Before you disappear on your three month Sabbatical, can I just say that you seem to be recovering your usual balanced approach when Ukip is mentioned. Up to now, the mere mention would send you into a frenzy of bile - akin to an allergy. I'd noticed it in others too, but you stood out because you're normally far more measured.
I don't know if they use the phrase in Norfolk, but it's good to see you've ceased being a mardy-arse where Ukip are concerned. And when you return, I'm sure you'll using your usual acute forensic skills to account for the rise and rise of King Nigel.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
No it didnt
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jobs, nothing to do with Romanian or Bulgarian accession
That UKIP 26 million poster was not about Romanians and Bulgarians, it was about unemployed people across the EU. And it seems silly to pretend that it was anything other than dishonest. No more dishonest than any other poster put out by any other party, but dishonest nevertheless. There are not 26 million unemployed Europeans after people's jobs in this country.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
No it didnt
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jopbs, nothing to do with Romanina or Bulgarian accession
Apologies, 26 million.
Yes, there were two separate examples of UKIP using dodgy statistics (or 'lying', as the Kippers would say if any other party did the same thing).
In the last thread, Anti-Frank ask's whether King Charles should get a Coronation Ceremony, given "most of Europe" doesn't bother.
*TUT*
He'll be King George
Why is it that almost all male monarchs in Britain are called George even if their actual name is different?
The British Monarchs since the Union with Scotland have all used their birth name as their regnal name with the following exceptions:
Alexandrina Victoria reigned as Queen Victoria. Albert Edward reigned as King Edward VII. Albert Frederick Arthur George reigned as King George VI.
The Prince of Wales is Charles Philip Arthur George and is generally expected to reign as King George VII, though I doubt the tabloids will let that happen. He'll surely be King Charlie-boy to them.
I would think that if Charles does reign as King George VII then he will be the last British monarch in many generations to change his name upon taking the throne. Prince George was surely so named so that he could take that name to the throne without any such faffing about, and there's not the same negative connotations to a King William V as there would be with a King Charles III.
Surely Prince Charles isn't afraid that if he becomes King Charles III he will be beheaded? King George is worse, everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
No it didnt
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jobs, nothing to do with Romanian or Bulgarian accession
Different posters regarding different things
That poster was very badly worded. The fact was fine, but in the effort to get the visual it seemed to suggest that those 26 million were after the job of the person reading the poster. While the hyperbole in the poster may have been clear to most people reading it, it was still incorrect so should not have been done.
That said, after the poster got criticism UKIP didn't go round saying it again, apparently learning their lesson. Unlike Nick Clegg, who continued to repeat the three million lie long after it had come out that it was incorrect.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
No it didnt
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jopbs, nothing to do with Romanina or Bulgarian accession
Apologies, 26 million.
Yes, there were two separate examples of UKIP using dodgy statistics (or 'lying', as the Kippers would say if any other party did the same thing).
I disagree that the stats were dodgy and that either were lies, but the fundamental point is one of numbers.
If Romania and Bulgaria were countries with populations of 29,000 combined then mass immigration wouldnt be such a problem. We have been sleepwalking towards this point for years and it has taken the worst case scenario to be shouted out loud for people to wake up
None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
We've been going through this with the Lib Dems too - tho most of them now seem over it - the sort of duffing up Labour and the Tories take as part of the political trade was reacted to as an affront to the dignity of a particularly precious maiden aunt - the Lib Dems reaching their apogee over Renardgate.....tho UKIP do have a slightly cultish element like the SNP, where criticism of the leader is regarded as apostasy.....
@PeterMannionMP: Another #Labour ad. Never mind the quality, feel the width. Legislative incontinence is something to be proud of. http://t.co/VXd79Gv4L7
That is the total number of unempolyed in the EU, nothing to do with Romanians or Bulgarians (apart from the unemployed ones)
I made that mistake in an argument with Observer
Still a nasty poster.
When mass immigration has put pressure on your job security and wages for the last decade, life feels nasty
So you admit Kippers are nasty.
Thanks for confirming that.
