Rod Crosby, if that is the best reply you can muster up then you had better go back to the drawing board and try again. The good Lord only knows why you were invited to post such a pathetic column in the first place
OK, sorry Ed.... Mr. Miliband. I bow to your superior "intellectual self-confidence"...
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
Rod, your case is argued soundly, but one thing you're not accounting for is that the 2015 election is not going to be like anything previous. We really don't know how the UKIP surge or the LD collapse will affect outcomes, and as a result all the normal indicators are less reliable than usual. General Elections are increasingly tactical affairs and in my view all is still to play for.
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
Rod, your case is argued soundly, but one thing you're not accounting for is that the 2015 election is not going to be like anything previous. We really don't know how the UKIP surge or the LD collapse will affect outcomes, and as a result all the normal indicators are less reliable than usual. General Elections are increasingly tactical affairs and in my view all is still to play for.
For Cameron to get to say 39% from here he has to win back a few kippers rather than win over a few lefties. This has got to be easier.
"An Independence From Europe received over 230,000 votes nationwide, equivalent to 1.5% of the total."
"“Members all over the county have been phoning in over this,” he said. “Just standing outside the polling station and there were a lot of people coming out and saying ‘I voted for you, top of the ballot’.”
I think this is a significant issue for Ukip because of the scale and because no doubt it will happen again at future elections. So the more fuss made of it now the more careful Ukip voters will be in the future.
On the other hand making a fuss allows opponents to push the dumb voter meme.
Seems to me the potential loss is large enough to mean making as much fuss as possible is the only option so then it becomes how to make a fuss while flipping the effect of the "dumb voter" idea. I'd say
1) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who haven't voted for years 2) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who've voted Labour or Tory their whole lives up till now 3) stress the political class turning a blind eye to electoral malpractise
Separate from all that, any debate on here related to numbers and polling that doesn't include an estimate of the votes Ukip lost to AIFE will plainly be wrong.
It's true that UKIP is a new factor this time but UKIP provides MORE opportunity for the swingback Rod is predicting.
ie As long as UKIP's vote share falls at all between now and GE and as long as more UKIP switch to Con than Lab (even if only 51/49) then Con pick up THAT incremental gain + any "conventional" switching between the 3 traditional main parties.
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
(1) Because Labour might win the election, and we need to pressure them too.
(2) Because there might be a hung parliament, where a handful of UKIP seats could be the only way a pro-referendum coalition is possible.
(3) Because in the event of a referendum, UKIP will get far more air time in the years coming up to it if they get a big share of the vote and representation in parliament.
(4) Because another big issue is reducing immigration levels to pre-1997 levels, which the Conservatives are incapable of doing, regardless of the EU.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
Would they be as thick at the Tory voters that believed no top down reorganisation to the NHS, no means testing of OAP benefits, or no VAT bombshell?
Rod, your case is argued soundly, but one thing you're not accounting for is that the 2015 election is not going to be like anything previous. We really don't know how the UKIP surge or the LD collapse will affect outcomes, and as a result all the normal indicators are less reliable than usual. General Elections are increasingly tactical affairs and in my view all is still to play for.
Models are only models, at the end of the day. No-one expects the numbers they spit out to be exactly right. If they end up in the ballpark it's a successful prediction.
Btw, the "election like no other" meme is a little overused, don't you think?
For 90 years the vast bulk of seats have been won by the same two parties, UNS has been an accurate (if a little fuzzy) predictor, etc.
We may get some sort of incremental change in 2015, emergence of a strong 4th party, but the usual rules will continue to apply, more or less.
The poll by Ashcroft is UKIP surging on back of Euros victory, will recede. Betting tip: Sell high on UKIP if the prices move much.
Thats been a surefire way of losing money in the last year or so.
Ever heard of a rebase?
At 17%? And Greens on 7%?
Not at that level.
And UKIP actually finished at the lower end of their polling range at the Euros.
Yes but the betting markets arent under or over 17% are they?
You have to add on 1% to UKIPs EU score for AIFE
People have been saying what you just said for the last year
A year ago UKIP to poll less than 10% was 1/6 with Ladbrokes, now it is 11/10
UKIP to win a seat at the GE was 5/2 now its 4/6
UKIP to outpoll the Cons in the EUros was 11/10 a year ago, it was 1/7 last week
There is no argument in betting terms that UKIP opposing has been a route to the poorhouse in the last 12 months
No you don't. I voted AIFE to take the piss and it seems to have worked, because it cost nasty Nige a seat in the south west. Nige's mask then slipped and he told Guido he wanted to close down the electoral commission.
Result! And I won't be voting for any of the JPF, PFJ, PPFJ or CfaFG in 2015. And not just because they're splitters.
I don't believe you Bond. I believe that, in spite of the fact you had been told on numerous occasions that AIFE were BNP-lite with candidates who had been thrown out of other parties for racism or for trying to develop links with the BNP, you still went ahead and voted for them because you sympathise with their abhorrent views.
It seems a far more rational reason than the idea that you would vote racist just for a joke. I mean who would be stupid enough to do that?
Rod, your case is argued soundly, but one thing you're not accounting for is that the 2015 election is not going to be like anything previous. We really don't know how the UKIP surge or the LD collapse will affect outcomes, and as a result all the normal indicators are less reliable than usual. General Elections are increasingly tactical affairs and in my view all is still to play for.
