@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.
Read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to me.
Gordon Brown's ratio of defending Labour held seats was better than Cameron's. We all know what happened in 2010.
You are reading far, far to much into a seat which Labour did not fight and where the Kippers did not win. You know me better than comfort blankets.
I predicted an easy Tory win from the outset - go back and check my posts when the poll was announced.
Read John Curtice's comments and come back to me.
I made the same prediction. It doesn't mean that what was predicted was good for Labour.
And no, this is comfort blanket territory. Why has the progressive vote halved? In opposition, Labour should be making progress, not going backwards.
UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiots
That said, the point made by some about the 'wrong sort of referendum' being an odd line to take, is fair I think. If the position is strong, who cares how you get the referendum, believe enough and you can win. I would not personally advocate voting Tory merely to gain that referendum attempt, but should he get in power and be able to pursue it, it won't matter which side he is on, it's still the right referendum at the right time (the right time being whenever it happens, preferably sooner rather than later).
Perhaps there is eveidence to prove me wrong, but I think, psychologically, asking people to vote for Cameron to the extent that he wins a majority, then asking the same people to distrust everything he says about his renogotiations over EU membership to the point where they will vote agianst him in a referendum seems a tough one to sell. Especially to ex Labour voters that find it hard voting for a supposedly right wing party, let alone the old enemy (ie me)
Leaving aside whether people should vote for Cameron to secure a referendum but then against him in that referendum, my thoughts were really around this bizarre notion that a referendum organised by him would be wrong somehow, or that it would not be fair in some way because he was framing the debate. I'm all for UKIP voting their hearts however that impacts 2015, but if Cameron somehow manages to offer one and frames it however he wants, I think the No side still have a great show, who cares if it is the 'wrong' referendum type or not, just because it is not ideal doesn't mean the chance should not be grabbed if it happens, which was the implication I was getting from several posters on here.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
Is that a new Ed M nickname going around I'm not familiar with, or is that not a reference to the famous NKVD of Yezhov and Beria?
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Cameron is not completely happy with free movement of people within the EU. He has already suggested that new entrants to the EU should not be free to move until the economy of that nation achieves a certain higher level of prosperity. If we left the EU there would be irresistible pressure to limit migration from the EU, it would make sense and it would be achieved.
The only reason why he is unhappy with uncontrolled immigration is the same reason why he is currently in favour of his on-off-off-on referendum and that is because without a referendum and without mouthing some tougher platitudes on immigration he thinks he will definitely lose the 2015 election or worse be knifed by his own backbenchers.
I could not find a single post on the most important by-election yesterday.
Labour gained a seat from the SNP.
Tories gaining votes in Scotland. Perhaps the independence campaign surrounding NO is helping them. SNP down 10%. Ouch !!
The Tories aren't doing too badly, but are still 3rd party, and remember the turnout was low ... seriously, though, any appreciation of a local government by-election gain or loss in voting is complicated in Scotland by the fact that it is by definition is to replace one of several councillors in a given voting ward. They have been elected by the relevant proportional representation model. But a by election is with the same electorate but effectively as FPTP, so there is an element of incommensurability. How this works out in this particular case I habe no idea, but in general, if a second or third choice candidate is being replaced, one would expect replacement by a candidate from the same party as the original first choice, even if there is no change in VI, turnout, etc.
@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.
Read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to me.
Gordon Brown's ratio of defending Labour held seats was better than Cameron's. We all know what happened in 2010.
You are reading far, far to much into a seat which Labour did not fight ...
But that is the point right there: Labour did not fight it. They didn't try. And their reward? They went backwards, in position and in vote share, to be overtaken by a party which lost its deposit in 2010.
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.
Its not a case of whether it would be 'enough' but whether it is in anyway enforceable. The sorts of changes that would satisfy most Eurosceptics are so drastic and fundamental to the nature of the EU that they would require treaty change - which in turn needs ratification by all the EU members. Cameron cannot even begin to secure that by 2017 so it would be down to trusting not only his word but the ability of all 27 other countries to ratify the treaty.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
Perhaps there is eveidence to prove me wrong, but I think, psychologically, asking people to vote for Cameron to the extent that he wins a majority, then asking the same people to distrust everything he says about his renogotiations over EU membership to the point where they will vote agianst him in a referendum seems a tough one to sell. Especially to ex Labour voters that find it hard voting for a supposedly right wing party, let alone the old enemy (ie me)
Leaving aside whether people should vote for Cameron to secure a referendum but then against him in that referendum, my thoughts were really around this bizarre notion that a referendum organised by him would be wrong somehow, or that it would not be fair in some way because he was framing the debate. I'm all for UKIP voting their hearts however that impacts 2015, but if Cameron somehow manages to offer one and frames it however he wants, I think the No side still have a great show, who cares if it is the 'wrong' referendum type or not, just because it is not ideal doesn't mean the chance should not be grabbed if it happens, which was the implication I was getting from several posters on here.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
Is that a new Ed M nickname going around I'm not familiar with, or is that not a reference to the famous NKVD of Yezhov and Beria?
Much as some think it ridiculous, I agree with Farage that UKIP are best suited by hammering away at Labour until EdM is forced to match the referendum offer. People may think he wont, but if he is behind the Tories on Jan 1st I think he will.
@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.
Read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to me.
Gordon Brown's ratio of defending Labour held seats was better than Cameron's. We all know what happened in 2010.
You are reading far, far to much into a seat which Labour did not fight and where the Kippers did not win. You know me better than comfort blankets.
I predicted an easy Tory win from the outset - go back and check my posts when the poll was announced.
Read John Curtice's comments and come back to me.
I made the same prediction. It doesn't mean that what was predicted was good for Labour.
And no, this is comfort blanket territory. Why has the progressive vote halved? In opposition, Labour should be making progress, not going backwards.
Curtice said 30% would be "a remarkable result" for UKIP,...many on here took that as meaning less than 30% would be a failure.
Nigel Farage is a politician, therefore dishonest and manipulative.
I personally would not go that far myself.
Oh I would. I make no exception for Farage simply because he articulates a view I agree with. I would say the same of any politician from the past as well (at least from the 20th Century).
Throw money and resources at a basically unwinnable seat, or soft pedal and hope UKIP get enough votes for the Tories to get nervous? Bearing in mind this is a fixed term parliament, and the result will be forgotten by the time the world cup is over. and the fact it doesn't alter parliament? I can see why you would think it was a good idea to chuck money at it, from my perspective it looks like a mugs bet.
@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.
Read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to me.
Gordon Brown's ratio of defending Labour held seats was better than Cameron's. We all know what happened in 2010.
