insist you'll share the marital bed.
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
Quite so Mr Dancer.
Since Salmond has mad so many undeliverable promises and can therefore only disappoint the "well you were warned" approach has much to recommend it. When the sunny uplands turn out to be the same old grey skies Salmond's first port of call will be to blame his neighbours for doing down Scotland.
TSE The British public overwhelmingly backed military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, even if they may now regret it, but it was the right thing to do and the high turnout in the Afghan elections this year suggests the new government and president will have a clear mandate and backing from the 10,000 Nato troops that remain. However, the British people have now clearly tired of war after Iraq too and with troops now withdrawn from both those countries and the overwhelming opposition to action in Syria which prevented intervention there there is unlikely to be any significant further interventions overseas for a decade or two if not longer
I think there is a need to differentiate the two parts of our latest involvement in Afghnaistan.
First there was the action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This was limited in scope with a clear desired outcome, sufficient forces required to achieve that outcome were committed and the objectives were met. This bit carried popular support and if we had stopped there everyone would have been happy.
There was the 2006-2014 campaign. This was an insane operation commenced on the back of political hubris, with no clear desired outcome, at least not one that could be stated in military terms. Insufficient troops, inadequately equipped and supported were put in to do an ill-defined job and the whole thing turned, predictably, into a bloody mess. The public have supported the troops on the ground and Cameron's decision to declare victory and get out, but that is about all. Frankly, the generals, all now safely retired, who agreed to this campaign rather than resign should be impeached as should the politicians who wanted it and then failed to support the troops on the ground properly (notably Blair, Reid and Brown).
Please can we have a LIKE button back!
In this context I think this country should regret first the demotion and secondly the demise of Robin Cook.
Mr. Carnyx, you don't get to demand a divorce and then insist you'll share the marital bed.
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
Going out, so will be brief, sorry, but again in essence the piece is more concerned with the Unionist strategy. Firstly, as Mr M said: 'The BBC's Scottish economics editor, Douglas Fraser, said: "The dominant parties at Westminster sought to avoid any pre-negotiation, but now they've broken their own rule. We now have one very important piece of pre-negotiation, by declaring no negotiation at all."'
And secondly, re the divorce analogy, the comparison would be if England had suddenly decided there was no valid marriage after all, so by very strong implication (and certainly in this specific instance) Scotland had no rights at all. (Which, in essence, is the 'new state' Scotland versus 'same old' UK approach, which is not of course new.) Despite the existence of a clear pre-nup agreement called the Treaty of Union. Mr Osborne's speech simply made this clear so very publicly, and it was not, let's say, the simple approach to a No vote which the Unionists presumably hoped.
Mr M's article is not the first to note the implications (can't remember if I first read them in one of his or Ian Bell's) but it is an issue which has been much downplayed in the pro-union media. It, I think, explains much of the otherwise puzzling poll reaction (or lack of) to the speech.
Anyway am being dragged out for a walk so I hope the weather is nice down there too ...
Let's stand back. A long time ago I was taught that there are three sources of political cleavage - race, class and religion.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
In the nineteenth contrary the big split was free trade/protectionism. In the last century it was freedom vs totalitarianism (power of the state).
Aren’t you both right? In the 19th C Anglicans, because they were the ruling class, and involved in land issues, tended to be protectionist. Non-conformists, because they were prevented from going to University, tended to become merchants and therefore in favour of free trade. In the 20th C is was rights for all, not just the middle and rich.
Protection was opposed by leaders of both Parties in the 19th century until Joe Chamberlain (otherwise a "Red Tory") espoused it - come to think of it, he'd have made a spiffing leader for UKIP to-day! Oxford University, at least, had no religious bar after the Act of 1854.
However, the whole point of looking at sources of political cleavage is to stand back from particular policy interests, so who backed what when doesn't really matter. As to the suggestion that the State is the only threat to liberty - tell that to any victim of violent crime. Another Dave is entitled to his view that taxation is theft, but he can hardly expect much support for it.
Of course, Mr I.A. Simplistic answers are rarely right!
Mr. Carnyx, you don't get to demand a divorce and then insist you'll share the marital bed.
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
MD, The independence referendum cannot be compared to a divorce , and as we will see after the union is dissolved we will see if Osborne was quite as clear as you seem to believe.
Mr. Carnyx, you don't get to demand a divorce and then insist you'll share the marital bed.
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
MD, The independence referendum cannot be compared to a divorce , and as we will see after the union is dissolved we will see if Osborne was quite as clear as you seem to believe.
