Just to be clear, there are a number of areas where UKIP has sensible ideas. But the overall tone and the views of many of its supporters and activists are downright unpleasant.
What is of interest to me is what an British exit from the EU would do to the whole EU project. I know that there are some voices on the Continent who say that they would be better off without the British etc but is that really the case? Wouldn't there be a significant jolt to the whole idea of Europe - as currently constructed - if a significant country decided after 40 odd years or so to leave? It would surely show that the direction of travel isn't only one way and that there is something rotten with the structure if a country of 60 million or so say "no".
I don't think it's a given that other countries would simply shrug their shoulders, go "oh well" and carry on as before.
Agree; I suspect that a Brexit would start something of a rush for the doors. The idea that if one country left, only one country would leave seems to me to be a bit fanciful; as much so as UKIP's idea that we could leave, and then negotiate to keep all the EU benefits without giving anything back as a quid pro quo.
I generally follow the school of NorwichMike. But UKIP won't pick up just those voters who voted in the European elections, so it can reasonably hope to do a bit better than 8%. If I had to guess right now, 10% would be my par tally for UKIP next year.
I guess the thing to consider is whether the UKIP ground campaign will affect there vote share dramatically. The difference between 8% to 12% nationally is around 2000 votes in each constituency. I see little evidence that the party is able to run effective GOTV efforts in the vast majority of seats.
For an established party with a big media presence you can compensate for a lack of a ground campaign. Are UKIP going to be afforded this luxury to increase their vote like this. The Euros are unique elections for them given the publicity and voting system - no vote wasted etc...
This problem is what holds smaller parties back in the vast majority of constituency's and artificially depresses their national vote share. Will this happen to UKIP?
15% will vote for a party that will get zero MPs ? I doubt it.
In 1989 in the European election, the Green Party got 15% of the votes nationally but that ranged between 5% and 25% in the constituencies. If the voting figures had been available for individual parliamentary constituencies, the highest would have been probably about 30% and none would have been in 1st place.
It is perfectly conceivable that UKIP could get 17% in a general election, with a maximum of 27% or 30% or 34%, and with no seats. If the national average is 17%, is more likely that the highest would be 40%+ which would mean a few seats, but only probably not definitely.
But that doesn't matter because it's not going to be 17% or 15% or 10% nationally; it's going to be 5% or less. UKIP will flop in 2015 just as much as the Referendum Party flopped in 1997.
Mr Loony, have you ever been connected with CURLS?
That has the overpowering aroma of bullshit. Where's the other £860bn coming from? Greece?
Ok, clicking the link you appear to have used a 7 year budget sum (£864bn) and a one year (2009) net cost to the UK (about £3.8bn).
That still doesn't add up, however, because that's be around a net cost of £28bn over the course of the 7 year period, but the average (if all 28 countries gave the same) would be over £30bn contribution each.
I suppose the budget includes things like the rebate (greatly diminished thanks to Blair) as a 'cost', and that along with the rather larger CAP and so forth may explain the ridiculously large budget.
It's a net cost: the UK gets a lot of agricultural subsidies paid back, for instance.
So the money goes back to Europe, spins around, a little bit leaks out, and then it comes back.
On independence we would have to decide whether to spend more / less or the same on agriculture (just as one example). That would impact the net saving that we make - but we would be deciding how to optimise the level and structure of agricultural subsidies for our own farmers rather than living within a framework which may suit French smallholders better.
In addition, there are payments such as the £1bn+ of the international aid budget that is handed over to the EU to give away as part of their international aid efforts. Is that captured in the £864bn number, or is that on top?
A proportion of it comes back. And that comes back with other UK spending commitments attached to it. As I say, the only reasonable way to look at the UK contribution to the EU is in gross terms just as we do with any other form of taxation.
I agree - I was just explaining why @NickPalmer's analysis was so disingenuous. He's too smart for it to have been accidental.
It's a net cost: the UK gets a lot of agricultural subsidies paid back, for instance.
And the biggest recipient of those iirc is the Duke of Westminster !
Doubt he needs the cash...
That's because the system is designed for French farmers - their estates are automatically subdivided equally between children on death. The UK agricultural estates have been typically kept together - so the absolute payments are much higher
Just one reason why the claims that we would still have to shoulder the burden of most of these grants after we left the EU are false.
If we were designing a system for supporting farmers I very much doubt it would include paying huge amounts of those subsidies to some of the richest people in the country.
That has the overpowering aroma of bullshit. Where's the other £860bn coming from? Greece?
Ok, clicking the link you appear to have used a 7 year budget sum (£864bn) and a one year (2009) net cost to the UK (about £3.8bn).
That still doesn't add up, however, because that's be around a net cost of £28bn over the course of the 7 year period, but the average (if all 28 countries gave the same) would be over £30bn contribution each.
I suppose the budget includes things like the rebate (greatly diminished thanks to Blair) as a 'cost', and that along with the rather larger CAP and so forth may explain the ridiculously large budget.
It's a net cost: the UK gets a lot of agricultural subsidies paid back, for instance.
So the money goes back to Europe, spins around, a little bit leaks out, and then it comes back.
On independence we would have to decide whether to spend more / less or the same on agriculture (just as one example). That would impact the net saving that we make - but we would be deciding how to optimise the level and structure of agricultural subsidies for our own farmers rather than living within a framework which may suit French smallholders better.
In addition, there are payments such as the £1bn+ of the international aid budget that is handed over to the EU to give away as part of their international aid efforts. Is that captured in the £864bn number, or is that on top?
A proportion of it comes back. And that comes back with other UK spending commitments attached to it. As I say, the only reasonable way to look at the UK contribution to the EU is in gross terms just as we do with any other form of taxation.
I agree - I was just explaining why @NickPalmer's analysis was so disingenuous. He's too smart for it to have been accidental.
I like Nick and consider him a friend as we share interests outside of politics so I do try very hard not to draw such conclusions. :-)
As a result I do tend to give him rather more benefit of the doubt than others.
I generally follow the school of NorwichMike. But UKIP won't pick up just those voters who voted in the European elections, so it can reasonably hope to do a bit better than 8%. If I had to guess right now, 10% would be my par tally for UKIP next year.
I guess the thing to consider is whether the UKIP ground campaign will affect there vote share dramatically. The difference between 8% to 12% nationally is around 2000 votes in each constituency. I see little evidence that the party is able to run effective GOTV efforts in the vast majority of seats.
For an established party with a big media presence you can compensate for a lack of a ground campaign. Are UKIP going to be afforded this luxury to increase their vote like this. The Euros are unique elections for them given the publicity and voting system - no vote wasted etc...
This problem is what holds smaller parties back in the vast majority of constituency's and artificially depresses their national vote share. Will this happen to UKIP?
I do think that you will not lose money on betting on the UKIP ground campaign being poorer than it should be. It is a point of perennial disappointment to me that even when they get large numbers of volunteers in place they still fall down on the basic organisation.
It's a net cost: the UK gets a lot of agricultural subsidies paid back, for instance.
And the biggest recipient of those iirc is the Duke of Westminster !
Doubt he needs the cash...
That's because the system is designed for French farmers - their estates are automatically subdivided equally between children on death. The UK agricultural estates have been typically kept together - so the absolute payments are much higher
Just one reason why the claims that we would still have to shoulder the burden of most of these grants after we left the EU are false.
If we were designing a system for supporting farmers I very much doubt it would include paying huge amounts of those subsidies to some of the richest people in the country.
I think "false" is a harsh description because it implies that they are knowingly made an incorrect claim.
Life is full of asterisks and footnotes.
The reality is, yes, that we would revisit the level of spending and, yes, I suspect that it would end up being less expensive and more targeted. But it's impossible to make any realistic claim about a different number unless you have a worked up policy on the matter.
So I think saying: this is the saving* (* but it could be higher) is a reasonable approach
Sir Humphrey is resurrected and assigned to the ONS.