Dont thank me, I didnt say it
I said life feels nasty when you are under the cosh
I am not one to stereotype, or set myself up as morally pure .There is good and bad in everyone
Economic pressure causes people to get angry. The governments job is to make its citizens life better, but successive governments have made working class peoples lives worse in order to stick to a dogma.
Now the people are looking elsewhere for answrs, and the powers that be are runnning scared
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Before you disappear on your three month Sabbatical, can I just say that you seem to be recovering your usual balanced approach when Ukip is mentioned. Up to now, the mere mention would send you into a frenzy of bile - akin to an allergy. I'd noticed it in others too, but you stood out because you're normally far more measured.
I don't know if they use the phrase in Norfolk, but it's good to see you've ceased being a mardy-arse where Ukip are concerned. And when you return, I'm sure you'll using your usual acute forensic skills to account for the rise and rise of King Nigel.
OMG someone on the internet who knows what "forensic" means. I thought that was illegal.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
The poster said that 29 million people in the EU were after your job. That is, by any objective standard, a worse lie than Clegg's.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
No it didnt
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jobs, nothing to do with Romanian or Bulgarian accession
Different posters regarding different things
That poster was very badly worded. The fact was fine, but in the effort to get the visual it seemed to suggest that those 26 million were after the job of the person reading the poster. While the hyperbole in the poster may have been clear to most people reading it, it was still incorrect so should not have been done.
That said, after the poster got criticism UKIP didn't go round saying it again, apparently learning their lesson. Unlike Nick Clegg, who continued to repeat the three million lie long after it had come out that it was incorrect.
In the United States, it is believed in some circles that the authorities response to the growing adherence to alternative theories about 9-11 etc. has changed from outright denial to a more personalised approach of 'coralling' truthers and tea partiers; allowing them to form a significant minority, but at the same time using all the power of the mass media to make them an object of ridicule, unpleasantness and even fear to the majority. For example giving air time to the obnoxious Alex Jones -who often has a small grain of truth in his rantings, but is such an unpleasant character that one actively chooses ignorance. The end game of this seperation of the sheep and the goats scenario is fairly unthinkable.
One hopes that this strategy is not being pursued in the UK, but I can't entirely rule it out.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Funny that you have so far singularly failed to make that case then and have simply fallen back on stereotypical attacks on other parties.
Be assured whatever positive case you might try and make for uncontrolled immigration it will always fall on deaf ears because it has no merit.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
"I see an incoherent and unfocused rage from people..."
And the best thing to do with a crowd of angry people is to tell them that they are wrong?
"You have no grounds for complaint. This is best, the most successful government the country has had in fifty years". Yeah, like that will work.
Cameron has tried insulting the portion of the electorate that could have delivered him a majority; he has tried ignoring them; telling them they are just plain wrong is, I suppose, the next step. Anything other than engaging with ordinary people, their fears and their hopes.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
In other words you agree with making the rich richer, and the poor poorer
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Funny that you have so far singularly failed to make that case then and have simply fallen back on stereotypical attacks on other parties.
Be assured whatever positive case you might try and make for uncontrolled immigration it will always fall on deaf ears because it has no merit.
Wrong. I've criticised my own party enough times when they go on and on about immigration.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
In other words you agree with making the rich richer, and the poor poorer
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
I'm not talking about the cumulative sense. I'm talking in the actual sense. While the cumulative effect of all the food I eat is net beneficial to my health, that does not make sense that all the food I eat is good for me, nor does it mean I could not improve it. Focusing only on the aggregate would clearly cause me to make poor decisions on my diet.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
In other words you agree with making the rich richer, and the poor poorer
The Prince of Wales will take the regnal name Charles III. George VI took George as his regnal name in order to stress the continuity between his reign and that of his father. The circumstances in 1937 were extraordinary. The second point is that people know so little history today that most will no longer consider another Charles a bad idea.
Without the previous Charles's, we wouldn't have the constitutional monarchy we have today. So, we should be very grateful to them.
Apparently, Charles III is looking to PR to be his lasting constitutional legacy...
