Much Lib Dem support came from the public sector (such as teachers) in the 2010 election. Following the coalition putting a cap on public sector salary range increases, public sector workers have switched back to Labour.
PS TSE was wrong about Fellani after all, as well as wrong about a challenge to Clegg.
Was teaching such a LD hotbed? In any event the public sector is in decline, its vote may have switched from LD to labour but the public sector is smaller. But why should the public sector - assuming you are right - be so upset? The private sector was having no pay rises at all. Are you insuinuating that public sector workers are peculiarly bigoted and selfish in their outlook? Maybe they are but where is the evidence that they are when they can see the state of the country the same as the rest of us?
Surely the relevant difference is that public sector employees get to elect their employers? Private sector workers don't.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
No, they're not. They're not trying to get any "balance". They've given absolute carte blanche to the security services. They're doing everything they possibly can in terms of snooping. The only thing holding them back is where it's against existing laws, and even here, they are using loopholes to get around it, and trying to pass new snooper's charters to extend it further. And there's been absolutely no evidence presented at all that warrantless mass surveillance has stopped any terrorist attacks. It's just rank authoritarianism, and everyone except hardcore partisan loyalists can see it.
Look I'm uncomfortable with much of this however I recognise why the security services would be lobbying for it and the government agreeing. I don't think it's insidious or just doing it for the hell of it. They may be wrong but not from wrong motives. I think this idea that whenever you disagree with someone you impugn their motives needs to be binned.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
That is true, that there are few correct answers, but when the government get the balance so very wrong, and show no intention of ever changing that, it is wrong to talk about that balance as if it is some delicate thing that the government occasionally steps over the line on in their fervour to protect us. They roar past the line repeatedly without hesitation, the balance they are trying to make is between how much can they do with modern techniques and how much can they do before the politicians feel they have to pull things back, not between security and privacy. Privacy was sacrificed long ago. Socrates is right on this one, there is no balance being attempted in the terms you describe it.
I wonder if any criticism will ever come his way even if he loses?
He can't lose. If the referendum result is struck down, he will rise again even stronger.
3 days later perhaps.
When this is the level of debate from the NO side it is very hard to imagine it could ever win any referendum. Scott is a model of the NO side , negative, whinging , we cannot do it, nothing to add to the debate , no vision , no hope , no thanks.
And is calling someone a 'Fanny' or a 'Turnip' a perfect example of YES?
The debating with J K Rowling went well last week. Your fellow travellers were calling her a 'Whore', 'Bitch', 'Cow' and far worse. The votes will be piling in from Scotland's womenfolk.
I don't approve of that for a moment (though I genuinely wonder how many of those were from Unionists pretending to be for Yes. There have always been a few of those around in general, and it will be interesting to see what comes out in any prosecutions.) But I don't recall any pro-Yes politicians making personal attacks, or pro-Yes newspapers making Ms Rowling out to be a mental defective groomed by the Labour politicians and publishing where she lived. Even the Daily Express found that abuse was a much greater problem from No than from Yes. So it is pretty shoddy of the Unionists to pretend that internet abuse is a pro-Yes problem, and to concoct media stories to that effect. They are creating the sort of divisive nonsense that they are themselves pretending to condemn.
On a related matter, I don't recall anyone complaining when people on this site accused Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon of being paedophiles or child thieves. The wording was ambiguous, and I didn't realise at the time what was being said, despite paedophilia, at the time, being the plat du jour for the main unionist parties, so presumably it was thought a good idea to fling the filth around even more). (This is not aimed specifically at you - you may not have been active at the time.)
@ToryJim " I think this idea that whenever you disagree with someone you impugn their motives needs to be binned"
That's two thirds of the posts gone south, Cat pictures anyone? Anyway, you are just trying to stifle the voice of the proletariat you running dog of the capitalist system!
@PeteWishart: Miliband's personal ratings are disastrous, it is now minus 39, below Nick Clegg. Call for the men in the ill fitting shiny grey suits?
What we really need is a poster tracking how many months in a row Ed has better leadership rating than Cameron...