The UK Statistics Authority has decided to temporarily suspend the National Statistics status of the April 2014 UK Trade statistics publication. Further details on this decision are contained in a letter sent to ONS by the Authority. It is only the April release that is affected by the decision, all other UK Trade publications retain their National Statistics status.
The Authority has confirmed that ONS's approach to the April 2014 UK Trade release was correct but feel that it cannot be appropriate for statistics based on known omissions to have the same status as previous statistics in the same series. The Authority anticipate that once the April 2014 UK Trade release is updated to fully reflect the omitted oil exports that users were informed of in the original publication, National Statistics designation will be reinstated. ONS plans to publish the corrected April UK Trade release as soon as possible.
What all this gobbledegook means is that the ONS has had to revise its 6 June release of April's Trade Statistics to incorporate some oil exports omitted in error. The original report had identified the error but not included its effect in the trade figures due to late notification.
On 6 June, the BBC reported that:
The UK's trade deficit with the rest of the world widened by more than expected in April, because of weaker manufacturing exports, official data showed on Friday.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the UK's goods trade deficit grew to an estimated £9.6bn, from £8.3bn in March.
But that was offset by a £7.1bn trade surplus in the UK's dominant services sector.
That left an overall deficit of £2.5bn.
The ONS has now revised the overall deficit down by £0.7 bn to £1.8 bn. The deficit in trade of goods was reduced from £9.6 bn to £8.9 bn with the offsetting surplus in trade of services left unchanged at £7.1 bn.
Not so much good news as better news than before. The trade figures tend to see-saw on a monthly basis with a recent trend of slow improvement. The revised April 2014 figures appear to be in line with this underlying trend whereas the figures published earlier this month appeared to counter it. So panic over even though the trade deficit remains an important part of the economy which needs improvement.
"This isn’t a headline I was expecting to read: ‘Free schools could be a bigger negative for the Tories than Ed Miliband is for Labour.’ Given that Miliband’s net satisfaction ratings are minus 39, that was quite a shock. Do the people who disapprove of free schools really outweigh the people who approve of them by a bigger margin than that?
Well, no, they don’t, obviously. The headline, which appeared on the blog of Mike Smithson, a left-wing gadfly, was a reference to a YouGov poll"
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
Talking of streaks, guy I was best man for, a few weeks before the wedding, we were playing darts against his fiancée and her sister. With his fiancée needing double 8, and not being a dart supremo, he declared 'if she hits this, I'll run down Unthank Road naked'. Worst bet ever, best man speech paragraph 3 wrote itself
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
What was the bet?
I haven't got the details to hand, and it was early in the Parliament, but the thrust was that I'd bet that the first defection of the Parliament would be a Lib Dem MP to Labour and Mark Senior had bet that it would be some other form of defection such as a Conservative MP to UKIP.
It's noteworthy that so far both coalition parties' backbenches have ignored the allure of those options.
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
I like Nick and consider him a friend as we share interests outside of politics so I do try very hard not to draw such conclusions. :-)
As a result I do tend to give him rather more benefit of the doubt than others.
Thanks! On this occasion (sic :-)) I was being slipshod rather than devious - just hastily looked up the figures before going to work and misread them. Apology already posted below. It distracted from my main point, which is that the primary Continental reaction to British withdrawal would be one of mild regret that we'd decided to go rather than financial dismay. I think the parallel with English attitudes to Scotland is a good one - we'd mostly be sorry if they left, but we'd see it as a decision by them for their own reasons rather than reflecting on us.
Here's another report to illustrate the gap in perceptions:
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
That seems to be scraping the barrel to find a win for DC in this mess. Both Cameron and the country as a whole have been absolutely defeated if Juncker gets it. 99.8% of British voters voted for other parties, and all four of the major British political parties oppose the guy. The man has absolutely no legitimacy to rule over this country. It's not like there's even minority support for him - the entire country is united against him. If he gets appointed, the EU is effectively treating us like a colony.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'd suggest the more important win is that it sets a precedent. It also somewhat strengthens the national leaders, who have feebly allowed power to drift ever more to the eurocracy.
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
If you planned to jump from Con to UKIP you might want to leave it until the last minute: 1) No pressure for a by-election to ratify your ratting.. 2) Can still change your mind in time if UKIP flame out. 3) Maximum media coverage to help UKIP in other seats. 4) Con don't have time to organize against you, especially if you can get their local party to jump with you.
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
I agree that it is unlikely that there will be a payout either way on our bet . I don't think that when we made the bet a defection to UKIP would count only between the major parties .
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
What was the bet?
I haven't got the details to hand, and it was early in the Parliament, but the thrust was that I'd bet that the first defection of the Parliament would be a Lib Dem MP to Labour and Mark Senior had bet that it would be some other form of defection such as a Conservative MP to UKIP.
It's noteworthy that so far both coalition parties' backbenches have ignored the allure of those options.
This seems to me to be completely missing the wood for the trees.
Looking at those histograms, consider how much of its Euro vote share UKIP actually keeps in the subsequent GE.
2001: 21% 2005: 14% 2010: 18% (after 27% had claimed they would definitely vote UKIP).
The picture is similar with respect to the locals. The closer to actual power the result puts UKIP, the flakier their support, hence 26% in the euros but 17% in the locals and 3% in GEs.
Based on the above it seems obvious that we are at or have perhaps already passed peak blazer.
Except for one thing, Mr Bond. In those three elections the outgoing government was Labour, and voters could project whatever they liked onto the Tories. Now it is the Tories who have a record to defend.
I stroke my white cat.
I'm not so sure, for several reasons. First, the government is not Conservative but a coalition. Any disappointed expectations the UKIP loonies of the Daily Telegraph might have had of a.Conservative government cannot apply because a Conservative government was not elected.
Second, we have now had a chance to reflect on the unintended consequences of voting for a frivolous party: you get a different frivolous party in power. There are in effect 21 UKIP MPs in Westminster today: MPs who got in only because UKIP's vote exceeded their majority over the next-highest placed candidate. Those 21 seats were the difference between a coalition and a workable Tory government.
We hear much from UKIP about "LibLabCon", but the "LibCon" bit of that is their own doing.
Third, look at UKIP's least-worst results in 2010.
Their best vote share was Christchurch, where they got an impressive 6% of the vote. They still lost by 23,000 votes.
Their best vote tally was Buckingham, where everyone else stood aside for them but they still polled only 8,401 votes against Bercow's 22,860.
Their best losing margin was Gwynedd, where they finished only 8,698 votes behind the victor. But they were still last out of five parties with a 3-digit vote. The margin of defeat there looks small only because Gwynedd had the third-smallest electorate of any seat in the UK, only the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland being smaller.
So there is no obvious spring board to a Westminster seat anywhere, with Farage clearly being a severe liability.
A UKIP vote is not merely wasted, it is actively counterproductive, because at best it makes no difference but in 21 cases it ensured the return of an MP whose opinions are in most particulars diametrically opposed to everything UKIPpers profess to believe in. A UKIP surge in 2015 requires more people failing to foresee this than happened in 2010, even though the consequences are now plain; which seems to me to be just plain fanciful.
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
That seems to be scraping the barrel to find a win for DC in this mess. Both Cameron and the country as a whole have been absolutely defeated if Juncker gets it. 99.8% of British voters voted for other parties, and all four of the major British political parties oppose the guy. The man has absolutely no legitimacy to rule over this country. It's not like there's even minority support for him - the entire country is united against him. If he gets appointed, the EU is effectively treating us like a colony.
All of the above strengthens the "out" case - if there isn't a Labour govt and hence a referendum.