"I see an incoherent and unfocused rage from people..."
And the best thing to do with a crowd of angry people is to tell them that they are wrong?
I'm analysing, not proselytising.
I don't know whether it is in fact possible to address the incoherent rage. After all, it's not just a UK phenomenon. My instinct is that the only way to address it is pretty much what the government is doing: keep up the good work, and keep banging on with two or three simple messages. We shall see if it works well enough to avoid the kind of slide back into decline which we saw in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
"I see an incoherent and unfocused rage from people..."
And the best thing to do with a crowd of angry people is to tell them that they are wrong?
I'm analysing, not proselytising.
I don't know whether it is in fact possible to address the incoherent rage. After all, it's not just a UK phenomenon. My instinct is that the only way to address it is pretty much what the government is doing: keep up the good work, and keep banging on with two or three simple messages. We shall see if it works well enough to avoid the kind of slide back into decline which we saw in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Funny that you have so far singularly failed to make that case then and have simply fallen back on stereotypical attacks on other parties.
Be assured whatever positive case you might try and make for uncontrolled immigration it will always fall on deaf ears because it has no merit.
Wrong. I've criticised my own party enough times when they go on and on about immigration.
Mindless criticism of a party is not the same as a positive argument for immigration which is what you have claimed you are making.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
Easy to claim when you refuse to even recognise and acknowledge the disadvantages.
"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
Easy to claim when you refuse to even recognise and acknowledge the disadvantages.
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
Oh, they'll go away, no doubt about that. The question is, how much damage will they do in the meantime? Will they last long enough to put the two Eds into Nos 10 and 11 and cement ever-closer union by scuppering the referendum? If so, long enough beyond that to divide the opposition to what will by then be an excruciatingly unpopular Labour government to an extent which allows Labour to win in 2020 as well?
Dunno.
If UKIP do keep the Conservative Party out of power, that's a problem of the Conservatives' own making.
But you can solve factors number 1 and 3 by merging UKIP and the Conservatives in a new party under a new name, it worked before it can work again.
I like to think that the saner Tories wouldn't welcome the bigots back into the fold.
Besides, the Kippers who deserted Labour wouldn't be happy with a merger. They'll scuttle away.
According to Yougov, 23% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would vote UKIP today. That's 8% of the voters.
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
We've always been pro-immigration party.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
I'm not talking about the cumulative sense. I'm talking in the actual sense. While the cumulative effect of all the food I eat is net beneficial to my health, that does not make sense that all the food I eat is good for me, nor does it mean I could not improve it. Focusing only on the aggregate would clearly cause me to make poor decisions on my diet.
This is a poor analogy, because people exist as somewhat more discrete entities as part of a society than different parts of your body exist as discrete parts of your body.
I would have thought that, in terms of diet, it was the aggregate effect that was everything, and the effect of your metabolism on your food intake was to integrate its effects over time. Thus the small amount of cyanide in apple seeds will not harm you, but the larger amount in wild almonds will.
It's the over-emphasis on often irrelevant details, rather than the aggregate whole, that is the chief failure of most fad diets.
I agree with your general point though - assessing the overall impact of immigration is about more than performing an arithmetical summation of debits and credits.
It says the government "will allow" not "will come"
For completeness, the text is:
Next year,
the EU will allow
29 million Bulgarians and Romanians to come to the UK
Did 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians come to the UK?
No they did not. I am allowed to go Milton Keynes whenever I like. The fact that I choose not to and have no interest in going to Milton Keynes is beside the point. The fact is that I am allowed to if I want.
As such the UKIP claim was absolutely accurate. The fact that 29 million people did not immediately jump on a place or train and take up the right does not change the fact that that right was there. More importantly nor does it change the fact that we have now opened up our jobs market to a further 29 million people.
"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
Quibbling perhaps, but George IV was Regent during the latter period of the Napoleonic Wars which stand comparison with the numbered World Wars of the 20th century.
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?