For Cameron to get to say 39% from here he has to win back a few kippers rather than win over a few lefties. This has got to be easier.
"This has got to be easier"
you'd have thought so but then cameron doesn't appear to agree with doing things the simple way. He doesn't even have to win back kippers just disaffected blues who will stay at home. But he's pretty crap at selling a message outside the SE, so he's stuck where he is. A wasted opportunity, maybe he's just not that good at politics.
I see there's a minor outbreak of "I agree with Nigel" from the other parties now. I doubt if that will help Ukip's cause in the GE nest May. To get a few seats, they need the hysterical insults, or preferably, the woman from Rotherham Council.
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
Would they be as thick at the Tory voters that believed no top down reorganisation to the NHS, no means testing of OAP benefits, or no VAT bombshell?
Why should rich pensioners not be excluded from receiving benefits?
"An Independence From Europe received over 230,000 votes nationwide, equivalent to 1.5% of the total."
"“Members all over the county have been phoning in over this,” he said. “Just standing outside the polling station and there were a lot of people coming out and saying ‘I voted for you, top of the ballot’.”
I think this is a significant issue for Ukip because of the scale and because no doubt it will happen again at future elections. So the more fuss made of it now the more careful Ukip voters will be in the future.
On the other hand making a fuss allows opponents to push the dumb voter meme.
Seems to me the potential loss is large enough to mean making as much fuss as possible is the only option so then it becomes how to make a fuss while flipping the effect of the "dumb voter" idea. I'd say
1) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who haven't voted for years 2) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who've voted Labour or Tory their whole lives up till now 3) stress the political class turning a blind eye to electoral malpractise
Separate from all that, any debate on here related to numbers and polling that doesn't include an estimate of the votes Ukip lost to AIFE will plainly be wrong.
@AntiFrank showing that liberal bigotry can have an adverse effect on intelligence. Anyone who thinks AIFE didnt take votes from UKIP is an utter fool
Re: number of UKIP target seats. Writing in the Express, Patrick O'Flynn says: "But now we face an even bigger challenge; to get Ukip MPs into the House of Commons next year in good numbers so we can make sure that whoever is in government you finally get that referendum on EU membership."
Brilliant!
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
Would they be as thick at the Tory voters that believed no top down reorganisation to the NHS, no means testing of OAP benefits, or no VAT bombshell?
Why should rich pensioners not be excluded from receiving benefits?
Whether or not I agree with the policy is irrelevant to whether David Cameron and the Tories are perfectly happy to perform u-turns on them.
"An Independence From Europe received over 230,000 votes nationwide, equivalent to 1.5% of the total."
"“Members all over the county have been phoning in over this,” he said. “Just standing outside the polling station and there were a lot of people coming out and saying ‘I voted for you, top of the ballot’.”
I think this is a significant issue for Ukip because of the scale and because no doubt it will happen again at future elections. So the more fuss made of it now the more careful Ukip voters will be in the future.
On the other hand making a fuss allows opponents to push the dumb voter meme.
Seems to me the potential loss is large enough to mean making as much fuss as possible is the only option so then it becomes how to make a fuss while flipping the effect of the "dumb voter" idea. I'd say
1) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who haven't voted for years 2) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who've voted Labour or Tory their whole lives up till now 3) stress the political class turning a blind eye to electoral malpractise
Separate from all that, any debate on here related to numbers and polling that doesn't include an estimate of the votes Ukip lost to AIFE will plainly be wrong.
Who cares? The nomenclature pulled every dirty trick in the book but still lost. They aimed low and missed.
"An Independence From Europe received over 230,000 votes nationwide, equivalent to 1.5% of the total."
"“Members all over the county have been phoning in over this,” he said. “Just standing outside the polling station and there were a lot of people coming out and saying ‘I voted for you, top of the ballot’.”
I think this is a significant issue for Ukip because of the scale and because no doubt it will happen again at future elections. So the more fuss made of it now the more careful Ukip voters will be in the future.
On the other hand making a fuss allows opponents to push the dumb voter meme.
Seems to me the potential loss is large enough to mean making as much fuss as possible is the only option so then it becomes how to make a fuss while flipping the effect of the "dumb voter" idea. I'd say
1) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who haven't voted for years 2) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who've voted Labour or Tory their whole lives up till now 3) stress the political class turning a blind eye to electoral malpractise
Separate from all that, any debate on here related to numbers and polling that doesn't include an estimate of the votes Ukip lost to AIFE will plainly be wrong.
Who cares? The nomenclature pulled every dirty trick in the book but still lost. They aimed low and missed.
Future elections. The more fuss now the more careful Ukip voters will be next time.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
So presumably you think Conservatives voters wanting a referendum should vote UKIP in the seats where the UKIP candidate is ahead?
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Interesting to see NPXMP thinks Lab won't lose support because they never gained it in the first place. Would love to hear him explain what's happened to their polling the last 2 years.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
Well quite plus having seen Cameron in Brussels he seems to be using the vote for dissenters as leverage to get EU reform and he has had success in negotiations in the past.
So presumably you think Conservatives voters wanting a referendum should vote UKIP in the seats where the UKIP candidate is ahead?