In last years locals Ukip got 23%, in this years in less favourable areas 17%, in the euros 27%, and in the last five by elections, all in unfavourable constituencies, between 17 & 27%
My bet would be 1pt at 15/8 5-10% 3pts at 2/1 10-15%
The next election will largely come down to whether people who currently tell pollsters they'll vote UKIP are happy with the prospect of a Miliband government, with the implication of no EU referendum and backsliding on the progress that has been made on the economy, employment, welfare, immigration, and education. Since they don't have to confront that prospect yet, I wouldn't put too much reliance on the opinion poll figures, either the headline voting intentions or the proportions of people saying they might change their minds.
If I had to guess, I'd say UKIP will get around 8%. Depending on exactly where their votes come from, that might of course still be enough to land us with the worst of all possible worlds, a weak and unstable Labour-led government.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
On the subject of outstanding bets, I have a bet with Mark Senior about defecting MPs in this Parliament. This may be tempting providence, but right now it doesn't look as though there are going to be any: a dog that hasn't barked that is worth thinking about.
What was the bet?
I haven't got the details to hand, and it was early in the Parliament, but the thrust was that I'd bet that the first defection of the Parliament would be a Lib Dem MP to Labour and Mark Senior had bet that it would be some other form of defection such as a Conservative MP to UKIP.
It's noteworthy that so far both coalition parties' backbenches have ignored the allure of those options.
It is noteworthy that, murmurings of dissent and some rebellions aside, the coalition has held as firmly as any majority government.
All that talk (or perhaps hope on my part!) of it dissolving into acrimony before its 2nd birthday was confounded very early on.
Considering the history of regular implosions of weak coalitions in Europe - in parliamentary systems designed specifically for them - we British can be quite proud of that.
the primary Continental reaction to British withdrawal would be one of mild regret that we'd decided to go rather than financial dismay.
I don't think that is right. The financial aspect (ie purely in terms of net contributions) won't be decisive, but what will be very important, especially for Germany and the other Northern European countries, will be losing the influence of the EU country most associated with free trade. They will be very concerned at the risk that the EU will sink into being a protectionist bloc where Germany and its satellites end up subsidising an increasingly inefficient olive belt.
I think it is you that is attributing false positions to your own party. It does seem that Nuttall has deleted that section on his website. So to be charitable: it is possible that this is just an example of inconsistency by the UKIP leadership, or possibly wolves attempting to hide in sheeps clothing. I believe that it is both.
I agree. Banging on about Europe will only drive up UKIP, and is not likely to win over the obsessed europhobes, to whom Dave is anathema. The only likely winners from that would be Farage and Miliband. The Tories have their renegotiate and referendum pledge, best to hold that line.
Far better to campaign on the economy, tax policy, welfare state reform and related bread and butter issues. Here UKIP either have incoherent or absent policies. In the areas that they do have policies these are likely to be voter repellent. WWC older men are not likely to be keen on flat taxes and privatizing the NHS.
It is a mistake to fight where your enemy chooses.
UKIP's share of the vote in next year's GE will depend more than anything else on how the Tories handle the Referendum issue. One thing's for sure, Dave can't just hope to fudge this any longer, especially after failing to deliver a referendum during the current Parliament as he had promised. - This has probably contributed more than any other factor to UKIP's success and thereby to the Tories' failure to build a lead over Labour.
The EU matters far less to Ukip voters than you'd think. Yesterday YouGov had just 36% of them naming it as a top issue facing Britain. This dropped to 23% when the asked about issues facing them and their families.
I know this doesn’t fit the narrative of many here but it has been shown in poll after poll
UKIP do not advocate privatising the NHS.
In a recent speech at the Institute for Government Mr Farage questioned the idea of government outsourcing generally too.
youtu.be/JBjvxCqX61Q
Then there's no need for you to attribute false positions to UKIP now.
What sort of evil wolf wants a decentralised healthcare system like the French have!
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
Presumably this wasn't Cameron's intention but he's producing a huge win for democratic accountability in the EU. First, he's forced everyone to pick a side on the spitzenkandidat process, where most heads of government probably wanted to be vague, making the precedent far stronger than it would otherwise have been. Second, he's breaking up the precedent of everybody stitching up a result then voting for it unanimously, which will make it harder for the heads of government to blame everything on the other heads of government.
Trying to out-UKIP UKIP is an absurd idea. UKIP supporters won't buy it, centrist voters will hate it. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that many polls have shown that UKIP is a party that inspires a lot more active dislike than any of the main three.
Except when you say "out-UKIP UKIP" you actually mean taking a line on immigration and the EU that is in the centre of UK public opinion.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
But, yes, you are right, it will be a vote on the record of this government. That is exactly what the Tories want it to be.
"The son of Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock has been ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and pay more than £2,000 in compensation for head-butting and punching a press photographer."
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
I'm not so sure, for several reasons. First, the government is not Conservative but a coalition. Any disappointed expectations the UKIP loonies of the Daily Telegraph might have had of a.Conservative government cannot apply because a Conservative government was not elected.
Second, we have now had a chance to reflect on the unintended consequences of voting for a frivolous party: you get a different frivolous party in power. There are in effect 21 UKIP MPs in Westminster today: MPs who got in only because UKIP's vote exceeded their majority over the next-highest placed candidate. Those 21 seats were the difference between a coalition and a workable Tory government.
We hear much from UKIP about "LibLabCon", but the "LibCon" bit of that is their own doing.
Third, look at UKIP's least-worst results in 2010.
Their best vote share was Christchurch, where they got an impressive 6% of the vote. They still lost by 23,000 votes.
Their best vote tally was Buckingham, where everyone else stood aside for them but they still polled only 8,401 votes against Bercow's 22,860.
Their best losing margin was Gwynedd, where they finished only 8,698 votes behind the victor. But they were still last out of five parties with a 3-digit vote. The margin of defeat there looks small only because Gwynedd had the third-smallest electorate of any seat in the UK, only the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland being smaller.
So there is no obvious spring board to a Westminster seat anywhere, with Farage clearly being a severe liability.
A UKIP vote is not merely wasted, it is actively counterproductive, because at best it makes no difference but in 21 cases it ensured the return of an MP whose opinions are in most particulars diametrically opposed to everything UKIPpers profess to believe in. A UKIP surge in 2015 requires more people failing to foresee this than happened in 2010, even though the consequences are now plain; which seems to me to be just plain fanciful.
55% of UKIP voters either voted for parties other than the Conservatives, or didn't vote. One can't just add the UKIP total to the Conservative total, and say that is how it would have turned out in the absence of a UKIP candidate.
Additionally, there's no reason to believe that a Cameron-led government, with 328 MPs, would behave any differently from the government we have now.
I too wonder whether the Tories best bet is now to try to out-kip.
They've lost the centre already, so it probably won't hurt them there. It might consolidate a decent platform to rebuild, modernise, and move to the centre to detox in opposition.
What it would do, of course, is further stiffen the resolve of the already determined anti-Tory coalition that is looking like putting Ed in No 10.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
But, yes, you are right, it will be a vote on the record of this government. That is exactly what the Tories want it to be.
In terms of nanny-state issues, there really is nothing to choose between this government and the last one.
I accept that this government is more fiscally responsible than the last one.
Picking up on BenM’s point up thread of ‘stable coalition government’ - am I right in thinking that there were murmurings of a soon to be cabinet reshuffle? - or is that something for Sept/Oct, after summer conference season?
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
Presumably this wasn't Cameron's intention but he's producing a huge win for democratic accountability in the EU. First, he's forced everyone to pick a side on the spitzenkandidat process, where most heads of government probably wanted to be vague, making the precedent far stronger than it would otherwise have been. Second, he's breaking up the precedent of everybody stitching up a result then voting for it unanimously, which will make it harder for the heads of government to blame everything on the other heads of government.
Correct - this is presumably why the other HOGs are so annoyed.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
Get it right - Optic Nerve was running under the previous Labour government.