By the same token, a currency cannot be treated like a sack of potatoes to be divided up. It is a living breathing organism. Salmond has publicly declared his aim of creating a simplified tax system, and a high growth, low bureaucracy 'celtic tiger' economy. This divergence in economies of the newly separated nations would make operating a successful currency impossible. Why should England, Wales, and Northern Ireland subject their economies to the type of instability that we've seen in the eurozone, because Scotland wants to share the pound? You may be right about Osborne being fine about it, but I doubt the electorate would feel the same.
Comments
In fact after the 2009 EU Parliament election, he dropped even the promise. It did not appear in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
To claim UKIP is fractious would be the understatement of the decade.
I'll take it by now you realise that your sh1t isn't selling?
Perhaps you could answer me a question. What's to stop Cameron taking all these Ukippers voting for him as a personal endorsement of himself and his policies? And how do you distinguish between a Tory-voting Tory and a Tory-voting Ukipper? The ballots all look the same.
He made no attempt to lie about his actions nor claim Yvette was driving his car.
His story was even credible.
He is probably safer than EdM.
Which makes me wonder whether EdM has a driving licence. He looks the type that has never driven.
But we need to talk about your council vote...
This comment is too good to waste on a mindless apparatchik like yourself, but has anyone noticed the Tories underperform against UKIP when there is an actual election on since about 2012? Council by-elections, parliamentary by-elections, county council elections and, now, Euro elections. The Tories seem fine as long the pretence that UKIP don't exist is sustainable.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/italian-pm-vows-push-united-states-europe-during-presidency-302048
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10818678/School-introduces-no-mornings-policy-for-tired-teenagers.html
Arnold Billings lives!
http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsW/18041-7994.jpg
still at Nutbourne College, not looking a day older, apparently
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/09/article-2624066-1DB0F0FB00000578-31_634x423.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625361/Voters-say-David-Cameron-cruel-Ed-Miliband-wet-sexless.html
Who do you think is more intellectually confident:
Cameron: 50
Miliband: 22
That said, his populist policies are, well, popular, and only his brother scores highly as a potential replacement: net better leader (don't know enough):
Balls: -28 (29)
Cooper: -13 (46)
Miliband Sr: +23 (31)
Umunna: -8 (57) - to add insult to injury YouGov spelt it Umanna.....
Burnham: -6 (52)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/45cxqhtvw7/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140509.pdf
(p.8)
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MoS-tables-11-May-2014.pdf
They were only 2/3 points behind in 2013 locals, and in the EU Parliament VI they're 10 points clear.
Next UK GE - Spelthorne (Con Maj = 10,019)
Con 1/25 (starting price was 1/33)
UKIP 12/1
LD 20/1
Lab 66/1
Lab (Tom Blenkinsop) 1/8
Con (Will Goodhand) 9/2
UKIP 50/1
LD 100/1
Yes: 30
No: 49
Care to guess again?
FPT: Mr. Tyndall, that's easy for you to say.
Happy birthday Mike!
In a hung parliament, which FM would the SCons back? FM Salmond or FM Lamont? We all know the answer to that question. And so do the voters.
A couple of thoughts this morning - first, the Conservative Party has always had a strong sense of self-preservation but has never been challenged by an insurgent party of the nature of UKIP in its history. Paul offers the example of Ulster and obviously someone will mention Canada where a traditional centre-right party was absorbed by a newer and arguably more radical party.
Yet I'm not quite sure UKIP is or are the "New Tories" - indeed, some of their policy positions don't strike me as very conservative at all - and I'm also sure that IF the Conservatives are out of power after 2015, the prime task of any new Conservative Party leader will be to neutralise the threat of UKIP.
Second thought, Survation/Opinium seem so out of line with the other pollsters. Only 62% back the two main parties (69% with YouGov). I've always thought that below 60% and things would get very interesting but that's a huge difference and part explained by the Labour share.
This morning's YouGov (which looks an outlier compared to recent) would put Labour in with a near-landslide but this time next year none of this will be of the slightest consequence.
Let's just make Eck President For Life and be done.
Happy Birthday OGH - and the coalition!
IF the LDs were outside the Government, what would they be polling now - 25%, 30% ? They've done this in the past - 1986, 1993 as a couple of examples. The problem with that is the nature of that "support" is a mile wide and an inch deep and at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder it leaks back to its former homes.
UKIP face the same problem from the autumn onward when the GE campaign starts. The question is how much of their vote can they retain and which of the other parties will it damage the most ?
