So I think that PBers and others, including tim and OGH, should stop making assumptions based on hurriedly put together polls.
Indeed, chuck all the polling away and listen to the PB Kipper anecdotes.
"Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin."
Increasingly tim I'm beginning to wonder if you know how to use polling. Do you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative data and their uses - I don't think you do ?
The polling is pretty conclusive, UKIP on 23% with over 60's in today's YouGov, on 5% among the under 40's Tory lead among the over 60's on 3 down from 13 at the GE. Over 65's dislike Cameron much more than they do Miliband.
They are the basics.
Really ? Is that a hard lead or a soft lead ? Over 65s I'd say dislike both, if Miliband had any respect from them he'd pick up votes. You simply pick up the number s and fail to undertsand the thoughts behind them. Numbers change, ultimately qualitative is more use than quantiative it suggests how to get the numbers to change but you'd brush that info aside as anecdote.
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
Main point is Labour aren't against joint tickets - they can't be as they run them now.
However how many Co-op candidates will be funded in 2015...
Well, indeed. Labour and Co-operative party joint tickets work because the parties broadly agree on most things. There is almost no agreement between UKIP and Labour. In the same way, I'd advise you not to expect too many Labour and Conservative joint tickets in 2015!
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
because Labour haven't any popular policies ? Indeed Labour haven't any policies at all.
Labour ius a centre left party. UKIP is a right wing party. Only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they run on a joint ticket. As you well know!
can't see any policies from labour atm, they could be the new BNP for all we know.
But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.'
From what I have read the main reason that this was not dealt with was because the police and social services did not believe the girls involved, or judged them as chavs, "making a lifestyle choice", etc.
This is a problem of sexism, rather than political correctness, which we also see in the way that rape is often [not] dealt with.
There's probably an element of both. A reluctance to damage "community relations", combined with a good deal of contempt for the victims.
I would have thought that the mindset of the average UKIP supporter towards David Cameron and Ed Miliband is analogous to the average UKIP's supporter's mindset towards Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. Indeed, I expect that comparison is routinely made in the lower reaches of the Telegraph blogposts.
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
because Labour haven't any popular policies ? Indeed Labour haven't any policies at all.
Labour ius a centre left party. UKIP is a right wing party. Only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they run on a joint ticket. As you well know!
Joint tickets weren't unusual in the past. There used to be boroughs where, from time to time, either Labour or the Conservatives would field joint candidates with the Liberals, and in Luton, Charles Hill would run as "Liberal and Conservative."
But, I agree, UKIP and Labour are far too incompatible.
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
because Labour haven't any popular policies ? Indeed Labour haven't any policies at all.
Labour ius a centre left party. UKIP is a right wing party. Only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they run on a joint ticket. As you well know!
can't see any policies from labour atm, they could be the new BNP for all we know.
Labour has as many concrete policies now as the Tories did two years before the last general election. My guess is that like the Tories, Labour will turn out not to be the new BNP, but we'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
because Labour haven't any popular policies ? Indeed Labour haven't any policies at all.
Labour ius a centre left party. UKIP is a right wing party. Only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they run on a joint ticket. As you well know!
Joint tickets weren't unusual in the past. There used to be boroughs where, from time to time, either Labour or the Conservatives would field joint candidates with the Liberals, and in Luton, Charles Hill would run as "Liberal and Conservative."
But, I agree, UKIP and Labour are far too incompatible.
Labour and Ukip politicians= totally incompatible. Labour and Ukip voters = decent % would switch.
So Labour can run a joint ticket with the banker funded Co-op party but not one that wants to give the voters a say on EU ?
Nice.
And also a party that wants to significantly reduce public spending in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would Labour contemplate allowing any candidate to run on a joint ticket with what is essentially a right-wing, small state party just because it has one or two potentially popular policies?
because Labour haven't any popular policies ? Indeed Labour haven't any policies at all.
Labour ius a centre left party. UKIP is a right wing party. Only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they run on a joint ticket. As you well know!
can't see any policies from labour atm, they could be the new BNP for all we know.
Labour has as many concrete policies now as the Tories did two years before the last general election. My guess is that like the Tories, Labour will turn out not to be the new BNP, but we'll have to wait and see, I suppose.
Wasn't Brown's "British Jobs for British Workers" stolen from the BNP? I seem to recall at one PMQs Cameron taunting the Labour benches with a BNP leaflet saying just that not long after Brown's speech, to the evident discomfort of some Labour MPs.
