Outgoing MP (No incumbency) Low 53.8% turnout - more than average non voters there at GE time. Almost evenly split Lab-Con vote last time. East coast. 10.8% UKIP/BNP vote last time. UKIP only start 8734 votes behind Labour & 8020 behind Conservatives.
I'd imagine the demographic profile would be favourable to UKIP too, just a hunch mind..
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
My only reason for supporting UKIP is because I believe it would massively in the country's interest to leave the EU. I do not believe that a referendum, under a govt led by DC (who has admitted that he will be a key member of the stay-in camp) is the way to achieve it.
ve it.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
That's rather pessimistic of you. Strength of the argument and all that. I think you'd win whoever organised it.
@isam I don't think that an approach which was broadly if the Bulgarians don't steal your job the Romanians will mug you for your pay cheque is particularly tolerant.
Of course some non-racists would vote BNP however by 2010 I would suggest it was vanishingly small numbers. By that stage most of them would have been shamed out of it.
The majority don't want open borders but when the political and media class collude as a caste against the public then democracy stops working.
You massively overestimate the influence let alone the organisation of politicians and journalists.
Indeed. Anyone expecting such uniformity of purpose and approach would be sorely disappointed.
Outgoing MP (No incumbency) Low 53.8% turnout - more than average non voters there at GE time. Almost evenly split Lab-Con vote last time. East coast. 10.8% UKIP/BNP vote last time. UKIP only start 8734 votes behind Labour & 8020 behind Conservatives.
I'd imagine the demographic profile would be favourable to UKIP too, just a hunch mind..
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Outgoing MP (No incumbency) Low 53.8% turnout - more than average non voters there at GE time. Almost evenly split Lab-Con vote last time. East coast. 10.8% UKIP/BNP vote last time. UKIP only start 8734 votes behind Labour & 8020 behind Conservatives.
I'd imagine the demographic profile would be favourable to UKIP too, just a hunch mind..
I missed the price there, it was 16s and now I think its 6s
Also I think the Consevative that lost narrowly in 2010 will be the UKIP candidate in 2015
So UKIP might be on a level playing field. But they can't delay too long. UKIP should really be all-over that constituency like a rash right now, assembling canvassing data and recruiting members. They can tell their faithful that Farage is very likely to stand, but as the Conservatives are so desperate to stop him, he doesn't want to make it official for a while yet. Lest that wake the Tory beast.
UKIP don't need a fancy piece of voter software. They need 2 or 3 experienced campaigners, a good man-manager, an office with a few PCs, some telephones and MS Excel or MS access database would be enough to start with.
Personally, I think it would be very healthy for British democracy to have Nigel Farage in the House of Commons. However, it's clear the Conservatives are prepared to pay almost any price to stop that happening. So if he does declare for Thanet South, it will get one hell of a lot of attention from Millbank (or wherever the Tories are based these days)
I wonder if the prospect of Mr Farage as the UKIP candidate is delaying the selection for the Conservative candidate in South Thanet? Perhaps CCHQ have a Kryptonite candidate in mind for his constituency?
If the Conservatives want to win, they'd be well-advised to listen to the advice of their local constituency chair.
CCHQ could easily mess it up by endorsing someone who really detests UKIP, but has fire in their belly, wants to take the fight to them with fervour, and gets on well with the leadership. Or, even worse, they try and use it to detox and pick someone who they think represents the sort of person they think UKIP is prejudiced against (just to make a point) to try and appeal to the Lib Dem/Labour voters in Thanet South to rally round and vote Conservative tactically.
I'd like to say, 'they'd never be that stupid', but this is CCHQ we're talking about here.
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended. The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation. The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended. The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation. The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
Meanwhile calls continue to bring back polytechnics as studies find that people educated in polytechnics are more virile, youthful looking and able to cope with the tough shift work at the average Burger King. Crap schools and crap universities - the nirvana we have been seeking all along!
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended. The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation. The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
Sort of makes sense. Still will not be perfect (you will get some pupils from poor state schools being privately tutored for instance) and you will get pupils from good state schools doing well despite a poor home environment so it should be used at the edges .
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
I think that's objectively right. There are two strategies for those of us who think withdrawal would be a national disaster. Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended.
I was just wondering "what commie pinko fag think tank has come up with this then?"
But that's the trouble with data!
I wonder what Gove's take on this will be, or the Hon Hunt's?
Mr. Palmer, Labour lied and backtracked on its promise for a referendum over Lisbon. Your strategy wasn't to hold a referendum with massive treaty change, it was to pretend changing the font and the title meant the document was substantially different, then having Brown run along hours after everyone else to sign the treaty.
Cameron's approach is to get renegotiation first. It's likely he'll either fail or get some pathetic token gesture, but after that (if he's PM) there *will* be a referendum because his backbenchers will topple him otherwise and whoever replaces him will have to hold a vote.
Tory backbenchers are sometimes a bit too keen on regicide, and sometimes bloody stupid, but at least they aren't the spineless sheep of Labour. That's why I'm confident, if Cameron is PM after the next election, we will have a vote.
