@Jack_Blanchard_: Ukip's multicultural carnival descends into anarchy as angry Romanians arrive with banners. The Ukip steel band has stopped playing #Croydon
The live tweeting of this has been hilarious, UKIP are coming across as shambolic.
Consistently anti-UKIP PB poster views tweets from consistently anti-UKIP tweeters as showing UKIP are shambolic. Stop the press.
For goodness sake, this is Twitter. It's users are mainly the mentally deficient.
This is what I love about the Kippers.
Dave and chumoracy look down on and denigrate ordinary people etc is the charge against Dave, yet Kippers think it is ok accuse some people of this Great country of being mentally deficient because they don't like UKIP.
This in no way confirms the stereotype that UKIP are a bunch of angry men.
Absolutely, UKIP are the party of elderly, male, middle-class, golfe-club bores who haven't adjusted to the fact that the empire has gone. Oh, and they are a bunch of racists as well. Now, lets look at those polling figures you put up - UKIP on 35%. That cannot be right, can it?
@Jack_Blanchard_: Ukip's multicultural carnival descends into anarchy as angry Romanians arrive with banners. The Ukip steel band has stopped playing #Croydon
The live tweeting of this has been hilarious, UKIP are coming across as shambolic.
Consistently anti-UKIP PB poster views tweets from consistently anti-UKIP tweeters as showing UKIP are shambolic. Stop the press.
For goodness sake, this is Twitter. It's users are mainly the mentally deficient.
This is what I love about the Kippers.
Dave and chumoracy look down on and denigrate ordinary people etc is the charge against Dave, yet Kippers think it is ok accuse some people of this Great country of being mentally deficient because they don't like UKIP.
This in no way confirms the stereotype that UKIP are a bunch of angry men.
Absolutely, UKIP are the party of elderly, male, middle-class, golfe-club bores who haven't adjusted to the fact that the empire has gone. Oh, and they are a bunch of racists as well. Now, lets look at those polling figures you put up - UKIP on 35%. That cannot be right, can it?
Did I say they were racists?
The point is, it's not a good strategy to actively insulting a segment of the electorate.
*Yes, yes, that was technically the 90s, but it had an 80s flavour.
I'm not encouraging you anymore. I get enough of this from TSE as it is.
The Sunday Afternoon thread waiting for the Euro results has been prepared, and contains my subtlest* ever 80s pop music reference ever.
The headline is The Results for Elections for Europe - The Final Countdown
And the opening paragraph has the sentences, if Ed or Nigel don't win, I guess there is no one to blame... If UKIP win, Will things ever be the same again?.... If The Tories finish third, that may be expected, But still it's farewell to the Tories small hopes of winning an outright majority in 2015.
*Yes, that may cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
"Baby Blue" by Badfinger would also suit the leader of a party that does poorly.
Just looking at those added extras that TSE has generously given us; Lib Dems on 5% of those certain to vote. I mean, seriously? If that poll turns out to be accurate I shall laugh myself sick but I struggle to believe it will. We are talking here about a party that has 57 MPs and has influence in government far beyond what that number would suggest, a party, furthermore that has been around for hundreds of years. Could it really be reduced to 5% of the vote? Nah, surely it can't happen.
Mr. Eagles, you're confusing an eastern despot's bed-warmer for the first emperor.
Also, the republic would've been better, but the way things went seemed to make empire inevitable. The problem was that Augustus never properly set up a legal basis, so might is right continued. During the Golden Age (ended by the idiot Aurelius) things looked great, but Commodus revealed how fragile a system is that depends ultimately on one man, in the same way Hannibal showed that Rome's superior system (at the time) mattered more than than his own predominant strategic skill.
Caesar's civil wars set up a precedent that dogged the Empire until its final days.
Mr. Eagles, you're confusing an eastern despot's bed-warmer for the first emperor.
Also, the republic would've been better, but the way things went seemed to make empire inevitable. The problem was that Augustus never properly set up a legal basis, so might is right continued. During the Golden Age (ended by the idiot Aurelius) things looked great, but Commodus revealed how fragile a system is that depends ultimately on one man, in the same way Hannibal showed that Rome's superior system (at the time) mattered more than than his own predominant strategic skill.