@politicshomeuk: David Cameron should give his promise to support an EU referendum bill "in writing", Tory MP Bill Cash tells PolHome http://t.co/K1EO4OcNYb
Using his own blood or that of his first born child ?
The UK (and others) just lost a vote on the EU budget. We'll get a bill next year 770 million quid higher than planned. We have no veto. Thanks Gordon for ratifying Lisbon with no referendum, despite huge poll lead for wanting referendum, and all because 'ratifying is in the UK's interest'. EUphile cnuts.
Isn't there an easy way round that for UK?
Reduce VAT by 3% (and therefore the amount paid by UK to the EU that is calculated on VAT) Introduce a 3% regional sales tax, (collected with VAT for efficiency and cost reasons but distributed to the local area where the sale was generated), adjust regional grants to balance internal budgets, and job done, EU take is reduced. After 3 years local areas have discretion to amend the local tax +/- 2.5%
"To forestall accusations that its measures would enrich London at the expense of the rest of the country, the report says the yields on devolved taxes should be offset by a corresponding cut in government grant."
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
@Sean but I believe the registration of political parties legislation (introduced to stop people playing fast and loose with party labels and logos) makes joint tickets much more problematic. At the very least it gives someone in the party hierarchy an effective veto over how an individual candidate might wish to describe themselves, and I think a joint ticket may require some sort of new joint party description to be registered?
I don't think the 'Lab and Co-op' comparison is valid, as I believe the Labour Party has registered this as an approved description and in electoral law there is no separate 'Co-op party' putting up candidates, despite the internal endorsement particular labour candidates receive from the co- op.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
Interestingly he did the same analysis I did, and compared the quickest quali lap to the fastest race lap. He then extended it with some other statistics, and compared to the Bridgestones.
I'm getting a bit fed up with Red Bull bleating. For one thing, they're forgetting that F1 is not a sport. When a team is in front (as they have been for about three years now), it's in the interest of the business for someone else to win.
F1's learnt the lessons of Ferrari's dominance in the early 2000s.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
Selection time for 2014 London Boroughs....which means deselections time in Brent,
4 Cllrs already deselected including the former council leader. The libraries closure issue is apparently still running high in people's feelings.
I also guess this means that the likely 2015 Labour candidate for Brent Central will be somebody not connected with the council. Maybe outside of Brent. Hackney Cllr Patrick Vernon's chanches are probably rising now.
Pay attention to Southwark. Last time there have been lots of deselections. London is usually the most fertile ground in terms of Labour deselections. I guess it is also due to lots of people wanting to be Cllrs.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
Mr. Jessop, you are Gary Anderson and I claim my five element front wing.
I agree that Red Bull need to stop bleating. I wouldn't mind a slight increase in tyre durability, but the pathetic bitching of a team that's won six titles from six in the last three years is not impressive. If they win both again this year by a narrow margin after the tyres are changed it will look like a fiddled victory.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Beautiful batting conditions at Lords and England has two openers with strike rates in the 20s after 22 overs. I am really not sure this will work for the Ashes. The new Zealand attack is neat and tidy but not particularly threatening.
Edit, the pressure of not scoring leads to a wicket.
And Blue Rog's crime is what, exactly? not having been on PB continuously for the last 24 hours?
Someone interested in being helpful would have posted a link to yesterday's "debunking".
Thanks for that. you're correct, I have a life outside of PB Although the article does state it was only one councillors view and wasn't really taken into account, I think the telling part of the story is that it is eminently believable!
"Eleanor Jackson, a university lecturer, said the red and white symbol could cause upset in Radstock, Somerset, because it was used during the Crusades 1,000 years ago. The Labour councillor voiced her concerns at a meeting called to discuss which flag should be purchased to fly atop the town's repaired civic flagpole. She said: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right. "My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.""
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
The alacrity with which Cam gave his LD speech after the election results were known, where the LD hot policies were dealt with one by one, shows that Cam has never, after the shock of no outright victory, adjusted to being Prime Minister rather than coalition Prime Minister. He has always understood acutely well that he is, ultimately, powerless if the LDs stamp their foot so he assiduously courted their approval. Some might say that’s the work of a pragmatist.
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
'Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population. To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial. But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.'