The BNP want no immigration The other three want uncontrolled EU immigration
Oh, they'll go away, no doubt about that. The question is, how much damage will they do in the meantime? Will they last long enough to put the two Eds into Nos 10 and 11 and cement ever-closer union by scuppering the referendum? If so, long enough beyond that to divide the opposition to what will by then be an excruciatingly unpopular Labour government to an extent which allows Labour to win in 2020 as well?
Dunno.
If UKIP do keep the Conservative Party out of power, that's a problem of the Conservatives' own making.
But you can solve factors number 1 and 3 by merging UKIP and the Conservatives in a new party under a new name, it worked before it can work again.
I like to think that the saner Tories wouldn't welcome the bigots back into the fold.
Besides, the Kippers who deserted Labour wouldn't be happy with a merger. They'll scuttle away.
According to Yougov, 23% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would vote UKIP today. That's 8% of the voters.
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
Then Britain's future looks left leaning, and deeply cemented into the European project.
I think I'd now vote Labour over UKIP if it came to a tactical vote.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
We've always been pro-immigration party.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
Net immigration under Thatcher (and for that Wilson and Callaghan) was a fraction of its current level.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?
There is no middle ground. At least not on free movement. It would take a complete change in the fundamental principles of the union along with a rewriting of all the treaties and unanimity from all member states. It is simply not going to happen, not least because a significant part, probably the majority, of the EU don't want it. The choice is complete freedom of movement and a continued move towards ever closer union or withdrawal.
Talking of dishonesty and immigration, I'd recommend a look at this extraordinary 1944 propaganda film, made by the Colonial Film Unit and believed to be aimed at attracting immigrants from the Caribbean:
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
We've always been pro-immigration party.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
Net immigration under Thatcher (and for that Wilson and Callaghan) was a fraction of its current level.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
But she supported and signed up for the principle of free movement of people across Europe.
Oh, they'll go away, no doubt about that. The question is, how much damage will they do in the meantime? Will they last long enough to put the two Eds into Nos 10 and 11 and cement ever-closer union by scuppering the referendum? If so, long enough beyond that to divide the opposition to what will by then be an excruciatingly unpopular Labour government to an extent which allows Labour to win in 2020 as well?
Dunno.
If UKIP do keep the Conservative Party out of power, that's a problem of the Conservatives' own making.
But you can solve factors number 1 and 3 by merging UKIP and the Conservatives in a new party under a new name, it worked before it can work again.
I like to think that the saner Tories wouldn't welcome the bigots back into the fold.
Besides, the Kippers who deserted Labour wouldn't be happy with a merger. They'll scuttle away.
According to Yougov, 23% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would vote UKIP today. That's 8% of the voters.
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
Then Britain's future looks left leaning, and deeply cemented into the European project.
I think I'd now vote Labour over UKIP if it came to a tactical vote.
"I see an incoherent and unfocused rage from people..."
And the best thing to do with a crowd of angry people is to tell them that they are wrong?
I'm analysing, not proselytising.
I don't know whether it is in fact possible to address the incoherent rage. After all, it's not just a UK phenomenon. My instinct is that the only way to address it is pretty much what the government is doing: keep up the good work, and keep banging on with two or three simple messages. We shall see if it works well enough to avoid the kind of slide back into decline which we saw in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Yes, it is possible to deal with angry people lots of people in the public sector and customer service do it every day. In each successful interaction you will find one thing, the person dealing with the situation acknowledges the anger.
In politics, if you think that the Conservatives can just ignore those angry people, tell them that they are wrong, and still expect them to vote Conservative then be prepared for opposition next year or find some other electorate that will vote for you.
That slide back to the 1960s and 1970s might seem awful from you sit, but to the people who are hurting and angry it might not seem so bad.
The logical extension of the point made by several posters here is that the working class in Yorkshire should be protected by jobs in Yorkshire being available only to Yorkshiremen... with Lancastrians only being allowed in to satisfy specific skill shortages.