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended. The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation. The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
That sort of social engineering usually doesn't work. Instead of sending their children to private schools, those parents will send them to comprehensives and have private tutors working in the background. Will there then be rules based on whether people used private tutors?
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Betting tip. Take the 6/4 of 0 UKIP seats from Ladbrokes and mix it with 2/1 on 1-5 UKIP seats from William Hill.
It's a decent bet undermined by the miniscule amounts allowed to be wagered.
The High Street chains should be ashamed at the embarrassingly paltry amount that they regularly allow punters to wager.
Indeed I'd go so far as to say that they should as part of their operating licence be legally bound to allow a win on a single wager of a minimum of £100.
I will make the point I made when the by election was called that timing wise it was a cracker. The media are taken with the D-Day commemorations (rightly) so the by election will be a lower order story. There is little opportunity for crowing and had the result been not so good it would have been covered over etc. astute timing imho
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true.
But since WW2, the British govt has alternated between Labour and Conservative. If that is to continue, you will never be able to avoid a Labour govt at some point in the future. So you might as well vote UKIP now. Or, at the very least, pay UKIP the compliment of attending one of their local meetings. Talk to the activists in the bar afterwards. It will be worth your time.
Cameron might not want it, but events could conspire to leave him to go down in history as the PM who oversaw the end of the Union with Scotland and the end of Britain's membership of the EU.
There are some posters on this site who would like to leave to leave the EU. If you are still intending to vote tory, ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that DC is the man to lead Britain out of Europe? If not, for your position to be logical, you have to take the view that a labour govt would do more damage than Britain staying in the EU. That may be true............ .
Let me re-phrase that into the real key question. There are some posters on this site who would like a referendum on the EU. If you are still intending to vote UKIP, ask yourself this question: do you really believe that a Govt led by Ed Milliband is the man to deliver a referendum after the next GE?
DC has never said he would take Britain out. He has however committed to a referendum in 2017 and more than 50% of his backbenchers have voted for that. EdM has said he will not give a referendum if he leads the Govt after the GE, less than 10% of Ed's backbenchers have voted for one. So it is clear which way the two parties are heading.
My only reason for supporting UKIP is because I believe it would massively in the country's interest to leave the EU. I do not believe that a referendum, under a govt led by DC (who has admitted that he will be a key member of the stay-in camp) is the way to achieve it.
I don't quite follow. Whether Cameron supports being in or not is irrelevant surely? A referendum is needed - I'd probably vote In, but think we should have a referendum right now to be honest, or at least as soon as possible - and whichever way Cameron or other party leaders intend to campaign, those wanting to leave will get their chance in that referendum. I'd understand if you felt Cameron would find a way not to have the referendum somehow, but if you think a Cameron government will offer one, that is a perfect way to achieve leaving the EU regardless of what he wants.
I wish UKIP a good showing in 2015, I'm not about to advocate not voting for them if people want to (the more parties with MPs the better in my view), but if you want the UK to leave the EU, does it matter how that is achieved? A Cameron led referendum which he is campaigning on the other side is a way to achieve it.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
Ukip are unlikely to win a GE - do you want that postponed too ?
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Yes, the chair of the Association does seem to "get it".
A pity. I was hoping they'd select someone like Joanna Cash.
Adam Rickett should throw his hat in the ring.
I'm sure Brian Coleman could take the fight to UKIP.
Hey, you've already recruited Neil and Christine Hamilton, Brian's moment of political re-invention can't be that far off. Top candidate on the kippers' London List in 2019 nailed on. Enjoy.
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
I've taken £72 of the Ladbrokes 6-4, £60 of the Hills 2-1 and £20 of the 5+ as an under-round hedge to essentially make a bet for £32 @ 7/8 for UKIP under 5 seats.
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
There are arguments for not being in the EU that are valid and about being forward looking and open to a modern world. The idea that anyone who wants a different relationship with the EU or no relationship with it wants to turn the clock back to a bygone age is just not the case.
An interesting Spectator article on Farage. The husky hugging can't be far away..
"There are many words that you might associate with Nigel Farage, but moderniser probably isn’t one. Yet the Ukip leader is embarking on the process of modernising his party....
If this sounds similar to what David Cameron did after winning the Tory leadership in 2005, that’s because it is. Interviewing Farage during his triumphant European election campaign, I was struck by how he talked approvingly of ‘New Ukip’, ...
It was reminiscent of how the Cameroons used to talk in the early days of his leadership or, going further back, how those around Tony Blair would boast of their transformation of the Labour party....
If this means Ukip losing some of its intellectual consistency, then that is a price that the leadership is prepared to pay."
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
To be fair, David Kendrick has always been entirely candid about UKIP's real objectives with respect to the referendum. It's the sly, contrived disingenuousness of Socrates and Richard Tyndall that is at once hilarious yet more than faintly nauseating.
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
What better way to get on with making the EU work than by properly settling the question of whether the UK should still be in it?
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
What better way to get on with making the EU work than by properly settling the question of whether the UK should still be in it?
