Had coals of fire heaped on me for suggesting that since we’d had a referendum some 40 years ago ..... doesn’t time fly ..... clearly remember campaigning in it .....we didn’t need another.
Times change in 40 years - why should anyone under the age of 57 not have a say ?
I cannot remember why I chose it, and if I ask a question its because I would like an answer, rather churlish of you to suggest otherwise. Its perfectly reasonable to ask how popular Ed is in the marginal constituencies, it might well be affecting the voting outcome.
Oh look, it's one of the passive-aggressive gang again!
Oh look its Innocent , minding someone else's business again...
Let's go through your options, shall we, SR? Then we can make a book - it's a betting site, after all.
(1) You continue to jibe, self-pity & generally behave in a tiresome way. (1-4) (2) You ask Mike Smithson to ban me. (7-4) (3) You suggest we both knock it on the head and try to behave like grown-ups (100-30) (4) We both convert to Islam (200-1)
re points 1 & 2), he will need to go far to beat JackW in those areas.
Malclog, you should try 3. Knock yourself on the head and try to act like a grown-up.
LOL, I will copy you and see where that gets me ( dummy teat being ordered immediately ). I think you want to look after yourself , leave the big boys to get on with their discussions.
Ok big boy, why don't you try backing up your peculiar insinuation about my identity(ies?) from yesterday? Or was that just further, typically pathetic, malclogging?
"This election is confusing and messy. People need to come to peace with that. I have. I am dealing with it. My models have been tweaked and tested, scrapped, tweaked and tested, re-calibrated, tested.....etc, etc.
So when I hear Labour make a statement saying that UKIP voters will put Ed into No. 10 I am staggered at how unprofessional it sounds. Labour are in the business of winning campaigns. Their voters, members and candidates want them to win elections. Any other raison d'etre would need to be explained to me. So we are in a situation where Labour is effectively choosing to ignore a party which is polling between 10 and 15 per cent nationally (UKIP). Does that strike anyone as the professional approach? Speaking as a cold fish, that is. Applying cold logic, does it strike anyone as the professional approach?
It's worse than that. Because [and I'm exasperated just having to explain this again] the impact from UKIP is not randomly distributed. It depends on where you live. So 10 per cent for UKIP nationally translates to between 25 and 38% in seats across the country, depending on the particular demographics and voter behaviours in each seat. Which brings me on to the 'irresponsible' part."
"If the voters seriously thought that was what they were voting on then that would suggest that they don't have the necessary judgement and understanding to be entrusted with decisions like this."
Then count me among the thickos.
I took an interest in the campaign and I voted in 1975 on what I was assured was the issue. The few that argued we were voting for a political union were derided as conspiracy loons, and I believed the derision. More fool me then.
"This election is confusing and messy. People need to come to peace with that. I have. I am dealing with it. My models have been tweaked and tested, scrapped, tweaked and tested, re-calibrated, tested.....etc, etc.
So when I hear Labour make a statement saying that UKIP voters will put Ed into No. 10 I am staggered at how unprofessional it sounds. Labour are in the business of winning campaigns. Their voters, members and candidates want them to win elections. Any other raison d'etre would need to be explained to me. So we are in a situation where Labour is effectively choosing to ignore a party which is polling between 10 and 15 per cent nationally (UKIP). Does that strike anyone as the professional approach? Speaking as a cold fish, that is. Applying cold logic, does it strike anyone as the professional approach?
It's worse than that. Because [and I'm exasperated just having to explain this again] the impact from UKIP is not randomly distributed. It depends on where you live. So 10 per cent for UKIP nationally translates to between 25 and 38% in seats across the country, depending on the particular demographics and voter behaviours in each seat. Which brings me on to the 'irresponsible' part."
"This election is confusing and messy. People need to come to peace with that. I have. I am dealing with it. My models have been tweaked and tested, scrapped, tweaked and tested, re-calibrated, tested.....etc, etc.
So when I hear Labour make a statement saying that UKIP voters will put Ed into No. 10 I am staggered at how unprofessional it sounds. Labour are in the business of winning campaigns. Their voters, members and candidates want them to win elections. Any other raison d'etre would need to be explained to me. So we are in a situation where Labour is effectively choosing to ignore a party which is polling between 10 and 15 per cent nationally (UKIP). Does that strike anyone as the professional approach? Speaking as a cold fish, that is. Applying cold logic, does it strike anyone as the professional approach?