You are reading far, far to much into a seat which Labour did not fight ...
But that is the point right there: Labour did not fight it. They didn't try. And their reward? They went backwards, in position and in vote share, to be overtaken by a party which lost its deposit in 2010.
Traditionally, by-elections are the lifeblood of an opposition.
This Parliament has been unusual in that the vast majority of the by-elections have been in opposition-held seats, but you would think that would leave Labour even more eager to have a go on one of the rare opportunities they had.
UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
)
Leaving aside whether people should vote for Cameron to secure a referendum but then against him in that referendum, my thoughts were really around this bizarre notion that a referendum organised by him would be wrong somehow, or that it would not be fair in some way because he was framing the debate. I'm all for UKIP voting their hearts however that impacts 2015, but if Cameron somehow manages to offer one and frames it however he wants, I think the No side still have a great show, who cares if it is the 'wrong' referendum type or not, just because it is not ideal doesn't mean the chance should not be grabbed if it happens, which was the implication I was getting from several posters on here.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
Is that a new Ed M nickname going around I'm not familiar with, or is that not a reference to the famous NKVD of Yezhov and Beria?
Much as some think it ridiculous, I agree with Farage that UKIP are best suited by hammering away at Labour until EdM is forced to match the referendum offer. People may think he wont, but if he is behind the Tories on Jan 1st I think he will.
I can see something like that happening. Of course, some will say 'oh, they'll take a hammering for u-turning like that', but despite what the hysteria over some LD u-turns may have led some to believe, parties do u-turn quite often and even on something really substantial I can see it happening, even if it appears a cynical ploy. After all, Cameron only offered one to try to tame his rebellious backbenchers, he clearly wouldn't have been definitive on the matter otherwise I'm sure we'll agree, so why not Labour at some point?
UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
Perhaps there is eveidence to prove me wrong, but I think, psychologically, asking people to vote for Cameron to the extent that he wins a majority, then asking the same people to distrust everything he says about his renogotiations over EU membership to the point where they will vote agianst him in a referendum seems a tough one to sell. Especially to ex Labour voters that find it hard voting for a supposedly right wing party, let alone the old enemy (ie me)
Leaving aside whether people should vote for Cameron to secure a referendum but then against him in that referendum, my thoughts were really around this bizarre notion that a referendum organised by him would be wrong somehow, or that it would not be fair in some way because he was framing the debate. I'm all for UKIP voting their hearts however that impacts 2015, but if Cameron somehow manages to offer one and frames it however he wants, I think the No side still have a great show, who cares if it is the 'wrong' referendum type or not, just because it is not ideal doesn't mean the chance should not be grabbed if it happens, which was the implication I was getting from several posters on here.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
Is that a new Ed M nickname going around I'm not familiar with, or is that not a reference to the famous NKVD of Yezhov and Beria?
Much as some think it ridiculous, I agree with Farage that UKIP are best suited by hammering away at Labour until EdM is forced to match the referendum offer. People may think he wont, but if he is behind the Tories on Jan 1st I think he will.
If he does it that late in the game he torpedoes his election chances and splits his party. Ed has made his decision, if he changes his mind now or even later in the cycle his credibility, such as it is, is immolated. Won't happen
If political leadership is the art of marshalling your supporters and convincing them that your views are right, it seems that Mr Tyndall recognises that Cameron is a very effective leader. It is notable how high his ratings are amongst declared Tory voters.
It is is possible that, as Corporeal argued in his header that he may update, that UKIP may redefine the right of British politics. It is also possible that the defection of the Faragistas and Helmerites into the political cul de sac of kipperism, that the rump Tory party becomes more reformed in a centrist model. In other words: some supporters are better out than in.
Certainly I would tactically vote cameroonite to keep out a kipper.
And therein lie the seeds of the Tories' destruction. They have spurned their entire raison d'etre, and their most loyal supporters, in return for some borrowed votes from people who think they are not quite as awful as the other lot.
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.
Its not a case of whether it would be 'enough' but whether it is in anyway enforceable. The sorts of changes that would satisfy most Eurosceptics are so drastic and fundamental to the nature of the EU that they would require treaty change - which in turn needs ratification by all the EU members. Cameron cannot even begin to secure that by 2017 so it would be down to trusting not only his word but the ability of all 27 other countries to ratify the treaty.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
That is in fact my point - UKIPers will already be rallying for Out no matter what, and plenty of other people can be rallied with the pointing out that anything Cameron has won or could win would be token at best. That seems like an emminently winnable position to be in for Out. I certainly don't expect Cameron to win anything substantive, how could he? So him claiming he can or will win something when most people, I suspect, do not believe that is the case, is merely another tool in the Out arsenal during the campaign, and to your benefit!
It is surely only a problem that he comes to the country with such a claim if you think people will buy that claim, and I think they are skeptical enough that they won't, since as you say the changes most people do want (and for anyone about to say 'polls show no-one cares about the EU', when forced to make a choice, people seem to Euroskeptic, even most of the Ins would qualify as such in Europe through being lukewarm about integration and wanting tougher border controls etc) would not be satisifed.
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.
Its not a case of whether it would be 'enough' but whether it is in anyway enforceable. The sorts of changes that would satisfy most Eurosceptics are so drastic and fundamental to the nature of the EU that they would require treaty change - which in turn needs ratification by all the EU members. Cameron cannot even begin to secure that by 2017 so it would be down to trusting not only his word but the ability of all 27 other countries to ratify the treaty.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
Your assertion that Cameron can't negotiate any meaningful changes by 2017 should make you more keen to have him in place to hold the 2017 referendum.
Meaningful changes will make the EU more attractive to more voters. No meaningful changes will make No more attractive. You should be cheering from the rafters every day there is a delay to the start of any negotiations. It would strengthen your side of the argument.
If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him. The worse the result of his negotiation the better for No. I find your position hard to legitimise with thought, logic and sense.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
If he does it that late in the game he torpedoes his election chances and splits his party. Ed has made his decision, if he changes his mind now or even later in the cycle his credibility, such as it is, is immolated. Won't happen
Many important Labour people (Ball & Cruddas are two) already want one. EdM is hardly in a strong enough position to encourage floaters to vote UKIP or Con in marginals
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Dunno about the libertarian bit, but he's certainly extremely rattled.
The Kippers' rabid fear of the almighty influence of Cameron over the voters in a referendum is one of the funniest features of politics today. What's makes it particularly enjoyable is the fact that they claim that Cameron is a voter-repellant loser with no electoral appeal. You'd have thought they would want to have him on the opposite side in the referendum.
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
That's a very interesting idea.
Kippers moaning about LibLabCon would have apoplexy.