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Yes, the chair of the Association does seem to "get it".
A pity. I was hoping they'd select someone like Joanna Cash.
Adam Rickett should throw his hat in the ring.
I'm sure Brian Coleman could take the fight to UKIP.
Hey, you've already recruited Neil and Christine Hamilton, Brian's moment of political re-invention can't be that far off. Top candidate on the kippers' London List in 2019 nailed on. Enjoy.
I have a sinking feeling that he could somehow find his way into UKIP.
To be fair, David Kendrick has always been entirely candid about UKIP's real objectives with respect to the referendum. It's the sly, contrived disingenuousness of Socrates and Richard Tyndall that is at once hilarious yet more than faintly nauseating.
David has been consistent in his remarks here, but he was (briefly) a UKIP candidate, presumably preparing to seek election on a platform which makes a big fuss about 'the referendum the country has been denied'. It seems he too wants to deny the people that referendum. Honourable, honest, not-like-the-LibLabCons, eh?
As for Richard T, I have only warm feelings for him, given that, if there is a referendum, he'll be paying me £100 when it produces a Stay In result!
Still, it is very gratifying to see that the Kippers are so impressed by Cameron's political clout and powers of persuasion that they think he can single-handedly prevent the People's Army from triumphantly rescuing Britannia from her incarceration in a dungeon in Brussels.
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Yes, the chair of the Association does seem to "get it".
A pity. I was hoping they'd select someone like Joanna Cash.
Adam Rickett should throw his hat in the ring.
I'm sure Brian Coleman could take the fight to UKIP.
Hey, you've already recruited Neil and Christine Hamilton, Brian's moment of political re-invention can't be that far off. Top candidate on the kippers' London List in 2019 nailed on. Enjoy.
I have a sinking feeling that he could somehow find his way into UKIP.
Will he and the Arsenal striker be made to feel completely welcome at UKIP social events?
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
I think that winning a referendum will always be a tall order, when you have the machinery of Government (not just rival politicians) officially campaigning against you.
Still, there are many unknowns between now and 2017.
Betting tip. Take the 6/4 of 0 UKIP seats from Ladbrokes and mix it with 2/1 on 1-5 UKIP seats from William Hill.
It's a decent bet undermined by the miniscule amounts allowed to be wagered.
The High Street chains should be ashamed at the embarrassingly paltry amount that they regularly allow punters to wager.
Indeed I'd go so far as to say that they should as part of their operating licence be legally bound to allow a win on a single wager of a minimum of £100.
Well said, though Hills have let me on for £60 on the 1-5 and £20 on the 5+ market on this one.
Any more and "trader" will definitely stop me though.
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
What better way to get on with making the EU work than by properly settling the question of whether the UK should still be in it?
I doubt that. There will always be a proportion for OUT in the same way the Indy refs in the past did not kill off the SNP.
Have the Conservatives chosen a replacement for Laura Sandys?
It appears not.
Together with the EU Parliament results, they posted:
"We will be seeking a new candidate for the South Thanet Parliamentary seat. That candidate must be able to convince this Association and our electorate that not only has he/she fully taken the voters concerns on board but that it is vital that the Conservative government delivers a referendum on our continued membership of the EU as soon as possible."
Yes, the chair of the Association does seem to "get it".
A pity. I was hoping they'd select someone like Joanna Cash.
Adam Rickett should throw his hat in the ring.
I'm sure Brian Coleman could take the fight to UKIP.
Hey, you've already recruited Neil and Christine Hamilton, Brian's moment of political re-invention can't be that far off. Top candidate on the kippers' London List in 2019 nailed on. Enjoy.
I have a sinking feeling that he could somehow find his way into UKIP.
Will he and the Arsenal striker be made to feel completely welcome at UKIP social events?
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
I think that winning a referendum will always be a tall order, when you have the machinery of Government (not just rival politicians) officially campaigning against you.
Still, there are many unknowns between now and 2017.
There should be rules restricting the use of the machinery of Government in any referendum. Certainly if HMT came out and said we were £1,400 better off in the EU than out of it at the start of the official campaign I would be seriously unimpressed.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
I think that winning a referendum will always be a tall order, when you have the machinery of Government (not just rival politicians) officially campaigning against you.
Still, there are many unknowns between now and 2017.
There should be rules restricting the use of the machinery of Government in any referendum. Certainly if HMT came out and said we were £1,400 better off in the EU than out of it at the start of the official campaign I would be seriously unimpressed.
I think it's inevitable that David Cameron will want to weight the odds in his favour as much as he can, when the referendum takes place. Just as people who wish to leave the EU would want to weight the odds in their favour, as much as they could.
"Jean-Claude Juncker may offer Britain a better deal than a notionally more “modern” or “Atlanticist” candidate. The sly Luxembourger is one of those federalists who accepts that, since the United Kingdom won’t join the euro, and won't accept the goal of political union, a special status must be found for us.