A fall of 14 points in his personal rating has resulted in a 2 point rise in the party's ratings, at this rate the Labour party might wish for Milibands ratings to fall further in order for them to win a landslide Labour victory.
It is curious. On the plus side, I guess Miliband may well be the PM whose personal ratings fall the least while in office, as they were already terrible to start with. Hell, they might well go up, given how low they already are.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
That is true, that there are few correct answers, but when the government get the balance so very wrong, and show no intention of ever changing that, it is wrong to talk about that balance as if it is some delicate thing that the government occasionally steps over the line on in their fervour to protect us. They roar past the line repeatedly without hesitation, the balance they are trying to make is between how much can they do with modern techniques and how much can they do before the politicians feel they have to pull things back, not between security and privacy. Privacy was sacrificed long ago. Socrates is right on this one, there is no balance being attempted in the terms you describe it.
Look if the government has to err on one side or another I'd rather they erred on the side of keeping people alive.
@ToryJim " I think this idea that whenever you disagree with someone you impugn their motives needs to be binned"
That's two thirds of the posts gone south, Cat pictures anyone? Anyway, you are just trying to stifle the voice of the proletariat you running dog of the capitalist system!
Breaking that down, and as IANAE, could you clarify if a running dog has a good or bad position in the capitalist system. If bad then what is the difference between a running dog and a member of the proletariat? If good, then I think a different taxonomy is required as the implication is of a running dog being more done to rather than doing.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
No, they're not. They're not trying to get any "balance". They've given absolute carte blanche to the security services. They're doing everything they possibly can in terms of snooping. The only thing holding them back is where it's against existing laws, and even here, they are using loopholes to get around it, and trying to pass new snooper's charters to extend it further. And there's been absolutely no evidence presented at all that warrantless mass surveillance has stopped any terrorist attacks. It's just rank authoritarianism, and everyone except hardcore partisan loyalists can see it.
Look I'm uncomfortable with much of this however I recognise why the security services would be lobbying for it and the government agreeing. I don't think it's insidious or just doing it for the hell of it. They may be wrong but not from wrong motives. I think this idea that whenever you disagree with someone you impugn their motives needs to be binned.
I recognize why the security services would lobby for it and the government agree with it as well. It's still appalling in principle and operation, so their motives do not really concern me. But for what it is worth, the motivation for the extent of what is done and what is sought is 'we need to know everything' for the protection for the public, and proving why everything is needed is secondary, or not needed at all. Proving it in public at least. Even if we assume that pure motivation, it is still a license to so much that just feels wrong. Good intentions are not worth much when the outcome still screws us over.
Death is certain. The question isn't how we die, but how we live, and whether we live in a country where we can be free from prying eyes of the state and able to *gasp!* see a cartoon about a 7th century man without it being censored.
There's a balance to be struck, but it seems privacy and freedom tend to lose out to the apparatus of the state and the over-sensitivity of a religious few.
""No-one should be in any doubt that what we see in Syria and now in Iraq in terms of Isis is the most serious threat to Britain's security that there is today," Cameron told a joint news conference with Chinese premier Li Keqiang.
"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK is a real threat to our country," he said."
If that is what he believes then the question must be what is going to do about it? Dare we hope that some one will ask him?
My guess is he'll have a photo op where he eats a bacon sandwich.
This will be followed by some self righteous statement about good, evil and tough decisions.
Then he'll stick his head up his arse and hope the problem goes away.
What I found astonishing is that firstly he made the claim. Lets be honest if those murderous nutters running around in Iraq/Syria are the most serious threat to the UK, then we are probably in a safer time than any for the past seventy years. Secondly, that he can identify what he tells us is an awful threat but not propose a course of action and, to the shame of the MSM, not even be asked what he is going to do about it.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
The government is trying to get a difficult balance between security and privacy concerns. They may get it wrong, they may justify it badly but I think we can drop the insanely aggressive language. The government will be bashed from one side on civil liberties but they'd get an awful lot more grief if 200 people were killed and they could have known about it. There are very few correct answers here.