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
We've always been pro-immigration party.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
Net immigration under Thatcher (and for that Wilson and Callaghan) was a fraction of its current level.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
But she supported and signed up for the principle of free movement of people across Europe.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me but didn't she do a lot to make enlargement happen? There was a geo-political goal (integrating ex-Communist countries) and the "wider not deeper" theory that more members would slow down the core, which ultimately didn't work out as well as the anti-integration people hoped.
Oh, they'll go away, no doubt about that. The question is, how much damage will they do in the meantime? Will they last long enough to put the two Eds into Nos 10 and 11 and cement ever-closer union by scuppering the referendum? If so, long enough beyond that to divide the opposition to what will by then be an excruciatingly unpopular Labour government to an extent which allows Labour to win in 2020 as well?
Dunno.
If UKIP do keep the Conservative Party out of power, that's a problem of the Conservatives' own making.
But you can solve factors number 1 and 3 by merging UKIP and the Conservatives in a new party under a new name, it worked before it can work again.
I like to think that the saner Tories wouldn't welcome the bigots back into the fold.
Besides, the Kippers who deserted Labour wouldn't be happy with a merger. They'll scuttle away.
According to Yougov, 23% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would vote UKIP today. That's 8% of the voters.
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
Then Britain's future looks left leaning, and deeply cemented into the European project.
I think I'd now vote Labour over UKIP if it came to a tactical vote.
Proof that "Tory" Europhiles are in fact closet lefties?
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me but didn't she do a lot to make enlargement happen? There was a geo-political goal (integrating ex-Communist countries) and the "wider not deeper" theory that more members would slow down the core, which ultimately didn't work out as well as the anti-integration people hoped.
Newark could be important for the LDs, oddly enough. They really ought to save their deposit but if they don't it'll put Clegg under even more pressure.
Newark could be important for the LDs, oddly enough. They really ought to save their deposit but if they don't it'll put Clegg under even more pressure.
It would be the 9th deposit lost this Parliament out of 16 GB by-elections...
Newark could be important for the LDs, oddly enough. They really ought to save their deposit but if they don't it'll put Clegg under even more pressure.
It would be the 9th deposit lost this Parliament out of 16 GB by-elections...
"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
Quibbling perhaps, but George IV was Regent during the latter period of the Napoleonic Wars which stand comparison with the numbered World Wars of the 20th century.
Quibbling indeed, Mr. Me. The proposition put forward was that every time we had a monarch called George there was a major world war. George IV became monarch in 1820 the Napoleonic wars finished in 1815. Further, I would dispute that the Napoleonic wars in either scope or effect matched the world wars of the 20th century. They might have been pretty ghastly for the time but even then they weren't the worst the world had ever seen (see for example the effects of the 30 years war).
Yes, it is possible to deal with angry people lots of people in the public sector and customer service do it every day. In each successful interaction you will find one thing, the person dealing with the situation acknowledges the anger.
In politics, if you think that the Conservatives can just ignore those angry people, tell them that they are wrong, and still expect them to vote Conservative then be prepared for opposition next year or find some other electorate that will vote for you.
I've never suggested ignoring it. However, reality is reality: the way to improve things is by making steady progress on the economy, on education, on reforming the EU, on Welfare, and none of that can be done quickly. Sure, we could use the Blair approach of ignoring the fundamentals and concentrating on getting favourable headlines, and maybe if the Conservatives' only concern was re-election, that might be a good approach, although I rather suspect the public wouldn't fall for it a second time.
My point is more that, if people are angry now, how are they going to be under PM Miliband? A hell of a sight angrier is my guess, like Hollande's erstwhile supporters. At least with the Tories they were told things were going to be tough and there were no facile solutions.
Oh, they'll go away, no doubt about that. The question is, how much damage will they do in the meantime? Will they last long enough to put the two Eds into Nos 10 and 11 and cement ever-closer union by scuppering the referendum? If so, long enough beyond that to divide the opposition to what will by then be an excruciatingly unpopular Labour government to an extent which allows Labour to win in 2020 as well?
Dunno.
If UKIP do keep the Conservative Party out of power, that's a problem of the Conservatives' own making.
But you can solve factors number 1 and 3 by merging UKIP and the Conservatives in a new party under a new name, it worked before it can work again.