Unless I've misunderstood the Oxford case and am guilty of underestimating the abilities and competence of the police, I'd guess there are quite a lot of men of Pakistani origin - a lot more than seven - who coughed up £200 to ravage these under-age girls**. They have committed serious crimes and have got off scot-free. They will, no doubt, be quite willing to do it again.
I can't say that I've seen the police put under pressure by the MSM to bring this wider circle of offenders to justice.
** This was presumably quite a good earner for the seven. And, no doubt, no income tax was paid. But Tim, or SO, or TSE, might correct me on this.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
The alacrity with which the Cam gave his LD speech after the election results were known, where the LD hot policies were dealt with one by one, shows that Cam has never, after the shock of no outright victory, adjusted to being Prime Minister rather than coalition Prime Minister. He has always understood acutely well that he is, ultimately, powerless if the LDs stamp their foot so he assiduously courted their approval. Some might say that’s the work of a pragmatist.
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
There's a natural tendancy for Conservative loyalists to want to blame everything on the LDs and coalition. However Cameron's issue atm is not the LDs it's his own party. Frankly he is a poor leader of men, I'd say this is because he has been promoted too fast and has never had the chance to develop the techniques most managers develop of getting the best out of awkward buggers and keeping objectives to the fore. Cameron's problems are not LD driven, they are self driven, he has proved unable to manage the broad church a PM needs to win and to govern and regrettably he does not appear to have learned the skills while in office either.
The "modernisation" project hit the buffers without its drivers watching the track or the signals. Many of the passengers who jumped off won't reboard unless the drivers are changed. No way can they gather behind someone who called them fruitcakes, closet racists etc.
One feature of the UKIP support which should be noted is that the older age group is a growing group within the population. Many 60 year olds will be able to look forwards to 25+ years of future voting.
For anyone interested in the Oxford grooming story there is an excellent thread following up Zoe Williams' article on this in the Guardian.
Zoe blames 'institutional misogyny' for what happened. In response. Many posters say its absurd to deny the racial/cultural aspect to this. Some support Zoe too. Its a good debate
Personally I'd like to know what sort of article Zoe would have written in 2005, had the authorities tried to nip this in the bud then.
'victimisation of muslims.....racist attitudes to immigrants.....attempting to block quite natural multicultural relations....trumped up charges.....police brutality.....exaggerated accounts by disturbed girls from very poor backgrounds.....;
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
The alacrity with which the Cam gave his LD speech after the election results were known, where the LD hot policies were dealt with one by one, shows that Cam has never, after the shock of no outright victory, adjusted to being Prime Minister rather than coalition Prime Minister. He has always understood acutely well that he is, ultimately, powerless if the LDs stamp their foot so he assiduously courted their approval. Some might say that’s the work of a pragmatist.
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
There's a natural tendancy for Conservative loyalists to want to blame everything on the LDs and coalition. However Cameron's issue atm is not the LDs it's his own party. Frankly he is a poor leader of men, I'd say this is because he has been promoted too fast and has never had the chance to develop the techniques most managers develop of getting the best out of awkward buggers and keeping objectives to the fore. Cameron's problems are not LD driven, they are self driven, he has proved unable to manage the broad church a PM needs to win and to govern and regrettably he does not appear to have learned the skills while in office either.
Cons MPs find him very effective and as has been endlessly discussed not least on PB, who else is there? But it only takes a few Bones, Goldsmiths, to take (IMO a cowardly, solipsistic) lead and others feel emboldened. As you say, it has got out of hand but I think it would have done to anyone.
MPs do blame the LDs and if I were in charge I would mandate that at every Cons MP meeting they repeat1,000 times: THE CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION
'Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population. To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial. But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.'
Unless I've misunderstood the Oxford case and am guilty of underestimating the abilities and competence of the police, I'd guess there are quite a lot of men of Pakistani origin - a lot more than seven - who coughed up £200 to ravage these under-age girls**. They have committed serious crimes and have got off scot-free. They will, no doubt, be quite willing to do it again.
I can't say that I've seen the police put under pressure by the MSM to bring this wider circle of offenders to justice.
** This was presumably quite a good earner for the seven. And, no doubt, no income tax was paid. But Tim, or SO, or TSE, might correct me on this.