Caesar's civil wars set up a precedent that dogged the Empire until its final days.
The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Romanum) was the post-Republican period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterised by an autocratic form of government and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, Africa, and Asia. The 500-year-old Roman Republic, which preceded it, had been destabilized through a series of civil wars.
Several events marked the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC); the Battle of Actium (31 BC); and the granting of the honorific Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate (27 BC).
@Jack_Blanchard_: Ukip's multicultural carnival descends into anarchy as angry Romanians arrive with banners. The Ukip steel band has stopped playing #Croydon
The live tweeting of this has been hilarious, UKIP are coming across as shambolic.
Consistently anti-UKIP PB poster views tweets from consistently anti-UKIP tweeters as showing UKIP are shambolic. Stop the press.
For goodness sake, this is Twitter. It's users are mainly the mentally deficient.
This is what I love about the Kippers.
Dave and chumoracy look down on and denigrate ordinary people etc is the charge against Dave, yet Kippers think it is ok accuse some people of this Great country of being mentally deficient because they don't like UKIP.
This in no way confirms the stereotype that UKIP are a bunch of angry men.
Absolutely, UKIP are the party of elderly, male, middle-class, golfe-club bores who haven't adjusted to the fact that the empire has gone. Oh, and they are a bunch of racists as well. Now, lets look at those polling figures you put up - UKIP on 35%. That cannot be right, can it?
Did I say they were racists?
The point is, it's not a good strategy to actively insulting a segment of the electorate.
"Did I say they were racists?"
Not that I am aware of Mr Eagles and I don't expect to find you called UKIP a bunch of "Elderly, male, middle-class, golf-club bores who haven't adjusted to the fact that the empire has gone", either. I was, in my clumsy way, trying to using a rhetorical construct to point out the difference between what the establishment would have us believe and the level of popular support. Cameron was at it again this morning, he doesn't seem to grasp that the people who are seemingly flocking to UKIP are doing so in spite of his abuse of them.
"... it's not a good strategy to actively insulting a segment of the electorate"
I agree and am amazed that Cameron does it so often, but he does and then, it seems to me, to be puzzled as to why his party is not doing as well as he would like.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
If shopping basket-gate was a mild blip, the Jim Grant...who, what, Labour run, no Labour something, maybe, could, should be, good job...gate is hilarious.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
Mr. Eagles, do you think Caesar was the first emperor?
Of course, that's why they named a meal and a drink after him - Caesar salad and Orange Julius :-)
Not to mention a calendar.
But why don't Marius and/or Sulla qualify any more or less? I was always taught Augustus was the first Emperor qua emperor, but M, S and Julius were all Imperatores sensu warlords/faction leaders.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
Mr. Eagles, you're right, Caesar's greatest claim to fame is being a relative of Augustus.
Mr. Carnyx, Augustus was undoubtedly in charge and remained so. The others had power but it was transient. Bit late for me, but I believe Sulla voluntarily gave up his dictatorial power after reforming the role of tribunes to try and put the republic on an even keel.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
@Stodge. I don't. I particularly hope your vote holds up in Tory/Lib marginals. @JonathanD. From a very, very low base. Not by enough to fill the vacancies.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
That is a really funny article. Whatever one thinks of his political prognostications, he does write well.
'Where most events of this kind are graced by beautifully adorned and vibrant floats, Nigel Farage had opted for what looked like an especially sinister black riot van, which proceeded to beam out uplifting messages of peace and love such as: “Whose job are they after? Yours.”'
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
And yet some people here would have this lot running the country. Can you even begin to imagine the chaos that would bring!
They'll blame it on Romanians.
Rubber Romanians?
Gareth Davies @Gareth_Davies09 To clarify from earlier, the protesters, despite posters, are not from Romania. They are now being questioned by journos for that
Several events marked the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC); the Battle of Actium (31 BC); and the granting of the honorific Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate (27 BC).