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
I think more likely they just didn't think it worth the effort to try to win, parties don't bother to fight hard in seats all the time, and in any case some have felt Labour not fighting energetically could have been a Labour strategy to help UKIP win (on the basis that in the longterm a surging UKIP will damage the Tories chance at a majority more).
That is unlikely, but actually I think it more likely than Labour sitting back to let the Tories win. However much they might dislike UKIP more, a UKIP win in a by-election had the opportunity to damage the Tories tactically more than Labour.
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Dunno about the libertarian bit, but he's certainly extremely rattled.
The Kippers' rabid fear of the almighty influence of Cameron over the voters in a referendum is one of the funniest features of politics today. What's makes it particularly enjoyable is the fact that they claim that Cameron is a voter-repellant loser with no electoral appeal. You'd have thought they would want to have him on the opposite side in the referendum.
Why am I rattled Richard? I have said nothing here tonight that you and I have not argued about before. And as I mentioned earlier everything that has happened in Newark is exactly as I predicted even before the campaign there began. I have not made, nor will I make, unrealistic claims about possible UKIP gains at the GE and still expect a a couple of seats at best. Since nothing has changed there is no need to be rattled.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking sticks at a few of the dumber Tory sycophants of which JohnO is a perfect example.
Andrew Neil@afneil·19 mins David Goodhart: Labour driven back to 3 core groups: Guardian readers, ethnic minorities and people dependent on welfare or public sector.
Andrew Neil@afneil·21 mins Suspect weekend politics will be dominated by top shadow cabinet figure saying traditional working class 'abandoning' Labour in droves.
Mr Nabavi he's only repellent to voters in elections in referenda he becomes a vote getting warlock able to magic up vast acres of votes to whatever proposition he is in favour of.
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
That's a very interesting idea.
Kippers moaning about LibLabCon would have apoplexy.
Perhaps superficially but more importantly they would be pleased because it would prove their point. To coin a phrase, they really are 'All in it together'....
Mr Nabavi he's only repellent to voters in elections in referenda he becomes a vote getting warlock able to magic up vast acres of votes to whatever proposition he is in favour of.
Ah, that explains the inclusion of the Referenda (on anything I want) Bill, in the Queen's speech. I had wondered.
Mr Tyndall you are tiresome because you articulate nothing. You have no arguments and logic just prejudice. There is no truth or evidence to back up your dislike of Cameron. His govt, even with libdem dead weight is pursuing sound policies, cutting welfare and public sector jobs, reforming education pensions and many other things, not least the economy. If such things were easy anyone could do it, even Farage instead of carousing in Malta on the eve of for him a vital election. In any event all this never gets a look-in in your mouthings. We have a pretty fair sure not perfect but still Tory govt. I prefer it to Labour and to be frank I look at UKIP and increasingly want to vomit.
And of course on top of all this it is trying to reduce immigration, it voted against Lisbon in opposition, it wants to reform the eu and is promising a referendum. I'm sorry to pick on you, you are simply the one which caught my eye... but you are typical. There are no justifications for the nonsense which you and others spout, and what is sad to see is the way you stand on your head to make your contradictions add up.
As others have alluded, we must wonder why you and your lot are always talking down a referendum in 2017. Why do you want to help into power labour who will refuse a referendum?
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
That's a very interesting idea.
Kippers moaning about LibLabCon would have apoplexy.
Perhaps superficially but more importantly they would be pleased because it would prove their point. To coin a phrase, they really are 'All in it together'....
To borrow another phrase, they are not on the same side, they may just be on two different sides which happen to be side by side.
Why am I rattled Richard? I have said nothing here tonight that you and I have not argued about before.
Let's see, calm arguments, concentrating on the issues and giving careful consideration to opposing views, like this:
" thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO ... I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example... will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it. ... "
Mr Nabavi he's only repellent to voters in elections in referenda he becomes a vote getting warlock able to magic up vast acres of votes to whatever proposition he is in favour of.
Ah yes, come to think of it you can see their point: AV referendum, probably IndyRef, next one for Cameron to tick off the list of historic victories is the In/Out referendum...
Mr Tyndall you are tiresome because you articulate nothing. You have no arguments and logic just prejudice. There is no truth or evidence to back up your dislike of Cameron. His govt, even with libdem dead weight is pursuing sound policies, cutting welfare and public sector jobs, reforming education pensions and many other things, not least the economy. If such things were easy anyone could do it, even Farage instead of carousing in Malta on the eve of for him a vital election. In any event all this never gets a look-in in your mouthings. We have a pretty fair sure not perfect but still Tory govt. I prefer it to Labour and to be frank I look at UKIP and increasingly want to vomit.
And of course on top of all this it is trying to reduce immigration, it voted against Lisbon in opposition, it wants to reform the eu and is promising a referendum. I'm sorry to pick on you, you are simply the one which caught my eye... but you are typical. There are no justifications for the nonsense which you and others spout, and what is sad to see is the way you stand on your head to make your contradictions add up.
As others have alluded, we must wonder why you and your lot are always talking down a referendum in 2017. Why do you want to help into power labour who will refuse a referendum?
Where do you come from Flightpath? Your English is excellent, but doesn't read like a native speaker (not a criticism).
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
I think it's more likely they did little in the hope the Conservatives might lose to UKIP.
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
If he does it that late in the game he torpedoes his election chances and splits his party. Ed has made his decision, if he changes his mind now or even later in the cycle his credibility, such as it is, is immolated. Won't happen
Many important Labour people (Ball & Cruddas are two) already want one. EdM is hardly in a strong enough position to encourage floaters to vote UKIP or Con in marginals
I have read the comments by John Curtice that the Newark result should be viewed as a real disappointment and a missed opportunity for Labour.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
I think it's more likely they did little in the hope the Conservatives might lose to UKIP.
Perhaps there is eveidence to prove me wrong, but I think, psychologically, asking people to vote for Cameron to the extent that he wins a majority, then asking the same people to distrust everything he says about his renogotiations over EU membership to the point where they will vote agianst him in a referendum seems a tough one to sell. Especially to ex Labour voters that find it hard voting for a supposedly right wing party, let alone the old enemy (ie me)
Leaving aside whether people should vote for Cameron to secure a referendum but then against him in that referendum, my thoughts were really around this bizarre notion that a referendum organised by him would be wrong somehow, or that it would not be fair in some way because he was framing the debate. I'm all for UKIP voting their hearts however that impacts 2015, but if Cameron somehow manages to offer one and frames it however he wants, I think the No side still have a great show, who cares if it is the 'wrong' referendum type or not, just because it is not ideal doesn't mean the chance should not be grabbed if it happens, which was the implication I was getting from several posters on here.
