Britain's relationship with the EU is essentially the same now as it was in 2010.
The crises in Greece and Cyprus never happened...
And how did they specifically affect the UK, since we are not in the Eurozone?
Iceland had a crisis a while back - should we have left the IMF and the UN?
They are also well on the way to recovery unlike UK
Iceland let its toxic banks die , England had to bail out RBS and BoS to save Brown's , Darling's and Salmond's faces.
Yes those well known UK banks, Halifax and Nat West run from England , they fronted themselves with the Scottish bank names and ran them into the ground, pass the crappy Westminster knighthood please.
You're deaf to me but at least you should listen to your leader , Salmond , in his keynote " Celtic Lion " speech ;
"of course we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term."
Unfortunately it is had best brands , once those Westminster creeps had our banks consumed by casino's run by shopkeepers it was only a matter of time, like everything else they touch , gold is transformed to tin.
Is anything wrong in Scotland, Scotland's fault? I don't know enough about Scotland's internal issues to know for sure.
Plenty wrong in Scotland but it was not in any way responsible for the banking shambles run from and caused by assholes in London , aided and abetted by politicians.
Malcolm , do you remember this ?
In May 2007, just days after taking office, the First Minister wrote to Goodwin about the possible deal on ABN, which was then the subject of huge speculation in the City.
“I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front,” Salmond said. “It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide. Yours for Scotland , Alex "
Can you read the words, he was offering assistance for Scotland's interests , he would have presumed the moron had done some due diligence. If he had seen the books I can easily guess what his guidance would have been.
You have become a cult member , malcolm. Your guru , Salmond , is infallible and you've gone to the dogs.
People know Labour favours membership. Much better to say sorry, guys, we're not going to flirt with withdrawal in any way, and move on.
Given how man strong Labour areas would rather commit seppuku rather than vote Tory under any circumstances, or even stay home to risk it (the Tory approach apparently?) when dissatisfied, I imagine Labour know that even if huge chunks of their membership do want to leave the EU, they'll stay put rather than all but a few causing a fuss over it and be labelled as tories in disguise.
Balls is increasingly looking like an albatross around Ed's neck. If the economy continues to improve Miliband will look preposterous saddled with the guy who got the economic calls spectacularly wrong. Ed needs to replace him with someone who doesn't have any opinions on anything. Moreover, Balls disgraced himself during the negotiations with the Lib Dems in 2010. If Labour has to bow and scrape to them in 2015, the Comeback Clegg is unlikely to give any change with Balls still around. Better off rid I suggest.
Miliband is 100% correct, the overwhelming majority of the public just do not rate Europe as a big issue,sure they would like it to improve but if a referendum was called the turnout would be derisory (20% tops) and the result would be meaningless. I reckon he just saved this country a lot of money
A question for UKIPpers - If a hundred thousand ex-pats came back from Spain to the UK, would that be bad, because it would increase net immigration, or would it be good, in that it would increase the %age of "White British" in the country?
Excellent news! Nothing like being on the wrong side of public opinion ;^)
EdM really is cornering the market - welfare cap, immigration...
I don't think so. Let the Kippers and Tories fight it out, and breed schisms. There were two parts to 1997, the Tory splits and A Labour party united behind (apparently) sound finances. If Miliband is ruthless enough to dump Balls (best done in about a year, so he doesn't cause too much trouble on the back benches) and puts in someone dull but sound with money, the second part of the winning formula falls into place.
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
Having a referendum when the EU is in a mess would be mistake, so better to wait until nearer the election to decide whether to offer this or not. The Tories want a referendum in 2018, but will back a vote to stay in, even if their renegotiation had failed. If coming out of the EU is your number one issue then you would vote UKIP.
Superb performance by Wigan, shades of Houchen in the goal, real fairytale. Hope they can stay up now. Pellegrini to Man City next season, Martinez to Everton ?
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
What is the evidence?
I suspect that the Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 regardless of Europe. 2005, I don't recall it being a big issue, and 2010 not really either.
People always trot out "voters don't like split parties" but is that just waht they say - does it actually affect votes?
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
Excellent news! Nothing like being on the wrong side of public opinion ;^)
EdM really is cornering the market - welfare cap, immigration...
I don't think so. Let the Kippers and Tories fight it out, and breed schisms. There were two parts to 1997, the Tory splits and A Labour party united behind (apparently) sound finances. If Miliband is ruthless enough to dump Balls (best done in about a year, so he doesn't cause too much trouble on the back benches) and puts in someone dull but sound with money, the second part of the winning formula falls into place.