I think the learned editors at Wikipedia are construing empire and republic not as they were used by contemporaries, but according to more modern definitions. There was no incompatibility between monarchy, republic and empire; the lexical opposite of republic being tyranny, not empire or monarchy. Thus Seneca's De Clementia, addressed to Nero(!), argues that the prince is the soul of the res publica. The best places to start on pre-seventeenth century "republicanism" are: (1) M.S. Kempshall, ‘De Re Publica I.39 in Medieval and Renaissance Political Thought’, in J.G.F. Powell & J.A. North (eds), Cicero’s Republic, (London, 2001). (2) J. Hankins, 'Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic', Political Theory, 38(4), (2010), pp. 458-482.
Mr. Llama, to be fair, we're all still adjusting to the sad decline and demise of the Empire. I blame Marcus Aurelius, to be honest.
Naughty, Mr Dancer. Firstly, you are talking about the wrong empire. Secondly, your comment might induce the uninitiated to these pages to think that I was in some way an an old-style Churchillian imperialist whereas it is my belief that the Empire was the worst thing ever to have happened to England.
An excellent piece from Marcus Roberts, which deserved far more comment and appreciation than it has so far received. That's hardly surprising however, PB.com barely qualifies any longer as a betting site as the content relating to such matters is minimal and sadly most of the best tipsters/punters have long since departed this place.
Mr. Llama, as Marcus Aurelius was never King of England I don't see how any confusion could occur. As for the British Empire, you cannot possibly expect me to be familiar with such a vulgarly recent period of history.
Mr. Putney, d'you think there's any value to be head in betting on who'll top the poll?
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, attached to a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
See the article in the Spectator yesterday on that very topic
Mr. Town, ah, my mistake, I thought you were referencing the monarchy/aristocracy/democracy versus tyranny/oligrachy/anarchy models of governance. Sadly, I haven't read any Cicero at all, as yet.
My one worry about betting on LAB MOST VOTES in the Euros is that LAB voters are famously lazy in non-GE elections. Vast swathes of them will tell pollsters and canvassers that they will be voting Labour but then have find that they have better things to do on Thursday.
Add in SLAB's GOTV woes, and LAB could seriously underperform their respectable polling numbers.
The big difference with that is postal votes. As they know the postal voters they can go knock them up, fill it in for them, offer to post it etc.
This reduces the flakiness factor and also gently pushes the reluctant vote.
An interesting item from John Rentoul. There certainly are individual Conservative MEPs, like Syed Kamall, Daniel Hannan, or Vicky Ford, who I'd vote for.
DanHodges – “I’ve just returned from the inaugural “Nigel Farage Festival of British Multiculturalism”, and sadly, I have to report it was not a great success. To be fair, Croydon's Whitgift Centre – Home Of Croydon shopping – was never going to rival Rio or Notting Hill.”
I've been out on a client meeting today with 2 hours drive each way - on way home Jon Pienaar came on as he'd spent the day with Ed M and reported how many people liked Ed when they met him, warmed to him in person and whilst some said he wasn't Prime Ministerial, that didn't mean he wouldn't be Prime Minister.... he then interviewed 3 people who'd listened to Ed including one bloke who was so excited what Ed had said, he'd written down his concluding sentence and which he then read out to us.
Jon appars to have utterly missed Ed's excellent interviews that I'm seeing reported on Guido and the Speccie...
Mr. Town, ah, my mistake, I thought you were referencing the monarchy/aristocracy/democracy versus tyranny/oligrachy/anarchy models of governance. Sadly, I haven't read any Cicero at all, as yet.
The sixfold model of constitutions is Greek rather than Latin, and derives ultimately from Plato and Aristotle. Democracy is not considered by any classical political theorist as a legitimate constitution. It is the mob governing in its own interest, rather than in the interest of the common good of the life of virtue. It is considered the corrupt form of the virtuous rule of the many, which Aristotle renders as politeia. Also in Aristotle (Politics, Bk. V) and Polybius (Histories, Bk. VI) is the elusive "mixed constitution", which contains elements of the other three legitimate constitutions. It is this "mixed constitution" which is supposedly practised in Lycurgus' Sparta and Rome after Numa...