That is true, that there are few correct answers, but when the government get the balance so very wrong, and show no intention of ever changing that, it is wrong to talk about that balance as if it is some delicate thing that the government occasionally steps over the line on in their fervour to protect us. They roar past the line repeatedly without hesitation, the balance they are trying to make is between how much can they do with modern techniques and how much can they do before the politicians feel they have to pull things back, not between security and privacy. Privacy was sacrificed long ago. Socrates is right on this one, there is no balance being attempted in the terms you describe it.
Look if the government has to err on one side or another I'd rather they erred on the side of keeping people alive.
So let them do whatever they hell they want then. ID cards, banning public gatherings, indefinite detention, secret courts, hell why bother with trials at all. Err on the side of caution and just remove any safeguards on their actions.
It appears most people are not overly worried about such things, or there would be a larger outcry, and of course the most extreme or overt of tyrannies are not likely to occur in this country. But if people are willing to accept that the government can do these things, they should stop with the pretense of concern. Either you feel it is better to risk going over the line or you don't. If you think going over the line is acceptable, fine, but I don't really see the point of 'We should do it, given them whatever they want, but I don't much like it', if you don't dislike it enough to not want it in the first place.
Death is certain. The question isn't how we die, but how we live, and whether we live in a country where we can be free from prying eyes of the state and able to *gasp!* see a cartoon about a 7th century man without it being censored.
There's a balance to be struck, but it seems privacy and freedom tend to lose out to the apparatus of the state and the over-sensitivity of a religious few.
That sounds very like a quote from The World is Not Enough. Look I want to live in a relatively free and un intrusive society and I'd like to live in one for a long time. I'm just not convinced we can get away with the notion that any level of intrusion is unacceptable.
""No-one should be in any doubt that what we see in Syria and now in Iraq in terms of Isis is the most serious threat to Britain's security that there is today," Cameron told a joint news conference with Chinese premier Li Keqiang.
"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK is a real threat to our country," he said."
If that is what he believes then the question must be what is going to do about it? Dare we hope that some one will ask him?
My guess is he'll have a photo op where he eats a bacon sandwich.
This will be followed by some self righteous statement about good, evil and tough decisions.
Then he'll stick his head up his arse and hope the problem goes away.
What I found astonishing is that firstly he made the claim. Lets be honest if those murderous nutters running around in Iraq/Syria are the most serious threat to the UK, then we are probably in a safer time than any for the past seventy years. Secondly, that he can identify what he tells us is an awful threat but not propose a course of action and, to the shame of the MSM, not even be asked what he is going to do about it.
Just typical Cameron PR spivery.
You think that just because something is an incredibly serious problem that something should actually be done about it? I've never heard such nonsense. Everyone knows that serious threats are to be ignored because they are hard to handle. Cigarette packaging, that sort of thing, those are the problems you do something about. Did you know they're bad for you?
F1: more markets on Ladbrokes, including one I was interested in. Might offer an early 'tip' [NB these early tips don't count in my records, only those in my articles do].
@HurstLlama It does give the photo op for a "firm jawed, and steely eyed" pose?
It does indeed, Comrade. It is unfortunate that whenever Cameron tries such a pose he always looks as though he is having a very difficult bowel movement.
Death is certain. The question isn't how we die, but how we live, and whether we live in a country where we can be free from prying eyes of the state and able to *gasp!* see a cartoon about a 7th century man without it being censored.
There's a balance to be struck, but it seems privacy and freedom tend to lose out to the apparatus of the state and the over-sensitivity of a religious few.
I'm just not convinced we can get away with the notion that any level of intrusion is unacceptable.
It's a long way from 'some intrusion is acceptable in certain situations and with certain safeguards' to what this and other governments are doing. I am sure those in fear among us, myself included, overstate how bad things are sometimes, but there are more positions than 'any intrusion is unacceptable' and 'you can do anything'.
And from torturing people, detaining without trial and so much else, the truth seems to be that governments do what they can get away with, even if for the best of reasons, that's why you try to place restrictions in the first place, and from reports any that are in place are not worth the title of restriction. That's the issue, not that any intrusion at all is taking place.