Indeed. I'd guess there must be a dozens of paying johns in each of these cases. The question is, was it the same few dozen across the numerous cases in Oxford, Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford and all the other cases? I imagine, and hope, it probably was. But if it wasn't there could be hundreds of these sickos out there.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
The alacrity with which the Cam gave his LD speech after the election results were known, where the LD hot policies were dealt with one by one, shows that Cam has never, after the shock of no outright victory, adjusted to being Prime Minister rather than coalition Prime Minister. He has always understood acutely well that he is, ultimately, powerless if the LDs stamp their foot so he assiduously courted their approval. Some might say that’s the work of a pragmatist.
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
There's a natural tendancy for Conservative loyalists to want to blame everything on the LDs and coalition. However Cameron's issue atm is not the LDs it's his own party. Frankly he is a poor leader of men, I'd say this is because he has been promoted too fast and has never had the chance to develop the techniques most managers develop of getting the best out of awkward buggers and keeping objectives to the fore. Cameron's problems are not LD driven, they are self driven, he has proved unable to manage the broad church a PM needs to win and to govern and regrettably he does not appear to have learned the skills while in office either.
Cons MPs find him very effective and as has been endlessly discussed not least on PB, who else is there? But it only takes a few Bones, Goldsmiths, to take (IMO a cowardly, solipsistic) lead and others feel emboldened. As you say, it has got out of hand but I think it would have done to anyone.
MPs do blame the LDs and if I were in charge I would mandate that at every Cons MP meeting they repeat1,000 times: THE CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION
Well I suppose one should ask effective at what ? atm he's not actually attracting voters and it's not just a few wild cards giving him grief he has between 30-50% of his MPs if not disgruntled, then not exactly gruntled either. He has ignored too many of the voices behind him and hence is now having to make up extra ground when a small gesture earlier would have sufficed.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
It's OK, Parliament sits for two days debate on gay marriage next week
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
seriously ? I'm with Dan Hodges on this, tories making tits of themselves about Europe is background noise these days, it's what you expect them to do. It's about as exciting as Labour being PC or the LibDems wanting PR.
It's childish. They need to grow up.
They need to grow up or their leader needs to acquire party management skills ? The latter imo.
I'd say both. And Cameron needs to grow up too: he has got progressively less serious as a politician as time has gone on. Curious.
Yes, that's a fair comment usually the sharp shock of responsibility makes people mature quickly, Cameron hasn't really benefitted from the experience. His problem in part is nobody's afraid of him, he needed to break a few legs early in his premiership to show intent.
The alacrity with which the Cam gave his LD speech after the election results were known, where the LD hot policies were dealt with one by one, shows that Cam has never, after the shock of no outright victory, adjusted to being Prime Minister rather than coalition Prime Minister. He has always understood acutely well that he is, ultimately, powerless if the LDs stamp their foot so he assiduously courted their approval. Some might say that’s the work of a pragmatist.
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
There's a natural tendancy for Conservative loyalists to want to blame everything on the LDs and coalition. However Cameron's issue atm is not the LDs it's his own party. Frankly he is a poor leader of men, I'd say this is because he has been promoted too fast and has never had the chance to develop the techniques most managers develop of getting the best out of awkward buggers and keeping objectives to the fore. Cameron's problems are not LD driven, they are self driven, he has proved unable to manage the broad church a PM needs to win and to govern and regrettably he does not appear to have learned the skills while in office either.
Cons MPs find him very effective and as has been endlessly discussed not least on PB, who else is there? But it only takes a few Bones, Goldsmiths, to take (IMO a cowardly, solipsistic) lead and others feel emboldened. As you say, it has got out of hand but I think it would have done to anyone.
MPs do blame the LDs and if I were in charge I would mandate that at every Cons MP meeting they repeat1,000 times: THE CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION
Well I suppose one should ask effective at what ? atm he's not actually attracting voters and it's not just a few wild cards giving him grief he has between 30-50% of his MPs if not disgruntled, then not exactly gruntled either. He has ignored too many of the voices behind him and hence is now having to make up extra ground when a small gesture earlier would have sufficed.
It seems UKIP came up with a bizarre selection process for Euro elections. Central party to shortlist around 60 candidates. Then an all England ballot among membership with 10 votes per member. Candidates opt for a prefered regiond and a second choice. Then after the result, candidates are assigned to the region chosen based on the ballot ranking.
Didn't most Bangladeshi immigration happen under the Thatcher and Major Govts?
