Pochettino is one of the finest managers in Britain at the moment, Spurs would be crazy not to pick him and should consider themselves lucky he's on the market at the right time for them. Sadly Levy being Levy they'll probably fire him in two years when they should support him and keep him for a decade.
Levy is the problem at Spurs.. theyd be better of with a chairman that notices they havent won the League for 53 years, and sticks with a manager that is moving them in the right direction. Jol, Redknapp & AVB were all harsh sackings IMO
Pochettino is one of the finest managers in Britain at the moment, Spurs would be crazy not to pick him and should consider themselves lucky he's on the market at the right time for them. Sadly Levy being Levy they'll probably fire him in two years when they should support him and keep him for a decade.
He might be crazy to go to spurs tho. Could be better off waiting a while until Jose gets bored or Arsenal finally lose patience. Though I suppose his players will sold sold from under him at Southampton..
He's leaving The Saints because he had a good relationship with Cortese and disagreed with his departure. Bad luck for Southampton, good luck for Spurs.
Mr. Royale, I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of Blair's mouth. On the EU, he managed to give away half the rebate in return for nothing. It made Alan Johnson's renegotiation of GP contracts look like a triumph.
Mr Dancer, Blair was fundamentally a showman. It mattered not to him what was in the show if anything as long as he was bouncing about the stage. Hence his ideological vacancy and predilection for destructive policy choices. He did occasionally stumble upon decent policy answers by accident. He is the Paul Daniels of politics, a reasonably likeable conjurer well past his prime.
I listened to some of Blair's radio interview. He said that the EU is important so that nations like the UK can exercise power . For what purposes would we want to exercise power? He totally ignored (in the bit I heard) people's concerns about their perceptions of uncontrolled immigration. Until that is sorted the EU will never gain support.
The trouble is he forgets we are one of the permanent members of the UNSC. We have well formed links with countries containing a sizeable chunk of the earths population and are developing links with the most populous state on earth, the idea we can't exercise power/influence independently of political monoliths like the EU is batty.
He also forgets that more and more the EU is changing so our 'power' within the bloc is being reduced. More and more areas are coming under QMV and even those where we supposedly have a veto are being circumvented by the ECJ.
The idea that we have any significant power within the EU is just laughable.
Oakshott last month "Now, we must get out of government so we can put our distinctive Liberal Democrat messsage across, both about what we've achieved in government and what we are going to achieve in the next parliament separately from the Tories. Straight away after the May elections, we must give ourselves a year to get our own messages firmly across." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/lord-oakeshott-speaking-vince-cable
UKIP has "no solutions to the problems of the 21st Century", former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.....
Mr Blair said it must also "confront and expose" parties like UKIP.
"You look underneath that UKIP facade and you see something pretty nasty and unpleasant," he told BBC Radio 4......
"You have got to take on people who, within countries, who are arguing for a combination of anti-EU and anti-immigration policies which are not the answer," he said.
"I am afraid, with those forces, you have got to be prepared to stand up, lead and take them on."
He urged Labour and other parties not to ape UKIP's stance on Europe and immigration and said Ed Miliband must "stay firm" on his pledge not to hold a EU referendum unless more powers go to Brussels.
Pochettino is one of the finest managers in Britain at the moment, Spurs would be crazy not to pick him and should consider themselves lucky he's on the market at the right time for them. Sadly Levy being Levy they'll probably fire him in two years when they should support him and keep him for a decade.
Levy is the problem at Spurs.. theyd be better of with a chairman that notices they havent won the League for 53 years, and sticks with a manager that is moving them in the right direction. Jol, Redknapp & AVB were all harsh sackings IMO
I owe you £24 dont I?
Agreed, AVB especially could have been a great manager given time and support. Even Sherwood probably deserved a full season, he wasn't exactly doing a bad job.
£25, it was 5/6 on a £30 stake. I've sent you a PM with account details.
Reminds me a bit of the idiot Mark Easton's article from a year or so ago claiming that white flight was due to rising prosperity and a good thing.
A few points about London:
(1) Turnout in EU elections was up from 33% to 37.4%. This was probably almost entirely due to the all-out London local elections, also held on the same day, where turnout was 38.45%.
(2) UKIP still increased its vote by 6.1% to 16.87% - it declined by 1.6% in 2009.
(3) UKIP performed at a not dissimilar level to the rest of the UK in the outer boroughs where White British voters are at higher percentages: Bexley 37.26%, Bromley 30.88%, Croydon 19.85%, Havering 43.16%, Hillingdon 26.49% and Sutton 26.91%
Labour did very well in London. UKIP polling some dire figures in some of the inner boroughs. But there are important nuances to it. Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying.
Mr. Royale, I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of Blair's mouth. On the EU, he managed to give away half the rebate in return for nothing. It made Alan Johnson's renegotiation of GP contracts look like a triumph.
Mr Dancer, Blair was fundamentally a showman. It mattered not to him what was in the show if anything as long as he was bouncing about the stage. Hence his ideological vacancy and predilection for destructive policy choices. He did occasionally stumble upon decent policy answers by accident. He is the Paul Daniels of politics, a reasonably likeable conjurer well past his prime.