Talking of streaks, guy I was best man for, a few weeks before the wedding, we were playing darts against his fiancée and her sister. With his fiancée needing double 8, and not being a dart supremo, he declared 'if she hits this, I'll run down Unthank Road naked'. Worst bet ever, best man speech paragraph 3 wrote itself
Hmm thankfully I live on Earlham Road but still rather too close for comfort.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
Get it right - Optic Nerve was running under the previous Labour government.
True - but it's not like this Government stopped it on coming into power. (In fairness, I should probably not have used 'as opposed to' - but the principle still stands, when looking at its record I struggle to see how this government has any right to say 'we are the government of civil liberties')
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
The Conservatives are the more liberal of the two main parties. They are not, and never claimed to be, and never will be, on the Ron Paul end of the libertarian spectrum, and (for that matter) would never get elected if they were. The thing is, voters rather like the idea that the government makes an effort to prevent them getting blown up on the London Underground, and they are right in that respect.
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely. I can't imagine that Nigel Farage will want screaming Mail headlines along the lines of 'UKIP sides with terrorists'
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
Get it right - Optic Nerve was running under the previous Labour government.
True - but it's not like this Government stopped it on coming into power. (In fairness, I should probably not have used 'as opposed to' - but the principle still stands, when looking at its record I struggle to see how this government has any right to say 'we are the government of civil liberties')
Did they even know about it? You're assuming the spooks fessed up to everything on Day 1.
Second, we have now had a chance to reflect on the unintended consequences of voting for a frivolous party: you get a different frivolous party in power. There are in effect 21 UKIP MPs in Westminster today: MPs who got in only because UKIP's vote exceeded their majority over the next-highest placed candidate. Those 21 seats were the difference between a coalition and a workable Tory government.
Good luck convincing UKIP voters of that. Labour could never convince SDP voters, leading to successive Tory victories and Labour having to move to the hard right to appeal to Tory supporters get in government.
If UKIP is the right's SDP, it will be interesting to see whether the Conservative Party swallows its pride and are willing to appeal to Labour voters in order to win.
Before taxes and benefits the richest fifth of households had an average income of £81,300 in 2012/13, almost 15 times greater than the poorest fifth who had an average income of £5,500.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£59,900 and £15,600 per year respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
Fifty-two per cent of households received more in benefits (including in-kind benefits such as education) than they paid in taxes in 2012/13. This is equivalent to 13.8 million households.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
The Conservatives are the more liberal of the two main parties. They are not, and never claimed to be, and never will be, on the Ron Paul end of the libertarian spectrum, and (for that matter) would never get elected if they were. The thing is, voters rather like the idea that the government makes an effort to prevent them getting blown up on the London Underground, and they are right in that respect.
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely.
Agree about UKIP's blank sheet of paper - that's (at least one reason) why I am a Pirate with an explicitly liberal policy.
On your 'more liberal of the two main parties' - there comes a point where the difference is so small, and the positions of both parties so far away from some voters 'ideal' as to be meaningless. As far as I am concerned, that point has come.
In terms of nanny-state issues, there really is nothing to choose between this government and the last one.
No, that is nonsense. There have been big improvements. Not as much as I would like, but still in the right direction.
The LibDems may of course have been an influence on preventing progress, but I do accept that, even without them, Cameron is more nannyish than I would wish. All the same, it's absurd to say this government has been as bad as Labour in this respect.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
The Conservatives are the more liberal of the two main parties. They are not, and never claimed to be, and never will be, on the Ron Paul end of the libertarian spectrum, and (for that matter) would never get elected if they were. The thing is, voters rather like the idea that the government makes an effort to prevent them getting blown up on the London Underground, and they are right in that respect.
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely. I can't imagine that Nigel Farage will want screaming Mail headlines along the lines of 'UKIP sides with terrorists'
Since you are foolish enough to touch on this subject again Richard, just in reply to your attempts to rewrite PB history and your previous discussions with Socrates and myself (amongst others) in the past, go look at the Theresa May thread from June 4th to see that the hypocrisy I accused you of last night is evident for all to see.
Defending government bugging of our correspondence is something you have a lot of practice at.
HELP NEEDED: Completely off topic - I am going to NY in early September to collect Daughter from a 2 month trip round the US and Canada prior to her going to uni. She will have her birthday there.
Any recommendations for good central hotels? She will have been camping for 2 months so something nice would be good as it will be our last pre-Uni mother/daughter treat - though I doubt we will spend much time there as she wants to "do" all of NY (phew...).
the primary Continental reaction to British withdrawal would be one of mild regret that we'd decided to go rather than financial dismay.
I don't think that is right. The financial aspect (ie purely in terms of net contributions) won't be decisive, but what will be very important, especially for Germany and the other Northern European countries, will be losing the influence of the EU country most associated with free trade. They will be very concerned at the risk that the EU will sink into being a protectionist bloc where Germany and its satellites end up subsidising an increasingly inefficient olive belt.
That would I think normally be true. But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
Since you are foolish enough to touch on this subject again Richard, just in reply to your attempts to rewrite PB history and your previous discussions with Socrates and myself (amongst others) in the past, go look at the Theresa May thread from June 4th to see that the hypocrisy I accused you of last night is evident for all to see.
Defending government bugging of our correspondence is something you have a lot of practice at.
Provided Mike and the mods are happy for me to do so, I will comment on whatever subjects I please, thank you.
I see you've given up on trying to find a post to support your misrepresentation of my views last night.
NickPalmer: I'm less concerned about the financial impact if Britain left than the political impact, which may take some time to work itself out.
I think those who think that things will go on much as before are likely to be wrong. If Scotland leaves the UK, then there will be - and will have to be - changes to how the rest of the UK works and sees itself, some of which we won't anticipate now. Similarly, a large and significant country choosing to leave will I think change the perception of the EU - both internally (there are after all various parties which want a change to the EU within the EU) and externally.
For years the direction of travel has been one way. All of a sudden not only does this not happen but a country leaves altogether. That - whatever EU politicians may now say - will be a blow to the rest of the EU's amour propre (just as Scotland's departure will to the UK) and I think could have a number of unintended or unforeseen consequences.
A small win for DC will be that all these leaders will have to positively put their name to a vote for Mr Juncker - so if/when he goes pear shaped they will be explicitly tarred with the brush of supporting him.
That seems to be scraping the barrel to find a win for DC in this mess. Both Cameron and the country as a whole have been absolutely defeated if Juncker gets it. 99.8% of British voters voted for other parties, and all four of the major British political parties oppose the guy. The man has absolutely no legitimacy to rule over this country. It's not like there's even minority support for him - the entire country is united against him. If he gets appointed, the EU is effectively treating us like a colony.
I think Populus had a poll that showed the voters didn't care if Cameron failed to stop Juncker. So long as he acts tough and seems to be taking on Europe the voters may be behind him. It's a depressing thought that voters might actually prefer someone who goes around being adversarial and achieves nothing to a leader who is actually effective, but there you go.
the primary Continental reaction to British withdrawal would be one of mild regret that we'd decided to go rather than financial dismay.
I don't think that is right. The financial aspect (ie purely in terms of net contributions) won't be decisive, but what will be very important, especially for Germany and the other Northern European countries, will be losing the influence of the EU country most associated with free trade. They will be very concerned at the risk that the EU will sink into being a protectionist bloc where Germany and its satellites end up subsidising an increasingly inefficient olive belt.
That would I think normally be true. But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
I'm no fan of Cameron, but hasn't his position been quite clear? He wants to return powers to nation states, and believes national sovereignty should remain in the EU. This is a reasonable desire - my criticism of it is that it's just impossible. The fact that the Europeans find this so hard to understand just shows how culturally different we are, and how political union between us and them is such a stupid endeavour.
the primary Continental reaction to British withdrawal would be one of mild regret that we'd decided to go rather than financial dismay.
I don't think that is right. The financial aspect (ie purely in terms of net contributions) won't be decisive, but what will be very important, especially for Germany and the other Northern European countries, will be losing the influence of the EU country most associated with free trade. They will be very concerned at the risk that the EU will sink into being a protectionist bloc where Germany and its satellites end up subsidising an increasingly inefficient olive belt.