I like to think that the saner Tories wouldn't welcome the bigots back into the fold.
Besides, the Kippers who deserted Labour wouldn't be happy with a merger. They'll scuttle away.
According to Yougov, 23% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 would vote UKIP today. That's 8% of the voters.
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
Then Britain's future looks left leaning, and deeply cemented into the European project.
I think I'd now vote Labour over UKIP if it came to a tactical vote.
Proof that "Tory" Europhiles are in fact closet lefties?
This is quite a common kind of division depending how strongly you're against something. If you think X is quite bad, you can imagine it getting gradually worse without anything actually changing, but if you think X is really, really terrible, you tend to assume that sooner or later it'll get so bad that it'll self-destruct or the people will see how terrible it is and rise up and destroy it.
So from the Kippers point of view, if a referendum soon is a 50/50 shot or 60/40 one way or the other, a referendum later is pretty much certain to be more winnable. That makes what looks to the moderates like a tactical no-brainer into a bit of a wash for the hard-liners.
The logical extension of the point made by several posters here is that the working class in Yorkshire should be protected by jobs in Yorkshire being available only to Yorkshiremen... with Lancastrians only being allowed in to satisfy specific skill shortages.
Only if you think of the UK is a province of Europe rather than independent country
"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
Quibbling perhaps, but George IV was Regent during the latter period of the Napoleonic Wars which stand comparison with the numbered World Wars of the 20th century.
Quibbling indeed, Mr. Me. The proposition put forward was that every time we had a monarch called George there was a major world war. George IV became monarch in 1820 the Napoleonic wars finished in 1815. Further, I would dispute that the Napoleonic wars in either scope or effect matched the world wars of the 20th century. They might have been pretty ghastly for the time but even then they weren't the worst the world had ever seen (see for example the effects of the 30 years war).
But there was fighting pretty much all over the world:
Egypt, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, the Caribbean, N. America, as well as in Europe naturally!
Re: the previous thread - I was surprised more people didn't comment on the fact that, of Ukip voters, MORE said the main reason was they were disillusioned with Labour than disillusioned with Conservatives. To me, that says more of them instinctively identify with Labour which is why Labour should be targetting them relentlessly, despite the insistence from some commentators that Ukip are mainly a threat to the Tories based solely on the very flawed measure of who they voted for in 2010 (the Tories are obviously going to lead in most subgroups in a year when they're well ahead nationally).
A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
What's the reason? UKIP?
No directly.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
Do you think all immigration is good?
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
I wonder whether you'll still think that after five years of Ed Milliband rolling back the years to 1975.
It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national elections
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national elections
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly that it is Mike site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
Right. Mike's completely entitled to give his site whatever bias he wants. We should just point it out now and again so that passing readers are aware.
It's not like it's the BBC, taking my money to pump out bias.
"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
Quibbling perhaps, but George IV was Regent during the latter period of the Napoleonic Wars which stand comparison with the numbered World Wars of the 20th century.
Quibbling indeed, Mr. Me. The proposition put forward was that every time we had a monarch called George there was a major world war. George IV became monarch in 1820 the Napoleonic wars finished in 1815. Further, I would dispute that the Napoleonic wars in either scope or effect matched the world wars of the 20th century. They might have been pretty ghastly for the time but even then they weren't the worst the world had ever seen (see for example the effects of the 30 years war).
But there was fighting pretty much all over the world:
Egypt, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, the Caribbean, N. America, as well as in Europe naturally!
I think it's fair to say the Seven Years' War was probably the first world war. The claim about Georges is still wrong though.
In politics, if you think that the Conservatives can just ignore those angry people, tell them that they are wrong, and still expect them to vote Conservative then be prepared for opposition next year or find some other electorate that will vote for you.
It's quite tricky for politicians when they think the voters are mistaken about what's causing a problem, as they often are. (We can argue about which specific things they're mistaken about...)