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
The Right isn't split over Europe - its Ken Clark vs Everyone Else. That's the difference. Polling has shown consistently that the position adopted by EdM is in a minority when asked as a direct question.
Using MORI's opinion index doesn't count here - it may be not as important as other things - but as we know electoral reform never got to double figures ... ;^ )
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
If you campaign on an issue which your opponent seems to have captured, you do two things: you narrow the gap on the issue, but you also increase its salience and make voters feel it's more important. None of the mainstream parties can compete with UKIP for the love of voters whose main wish is to withdraw from the EU. Cameron is making no headway whatever with his "We will indeed have a referendum on something about Europe in 2017, and I'll let you know then what I recommend, but I do favour membership." It's just irritating to the point of embarassment. There are zero votes in being semi-UKIP.
People know Labour favours membership. Much better to say sorry, guys, we're not going to flirt with withdrawal in any way, and move on.
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
That's...actually a good point.
Thanks Kle4
bear in mind I don't claim for a minute that many people think this is the most important issue out there. I just believe that the public are far more sophisticated than Mike gives them credit for and that when the three parties are so similar on so many issues - and in particular when they all trot out the same mantras about the wonders of EU membership it means that the seemingly minor issues can assume greater importance.
The fact that a large majority of people are saying they want a change in the relationship between the UK and the EU with by far the preferred options being just a free trade agreement or outright withdrawal (which in effect are the same things) is a far more important reflection of public opinion than the rather blindingly obvious fact that people are concerned about the economy.
People also have the ability to tie things together so that as others have said when they talk about the economy and immigration, they are very open to the basic concept that these issues are made far worse by our membership of the EU.
OT for those who watch US TV series - here's the current list of shows cancelled, ended, renewed for next season - some ones i really liked have been axed, others inexplicably have survived.
Please point to another regular survey that measures salience.
I will go on saying this because I am right and those who knock it are wrong.
No you are wrong because you put your own personal spin on these polls which happens to match your own views. You are incapable of looking objectively at the data and assign far greater significance to this poll than it deserves. Hence the reason you get taken by surprise when UKIP do well in elections or when polls show large majorities in favour of redefining our relationship with the EU.
blockquote class="Quote" rel="Pulpstar">Superb performance by Wigan, shades of Houchen in the goal, real fairytale. Hope they can stay up now. Pellegrini to Man City next season, Martinez to Everton ?
Superb performance by Wigan, shades of Houchen in the goal, real fairytale. Hope they can stay up now. Pellegrini to Man City next season, Martinez to Everton ?
Just when you thought life couldn't get more interesting
Turkey deputy PM: Bombers 'had links to Syrian regime'
The Turkish deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc has suggested that those responsible for the bomb attacks in Reyhanli had links to the “Syrian regime and intelligence”, according to Reuters.
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
That's...actually a good point.
I refuse to point to another measure of salience, as though I thought the point had merit, that didn't mean I think the whole process was pointless, more that as the point made illustrates, people making arguments from it could be extrapolated to say that anything not in the top 1 of issues listed is of no important to the public. In essence, even if it is useful, people are extrapolating too much from it.
There is a world of difference between 'This is a useful indicator' and what people have been saying it all means, precluding the possibility that issues may not be of primary importance and so slides down the list, but their presence in the general narrative too ubiquitous to mean they are not cared about - and that dismissiveness of any contrary point of view is sheer arrogance.
I don't even think Europe is that big an issue for most people, but apparently you express a single doubting point and it's as though you're questioning the new testament in an audience with the pope. Disproportionate.
Miliband's approach is sheer madness. He's just cemented the idea in the public consciousness that Tory = Europhobe, Labour = Europhile. And if everyone thinks the Tories are Europhobic they'll get all their voters back from Ukip and Dave will win. I can only assume that Miliband has taken on the mantle of extreme Europhilia as a sop to Nick Clegg, but in doing he's ensured a Tory victory anyway so that's pointless. It's insane!
Tories really need to do more than just say Ed M is crap, Blairites say so, to actually win though. I mean, it was said for months and months when he really was being pretty crap, and it didn't stick, so they need to change it up.
Tories really need to do more than just say Ed M is crap, Blairites say so, to actually win though. I mean, it was said for months and months when he really was being pretty crap, and it didn't stick, so they need to change it up.