The precise details of what he has in mind are still unclear, but the broad outline is plain enough: provided the UK accepts the four freedoms of the single market (free movement of goods, capital, services and labour), Juncker is happy for us to opt out of pretty much everything else. He is, in other words, holding out the associate status, the Swiss-type deal that this blog has long been calling for."
One thing in UKIPs favour for the upcoming GE is the age profile. Old buffers are cantankerous and stubborn (all of them, all the time), they will be hard to prise from the loving embrace of the young upstart Farage. Some sort of old fart giveaway in March 2015 is a must. No VAT on yum yums and a state funded radîo station that talks about how much better things were when we all had cholera for a start. I jest. Well, sort of,
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
I think that winning a referendum will always be a tall order, when you have the machinery of Government (not just rival politicians) officially campaigning against you.
Still, there are many unknowns between now and 2017.
There should be rules restricting the use of the machinery of Government in any referendum. Certainly if HMT came out and said we were £1,400 better off in the EU than out of it at the start of the official campaign I would be seriously unimpressed.
I think it's inevitable that David Cameron will want to weight the odds in his favour as much as he can, when the referendum takes place. Just as people who wish to leave the EU would want to weight the odds in their favour, as much as they could.
Indeed - which is why there should be rules preventing them from doing so!
I think that winning a referendum will always be a tall order, when you have the machinery of Government (not just rival politicians) officially campaigning against you.
I agree. In fact I go further - I don't think there's a snowflake's chance in hell of an Out result. That is precisely the point I was making when Richard T took out the bet with me, and it is precisely why it would be a disaster to have a referendum without renegotiation first.
But Cameron is completely irrelevant to that argument. It's not so much the machinery of government you need to be worried about (in fact it might help the Out side to be able to frame the referendum as a protest against the government). It's the Beeb, the CBI, most big employers, most or all trades unions, most UK politicians, all continental European politicians, and even US politicians, who will all be saying the same thing: it will cost your jobs. Whether that is true or not is not the point, of course.
That is why I think UKIP, and the crazier Tory BOOers, are utterly misguided. The only way out of the mess is to tip-toe away quietly, encouraging the Eurozone to form a closer central core and negotiating opt-outs for the UK. No big bust-up, just a gentle disengagement from the most damaging aspects of the EU.
A Cameron organised referendum, when he is strongly on one side, would probably result in a win for in. We'd be screwed for a generation. The stronger UKIP is, the more likely we are to leave the EU.
So UKIP are being dishonest when they say they want an In/Out referendum?
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
UKIP are not being dishonest when hoping for a referendum. We recognise that, under the current system, it is the best way to escape the negative and unhelpful EU.
However, many of us realise that getting the referendum will actually be a lot easier than winning one We are aware that it would be against the wishes of the BBC and the other three party leaders--a formidable combination.
But a united tory party leading the 'out' campaign alters substantially the probability of winning an 'out' vote.
Would we rather win an 'in-out' referendum in 2022, or lose one in 2017?
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
Strategy A is not to have a referendum without a major treaty change (Labour, LibDems). Strategy B is to have one under circumstances where one's sure to get an "In" result (e.g. a "There is a no treaty yet but please endorse my demands" referendum, which I assume is what Cameron would have in 2017). Sneakier and slightly riskier but probably works too.
I think it's very brave for members of parties who have done everything to avoid giving us a referendum on membership of the EU to say that a party with a very clear commitment to giving us one is being "sneakier"!
I wish we could get on with making the EU work and stop messing about with in-out arguments like Hokey Cokey dancers. Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
What better way to get on with making the EU work than by properly settling the question of whether the UK should still be in it?
No more than a "no" will kill the SNP stone dead I fear.......
Or, Richard, vote in a UKIP government and they take us out without a referendum. Then wreck the country and beg to be let back in.
Isnt UKIP policy to have an immediate referendum?
Wasn't Labours to have one on Lisbon? Q.E.D
So we shouldnt believe Dave's promise for one in 2017?
QED?
Tis for the individual to decide. For me, Labour are far more duplicitous and always have been, so can't be trusted. UKIP might as well pull out if they get a majority ever, they'd have the mandate after all, and why risk a certain implosion in the event of an IN? It would be like the coalition losing a referendum on austerity. Game over.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
All I have to say about the by-election result is "Sleazy broken Bus Pass Elvis on the slide".
I'd say the main thing to take away is Stop Banks getting just 64 votes (0.17%), a ringing endorsement for massive bonuses and 125% mortgages. Let the good times roll, baby
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
No, for once he's not being inconsistent. You are. He consistently and unambiguously, without qualification, says UKIP want a referendum in the next parliament. You say they don't.
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
No, for once he's not being inconsistent. You are. He consistently and unambiguously, without qualification, says UKIP want a referendum in the next parliament. You say they don't.
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
I would be perfectly happy to have a referendum in the next parliament. But if the referendum were called by a triumphant Cameron, trumpeting his renogiating 'successess', I'm worried that the odds would be unwinnably stacked against us. Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
No, for once he's not being inconsistent. You are. He consistently and unambiguously, without qualification, says UKIP want a referendum in the next parliament. You say they don't.