I listened to some of Blair's radio interview. He said that the EU is important so that nations like the UK can exercise power . For what purposes would we want to exercise power? He totally ignored (in the bit I heard) people's concerns about their perceptions of uncontrolled immigration. Until that is sorted the EU will never gain support.
The trouble is he forgets we are one of the permanent members of the UNSC. We have well formed links with countries containing a sizeable chunk of the earths population and are developing links with the most populous state on earth, the idea we can't exercise power/influence independently of political monoliths like the EU is batty.
He also forgets that more and more the EU is changing so our 'power' within the bloc is being reduced. More and more areas are coming under QMV and even those where we supposedly have a veto are being circumvented by the ECJ.
The idea that we have any significant power within the EU is just laughable.
I think Blair confuses Britain having global power for him having power and influence. Also his Today interview seemed to involve him saying that the exercise of power was more important than the presence of peace.
Pochettino is one of the finest managers in Britain at the moment, Spurs would be crazy not to pick him and should consider themselves lucky he's on the market at the right time for them. Sadly Levy being Levy they'll probably fire him in two years when they should support him and keep him for a decade.
Pochettino is not the best. He inherited a squad of very good players and has not bought a single new regular starter in the circa 18 mths since he took over. The main stars are a combination of youngsters from the Saints Academy added to some useful purchases made by 2 previous Managers.
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
Mr. Royale, thanks for that very interesting post on London.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Anyone know if an analysis to level stakes profit has been done backing (& possibly laying) every team in the Prem for every match ? (Using Betfair Start price)
Perhaps Palace the best to back (Maybe Liverpool... ?),
Reminds me a bit of the idiot Mark Easton's article from a year or so ago claiming that white flight was due to rising prosperity and a good thing.
A few points about London:
(1) Turnout in EU elections was up from 33% to 37.4%. This was probably almost entirely due to the all-out London local elections, also held on the same day, where turnout was 38.45%.
(2) UKIP still increased its vote by 6.1% to 16.87% - it declined by 1.6% in 2009.
(3) UKIP performed at a not dissimilar level to the rest of the UK in the outer boroughs where White British voters are at higher percentages: Bexley 37.26%, Bromley 30.88%, Croydon 19.85%, Havering 43.16%, Hillingdon 26.49% and Sutton 26.91%
Labour did very well in London. UKIP polling some dire figures in some of the inner boroughs. But there are important nuances to it. Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying.
A city populated by immigrants, 2nd generation immigrants, and British people that were born far away (British immigrants) arent going to vote for a party that is popular with those unsettled by the pace of change in the country.
A point I have tried to make many times. London has a large proportion of people that werent born there, whose parents live far away, and therefore dont have the same regard for conserving its community/roots in the way people in Doncaster do about their town. Because they arent from London it stands to reason that they dont feel the sadness at the changes in the same way I would if Hornchurch became unrecognisable from my childhood and my parents became uncomfortable living there.
@Casino_Royale - No, the results are very significant, but they are not 'absolutely seismic'. The Conservative vote held up reasonably well in the circumstances, Labour recovered from its unbelievably bad 2009 result - a derisory 15.7%, remember, which was pretty seismic - the BNP vote collapsed and probably went to UKIP, the LibDem vote collapsed and part of it went to UKIP, and UKIP also probably picked up a little bit of vote share from very minor parties like the English Democrats.
To put this all in perspective, in 1989 the Greens got well over half what UKIP got last week. How seismic was that?
UKIP won well over 30% of the vote outside London in England. It came within a whisker of beating Labour in Wales. The LibDems were virtually wiped out. UKIP is the first party to win a national election in 100 years. It is the only UK political party to have elected representatives in all parts of the United Kingdom. It polled more votes in most regions of England in the Euros, than either Conservative or Labour polled at an equivalent level nationally in the locals. It nearly doubled its councillor base again this year. It beat Ed Miliband's party in his home town of Doncaster. It's done most of it in the North from a standing start.
This. Is. SEISMIC.
If you think that UKIP just mopped up all the protest voters, like a piece of crusty bread, then you are sorely mistaken.
There is no telling what the real 'cap' to UKIP support is. Barely 10 years ago, a lot of their current voters were natural Conservative and Labour supporters. We'd have all been calling the 16% they polled then a few 'angry protest votes'. Yet here we are now.
Yes, the Conservatives did better than expected and Labour were saved by London. But both parties are in trouble. They both were thoroughly thumped in their heartlands. If you try and explain it away, don't be surprised if UKIP continue to grow in a similar manner to how the SNP have in Scotland, to the point when they have sufficient influence to turn the whole political consensus on its head.
Mr. Royale, thanks for that very interesting post on London.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Indeed - nothing that the Tories or UKIP have ever said or done can explain why people might choose to vote Labour.
@Richard - wrong. A referendum increases economic uncertainty as the BOOers might win and pull us out. If the Tories thought it would end uncertainly why have they resisted holding one? Answer: because Cam is sensibly europhilic and knows the instability a referendum would cause. He has been bounced into it by the Right.
You so desperate now you are down to posting this kind of stuff, dire indeed, bet you voted for them.
Morning Malc.
No desperation, just hilarity.