The fact that Ed has yet to register a net positive rating with Mori confirms that the public agree with the fact Ed is Merde
Tories really need to do more than just say Ed M is crap, Blairites say so, to actually win though. I mean, it was said for months and months when he really was being pretty crap, and it didn't stick, so they need to change it up.
The fact that Ed has yet to register a net positive rating with Mori confirms that the public agree with the fact Ed is Merde
Tories really need to do more than just say Ed M is crap, Blairites say so, to actually win though. I mean, it was said for months and months when he really was being pretty crap, and it didn't stick, so they need to change it up.
The fact that Ed has yet to register a net positive rating with Mori confirms that the public agree with the fact Ed is Merde
Nah, Ed is just Meh. It might be enough.
Indeed.
In just under two years time, we will be at the Genesis of Ed's Premiership.
Miliband's approach is sheer madness. He's just cemented the idea in the public consciousness that Tory = Europhobe, Labour = Europhile. And if everyone thinks the Tories are Europhobic they'll get all their voters back from Ukip and Dave will win. I can only assume that Miliband has taken on the mantle of extreme Europhilia as a sop to Nick Clegg, but in doing he's ensured a Tory victory anyway so that's pointless. It's insane!
is that the political opening ? Surely for UKIP the big chance is to hit northern constituencies where the tories don't travel well and start to build up a level of support. If they make suffiecient inroads then constituencies may start to change hands. At the last GE labour got 60% of the seats in Yorkshire on 34% of the vote with the Tories only 2% behind. If UKIP can poll 10-15% at the GE then there are lots of marginals.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
FFS now you're sounding just like Cameron. Does every voter have to get a sodding lawyer to interpret what a party leader says on Europe ? If he has said no referendum then voters will take that to mean no referendum, no-one's interested in the caveat in paragraph 4 subsection 9. This is your cast iron moment, enjoy it.
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
What is the evidence?
I suspect that the Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 regardless of Europe. 2005, I don't recall it being a big issue, and 2010 not really either.
People always trot out "voters don't like split parties" but is that just waht they say - does it actually affect votes?
Since the Tories became obsessed with Europe 2 decades ago, they have failed to win an election. It is the major ideological issue that splits the party, everything else is court politics about personalities.
Splits in the Labour party in the eighties kept them out of power, and the continued rumours of Blairite coups against Gordon wounded the last Labour govt before its financial incompetence delivered the final blow.
Voters care about competence, and a party that cannot agree on policy and sing from the same sheet shows its incompetence to the world.
The splits between the Thatcherites and wets did some damage but much less initially though the final coup is still part of the split that continues today.
The smartest thing the Tories did under Cameron was to keep it off the radar.
For once tim and his imps are right. Splits over Europe are going to deliver number 10 to Miliband.
A question for UKIPpers - If a hundred thousand ex-pats came back from Spain to the UK, would that be bad, because it would increase net immigration, or would it be good, in that it would increase the %age of "White British" in the country?
There's a substrate to that question; lots of the expats in Spain are retirees who don't pay tax and will be a charge on the NHS etc. Lots of the immigrants we get pay tax and indeed work IN the NHS! Overall, those still here probably get the better of the deal.
The expats probably vote Tory or UKIP as well, so that's another downside!
Is Peter Mandelson complaining about stitch up selections? Really?
I love when people who spent years stitching up selections suddenly wake up and call to "put them in members' hands"
Obviously people on all sides always scream "stitch up" when their candidate doesn't win...always...they don't particularly care when the rival faction's candidate is strangely omitted.
Anyway, these people are discussing if the selection contests should last 9, 11 or 13 weeks! Who is favoured by 9 weeks contests? Who is favoured by 13 weeks contests? There are various theories...I almost forgot them
Some argues short campaigns favour SpAd, Trade Union officers, people working for MPs and co Some argues the opposite Some believe branch nominations are essential for outsiders to emerge.
I guess they would all be really disappointed if it turns out that 9, 11 or 13 weeks don't make a difference in the outcome
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
Pah sir ! A Dan Hodges column can do that in quarter the time at the Telegraph.
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
Pah sir ! A Dan Hodges column can do that in quarter the time at the Telegraph.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
If what tim says is true then Miliband's people need to issue a clarification. Now! Ed must not allow the idea to disseminate that he's an EU establishment figure and status quo apologist.Ed could be uniting the forces of Ukip and the Tories against himself. He could be crushed.