Well, anyone for whom a referendum is the most important issue (which seems to be the segment O'Flynn claims to be targeting), yes, in the very unlikely event that UKIP were known to be first or second and the Tories nowhere.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
Well quite plus having seen Cameron in Brussels he seems to be using the vote for dissenters as leverage to get EU reform and he has had success in negotiations in the past.
What success in negotiations? The one where he negotiated a budget that increased the UK's contribution? Or the one where he paid for the Eurozone bailouts through a different mechanism?
Rod Crosby, if that is the best reply you can muster up then you had better go back to the drawing board and try again. The good Lord only knows why you were invited to post such a pathetic column in the first place
Sigh! - How to break this to you gently - but I’m afraid your credibility is somewhat on the low side.
I love the way that Kippers seek simply to co-opt the votes cast for another party by assuming that their voters were stupid Kippers.
Though that does beg the question of just how stupid you have to be to not even get to Kipper level.
Would a passing-off action fail because only the stupid were deceived? I would rather chew my arm off than vote UKIP but this childish deceit was a disgrace to our democracy, under which even the stupid deserve a fair shot at voting the way they think they are voting. What the feck have the electoral commission been up to since 2004 (Literal Democrat case)? What if a similar fraud is perpetrated at a General Election? Answer: our democracy will look utterly and ridiculously 3rd world.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
So presumably you think Conservatives voters wanting a referendum should vote UKIP in the seats where the UKIP candidate is ahead?
So presumably you think Conservatives voters wanting a referendum should vote UKIP in the seats where the UKIP candidate is ahead?
Well, anyone for whom a referendum is the most important issue (which seems to be the segment O'Flynn claims to be targeting), yes, in the very unlikely event that UKIP were known to be first or second and the Tories nowhere.
And what about those that care about the result of the referendum, wanting it to be no? Don't you think they might have an interest in giving a louder voice to eurosceptics?
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Means testing of OAP benefits. A VAT increase.
Clearly they intend to lie to themselves and the electorate. You just have to wonder how intellectually challenged they are that they can't understand the concept of having a referendum in 2017.
It is completely bizarre. I can see reasons why people might want to vote UKIP (general grumpiness, gay marriage, prejudice against Cameron, grammar schools, the aid budget), but the argument that, if you want a referendum, you should vote to prevent the party which would actually deliver a referendum getting a majority is so completely bonkers that it's hard to see how they can run it with a straight face.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
So presumably you think Conservatives voters wanting a referendum should vote UKIP in the seats where the UKIP candidate is ahead?
Can Ed possibly change his mind on the no referendum promise? I don't see how he can now, but there are a few Labour MPs who won't fancy campaigning on the message to the voters ... "No, we don't trust you."
Read the link below - it's like we're a planned economy just like the Soviet Union.
Why do we need OFCOM to do all this nonsense?
"Ofcom said it will look at "new intermediaries which control platforms" – presumably firms such as Netflix, Amazon and Apple – "including their control of potentially valuable direct relationships with audiences.""
What business has OFCOM got looking into the likes of Netflix? There are no competition issues - its audience is miniscule compared to the BBC, ITV, C4 and C5.
So what if Channel 4 can't compete - if it can't survive then let it close down or be taken over.
The answer, of course, is that OFCOM wants to preserve the comfortable, status quo, cartel - which it can regulate. It loves handing out licences to ITV, C4 and C5 - imposing rules, quotas etc etc - and it can't do that to Netflix.
If Netflix thrives and C4 dies - then bingo, OFCOM's role diminishes. Can't have that, can we?
If Cameron gets a majority next year let's come he calls time on all this nonsense. From memory OFCOM has an annual budget of well over £100m.
And what about those that care about the result of the referendum, wanting it to be no? Don't you think they might have an interest in giving a louder voice to eurosceptics?
That is a different argument, and one directly contradictory to that which UKIP are using. Do they want to maximise the chance of a referendum, or maximise Eurosceptic support with the near certainty that that will torpedo the referendum?
As I have said before, if they were serious about this, they'd be recommending people to vote Conservative whilst converting themselves into the Out campaign, starting now. That's three whole years to put together the campaign team, finance, and most importantly the arguments (they could start from the Brexit paper). What are they actually doing? Trying to prevent the referendhum happening at all, and doing precisely nothing to put together the Out case.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
" he [Cameron]'s pretty crap at selling a message outside the SE,"
We have had this conversation before, Mr. Brooke, but I'll remind you that Cameron is pretty crap at selling a message inside the SE too. Between the factory workers of Nuneaton and the blue collar workers of the SE there are more similarities than differences and Cameron is not reaching either set. Worse he doesn't seem to feel he needs to.
Top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Means testing of OAP benefits. A VAT increase.
You remain quiet whenever I bring these up.
They are irrelevant. Look at the manifesto and you will see that the NHS changes were laid out in some detail. I've no idea what you mean by means testing. There was no commitement not to raise VAT.
And yet you want to vote for a party whose manifesto was 'drivel'.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
And what about those that care about the result of the referendum, wanting it to be no? Don't you think they might have an interest in giving a louder voice to eurosceptics?
That is a different argument, and one directly contradictory to that which UKIP are using. Do they want to maximise the chance of a referendum, or maximise Eurosceptic support with the near certainty that that will torpedo the referendum?
As I have said before, if they were serious about this, they'd be recommending people to vote Conservative whilst converting themselves into the Out campaign, starting now. That's three whole years to put together the campaign team, finance, and most importantly the arguments (they could start from the Brexit paper). What are they actually doing? Trying to prevent the referendhum happening at all, and doing precisely nothing to put together the Out case.