That would I think normally be true. But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
The French have been one of the biggest blocks to free movement of services in the EU, one reason why the British are a "nuisance". They have also been one of the promoters of the FTT. a tax designed to harm one of the UK's services even though the UK won't be participating. They have reneged on their promises to reform the CAP. And a significant proportion of their electorate voted for a party which is as close to fascist as one can get these days. They are in no position to accuse anyone else of being a "nuisance"
That would I think normally be true. But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
That's much like what they thought about Maggie. She was a thorn in their side and a right nuisance.
The thing is, though, she still got her rebate.
The alternative approach, which Blair tried, of being extremely cooperative and actually offering up a free gift by reliniquishing part of our rebate, was an unqualified disaster. We got absolutely zilch in return.
This is not about wanting to be loved, as though the aim of British diplomacy should be to maximise the number of EU Facebook 'Likes'. Ultimately, it is going to come down to the standard diplomatic tools of bluff, blackmail and bribery.
Retweeted by Owen Jones Angela Eagle@angelaeagle·34 mins PM claimed he did nothing wrong but apologised so profusely that he very nearly wrecked the trial of his mates at News International #HoC
Since you are foolish enough to touch on this subject again Richard, just in reply to your attempts to rewrite PB history and your previous discussions with Socrates and myself (amongst others) in the past, go look at the Theresa May thread from June 4th to see that the hypocrisy I accused you of last night is evident for all to see.
Defending government bugging of our correspondence is something you have a lot of practice at.
Provided Mike and the mods are happy for me to do so, I will comment on whatever subjects I please, thank you.
I see you've given up on trying to find a post to support your misrepresentation of my views last night.
Nope I have just directed you to a whole thread which includes you doing exactly what I claimed. I see Socrates is backing me up on this. Your attempts to rewrite history are very sad, particularly as they are so easily refuted.
I am happy for you to continue to make a fool of yourself on this subject and will continue to point out your dishonesty.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
The Conservatives are the more liberal of the two main parties. They are not, and never claimed to be, and never will be, on the Ron Paul end of the libertarian spectrum, and (for that matter) would never get elected if they were. The thing is, voters rather like the idea that the government makes an effort to prevent them getting blown up on the London Underground, and they are right in that respect.
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely. I can't imagine that Nigel Farage will want screaming Mail headlines along the lines of 'UKIP sides with terrorists'
Give me a bloody break Richard. It doesn't make you a Paulite to believe in a basic belief that government searches of your most personal communications should only be done in connection with a specific investigation. Nor do people that believe in such a thing think the government shouldn't make an effort in preventing British people being blown up. Saying your opponents do not believe in fighting terrorism is a really nasty and unpleasant tactic following in a long tradition of authoritarian scaremongering to cower the general public into backing expanded state power. Every time you engage in it my opinion of you drops lower.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
"The latest BES study also found that of those people intending to vote UKIP at GE2015, 44% voted CON in 2010, 17% voted LD, 11% voted LAB. 9% voted UKIP and 11% didn’t vote. This is in line with other polling that we’ve seen.
So it is hard to conclude other than the Tories will be hit most by a high UKIP vote at GE2015."
Again, who people voted for in 2010 is a very flawed measure. 2010 was a year when the Tories were at a high and Labour were at their trough, so of course Labour are going to score poorly in sub-samples of anyone except their absolute core vote when analysing 2010 results. Of more interest is that (according to those researchers who did a detailed study on UKIP voters) many current UKIP voters voted Labour regularly between 1997 and 2005, and that almost half of them even now say they'd prefer a Labour government over a Tory government if they had to choose.
Basically, even if UKIP doesn't take many 2010 Labour voters, they could still harm Labour, if the votes that the Tories and Lib Dems lose in key marginal seats go to UKIP rather than Labour, which could leave the Labour share of the vote flat and allow the Tories to hold on on reduced shares of the vote. This is something that happened in countless constituencies in the recent locals.
Unfortunately for you Tories, the election is not just a referendum on Miliband. It's also a referendum on Cameron. I could never vote for an illiberal like him.
Vote for whoever you like, although quite why you want to put back into power the party of 90-day detentions, HIPs, ContactPoint and ID cards is a mystery, if civil liberties are your primary concern.
But, yes, you are right, it will be a vote on the record of this government. That is exactly what the Tories want it to be.
If the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks were the two largest parties, I could not stomach putting a cross in the ballot for either of them. This is a less extreme, but similar situation. Both are sufficiently bad I can't honestly vote for either of them with a clear conscience, and thus the differences between them don't really matter.
Nope I have just directed you to a whole thread which includes you doing exactly what I claimed. I see Socrates is backing me up on this. Your attempts to rewrite history are very sad, particularly as they are so easily refuted.
I am happy for you to continue to make a fool of yourself on this subject and will continue to point out your dishonesty.
I don't want to bore everyone with this, but I strongly object to being misrepresented. If you can find a post of mine where I defended government reading of emails without a warrant, or defended newspaper hacking emails - both of which you claimed I had done - please post a link to it. Since you've identified a thread which you claim backs you up, it shouldn't take you a moment.
Mr. Socrates, whilst I disagree with you regarding how bad the Conservatives are relative to Labour over civil liberties, I appreciate your perspective.
Give me a bloody break Richard. It doesn't make you a Paulite to believe in a basic belief that government searches of your most personal communications should only be done in connection with a specific investigation.
True. That is why none of the main three political parties is advocating changing the law. At present, the law states that the security services cannot search the content of your communications except with specific authorisation by the Secretary of State, for a specified purpose, and under the supervision of an independent Commissioner. Pretty much everyone agrees that that is how it should remain.
The 23% TNS figure does seem to be an outlier, though I can see where it is got from... raw Populus figures are closish to the TNS figure - the downweighting of UKIP is "priced in" to all the other figures.
A definite uptick in the UKIP fortunes from Nov 2013 I feel.
But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
The French have been one of the biggest blocks to free movement of services in the EU, one reason why the British are a "nuisance". They have also been one of the promoters of the FTT. a tax designed to harm one of the UK's services even though the UK won't be participating. They have reneged on their promises to reform the CAP. And a significant proportion of their electorate voted for a party which is as close to fascist as one can get these days. They are in no position to accuse anyone else of being a "nuisance"
Um. You're replying to a post about German attitudes with an attack on the French? de Gaulle has been dead for some time, so his views don't especially reflect any current French views. The French haven't been prominent in recent Continental criticism of Britain - they're too preoccupied with domestic matters, with both Government and Opposition in disarray.
What Cameron has done is alienate his centre-right allies, conservatives in Germany, Poland, etc., for no apparent gain. Richard N draws a comparison with Maggie, but fans of Maggie usually claim that she achieved some benefits. What has Cameron achieved in the EU context?
Mr. Socrates, whilst I disagree with you regarding how bad the Conservatives are relative to Labour over civil liberties, I appreciate your perspective.
For whom do you intend to vote?
I'll be voting UKIP. To a large extent, this is by default. Labour and the Conservatives are unpalatable due to being too illiberal, and the Liberal Democrats due to being too Europhile. I can't in clean conscience votes for a party that allows the shadow areas of state to read my personal letters at will, and I can't vote for a party that wants to increasingly hand my nation's sovereignty over to the dysfunctional train wreck that is the EU.
Richard is right that UKIP largely have a blank sheet of paper on civil liberties, but they are very good on the EU and on immigration. I actually think they're missing a trick - there's a sizable minority that strongly believes in civil liberties enough for it to affect their vote, and they currently have no-one speaking up for them. The media is also very sympathetic, and it would allow UKIP to get invited on to discuss non-European issues if it made a name for themselves here. It would also buy them more credibility with young people, who are currently sceptical of the party due to the campaign to paint them as racist.