I wouldn't vote for Nationalists of any stripe. Neither UKIP, nor UKIP in Kilts.
Well, who would you vote for? (Genuine question.) The Dog Lovers' Party? The Greens? The SSP? IIRC you aren't fond of Labour or the LDs, and the Tories are most certainly British Nationalists given their policy and their campaigning statements in the indyref. The Scottish National Party (NB: not 'nationalist') hardly uses the Saltire by comparison with all the flagwaving.
Reminds me a bit of the idiot Mark Easton's article from a year or so ago claiming that white flight was due to rising prosperity and a good thing.
A few points about London:
(1) Turnout in EU elections was up from 33% to 37.4%. This was probably almost entirely due to the all-out London local elections, also held on the same day, where turnout was 38.45%.
(2) UKIP still increased its vote by 6.1% to 16.87% - it declined by 1.6% in 2009.
(3) UKIP performed at a not dissimilar level to the rest of the UK in the outer boroughs where White British voters are at higher percentages: Bexley 37.26%, Bromley 30.88%, Croydon 19.85%, Havering 43.16%, Hillingdon 26.49% and Sutton 26.91%
Labour did very well in London. UKIP polling some dire figures in some of the inner boroughs. But there are important nuances to it. Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying.
A city populated by immigrants, 2nd generation immigrants, and British people that were born far away (British immigrants) arent going to vote for a party that is popular with those unsettled by the pace of change in the country.
A point I have tried to make many times. London has a large proportion of people that werent born there, whose parents live far away, and therefore dont have the same regard for conserving its community/roots in the way people in Doncaster do about their town. Because they arent from London it stands to reason that they dont feel the sadness at the changes in the same way I would if Hornchurch became unrecognisable from my childhood and my parents became uncomfortable living there.
Does your definition of authentic Londoner coincide with those who vote UKIP?
It's only unhappy in the eyes of euro-preoccupied eurosceptics. Thankfully those of us who have to do business in a globalised London like our bedfellows.
@Casino_Royale - "Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying."
No doubt about it. But, I guess, if political parties spend a lot of time talking about the negatives of immigration rightly or wrongly a lot of ethnic minority voters will feel that such parties are not very interested in getting their votes.
Single To Win Two Or More @ 8/1General Election ResultOpen How Many Seats Will UKIP Win At The Next General Election? Stake: £20.00Potential Returns: £180.00
For everyone saying OGH is a UKIP knocker.
He did tip UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8-1 ages ago.
Mr. Observer, thankfully for most people identity politics isn't a factor, but where it is, and is based on ethnicity, do you really believe Labour (now apparently proposing quotas for ethnic groups after legislating to legalise racial discrimination in employment) has no blame at all for it?
Well, who would you vote for? (Genuine question.) The Dog Lovers' Party? The Greens? The SSP? IIRC you aren't fond of Labour or the LDs, and the Tories are most certainly British Nationalists given their policy and their campaigning statements in the indyref. The Scottish National Party (NB: not 'nationalist') hardly uses the Saltire by comparison with all the flagwaving.
For reference, Malcolm, THIS is what desperation looks like...
UKIP has "no solutions to the problems of the 21st Century", former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.....
Mr Blair said it must also "confront and expose" parties like UKIP.
"You look underneath that UKIP facade and you see something pretty nasty and unpleasant," he told BBC Radio 4......
"You have got to take on people who, within countries, who are arguing for a combination of anti-EU and anti-immigration policies which are not the answer," he said.
"I am afraid, with those forces, you have got to be prepared to stand up, lead and take them on."
He urged Labour and other parties not to ape UKIP's stance on Europe and immigration and said Ed Miliband must "stay firm" on his pledge not to hold a EU referendum unless more powers go to Brussels.
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
I'll happily take £50 at evens on the prospect if you're that confident about it.
Mr. Royale, thanks for that very interesting post on London.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Indeed - nothing that the Tories or UKIP have ever said or done can explain why people might choose to vote Labour.
True. But you could also say similar things about why Labour's natural supporters are not choosing to vote Labour in the North.
What it tells me is that we've lost public consensus on immigration, and the way the immigration debate is conducted. Which is why it's getting so divisive.
Well, who would you vote for? (Genuine question.) The Dog Lovers' Party? The Greens? The SSP? IIRC you aren't fond of Labour or the LDs, and the Tories are most certainly British Nationalists given their policy and their campaigning statements in the indyref. The Scottish National Party (NB: not 'nationalist') hardly uses the Saltire by comparison with all the flagwaving.
For reference, Malcolm, THIS is what desperation looks like...
It was actually a perfectly reasonable question. It's not so much whether the Unionist approach is wrong or not, but that you can't even see it from another perspective.
@Richard - wrong. A referendum increases economic uncertainty as the BOOers might win and pull us out. If the Tories thought it would end uncertainly why have they resisted holding one? Answer: because Cam is sensibly europhilic and knows the instability a referendum would cause. He has been bounced into it by the Right.
No, the reason is exactly what I have been saying since 2008. A referendum is not winnable for the Out side, therefore holding a referendum without renegotiation will inevitably cement everything which is wrong about the EU.