It's worse than that. Because [and I'm exasperated just having to explain this again] the impact from UKIP is not randomly distributed. It depends on where you live. So 10 per cent for UKIP nationally translates to between 25 and 38% in seats across the country, depending on the particular demographics and voter behaviours in each seat. Which brings me on to the 'irresponsible' part."
What if the people themselves don't want to trust the people? Or is mob rule only appropriate in some areas?
Yes I hear the argument you are snippily making; we don't elect our politicians only for us to make all the decisions ourselves. But there is precedence with the EU, in that its nature has manifestly changed since 1975 but I hear your argument: you are saying that Labour's position is "in", and those who vote for them agree. I have no problem with that.
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
We’ve identified 17 seats in the South East of England with a significant risk (above 25% by our definition) of switching at the 2015 general election. These estimates are based on Ladbrokes’ latest odds on every constituency which you can find here. The “lose chance” is our current estimate of the probability of the incumbent party being unseated. (TCTC = too close to call)
I'd have thought the only area of Hallam stuffed with students would be Crookes - Can't imagine there being a massive Labour vote in Fulwood, Dore or Totley ?
I'd have thought the only area of Hallam stuffed with students would be Crookes - Can't imagine there being a massive Labour vote in Fulwood, Dore or Totley ?
Ecclesall maybe some - a mix perhaps..
D&T in particular have the Uni staff from both Unis, and even they aren't enamoured with Ed/Labour
I cannot remember why I chose it, and if I ask a question its because I would like an answer, rather churlish of you to suggest otherwise. Its perfectly reasonable to ask how popular Ed is in the marginal constituencies, it might well be affecting the voting outcome.
Oh look, it's one of the passive-aggressive gang again!
Oh look its Innocent , minding someone else's business again...
Let's go through your options, shall we, SR? Then we can make a book - it's a betting site, after all.
(1) You continue to jibe, self-pity & generally behave in a tiresome way. (1-4) (2) You ask Mike Smithson to ban me. (7-4) (3) You suggest we both knock it on the head and try to behave like grown-ups (100-30) (4) We both convert to Islam (200-1)
re points 1 & 2), he will need to go far to beat JackW in those areas.
Malclog, you should try 3. Knock yourself on the head and try to act like a grown-up.
LOL, I will copy you and see where that gets me ( dummy teat being ordered immediately ). I think you want to look after yourself , leave the big boys to get on with their discussions.
Ok big boy, why don't you try backing up your peculiar insinuation about my identity(ies?) from yesterday? Or was that just further, typically pathetic, malclogging?
Go and stalk someone else fruitcake
I'm going to translate that bit of malclogese as a full apology for suggesting that I have multiple identities.
Perhaps if Labour viewed these switchers not as Con to UKIP but as Con to (Lab) to UKIP, we might see more policies and fewer bacon sandwiches.
The reason you are seeing bacon sandwiches and, bizarrely, speeches about bacon sandwiches is precisely because Labour doesn't want to talk about policies. That is because policies are about making choices, and if Ed makes choices he will put off a chunk of his precious 35% on each choice he makes.
Of course the flaw in this timid approach is that he will end having nothing much to say, and letting others define his position for him. It's also a guarantee of high unpopularity if he does become PM, when voters find that the choices have to be made after all.
yes true However... Labour will make a lot of coded promises in the manifesto. It will fudge and promise the moon and sixpence - or rather lots of different moons and sixpences to different groups. It will of course pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money available to tax without any pain to anyone, except all those evil rich people, to pay for all its fanciful spending. At times like this we should remember that the taxation of pension funds was not in its 1997 manifeto.
Referenda should be banned or Parliament dissolved for good.
If MP's are unwilling to decide issues what the hell are they doing there. Further MP's voting for any referendum should have their salary docked by at least 50% so as to encourage them in further thought.
The only exception being for nation forming such as the present Scottish referendum where clearly the sight of Wee Eck sucking lemons for most of late September is obviously worthy of a minor breach of principle.
Perhaps if Labour viewed these switchers not as Con to UKIP but as Con to (Lab) to UKIP, we might see more policies and fewer bacon sandwiches.
The reason you are seeing bacon sandwiches and, bizarrely, speeches about bacon sandwiches is precisely because Labour doesn't want to talk about policies. That is because policies are about making choices, and if Ed makes choices he will put off a chunk of his precious 35% on each choice he makes.