Obviously they need to put the case forward in a serious fashion, and make clear they're not some sort of absolutists, but a common sense, traditional view that the government shouldn't snoop on our emails and webcams freely would have a lot of traction. I know I would go from being a loose supporter to a fully paid up member and start pounding the streets for them if they did it.
As opposed to the party of Optic Nerve, Secret Courts, the Digital Communications Bill, Nannying Web/Porn Filters etc. - Two Cheeks of the same ar*e surely.
The Conservatives are the more liberal of the two main parties. They are not, and never claimed to be, and never will be, on the Ron Paul end of the libertarian spectrum, and (for that matter) would never get elected if they were. The thing is, voters rather like the idea that the government makes an effort to prevent them getting blown up on the London Underground, and they are right in that respect.
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely. I can't imagine that Nigel Farage will want screaming Mail headlines along the lines of 'UKIP sides with terrorists'
Coming from a member of the party that supports the snooper's charter and web filters and censorship is pretty funny. The Tories are no more or less liberal than Labour, which is very, very sad for the party that is supposed to stand for personal responsibility and a small state.
If the government were serious about tackling terrorism there are very easy, if unpalatable, steps that could be taken to secure our country from foreign and home-grown terrorists. The fact that, against the advice of the UAE, we have given political asylum to three radical Sunni preachers linked with terrorism is just another in the great long list of problems in our asylum and immigration policy. This government have done absolutely nothing to protect the country from extremist Islamic terrorism, and giving safe harbour to extremist preachers like those who were just granted asylum is pretty damning. Britain has long been seen as a safe harbour for extremists running away from the law in the Middle East, and this government have chosen to continue that tradition, at the expense of our own safety.
This idea that rubbish like the snooper's charter will keep us all safe is bollocks, experts have all said the scattershot approach doesn't aid in capturing terrorists and it would not be necessary. Extending laws for wiretapping and obtaining evidence in terrorism cases may be warranted, but wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
Until the government get tough on Islamic extremists, violent and non-violent, and ensure that Britain is no longer a safe-harbour for foreign extremist preachers any anti-terrorism efforts will amount to absolutely zero. It comes as no surprise that after the anti-terror experts all said the snooper's charter would be useless the Home Secretary switched it to catching paedophiles, the other major emotive subject when it comes to the internet.
But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
The French have been one of the biggest blocks to free movement of services in the EU, one reason why the British are a "nuisance". They have also been one of the promoters of the FTT. a tax designed to harm one of the UK's services even though the UK won't be participating. They have reneged on their promises to reform the CAP. And a significant proportion of their electorate voted for a party which is as close to fascist as one can get these days. They are in no position to accuse anyone else of being a "nuisance"
Um. You're replying to a post about German attitudes with an attack on the French? de Gaulle has been dead for some time, so his views don't especially reflect any current French views. The French haven't been prominent in recent Continental criticism of Britain - they're too preoccupied with domestic matters, with both Government and Opposition in disarray.
What Cameron has done is alienate his centre-right allies, conservatives in Germany, Poland, etc., for no apparent gain. Richard N draws a comparison with Maggie, but fans of Maggie usually claim that she achieved some benefits. What has Cameron achieved in the EU context?
Next to nothing. But he's achieved more than Tony Blair, who actually had negative achievement, by making us pay a hell of a lot more money for nothing in return. Presumably you would prefer Cameron to follow Blair's lead?
wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
True. That is one reason why both would be illegal.
No.
But the law also allows the foreign secretary to sign certificates that authorise GCHQ to trawl for broad categories of information on condition that one end of the communication is outside the UK.
Civil liberties do matter to me. I'd argue the Conservatives, whilst moving in the wrong direction in some areas, do deserve credit for abolishing Labour's despicable ID card plans.
Given my constituency, I'm still quite content to vote blue next year to try and oust Balls. The only thing that could make me shift my vote, that springs to mind, is if Yes wins and the politicians u-turn on currency union.
Give me a bloody break Richard. It doesn't make you a Paulite to believe in a basic belief that government searches of your most personal communications should only be done in connection with a specific investigation.
True. That is why none of the main three political parties is advocating changing the law. At present, the law states that the security services cannot search the content of your communications except with specific authorisation by the Secretary of State, for a specified purpose, and under the supervision of an independent Commissioner. Pretty much everyone agrees that that is how it should remain.
So that's why the Home Secretary is going around telling people that the snooper's charter would be back on the agenda if the Tories get in power next time without the Lib Dems. Please get real on the illiberal nature of this government. You have accepted that Dave is completely useless when it comes to Europe, and it is time for you to accept that the government are on the same plane as Labour when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms and responsibilities. There is no difference, we've just replaced ID cards with internet snooping.
Civil liberties do matter to me. I'd argue the Conservatives, whilst moving in the wrong direction in some areas, do deserve credit for abolishing Labour's despicable ID card plans.
Given my constituency, I'm still quite content to vote blue next year to try and oust Balls. The only thing that could make me shift my vote, that springs to mind, is if Yes wins and the politicians u-turn on currency union.
But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
The French have been one of the biggest blocks to free movement of services in the EU, one reason why the British are a "nuisance". They have also been one of the promoters of the FTT. a tax designed to harm one of the UK's services even though the UK won't be participating. They have reneged on their promises to reform the CAP. And a significant proportion of their electorate voted for a party which is as close to fascist as one can get these days. They are in no position to accuse anyone else of being a "nuisance"
Um. You're replying to a post about German attitudes with an attack on the French? de Gaulle has been dead for some time, so his views don't especially reflect any current French views. The French haven't been prominent in recent Continental criticism of Britain - they're too preoccupied with domestic matters, with both Government and Opposition in disarray.
What Cameron has done is alienate his centre-right allies, conservatives in Germany, Poland, etc., for no apparent gain. Richard N draws a comparison with Maggie, but fans of Maggie usually claim that she achieved some benefits. What has Cameron achieved in the EU context?
I wasn't disagreeing with your views about German views on Cameron. I was picking up on your comment about French attitudes to Britain which do impact on how we are viewed within the EU. The Gaullist approach - which, in summary, is that the French are exceptional within the EU and should be treated as such, but no-one else can be - is echoed by Hollande and every French President since De Gaulle. Further Barnier has made it his mission - in practice if not in words - to enact measures designed to harm one of Britain's principal industries (something the French would never stand for if directed at them) and Hollande has flatly refused even to consider any reforms at all.
I'm no fan of Cameron's manoeuvres on the EU, which are as baffling to me as to the Germans. But perhaps if other EU countries were a bit more constructive and willing to listen and, even, perhaps to think that they might not have all the answers, given the mess they've made of the eurozone, it might be easier for all of us.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
Comments
For an established party with a big media presence you can compensate for a lack of a ground campaign. Are UKIP going to be afforded this luxury to increase their vote like this. The Euros are unique elections for them given the publicity and voting system - no vote wasted etc...
This problem is what holds smaller parties back in the vast majority of constituency's and artificially depresses their national vote share. Will this happen to UKIP?
If we were designing a system for supporting farmers I very much doubt it would include paying huge amounts of those subsidies to some of the richest people in the country.
As a result I do tend to give him rather more benefit of the doubt than others.
Life is full of asterisks and footnotes.
The reality is, yes, that we would revisit the level of spending and, yes, I suspect that it would end up being less expensive and more targeted. But it's impossible to make any realistic claim about a different number unless you have a worked up policy on the matter.
So I think saying: this is the saving* (* but it could be higher) is a reasonable approach
Thanks Charles.
Or was that Iain Dale?
The UK Statistics Authority has decided to temporarily suspend the National Statistics status of the April 2014 UK Trade statistics publication. Further details on this decision are contained in a letter sent to ONS by the Authority. It is only the April release that is affected by the decision, all other UK Trade publications retain their National Statistics status.