Why not try and make Labour so desperate that they offer a referendum? If they dont then Farage could make the decision next April not to stand a candidate in Labour/Tory marginals if it came to it.
But he doesnt have to announce that now does he? As the best result for UKIP is a weak Labour government that is tied to a referendum he should go for that.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
But in 2010 - the tory lead over labour was 7 points. Surely it is highly unlikely that Labour loses by a bigger margin in 2015? The left wing Lib Dems have returned, and UKIP is disproportionately taking the Tory.
If the Kippers return in the 2015 election, then perhaps - but there is no indication yet that will happen and it is arguable that if Miliband keeps the 2010 lib dems and his 29% Gordon Brown base - then he is PM by default.
There is no way Cameron manages to increase his vote. Not even the greats (Thatcher & Blair) managed that.
Top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Means testing of OAP benefits. A VAT increase.
You remain quiet whenever I bring these up.
They are irrelevant. Look at the manifesto and you will see that the NHS changes were laid out in some detail. I've no idea what you mean by means testing. There was no commitement not to raise VAT.
And yet you want to vote for a party whose manifesto was 'drivel'.
Apologies. I should have said child benefit rather than OAP benefits. David Cameron said before the election that he opposed raising VAT as it hit the poorest the hardest.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
Doesn't it need MPs to remove him though, who are, on the whole, pro-EU.
And what about those that care about the result of the referendum, wanting it to be no? Don't you think they might have an interest in giving a louder voice to eurosceptics?
That is a different argument, and one directly contradictory to that which UKIP are using. Do they want to maximise the chance of a referendum, or maximise Eurosceptic support with the near certainty that that will torpedo the referendum?
As I have said before, if they were serious about this, they'd be recommending people to vote Conservative whilst converting themselves into the Out campaign, starting now. That's three whole years to put together the campaign team, finance, and most importantly the arguments (they could start from the Brexit paper). What are they actually doing? Trying to prevent the referendhum happening at all, and doing precisely nothing to put together the Out case.
Why not try and make Labour so desperate that they offer a referendum? If they dont then Farage could make the decision next April not to stand a candidate in Labour/Tory marginals if it came to it.
But he doesnt have to announce that now does he? As the best result for UKIP is a weak Labour government that is tied to a referendum he should go for that.
So Farage would not stand in Thanet South as it is a Tory-Labour marginal ? According to Ashcroft , the Tories would win by 0.1% today.
But in 2010 - the tory lead over labour was 7 points. Surely it is highly unlikely that Labour loses by a bigger margin in 2015? The left wing Lib Dems have returned, and UKIP is disproportionately taking the Tory.
If the Kippers return in the 2015 election, then perhaps - but there is no indication yet that will happen and it is arguable that if Miliband keeps the 2010 lib dems and his 29% Gordon Brown base - then he is PM by default.
There is no way Cameron manages to increase his vote. Not even the greats (Thatcher & Blair) managed that.
I'll take 33/1 on Cameron increasing his vote.
The 29% base is not a base. It's just what Labour happened to poll on General Election Day 2010. They were polling lower before that.
" he [Cameron]'s pretty crap at selling a message outside the SE,"
We have had this conversation before, Mr. Brooke, but I'll remind you that Cameron is pretty crap at selling a message inside the SE too. Between the factory workers of Nuneaton and the blue collar workers of the SE there are more similarities than differences and Cameron is not reaching either set. Worse he doesn't seem to feel he needs to.
I concede Mr L. The tories came second in the SE region euros, and despite Cameron's metropolitan poncing he got hammered in London.
I may be the odd one out (as a new and probably temporary Ukip voter - although that's still to be decided) because I believe Cameron.
If elected with a majority, he will organise a referendum, he'll extract a few baubles and then return with a recommendation to vote for 'in' and then campaign for it.
I remember the mid 70s - it was the most one sided referendum debate ever (and I was a Europhile then). It's not often you feel sorry for Tony Benn and the SWP.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
Don't be absurd - if you polled people today less than 1% of people would even be aware of the Lisbon treaty - let alone whether Cameron did or didn't promise a referendum on it.
You are making the classic PB error - because you are knowledgeable about something, it doesn't mean other people are.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
A bloke called Alan Brooke, criticising the Prime Minister, has that ever happened before?
And what about those that care about the result of the referendum, wanting it to be no? Don't you think they might have an interest in giving a louder voice to eurosceptics?
That is a different argument, and one directly contradictory to that which UKIP are using. Do they want to maximise the chance of a referendum, or maximise Eurosceptic support with the near certainty that that will torpedo the referendum?
As I have said before, if they were serious about this, they'd be recommending people to vote Conservative whilst converting themselves into the Out campaign, starting now. That's three whole years to put together the campaign team, finance, and most importantly the arguments (they could start from the Brexit paper). What are they actually doing? Trying to prevent the referendhum happening at all, and doing precisely nothing to put together the Out case.
Why not try and make Labour so desperate that they offer a referendum? If they dont then Farage could make the decision next April not to stand a candidate in Labour/Tory marginals if it came to it.
But he doesnt have to announce that now does he? As the best result for UKIP is a weak Labour government that is tied to a referendum he should go for that.