It is true that Cameron was bounced on the timetable - 2017 is a jolly tight deadline - but, either way, a referendum will end the uncertainty. That's why Labour are so against it; they think - or, at least, they thought until this week - that the issue of the EU hurts the Conservatives, which of course is the only thing they are interested in.
@Richard - wrong. A referendum increases economic uncertainty as the BOOers might win and pull us out. If the Tories thought it would end uncertainly why have they resisted holding one? Answer: because Cam is sensibly europhilic and knows the instability a referendum would cause. He has been bounced into it by the Right.
There we have it. You don't want a referendum because you might lose it.
Voters are annoying when they don't give the answers you want, aren't they? Why do we bother with elections at all?
A referendum is a sideshow that will create massive uncertainly.
Hold firm.
I don't understand this argument. Surely a referendum is the way to end the uncertainty? It's not going to go away if there isn't a referendum.
Normally yes, but David Cameron has somehow managed to come up with a way to have a referendum but not actually answer the question. Namely, you don't give the status quo as an option at all, and instead have as your "in" option something that will at best only be a promise to put some things in a treaty and ratify them.
So if Britain votes for "in", the various ways this could go are: 1) The whole treaty falls apart, and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a new referendum. 2) The treaty gets created, but isn't exactly how it was sold in the referendum (as we know from the AV and Scotland ones referendum campaigns are mostly lies) and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a new referendum. 3) The treaty gets created and signed, but being a new treaty that transfers some power or other to Brussels it now requires a new referendum. So now we have our _second_ referendum, this one being on the treaty not on in-out, and this one probably gets voted down by the British since they don't like new treaties, at which point the premise of the original referendum has been overturned and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a _third_ referendum to work out how the hell we're now supposed to interpret the first and second referendums.
Mr. Observer, thankfully for most people identity politics isn't a factor, but where it is, and is based on ethnicity, do you really believe Labour (now apparently proposing quotas for ethnic groups after legislating to legalise racial discrimination in employment) has no blame at all for it?
I believe anyone who approaches politics from a Them and Us perspective has responsibility. So, yes, Labour does have to accept its fair share of the blame. As do other political parties. The problem is that Them and Us reaps votes, which is why the parties do it.
Anyone know if an analysis to level stakes profit has been done backing (& possibly laying) every team in the Prem for every match ? (Using Betfair Start price)
Perhaps Palace the best to back (Maybe Liverpool... ?),
Man Utd or Cardiff best to lay ?
I have no idea btw !
The Racing Post have a table for that based on best bookie price.
Mark Langdon or Bruce Millington on twitter would point you in the right direction I am sure
@Casino_royale - "If you try and explain it away, don't be surprised if UKIP continue to grow in a similar manner to how the SNP have in Scotland, to the point when they have sufficient influence to turn the whole political consensus on its head."
The SNP had to decide whether it was a left or right wing party. UKIP needs to make that choice too at some stage.
''A referendum is not winnable for the Out side, therefore holding a referendum without renegotiation will inevitably cement everything which is wrong about the EU.''
Lets face it, Cameron's offer is a false choice for sceptics. Either the few crumbs I'm prepared to negotiate from the EU or a total defeat.
It's a patently bogus proposal from a self confessed big government europhile, and it won;t stop the rise of UKIP. In fact, quite the opposite.
Mr. Royale, thanks for that very interesting post on London.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Indeed - nothing that the Tories or UKIP have ever said or done can explain why people might choose to vote Labour.
True. But you could also say similar things about why Labour's natural supporters are not choosing to vote Labour in the North.
What it tells me is that we've lost public consensus on immigration, and the way the immigration debate is conducted. Which is why it's getting so divisive.
When Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan led Labour, there was a consensus between the two main parties that firm immigration controls should be in place. That disappeared when Labour returned to power in 1997.
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
I'll happily take £50 at evens on the prospect if you're that confident about it.
I'm not that confident. All I'm saying is that I've been ridiculed repeatedly for suggesting it. I'm not really a betting person and I never make wagers on pb.
I wonder if Chris Huhne has any involvement in these polls. He writes for the Grauniad regularly, has the dosh and is not exactly close to Clegg.
I did speculate about that.
Poor Huhne, if he had been able to keep the snake inside the pet store he'd probably be in pole position to become Lib Dem Leader and Deputy Prime Minister shortly.
I was more thinking had he won how much worse a predicament the Lib Dems might now find themselves in. A party having to resign and being jailed for being a crim would have been lethal.
Yeah but if he hadn't made the beast with two backs with a woman who was not his wife, his wife wouldn't have gone to the media about those speeding points.
Looking at his wife and considering what we now know of her personality, you can't really blame him.
She seems to be behaving exactly as most women I know would in such circumstances.
@Richard - wrong. A referendum increases economic uncertainty as the BOOers might win and pull us out. If the Tories thought it would end uncertainly why have they resisted holding one? Answer: because Cam is sensibly europhilic and knows the instability a referendum would cause. He has been bounced into it by the Right.
There we have it. You don't want a referendum because you might lose it.
Voters are annoying when they don't give the answers you want, aren't they? Why do we bother with elections at all?
The solution to the uncertainty issue is to have the referendum as soon as possible. It is therefore clearly a bogus argument.
@Casino_Royale - "Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying."