Is Janan Ganesh wearing a tanktop or a waistcoat ?
Either way it just confirms that George Osborne's leading sycophant is an arsehole.
As to EdM, this announcement might look like he's dancing to Polly Toynbee's tune - which doesn't suggest that he's going to stop the leakage of Labour's wwc votes to UKIP.
Which means the government of the Eds will be minority not majority.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
FFS now you're sounding just like Cameron. Does every voter have to get a sodding lawyer to interpret what a party leader says on Europe ? If he has said no referendum then voters will take that to mean no referendum, no-one's interested in the caveat in paragraph 4 subsection 9. This is your cast iron moment, enjoy it.
It's pretty straightforward, the same position as business, trade unions and the Lib Dems. Announcing referenda four and a half years down the line kills jobs and investment. It's exactly the argument Osborne used against the SNP over the independence referendum.
It's bollox and you know it. Ed isn't in the " say what you mean and mean what you say " cohort, he's in the PPE " well just because I say it doesn't mean I mean it " cohort. As I've said before when you're off on one about Eton, the problem isn't the school it's the University. And Ed and Dave went to the same university. It's personal arrogance (DC) versus intellectual arrogance (EM) but at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, do as we say not as we do.
Lukashenko has already said Euovision is biased. Without bias, Belarus would obviously win. As they won't win, it means it is biased. Neighbouring countries just vote for each other (it makes it look like Belarus is an island)
Has Ed Miliband just produced the worst speech ever ?
“I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for relaxing - even chillaxing – but, on this occasion, it beggars belief. “He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his own MPs.”
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
Pah sir ! A Dan Hodges column can do that in quarter the time at the Telegraph.
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
I can assure you, a Eurovision song contest thread, as such, would not attract me one iota. What would attract is the comments on the stupid songs.
Sadly my next stint as Guest Editor does not coincide with the Eurovision song contest, so no threads on Eurovision, like last year, when my Eurovision thread attracted 800plus comments in 4 hours.
Pah sir ! A Dan Hodges column can do that in quarter the time at the Telegraph.
I'm just a fourth rate Dan Hodges.
I've always thought of you more as Mary Riddell.
At least I'm not Polly Toynbee or Melanie Phillips.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
FFS now you're sounding just like Cameron. Does every voter have to get a sodding lawyer to interpret what a party leader says on Europe ? If he has said no referendum then voters will take that to mean no referendum, no-one's interested in the caveat in paragraph 4 subsection 9. This is your cast iron moment, enjoy it.
It's pretty straightforward, the same position as business, trade unions and the Lib Dems. Announcing referenda four and a half years down the line kills jobs and investment. It's exactly the argument Osborne used against the SNP over the independence referendum.
It's bollox and you know it. Ed isn't in the " say what you mean and mean what you say " cohort, he's in the PPE " well just because I say it doesn't mean I mean it " cohort. As I've said before when you're off on one about Eton, the problem isn't the school it's the University. And Ed and Dave went to the same university. It's personal arrogance (DC) versus intellectual arrogance (EM) but at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, do as we say not as we do.
Mike made a mistake and the PB Tories aren't bright enough to spot it.
You sound just like Richard Nabavi," Cameron's speech was crystal clear etc. read the small print,", It's crap and you know it, the headlines aren't going to list terms and conditions and nuances, it will be no referendum, and if he hasn't the guts to stick by it then he shouldn't have said it.
I mean it's not as if he's telling us what his policies are on anything else is it ? So he chose to say it.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
FFS now you're sounding just like Cameron. Does every voter have to get a sodding lawyer to interpret what a party leader says on Europe ? If he has said no referendum then voters will take that to mean no referendum, no-one's interested in the caveat in paragraph 4 subsection 9. This is your cast iron moment, enjoy it.
It's pretty straightforward, the same position as business, trade unions and the Lib Dems. Announcing referenda four and a half years down the line kills jobs and investment. It's exactly the argument Osborne used against the SNP over the independence referendum.
It's bollox and you know it. Ed isn't in the " say what you mean and mean what you say " cohort, he's in the PPE " well just because I say it doesn't mean I mean it " cohort. As I've said before when you're off on one about Eton, the problem isn't the school it's the University. And Ed and Dave went to the same university. It's personal arrogance (DC) versus intellectual arrogance (EM) but at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, do as we say not as we do.