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
Given that there are no conceivable circumstances in which a weak Labour government, or indeed any Labour government, would hold an In/Out referendum, that is simply evidence of a complete failure to face up to reality.
The strategy cannot actually work. That's a bit of a fundamental flaw.
One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities.
Generalising wildly, independent sector kids tend to have access to more resources at school and at home, so you would expect they to outperform in a "taught" environment like school. Therefore, logically, state school kids that achieve the same end mark have performed relatively better and hence are either smarter or harder working.
University rewards smart/hard-working kids more than those who rely on being spoon-fed. So you'd expect state school kids who get there despite the structural disadvantages to outperform.
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
No, for once he's not being inconsistent. You are. He consistently and unambiguously, without qualification, says UKIP want a referendum in the next parliament. You say they don't.
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
I would be perfectly happy to have a referendum in the next parliament. But if the referendum were called by a triumphant Cameron, trumpeting his renogiating 'successess', I'm worried that the odds would be unwinnably stacked against us. Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
If as the kippers claim there is a massive groundswell for out and Cameron is crap, surely the best chance for a referendum you will win is 2017, with a Tory majority.
Farage is not being inconsistent. He recognises that, without a UKIP majority, the only way we'll be allowed to quit the EU is through a referendum. He is making the point that he'll do a deal with anyone to achieve out. He has said in private (and I think it is public knowledge) that he does not think he is the best man to lead the out campaign, after a referendum date has been fixed.
No, for once he's not being inconsistent. You are. He consistently and unambiguously, without qualification, says UKIP want a referendum in the next parliament. You say they don't.
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
I would be perfectly happy to have a referendum in the next parliament. But if the referendum were called by a triumphant Cameron, trumpeting his renogiating 'successess', I'm worried that the odds would be unwinnably stacked against us. Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
If as the kippers claim there is a massive groundswell for out and Cameron is crap, surely the best chance for a referendum you will win is 2017, with a Tory majority.
That's what I just don't get about that argument. UKIP clearly have the courage of their convictions, and are clear than any renegotiation Cameron might or might not get woul not be enough, and that the public are sick of LibLabCon and the EU, so as long as the question is In or Out, why would they think they wouldn't win?
Personally I would advise against a deal with the devil. It rarely works as intended, having seen it in several films.
It also displays a worrying attitude to democracy, unless Farage openly espouses diabolism in his manifesto, and that may not play well with some of his socially conservative followers.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
Personally I would advise against a deal with the devil. It rarely works as intended, having seen it in several films.
It also displays a worrying attitude to democracy, unless Farage openly espouses diabolism in his manifesto, and that may not play well with some of his socially conservative followers.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
Best by far for 'out' would be a referendum under a weak labour govt.
Given that there are no conceivable circumstances in which a weak Labour government, or indeed any Labour government, would hold an In/Out referendum, that is simply evidence of a complete failure to face up to reality.
The strategy cannot actually work. That's a bit of a fundamental flaw.
Point taken.
But I don't think that voting for Cameron, because he'll probably organise a referendum if he forms the next govt, is the best way of getting to 'out'.
If you want out, vote UKIP. If you'd like a referendum simply to undermine Farage and UKIP, I can understand voting tory.
Regardless of political affiliation I can't let today pass without referring to the commemorations today in Normandy. That we have a democracy to debate is thanks to the almost unimaginable bravery and sacrifice of those men 70 years ago.
On a personal note its sad to read about the end of the Normandy Veterans Association as most have now died. As a Para and a veteran of Overlord, Market Garden and later campaigns onward into Germany I remember my Grandad who died a few years ago having turned out to so many NVA and Market Garden Association events over the years. I simply cannot conceive how he and his comrades felt, how they were prepared to fight and die for our democracy, and how for his generation whether or not to go simply wasn't a question.
For all that we turn Iraq and Syria and the Falklands into political footballs, we need to remember that the ball is brave men and women prepared to do the things we won't to defend the things we barely even respect any more.
"One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities."
As a consequence
a) Independent schools have been given a marketing tool to justify their fees
b) Monitoring these results over time, if the gap closes at university then it will tell us that state school A level performance is improving in the way we want
c) Independent schools vary and state schools vary. So it would be wrong to adjust A level results just based on the type of school rather than the particular school. Students at rubbish independent schools would be disadvantaged and pupils at excellent non independent or grammar schools would be unfairly advantaged.
"One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities."
As a consequence
a) Independent schools have been given a marketing tool to justify their fees
b) Monitoring these results over time, if the gap closes at university then it will tell us that state school A level performance is improving in the way we want
c) Independent schools vary and state schools vary. So it would be wrong to adjust A level results just based on the type of school rather than the particular school. Students at rubbish independent schools would be disadvantaged and pupils at excellent non independent or grammar schools would be unfairly advantaged.
I still feel they should re-organise the school year to spread the holidays out rather than concentrate it in the summer.
Personally I would advise against a deal with the devil. It rarely works as intended, having seen it in several films.