@HurstLlama It does give the photo op for a "firm jawed, and steely eyed" pose?
It does indeed, Comrade. It is unfortunate that whenever Cameron tries such a pose he always looks as though he is having a very difficult bowel movement.
But enduring it with class and dignity, of course.
@kle4 Oh don't be silly. We need a debate of course but the idea that every proposal is met with a no is ridiculous. We need a proper debate not hysterics.
came out even today. My method was one up from pretty colours and went along the lines of - well XXX XXX (say, Andrew Balding) wouldn't have entered up this horse for the eg. St. James's Palace Stakes for a laugh, even though it's 12-1. But of course that applies to every horse entered for every race.
No, Pragmatics have worked out that communism is the one true way, but humans are not evolved enough yet. We intend therefore to kick back and watch the semi evolved apes screw the whole thing up, then takeover the remnants. And our doubters said we couldn't do long term planning? Ha!
came out even today. My method was one up from pretty colours and went along the lines of - well XXX XXX (say, Andrew Balding) wouldn't have entered up this horse for the eg. St. James's Palace Stakes for a laugh, even though it's 12-1. But of course that applies to every horse entered for every race.
@kle4 Oh don't be silly. We need a debate of course but the idea that every proposal is met with a no is ridiculous. We need a proper debate not hysterics.
I get very angry about these things, so will withdraw because unlike some posters I do not get more entertaining and eloquent as I get angry, but you just said that 'I'm just not convinced we can get away with the notion that any level of intrusion is unacceptable'. How you can square that with a desire for a proper debate is laughable.
By framing those who are concerned about the extent of intrusion in that way, while being blase that if they have to cross the line to keep us safe that is a ok, you are hardly inviting a debate. You are outright stating that those who have genuine concerns resist any intrusion in the name of safety, which is false, and that can only be intended to dismiss the arguments of those on the other side by suggesting their position is something it is not, something absurd
Anyone advocating that position while claiming to welcome debate is, at best, confused. You invite debate but then define anyone opposing your view as being an extremist unwilling to accept any reasonable position by summarizing it as about 'any intrusion'.
By comparison, my taking your position to its logical extreme is a much lesser offense. As I and most others do not call for the end of any government intrusion for security purposes, you cannot claim you were doing the same by summarizing the opposing view at its most extreme end.
I read that this afternoon, it tells you who the Tories overwhelmingly select from as well. Award yourself half an internetz each if you guess the answer before reading.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
Kevin Schofield @schofieldkevin · 2 mins New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
Kevin Schofield @schofieldkevin · 2 mins New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
Kevin Schofield @schofieldkevin · 2 mins New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
@schofieldkevin: New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
@schofieldkevin: And on the JK Rowling row, 12% say they're now more likely to vote No, and 6% are more likely to vote Yes. Full story in The Sun. #indyref
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead down one to three points: CON 34%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
Applying the 3% deflator against the gold standard to the lead that was identified the other day this is a tie which is pretty close to the ICM figure.
What I really don't believe is that Labour are at 37. I really don't.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
"bow to the inevitable" They might have meant some other electoral inevitability.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
From the times
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Agree, they'll get a lot of stick. Not sure I see an upside.
The plan is that, it will isolate Ed Miliband as the only leader not offering a referendum, and that the Tories will give the Lib Dems a major policy thing, to boost the Lib Dems.
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
But, but, but Better Together said that the May Progressive Opinion Scotland was a Yougov, and compared it to the April Yougov. I look forward to them highlighting the changes from 1st May (No -1, Yes +2).
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
From the times
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Agree, they'll get a lot of stick. Not sure I see an upside.
The plan is that, it will isolate Ed Miliband as the only leader not offering a referendum, and that the Tories will give the Lib Dems a major policy thing, to boost the Lib Dems.
@schofieldkevin: New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
So JK has more impact than the president of the USA on scottish opinion.
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
But, but, but Better Together said that the May Progressive Opinion Scotland was a Yougov, and compared it to the April Yougov. I look forward to them highlighting the changes from 1st May (No -1, Yes +2).