Mike made a mistake and the PB Tories aren't bright enough to spot it.
tim
As we all know it is not what is said that matters but what people believe you have said.
I agree with you that Ed hasn't technically advanced his position on an EU referendum: the "now" does qualify his position and allows room for future reversal. It is also not a change on his earlier stance.
However, that is not how the press and the public are going to interpret what he said. Ed will be forced onto the dangerous waters sailed by Cameron on the Lisbon Treaty, Nobody heard or believed what Cameron said about ratification, Or, more accurately, he allowed himself to be deliberately misinterpreted.
Ed has jdone the same as Dave, but without the same need to clarify his position. He has just made a future U-turn more difficult and his current position more subject to 'misinterpretation' than he needed.
Still the arguments for doing so advanced by NP make a good deal of tactical if not strategic sense.
It's a fairly clear line, the Tories use it when it suits them, Labour's position is consistent on Scotland and the EU. A referendum years away kills jobs and investment
There is a difference between an international business deciding to invest in an "independent" Scotland, and choosing to invest in the UK separate from Europe.
If you can't tell the difference, then that's your problem, not the Tories.
He's using the same line you yourself used on the Scottish referendum - uncertainty and delay on referendums costs jobs and investment.
nice try no banana, he's said no referendum so no referendum it is. That's what will get reported to the electorate if not by the media then by his opponents then we'll see if it's a cast-iron referendum veto or another Ed wibbleburger with fudge on the side.
Mike once again brings up the utterly pointless MORI issues index. He obviously has a terribly low opinion of the general public since he considers them incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
That's...actually a good point.
I refuse to point to another measure of salience, as though I thought the point had merit, that didn't mean I think the whole process was pointless, more that as the point made illustrates, people making arguments from it could be extrapolated to say that anything not in the top 1 of issues listed is of no important to the public. In essence, even if it is useful, people are extrapolating too much from it.
There is a world of difference between 'This is a useful indicator' and what people have been saying it all means, precluding the possibility that issues may not be of primary importance and so slides down the list, but their presence in the general narrative too ubiquitous to mean they are not cared about - and that dismissiveness of any contrary point of view is sheer arrogance.
I don't even think Europe is that big an issue for most people, but apparently you express a single doubting point and it's as though you're questioning the new testament in an audience with the pope. Disproportionate.
Salience is of most use when combine with voting differential to measure impact on voting outcome. It's best in a 2 party forced choice situation, but essentially tries to measure what will change votes. For example, it doesn't matter if, say, 100% of the population believes that Labour has the best policy on painting lampposts red if it isn't going to change any votes.
i.e. the calculation is: (salience * (Conservatives best - Labour best))
A low salience doesn't mean that something is irrelevant, but it does mean that it will have a lower impact than a more important issue. I suspect that this remains true: even if the Kippers have the best policy on the EU, but you believe they will drive the country into bankruptcy, would you vote for them based on the EU?
Tim's VERY desperate spin on here that Ed Miliband hasn't actually ruled out an EU referendum, even when the media narrative is that he has, shows that Mike Smithson's judement is wrong on this one and Ed M has indeed made a terrible mistake today,
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
You need to read what he said, exactly what he's said before
FFS now you're sounding just like Cameron. Does every voter have to get a sodding lawyer to interpret what a party leader says on Europe ? If he has said no referendum then voters will take that to mean no referendum, no-one's interested in the caveat in paragraph 4 subsection 9. This is your cast iron moment, enjoy it.
It's pretty straightforward, the same position as business, trade unions and the Lib Dems. Announcing referenda four and a half years down the line kills jobs and investment. It's exactly the argument Osborne used against the SNP over the independence referendum.
It's bollox and you know it. Ed isn't in the " say what you mean and mean what you say " cohort, he's in the PPE " well just because I say it doesn't mean I mean it " cohort. As I've said before when you're off on one about Eton, the problem isn't the school it's the University. And Ed and Dave went to the same university. It's personal arrogance (DC) versus intellectual arrogance (EM) but at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, do as we say not as we do.
Mike made a mistake and the PB Tories aren't bright enough to spot it.
tim
As we all know it is not what is said that matters but what people believe you have said.
I agree with you that Ed hasn't technically advanced his position on an EU referendum: the "now" does qualify his position and allows room for future reversal. It is also not a change on his earlier stance.