Say the voters get it into their heads that cats cause unemployment. You can try to tell them that they're wrong, but that's obviously unpopular in the short term, as you say. Or you can try to do their bidding and go around shooting cats, but that won't actually solve the problem, and when it fails the voters will blame you for the failure, probably claiming you somehow executed it wrongly.
What politicians often tend to do is to pretend to agree with the diagnosis and take a strong position against cats, maybe round up a few of the nastier strays, but not actually do anything serious about it. This works well in the short term, but sooner or later the voters notice that the cats are still alive. In a two-party system it just gradually drags down the trust they have of both of you, but it's still the best strategy in each individual election; You don't have to look genuinely tough on cats, you just have to look tougher on cats than the other side. And since you never actually solve the problem, you can reuse the same policies every time.
The problem arises when a third party comes along (hi Tim if you're still out there) that really does want to kill all the cats. At that point you really need to make the argument about why killing the cats won't really create jobs, but you can't because you've just spent the last two decades agreeing that they're causing unemployment and promising to kill them yourself.
Comments
Before you disappear on your three month Sabbatical, can I just say that you seem to be recovering your usual balanced approach when Ukip is mentioned. Up to now, the mere mention would send you into a frenzy of bile - akin to an allergy. I'd noticed it in others too, but you stood out because you're normally far more measured.
I don't know if they use the phrase in Norfolk, but it's good to see you've ceased being a mardy-arse where Ukip are concerned. And when you return, I'm sure you'll using your usual acute forensic skills to account for the rise and rise of King Nigel.
Look, it's a political poster. It makes a point using a dodgy statistic. None of this would matter, if it wasn't for the ludicrous pretence the Kippers make of plain-speaking honesty and accusing other parties of sophistry and dishonesty.
They were allowed to come in 2008...
Had they?
That poster was about 26m unemployed EU citizens being able to compete for British jobs, nothing to do with Romanian or Bulgarian accession
Different posters regarding different things
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27684527
Yes, there were two separate examples of UKIP using dodgy statistics (or 'lying', as the Kippers would say if any other party did the same thing).
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
Thanks for confirming that.
King George is worse, everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war.
That said, after the poster got criticism UKIP didn't go round saying it again, apparently learning their lesson. Unlike Nick Clegg, who continued to repeat the three million lie long after it had come out that it was incorrect.
No MP's, Ed in Number 10, and ever deeper into European project.
Someone needs to find a way of harnessing all that uncontrollable energy.
If the BBC told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth there'd be no need.
If Romania and Bulgaria were countries with populations of 29,000 combined then mass immigration wouldnt be such a problem. We have been sleepwalking towards this point for years and it has taken the worst case scenario to be shouted out loud for people to wake up
Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Legislative incontinence is something to be proud of. http://t.co/VXd79Gv4L7
I said life feels nasty when you are under the cosh
I am not one to stereotype, or set myself up as morally pure .There is good and bad in everyone
Economic pressure causes people to get angry. The governments job is to make its citizens life better, but successive governments have made working class peoples lives worse in order to stick to a dogma.
Now the people are looking elsewhere for answrs, and the powers that be are runnning scared
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
UKIP leaflet: "Only UKIP can beat the Tories in Newark." No bar chart.
http://www.ukip.org/supporters_out_in_newark
http://tinyurl.com/kxdhdor
One hopes that this strategy is not being pursued in the UK, but I can't entirely rule it out.
Be assured whatever positive case you might try and make for uncontrolled immigration it will always fall on deaf ears because it has no merit.
"I see an incoherent and unfocused rage from people..."
And the best thing to do with a crowd of angry people is to tell them that they are wrong?
"You have no grounds for complaint. This is best, the most successful government the country has had in fifty years". Yeah, like that will work.
Cameron has tried insulting the portion of the electorate that could have delivered him a majority; he has tried ignoring them; telling them they are just plain wrong is, I suppose, the next step. Anything other than engaging with ordinary people, their fears and their hopes.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes#disqus_thread
A tiny increase in GDP, the top 5% get richer at the expense of the bottom 5%
Or as you put it
"In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages"
Apparently, Charles III is looking to PR to be his lasting constitutional legacy...