It also displays a worrying attitude to democracy, unless Farage openly espouses diabolism in his manifesto, and that may not play well with some of his socially conservative followers.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
But I don't think that voting for Cameron, because he'll probably organise a referendum if he forms the next govt, is the best way of getting to 'out'.
If you want out, vote UKIP. If you'd like a referendum simply to undermine Farage and UKIP, I can understand voting tory.
As I've said before, if the aim really is to get us out in the foreseeable future, then you first need a referendum, and secondly you need to win it. The first bit is extremely easy: vote Tory in sufficient numbers, and you've got your referendum by the end of 2017, no wriggling possible.
The second bit is much harder, certainly (personally I think impossible, but who am I to say?). To maximise the chances of success, you should be spending the next three years making as good a case and as powerful a campaign as possible, in collaboration with people like Dan Hannan. But that's not happening. You are not only trying to throw away success in getting the referendum in the first place, you're also doing nothing to maximise your chances of success if the referendum does occur.
Personally I would advise against a deal with the devil. It rarely works as intended, having seen it in several films.
It also displays a worrying attitude to democracy, unless Farage openly espouses diabolism in his manifesto, and that may not play well with some of his socially conservative followers.
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Hmm, you obviously haven't been listening to the leader of UKIP. He told us he'd do a deal with the devil to get a referendum in the next parliament. That's a cast-iron commitment, is it not?
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
But I don't think that voting for Cameron, because he'll probably organise a referendum if he forms the next govt, is the best way of getting to 'out'.
If you want out, vote UKIP. If you'd like a referendum simply to undermine Farage and UKIP, I can understand voting tory.
As I've said before, if the aim really is to get us out in the foreseeable future, then you first need a referendum, and secondly you need to win it. The first bit is extremely easy: vote Tory in sufficient numbers, and you've got your referendum by the end of 2017, no wriggling possible.
The second bit is much harder, certainly (personally I think impossible, but who am I to say?). To maximise the chances of success, you should be spending the next three years making as good a case and as powerful a campaign as possible, in collaboration with people like Dan Hannan. But that's not happening. You are not only trying to throw away success in getting the referendum in the first place, you're also doing nothing to maximise your chances of success if the referendum does occur.
And as we get closer to the election suddenly Cameron's knack of disaffecting large chunks of blue voters looks a bit stupid, and scare tactics aren''t bringing them back.
And as we get closer to the election suddenly Cameron's knack of disaffecting large chunks of blue voters looks a bit stupid, and scare tactics aren''t bringing them back.
We shall see. An alternative possibility is that Cameron, having become PM in the most difficult economic circumstances since the Thirties and done a superb job, sees off Scottish independence, goes on to win the GE, and finally reworks our relationship with the EU and holds a referendum to close down the issue which has been festering for quarter of a century.
Fingers crossed. It might not work out, but it's the best chance we've got.
I'm trying to put UKIP in some kind of historical context.
Are they 'doing well'? Sure, but that's a bland assessment.
How well are they doing? Compared to historical parties, more evidence of national support but failing to make that breakthrough that others did in seats they started just as far back in. Which means it has to call into question their ability to win seats at a GE.
With the hype (and UKIP have been hyping themselves plenty) comes expectations.
Other parties (and I can only think of SDP/Alliance etc.) have come on very strong, but faded away/slowed right down very quickly. That was a middle party -a amalgam of Labour and Tory that caused a lot of excitement because people thought they didn't have to decide any more, but ultimately fell flat.
In marketing terms, that is called the mushy middle and is to be avoided. UKIP are different -they are a divergence on the Tory right, so their genesis has left the Tories in the mushy middle (some Tories are foolishly delighted at this, relishing their new moderate status), so they will probably go the way of the old Liberal party, or the SDLP, or the UUP. Convergence products = hype and eventual failure. Divergence products = slow adoption but eventual success.
Comments
Also I think the Consevative that lost narrowly in 2010 will be the UKIP candidate in 2015
CCHQ could easily mess it up by endorsing someone who really detests UKIP, but has fire in their belly, wants to take the fight to them with fervour, and gets on well with the leadership. Or, even worse, they try and use it to detox and pick someone who they think represents the sort of person they think UKIP is prejudiced against (just to make a point) to try and appeal to the Lib Dem/Labour voters in Thanet South to rally round and vote Conservative tactically.
I'd like to say, 'they'd never be that stupid', but this is CCHQ we're talking about here.
Pupils from comprehensive and poorly performing schools should receive lower entry grades to universities than those from grammar and private schools to recognise their greater academic potential and success rates, research published by the Department for Education has recommended.
The study tosses a firecracker into the noisy debate about university admissions and equality by finding that the bulk of university access campaigns appear to be misdirected, and that more effort could instead be put into improving GCSE results and subject choices to widen participation.