No doubt about it. But, I guess, if political parties spend a lot of time talking about the negatives of immigration rightly or wrongly a lot of ethnic minority voters will feel that such parties are not very interested in getting their votes.
I agree. There are more intelligent ways in which the immigration debate could be conducted on both sides.
I think the intensity of the disagreement on either side, and the abuse that is hurled across the divide, does not help. It drives people apoplectic. The anger leads people to stubbornness; they dig-in, exaggerate, and then amplify their arguments, drowning out any real moderation.
It was actually a perfectly reasonable question. It's not so much whether the Unionist approach is wrong or not, but that you can't even see it from another perspective.
Once again the Nationalists confuse nationalism with patriotism.
Being patriotic, loving your country, waving the flag is great.
Peddling the myth that all ills are caused by 'foreign' interference (the message of hate peddled by UKIP and the SNP, UKIP in Kilts) is not something I will vote for.
Anyway, Hamilton finished 50s up the road and qualified half a second ahead of Rosberg last year. All else being equal, I'd expect Hamilton to win fairly comfortably. However, rain can play havoc in Montreal. I'm sure we all remember 2011.
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
I'll happily take £50 at evens on the prospect if you're that confident about it.
I'm not that confident. All I'm saying is that I've been ridiculed repeatedly for suggesting it.
So you dont think it's going to happen and many posters have also said that they dont think it's going to happen. Everyone seems to be on the same page.
@Richard - wrong. A referendum increases economic uncertainty as the BOOers might win and pull us out. If the Tories thought it would end uncertainly why have they resisted holding one? Answer: because Cam is sensibly europhilic and knows the instability a referendum would cause. He has been bounced into it by the Right.
There we have it. You don't want a referendum because you might lose it.
''A referendum is not winnable for the Out side, therefore holding a referendum without renegotiation will inevitably cement everything which is wrong about the EU.''
Lets face it, Cameron's offer is a false choice for sceptics. Either the few crumbs I'm prepared to negotiate from the EU or a total defeat.
It's a patently bogus proposal from a self confessed big government europhile, and it won;t stop the rise of UKIP. In fact, quite the opposite.
What an utterly ridiculous argument. From your point of view the renegotiation is irrelevant. You'll be able to vote to leave the EU, which is what you claim to want. What the hell are you bitching about?
It was actually a perfectly reasonable question. It's not so much whether the Unionist approach is wrong or not, but that you can't even see it from another perspective.
Once again the Nationalists confuse nationalism with patriotism.
Being patriotic, loving your country, waving the flag is great.
Peddling the myth that all ills are caused by 'foreign' interference (the message of hate peddled by UKIP and the SNP, UKIP in Kilts) is not something I will vote for.
Well, if you think that is what the SNP is about, perhaps no wonder you post like you do. We'll just have to agree to differ.
Mr. Royale, thanks for that very interesting post on London.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Indeed - nothing that the Tories or UKIP have ever said or done can explain why people might choose to vote Labour.
True. But you could also say similar things about why Labour's natural supporters are not choosing to vote Labour in the North.
What it tells me is that we've lost public consensus on immigration, and the way the immigration debate is conducted. Which is why it's getting so divisive.
When Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan led Labour, there was a consensus between the two main parties that firm immigration controls should be in place. That disappeared when Labour returned to power in 1997.
It was also a fringe issue between around 1980 and the mid-1990s.
Net immigration at around 0.1% of UK population per annum, plus or minus 30% for the economic cycle, seems to be a sensible, sustainable level. That would give us a band of around 45-85k per year. This could be reviewed on a 5-yearly cycle by the Home Office, similar to MoD led strategic defence reviews.
The debate between the mainstream parties can then move to how the limits should be set during each economic cycle. Rather than whether we should have one at all.
Although Cleggy has a lot of good features, his brand has been totally Ratner-fied. A little like Brand Blair. What ever they say is regarded as self-serving crap.
I suspect a job in Europe would both invigorate and enrich both.
Been giving some thought to where we go from here. A lot of criticism of BAU, but of course for party's in power or opposition there does have to be a certain extent of that. The country doesn't stop because UKIP are the flavour of the month. The correct approach can only be to acknowledge that a significant minority have expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the Westminster set up and the EU/Immigration, and to set out your party's response to that. You can't become anti-establishment, or revolutionary, you can only address what has been raised whilst looking out to your other policies and plans and making sure those are also clearly related. If the dominoes are toppling, then they are toppling, no party has a right to a certain level of support, but it is essential that they get people to consider what life under UKIP would be like. Most people will not have a clue, and those people need to be prompted to look at what UKIP propose. It will have a marmite effect on those currently eager 'for change'. That can be done without the ludicrous racist nonsense, UKIP are a policy vacuum and can be shown as such. Essentially, they are going to say what people want to hear, but that needs to be exposed too, and then the voter can make their own mind up. We get the government we deserve.
Europe, in the mid term is going to lance UKIPs boil. The project has failed, and it is only the will of the professional political classes and their addiction to its sweet sweet milk that is keeping it going. From a Tory perspective, Cameron could, if he so chooses, be radical in what he seeks to achieve. Within five years I think the chance will arrive to roll the EU back to a common market. If that chance is taken, it might stop the rise of nationalism. If it isn't taken, good luck everyone in ten or fifteen years time when Europe implodes and the jackboots come out of the closet.