Of course the flaw in this timid approach is that he will end having nothing much to say, and letting others define his position for him. It's also a guarantee of high unpopularity if he does become PM, when voters find that the choices have to be made after all.
yes true However... Labour will make a lot of coded promises in the manifesto. It will fudge and promise the moon and sixpence - or rather lots of different moons and sixpences to different groups. It will of course pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money available to tax without any pain to anyone, except all those evil rich people, to pay for all its fanciful spending. At times like this we should remember that the taxation of pension funds was not in its 1997 manifeto.
This is the same Labour party that wants the OBR to cost its manifesto? Just checking.
I'm surprised that Labour are being so obvious about it all...
I assume this is the Labour High Command's way of reassuring the troops that while the opinion polls are close and Ed is not viewed as PM material a Labour government is still odds on.
That they are having to be vocal about their master plan suggests there is alot more disquiet under the surface in the Labour party.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Mr. Eagles (2), Miss Snowflake left before I arrived, but ColinW's Mum was amongst the very best posters to have offered contributions here.
Mr Dancer it’s often surprising how much agreement there is among people who otherwise seem to fundmentally disagree. Take your, and my, pride in being British, for example!
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
I wonder if any of those senior figures know how much it costs to put in a bid and how much it would cost to even form an entity capable of putting together a bid. File that one under daft political ideas that haven't been thought through but espoused for effect.
Just like every other policy initiative that Labour have put forward, really. No substance to them, they fall apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.
Trouble was no-one had really thought through the succession process for the Lord Protectorship. How did other republics at the time (and in my ignorance I can only think of Venice select their rulers?
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
The demise of the Divine Right of Kings was effectively signalled by Charles I having the misfortune to mislay his head in 1649 and then for his granddaughter Mary to treacherously usurp her father in 1688.
The Stuarts continued to rule for many years to come despite the inter family spat.
Interesting note from Panelbase re their recent poll, I'm not sure about the first one, given the the turnout in the Euros and the anticipated turnout in the indyref
We have made two adjustments to our weighting process for this poll. First, we have rebalanced our sample to reflect voting patterns in the recent European elections. Although turnout was low among the general population, it was high among the respondents to this survey and it seems prudent to take account of this very recent voting ehaviour when seeking a politically balanced sample. The effect of this is to slightly increase the gap between Yes and No.
Second, having observed in several recent polls that people born in Scotland have quite different attitudes to independence from those born elsewhere, and that Scots-born tend to be somewhat underrepresented in samples, we have also weighted the data based on country of birth. The effect of this is to slightly narrow the gap between Yes and No. In summary, the net effect of these two new weights is statistically insignificant, as indeed are the variations in referendum voting intention between our recent polls,
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.
Cromwell a top chap? Well each to their own, I suppose. He had a great line in oratory, I grant you that and he was a very effective military man, but beyond that? Nah. The English were well fed up with his republic long before he curled up his toes and were very glad to see the back of it.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
I wonder if any of those senior figures know how much it costs to put in a bid and how much it would cost to even form an entity capable of putting together a bid. File that one under daft political ideas that haven't been thought through but espoused for effect.
Just like every other policy initiative that Labour have put forward, really. No substance to them, they fall apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
But Labour is all about substance - they don't care about image. They are competing on their own terms.
(Yes, it is another empty policy announcement - all about presenting an image but with no details, no real plan behind it - it is unworkable. Just as unworkable when it was trailed a few days ago via Nick Robinson.)
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Our brief flirtation with a Republic was doomed because Olly Cromwell was a numpty.
It was Richard that was the numpty. OC was a top chap.
Cromwell a top chap? Well each to their own, I suppose. He had a great line in oratory, I grant you that and he was a very effective military man, but beyond that? Nah. The English were well fed up with his republic long before he curled up his toes and were very glad to see the back of it.
John Lambert might have made a good LP (or in a top position in a revived Commonwealth) but he fell out with Cromwell and then lost out to Monck.
On how early republics selected their leaders: they tended to go for collective leadership. The Commonwealth's executive body was the Council of State which tended to have a rotating chair.
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum. It's irresponsible to offer referendums where the government thinks that one of the two options would be ruinous - that's why we don't have California-style referendums on e.g. abolishing local taxation or doubling schools expenditure - popular maybe, a good idea no.
If you disagree, fair enough. If it's crucial for you and you DON'T think that withdrawal would be ruinous and would like it offered with a government recommendation, you might wish to vote UKIP. If you would like an in/out referendum to vote in 2017 on a treaty whose terms you don't yet know, you might wish to vote Tory.
By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?
employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways
I like the sound of this, I'd take the train more if they'd let me drive it.
Heh.