So Farage would not stand in Thanet South as it is a Tory-Labour marginal ? According to Ashcroft , the Tories would win by 0.1% today.
Im not suggesting that, just that it is a tactic open to UKIP at any time.
The dream is to get both Lab and Con down to as near as 30% as possible and have them begging UKIP to help them out.. its looking good
UKIP dont have to do what the Tories want them to, it is the old parties that are on the run and we are calling the tune, as your mate Sadiq showed today. Better get used to it
By the way, why aren't we getting a referendum over the transfer of powers on justice? Surely that's a significant transfer of power?
Yay, you're talking about Justice again.
As you disappeared last night, can you please continue posting about Theresa May being responsible for prisons.
Ah, you're right. It's been split out now hasn't it.
Since 2007, actually one of the good things Labour did.
Then again it has led to people egregiously unqualified to become Lord Chancellor, such as Chris Grayling
I must admit I was wrong. I thought Grayling would be the centrist and May the clumsy right-wing one. Turns out it is the other way round, although the May has skillfully kept the respect of people wanting a harder line than her.
Bigbore4 - It is not likely that the Conservatives will increase their share of the vote but it is not impossible by any means.
They regularly pick up 10 - 15% of 2010 LDs. If they can get most of the UKIP switchers back and win just a a few % of Labour switchers then they could get 40%.
Now that's a lot of ifs so it isn't very likely. But it is possible.
Iron-law rules aren't great because they work for years (but with very low sample sizes) .... and then suddenly they don't.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
No, it was excellent politics. Without that creative ambiguity to keep the more gullible of the BOOers in the tent, the Tories would have been a few points lower in late 2007, and Gordon Brown would have called an early election which he'd probably have won.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
Just because someone prefers a particular outcome doesn't mean that their intent to give people their say us invalidated. Your antipathy to Cameron is hampering your critical faculties.
Can Ed possibly change his mind on the no referendum promise? I don't see how he can now, but there are a few Labour MPs who won't fancy campaigning on the message to the voters ... "No, we don't trust you."
But I think the 'ins' would just about win
Once again you make the mistake that a Euro Ref is a salient issue. Most people simply don't care that much and, as the status quo is supported by the majority, why do you expect it to be a major election issue for swing voters?
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
Don't be absurd - if you polled people today less than 1% of people would even be aware of the Lisbon treaty - let alone whether Cameron did or didn't promise a referendum on it.
You are making the classic PB error - because you are knowledgeable about something, it doesn't mean other people are.
Not at all. the issue was widely covered in the press at the time, with the Sun cheer leading for a no vote. Cameron's problem has been the politicis of how he handled the issue.
An independent Scotland would be twice as likely to adopt its own currency as continue using the pound, according to an analysis produced yesterday by Barclays for its investors.
The banking giant estimated there was a 60 per cent chance of Scotland being forced to start its own currency despite Alex Salmond’s insistence the remainder of the UK would drop its opposition to sharing the pound after a Yes vote in the referendum.
Barclays said there would only be a 30 per cent chance of Scotland keeping the pound, either in a eurozone-style currency union as Mr Salmond proposes, or informally without the UK’s agreement......
........However, a second analysis by Deutsche Bank, Europe’s largest investment bank, warned the creation of a new currency could trigger a bank run as Scots withdraw their savings over fears it would be worth less than the pound.
By the way, why aren't we getting a referendum over the transfer of powers on justice? Surely that's a significant transfer of power?
Yay, you're talking about Justice again.
As you disappeared last night, can you please continue posting about Theresa May being responsible for prisons.
Ah, you're right. It's been split out now hasn't it.
Since 2007, actually one of the good things Labour did.
Then again it has led to people egregiously unqualified to become Lord Chancellor, such as Chris Grayling
I must admit I was wrong. I thought Grayling would be the centrist and May the clumsy right-wing one. Turns out it is the other way round, although the May has skillfully kept the respect of people wanting a harder line than her.
I too had worries, she went from being Shadow Work and Pensions to Home Secretary overnight, I thought it was an appointment for PR purposes.
But she's mastered her brief wonderfully, not gone for the big rhetoric/big ideas that have doomed her predecessors.
And her speech to the Police Federation, was IMHO, the most courageously brilliant thing I've seen done by a politician in a long time. Granted I am a noted police hater (copyright an ACC) I would say that.
I really really really want her to become the next PM.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
A bloke called Alan Brooke, criticising the Prime Minister, has that ever happened before?
Yes, but if you read the history he did it for the PMs own good. :-)
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
No, it was excellent politics. Without that creative ambiguity to keep the more gullible of the BOOers in the tent, the Tories would have been a few points lower in late 2007, and Gordon Brown would have called an early election which he'd probably have won.
Gordon take a decision ? Come on EiT that's a spoof.
"Once again you make the mistake that a Euro Ref is a salient issue."
It probably isn't, and it isn't with me, but you're missing the point. Those who do feel it is, feel very strongly. And it's the implied (and rightly inferred) message that the Labour party doesn't trust its supporters. We know it doesn't and that's why Ukip can build on it.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
A lot of Tory MPs would cut up very rough. Probably 100 or so. But, the other 200 or so? I doubt it.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
A bloke called Alan Brooke, criticising the Prime Minister, has that ever happened before?