However, that is not how the press and the public are going to interpret what he said. Ed will be forced onto the dangerous waters sailed by Cameron on the Lisbon Treaty, Nobody heard or believed what Cameron said about ratification, Or, more accurately, he allowed himself to be deliberately misinterpreted.
Ed has jdone the same as Dave, but without the same need to clarify his position. He has just made a future U-turn more difficult and his current position more subject to 'misinterpretation' than he needed.
Still the arguments for doing so advanced by NP make a good deal of tactical if not strategic sense.
I think this might be more complicated than the face value of the issue (not that the EU and/or a referendum upon it is insignificant). We've all spoken about the anti-Establishment glee with which people back UKIP. It's as much about kicking the big three parties as backing Farage.
Saying 'no referendum' will probably not be an issue or have active support from pro-EU sorts as well as those who believe it may be a worthy issue but isn't top of the agenda. However, it does smack of "I know best. No need for you people to have some sort of say."
Must say I find the Lib Dem approach most amusing. Wasn't this appalling referendum in their last manifesto?
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
What is the evidence?
I suspect that the Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 regardless of Europe. 2005, I don't recall it being a big issue, and 2010 not really either.
People always trot out "voters don't like split parties" but is that just waht they say - does it actually affect votes?
Since the Tories became obsessed with Europe 2 decades ago, they have failed to win an election. It is the major ideological issue that splits the party, everything else is court politics about personalities.
Splits in the Labour party in the eighties kept them out of power, and the continued rumours of Blairite coups against Gordon wounded the last Labour govt before its financial incompetence delivered the final blow.
Voters care about competence, and a party that cannot agree on policy and sing from the same sheet shows its incompetence to the world.
The splits between the Thatcherites and wets did some damage but much less initially though the final coup is still part of the split that continues today.
The smartest thing the Tories did under Cameron was to keep it off the radar.
For once tim and his imps are right. Splits over Europe are going to deliver number 10 to Miliband.
That reiterates the argument well, but no evidence.
The Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 and arguably 2005 even if they weren't split. Today the split is closer to 95/5 sceptical/phile so not sure it counts as a massive split.
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't change their votes on Europe. Tory voters shift to UKIP when Dave makes speeches about referendums.
Why should Ed be bothered that Cameron is pandering to his backbenchers and boosting UKIP?
In addition, Europe is a right wing blokes obsession, the Tories banging on about it just further alienates women in the centre.
Don't be silly, tim.
The current economic and social status of the Eurozone means that there are very high risks of what is politely being called "external shocks".
It is entirely feasible that "events" will overtake all parties current positions. Ed has the luxury of not having to commit, but he chose not to wait.
Since the Tories became obsessed with Europe 2 decades ago, they have failed to win an election. It is the major ideological issue that splits the party, everything else is court politics about personalities.
You clearly don't know your political history. The Tories were obsessed about Europe in the late 1980s - it was the issue that more than any other led to the downfall of Thatcher. Yet they went on to win the 1992 election.
Go ahead and tell us why uncertainty over the UK's position in Europe doesn't affect investment, but uncertainty over Scotlands place in the UK (and Europe) does
So you admit you can't tell the difference then?
The UK has a heritage that is recognised (and used) throughout the world.
The UK has an established currency.
The UK has diversity in business and relationships, that will continue regardless of Europe.
We could be IN or OUT and frankly no one would care. The only decision would be based on what the UK could offer to them.
He's using the same line you yourself used on the Scottish referendum - uncertainty and delay on referendums costs jobs and investment.
nice try no banana, he's said no referendum so no referendum it is. That's what will get reported to the electorate if not by the media then by his opponents then we'll see if it's a cast-iron referendum veto or another Ed wibbleburger with fudge on the side.
And so what, it's the same as the LD position.
Labour and Lib Dem voters don't give a toss about a load of old Tory and UKIP blokes obsessing about Europe.
Now you're shifting all over the place. Just accept he has made a stance and must live with the consequences. If OGH is right he'll come out ok, if he's wrong Ed has shot himself in the foot. The worst of all worlds is to try and do what you're doing and try to ride the horse in two directions at once.
Comments
You have become a cult member , malcolm. Your guru , Salmond , is infallible and you've gone to the dogs.
I reckon he just saved this country a lot of money
1-0!
If a hundred thousand ex-pats came back from Spain to the UK, would that be bad, because it would increase net immigration, or would it be good, in that it would increase the %age of "White British" in the country?
How much did his decision on coal fired power stations as Energy Minister cost the country?