I'd love to be able to deal with those jumped up bell ends that are called revenue protection officers
My local bath house charges extra for the sauna, which they enforce by giving people who paid a different-coloured locker key band, so if somebody without the band tries to go in the sauna they get badgered by the other customers. Have people stick their train tickets somewhere visible like they would with a ski lift pass and they could crowd-source the whole thing like that.
A blog (@election-data) new to me, has me interested but is unsigned. Anyone know anything about it?
Hi Mike, that is my blog. Sorry to appear to be hiding. It was a fun blog for dripping out some of my data/methods/research when I started it in February. So I have been surprised at how it's gone. As has been mentioned I am Ian Warren in the pieces I have done for The Times,Telegraph,Spectator, etc
By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?
employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways
I like the sound of this, I'd take the train more if they'd let me drive it.
Heh.
I'd love to be able to deal with those jumped up bell ends that are called revenue protection officers
My local bath house charges extra for the sauna, which they enforce by giving people who paid a different-coloured locker key band, so if somebody without the band tries to go in the sauna they get badgered by the other customers. Have people stick their train tickets somewhere visible like they would with a ski lift pass and they could crowd-source the whole thing like that.
As someone who has to deal with these numpty inspectors on a regular basis, my patience is at an end.
My favourite one, was the one who said "It is is our policy to take possession of your ticket at the end of your journey."
Me: I have a weekly ticket, it has another 6 days to run.
Numpty: I'm sorry, you need to wait here, whilst I speak to a supervisor
Me: Sorry, I'm late and I can't wait here because you don't know your rectum from your elbow
Numpty: If you don't wait here, I'll get the police.
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum. It's irresponsible to offer referendums where the government thinks that one of the two options would be ruinous - that's why we don't have California-style referendums on e.g. abolishing local taxation or doubling schools expenditure - popular maybe, a good idea no.
If you disagree, fair enough. If it's crucial for you and you DON'T think that withdrawal would be ruinous and would like it offered with a government recommendation, you might wish to vote UKIP. If you would like an in/out referendum to vote in 2017 on a treaty whose terms you don't yet know, you might wish to vote Tory.
Ah I see - so the British people will be consulted not on in/out now or in the future but on the nature of new powers transferred to Brussels. Careful: LIAMT might have a conniption fit.
I wonder how the British public would assess, for example, MiFID II/MIFIR? Does it count if the policy will be introduced post a Lab 2015 win (horrific thought as this latter is)? Or will it be a Cam-style, "it was already ratified"?
By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?
Take the train - you will never have a better opportunity to speak to proper Chinese people.
Looking at the tables, the Populus raw numbers have a remarkable consistency about them. UKIP have not suddenly gained 3% from Friday to Monday, nor have the Conservatives lost 2%. There is absolutely no change at all.
"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"
Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.
On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.
By the way, for the China experts out there - I need to get from Beijing to Shanghai and later from Hangzhou to Beijing (the other legs of the trip are sorted). I'd like to avoid using donors' money unnecessarily, but also don't want to spend a day travelling when I could be doing something useful. Do you advise taking a plane or the bullet train?
You want to fly on a Chinese plane?
Going all the way by China Air anyway, it's cheaper. People don't donate to us so I can reduce my risk from 0.000001% to 0.00001%. Suppose I'd make the same choice if I was going at my own expense - the risky bit is crossing the road to get to the Tube to Heathrow...
Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.
No Pitch is excellent for batting still, Root & Bell should be able to score here. THe question is - how many runs can we can get before over 170 so perhaps we can have a go at India this evening.
Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.
No Pitch is excellent for batting still, Root & Bell should be able to score here. THe question is - how many runs can we can get before over 170 so perhaps we can have a go at India this evening.
Surely the question is whether it will be possible to take 20 Indian wickets on this pitch? We really don't want another test match that gets through 2.5 innings in 5 days of tedium.
"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"
Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.
On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.
Labour fundamentally dishonest about the EU is correct. They went along with the notional change from a "constitution" to a "tidying up" Lisbon Treaty and had the nerve to sign it without asking the British people. They went along with a Frenchman's idea that the purpose of the constitution/treaty was to make it so complex that nobody could understand it. The limits imposed on the current government's actions can largely be traced backed to Labour's wilful misrepresentations.
Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.
No Pitch is excellent for batting still, Root & Bell should be able to score here. THe question is - how many runs can we can get before over 170 so perhaps we can have a go at India this evening.
Hopefully Jos Butler will be in for at least 20 of those overs; if he's in top form we'll have well over 500 by 5pm
Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.