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
It all depends on how you're meaning nationalism. I think it is commonly understood to mean an extreme form of patriotism that emphasises superiority of other nations, but I'm guessing you don't mean that. I think you just mean people that are patriotic in the broader sense, and believe their nation should govern itself. You are correct in that, but I don't feel that means they're "pretending" to be concerned with democracy. I think history has shown that democracy works best when it's one group that is involved. When you have multiple groups, like in Nigeria, or Belgium, or Bosnia, it quickly ends up devolving into a massive spat of mutual resentment. When it tends to be one group, like in Botswana, or Sweden, or Ireland (outside the North), it tends to work. The case of Scotland seems to be somewhere in the middle.
Mr. Llama, as Marcus Aurelius was never King of England I don't see how any confusion could occur. As for the British Empire, you cannot possibly expect me to be familiar with such a vulgarly recent period of history.
Mr. Putney, d'you think there's any value to be head in betting on who'll top the poll?
Morris - I did suggest a combination bet on PB yesterday - backing Labour to win at 2.8/1 and covering the stake for this bet by backing the result to be UKIP - Lab - Con with Ladbrokes' Tricast at odds of 4/5.
Unfortunately, although the Tricast odds remain unchanged, Labour's winning odds have since shortened to 2.4/1 and therefore much of the value in this bet has now gone.
An excellent piece from Marcus Roberts, which deserved far more comment and appreciation than it has so far received. That's hardly surprising however, PB.com barely qualifies any longer as a betting site as the content relating to such matters is minimal and sadly most of the best tipsters/punters have long since departed this place.
I do wonder if the Conservatives might do better than expected. I predicted them to come third, but if UKIP is damaged by recent events the blues may be bolstered.
I see the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to UKIP:-....I'll look forward to what Life in a Market Town has to say about this.
At least the bishops are only advising their flock how to vote on this occasion. It would be within their pretended right to excommunicate any member of the faithful who voted the wrong way. Not that we should be at all surprised. In Testem Benevolentiae of 1899, Leo XIII claimed 'those opinions that, taken as a whole, some designate as "Americanism" cannot have our approval'. The papist bishops should heed Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that 'my kingdom is not of this world', rather than interfering in British elections.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Ukip's multicultural carnival descends into anarchy as angry Romanians arrive with banners. The Ukip steel band has stopped playing #Croydon
The live tweeting of this has been hilarious, UKIP are coming across as shambolic.
Consistently anti-UKIP PB poster views tweets from consistently anti-UKIP tweeters as showing UKIP are shambolic. Stop the press.
For goodness sake, this is Twitter. It's users are mainly the mentally deficient.
This is what I love about the Kippers.
Dave and chumoracy look down on and denigrate ordinary people etc is the charge against Dave, yet Kippers think it is ok accuse some people of this Great country of being mentally deficient because they don't like UKIP.
This in no way confirms the stereotype that UKIP are a bunch of angry men.
No, you misunderstand me. My argument is that users of Twitter tend to be mentally deficient. Whether they support UKIP or not is irrelevant to that point.
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
It all depends on how you're meaning nationalism. I think it is commonly understood to mean an extreme form of patriotism that emphasises superiority of other nations, but I'm guessing you don't mean that. I think you just mean people that are patriotic in the broader sense, and believe their nation should govern itself. You are correct in that, but I don't feel that means they're "pretending" to be concerned with democracy. I think history has shown that democracy works best when it's one group that is involved. When you have multiple groups, like in Nigeria, or Belgium, or Bosnia, it quickly ends up devolving into a massive spat of mutual resentment. When it tends to be one group, like in Botswana, or Sweden, or Ireland (outside the North), it tends to work. The case of Scotland seems to be somewhere in the middle.
What I reckon you're doing there is you're working backwards: Start with the countries that haven't been having a serious civil war or ethnicly-disfunctional government recently, and define those as "one group". It's not obvious to me that Welsh speakers of 50 years ago who didn't speak English were part of the same group as English speakers in London, in a way that Flemish-speaking and French-speaking people in Belgium weren't in the same group as each other.