The Authority has confirmed that ONS's approach to the April 2014 UK Trade release was correct but feel that it cannot be appropriate for statistics based on known omissions to have the same status as previous statistics in the same series. The Authority anticipate that once the April 2014 UK Trade release is updated to fully reflect the omitted oil exports that users were informed of in the original publication, National Statistics designation will be reinstated. ONS plans to publish the corrected April UK Trade release as soon as possible.
What all this gobbledegook means is that the ONS has had to revise its 6 June release of April's Trade Statistics to incorporate some oil exports omitted in error. The original report had identified the error but not included its effect in the trade figures due to late notification.
On 6 June, the BBC reported that:
The UK's trade deficit with the rest of the world widened by more than expected in April, because of weaker manufacturing exports, official data showed on Friday.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the UK's goods trade deficit grew to an estimated £9.6bn, from £8.3bn in March.
But that was offset by a £7.1bn trade surplus in the UK's dominant services sector.
That left an overall deficit of £2.5bn.
The ONS has now revised the overall deficit down by £0.7 bn to £1.8 bn. The deficit in trade of goods was reduced from £9.6 bn to £8.9 bn with the offsetting surplus in trade of services left unchanged at £7.1 bn.
Not so much good news as better news than before. The trade figures tend to see-saw on a monthly basis with a recent trend of slow improvement. The revised April 2014 figures appear to be in line with this underlying trend whereas the figures published earlier this month appeared to counter it. So panic over even though the trade deficit remains an important part of the economy which needs improvement.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/9247721/has-my-negative-charisma-doomed-free-schools/
"This isn’t a headline I was expecting to read: ‘Free schools could be a bigger negative for the Tories than Ed Miliband is for Labour.’ Given that Miliband’s net satisfaction ratings are minus 39, that was quite a shock. Do the people who disapprove of free schools really outweigh the people who approve of them by a bigger margin than that?
Well, no, they don’t, obviously. The headline, which appeared on the blog of Mike Smithson, a left-wing gadfly, was a reference to a YouGov poll"
Worst bet ever, best man speech paragraph 3 wrote itself
This brief clip appears to leave little doubt as regards Suarez's intent, assuming such images cannot be faked:
http://a.pomf.se/phdzcy.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28014809
It's noteworthy that so far both coalition parties' backbenches have ignored the allure of those options.
Here's another report to illustrate the gap in perceptions:
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/eu-diplomats-struggle-understand-camerons-strategy-juncker-303045?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1bb987584a-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-1bb987584a-245514803
1) No pressure for a by-election to ratify your ratting..
2) Can still change your mind in time if UKIP flame out.
3) Maximum media coverage to help UKIP in other seats.
4) Con don't have time to organize against you, especially if you can get their local party to jump with you.
Second, we have now had a chance to reflect on the unintended consequences of voting for a frivolous party: you get a different frivolous party in power. There are in effect 21 UKIP MPs in Westminster today: MPs who got in only because UKIP's vote exceeded their majority over the next-highest placed candidate. Those 21 seats were the difference between a coalition and a workable Tory government.
We hear much from UKIP about "LibLabCon", but the "LibCon" bit of that is their own doing.
Third, look at UKIP's least-worst results in 2010.
Their best vote share was Christchurch, where they got an impressive 6% of the vote. They still lost by 23,000 votes.
Their best vote tally was Buckingham, where everyone else stood aside for them but they still polled only 8,401 votes against Bercow's 22,860.
Their best losing margin was Gwynedd, where they finished only 8,698 votes behind the victor. But they were still last out of five parties with a 3-digit vote. The margin of defeat there looks small only because Gwynedd had the third-smallest electorate of any seat in the UK, only the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland being smaller.
So there is no obvious spring board to a Westminster seat anywhere, with Farage clearly being a severe liability.
A UKIP vote is not merely wasted, it is actively counterproductive, because at best it makes no difference but in 21 cases it ensured the return of an MP whose opinions are in most particulars diametrically opposed to everything UKIPpers profess to believe in. A UKIP surge in 2015 requires more people failing to foresee this than happened in 2010, even though the consequences are now plain; which seems to me to be just plain fanciful.
My bet would be 1pt at 15/8 5-10% 3pts at 2/1 10-15%
All that talk (or perhaps hope on my part!) of it dissolving into acrimony before its 2nd birthday was confounded very early on.
Considering the history of regular implosions of weak coalitions in Europe - in parliamentary systems designed specifically for them - we British can be quite proud of that.
Whilst we are talking barrel scraping......
But, yes, you are right, it will be a vote on the record of this government. That is exactly what the Tories want it to be.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/mp-mike-hancock-s-son-sentenced-after-attack-1-6140893
I'm not so sure, for several reasons. First, the government is not Conservative but a coalition. Any disappointed expectations the UKIP loonies of the Daily Telegraph might have had of a.Conservative government cannot apply because a Conservative government was not elected.
Second, we have now had a chance to reflect on the unintended consequences of voting for a frivolous party: you get a different frivolous party in power. There are in effect 21 UKIP MPs in Westminster today: MPs who got in only because UKIP's vote exceeded their majority over the next-highest placed candidate. Those 21 seats were the difference between a coalition and a workable Tory government.
We hear much from UKIP about "LibLabCon", but the "LibCon" bit of that is their own doing.
Third, look at UKIP's least-worst results in 2010.
Their best vote share was Christchurch, where they got an impressive 6% of the vote. They still lost by 23,000 votes.
Their best vote tally was Buckingham, where everyone else stood aside for them but they still polled only 8,401 votes against Bercow's 22,860.
Their best losing margin was Gwynedd, where they finished only 8,698 votes behind the victor. But they were still last out of five parties with a 3-digit vote. The margin of defeat there looks small only because Gwynedd had the third-smallest electorate of any seat in the UK, only the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland being smaller.
So there is no obvious spring board to a Westminster seat anywhere, with Farage clearly being a severe liability.
A UKIP vote is not merely wasted, it is actively counterproductive, because at best it makes no difference but in 21 cases it ensured the return of an MP whose opinions are in most particulars diametrically opposed to everything UKIPpers profess to believe in. A UKIP surge in 2015 requires more people failing to foresee this than happened in 2010, even though the consequences are now plain; which seems to me to be just plain fanciful.
55% of UKIP voters either voted for parties other than the Conservatives, or didn't vote. One can't just add the UKIP total to the Conservative total, and say that is how it would have turned out in the absence of a UKIP candidate.
Additionally, there's no reason to believe that a Cameron-led government, with 328 MPs, would behave any differently from the government we have now.
They've lost the centre already, so it probably won't hurt them there. It might consolidate a decent platform to rebuild, modernise, and move to the centre to detox in opposition.
What it would do, of course, is further stiffen the resolve of the already determined anti-Tory coalition that is looking like putting Ed in No 10.
I accept that this government is more fiscally responsible than the last one.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
In any case, Socrates is projecting onto UKIP's blank sheet of policy paper and assuming that the party's manifesto will match what he wants. That seems extremely unlikely. I can't imagine that Nigel Farage will want screaming Mail headlines along the lines of 'UKIP sides with terrorists'
If UKIP is the right's SDP, it will be interesting to see whether the Conservative Party swallows its pride and are willing to appeal to Labour voters in order to win.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_367431.pdf
Key points:
Before taxes and benefits the richest fifth of households had an average income of £81,300 in 2012/13, almost 15 times greater than the poorest fifth who had an average income of £5,500.
Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£59,900 and £15,600 per year respectively) is reduced to four-to-one.
Fifty-two per cent of households received more in benefits (including in-kind benefits such as education) than they paid in taxes in 2012/13. This is equivalent to 13.8 million households.
On your 'more liberal of the two main parties' - there comes a point where the difference is so small, and the positions of both parties so far away from some voters 'ideal' as to be meaningless. As far as I am concerned, that point has come.
