There is a degree of naivety on the behalf of the BOO brigade that an EU exit would somehow excuse the UK from European politics and for the first time in history we would somehow manage to escape the European sphere of influence.
If history shows us anything, it is that the UK has a massive interest in influencing the course of continental politics. The BOO have not said how they propose to do that outside the EU.
Mr. Charles, I quite agree. Loyalty works both ways. People can't criticise Cameron for not engaging with the backbenches when the backbenches have no willingness to engage and no restraint whatsoever on certain matters.
[Not saying Cameron isn't to blame for the situation, just that the blame is shared between him and some backbenchers].
Mr. Jonathan, if the UK left it would fundamentally alter the EU. It would not only shift the balance within the organisation but destroy the concept that, like the Mafia, you can join but never leave.
The EU's going to disintegrate sooner or later, and the eurozone will only hurry that process along. There's a rising level of integration without the corresponding democratic mandate.
Mr. Jonathan, if the UK left it would fundamentally alter the EU. It would not only shift the balance within the organisation but destroy the concept that, like the Mafia, you can join but never leave.
The EU's going to disintegrate sooner or later, and the eurozone will only hurry that process along. There's a rising level of integration without the corresponding democratic mandate.
Do you think a disintegration of the EU is in the UKs interest?
Most interesting thing from last night's discussion for me was that Charles is willing to concede the possibility of future Conservative gains in northern England to UKIP.
Which means any future Conservative government would need to be a coalition, either with UKIP or the LibDems.
In which case the Cameroons have permanently crippled the Conservative party.
I wonder how Avery would view Charles's defeatism.
I wouldn't blame the Cameron, except in that he has failed to address a problem that has been groing for 15 years: the Conservatives seem to have forgotten how to connect with the small businessman and the skilled working class (the "yeomanry" if you like - the backbone of England).
Both New Labour and the Conservatives became seduced by a corporatist vision of the world. They enjoyed hanging out with FTSE100 chairman and in supranational bodies rather too much, and have lost sight of what matters: creating a stable society in which people who are willing to work hard can make a decent living.
I don't like UKIP one bit. I think Farage is a fool, and God help us all if he gets anywhere near power. But they are just highlighting a problem: the political elites are disconnected from the country in a big way.
It's not a terminal problem, but clearly the Conservatives need to rethink their world view and rediscover what they are about. Labour has more of a luxury, in that their disaffected seem to go to NOTA rather than to another party, but there are signs that is changing as well.
There's the makings of a really good TV series in there on countries that don't legally exist, their origins and the problems they face. Kosovo, Transnistrian Moldova, Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia would all be good for inclusion.
Simon Reeve (one of the best travel 'presenters' imo) did almost exactly that with a series called "Places that Don't Exist'. It was before the days of constant TV regurgitation and internet archiving, so don't know how easy it would be to access now.
Mr. Jonathan, I think it's inevitable. What's in our interest is trying to minimise the pain (both for us and others) when it comes to pass.
I also don't believe there's an upside to the increasing level of integration within the eurozone without any democratic mandate for it, and without addressing or even acknowledgint the fundamental truth that the eurozone just can't work. The nations within it are too different in terms of size, economy and culture.
There is a degree of naivety on the behalf of the BOO brigade that an EU exit would somehow excuse the UK from European politics and for the first time in history we would somehow manage to escape the European sphere of influence.
If history shows us anything, it is that the UK has a massive interest in influencing the course of continental politics. The BOO have not said how they propose to do that outside the EU.
The world has changed Jonathan. It has become immeasurably smaller and 'Europe' has lost much of the threat and potential it had in previous centuries. Part of this is globalisation but much of it is due to the EU's own response to the changes - first and foremost to put up barriers and become a protectionist backwater.
It should never have come to this point but Churchill's quote about the choice between Europe and the Open Sea is even more apposite today than when he made it in 1944.
Mr. Divvie, I don't watch many travel programmes, but I might have seen that. I do remember a programme about Somaliland, which had (even then) its own currency and a far greater degree of cohesion and peace than Somalia.
Mr. Jonathan, I think it's inevitable. What's in our interest is trying to minimise the pain (both for us and others) when it comes to pass.
I also don't believe there's an upside to the increasing level of integration within the eurozone without any democratic mandate for it, and without addressing or even acknowledgint the fundamental truth that the eurozone just can't work. The nations within it are too different in terms of size, economy and culture.
A fractured Europe would be utterly catastrophic for us. You don't minimise the pain by making it more likely.
Previously she was rude about the leadership, and was kicked out. Within 10 days of being let back in she is being fundamentally disloyal to the party that got her elected.
While she, a single MP, may think that UKIP-Tory joint candidates are a good thing it is against party rules.