EdM really is cornering the market - welfare cap, immigration...
whether it is a negative remains to be seen.
Plenty of time for yet another U turn.
O/T found this article about lefty obsessives most amusing.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/05/a-reply-to-certain-critics/
I also suspect you know that.
The evidence of the years is that splits over Europe put the Tories into opposition.
I suspect that the Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 regardless of Europe. 2005, I don't recall it being a big issue, and 2010 not really either.
People always trot out "voters don't like split parties" but is that just waht they say - does it actually affect votes?
Or whether it is the worst strategical decision since Hannibal decided to lay siege at Saguntum,
Following his now infamous 'don't give a monkeys' rule regarding these polls it is clear that people also don't give a monkeys about defence, taxation, public services, petrol prices, the environment, public transport and local government. All of these featured lower than the EU on the latest IPSOS MORI poll and so following Mike's rule clearly they are of no interest at all to the public.
Using MORI's opinion index doesn't count here - it may be not as important as other things - but as we know electoral reform never got to double figures ... ;^ )
Please point to another regular survey that measures salience.
I will go on saying this because I am right and those who knock it are wrong.
bear in mind I don't claim for a minute that many people think this is the most important issue out there. I just believe that the public are far more sophisticated than Mike gives them credit for and that when the three parties are so similar on so many issues - and in particular when they all trot out the same mantras about the wonders of EU membership it means that the seemingly minor issues can assume greater importance.
The fact that a large majority of people are saying they want a change in the relationship between the UK and the EU with by far the preferred options being just a free trade agreement or outright withdrawal (which in effect are the same things) is a far more important reflection of public opinion than the rather blindingly obvious fact that people are concerned about the economy.
People also have the ability to tie things together so that as others have said when they talk about the economy and immigration, they are very open to the basic concept that these issues are made far worse by our membership of the EU.
The minds of TV execs move in mysterious ways
http://eztv.it/showlist/
I thought the goal was shades of Lawrie Sanchez
Where you're asked to Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing the country at this time?
And you're asked to pick your top three.
Europe finishes fourth in the most recent YouGov, which isn't suprising as UKIP do relatively better with YouGov.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b1kbfzuumb/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-070513.pdf
Man City's cost £215m
Turkey deputy PM: Bombers 'had links to Syrian regime'
The Turkish deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc has suggested that those responsible for the bomb attacks in Reyhanli had links to the “Syrian regime and intelligence”, according to Reuters.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-05-11/deadly-blasts-near-turkey-syria-border/
https://twitter.com/redukipper/status/333226778195787776
There is a world of difference between 'This is a useful indicator' and what people have been saying it all means, precluding the possibility that issues may not be of primary importance and so slides down the list, but their presence in the general narrative too ubiquitous to mean they are not cared about - and that dismissiveness of any contrary point of view is sheer arrogance.
I don't even think Europe is that big an issue for most people, but apparently you express a single doubting point and it's as though you're questioning the new testament in an audience with the pope. Disproportionate.
Lord Mandelson has attacked Ed Miliband's attempt to rebrand Labour as the "One Nation" party.
Asked if it was a sufficiently robust platform to win the next election, the Labour peer said: "Well, patently not."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22497299
In just under two years time, we will be at the Genesis of Ed's Premiership.
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP
I think @Ed_Miliband has just made the worst ever speech by a major party leader. It's like a Craig Brown parody. http://labourlist.org/2013/05/ed-milibands-speech-to-progress-conference/ …
It is a whopper of a parody: cliche after cliche in line after line. I guess we can dismiss what rED proclaimed earlier today re, Europe.
That's never happened before.
Splits in the Labour party in the eighties kept them out of power, and the continued rumours of Blairite coups against Gordon wounded the last Labour govt before its financial incompetence delivered the final blow.
Voters care about competence, and a party that cannot agree on policy and sing from the same sheet shows its incompetence to the world.
The splits between the Thatcherites and wets did some damage but much less initially though the final coup is still part of the split that continues today.
The smartest thing the Tories did under Cameron was to keep it off the radar.
For once tim and his imps are right. Splits over Europe are going to deliver number 10 to Miliband.
Overall, those still here probably get the better of the deal.
The expats probably vote Tory or UKIP as well, so that's another downside!
I love when people who spent years stitching up selections suddenly wake up and call to "put them in members' hands"
Obviously people on all sides always scream "stitch up" when their candidate doesn't win...always...they don't particularly care when the rival faction's candidate is strangely omitted.