Yes, but if you read the history he did it for the PMs own good. :-)
I have read the history. Brooke and Churchill = The Greatest Partnership in History according Sir Max Hastings.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
Just because someone prefers a particular outcome doesn't mean that their intent to give people their say us invalidated. Your antipathy to Cameron is hampering your critical faculties.
I have an antipathy to Osborne because he's a crap CoE. Cameron to me is just an irrelevance, he does nothing for me either way.
I may be the odd one out (as a new and probably temporary Ukip voter - although that's still to be decided) because I believe Cameron.
If elected with a majority, he will organise a referendum, he'll extract a few baubles and then return with a recommendation to vote for 'in' and then campaign for it.
I remember the mid 70s - it was the most one sided referendum debate ever (and I was a Europhile then). It's not often you feel sorry for Tony Benn and the SWP.
I dont doubt he will hold a referendum.
What @RichardNabavi pretends not to notice is that a PM with a majority campaigning to stay in will carry a lot more clout with the public and media than one with a small minority thanks to UKIP MPs support
Also, telling their supporters to vote Tory will disillusion Lab-UKIP switchers and destabilise the momentum UKIP have
What are you offering that Labour will be -8.4 behind the Conservatives in vote share for the 2015 GE ? You were wrong regarding Labour if I remember correctly on euros results night.
From your analysis it is looking like Labour 31% Conservatives 39.4% ?
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 2017 and in any case doesn't have a majority in this parliament, but not trusting him on this is equally bonkers. The probability that a majority Tory government would not hold a referendum as promised by the end of 2017 is zero. Precisely zero. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's roots in the Lisbon welch. And while you'll deny he welched I'll simply point out the average voter doesn't read the small print and if he didn't understand that he's not that good at politics. He took a flyer and got caught out as a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
Don't be absurd - if you polled people today less than 1% of people would even be aware of the Lisbon treaty - let alone whether Cameron did or didn't promise a referendum on it.
You are making the classic PB error - because you are knowledgeable about something, it doesn't mean other people are.
Not at all. the issue was widely covered in the press at the time, with the Sun cheer leading for a no vote. Cameron's problem has been the politicis of how he handled the issue.
He created an expectation and dashed it.
You seriously think people remember what was in the press many years ago?
Look at the Populus polls which ask people to name the big news stories over the last WEEK - most people struggle to name ANYTHING. WITHIN THE LAST WEEK.
You don't need to trust Cameron personally, if you don't want to. Just look at the political reality. The idea that he could get away with reneging on that commitment, given the position of the party as a whole, is just laughable.
well as Socrates has pointed out promises only last until election day.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
A bloke called Alan Brooke, criticising the Prime Minister, has that ever happened before?
Yes, but if you read the history he did it for the PMs own good. :-)
I have read the history. Brooke and Churchill = The Greatest Partnership in History according Sir Max Hastings.
Perhaps you can become an adviser to Dave?
I'd be delighted to help TSE. You can come and visit us in our new office in Glasgow.
Probably because enough people don't take Cameron at his word. He had his chance and blew it. Would I trust Cameron to deliver on a referendum ? No. And I'm not a kipper.
Well, I'm not sure what chance that was, since he has never promised a referendum before 201 Not a snowflake's chance in hell, as anyone who has had even the slightest contact with Conservative Party members recently will be able to confirm.
Richard always happy to discuss your view, but the uphill battle you have been fighting for the last 4 years has it's ras a result he damaged his credibility.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
He didn't welch. It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of English that he didn't welch. The fact that various people made up a pretend pledge to claim that he welched on it says more about them than him.
Yes all those white van voters got their lawyers out to explain the sub-clauses and how cast-iron is actually quite a brittle metal and breaks easily.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
Don't be absurd - if you polled people today less than 1% of people would even be aware of the Lisbon treaty - let alone whether Cameron did or didn't promise a referendum on it.
You are making the classic PB error - because you are knowledgeable about something, it doesn't mean other people are.
Not at all. the issue was widely covered in the press at the time, with the Sun cheer leading for a no vote. Cameron's problem has been the politicis of how he handled the issue.
He created an expectation and dashed it.
You seriously think people remember what was in the press many years ago?
Look at the Populus polls which ask people to name the big news stories over the last WEEK - most people struggle to name ANYTHING. WITHIN THE LAST WEEK.
why not add some bold type to go with the caps ?
As has been pointed out down thread it's the cumulative effect of the stories which count even if people can't remember the specifics. And for cameron the Lisbon welch was one of the first big pieces of mud to stick.
I have more than one card, so I asked them for details and told them the order wasn't from me and could they tell me the card so I could investigate the security breach?
Just to eliminate one possibility, how did you contact Fon and what makes you confident that it was really Fon who you were talking to?
Good point. They should be giving you the credit card details not the other way around.
I looked up the BT website and found the link to Fon's website. That part has to be kosher. They weren't asking me for the card info - their (email) reply said the refund was in progress, they merely didn't know the card to which it was being refunded.
Wtf? First, how does someone benefit (except Fon, who I presume are not villains) by charging a random person to upgrade? Second, how does Fon refund the money without knowing what the card is?
Has the £21 actually been charged to your card? It sounds more like the upgrade has been applied to the wrong account.
I don't know. I have half a dozen cards, most of them rarely used. I'll have to wait for the next statements.