Several events marked the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC); the Battle of Actium (31 BC); and the granting of the honorific Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate (27 BC).
I think the learned editors at Wikipedia are construing empire and republic not as they were used by contemporaries, but according to more modern definitions. There was no incompatibility between monarchy, republic and empire; the lexical opposite of republic being tyranny, not empire or monarchy. Thus Seneca's De Clementia, addressed to Nero(!), argues that the prince is the soul of the res publica. The best places to start on pre-seventeenth century "republicanism" are: (1) M.S. Kempshall, ‘De Re Publica I.39 in Medieval and Renaissance Political Thought’, in J.G.F. Powell & J.A. North (eds), Cicero’s Republic, (London, 2001). (2) J. Hankins, 'Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic', Political Theory, 38(4), (2010), pp. 458-482.
The Roman concept of Republican was specifically anti-monarchical.
I was quite fascinated by the Wales polling figures out yesterday, particularly the apparent correlation between the 4% that Labour has lost in the Euros, yet gain that same figures when it comes to the GE. I think it may be that national UK poll figures may not settle down until well after the Euros. Certainly the Labour groundwork in my part of the world has been better organised than for a long time, which ties in with the national 135k voter contacts last Saturday. In Wales, I expect Labour to do well and perhaps gain a seat or two, with Libs and Plaid having a poor election. UKIP will do well, but at the expense of who?
An excellent piece from Marcus Roberts, which deserved far more comment and appreciation than it has so far received. That's hardly surprising however, PB.com barely qualifies any longer as a betting site as the content relating to such matters is minimal and sadly most of the best tipsters/punters have long since departed this place.
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
Well, it's defined as a single political unit - I think you could reasonably argue that it is the largest political unit that people identify with as their primary source of identity.
So while people may identify as, for instance, Londoners, English, British and European, I think if you asked most people in a forced choice the majority*, would put "British" (rather than as European) as their primary identification. Clearly there is scope for disagreement - such as in Scotland - which is why the Demos can change over time.
* of course you, as an advocate of an independent London, are in a class all of your own ;-)
I was quite fascinated by the Wales polling figures out yesterday, particularly the apparent correlation between the 4% that Labour has lost in the Euros, yet gain that same figures when it comes to the GE. I think it may be that national UK poll figures may not settle down until well after the Euros. Certainly the Labour groundwork in my part of the world has been better organised than for a long time, which ties in with the national 135k voter contacts last Saturday. In Wales, I expect Labour to do well and perhaps gain a seat or two, with Libs and Plaid having a poor election. UKIP will do well, but at the expense of who?
I've got a thread in the pipeline on that. Putting the graphs together now.
But I have Labour down on every type of election compared to the February one?
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
It all depends on how you're meaning nationalism. I think it is commonly understood to mean an extreme form of patriotism that emphasises superiority of other nations, but I'm guessing you don't mean that. I think you just mean people that are patriotic in the broader sense, and believe their nation should govern itself. You are correct in that, but I don't feel that means they're "pretending" to be concerned with democracy. I think history has shown that democracy works best when it's one group that is involved. When you have multiple groups, like in Nigeria, or Belgium, or Bosnia, it quickly ends up devolving into a massive spat of mutual resentment. When it tends to be one group, like in Botswana, or Sweden, or Ireland (outside the North), it tends to work. The case of Scotland seems to be somewhere in the middle.
What I reckon you're doing there is you're working backwards: Start with the countries that haven't been having a serious civil war or ethnicly-disfunctional government recently, and define those as "one group". It's not obvious to me that Welsh speakers of 50 years ago who didn't speak English were part of the same group as English speakers in London, in a way that Flemish-speaking and French-speaking people in Belgium weren't in the same group as each other.
To make that argument you've had to cite an example I didn't use. You clearly can't do the same for Botswanans, Swedes and the Irish versus Nigerians, Belgians and Bosnians. It has been evident all along.