Anyway, these people are discussing if the selection contests should last 9, 11 or 13 weeks! Who is favoured by 9 weeks contests? Who is favoured by 13 weeks contests? There are various theories...I almost forgot them
Some argues short campaigns favour SpAd, Trade Union officers, people working for MPs and co
Some argues the opposite
Some believe branch nominations are essential for outsiders to emerge.
I guess they would all be really disappointed if it turns out that 9, 11 or 13 weeks don't make a difference in the outcome
Tory says Labour Leader made a crap speech.
That's never happened before.
Have a butchers at that speech: you will squirm.
Either way it just confirms that George Osborne's leading sycophant is an arsehole.
As to EdM, this announcement might look like he's dancing to Polly Toynbee's tune - which doesn't suggest that he's going to stop the leakage of Labour's wwc votes to UKIP.
Which means the government of the Eds will be minority not majority.
*If I had a dog
“I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for relaxing - even chillaxing – but, on this occasion, it beggars belief.
“He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his own MPs.”
You be the judge.
Sunil, vegetarianism is perverted.
Sean, I think you are meant to eat the vegetables.
Scantily clad buxom blondes are the ones who pick up the votes in Eastern Europe. Nothing too PC wins there.
My particular favourites were the moldovans on unicycles rapping while wearing giant pixie hats. They placed higher than us as I recall!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBykhFyy-ZE
I mean it's not as if he's telling us what his policies are on anything else is it ? So he chose to say it.
As we all know it is not what is said that matters but what people believe you have said.
I agree with you that Ed hasn't technically advanced his position on an EU referendum: the "now" does qualify his position and allows room for future reversal. It is also not a change on his earlier stance.
However, that is not how the press and the public are going to interpret what he said. Ed will be forced onto the dangerous waters sailed by Cameron on the Lisbon Treaty, Nobody heard or believed what Cameron said about ratification, Or, more accurately, he allowed himself to be deliberately misinterpreted.
Ed has jdone the same as Dave, but without the same need to clarify his position. He has just made a future U-turn more difficult and his current position more subject to 'misinterpretation' than he needed.
Still the arguments for doing so advanced by NP make a good deal of tactical if not strategic sense.
If you can't tell the difference, then that's your problem, not the Tories.
Give in, you know that Eurovision will dominate that thread, might as well make it official!
TSE, who do you fancy? From a betting perspective of course. My interest in scantily clad blondes is purely out of betting interest!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxnr9xycVLo
i.e. the calculation is: (salience * (Conservatives best - Labour best))
A low salience doesn't mean that something is irrelevant, but it does mean that it will have a lower impact than a more important issue. I suspect that this remains true: even if the Kippers have the best policy on the EU, but you believe they will drive the country into bankruptcy, would you vote for them based on the EU?
ABBA's Benny, Björn and Avicii to write 'Eurovision anthem'
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=abbas_benny_bjoern_and_aviccii_to_write_eurovision_anthem
But I do like the Danish and Ukranian entries.
If Ireland qualify from the semis, they maybe worth an each way punt.
Hmm.
I think this might be more complicated than the face value of the issue (not that the EU and/or a referendum upon it is insignificant). We've all spoken about the anti-Establishment glee with which people back UKIP. It's as much about kicking the big three parties as backing Farage.
Saying 'no referendum' will probably not be an issue or have active support from pro-EU sorts as well as those who believe it may be a worthy issue but isn't top of the agenda. However, it does smack of "I know best. No need for you people to have some sort of say."
Must say I find the Lib Dem approach most amusing. Wasn't this appalling referendum in their last manifesto?
The Tories would have lost in 1997 and 2001 and arguably 2005 even if they weren't split. Today the split is closer to 95/5 sceptical/phile so not sure it counts as a massive split.
The current economic and social status of the Eurozone means that there are very high risks of what is politely being called "external shocks".
It is entirely feasible that "events" will overtake all parties current positions. Ed has the luxury of not having to commit, but he chose not to wait.
He needed to show patience.
The UK has a heritage that is recognised (and used) throughout the world.
The UK has an established currency.
The UK has diversity in business and relationships, that will continue regardless of Europe.
We could be IN or OUT and frankly no one would care. The only decision would be based on what the UK could offer to them.
Scotland, compared to that, is a massive risk.
That seems reasonable, although it's not what some have been implying it means, which is where people have taken umbrage.