The LibDems may of course have been an influence on preventing progress, but I do accept that, even without them, Cameron is more nannyish than I would wish. All the same, it's absurd to say this government has been as bad as Labour in this respect.
Defending government bugging of our correspondence is something you have a lot of practice at.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/News/Broxbourne-Council-Conservatives-in-crisis-as-second-councillor-leaves-party-20140626101641.htm
I see you've given up on trying to find a post to support your misrepresentation of my views last night.
I think those who think that things will go on much as before are likely to be wrong. If Scotland leaves the UK, then there will be - and will have to be - changes to how the rest of the UK works and sees itself, some of which we won't anticipate now. Similarly, a large and significant country choosing to leave will I think change the perception of the EU - both internally (there are after all various parties which want a change to the EU within the EU) and externally.
For years the direction of travel has been one way. All of a sudden not only does this not happen but a country leaves altogether. That - whatever EU politicians may now say - will be a blow to the rest of the EU's amour propre (just as Scotland's departure will to the UK) and I think could have a number of unintended or unforeseen consequences.
The thing is, though, she still got her rebate.
The alternative approach, which Blair tried, of being extremely cooperative and actually offering up a free gift by reliniquishing part of our rebate, was an unqualified disaster. We got absolutely zilch in return.
This is not about wanting to be loved, as though the aim of British diplomacy should be to maximise the number of EU Facebook 'Likes'. Ultimately, it is going to come down to the standard diplomatic tools of bluff, blackmail and bribery.
Retweeted by Owen Jones
Angela Eagle@angelaeagle·34 mins
PM claimed he did nothing wrong but apologised so profusely that he very nearly wrecked the trial of his mates at News International #HoC
I am happy for you to continue to make a fool of yourself on this subject and will continue to point out your dishonesty.
"If"...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/25/UKIP-Could-Take-Both-Plymouth-Seats
So it is hard to conclude other than the Tories will be hit most by a high UKIP vote at GE2015."
Again, who people voted for in 2010 is a very flawed measure. 2010 was a year when the Tories were at a high and Labour were at their trough, so of course Labour are going to score poorly in sub-samples of anyone except their absolute core vote when analysing 2010 results. Of more interest is that (according to those researchers who did a detailed study on UKIP voters) many current UKIP voters voted Labour regularly between 1997 and 2005, and that almost half of them even now say they'd prefer a Labour government over a Tory government if they had to choose.
Basically, even if UKIP doesn't take many 2010 Labour voters, they could still harm Labour, if the votes that the Tories and Lib Dems lose in key marginal seats go to UKIP rather than Labour, which could leave the Labour share of the vote flat and allow the Tories to hold on on reduced shares of the vote. This is something that happened in countless constituencies in the recent locals.
For whom do you intend to vote?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/26/Exclusive-Labour-Press-Officer-Defects
Let's see where we were...
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/11/30/will-ukip-outpoll-the-lib-dems-at-the-2015-general-election/
Populus 7%
Yougov 14%
Comres 11%
Opinium (Online) 16%
Ipsos Mori (Phone) 8%
ICM (Phone) 11%
Survation (Online) 17%
Latest: (UK Polling report)
Populus 13%.. 19 June
Yougov 14%.. 26 June
Ipsos Mori 14%.. 17 June
ICM 16%.. 17 June
Comres 18% 13 June
Opinium 17% 21 June
Additional:
Ashcroft 17%.. 23rd June
TNS 23%
Currently the vote ranges of the pollsters are (In their latest polls)
Conservative 28 -> 34 (Ashcroft -> Populus/Yougov)
Labour 32 -> 37 (ICM -> Yougov)
UKIP 13 -> 18/23 (Populus -> Comres/TNS)
Lib Dems 7 -> 10 (Comres -> ICM)
The 23% TNS figure does seem to be an outlier, though I can see where it is got from... raw Populus figures are closish to the TNS figure - the downweighting of UKIP is "priced in" to all the other figures.
A definite uptick in the UKIP fortunes from Nov 2013 I feel.
What Cameron has done is alienate his centre-right allies, conservatives in Germany, Poland, etc., for no apparent gain. Richard N draws a comparison with Maggie, but fans of Maggie usually claim that she achieved some benefits. What has Cameron achieved in the EU context?
Richard is right that UKIP largely have a blank sheet of paper on civil liberties, but they are very good on the EU and on immigration. I actually think they're missing a trick - there's a sizable minority that strongly believes in civil liberties enough for it to affect their vote, and they currently have no-one speaking up for them. The media is also very sympathetic, and it would allow UKIP to get invited on to discuss non-European issues if it made a name for themselves here. It would also buy them more credibility with young people, who are currently sceptical of the party due to the campaign to paint them as racist.
Obviously they need to put the case forward in a serious fashion, and make clear they're not some sort of absolutists, but a common sense, traditional view that the government shouldn't snoop on our emails and webcams freely would have a lot of traction. I know I would go from being a loose supporter to a fully paid up member and start pounding the streets for them if they did it.
Going back even further at the same electoral point in the cycle ICM had
ICM/Guardian Con 39
Lab 27
LD 18
Actual results: (Multiplied actual through by 1.02 to knock out NI)
Con 37 (-2) (Principal opposition)
Lab 30 (+3) (Principal Gov't)
LD 23 (+5) (Secondary opposition)
The latest ICM was:
Con 31 (Principal Gov't)
Lab 32 (Principal opposition)
LD 10% (Secondary Gov't)
So using the swingback method we get assuming swing TO the primary Gov't and AWAY from Primary opposition...
Con 34
Lab 30
LD ??? 15% ?!
The only viable Gov't is a continuation of the coalition !Or LD C&S for the Conservatives - one of the two.
If the government were serious about tackling terrorism there are very easy, if unpalatable, steps that could be taken to secure our country from foreign and home-grown terrorists. The fact that, against the advice of the UAE, we have given political asylum to three radical Sunni preachers linked with terrorism is just another in the great long list of problems in our asylum and immigration policy. This government have done absolutely nothing to protect the country from extremist Islamic terrorism, and giving safe harbour to extremist preachers like those who were just granted asylum is pretty damning. Britain has long been seen as a safe harbour for extremists running away from the law in the Middle East, and this government have chosen to continue that tradition, at the expense of our own safety.
This idea that rubbish like the snooper's charter will keep us all safe is bollocks, experts have all said the scattershot approach doesn't aid in capturing terrorists and it would not be necessary. Extending laws for wiretapping and obtaining evidence in terrorism cases may be warranted, but wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
Until the government get tough on Islamic extremists, violent and non-violent, and ensure that Britain is no longer a safe-harbour for foreign extremist preachers any anti-terrorism efforts will amount to absolutely zero. It comes as no surprise that after the anti-terror experts all said the snooper's charter would be useless the Home Secretary switched it to catching paedophiles, the other major emotive subject when it comes to the internet.
What an excellent post.
But the law also allows the foreign secretary to sign certificates that authorise GCHQ to trawl for broad categories of information on condition that one end of the communication is outside the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/23/mi5-feared-gchq-went-too-far
When MI5 think you have gone too far in eroding civil liberties, you know you've gone off the deep end.
Civil liberties do matter to me. I'd argue the Conservatives, whilst moving in the wrong direction in some areas, do deserve credit for abolishing Labour's despicable ID card plans.
Given my constituency, I'm still quite content to vote blue next year to try and oust Balls. The only thing that could make me shift my vote, that springs to mind, is if Yes wins and the politicians u-turn on currency union.
I might vote UKIP if they opposed it, spoil my ballot, or just not bother. Or vote independent, perhaps.
I'm no fan of Cameron's manoeuvres on the EU, which are as baffling to me as to the Germans. But perhaps if other EU countries were a bit more constructive and willing to listen and, even, perhaps to think that they might not have all the answers, given the mess they've made of the eurozone, it might be easier for all of us.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-interception-storage-webcam-images-condemned
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.