No Pitch is excellent for batting still, Root & Bell should be able to score here. THe question is - how many runs can we can get before over 170 so perhaps we can have a go at India this evening.
Surely the question is whether it will be possible to take 20 Indian wickets on this pitch? We really don't want another test match that gets through 2.5 innings in 5 days of tedium.
Hmm a good point. I think actually the best chance for 20 wickets is with an older pitch. Hence we should perhaps bat into day 3. Bat once, get 700 on the board and get 20 wickets in 7 sessions.
"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"
Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.
On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.
Well, I don't think there will be a Treaty of Troyes - nobody really wants to bother, and I don't think there's any great interest in moving fresh powers over either, with or without a treaty. But the Conservative position is to have a referendum in 2017 on this supposed treaty (which won't be ready yet) anticipating giving Britain various powers back (which won't happen to any significant degree) based on a British Government wish-list (which the Government declines to disclose). Asked if they'd have another referendum if a treaty actually emerges, perhaps with quite different terms, they decline to comment. How would you describe that?
By contrast to the Tories, UKIP's position is fairly straightforward. I disagree with it, but it's not weaselly, except arguably on the EEA/non-EEA position.
Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?
"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"
Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.
On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.
Well, I don't think there will be a Treaty of Troyes - nobody really wants to bother, and I don't think there's any great interest in moving fresh powers over either, with or without a treaty. But the Conservative position is to have a referendum in 2017 on this supposed treaty (which won't be ready yet) anticipating giving Britain various powers back (which won't happen to any significant degree) based on a British Government wish-list (which the Government declines to disclose). Asked if they'd have another referendum if a treaty actually emerges, perhaps with quite different terms, they decline to comment. How would you describe that?
By contrast to the Tories, UKIP's position is fairly straightforward. I disagree with it, but it's not weaselly, except arguably on the EEA/non-EEA position.
Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?
Nick, Nick, Nick, the proper reaction of an honest man accused of supporting a dishonest position is not to say, "Well, that chap over there, he is being dishonest too". The fact that someone else is not telling the whole truth does not give oneself permission of excuse to be knowingly misleading, even if you are a politician.
Ed Miliband’s problem is not so much that he looks like Wallace. He should look at the films of the great Nick Park to see what has gone wrong. As soon as he was elected leader of the Labour party, he woke up, pressed for assistance on his special gizmo, and then he was shot through a hatch in the floor into a sinister pair of automatic steel leggings that are moving him irresistibly away from Blairism and in a direction of Leftist irrelevance. He hasn’t got the wrong face – he’s wearing the wrong trousers! And who is the blinking-eyed penguin who is controlling him? It’s Len McCluskey and the unions, of course.
Ed Miliband is absolutely right to say that politics should be about ideas, and he is right to say that these should be more important than image. But the awful fact – confirmed by this speech – is that, frankly, Miliband’s image and photo-opportunities are the best things he has in his political programme.
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum.
That's not Labour party policy, Nick!
Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.
Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?
I reckon the pollsters have a real difficulty weighting properly for UKIP - I mean with Lab-Con you can look at 2010 voters, social and age profiles and come up with a decent weighting based for those factors.
UKIP is much harder, the now at least 10% of people saying they will vote UKIP - is % wise a much much greater change (300+%) than Lab 30 -> 36 % (+20%) or Con 37 -> 35 (-5%) so how do you work weightings for the lot now saying they will vote UKIP - if your sample is under-represented DEs, C2s do you need to up or downweight for UKIPpers ?
It's tricky and the assumptions that can be applied to other parties you simply can't work for UKIP - in the Friday Populus, 276 UKIP respondents were found and 131 Lib Dems. This apparently meant both were on 9%, which seemed ridiculous to me.
I'm surprised that Labour are being so obvious about it all...
I assume this is the Labour High Command's way of reassuring the troops that while the opinion polls are close and Ed is not viewed as PM material a Labour government is still odds on.
That they are having to be vocal about their master plan suggests there is alot more disquiet under the surface in the Labour party.
If that's the case then it is doubly stupid.
It's one thing for the blues to say vote UKIP get Ed, it is in their best interests to push that as a possibly outcome and I think it falls on deaf ears because UKIP really loathe Cameron. However, with Labour saying it I think it will concentrate the minds of small c conservatives who are thinking of voting UKIP. The Tories have everything they need to win back UKIP supporters, a referendum and Labour saying that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Ed as PM.
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
The demise of the Divine Right of Kings was effectively signalled by Charles I having the misfortune to mislay his head in 1649 and then for his granddaughter Mary to treacherously usurp her father in 1688.