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
But, but, but Better Together said that the May Progressive Opinion Scotland was a Yougov, and compared it to the April Yougov. I look forward to them highlighting the changes from 1st May (No -1, Yes +2).
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Agree, they'll get a lot of stick. Not sure I see an upside.
The plan is that, it will isolate Ed Miliband as the only leader not offering a referendum, and that the Tories will give the Lib Dems a major policy thing, to boost the Lib Dems.
I still don't see the upside, because Labour will then eat some more Lib Dem votes and how much credit have the Lib Dems got for all their other policy things? This seems like someone drowning in the Amazon grabbing an anaconda to avoid the approaching piranhas.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
From the times
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Hmm. On what basis?
If the Lib Dems back it in Commons, then the parliament act kicks in and the Lords cannot block it.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
The problem is how do you stop government abusing these powers. RIPA was only supposed to be for terrorists and serious crime etc. That isn't how it has worked out in practice, function creep will always happen. IIRC statistically, an individual is at greater risk of dying at the hands of the police than from terrorist activity. Happy to be corrected if I have got that bit wrong
You couldn't make it up. Is this what passes for foreign policy these days.
Not only these days, but since the advent of diplomacy in the bronze age. Look at Kissinger, or Bismark, or Talleyrand or more recently Obama (supporting Mubarak to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to supporting the coup against the M.B. all in 2 years time).
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
But, but, but Better Together said that the May Progressive Opinion Scotland was a Yougov, and compared it to the April Yougov. I look forward to them highlighting the changes from 1st May (No -1, Yes +2).
Yeah, I know that, you know that, TSE knows that, just not Better Together.
'New poll delivers fresh blow to Salmond Alex Salmond’s campaign to break up the UK suffered a fresh blow today as a new poll showed a clear majority of Scots want to stay in the UK. In a YouGov survey for Progressive Partnership, published in today’s Sunday Mail, 54% of Scots backed remaining in the UK compared to just 34% supporting separation. When undecided voters were removed, 61% of Scots support Scotland’s place in the UK with only 39% in favour of break-up. Today’s new poll shows a 6 point swing in favour of the campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK, compared to the most recent previous poll by YouGov for Channel Four News.'
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
From the times
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Hmm. On what basis?
If the Lib Dems back it in Commons, then the parliament act kicks in and the Lords cannot block it.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
Agree, they'll get a lot of stick. Not sure I see an upside.
The plan is that, it will isolate Ed Miliband as the only leader not offering a referendum, and that the Tories will give the Lib Dems a major policy thing, to boost the Lib Dems.
As I said, desperate stuff. "Vote LibDem, get a referendum on europe" is soooooo credible.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
And they have the private members bill to push it through, thanks to Neil's position in the recent ballot.
From the times
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Hmm. On what basis?
If the Lib Dems back it in Commons, then the parliament act kicks in and the Lords cannot block it.
Desperate stuff. I predict that they will fully back it after parliament dissolves for the election.
This is a jaw-dropping justification for the mass reading of our communications:
"The government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway."
What scumbags Cameron and May are. I can't wait until they get booted out of office.
rich from a Blairite.
When have I ever been a Blairite?
You're in to all this running around invading places and can't quite work out that's what provides the justification for security based invasion of privacy.
I'm not for running around invading places. The last few threads have shown I am a vocal critic of colonialism, and I believed Iraq was a massive mistake. I just believe that you should intervene (not necessarily with troops on the ground), if people start (a) annexing parts of their neighbours, (b) slaughtering people by the thousands, (c) create a safe place for Al-Qaeda to operate from.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed. Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
They really need assess themselves on the EU issue. The "party of in" stick went down like a red balloon. The whole europhilia just doesn't fit with their core principles of localism, individual liberty and democracy.
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
@kle4 I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
You don't need a technical debate to realise that the government reading through all your web searches and emails, and grabbing photos from your webcam, all at the discretion of GCHQ, is the greatest intrusion into the general public's private life we've ever seen. And this government hasn't done anything at all to restrain it. In fact, they've made a consistent effort to demand more powers.