The research found that when pupils from different schools – including selective state schools, such as grammars, and independent schools – were compared on a like-for-like basis by their GCSE and A-level results, students from comprehensives and similar non-selective state schools outperformed their more expensively educated peers and were more likely to gain top results and complete their degrees, as well as being less likely to drop out.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/universities-urged-lower-entry-grades-comprehensive-school-pupils
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/how-the-conservatives-turned-labours-attack-dog-into-their-pr-agent/
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/universities-urged-lower-entry-grades-comprehensive-school-pupils
Crap schools and crap universities - the nirvana we have been seeking all along!
Murray's being thrashed. On the other hand, it was not expected to go much differently.
Not that surprising really (or what are the parents paying for if not an advantage in tutoring?)
If however, entry requirements are reduced for them, then that incentive to work harder is reduced.
But that's the trouble with data!
I wonder what Gove's take on this will be, or the Hon Hunt's?
Cameron's approach is to get renegotiation first. It's likely he'll either fail or get some pathetic token gesture, but after that (if he's PM) there *will* be a referendum because his backbenchers will topple him otherwise and whoever replaces him will have to hold a vote.
Tory backbenchers are sometimes a bit too keen on regicide, and sometimes bloody stupid, but at least they aren't the spineless sheep of Labour. That's why I'm confident, if Cameron is PM after the next election, we will have a vote.
Gove has other things on his mind. The publishing of the reports held back last week, that are leaking all over the place, and an unamused PM.
The political awareness of Adam Rickett
The charm of Brian Coleman
The team-building skills of Joanne Cash
The High Street chains should be ashamed at the embarrassingly paltry amount that they regularly allow punters to wager.
Indeed I'd go so far as to say that they should as part of their operating licence be legally bound to allow a win on a single wager of a minimum of £100.
He's not omnipotent you know.
Everyone knows that the longer time goes on the people who want to bring back the 50's won't be voting any more.
Actually, scrub that. I shouldn't have put the question mark at the end.
The Nats are losing but I don't see any blaming Dave.
"There are many words that you might associate with Nigel Farage, but moderniser probably isn’t one. Yet the Ukip leader is embarking on the process of modernising his party....
If this sounds similar to what David Cameron did after winning the Tory leadership in 2005, that’s because it is. Interviewing Farage during his triumphant European election campaign, I was struck by how he talked approvingly of ‘New Ukip’, ...
It was reminiscent of how the Cameroons used to talk in the early days of his leadership or, going further back, how those around Tony Blair would boast of their transformation of the Labour party....
If this means Ukip losing some of its intellectual consistency, then that is a price that the leadership is prepared to pay."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9225851/nigel-farage-is-becoming-a-moderniser/
As for Richard T, I have only warm feelings for him, given that, if there is a referendum, he'll be paying me £100 when it produces a Stay In result!
Still, it is very gratifying to see that the Kippers are so impressed by Cameron's political clout and powers of persuasion that they think he can single-handedly prevent the People's Army from triumphantly rescuing Britannia from her incarceration in a dungeon in Brussels.
Still, there are many unknowns between now and 2017.
Any more and "trader" will definitely stop me though.
Coleman would clear the room, as soon as he started breathing out of his mouth.
"Jean-Claude Juncker may offer Britain a better deal than a notionally more “modern” or “Atlanticist” candidate. The sly Luxembourger is one of those federalists who accepts that, since the United Kingdom won’t join the euro, and won't accept the goal of political union, a special status must be found for us.
The precise details of what he has in mind are still unclear, but the broad outline is plain enough: provided the UK accepts the four freedoms of the single market (free movement of goods, capital, services and labour), Juncker is happy for us to opt out of pretty much everything else. He is, in other words, holding out the associate status, the Swiss-type deal that this blog has long been calling for."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100275121/rude-arrogant-euro-fanatical-jean-claude-juncker-may-be-our-best-choice/
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/lib-dem-deposit-losses
Some sort of old fart giveaway in March 2015 is a must. No VAT on yum yums and a state funded radîo station that talks about how much better things were when we all had cholera for a start.
I jest. Well, sort of,
But Cameron is completely irrelevant to that argument. It's not so much the machinery of government you need to be worried about (in fact it might help the Out side to be able to frame the referendum as a protest against the government). It's the Beeb, the CBI, most big employers, most or all trades unions, most UK politicians, all continental European politicians, and even US politicians, who will all be saying the same thing: it will cost your jobs. Whether that is true or not is not the point, of course.
That is why I think UKIP, and the crazier Tory BOOers, are utterly misguided. The only way out of the mess is to tip-toe away quietly, encouraging the Eurozone to form a closer central core and negotiating opt-outs for the UK. No big bust-up, just a gentle disengagement from the most damaging aspects of the EU.
Then wreck the country and beg to be let back in.
However, many of us realise that getting the referendum will actually be a lot easier than winning one We are aware that it would be against the wishes of the BBC and the other three party leaders--a formidable combination.
But a united tory party leading the 'out' campaign alters substantially the probability of winning an 'out' vote.
Would we rather win an 'in-out' referendum in 2022, or lose one in 2017?
I repeat: our taget is to quit the EU, not to have a referendum per se.