The Stuarts continued to rule for many years to come despite the inter family spat.
Anne was the last Stuart monarch, reigning as recently as 1714. In fact she died almost exactly 300 years ago.
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum. It's irresponsible to offer referendums where the government thinks that one of the two options would be ruinous - that's why we don't have California-style referendums on e.g. abolishing local taxation or doubling schools expenditure - popular maybe, a good idea no.
If you disagree, fair enough. If it's crucial for you and you DON'T think that withdrawal would be ruinous and would like it offered with a government recommendation, you might wish to vote UKIP. If you would like an in/out referendum to vote in 2017 on a treaty whose terms you don't yet know, you might wish to vote Tory.
"The law will guarantee that no power can be transferred from Britain to the EU without an in/out referendum"
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
Not sure why you feel it's not clear, or that it would be an in/out referendum? The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before.
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum.
That's not Labour party policy, Nick!
Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.
Thanks Neil for making me go back to look at the very source I had used when I put my point to Nick.
(btw you are still winning the internet following your Gaza/farmers' market comment.)
Mr. Eagles, for once, you should emulate Caesar and show contempt for republicanism.
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I like her Majesty.
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
However bad he might be it won't be anywhere near as awful as a republic. We did try one once, remember, it was not a success.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
The demise of the Divine Right of Kings was effectively signalled by Charles I having the misfortune to mislay his head in 1649 and then for his granddaughter Mary to treacherously usurp her father in 1688.
The Stuarts continued to rule for many years to come despite the inter family spat.
Anne was the last Stuart monarch, reigning as recently as 1714. In fact she died almost exactly 300 years ago.
De Jure the last Stuart monarch was King Henry IX who died in 1807. He was the last surviving grandson of James VII/II of Scotland/England.
My advice, based on alot of experience, is to take the overnight train from Beijing to Shanghai (not the bullet train). You'll have a way more interesting journey and lose basically no time because you need to sleep. Board at 19:00, beers, eat, LIE DOWN ON A BED WITH A DUVET, sleep, arive at 07:00. It's awesome.
Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.'
It's either very confusing being a Labour PPC with all the policy U-turns or that's what Mr Palmer would like voters to think Labour's policy is on the EU.
My advice, based on alot of experience, is to take the overnight train from Beijing to Shanghai (not the bullet train). You'll have a way more interesting journey and lose basically no time because you need to sleep. Board at 19:00, beers, eat, LIE DOWN ON A BED WITH A DUVET, sleep, arive at 07:00. It's awesome.
I'll +1 that, on CHinese trains you get 3 types of tickets -
Seats - cheapest but uncomfortable for long journeys Hard sleepers - What I used when I went backpacking... Soft sleepers - Bit more but still great value, they looked very comfy from what I recall.
Comments
Morris Dancer is delighted to be a subject of Her Most Britannic Majesty and a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I have lots in common with people from around the world. I share Machiavelli's interest in classical history but that doesn't make me a Florentine.
"If the voters seriously thought that was what they were voting on then that would suggest that they don't have the necessary judgement and understanding to be entrusted with decisions like this."
Then count me among the thickos.
I took an interest in the campaign and I voted in 1975 on what I was assured was the issue. The few that argued we were voting for a political union were derided as conspiracy loons, and I believed the derision. More fool me then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10872552/Newark-by-election-Can-David-Cameron-hold-back-Ukips-purple-tide.html
Breaking his tuition fees pledge could cost Nick Clegg his seat – if Sheffield Hallam students rally against him at the polls
http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2014/jul/28/sheffield-hallam-students-vote-out-nick-clegg?CMP=twt_gu
But Labour isn't so clear. In particular, they write:
"We will introduce a new law to stop powers transferring to Brussels without the British people having a say."
Which sounds pretty much to me like a referendum doesn't it? So Lab is in favour of "in" hence no in/out referendum pledge but would have a - presumably in/out - referendum under certain conditions.
Hmm.
As I said earlier, good luck to the population if they decide this is the party for them.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/the-17-seats-at-risk-in-the-south-east/
Ecclesall maybe some - a mix perhaps..
Look at the Queen pretending to be one of us. Don't be fooled
However much the royal family tries to update itself, it's inescapable that its days should be numbered
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/27/queen-photobombing-monarchy-republicanism?CMP=twt_gu
Monarchy's delightful. The alternative would be having godawful presidents, to paraphrase Francis Uqurthart.