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
We need the technical debate to decide where we are going to draw the line if not here and it needs to be decided on the basis of facts as well as theory. I think that if there are people out there tooling up with knowledge of how to build bombs or carry out other atrocities then I'd quite like the government to be finding out who they are. In order to do that they are going to have to trawl information to an extent.
BTW - SeanT called it right on the JK Rowling effect.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Sean has made some great calls over the years, but it's not some crazy political insight that people would react badly to one side calling a popular female author a traitor and a whore.
Comments
"Surely the relevant difference is that public sector employees get to elect their employers?"
Might not be all that bad for some things?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
" I think this idea that whenever you disagree with someone you impugn their motives needs to be binned"
That's two thirds of the posts gone south, Cat pictures anyone?
Anyway, you are just trying to stifle the voice of the proletariat you running dog of the capitalist system!
Many thanks.
Death is certain. The question isn't how we die, but how we live, and whether we live in a country where we can be free from prying eyes of the state and able to *gasp!* see a cartoon about a 7th century man without it being censored.
There's a balance to be struck, but it seems privacy and freedom tend to lose out to the apparatus of the state and the over-sensitivity of a religious few.
You might have to ask "Wolfie" Smith that question, but as he is a fictional character it might be a sub optimal choice.
Just typical Cameron PR spivery.
It appears most people are not overly worried about such things, or there would be a larger outcry, and of course the most extreme or overt of tyrannies are not likely to occur in this country. But if people are willing to accept that the government can do these things, they should stop with the pretense of concern. Either you feel it is better to risk going over the line or you don't. If you think going over the line is acceptable, fine, but I don't really see the point of 'We should do it, given them whatever they want, but I don't much like it', if you don't dislike it enough to not want it in the first place.
It does give the photo op for a "firm jawed, and steely eyed" pose?
damned splitters all of them!
And from torturing people, detaining without trial and so much else, the truth seems to be that governments do what they can get away with, even if for the best of reasons, that's why you try to place restrictions in the first place, and from reports any that are in place are not worth the title of restriction. That's the issue, not that any intrusion at all is taking place.
that's it - pragmatic communism, apologies I couldn't remember what it was.
You mean like Deng Xiaoping, right?
Oh don't be silly. We need a debate of course but the idea that every proposal is met with a no is ridiculous. We need a proper debate not hysterics.
came out even today. My method was one up from pretty colours and went along the lines of - well XXX XXX (say, Andrew Balding) wouldn't have entered up this horse for the eg. St. James's Palace Stakes for a laugh, even though it's 12-1. But of course that applies to every horse entered for every race.
Still, it did me ok today.
We intend therefore to kick back and watch the semi evolved apes screw the whole thing up, then takeover the remnants.
And our doubters said we couldn't do long term planning? Ha!
WOW: The Mexican version of Adrian Chiles.
pic.twitter.com/kC2biq0GXh
ah I see - wait to see how the French Revolution turns out and go from there...
'Cause if they do, as we know Dave reads pb, can you tell them that whatsapp convo about suicide bombers was a joke
And that Snapchat convo a while ago, was my mate, who decided to have some fun when I left my phone unattended.
Damn, you have spies!. They will be rounded up and shot at dawn (or the late morning if it is a weekend)
By framing those who are concerned about the extent of intrusion in that way, while being blase that if they have to cross the line to keep us safe that is a ok, you are hardly inviting a debate. You are outright stating that those who have genuine concerns resist any intrusion in the name of safety, which is false, and that can only be intended to dismiss the arguments of those on the other side by suggesting their position is something it is not, something absurd
Anyone advocating that position while claiming to welcome debate is, at best, confused. You invite debate but then define anyone opposing your view as being an extremist unwilling to accept any reasonable position by summarizing it as about 'any intrusion'.
By comparison, my taking your position to its logical extreme is a much lesser offense. As I and most others do not call for the end of any government intrusion for security purposes, you cannot claim you were doing the same by summarizing the opposing view at its most extreme end.
Good night all.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-conservative-battleground-june-2014.html
Research finds Labour and Lib Dem are choosing more candidates from political classes than Conservatives
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/labour-candidates-marginal-seats-westminster-insiders
Looks like buying money.