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
Became the alternative is Ed NKVD Miliband.
Is that a new Ed M nickname going around I'm not familiar with, or is that not a reference to the famous NKVD of Yezhov and Beria?
Much as some think it ridiculous, I agree with Farage that UKIP are best suited by hammering away at Labour until EdM is forced to match the referendum offer. People may think he wont, but if he is behind the Tories on Jan 1st I think he will.
If he does it that late in the game he torpedoes his election chances and splits his party. Ed has made his decision, if he changes his mind now or even later in the cycle his credibility, such as it is, is immolated. Won't happen
You'd think Ed would also be mindful of how the AV vote went for his side. OK, chances are more of Labour would be In on an EU vote, as would more of the Tories, but still ...
Why am I rattled Richard? I have said nothing here tonight that you and I have not argued about before.
Let's see, calm arguments, concentrating on the issues and giving careful consideration to opposing views, like this:
" thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO ... I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example... will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it. ... "
If that's not 'rattled', I'm a Kipper.
Nope that's just me enjoying putting JohnO back in his pram in response to his comments on the previous thread. Once in a while it is enjoyable to let the inhibitions go and JohnO is well deserving of a bit of casual abuse. Just thought I would kill two birds with one stone.
But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
Tacitly, the LDs should hope UKIP do well.
They face the same strategic enemy: the system...
Is that still true for the Lib Dems? At the moment, the one thing keeping their head above water is local areas of concentrated strength. Dilute those by creating larger PR constituencies and you could knock off even more of their vote.
Jean-Claude Juncker to withdraw bid to lead European Commission, sources say
The former prime minister of Luxembourg could pull out of the race to succeed José Manuel Barroso within weeks, after a coalition of European leaders attempted to block his candidacy
Can we please have a thread on AV tomorrow? Got to be more interesting than endlessly rehashing this UKIP stuff.
which I consider my greatest piece ever, and not a single pop music reference.
Well both those statements cannot be true, surely?
Obvious joke, had to be made.
Jean-Claude Juncker to withdraw bid to lead European Commission, sources say
Given how bullish he has been about it, and how he has, in classic style, tried to pretend only Britain has been holding back endorsing him, that would be quite momentous. As a top EU insider I am sure he will make us pay if we cost him the job.
Can't imagine the parliament would be happy either given they tried to act as though their preferred candidates were a foregone conclusion, unless somehow Schultz or Verhofstadt get the pick.
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.
Its not a case of whether it would be 'enough' but whether it is in anyway enforceable. The sorts of changes that would satisfy most Eurosceptics are so drastic and fundamental to the nature of the EU that they would require treaty change - which in turn needs ratification by all the EU members. Cameron cannot even begin to secure that by 2017 so it would be down to trusting not only his word but the ability of all 27 other countries to ratify the treaty.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
Your assertion that Cameron can't negotiate any meaningful changes by 2017 should make you more keen to have him in place to hold the 2017 referendum.
Meaningful changes will make the EU more attractive to more voters. No meaningful changes will make No more attractive. You should be cheering from the rafters every day there is a delay to the start of any negotiations. It would strengthen your side of the argument.
If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him. The worse the result of his negotiation the better for No. I find your position hard to legitimise with thought, logic and sense.
"If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him", in which case, there'd then still be a referendum as any replacement leader would have to guarantee it to his or her backbenches (and party members) in order to get elected.
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Dunno about the libertarian bit, but he's certainly extremely rattled.
The Kippers' rabid fear of the almighty influence of Cameron over the voters in a referendum is one of the funniest features of politics today. What's makes it particularly enjoyable is the fact that they claim that Cameron is a voter-repellant loser with no electoral appeal. You'd have thought they would want to have him on the opposite side in the referendum.
Why am I rattled Richard? I have said nothing here tonight that you and I have not argued about before. And as I mentioned earlier everything that has happened in Newark is exactly as I predicted even before the campaign there began. I have not made, nor will I make, unrealistic claims about possible UKIP gains at the GE and still expect a a couple of seats at best. Since nothing has changed there is no need to be rattled.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking sticks at a few of the dumber Tory sycophants of which JohnO is a perfect example.
Far be it from me to encourage another accusation of a Lab-Kip love-in on here, but in the spirit of sound history. RichardT is exactly right.
It's really not that difficult - check his (and my) posts when the Newark byelection was announced - we both recognised that neither of our two preferred parties stood a chance and predicted an easy Tory hold.
FWIW Gordon Brown has a better ratio of byelection holds than Cameron. Probably best not to get too excited about this one.
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum..
Yes, Labour are not completely stupid. They will have noticed that Cameron's promise of a referendum had zero effect on getting the Kippers off his back (though it did have a very good effect on calming divisions within the Conservative Party). So there is absolutely nothing, not a saucisse, to be gained. On the other hand, there's a lot of downside. It would cause major ructions in the Labour Party. The unions would be hugely dischufffed. It would be a huge distraction in the first couple of years of a Miliband government. Miliband actually does have some principled beliefs, and extreme Europhilia is one of them. And most of all, why on earth would they want to close down an issue which torments the Tories?
Andrew Neil@afneil·19 mins David Goodhart: Labour driven back to 3 core groups: Guardian readers, ethnic minorities and people dependent on welfare or public sector.
Andrew Neil@afneil·21 mins Suspect weekend politics will be dominated by top shadow cabinet figure saying traditional working class 'abandoning' Labour in droves.
Mr Tyndall you are tiresome because you articulate nothing. You have no arguments and logic just prejudice. There is no truth or evidence to back up your dislike of Cameron. His govt, even with libdem dead weight is pursuing sound policies, cutting welfare and public sector jobs, reforming education pensions and many other things, not least the economy. If such things were easy anyone could do it, even Farage instead of carousing in Malta on the eve of for him a vital election. In any event all this never gets a look-in in your mouthings. We have a pretty fair sure not perfect but still Tory govt. I prefer it to Labour and to be frank I look at UKIP and increasingly want to vomit.
And of course on top of all this it is trying to reduce immigration, it voted against Lisbon in opposition, it wants to reform the eu and is promising a referendum. I'm sorry to pick on you, you are simply the one which caught my eye... but you are typical. There are no justifications for the nonsense which you and others spout, and what is sad to see is the way you stand on your head to make your contradictions add up.
As others have alluded, we must wonder why you and your lot are always talking down a referendum in 2017. Why do you want to help into power labour who will refuse a referendum?