I've been out on a client meeting today with 2 hours drive each way - on way home Jon Pienaar came on as he'd spent the day with Ed M and reported how many people liked Ed when they met him, warmed to him in person and whilst some said he wasn't Prime Ministerial, that didn't mean he wouldn't be Prime Minister.... he then interviewed 3 people who'd listened to Ed including one bloke who was so excited what Ed had said, he'd written down his concluding sentence and which he then read out to us.
Jon appars to have utterly missed Ed's excellent interviews that I'm seeing reported on Guido and the Speccie...
An excellent piece from Marcus Roberts, which deserved far more comment and appreciation than it has so far received. That's hardly surprising however, PB.com barely qualifies any longer as a betting site as the content relating to such matters is minimal and sadly most of the best tipsters/punters have long since departed this place.
In the last 48hrs I find myself changing my mind yet again and leaning towards UKIP. I just don't like this de-facto coordinated mass assault on them over the last fortnight by all other parties and virtually all the mainstream press. Whatever my (many) reservations, I think it'd be healthy for democracy to blow a giant hole in this established complacency once and for all: you can't provoke and bully those with a legitimate concerns to all be extremists.
I think Farage fell into a trap with the Romanians (and he should now stop digging) The posters were a bad idea and started it all off. Also UKIP has plenty of unpleasant people in it. But it is not a racist party and I really resent the attempts to paint it as such. I want them to win so people learn that this attempt (and all future attempts) are ineffective and will fail.
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
It all depends on how you're meaning nationalism. I think it is commonly understood to mean an extreme form of patriotism that emphasises superiority of other nations, but I'm guessing you don't mean that. I think you just mean people that are patriotic in the broader sense, and believe their nation should govern itself. You are correct in that, but I don't feel that means they're "pretending" to be concerned with democracy. I think history has shown that democracy works best when it's one group that is involved. When you have multiple groups, like in Nigeria, or Belgium, or Bosnia, it quickly ends up devolving into a massive spat of mutual resentment. When it tends to be one group, like in Botswana, or Sweden, or Ireland (outside the North), it tends to work. The case of Scotland seems to be somewhere in the middle.
What I reckon you're doing there is you're working backwards: Start with the countries that haven't been having a serious civil war or ethnicly-disfunctional government recently, and define those as "one group". It's not obvious to me that Welsh speakers of 50 years ago who didn't speak English were part of the same group as English speakers in London, in a way that Flemish-speaking and French-speaking people in Belgium weren't in the same group as each other.
To make that argument you've had to cite an example I didn't use.
I thought you were citing the UK as a single-demos case - are Welsh speakers a different demos then?
Media-ocracy: fake democracy where a handful of unelected people in the media decide what opinions you're allowed to choose from with the number of options on the list gradually narrowing over time to one.
Except where they write this: "A former gymnast, Logan now presents sports coverage for the BBC"
Admittedly it was directly under a rather fetching photograph of the said Ms Logan, so I can forgive you for being distracted
Must have overlooked the faint light grey smaller font underneath the photograph of the delightful Mrs Logan. Some sort of distraction technique. It might be hard to discover that she had been a TV presenter employed by The BBC in the rest of that report.
@Jack_Blanchard_: Ukip's multicultural carnival descends into anarchy as angry Romanians arrive with banners. The Ukip steel band has stopped playing #Croydon
The live tweeting of this has been hilarious, UKIP are coming across as shambolic.
Consistently anti-UKIP PB poster views tweets from consistently anti-UKIP tweeters as showing UKIP are shambolic. Stop the press.
For goodness sake, this is Twitter. It's users are mainly the mentally deficient.
This is what I love about the Kippers.
Dave and chumoracy look down on and denigrate ordinary people etc is the charge against Dave, yet Kippers think it is ok accuse some people of this Great country of being mentally deficient because they don't like UKIP.
This in no way confirms the stereotype that UKIP are a bunch of angry men.
No, you misunderstand me. My argument is that users of Twitter tend to be mentally deficient. Whether they support UKIP or not is irrelevant to that point.
They believe that the appropriate Demos is the UK. That is consistent with being out of the EU but with Scotland being in the UK. Even the most Europhilic don't view Europe as a single Demos.