I don't know whether it is in fact possible to address the incoherent rage. After all, it's not just a UK phenomenon. My instinct is that the only way to address it is pretty much what the government is doing: keep up the good work, and keep banging on with two or three simple messages. We shall see if it works well enough to avoid the kind of slide back into decline which we saw in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Now who is scaremongering? You couldnt make it up
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?
I'm not sure how the Conservatives can ever win an election again, without bringing them back into the fold.
Now, I strongly suspect that some Conservatives take the view that on no account must they be prepared to compromise with the voters, but that's their problem, not UKIP's.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
I would have thought that, in terms of diet, it was the aggregate effect that was everything, and the effect of your metabolism on your food intake was to integrate its effects over time. Thus the small amount of cyanide in apple seeds will not harm you, but the larger amount in wild almonds will.
It's the over-emphasis on often irrelevant details, rather than the aggregate whole, that is the chief failure of most fad diets.
I agree with your general point though - assessing the overall impact of immigration is about more than performing an arithmetical summation of debits and credits.
Ashcroft's poll has Con + UKIp + Lab + LD summing to 84%.
51 weighted Greenies.
46 weighted Lib Dems (Raw figure is 41)
Lib Dem - Green Westminster VI Crossover.
The other three want uncontrolled EU immigration
The middle ground is UKIP
I think I'd now vote Labour over UKIP if it came to a tactical vote.
The Single European Act was signed when the EU had 12 members, most of them with similar standards of living to our own, not when it had 27, some of them far poorer.
[daydreams....]
http://www.colonialfilm.org.uk/node/1923
It's a complete hoot. One can only hope that the passengers on the Windrush weren't conned by it.
In politics, if you think that the Conservatives can just ignore those angry people, tell them that they are wrong, and still expect them to vote Conservative then be prepared for opposition next year or find some other electorate that will vote for you.
That slide back to the 1960s and 1970s might seem awful from you sit, but to the people who are hurting and angry it might not seem so bad.
http://t.co/VBgDNsxbwv
My point is more that, if people are angry now, how are they going to be under PM Miliband? A hell of a sight angrier is my guess, like Hollande's erstwhile supporters. At least with the Tories they were told things were going to be tough and there were no facile solutions.
http://t.co/4FH2Oryd8I
So from the Kippers point of view, if a referendum soon is a 50/50 shot or 60/40 one way or the other, a referendum later is pretty much certain to be more winnable. That makes what looks to the moderates like a tactical no-brainer into a bit of a wash for the hard-liners.
Health and schools haven't collapsed under the evil Tories.
So what's left - arguing about the EU until 2017 ?
Egypt, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, the Caribbean, N. America, as well as in Europe naturally!
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Hills are offering 11-8 about UKIP getting more votes than the Lib Dems at the next GE.
Ladbrokes are 5-6 UKIP/LD; LD/UKIP (The pair)
I'm in for £20 on the UKIP side with Hills.
DYOR.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
It's not like it's the BBC, taking my money to pump out bias.
Say the voters get it into their heads that cats cause unemployment. You can try to tell them that they're wrong, but that's obviously unpopular in the short term, as you say. Or you can try to do their bidding and go around shooting cats, but that won't actually solve the problem, and when it fails the voters will blame you for the failure, probably claiming you somehow executed it wrongly.
What politicians often tend to do is to pretend to agree with the diagnosis and take a strong position against cats, maybe round up a few of the nastier strays, but not actually do anything serious about it. This works well in the short term, but sooner or later the voters notice that the cats are still alive. In a two-party system it just gradually drags down the trust they have of both of you, but it's still the best strategy in each individual election; You don't have to look genuinely tough on cats, you just have to look tougher on cats than the other side. And since you never actually solve the problem, you can reuse the same policies every time.
The problem arises when a third party comes along (hi Tim if you're still out there) that really does want to kill all the cats. At that point you really need to make the argument about why killing the cats won't really create jobs, but you can't because you've just spent the last two decades agreeing that they're causing unemployment and promising to kill them yourself.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.