Ultimately Dave, Ed, Nick et al, don't be rabbits caught in the headlights, grow a set and present your response. Crying on national TV isn't the answer, because as Derek and Clive would tell you 'Endangered species? I say f@@k em'
A city populated by immigrants, 2nd generation immigrants, and British people that were born far away (British immigrants) arent going to vote for a party that is popular with those unsettled by the pace of change in the country.
A point I have tried to make many times. London has a large proportion of people that werent born there, whose parents live far away, and therefore dont have the same regard for conserving its community/roots in the way people in Doncaster do about their town. Because they arent from London it stands to reason that they dont feel the sadness at the changes in the same way I would if Hornchurch became unrecognisable from my childhood and my parents became uncomfortable living there.
Does your definition of authentic Londoner coincide with those who vote UKIP?
I didnt say authentic, and my "real Londoner" comments were a distraction. I genuinely didnt realise people were so proud to call themselves a Londoner just because they happened to live there now. I always assumed people thoiught deep down they were a "wherever they were brought up-er"
The people living in Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham etc who are mostly BAME are born and bred Londoners in the main, and they are supporting a party that puts them first. The people who used to live there move away, normally to where I live, Havering, where there is a big UKIP vote.
Havering is like the East End the BBC portray in EastEnders. I actually think it is racist of the BBC to portray the East End the way they do. Why not be more honest and have white British people as the minority/pubs closing down, lots of Asian shops and burqas etc? The BAME quota in EE has barely changed in 38 years and there isnt one Eastern European either. It is quite disgraceful really,. Maybe they think people wouldnt like the truth?
No markets on the Cambridge constituency after the elections.This poll after the election results in the city,means it is curtains for Huppert,unless the Libs change their leader. There is not a safe Lib seat left in the Lab-Lib marginals,Bermondsey being the ultimate prize. Brighton Pavilion has tightened a little to Labour,now 4-5, after the figures from the locals.Labour's attack line on the Green party is very much a back to basics approach,focusing on keeping the streets clean and emptying the bins,a case of practical reality against impractical idealism.The other Lab/Green battles are going Labour's way too.
Well today is referendum day in Yarm - will they vote to rejoin Yorkshire? This has all the legitimacy of an eastern Ukraine referendum, but could set a precedent. Next up is Thornaby, who are also having a referendum on leaving Stockton (bizarrely, one of the options they are looking at is joining Middlesbrough). Let's just go back to the pre-1974 boundaries, and everyone should be happy.
It was actually a perfectly reasonable question. It's not so much whether the Unionist approach is wrong or not, but that you can't even see it from another perspective.
Once again the Nationalists confuse nationalism with patriotism.
Being patriotic, loving your country, waving the flag is great.
Peddling the myth that all ills are caused by 'foreign' interference (the message of hate peddled by UKIP and the SNP, UKIP in Kilts) is not something I will vote for.
Once again a British nationalist kids himself on. Better have a word with the dictionaries, they seem a bit confused.
patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. "an early consciousness of nationalism and pride" synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality
You forget that many of us love London's cosmopolitan dynamism, and celebrate it. Hence why the metropolitan party of Labour did so well in the metropolis. Ukip seems to flourish in areas where there are few immigrants- paradoxical hey?
TSE - Are you still ridiculing my idea that Clegg could lose his seat? I have of course been pbs no.1 champion of that particular issue but its always been dismissed by those who know Sheffield Hallam like yourself. What do you think now?
I'll happily take £50 at evens on the prospect if you're that confident about it.
I'm not that confident. All I'm saying is that I've been ridiculed repeatedly for suggesting it.
So you dont think it's going to happen and many posters have also said that they dont think it's going to happen. Everyone seems to be on the same page.
It's a question of probabilities. I've raised the possibility of Clegg not winning next time in Hallam and the likes of TSE and Mark Senior have claimed the re is zero chance of it happening.
The most significant thing about this poll is that it make people in Hallam believe that Clegg can lose and that it is Labour who have a chance of beating him. In other words he can forget tactical voting to keep the Tories out. I'd still make him favourite, I've only ever claimed he would have a fight on his hands. From what I read in the tables only 30% of people who voted for him last time are currently saying they will do so next time. For a deputy PM that is damning. The biggest problem for Labour is that only 75% of people who voted for Gordon Brown are still behind them. A strong Labour leader and Nick might be toast.
@Casino_royale - "If you try and explain it away, don't be surprised if UKIP continue to grow in a similar manner to how the SNP have in Scotland, to the point when they have sufficient influence to turn the whole political consensus on its head."
The SNP had to decide whether it was a left or right wing party. UKIP needs to make that choice too at some stage.
Why do they? They can put out their manifesto and people who agree with the direction of travel can vote for it or not. Its a free market. If some left wingers see things they like that outweigh bits they dont and vote UKIP there may be people on the right who do the same.
Comments
I owe you £24 dont I?
The idea that we have any significant power within the EU is just laughable.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/lord-oakeshott-speaking-vince-cable
Confirms mass of UKIP posters, a single Conservative. No Labour & obviously no lib dem posters.