Speaking as the most Europhiliac, I don't think anyone's ever managed to come up with a meaningful explanation of what a "demos" is supposed to mean in this context, certainly not such that the UK has been a single one for a long time, but the EU isn't one now.
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
Well, it's defined as a single political unit - I think you could reasonably argue that it is the largest political unit that people identify with as their primary source of identity.
So while people may identify as, for instance, Londoners, English, British and European, I think if you asked most people in a forced choice the majority*, would put "British" (rather than as European) as their primary identification. Clearly there is scope for disagreement - such as in Scotland - which is why the Demos can change over time.
* of course you, as an advocate of an independent London, are in a class all of your own ;-)
A single political unit or the largest political unit people identify with as their primary source of identity? These are very different things. The first definition makes the demos of British people the EU. The second definition means Scotland isn't part of the same demos as the rest of the UK, and probably never has been. That's not "scope for disagreement", it's the overwhelming evidence of the polling.
Media-ocracy: fake democracy where a handful of unelected people in the media decide what opinions you're allowed to choose from with the number of options on the list gradually narrowing over time to one.
Come on Mr Jones, surely you could work in some sort of pun with mediocrity into that definition.
Media-ocracy: fake democracy where a handful of unelected people in the media decide what opinions you're allowed to choose from with the number of options on the list gradually narrowing over time to one.
Come on Mr Jones, surely you could work in some sort of pun with mediocrity into that definition.
Media-ocracy where members of the media are exempt from taxes on earnings which they expect the rest of us to pay.
Comments
4 x Con
3 x Lab
2 x LD
1 x UKIP
The point is, it's not a good strategy to actively insulting a segment of the electorate.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_head_of_policy_tim_aker_last_night_warned_voters_not_to_believe_labours_misinformation_and_lies_about_the_party
S Shields - LD=1%
Rotherham - LD=2%
Corby - 5%
Outside of their strongholds they've been getting terrible results for some time. FWIW - I think 8% is more likely
Mr. Eagles, you're confusing an eastern despot's bed-warmer for the first emperor.
Also, the republic would've been better, but the way things went seemed to make empire inevitable. The problem was that Augustus never properly set up a legal basis, so might is right continued. During the Golden Age (ended by the idiot Aurelius) things looked great, but Commodus revealed how fragile a system is that depends ultimately on one man, in the same way Hannibal showed that Rome's superior system (at the time) mattered more than than his own predominant strategic skill.
Caesar's civil wars set up a precedent that dogged the Empire until its final days.
Several events marked the transition from Republic to Empire, including Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC); the Battle of Actium (31 BC); and the granting of the honorific Augustus to Octavian by the Roman Senate (27 BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
Not that I am aware of Mr Eagles and I don't expect to find you called UKIP a bunch of "Elderly, male, middle-class, golf-club bores who haven't adjusted to the fact that the empire has gone", either. I was, in my clumsy way, trying to using a rhetorical construct to point out the difference between what the establishment would have us believe and the level of popular support. Cameron was at it again this morning, he doesn't seem to grasp that the people who are seemingly flocking to UKIP are doing so in spite of his abuse of them.
"... it's not a good strategy to actively insulting a segment of the electorate"
I agree and am amazed that Cameron does it so often, but he does and then, it seems to me, to be puzzled as to why his party is not doing as well as he would like.
http://tinyurl.com/p59xbvh
On the D'Hondt (rounding up - unsure what happens usually)
Con, Lab, LD, Con, Lab, Con, LD, Con, UKIP, Lab.
Which I guess might have been your calculation.
Augustus was the first emperor.
If shopping basket-gate was a mild blip, the Jim Grant...who, what, Labour run, no Labour something, maybe, could, should be, good job...gate is hilarious.
Oh, wait...
But why don't Marius and/or Sulla qualify any more or less? I was always taught Augustus was the first Emperor qua emperor, but M, S and Julius were all Imperatores sensu warlords/faction leaders.
Apologies, must have had a cross thread somewhere (I blame it on the dog needing walked)
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/758/0/bishop-cautions-against-ukip-as-catholics-urged-to-vote-in-european-elections
I'll look forward to what Life in a Market Town has to say about this.