I'm going to translate that bit of malclogese as a full apology for suggesting that I have multiple identities.
I graciously accept your apology and forgive you.
However... Labour will make a lot of coded promises in the manifesto. It will fudge and promise the moon and sixpence - or rather lots of different moons and sixpences to different groups. It will of course pretend there is a magic porridge pot of money available to tax without any pain to anyone, except all those evil rich people, to pay for all its fanciful spending.
At times like this we should remember that the taxation of pension funds was not in its 1997 manifeto.
http://snowflake5.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-olympic-opening-ceremony-vs-jubilee.html
But the Divine Rights of Kings. nah.
Terrible principle.
I really do worry about how terrible Prince Charles as Monarch will be.
If MP's are unwilling to decide issues what the hell are they doing there. Further MP's voting for any referendum should have their salary docked by at least 50% so as to encourage them in further thought.
The only exception being for nation forming such as the present Scottish referendum where clearly the sight of Wee Eck sucking lemons for most of late September is obviously worthy of a minor breach of principle.
Mr. Eagles (2), Miss Snowflake left before I arrived, but ColinW's Mum was amongst the very best posters to have offered contributions here.
I assume this is the Labour High Command's way of reassuring the troops that while the opinion polls are close and Ed is not viewed as PM material a Labour government is still odds on.
That they are having to be vocal about their master plan suggests there is alot more disquiet under the surface in the Labour party.
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.
Senior figures in Labour's transport team will suggest in Glasgow on Monday that employees and passengers could take a far greater role in running the railways, including bidding for specific franchises such as ScotRail.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/28/labour-co-operatives-mutuals-railway-franchises
Vote Silly, Get Milli.
As for the Devine Right of Kings the English threw out that nasty imported idea (quite against the English tradition) when it threw out the Stuarts. Do try and keep, up Mr Eagles.
Explains why they are getting rid of the quiet coaches.
End of the line for quiet carriages on trains: Rail operators axe designated areas because they 'cause rows between passengers'
Cross Country is scrapping quiet carriages on long distance routes
First Great Western are also converting quiet first class carriages
Staff finding it difficult to mediate between customers in the carriages
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706201/End-line-quiet-carriages-trains-Rail-operators-axe-designated-areas-cause-rows-passengers.html
Last 10 ovs 49/0
Scoring starting to pick up now as well as having bags of wickets in hand.
Britain First founder quits over mosque invasions which attract ''racists and extremists''
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-first-founder-quits-over-3923810
I wonder if any of those senior figures know how much it costs to put in a bid and how much it would cost to even form an entity capable of putting together a bid. File that one under daft political ideas that haven't been thought through but espoused for effect.
Just like every other policy initiative that Labour have put forward, really. No substance to them, they fall apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
The Stuarts continued to rule for many years to come despite the inter family spat.
We have made two adjustments to our weighting process for this poll. First, we have rebalanced our sample to reflect voting patterns in the recent European elections. Although turnout was low among the general population, it was high among the respondents to this survey and it seems prudent to take account of this very recent voting ehaviour when seeking a politically balanced sample. The effect of this is to slightly increase the gap between Yes and No.
Second, having observed in several recent polls that people born in Scotland have quite different attitudes to independence from those born elsewhere, and that Scots-born tend to be somewhat underrepresented in samples, we have also weighted the data based on country of
birth. The effect of this is to slightly narrow the gap between Yes and No. In summary, the net effect of these two new weights is statistically insignificant, as indeed are the variations in referendum voting intention between our recent polls,
http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F4108w12.pdf
Whatever next? Citizens taking a greater role in deciding on membership of Europe?
Just like every other policy initiative that Labour have put forward, really. No substance to them, they fall apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
But Labour is all about substance - they don't care about image. They are competing on their own terms.
(Yes, it is another empty policy announcement - all about presenting an image but with no details, no real plan behind it - it is unworkable. Just as unworkable when it was trailed a few days ago via Nick Robinson.)
Think of it as being like the "Big Society" (except, without an investigation by the charities commission)
On how early republics selected their leaders: they tended to go for collective leadership. The Commonwealth's executive body was the Council of State which tended to have a rotating chair.
I'd love to be able to deal with those jumped up bell ends that are called revenue protection officers
I would take the "plane" if they let you drive the train! :-)
But as you say in other posts, we aren't offering an in/out referendum. It's irresponsible to offer referendums where the government thinks that one of the two options would be ruinous - that's why we don't have California-style referendums on e.g. abolishing local taxation or doubling schools expenditure - popular maybe, a good idea no.