Perhaps if you had been around for more than few days you might know I do articulate arguments - far more than the party fanatics on here - and am more than happy to attack UKIP along with other parties (as I am sure MikeK will attest to since he has had cause to complain about it in the past) as I have a basic inbuilt dislike for all parties and all politicians, even those I agree with at times.
If you had paid any attention you would have noticed that above all else I have scorn for the blind fanaticism of the party faithful, no matter what party they support. It just happens that unfortunately we get far more uncritical support for their party from Tory's than we do from Labour or Lib Dem supporters on here.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
Andrew Neil @afneil 5h Just learned that Alex Salmond turned down doing Sunday Politics this weekend because he prefers to do Marr instead .... #bbcsp
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.
Its not a case of whether it would be 'enough' but whether it is in anyway enforceable. The sorts of changes that would satisfy most Eurosceptics are so drastic and fundamental to the nature of the EU that they would require treaty change - which in turn needs ratification by all the EU members. Cameron cannot even begin to secure that by 2017 so it would be down to trusting not only his word but the ability of all 27 other countries to ratify the treaty.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
Your assertion that Cameron can't negotiate any meaningful changes by 2017 should make you more keen to have him in place to hold the 2017 referendum.
Meaningful changes will make the EU more attractive to more voters. No meaningful changes will make No more attractive. You should be cheering from the rafters every day there is a delay to the start of any negotiations. It would strengthen your side of the argument.
If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him. The worse the result of his negotiation the better for No. I find your position hard to legitimise with thought, logic and sense.
"If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him", in which case, there'd then still be a referendum as any replacement leader would have to guarantee it to his or her backbenches (and party members) in order to get elected.
Indeed, it is one of the few certainties of a 2015 Tory win. There will be an In Out referendum.
Wikipedia claims Dalia Grybauskaitė, possibly up for the Commission job according to the Telegraph, is known as the Iron Lady - are all female leaders given this nickname? Ok, Merkel hasn't to my knowledge but it does seem pretty common, though Grybauskaite is also known as the Steel Magnolia apparently, which is a bit more unique.
Also, I'm sure I read earlier today that Renzi had slapped down Cameron a little saying that one country could not by diktat determine these things, but the telegraph reports he said he would not accept the diktat of Mr Junker's candidacy. Maybe he just uses the word diktat a lot.
While I'm not averse to the parliament's view that a candidate chose by its group should be president, I do think it rich many of them are claiming to not do so would be undemocratic, given it is not law that that be so, and people voting for national parties cannot really be regarded as having voted for the chosen candidate of a much larger european political group.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Because Kippers think David Cameron is like the Whore of Babylon, as soon he's gone, it will be all good for their cause.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Yes clearly we do. Or at least I do. I can't really speak for other Kippers.
To save strain on the internet. The Tories hate all you Kippers, and are glad you are not in their party. But your vote is rightfully theirs, so stop messing about!
So what? This is FPP in a very safe Tory seat. It doesn't matter. If they had fought it and got an increase we would have had "Labour really put a lot into this, they got nowhere".
Wikipedia claims Dalia Grybauskaitė, possibly up for the Commission job according to the Telegraph, is known as the Iron Lady - are all female leaders given this nickname? Ok, Merkel hasn't to my knowledge but it does seem pretty common, though Grybauskaite is also known as the Steel Magnolia apparently, which is a bit more unique.
I blame Josef Stalin, ever since he changed his surname to Stalin (Ruskie for Man of Steel) it set a trend.
I was so disappointed last year when I went to see Man of Steel, I was expecting a biography about Stalin.
My favourite part of all this is that when there is the 2017 referendum and the people vote to stay in I will enjoy watching the kippers reach for the EU play book and demand another go because we gave the wrong answer.
To save strain on the internet. The Tories hate all you Kippers, and are glad you are not in their party. But your vote is rightfully theirs, so stop messing about!
It does seem like that is what they are saying doesn't it :-)
I suppose it is their form of tough love. Doing what is good for us even if we don't appreciate it.
Interestingly the Tory reaction to UKIP over the last couple of months has convinced me now that even if UKIP did not exist I would not return to voting Tory as I did in the 80s and 90s. No one who displays the sort of arrogance that the Cameroon Tories display deserves to be supported so this (and I suspect many other ex-Tory votes) is a vote that is now permanently lost to them.
Also, I'm sure I read earlier today that Renzi had slapped down Cameron a little saying that one country could not by diktat determine these things, but the telegraph reports he said he would not accept the diktat of Mr Junker's candidacy. Maybe he just uses the word diktat a lot.
While I'm not averse to the parliament's view that a candidate chose by its group should be president, I do think it rich many of them are claiming to not do so would be undemocratic, given it is not law that that be so, and people voting for national parties cannot really be regarded as having voted for the chosen candidate of a much larger european political group.
To save strain on the internet. The Tories hate all you Kippers, and are glad you are not in their party. But your vote is rightfully theirs, so stop messing about!
Sounds like what Labour figures felt about the LDs, who of course 'rightfully' belonged to their 'anti-Tory majority'. Fortunately for them, apparently they were right.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Yes clearly we do. Or at least I do. I can't really speak for other Kippers.
Well, let's consider this.
A euro friendly Cameron in a mildly euro sceptic party would skew the referendum towards in.
What would a euro fanboy Milliband in a europhile Labour party do?
All roads you select appear to lead away from your goal. Very odd.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
UKIP should maximise their vote share to the point where Miliband & Cameron are panicked into offering whatever they can to get UKIP voters onside. Cameron has already offered a referendum that he didnt want to, now for Miliband
I presume he used their equivalent. Sounds germanic, or at least spelt like it.
Edit: Not wishing to rely on wikpedia, but it does actually specifically say the Italian press use the term widely in reference to political events. Take that for what it's worth.
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Dunno about the libertarian bit, but he's certainly extremely rattled.
The Kippers' rabid fear of the almighty influence of Cameron over the voters in a referendum is one of the funniest features of politics today. What's makes it particularly enjoyable is the fact that they claim that Cameron is a voter-repellant loser with no electoral appeal. You'd have thought they would want to have him on the opposite side in the referendum.
Why am I rattled Richard? I have said nothing here tonight that you and I have not argued about before. And as I mentioned earlier everything that has happened in Newark is exactly as I predicted even before the campaign there began. I have not made, nor will I make, unrealistic claims about possible UKIP gains at the GE and still expect a a couple of seats at best. Since nothing has changed there is no need to be rattled.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking sticks at a few of the dumber Tory sycophants of which JohnO is a perfect example.
Far be it from me to encourage another accusation of a Lab-Kip love-in on here, but in the spirit of sound history. RichardT is exactly right.