Avery's solution might be right - I've done a lot of travelling lately, and might have clicked on a "yes" at some point. What's puzzled me was that whoever it was apparently knew both my email address and my card number.
Oh well - thanks all for pondering with me.
DavidL - where should I send the £10 to BetterTogether? To you or to their website?
Nick, I said the other night that you should just send it direct to them and I am more than happy to take your word for it.
Top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Means testing of OAP benefits. A VAT increase.
You remain quiet whenever I bring these up.
They are irrelevant. Look at the manifesto and you will see that the NHS changes were laid out in some detail. I've no idea what you mean by means testing. There was no commitement not to raise VAT.
And yet you want to vote for a party whose manifesto was 'drivel'.
Comments
Now here's an idea: why not just vote Conservative instead, which would give you a 306-seat start?
"An Independence From Europe received over 230,000 votes nationwide, equivalent to 1.5% of the total."
"“Members all over the county have been phoning in over this,” he said. “Just standing outside the polling station and there were a lot of people coming out and saying ‘I voted for you, top of the ballot’.”
I think this is a significant issue for Ukip because of the scale and because no doubt it will happen again at future elections. So the more fuss made of it now the more careful Ukip voters will be in the future.
On the other hand making a fuss allows opponents to push the dumb voter meme.
Seems to me the potential loss is large enough to mean making as much fuss as possible is the only option so then it becomes how to make a fuss while flipping the effect of the "dumb voter" idea. I'd say
1) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who haven't voted for years
2) stress Ukip getting lots of votes from people who've voted Labour or Tory their whole lives up till now
3) stress the political class turning a blind eye to electoral malpractise
Separate from all that, any debate on here related to numbers and polling that doesn't include an estimate of the votes Ukip lost to AIFE will plainly be wrong.
ie As long as UKIP's vote share falls at all between now and GE and as long as more UKIP switch to Con than Lab (even if only 51/49) then Con pick up THAT incremental gain + any "conventional" switching between the 3 traditional main parties.
(2) Because there might be a hung parliament, where a handful of UKIP seats could be the only way a pro-referendum coalition is possible.
(3) Because in the event of a referendum, UKIP will get far more air time in the years coming up to it if they get a big share of the vote and representation in parliament.
(4) Because another big issue is reducing immigration levels to pre-1997 levels, which the Conservatives are incapable of doing, regardless of the EU.
Take your pick.
In practice, I think voters aren't so stupid. For anyone who genuinely wants a referendum, the combination of voting UKIP in the Euros followed by Conservative in the GE makes perfect sense. That's not to say that UKIP won't get quite a lot of votes in the GE - they will - but not from anyone who actually wants a referendum in the next parliament.
Btw, the "election like no other" meme is a little overused, don't you think?
For 90 years the vast bulk of seats have been won by the same two parties, UNS has been an accurate (if a little fuzzy) predictor, etc.
We may get some sort of incremental change in 2015, emergence of a strong 4th party, but the usual rules will continue to apply, more or less.
It seems a far more rational reason than the idea that you would vote racist just for a joke. I mean who would be stupid enough to do that?
you'd have thought so but then cameron doesn't appear to agree with doing things the simple way. He doesn't even have to win back kippers just disaffected blues who will stay at home. But he's pretty crap at selling a message outside the SE, so he's stuck where he is. A wasted opportunity, maybe he's just not that good at politics.
I see there's a minor outbreak of "I agree with Nigel" from the other parties now. I doubt if that will help Ukip's cause in the GE nest May. To get a few seats, they need the hysterical insults, or preferably, the woman from Rotherham Council.
@LordAshcroft Does this sum up current situation ? pic.twitter.com/mIHcKNAGwp
.. and we still won
easily
You remain quiet whenever I bring these up.
Someone should tell our Rod that:
1. There was no credible 4th party which will definitely take more than 10%. More likely 14%. His model does not take this into account.
2. There was no such thing as the Red Liberals before May 2010.
As a result , it is most unlikely that either Conservative or Labour will receive 35%.
The important point is the distribution of the UKIP vote.
Labour can be 3-4% behind and still be the largest party.
Would Rod enter a bet whether Labour would do better than -8.4% ?
But I think the 'ins' would just about win
Why do we need OFCOM to do all this nonsense?
"Ofcom said it will look at "new intermediaries which control platforms" – presumably firms such as Netflix, Amazon and Apple – "including their control of potentially valuable direct relationships with audiences.""
What business has OFCOM got looking into the likes of Netflix? There are no competition issues - its audience is miniscule compared to the BBC, ITV, C4 and C5.
So what if Channel 4 can't compete - if it can't survive then let it close down or be taken over.
The answer, of course, is that OFCOM wants to preserve the comfortable, status quo, cartel - which it can regulate. It loves handing out licences to ITV, C4 and C5 - imposing rules, quotas etc etc - and it can't do that to Netflix.
If Netflix thrives and C4 dies - then bingo, OFCOM's role diminishes. Can't have that, can we?
If Cameron gets a majority next year let's come he calls time on all this nonsense. From memory OFCOM has an annual budget of well over £100m.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/27/bbc-licence-fee-ofcom-netflix-amazon-apple
As I have said before, if they were serious about this, they'd be recommending people to vote Conservative whilst converting themselves into the Out campaign, starting now. That's three whole years to put together the campaign team, finance, and most importantly the arguments (they could start from the Brexit paper). What are they actually doing? Trying to prevent the referendhum happening at all, and doing precisely nothing to put together the Out case.