I thought it was mainly post-war? Still plenty came under New Labour's "we sent out search parties to find immigrations" period. The removal of the primary purpose rule I'm sure helped a lot more third world immigrants coming here.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
It's OK, Parliament sits for two days debate on gay marriage next week
Then rises on Tuesday afternoon so Dave can avoid PMQs again.
Tories at their best
Does Cameron attend PMQs more or less than Tony Blair?
I had a quick play at trying to work this out the other day, but couldn't find a suitable datasource for a list of PMQ's. I wanted to compare the total number of PMQ's, along with attendance, per year for the Blair, Brown and Cameron governments.
Does anyone know where there may be a list of PMQ's?
Tim, do you feel let down at Red and the Labour leadership?
You spend all day, every day plugging away against Cameron and the Conservatives on here and for what? Labour is still stuggling to get a double digit lead.
It seems UKIP came up with a bizarre selection process for Euro elections. Central party to shortlist around 60 candidates. Then an all England ballot among membership with 10 votes per member. Candidates opt for a prefered regiond and a second choice. Then after the result, candidates are assigned to the region chosen based on the ballot ranking.
Andrea: it might be complex, but at least it's democratic and takes power away from central committees and gives it to the members.
UKIP's euro selection methods are always bizarre. How did Marta get the number 2 spot in the south east again? And how did that work for them? BTW have the Tories selected for the south east yet and will Marta walk straight from one party to another without so much as a 'by your leave' from the electorate?
This confirms something I've often thought about US vs UK immigration. The US benefits enormously because Latin Americans are very tolerant and willing to integrate.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
It's OK, Parliament sits for two days debate on gay marriage next week
Then rises on Tuesday afternoon so Dave can avoid PMQs again.
Tories at their best
Does Cameron attend PMQs more or less than Tony Blair?
I had a quick play at trying to work this out the other day, but couldn't find a suitable datasource for a list of PMQ's. I wanted to compare the total number of PMQ's, along with attendance, per year for the Blair, Brown and Cameron governments.
Does anyone know where there may be a list of PMQ's?
A few weeks ago a poster (forgotten who, possibly MikeL) did exactly that and, surprise, surprise, Cameron's appearances at PMQs were just as frequent as both Blair and Brown. Not that has ever stopped tim from ignoring the truth. C'est la vie.
EdM doesn't need policies, given the way the Tories are imploding before our very eyes.
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
It's OK, Parliament sits for two days debate on gay marriage next week
@tim - Could be worse, it could be fox-hunting. How long did Blair waste on that?
Would have taken very little time and zero government time if it hadn't been for the Tory filibuster. And to be honest, Tony Blair didn't want to bother to override it, and was only persuaded to by a bunch of us after a couple of years of pressure finally wore him down. Even then he nerfed it so it was only half-effective, as he notes in his book.
This confirms something I've often thought about US vs UK immigration. The US benefits enormously because Latin Americans are very tolerant and willing to integrate.
Latinos? Good, good - cha-cha, tango, salsa, mambo, Perez Prado:
Comments
But, I agree, UKIP and Labour are far too incompatible.
Labour and Ukip voters = decent % would switch.
The EU referendum is the leading story in politics and sucking the oxygen out of other stories.
No sign of that going away soon - is this the sort of time you want to try and send out your policies to the nation ?
Red : We want free garden gnomes for all !
Interviewer : Yes but what about a referendum ?
I suspect the blank page will stay blank until late 2014.
They have, for example, reversed their policy on a 3rd runway at Heathrow. They are now against one. That's a policy.
Mr Osborne said anything about Amazon yet ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/15/amazon-tax-bill-new-questions
And - no referendum nor change in our relationship with Europe.
Reduce VAT by 3% (and therefore the amount paid by UK to the EU that is calculated on VAT)
Introduce a 3% regional sales tax, (collected with VAT for efficiency and cost reasons but distributed to the local area where the sale was generated), adjust regional grants to balance internal budgets, and job done, EU take is reduced. After 3 years local areas have discretion to amend the local tax +/- 2.5%
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a01dc9d8-bd30-11e2-a735-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TGvojjiz
I'm not too sure about this bit though:
"To forestall accusations that its measures would enrich London at the expense of the rest of the country, the report says the yields on devolved taxes should be offset by a corresponding cut in government grant."
For the first time in ages there seem to be some signs of positive economic news and instead of having government ministers talking about that we have them talking to each other and to some of the more obtuse backbenchers about something which may or may not happen at some point in the future if other things which may or may not happen happen or something.