It's really not that difficult - check his (and my) posts when the Newark byelection was announced - we both recognised that neither of our two preferred parties stood a chance and predicted an easy Tory hold.
FWIW Gordon Brown has a better ratio of byelection holds than Cameron. Probably best not to get too excited about this one.
Presumably you mean in government - Cameron's overall record of defences since December 2005 is four of five, plus two gains (or 3 of 4 if you exclude Haltemprice & Howden). But then if you're only looking at government, his ratio of 50% is exactly the same as Margaret Thatcher, and she won two general elections after entering No 10.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
I'm not a mind-reader! But I would say that the best chance of getting the fairest referendum is (as everyone here knows, but some do not wish to admit) to vote for UKIP -the only reason one was offered in the first place.
Here in Scotland, the SNP have made this VisitScotland's 'Year of Homecoming' and organised a Bannockburn re-enactment; used public money for what is essentially independence mood music. They have given 16 year olds the right to vote. They have influenced the referendum question (and would have done so even more if Cameron had not stopped them). They have suppressed reports critical of independence, and created a climate where businesses and individuals against independence do not feel they can speak out. And that is for a cause WITHOUT the support of the vast majority of the media and establishment. Imagine what the EU 'in' side will do!
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Yes clearly we do. Or at least I do. I can't really speak for other Kippers.
Well, let's consider this.
A euro friendly Cameron in a mildly euro sceptic party would skew the referendum towards in.
What would a euro fanboy Milliband in a europhile Labour party do?
All roads you select appear to lead away from your goal. Very odd.
Not at all. The aim would be to have one of the two main parties supporting leaving the EU. Having both supporting 'In' makes the winning a referendum very difficult.
Getting Labour to do this would be a basic impossibility I believe. But there is a much larger BOO tendency within the Tory party and a better chance of getting a properly eurosceptic Tory leader rather than the avowedly Europhile leader they currently have.
@Richard_T: If you want to team up with the Tories your technique of love-bombing is somewhat eccentric!
In fairness, given how many Tories appear desperate to team up with UKIP (or rather, be just like UKIP, only with a better chance of winning elections by being an established party), the reverse could also be said to be true.
There are 2 questions to be asked about Cameron's ability or otherwise to influence the result of an EU exit referendum. 1. Could he? 2. Would he? Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not. So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
That's a fair point. But do kippers think that they have a better chance of a more neutral referendum any time soon?
Yes clearly we do. Or at least I do. I can't really speak for other Kippers.
Well, let's consider this.
A euro friendly Cameron in a mildly euro sceptic party would skew the referendum towards in.
What would a euro fanboy Milliband in a europhile Labour party do?
All roads you select appear to lead away from your goal. Very odd.
Not at all. The aim would be to have one of the two main parties supporting leaving the EU. Having both supporting 'In' makes the winning a referendum very difficult.
Getting Labour to do this would be a basic impossibility I believe. But there is a much larger BOO tendency within the Tory party and a better chance of getting a properly eurosceptic Tory leader rather than the avowedly Europhile leader they currently have.
Neither party will be united in the referendum. A loud chorus of No from a Tory section will serenade with a small descant from the Labour No group.
Both main parties will have some heavy lifters on the yes side.
Who (or when) calls the referendum will have as much bearing on the dynamics as gravitational pull on the moon.
William Hill have brought back their "How many leaders will survive to the GE" market. At this point, surely the bet on 'All 3' is basically the same as 'Clegg survives'? Is there really a realistic chance at all that another is toppled pre-election?
They're offering 1/2 on it, btw. If anyone wants that instead of the 1/3 on Clegg being LD leader.
So what? This is FPP in a very safe Tory seat. It doesn't matter. If they had fought it and got an increase we would have had "Labour really put a lot into this, they got nowhere".
Depends what you mean by nowhere. If Labour had achieved the swing that UKIP managed, the result would have been in recount territory. With the Lib Dems losing top-side of 17%, that shouldn't have been impossible. Indeed, if Labour had gained only two-thirds of the Lib Dem votes and held all their own (which given where they were in 2010 isn't a big ask), they'd still have been in the mix.
William Hill have brought back their "How many leaders will survive to the GE" market. At this point, surely the bet on 'All 3' is basically the same as 'Clegg survives'? Is there really a realistic chance at all that another is toppled pre-election?
They're offering 1/2 on it, btw. If anyone wants that instead of the 1/3 on Clegg being LD leader.
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum..
Yes, Labour are not completely stupid. They will have noticed that Cameron's promise of a referendum had zero effect on getting the Kippers off his back (though it did have a very good effect on calming divisions within the Conservative Party). So there is absolutely nothing, not a saucisse, to be gained. On the other hand, there's a lot of downside. It would cause major ructions in the Labour Party. The unions would be hugely dischufffed. It would be a huge distraction in the first couple of years of a Miliband government. Miliband actually does have some principled beliefs, and extreme Europhilia is one of them. And most of all, why on earth would they want to close down an issue which torments the Tories?
It is the most cuckooish of cloud-cuckoo ideas.
Cameron is an arch Europhile, didnt stop him offering a referendum.
Wait until old school Labour voters leave them in droves, citing immigration as the cause, he will offer one then.
William Hill have brought back their "How many leaders will survive to the GE" market. At this point, surely the bet on 'All 3' is basically the same as 'Clegg survives'? Is there really a realistic chance at all that another is toppled pre-election?
They're offering 1/2 on it, btw. If anyone wants that instead of the 1/3 on Clegg being LD leader.
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum..
Yes, Labour are not completely stupid. They will have noticed that Cameron's promise of a referendum had zero effect on getting the Kippers off his back (though it did have a very good effect on calming divisions within the Conservative Party). So there is absolutely nothing, not a saucisse, to be gained. On the other hand, there's a lot of downside. It would cause major ructions in the Labour Party. The unions would be hugely dischufffed. It would be a huge distraction in the first couple of years of a Miliband government. Miliband actually does have some principled beliefs, and extreme Europhilia is one of them. And most of all, why on earth would they want to close down an issue which torments the Tories?
It is the most cuckooish of cloud-cuckoo ideas.
Cameron is an arch Europhile, didnt stop him offering a referendum.
Wait until old school Labour voters leave them in droves, citing immigration as the cause, he will offer one then.
Twitter Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 35m As we prepare for the UK press coverage of Junker's pull out, thank God the Germans don't have a word for schadenfreude
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 40m Jean-Claude Juncker ducks out of EC fight. That Garbo-like "leave me alone" moment summed up existential problem of Euro policy elite
Jean-Claude Juncker to withdraw bid to lead European Commission, sources say
The former prime minister of Luxembourg could pull out of the race to succeed José Manuel Barroso within weeks, after a coalition of European leaders attempted to block his candidacy
William Hill have brought back their "How many leaders will survive to the GE" market. At this point, surely the bet on 'All 3' is basically the same as 'Clegg survives'? Is there really a realistic chance at all that another is toppled pre-election?