(1) Decide you dont want a referendum under any cicumstances
(2) Come up with a b/s rationale to justify your position under (1) above
£25, it was 5/6 on a £30 stake. I've sent you a PM with account details.
(1) Turnout in EU elections was up from 33% to 37.4%. This was probably almost entirely due to the all-out London local elections, also held on the same day, where turnout was 38.45%.
(2) UKIP still increased its vote by 6.1% to 16.87% - it declined by 1.6% in 2009.
(3) UKIP performed at a not dissimilar level to the rest of the UK in the outer boroughs where White British voters are at higher percentages: Bexley 37.26%, Bromley 30.88%, Croydon 19.85%, Havering 43.16%, Hillingdon 26.49% and Sutton 26.91%
http://londoneuroelections.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Borough-Voting-Figures-for-London-160KB-pdf.pdf
Labour did very well in London. UKIP polling some dire figures in some of the inner boroughs. But there are important nuances to it. Once again there appears to be an ethnicity factor in play, which is worrying.
I think Blair confuses Britain having global power for him having power and influence. Also his Today interview seemed to involve him saying that the exercise of power was more important than the presence of peace.
No desperation, just hilarity.
I wouldn't vote for Nationalists of any stripe. Neither UKIP, nor UKIP in Kilts.
Ethnicity as an electoral factor is not surprising, but is very depressing. Labour's identity politics (Sadiq Khan seeming to promise quotas for non-whites, for example) and the rampant immigration, at levels too high to allow for proper integration, are at least partly to blame.
Perhaps Palace the best to back (Maybe Liverpool... ?),
Man Utd or Cardiff best to lay ?
I have no idea btw !
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/labour-miliband-split-win-back-voters-elections-results
A point I have tried to make many times. London has a large proportion of people that werent born there, whose parents live far away, and therefore dont have the same regard for conserving its community/roots in the way people in Doncaster do about their town. Because they arent from London it stands to reason that they dont feel the sadness at the changes in the same way I would if Hornchurch became unrecognisable from my childhood and my parents became uncomfortable living there.
This. Is. SEISMIC.
If you think that UKIP just mopped up all the protest voters, like a piece of crusty bread, then you are sorely mistaken.
There is no telling what the real 'cap' to UKIP support is. Barely 10 years ago, a lot of their current voters were natural Conservative and Labour supporters. We'd have all been calling the 16% they polled then a few 'angry protest votes'. Yet here we are now.
Yes, the Conservatives did better than expected and Labour were saved by London. But both parties are in trouble. They both were thoroughly thumped in their heartlands. If you try and explain it away, don't be surprised if UKIP continue to grow in a similar manner to how the SNP have in Scotland, to the point when they have sufficient influence to turn the whole political consensus on its head.
It's only unhappy in the eyes of euro-preoccupied eurosceptics. Thankfully those of us who have to do business in a globalised London like our bedfellows.
Oui oui oui!
No doubt about it. But, I guess, if political parties spend a lot of time talking about the negatives of immigration rightly or wrongly a lot of ethnic minority voters will feel that such parties are not very interested in getting their votes.
~
Single To Win
Two Or More @ 8/1General Election ResultOpen
How Many Seats Will UKIP Win At The Next General Election?
Stake: £20.00Potential Returns: £180.00
For everyone saying OGH is a UKIP knocker.
He did tip UKIP to win 2 or more seats at 8-1 ages ago.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Labour-councillor-Fabian-Breckels-UKIP-voters/story-21143608-detail/story.html#ixzz32pq3SvZ5
What it tells me is that we've lost public consensus on immigration, and the way the immigration debate is conducted. Which is why it's getting so divisive.
It is true that Cameron was bounced on the timetable - 2017 is a jolly tight deadline - but, either way, a referendum will end the uncertainty. That's why Labour are so against it; they think - or, at least, they thought until this week - that the issue of the EU hurts the Conservatives, which of course is the only thing they are interested in.
Voters are annoying when they don't give the answers you want, aren't they? Why do we bother with elections at all?
http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/lib-dem-constituency-polling
and here
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_libdems_4polls.pdf
So if Britain votes for "in", the various ways this could go are:
1) The whole treaty falls apart, and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a new referendum.
2) The treaty gets created, but isn't exactly how it was sold in the referendum (as we know from the AV and Scotland ones referendum campaigns are mostly lies) and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a new referendum.
3) The treaty gets created and signed, but being a new treaty that transfers some power or other to Brussels it now requires a new referendum. So now we have our _second_ referendum, this one being on the treaty not on in-out, and this one probably gets voted down by the British since they don't like new treaties, at which point the premise of the original referendum has been overturned and the sceptics justifiably say they woz robbed and demand a _third_ referendum to work out how the hell we're now supposed to interpret the first and second referendums.
Mark Langdon or Bruce Millington on twitter would point you in the right direction I am sure
The SNP had to decide whether it was a left or right wing party. UKIP needs to make that choice too at some stage.
Lets face it, Cameron's offer is a false choice for sceptics. Either the few crumbs I'm prepared to negotiate from the EU or a total defeat.