Mr. Carnyx, Augustus was undoubtedly in charge and remained so. The others had power but it was transient. Bit late for me, but I believe Sulla voluntarily gave up his dictatorial power after reforming the role of tribunes to try and put the republic on an even keel.
@Stodge. I don't. I particularly hope your vote holds up in Tory/Lib marginals.
@JonathanD. From a very, very low base. Not by enough to fill the vacancies.
I just don't really know what to say about this... (via @grantmelton1) #ukipcarnival pic.twitter.com/9Jy6szucjW
That is a pretty stupid thing for any of Farage's opponents to do, in my view.
Gareth Davies @Gareth_Davies09
To clarify from earlier, the protesters, despite posters, are not from Romania. They are now being questioned by journos for that
(1) M.S. Kempshall, ‘De Re Publica I.39 in Medieval and Renaissance Political Thought’, in J.G.F. Powell & J.A. North (eds), Cicero’s Republic, (London, 2001).
(2) J. Hankins, 'Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic', Political Theory, 38(4), (2010), pp. 458-482.
Does the BBC know about this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27484940
Looks as if they omit her link to them.
Neither will make the slightest bit of difference.
That's hardly surprising however, PB.com barely qualifies any longer as a betting site as the content relating to such matters is minimal and sadly most of the best tipsters/punters have long since departed this place.
Apart from the bit where he patronises the three 'old ladies' who are 'cooing' for Nigel's arrival.
Mr. Putney, d'you think there's any value to be head in betting on who'll top the poll?
Basically I think what we're seeing is nationalist people, fond of a particular nation, trying to pretend that they're concerned with democracy instead of nationalism, hence the appeal to incoherent pop sociology.
Ah Keith Vaz!
My enemies enemy truly is my friend
Biggest Green now on Conservative 2nd place (UKIP win), but I think they'll probably end up 3rd.
I'll probably make tuppence ha'penny from the Euros tbh.
This reduces the flakiness factor and also gently pushes the reluctant vote.
I'll get my coat etc etc.
An interesting item from John Rentoul. There certainly are individual Conservative MEPs, like Syed Kamall, Daniel Hannan, or Vicky Ford, who I'd vote for.
Admittedly it was directly under a rather fetching photograph of the said Ms Logan, so I can forgive you for being distracted
Jon appars to have utterly missed Ed's excellent interviews that I'm seeing reported on Guido and the Speccie...
Not so much Ed is crap - as Ed is great!!! OGH should be banned from going on holiday
Unfortunately, although the Tricast odds remain unchanged, Labour's winning odds have since shortened to 2.4/1 and therefore much of the value in this bet has now gone.
I do wonder if the Conservatives might do better than expected. I predicted them to come third, but if UKIP is damaged by recent events the blues may be bolstered.
Here is the feed for the top "trend" right now:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/WMAOneDirection?src=tren
Seriously, just read those tweets and try to claim they are people of average intelligence or above.
Certainly the Labour groundwork in my part of the world has been better organised than for a long time, which ties in with the national 135k voter contacts last Saturday.
In Wales, I expect Labour to do well and perhaps gain a seat or two, with Libs and Plaid having a poor election. UKIP will do well, but at the expense of who?
So while people may identify as, for instance, Londoners, English, British and European, I think if you asked most people in a forced choice the majority*, would put "British" (rather than as European) as their primary identification. Clearly there is scope for disagreement - such as in Scotland - which is why the Demos can change over time.
* of course you, as an advocate of an independent London, are in a class all of your own ;-)
But I have Labour down on every type of election compared to the February one?
I think Farage fell into a trap with the Romanians (and he should now stop digging) The posters were a bad idea and started it all off. Also UKIP has plenty of unpleasant people in it. But it is not a racist party and I really resent the attempts to paint it as such. I want them to win so people learn that this attempt (and all future attempts) are ineffective and will fail.
However the Politics web page doesn't have the link to Miliband's car crash interview. Perhaps the BBC Wiltshire page has more visitors. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27483541
Media-ocracy where members of the media are exempt from taxes on earnings which they expect the rest of us to pay.