They're offering 1/2 on it, btw. If anyone wants that instead of the 1/3 on Clegg being LD leader.
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum..
Yes, Labour are not completely stupid. They will have noticed that Cameron's promise of a referendum had zero effect on getting the Kippers off his back (though it did have a very good effect on calming divisions within the Conservative Party). So there is absolutely nothing, not a saucisse, to be gained. On the other hand, there's a lot of downside. It would cause major ructions in the Labour Party. The unions would be hugely dischufffed. It would be a huge distraction in the first couple of years of a Miliband government. Miliband actually does have some principled beliefs, and extreme Europhilia is one of them. And most of all, why on earth would they want to close down an issue which torments the Tories?
It is the most cuckooish of cloud-cuckoo ideas.
Cameron is an arch Europhile, didnt stop him offering a referendum.
Wait until old school Labour voters leave them in droves, citing immigration as the cause, he will offer one then.
It's all just wishful thinking.
Maybe. I disagree, and have bet @RichardNabavi accordingly
This helps my case I think
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h Suspect weekend politics will be dominated by top shadow cabinet figure saying traditional working class 'abandoning' Labour in droves.
Cruddas is a big deal, particularly in the WWC dept, and he wants a referendum. Ed Balls does too
I cannot see it myself. Miliband's family are Belgian and Polish. Any attempt by Labour to put a referendum in the manifesto would split the party and be seen as a cynical and desperate ploy.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum..
Yes, Labour are not completely stupid. They will have noticed that Cameron's promise of a referendum had zero effect on getting the Kippers off his back (though it did have a very good effect on calming divisions within the Conservative Party). So there is absolutely nothing, not a saucisse, to be gained. On the other hand, there's a lot of downside. It would cause major ructions in the Labour Party. The unions would be hugely dischufffed. It would be a huge distraction in the first couple of years of a Miliband government. Miliband actually does have some principled beliefs, and extreme Europhilia is one of them. And most of all, why on earth would they want to close down an issue which torments the Tories?
It is the most cuckooish of cloud-cuckoo ideas.
Cameron is an arch Europhile, didnt stop him offering a referendum.
Wait until old school Labour voters leave them in droves, citing immigration as the cause, he will offer one then.
Indeed the point of Farage repeatedly saying that Labour will eventually offer a referendum is to get Miliband and his lieutenants to say they won't (or maybe they will). If he sticks to his principles and does not offer a referendum eventually all those Eurosceptics who vote Labour will get the message that Miliband is not interested in their views and perhaps that (combined with other varying concerns) will encourage them to switch. If he does eventually offer a referendum then Farage is proved right and Miliband looks that bit weaker. Its a win-win strategy
Comments
I made the same prediction. It doesn't mean that what was predicted was good for Labour.
And no, this is comfort blanket territory. Why has the progressive vote halved? In opposition, Labour should be making progress, not going backwards.
This is not in any way a credible scenario and yet Cameron would be coming to the country saying 'trust me this will happen' and using that as the basis to campaign for a vote to stay in the EU.
Throw money and resources at a basically unwinnable seat, or soft pedal and hope UKIP get enough votes for the Tories to get nervous?
Bearing in mind this is a fixed term parliament, and the result will be forgotten by the time the world cup is over. and the fact it doesn't alter parliament?
I can see why you would think it was a good idea to chuck money at it, from my perspective it looks like a mugs bet.
This Parliament has been unusual in that the vast majority of the by-elections have been in opposition-held seats, but you would think that would leave Labour even more eager to have a go on one of the rare opportunities they had.
They prefer to play silly Westminster games.
It is surely only a problem that he comes to the country with such a claim if you think people will buy that claim, and I think they are skeptical enough that they won't, since as you say the changes most people do want (and for anyone about to say 'polls show no-one cares about the EU', when forced to make a choice, people seem to Euroskeptic, even most of the Ins would qualify as such in Europe through being lukewarm about integration and wanting tougher border controls etc) would not be satisifed.
Fisher: 4.8%
Prosser: 5.0%
RodC (locals): 8.4%
L&N: 10.0%
Meaningful changes will make the EU more attractive to more voters. No meaningful changes will make No more attractive. You should be cheering from the rafters every day there is a delay to the start of any negotiations. It would strengthen your side of the argument.
If he is in power, he will have a referendum, or his backbenchers will defenestrate him. The worse the result of his negotiation the better for No. I find your position hard to legitimise with thought, logic and sense.
I haven't read all the comments and arguments here - but increasingly I'm wondering if there was a tacit agreement, (or even more than that?), between the Tories and Labour, that Labour would not energetically fight for Newark - so that UKIP could not come through the middle of disaffected Tory, Labour and Lib Dem voters.
If there was a pact, I think it would have been a risky strategy . But none of the three established parties would have wanted UKIP's momentum to continue. So maybe there was a plan?
The Kippers' rabid fear of the almighty influence of Cameron over the voters in a referendum is one of the funniest features of politics today. What's makes it particularly enjoyable is the fact that they claim that Cameron is a voter-repellant loser with no electoral appeal. You'd have thought they would want to have him on the opposite side in the referendum.
Kippers moaning about LibLabCon would have apoplexy.
They face the same strategic enemy: the system...
That is unlikely, but actually I think it more likely than Labour sitting back to let the Tories win. However much they might dislike UKIP more, a UKIP win in a by-election had the opportunity to damage the Tories tactically more than Labour.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy poking sticks at a few of the dumber Tory sycophants of which JohnO is a perfect example.
Andrew Neil@afneil·19 mins
David Goodhart: Labour driven back to 3 core groups: Guardian readers, ethnic minorities and people dependent on welfare or public sector.
Andrew Neil@afneil·21 mins
Suspect weekend politics will be dominated by top shadow cabinet figure saying traditional working class 'abandoning' Labour in droves.
In any event all this never gets a look-in in your mouthings. We have a pretty fair sure not perfect but still Tory govt. I prefer it to Labour and to be frank I look at UKIP and increasingly want to vomit.
And of course on top of all this it is trying to reduce immigration, it voted against Lisbon in opposition, it wants to reform the eu and is promising a referendum.
I'm sorry to pick on you, you are simply the one which caught my eye... but you are typical. There are no justifications for the nonsense which you and others spout, and what is sad to see is the way you stand on your head to make your contradictions add up.