It's a patently bogus proposal from a self confessed big government europhile, and it won;t stop the rise of UKIP. In fact, quite the opposite.
I think the intensity of the disagreement on either side, and the abuse that is hurled across the divide, does not help. It drives people apoplectic. The anger leads people to stubbornness; they dig-in, exaggerate, and then amplify their arguments, drowning out any real moderation.
Being patriotic, loving your country, waving the flag is great.
Peddling the myth that all ills are caused by 'foreign' interference (the message of hate peddled by UKIP and the SNP, UKIP in Kilts) is not something I will vote for.
Anyway, Hamilton finished 50s up the road and qualified half a second ahead of Rosberg last year. All else being equal, I'd expect Hamilton to win fairly comfortably. However, rain can play havoc in Montreal. I'm sure we all remember 2011.
British Polling Council are now indeed looking at ICM failure to reveal who paid for LD poll...
That way you'll only look whiny.
Net immigration at around 0.1% of UK population per annum, plus or minus 30% for the economic cycle, seems to be a sensible, sustainable level. That would give us a band of around 45-85k per year. This could be reviewed on a 5-yearly cycle by the Home Office, similar to MoD led strategic defence reviews.
The debate between the mainstream parties can then move to how the limits should be set during each economic cycle. Rather than whether we should have one at all.
Although Cleggy has a lot of good features, his brand has been totally Ratner-fied. A little like Brand Blair. What ever they say is regarded as self-serving crap.
I suspect a job in Europe would both invigorate and enrich both.
The correct approach can only be to acknowledge that a significant minority have expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the Westminster set up and the EU/Immigration, and to set out your party's response to that. You can't become anti-establishment, or revolutionary, you can only address what has been raised whilst looking out to your other policies and plans and making sure those are also clearly related.
If the dominoes are toppling, then they are toppling, no party has a right to a certain level of support, but it is essential that they get people to consider what life under UKIP would be like. Most people will not have a clue, and those people need to be prompted to look at what UKIP propose. It will have a marmite effect on those currently eager 'for change'. That can be done without the ludicrous racist nonsense, UKIP are a policy vacuum and can be shown as such. Essentially, they are going to say what people want to hear, but that needs to be exposed too, and then the voter can make their own mind up. We get the government we deserve.
Europe, in the mid term is going to lance UKIPs boil. The project has failed, and it is only the will of the professional political classes and their addiction to its sweet sweet milk that is keeping it going. From a Tory perspective, Cameron could, if he so chooses, be radical in what he seeks to achieve. Within five years I think the chance will arrive to roll the EU back to a common market. If that chance is taken, it might stop the rise of nationalism. If it isn't taken, good luck everyone in ten or fifteen years time when Europe implodes and the jackboots come out of the closet.
Ultimately Dave, Ed, Nick et al, don't be rabbits caught in the headlights, grow a set and present your response. Crying on national TV isn't the answer, because as Derek and Clive would tell you
'Endangered species? I say f@@k em'
The people living in Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham etc who are mostly BAME are born and bred Londoners in the main, and they are supporting a party that puts them first. The people who used to live there move away, normally to where I live, Havering, where there is a big UKIP vote.
Havering is like the East End the BBC portray in EastEnders. I actually think it is racist of the BBC to portray the East End the way they do. Why not be more honest and have white British people as the minority/pubs closing down, lots of Asian shops and burqas etc? The BAME quota in EE has barely changed in 38 years and there isnt one Eastern European either. It is quite disgraceful really,. Maybe they think people wouldnt like the truth?
There is not a safe Lib seat left in the Lab-Lib marginals,Bermondsey being the ultimate prize.
Brighton Pavilion has tightened a little to Labour,now 4-5, after the figures from the locals.Labour's attack line on the Green party is very much a back to basics approach,focusing on keeping the streets clean and emptying the bins,a case of practical reality against impractical idealism.The other Lab/Green battles are going Labour's way too.
We might lose a referendum on hanging too, and I don't want one of them either.
We are not bloody Switzerland - we are a representative democracy. Enough already of the referendums!
There's more chance of Christina Hendricks and Karen Gillan agreeing to have a threesome with me than Sheffield Hallam going blue next year.
Better have a word with the dictionaries, they seem a bit confused.
nationalism
ˈnaʃ(ə)n(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: nationalism
patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
"an early consciousness of nationalism and pride"
synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality
You forget that many of us love London's cosmopolitan dynamism, and celebrate it. Hence why the metropolitan party of Labour did so well in the metropolis. Ukip seems to flourish in areas where there are few immigrants- paradoxical hey?
The most significant thing about this poll is that it make people in Hallam believe that Clegg can lose and that it is Labour who have a chance of beating him. In other words he can forget tactical voting to keep the Tories out. I'd still make him favourite, I've only ever claimed he would have a fight on his hands. From what I read in the tables only 30% of people who voted for him last time are currently saying they will do so next time. For a deputy PM that is damning. The biggest problem for Labour is that only 75% of people who voted for Gordon Brown are still behind them. A strong Labour leader and Nick might be toast.
UKIP "are unpleasant", Tony Blair has said. The former PM also suggested David Cameron should invade Farage, on no pretext, killing 500,000