It was his Tony I'm a straight kind of a guy moment.
Would I trust him ? No, not on this.
" he [Cameron]'s pretty crap at selling a message outside the SE,"
We have had this conversation before, Mr. Brooke, but I'll remind you that Cameron is pretty crap at selling a message inside the SE too. Between the factory workers of Nuneaton and the blue collar workers of the SE there are more similarities than differences and Cameron is not reaching either set. Worse he doesn't seem to feel he needs to.
And yet you want to vote for a party whose manifesto was 'drivel'.
But he doesnt have to announce that now does he? As the best result for UKIP is a weak Labour government that is tied to a referendum he should go for that.
Call it whichever way you will but let's accept the fact this was poor politics - creating and then dashing an expectation - and with a large chunk of the electorate Cameron damaged his credibility permanently.
If the Kippers return in the 2015 election, then perhaps - but there is no indication yet that will happen and it is arguable that if Miliband keeps the 2010 lib dems and his 29% Gordon Brown base - then he is PM by default.
There is no way Cameron manages to increase his vote. Not even the greats (Thatcher & Blair) managed that.
As you disappeared last night, can you please continue posting about Theresa May being responsible for prisons.
The past is just a guide and there is no recent history for how voters in the current sceanrio of four-party politics
The 29% base is not a base. It's just what Labour happened to poll on General Election Day 2010. They were polling lower before that.
If elected with a majority, he will organise a referendum, he'll extract a few baubles and then return with a recommendation to vote for 'in' and then campaign for it.
I remember the mid 70s - it was the most one sided referendum debate ever (and I was a Europhile then). It's not often you feel sorry for Tony Benn and the SWP.
However on a euroref Cameron has already decided what the answer should be, so it makes it a tad difficult to takes his pledge at face value. So no I wouldn't trust him.
You are making the classic PB error - because you are knowledgeable about something, it doesn't mean other people are.
And they now have a leader who's just the guy to do it...
A great recovery since they polled in the 20s in a survey released at 4pm!
The dream is to get both Lab and Con down to as near as 30% as possible and have them begging UKIP to help them out.. its looking good
UKIP dont have to do what the Tories want them to, it is the old parties that are on the run and we are calling the tune, as your mate Sadiq showed today. Better get used to it
Could be you are making the mistake of thinking people will not be reminded during the upcoming election?
They regularly pick up 10 - 15% of 2010 LDs. If they can get most of the UKIP switchers back and win just a a few % of Labour switchers then they could get 40%.
Now that's a lot of ifs so it isn't very likely. But it is possible.
Iron-law rules aren't great because they work for years (but with very low sample sizes) .... and then suddenly they don't.
He created an expectation and dashed it.
An independent Scotland would be twice as likely to adopt its own currency as continue using the pound, according to an analysis produced yesterday by Barclays for its investors.
The banking giant estimated there was a 60 per cent chance of Scotland being forced to start its own currency despite Alex Salmond’s insistence the remainder of the UK would drop its opposition to sharing the pound after a Yes vote in the referendum.
Barclays said there would only be a 30 per cent chance of Scotland keeping the pound, either in a eurozone-style currency union as Mr Salmond proposes, or informally without the UK’s agreement......
........However, a second analysis by Deutsche Bank, Europe’s largest investment bank, warned the creation of a new currency could trigger a bank run as Scots withdraw their savings over fears it would be worth less than the pound.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10859064/Barclays-Independent-Scotland-likely-to-get-new-currency.html
But she's mastered her brief wonderfully, not gone for the big rhetoric/big ideas that have doomed her predecessors.
And her speech to the Police Federation, was IMHO, the most courageously brilliant thing I've seen done by a politician in a long time. Granted I am a noted police hater (copyright an ACC) I would say that.
I really really really want her to become the next PM.
People vote on their general impression of the parties and leaders and their gut feel as to which they prefer.
No individual policy announcement by anyone about any subject makes any noticeable difference.
"Once again you make the mistake that a Euro Ref is a salient issue."
It probably isn't, and it isn't with me, but you're missing the point. Those who do feel it is, feel very strongly. And it's the implied (and rightly inferred) message that the Labour party doesn't trust its supporters. We know it doesn't and that's why Ukip can build on it.
Perhaps you can become an adviser to Dave?
What @RichardNabavi pretends not to notice is that a PM with a majority campaigning to stay in will carry a lot more clout with the public and media than one with a small minority thanks to UKIP MPs support
Also, telling their supporters to vote Tory will disillusion Lab-UKIP switchers and destabilise the momentum UKIP have
What are you offering that Labour will be -8.4 behind the Conservatives in vote share for the
2015 GE ?
You were wrong regarding Labour if I remember correctly on euros results night.
From your analysis it is looking like Labour 31% Conservatives 39.4% ?
Look at the Populus polls which ask people to name the big news stories over the last WEEK - most people struggle to name ANYTHING. WITHIN THE LAST WEEK.
As has been pointed out down thread it's the cumulative effect of the stories which count even if people can't remember the specifics. And for cameron the Lisbon welch was one of the first big pieces of mud to stick.
Etonians never lie.
Paulines are less reliable except when it comes to numbers. On anything to do with figures they can be trusted without question.