As others have alluded, we must wonder why you and your lot are always talking down a referendum in 2017. Why do you want to help into power labour who will refuse a referendum?
" thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO ... I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example... will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it. ... "
If that's not 'rattled', I'm a Kipper.
But more to the point, it would not suddenly convert the isams of the world to Milibandism.
It is all downside and next to no upside. Labour will not promise a referendum.
The thread I've written for tomorrow afternoon, which I consider my greatest piece ever, and not a single pop music reference.
Obviously, it's very much true for UKIP.
Jean-Claude Juncker to withdraw bid to lead European Commission, sources say
The former prime minister of Luxembourg could pull out of the race to succeed José Manuel Barroso within weeks, after a coalition of European leaders attempted to block his candidacy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10882531/Jean-Claude-Juncker-to-withdraw-bid-to-lead-European-Commission-sources-say.html
Obvious joke, had to be made.
Jean-Claude Juncker to withdraw bid to lead European Commission, sources say
Given how bullish he has been about it, and how he has, in classic style, tried to pretend only Britain has been holding back endorsing him, that would be quite momentous. As a top EU insider I am sure he will make us pay if we cost him the job.
Can't imagine the parliament would be happy either given they tried to act as though their preferred candidates were a foregone conclusion, unless somehow Schultz or Verhofstadt get the pick.
It's really not that difficult - check his (and my) posts when the Newark byelection was announced - we both recognised that neither of our two preferred parties stood a chance and predicted an easy Tory hold.
FWIW Gordon Brown has a better ratio of byelection holds than Cameron. Probably best not to get too excited about this one.
It is the most cuckooish of cloud-cuckoo ideas.
" I consider my greatest piece ever"
The scene on the Vogon ship rushes unbidden into my mind.
If you had paid any attention you would have noticed that above all else I have scorn for the blind fanaticism of the party faithful, no matter what party they support. It just happens that unfortunately we get far more uncritical support for their party from Tory's than we do from Labour or Lib Dem supporters on here.
1. Could he?
2. Would he?
Forced 'humour' aside, are the Tories here *really* attempting to suggest that the incumbent Government couldn't use a series of levers to influence a the outcome of a referendum (Alex Salmond anyone?)? Hopefully not.
So they must be suggesting that Cameron just wouldn't do such a dastardly thing. He's far too trustworthy apparently, especially on Europe. Um..
Just learned that Alex Salmond turned down doing Sunday Politics this weekend because he prefers to do Marr instead .... #bbcsp
Also, I'm sure I read earlier today that Renzi had slapped down Cameron a little saying that one country could not by diktat determine these things, but the telegraph reports he said he would not accept the diktat of Mr Junker's candidacy. Maybe he just uses the word diktat a lot.
While I'm not averse to the parliament's view that a candidate chose by its group should be president, I do think it rich many of them are claiming to not do so would be undemocratic, given it is not law that that be so, and people voting for national parties cannot really be regarded as having voted for the chosen candidate of a much larger european political group.
The Tories hate all you Kippers, and are glad you are not in their party.
But your vote is rightfully theirs, so stop messing about!
So what? This is FPP in a very safe Tory seat. It doesn't matter. If they had fought it and got an increase we would have had "Labour really put a lot into this, they got nowhere".
I was so disappointed last year when I went to see Man of Steel, I was expecting a biography about Stalin.
At some point - August, perhaps, when nothing else is going on - I'll do the thread on SV I have in mind.
I suppose it is their form of tough love. Doing what is good for us even if we don't appreciate it.
Interestingly the Tory reaction to UKIP over the last couple of months has convinced me now that even if UKIP did not exist I would not return to voting Tory as I did in the 80s and 90s. No one who displays the sort of arrogance that the Cameroon Tories display deserves to be supported so this (and I suspect many other ex-Tory votes) is a vote that is now permanently lost to them.
While I'm not averse to the parliament's view that a candidate chose by its group should be president, I do think it rich many of them are claiming to not do so would be undemocratic, given it is not law that that be so, and people voting for national parties cannot really be regarded as having voted for the chosen candidate of a much larger european political group. Sounds like what Labour figures felt about the LDs, who of course 'rightfully' belonged to their 'anti-Tory majority'. Fortunately for them, apparently they were right.
A euro friendly Cameron in a mildly euro sceptic party would skew the referendum towards in.
What would a euro fanboy Milliband in a europhile Labour party do?
All roads you select appear to lead away from your goal. Very odd.
At least a good part of your voters share the same opinion I suspect.
Edit: Not wishing to rely on wikpedia, but it does actually specifically say the Italian press use the term widely in reference to political events. Take that for what it's worth.
Here in Scotland, the SNP have made this VisitScotland's 'Year of Homecoming' and organised a Bannockburn re-enactment; used public money for what is essentially independence mood music. They have given 16 year olds the right to vote. They have influenced the referendum question (and would have done so even more if Cameron had not stopped them). They have suppressed reports critical of independence, and created a climate where businesses and individuals against independence do not feel they can speak out. And that is for a cause WITHOUT the support of the vast majority of the media and establishment. Imagine what the EU 'in' side will do!
Getting Labour to do this would be a basic impossibility I believe. But there is a much larger BOO tendency within the Tory party and a better chance of getting a properly eurosceptic Tory leader rather than the avowedly Europhile leader they currently have.
Both main parties will have some heavy lifters on the yes side.
Who (or when) calls the referendum will have as much bearing on the dynamics as gravitational pull on the moon.
They're offering 1/2 on it, btw. If anyone wants that instead of the 1/3 on Clegg being LD leader.
As it was, they didn't and weren't.
NOM 2.34
Lab 3.3
Con 3.75
Wait until old school Labour voters leave them in droves, citing immigration as the cause, he will offer one then.
EDIT that bet is my Platonic bet.
http://order-order.com/2014/06/06/watch-patrick-mercer-crashes-into-parked-car/
Michael Gove’s job in doubt after row with Theresa May
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/295ec5b0-ed7a-11e3-abf3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33u2Jugsg
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 35m
As we prepare for the UK press coverage of Junker's pull out, thank God the Germans don't have a word for schadenfreude
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 40m
Jean-Claude Juncker ducks out of EC fight. That Garbo-like "leave me alone" moment summed up existential problem of Euro policy elite
This helps my case I think
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h
Suspect weekend politics will be dominated by top shadow cabinet figure saying traditional working class 'abandoning' Labour in droves.
Cruddas is a big deal, particularly in the WWC dept, and he wants a referendum. Ed Balls does too
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5473566a-ed9a-11e3-8a00-00144feabdc0.html#axzz33u2Jugsg