Q.E.D
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-would-do-a-deal-with-the-devil-to-get-eu-referendum-9407651.html
The bizarre thing is that there is an infinitely simpler means to achieve this end than trying get lots of UKIP MPs elected and then finding a devil to do a deal with: just vote Tory.
Chris Prosser of St Catherine's College, Oxford has a model based on local elections
"Inputting the 2014 results gives a forecast of:
Conservative: 35.9% (± 1.3)
Labour: 30.9% (± 3.4)
Liberal Democrat: 16% (± 2.29)
Total ‘Others’: 16.4% (± 5.3)
Implied UKIP: 11.6% (± 3.9)"
http://politicsinspires.org/four-locals-european-2011-14-elections-might-tell-us-2015-general-election/
Broadly in line with Fisher's model, the PM Approval model, and my own local election regression model...
Prosser on UKIP's chances
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-farage-westminster/18277
Also an interesting article from Fisher.
http://electionsetc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/what-do-2014-european-and-local.html
QED?
It would be like the coalition losing a referendum on austerity. Game over.
"Sleazy broken Bus Pass Elvis on the slide".
Let the good times roll, baby
As it happens, I think you are right, and UKIP, despite what they say, are doing everything in their power to deny the public a referendum in the next parliament.
Politicians, eh? Saying one thing and meaning the precise opposite.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100027421/juncker-is-an-enemy-of-the-british-nation-but-luxembourg-is-our-friend/
The strategy cannot actually work. That's a bit of a fundamental flaw.
Generalising wildly, independent sector kids tend to have access to more resources at school and at home, so you would expect they to outperform in a "taught" environment like school. Therefore, logically, state school kids that achieve the same end mark have performed relatively better and hence are either smarter or harder working.
University rewards smart/hard-working kids more than those who rely on being spoon-fed. So you'd expect state school kids who get there despite the structural disadvantages to outperform.
Guess that being labelled a Romanian man and judged accordingly is somehow different.
It also displays a worrying attitude to democracy, unless Farage openly espouses diabolism in his manifesto, and that may not play well with some of his socially conservative followers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_o'_Kent
But I don't think that voting for Cameron, because he'll probably organise a referendum if he forms the next govt, is the best way of getting to 'out'.
If you want out, vote UKIP. If you'd like a referendum simply to undermine Farage and UKIP, I can understand voting tory.
On a personal note its sad to read about the end of the Normandy Veterans Association as most have now died. As a Para and a veteran of Overlord, Market Garden and later campaigns onward into Germany I remember my Grandad who died a few years ago having turned out to so many NVA and Market Garden Association events over the years. I simply cannot conceive how he and his comrades felt, how they were prepared to fight and die for our democracy, and how for his generation whether or not to go simply wasn't a question.
For all that we turn Iraq and Syria and the Falklands into political footballs, we need to remember that the ball is brave men and women prepared to do the things we won't to defend the things we barely even respect any more.
"One of the report's eye-catching findings is that an independent school-educated student was 10% less likely to get a first or a 2:1 degree than a student educated at a comprehensive when they had the same A-level results and were studying the same subject at similar universities."
As a consequence
a) Independent schools have been given a marketing tool to justify their fees
b) Monitoring these results over time, if the gap closes at university then it will tell us that state school A level performance is improving in the way we want
c) Independent schools vary and state schools vary. So it would be wrong to adjust A level results just based on the type of school rather than the particular school. Students at rubbish independent schools would be disadvantaged and pupils at excellent non independent or grammar schools would be unfairly advantaged.
Personally I think Farage is unlikely to get the better of Satan.
blockquote class="Quote" rel="corporeal"> It sometimes turns out alright. See Jack o'Kent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_o'_Kent
The second bit is much harder, certainly (personally I think impossible, but who am I to say?). To maximise the chances of success, you should be spending the next three years making as good a case and as powerful a campaign as possible, in collaboration with people like Dan Hannan. But that's not happening. You are not only trying to throw away success in getting the referendum in the first place, you're also doing nothing to maximise your chances of success if the referendum does occur.
The Devil apparently not learning from his mistakes, or perhaps it usually works well and so he's just playing the percentages.
Fingers crossed. It might not work out, but it's the best chance we've got.
Other parties (and I can only think of SDP/Alliance etc.) have come on very strong, but faded away/slowed right down very quickly. That was a middle party -a amalgam of Labour and Tory that caused a lot of excitement because people thought they didn't have to decide any more, but ultimately fell flat.
In marketing terms, that is called the mushy middle and is to be avoided. UKIP are different -they are a divergence on the Tory right, so their genesis has left the Tories in the mushy middle (some Tories are foolishly delighted at this, relishing their new moderate status), so they will probably go the way of the old Liberal party, or the SDLP, or the UUP. Convergence products = hype and eventual failure. Divergence products = slow adoption but eventual success.
The public supports remaining in the EU. The polling says so.
Why then waste millions, and loads of parliamentary time, on a referendum?
Why not have a referendum on keeping the monarchy ?
Or perhaps electing the HoL?
Hell. Let's become Switzerland and vote on the colour of the town clock.