Taken £100 of the 1/6 there.
I read that this afternoon, it tells you who the Tories overwhelmingly select from as well.
Award yourself half an internetz each if you guess the answer before reading.
I do so because too many do seem to adopt that position. I accept not all do, but far too much of this debate is run by the extremes. Like I've said I'm not in favour of blanket surveillance but I'm not sure what the government is doing is characterisable as such. I want a decent technical debate, because much of this is beyond my level of knowledge. I just think there is too much heat on either side. I didn't intend to set up a straw man in that way, I'm against over and under intrusion but I'm very much against being killed by maniacs.
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
New YouGov poll for The Sun puts No on 53% (+2 since April) and Yes on 36% (-1). Excluding Don't Knows, it's 60% No (+2) and 40% Yes (-2).
And on the JK Rowling row, 12% say they're now more likely to vote No, and 6% are more likely to vote Yes. Full story in The Sun. #indyref
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead down one to three points: CON 34%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead down one to three points: CON 34%, LAB 37%, LD 7%, UKIP 13%
What I really don't believe is that Labour are at 37. I really don't.
Nick Clegg is considering matching David Cameron’s offer to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, in a dramatic move that would leave Labour exposed.
Liberal Democrat MPs were due to meet last night to discuss whether to shift their position of holding a vote only if there is a “material change” in relations with Brussels.
The party’s near wipe-out in the European Parliament elections together with the prospect of a Commons vote on enshrining the 2017 EU referendum in law is forcing the rethink.
At least three Liberal Democrat ministers as well as other senior party sources are urging Mr Clegg to “bow to the inevitable”. The debate about the terms of Britain’s EU membership can only be settled by a vote, they say, and the Lib Dems should position themselves now at the head of the campaign to stay in.
Desperate stuff.
They might have meant some other electoral inevitability.
Senior Whitehall figures believe there is now a high likelihood that a private member’s bill giving the vote a legal guarantee will pass.
Agree, they'll get a lot of stick. Not sure I see an upside.
The plan is that, it will isolate Ed Miliband as the only leader not offering a referendum, and that the Tories will give the Lib Dems a major policy thing, to boost the Lib Dems.
Or not.
You couldn't make it up. Is this what passes for foreign policy these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014
I still don't see the upside, because Labour will then eat some more Lib Dem votes and how much credit have the Lib Dems got for all their other policy things? This seems like someone drowning in the Amazon grabbing an anaconda to avoid the approaching piranhas.
RIPA was only supposed to be for terrorists and serious crime etc.
That isn't how it has worked out in practice, function creep will always happen.
IIRC statistically, an individual is at greater risk of dying at the hands of the police than from terrorist activity.
Happy to be corrected if I have got that bit wrong
Look at Kissinger, or Bismark, or Talleyrand or more recently Obama (supporting Mubarak to supporting the Muslim Brotherhood to supporting the coup against the M.B. all in 2 years time).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/17/cuts-universal-credit-work-incentives-review
I do hope no one on the committee wants to kick IDS's rear end for electoral advantage
'New poll delivers fresh blow to Salmond
Alex Salmond’s campaign to break up the UK suffered a fresh blow today as a new poll showed a clear majority of Scots want to stay in the UK.
In a YouGov survey for Progressive Partnership, published in today’s Sunday Mail, 54% of Scots backed remaining in the UK compared to just 34% supporting separation. When undecided voters were removed, 61% of Scots support Scotland’s place in the UK with only 39% in favour of break-up.
Today’s new poll shows a 6 point swing in favour of the campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK, compared to the most recent previous poll by YouGov for Channel Four News.'
http://tinyurl.com/nnxp3go
Meanwhile, Germany doesn't do any of this stuff, yet they somehow aren't some hellhole with terrorist attacks on every corner.
As I said, desperate stuff.
"Vote LibDem, get a referendum on europe" is soooooo credible.
I predict that they will fully back it after parliament dissolves for the election.
He's going to be even more unbearable happy now.
I expect a Telegraph blog on it.
Or something.