I don't think the 'Lab and Co-op' comparison is valid, as I believe the Labour Party has registered this as an approved description and in electoral law there is no separate 'Co-op party' putting up candidates, despite the internal endorsement particular labour candidates receive from the co- op.
I'm getting a bit fed up with Red Bull bleating. For one thing, they're forgetting that F1 is not a sport. When a team is in front (as they have been for about three years now), it's in the interest of the business for someone else to win.
F1's learnt the lessons of Ferrari's dominance in the early 2000s.
4 Cllrs already deselected including the former council leader. The libraries closure issue is apparently still running high in people's feelings.
I also guess this means that the likely 2015 Labour candidate for Brent Central will be somebody not connected with the council. Maybe outside of Brent. Hackney Cllr Patrick Vernon's chanches are probably rising now.
@Neil
Pay attention to Southwark. Last time there have been lots of deselections.
London is usually the most fertile ground in terms of Labour deselections. I guess it is also due to lots of people wanting to be Cllrs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10059873/Council-vetoes-flag-of-St-George-after-concerns-raised-about-links-to-Crusades.html
I agree that Red Bull need to stop bleating. I wouldn't mind a slight increase in tyre durability, but the pathetic bitching of a team that's won six titles from six in the last three years is not impressive. If they win both again this year by a narrow margin after the tyres are changed it will look like a fiddled victory.
Someone interested in being helpful would have posted a link to yesterday's "debunking".
Edit, the pressure of not scoring leads to a wicket.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22551914
Quite a scandal.
The Labour councillor voiced her concerns at a meeting called to discuss which flag should be purchased to fly atop the town's repaired civic flagpole.
She said: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims, but even more so that it has been hijacked by the far right.
"My thoughts are we ought to drop it for 20 years.""
A campaigner for climate justice, no doubt.
Grrr londoncentric again. Why oh why couldn't it have been Headingly?
The white working class is there to be taken for granted and preached to, for goodness sake, not listened to!!
He courted Nick and the LDs so thoroughly (remember the resounding LD vote) but he forgot his backbenchers. Because he thought they’d be so thrilled to be in govt that they would allow (what I believe to be necessary) concessions.
I’m sure no one was more surprised than him when they flared up. Bad forethought? Perhaps. More likely again, as a pragmatist, perhaps he thought they would be pragmatic also.
And actually, I give him credit for that. And I have no doubt that he will devise an appropriate response to them. Trouble is, they are empowered now in a near-unstoppable way.
I agree he should have been firmer earlier but I honestly don’t think he saw it coming.
"I wonder how the Tories would be polling if they had a leader who didn't repel women and the over 65's?"
Much better, as Labour would be if they had a leader who didn't repel men and the over 65's (sic).
Sharpen up, tim, you're making it too easy.
I can't say that I've seen the police put under pressure by the MSM to bring this wider circle of offenders to justice.
** This was presumably quite a good earner for the seven. And, no doubt, no income tax was paid. But Tim, or SO, or TSE, might correct me on this.
One feature of the UKIP support which should be noted is that the older age group is a growing group within the population. Many 60 year olds will be able to look forwards to 25+ years of future voting.
Zoe blames 'institutional misogyny' for what happened. In response. Many posters say its absurd to deny the racial/cultural aspect to this. Some support Zoe too. Its a good debate
Personally I'd like to know what sort of article Zoe would have written in 2005, had the authorities tried to nip this in the bud then.
'victimisation of muslims.....racist attitudes to immigrants.....attempting to block quite natural multicultural relations....trumped up charges.....police brutality.....exaggerated accounts by disturbed girls from very poor backgrounds.....;
That kind of story....???
MPs do blame the LDs and if I were in charge I would mandate that at every Cons MP meeting they repeat1,000 times: THE CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION
Can't disagree.
Does anyone know where there may be a list of PMQ's?
You spend all day, every day plugging away against Cameron and the Conservatives on here and for what? Labour is still stuggling to get a double digit lead.
UKIP's euro selection methods are always bizarre. How did Marta get the number 2 spot in the south east again? And how did that work for them? BTW have the Tories selected for the south east yet and will Marta walk straight from one party to another without so much as a 'by your leave' from the electorate?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/
This confirms something I've often thought about US vs UK immigration. The US benefits enormously because Latin Americans are very tolerant and willing to integrate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UmWsOboKg4