UKIP's entire pitch is AGAINST others.
Betting PostF1: pre-race piece is up:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/spain-pre-race.html
Tipped Force India for a double points finish at 7/4.
Why do you hate democracy so much?
UKIP have succeeded in uniting us against their casual bigotry and message of despair.
In the 19th century (and still to-day in Ireland) the driving cleaver was religion. In the last century (on the British mainland) it was class. The rise of UKIP suggests that it's now the turn of the other one...
Hands up all those Peebies who think that this makes our politics - or even "England's green and pleasant land" a better place in which to live. Racial tensions can be contained by economic growth which benefits more than the few capitalists who create it. This is no longer true in Britain, and globalisation makes sure that our politicians can't deliver it even if they wanted to.
Chickens roosting now I suppose!
Mind I DIDN’T LIKE my country starting the Iraq War, either. Take me a while to get over that.
http://rlv.zcache.ca/happy_birthday_squirrel_postcard-r26267686dc8f438cb5e4798c4e27a502_vgbaq_8byvr_512.jpg
Married UKIP politician, 70, accused of taking young female researcher to a strip club, threatening to 'trash' her reputation if she told and then pressuring her to resign
Former UKIP researcher accuses MEP of sacking her after strip club visit
: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625285/Married-UKIP-politician-70-accused-taking-young-female-researcher-strip-club-threatening-trash-reputation-told-pressuring-resign.html#ixzz31OPn01zL
I can understand how an european-[MODERATED] could ignore the facts surrounding 'The Great Reform Act (1832)'. What I cannot understand is how such ill-informed children are allowed to post in OGH's nursery....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-man-who-disunited-the-kingdom.24132681
And Mr Macwhirter is famously (in Scotland) not a pro-indy chap but a federalist!
The collapse in Scottish Conservative seats in 97 to nil was due to tactical voting on a vast scale.
Personally I may not like the petty bigotry, but for too long politicians have tried to pretend it isn't there taking their respective chunks of the electorate for granted. Farage has done a great job in harnessing the anger created by an unfair economic system and a democratic deficit and bringing them together in what many dismiss as a single issue party but their supporters see as THE issue.
First there was the action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. This was limited in scope with a clear desired outcome, sufficient forces required to achieve that outcome were committed and the objectives were met. This bit carried popular support and if we had stopped there everyone would have been happy.
There was the 2006-2014 campaign. This was an insane operation commenced on the back of political hubris, with no clear desired outcome, at least not one that could be stated in military terms. Insufficient troops, inadequately equipped and supported were put in to do an ill-defined job and the whole thing turned, predictably, into a bloody mess. The public have supported the troops on the ground and Cameron's decision to declare victory and get out, but that is about all. Frankly, the generals, all now safely retired, who agreed to this campaign rather than resign should be impeached as should the politicians who wanted it and then failed to support the troops on the ground properly (notably Blair, Reid and Brown).
If Osborne hadn't made the currency union position clear and Scots voted Yes, then discovered a currency union was off the table, how outraged would they justifiably be?
However, the whole point of looking at sources of political cleavage is to stand back from particular policy interests, so who backed what when doesn't really matter. As to the suggestion that the State is the only threat to liberty - tell that to any victim of violent crime. Another Dave is entitled to his view that taxation is theft, but he can hardly expect much support for it.
Since Salmond has mad so many undeliverable promises and can therefore only disappoint the "well you were warned" approach has much to recommend it. When the sunny uplands turn out to be the same old grey skies Salmond's first port of call will be to blame his neighbours for doing down Scotland.
In this context I think this country should regret first the demotion and secondly the demise of Robin Cook.
And secondly, re the divorce analogy, the comparison would be if England had suddenly decided there was no valid marriage after all, so by very strong implication (and certainly in this specific instance) Scotland had no rights at all. (Which, in essence, is the 'new state' Scotland versus 'same old' UK approach, which is not of course new.) Despite the existence of a clear pre-nup agreement called the Treaty of Union. Mr Osborne's speech simply made this clear so very publicly, and it was not, let's say, the simple approach to a No vote which the Unionists presumably hoped.
Mr M's article is not the first to note the implications (can't remember if I first read them in one of his or Ian Bell's) but it is an issue which has been much downplayed in the pro-union media. It, I think, explains much of the otherwise puzzling poll reaction (or lack of) to the speech.
Anyway am being dragged out for a walk so I hope the weather is nice down there too ...