If you disagree, fair enough. If it's crucial for you and you DON'T think that withdrawal would be ruinous and would like it offered with a government recommendation, you might wish to vote UKIP. If you would like an in/out referendum to vote in 2017 on a treaty whose terms you don't yet know, you might wish to vote Tory.
My favourite one, was the one who said "It is is our policy to take possession of your ticket at the end of your journey."
Me: I have a weekly ticket, it has another 6 days to run.
Numpty: I'm sorry, you need to wait here, whilst I speak to a supervisor
Me: Sorry, I'm late and I can't wait here because you don't know your rectum from your elbow
Numpty: If you don't wait here, I'll get the police.
Me: Please do get them.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (=), Con 33 (-2), LD 9 (=), UKIP 12 (+3) Oth 9 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140728
I wonder how the British public would assess, for example, MiFID II/MIFIR? Does it count if the policy will be introduced post a Lab 2015 win (horrific thought as this latter is)? Or will it be a Cam-style, "it was already ratified"?
"The commitment is that if a treaty transferred new powers to Brussels we'd have a referendum on whether to agree to it. If the result was "no" we'd veto the change and carry on as before"
Howls of derisive laughter, there Nick. The idea that after months, probably years of patient negotiations to produce the Treaty of Troyes (to pick a name), the UK government would or indeed could just veto it and try and carry on as before is just risible, as you well know.
On top of which, as you also well know, the Treaty of Lisbon was framed in such a way that further treaties involving the consent of member states are most unlikely as they are no longer needed. The position of Labour on this issue is fundamentally dishonest.
Only way you can get Gary Ballance out.
Yet another duff decision that could have been fixed by DRS.
Lab 348
Con 259
Lib 18
Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Majority 46
Labour will offer cooperatives and mutually-owned companies the chance to run Britain's rail services.'
New career opportunity for Rev Flowers?
We await news from His Lordship.
#MegaPollingMonday
By contrast to the Tories, UKIP's position is fairly straightforward. I disagree with it, but it's not weaselly, except arguably on the EEA/non-EEA position.
Populus: bouncy as usual, though Pulpstar's analysis is curious - why exactly do the weighted figures differ? Mildly interesting is that they've asked for preference by public/private sector. The difference is modest - Lab leads by 57-24 in the public sector, 43-30 in the private sector (the balance being that we lose among retired people). Do the Conservatives worry at all that they're so unpopular with people who are actually working?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWK7QLvuI-I
"An inverted pyramid of piffle."
Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.
UKIP is much harder, the now at least 10% of people saying they will vote UKIP - is % wise a much much greater change (300+%) than Lab 30 -> 36 % (+20%) or Con 37 -> 35 (-5%) so how do you work weightings for the lot now saying they will vote UKIP - if your sample is under-represented DEs, C2s do you need to up or downweight for UKIPpers ?
It's tricky and the assumptions that can be applied to other parties you simply can't work for UKIP - in the Friday Populus, 276 UKIP respondents were found and 131 Lib Dems. This apparently meant both were on 9%, which seemed ridiculous to me.
It's one thing for the blues to say vote UKIP get Ed, it is in their best interests to push that as a possibly outcome and I think it falls on deaf ears because UKIP really loathe Cameron. However, with Labour saying it I think it will concentrate the minds of small c conservatives who are thinking of voting UKIP. The Tories have everything they need to win back UKIP supporters, a referendum and Labour saying that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Ed as PM.
labour.org.uk/our-position-on-europe-in-five-bullet-points
fool that I am I didn't even look at the very next point (I quoted no.3 above).
Nick? Disingenuousness much?
Seriously surprised.
(btw you are still winning the internet following your Gaza/farmers' market comment.)
My advice, based on alot of experience, is to take the overnight train from Beijing to Shanghai (not the bullet train). You'll have a way more interesting journey and lose basically no time because you need to sleep. Board at 19:00, beers, eat, LIE DOWN ON A BED WITH A DUVET, sleep, arive at 07:00. It's awesome.
'That's not Labour party policy, Nick!
Labour party policy is to offer an in / out referendum when there are any proposals to transfer powers to the EU.'
It's either very confusing being a Labour PPC with all the policy U-turns or that's what Mr Palmer would like voters to think Labour's policy is on the EU.
Seats - cheapest but uncomfortable for long journeys
Hard sleepers - What I used when I went backpacking...
Soft sleepers - Bit more but still great value, they looked very comfy from what I recall.
Ed is crap is PM. As with every poll this weekend EICIPM