She should advocate to change in private, not in public. It's an utter contemptuous betrayal of everyone who worked so hard to get her elected. Deselection is the right way forward.
Would be interested in David Herdson's views though
Dorries is the perfect example but not for reasons Cammie will appreciate.
I said yesterday what was most incomprehensible was that she was booted out for her jungle nonsense when her pact lunacy is not only far more damaging but fundamentally at odds with her party. Any tory leader would stamp on that, not just Cammie. You can't stand for two different parties on a 'joint ticket' with two whips, it's bonkers.
The problem being Cammie was getting worried about how 'nasty' the continuing TV show exclusion appeared. He's almost as insecure about how things look to women voters as his background. So when he pulled her back in he was basically giving her free rein. To dump her again now will make it look like he has a personal grudge against her because of what she's said about him in the past about arrogant out of touch posh boys.
She is only a symptom however. The real disease is the attitude that if the tories are nice enough to the kippers they'll play nice back. No, they won't. That's just as deluded as thinking mere insults from Cammie will stop them.
Mr. Jonathan, I think it's inevitable. What's in our interest is trying to minimise the pain (both for us and others) when it comes to pass.
I also don't believe there's an upside to the increasing level of integration within the eurozone without any democratic mandate for it, and without addressing or even acknowledgint the fundamental truth that the eurozone just can't work. The nations within it are too different in terms of size, economy and culture.
A fractured Europe would be utterly catastrophic for us. You don't minimise the pain by making it more likely.
You minimise the pain by trying to make sure you are not directly in the firing line when it happens. The idea that being on the inside getting fried is better than being on the outside getting burnt is just plain daft.
On another note, as a Spurs fan I am trying very hard to put a positive spin on what will unfold today. The best I can come up with is that this time in about eight hours the whole thing will be over and another season in which Spurs threw away a Champions League place can be consigned to history; and, even better, there's three football-free months to come before the whole sorry process begins again. Today is a great day!
Arsenal's record without Arteta is not great, think it will be a draw up there and you lot will sneak it.
Inconceivable. Spurs will always find a way to mess up. The one season we didn't was when we were up against Man City, the only other side in the league that can come close to our record of self-inflicted wounds and let-downs.
Spurs qualified last year under "Arry" until Chelsea had the temerity to win the whole shebang - bloody rotters !!
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
There is a degree of naivety on the behalf of the BOO brigade that an EU exit would somehow excuse the UK from European politics and for the first time in history we would somehow manage to escape the European sphere of influence.
If history shows us anything, it is that the UK has a massive interest in influencing the course of continental politics. The BOO have not said how they propose to do that outside the EU.
Erm...,
By showing that free, sovereign states can exist within a globally competitive environment? Demonstrating that Europe does not have to be a monolithic "super-power" to be able to compete with the developing world? Allowing diverse solutions to be lab-tested within national boundaries?
I can understand that simple-minded socialism cannot grasp anything outside the norms of the hive but, you know, maybe competition between disparate and diverse solutions could offer more? The alternative is following the endless road to collective nirvana; a path oft' trodden by failed philosopies....
WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013 Polling industry dealt major blow in British Columbia provincial state election Last night was a very bad one for Adrian Dix and the New Democrats, who expected victory as much as the pollsters did. And with good reason: a stabilizing, maybe even growing, lead over the B.C. Liberals with hours to go before the polls opened. Instead, British Columbians collectively woke up and changed their minds and swung about 13 points towards Christy Clark. OR MORE LIKELY, SOMETHING DISASTROUSLY WRONG OCCURRED IN THE POLLING INDUSTRY.
There is an inquest going on over there with all polling organisations.
Also Liberals marred campaign with heavy negative adverts. Is that a foretaste of what we might expect from the parties in the next election here, the Cons could probably destroy UKIP with that?
PS Clarke lost her seat! Liberals soaring with the advent of Trudeau, may only be temporary.
Last time the Conservatives tried to attack UKIP, they ended up boosting them.
The dilemma is that attacking them reminds people that they exist, which boost their score, but not talking about them gives them a free run.
The solution is probably to hit them with everything they've got until a few months before the election, then put them on ignore.
The problem with that is that a lot of the Conservatives current supporters quite like UKIP, so they might be insulting their own supporters. Again.
I certainly see the problem. Maybe they should make a special UKIP attack unit with people like David Davis who can make the criticisms without ending up on the wrong side of a cultural wedge issue.
Maybe if the tories ask them nicely enough tory voters could put their mark next to UKIP AND the Conservative party at the ballot box and they can all live together as one big happy family.
This isn't a dig at you BTW EiT as you raise valid and interesting strategies. The thing is, however crazy the tories are acting over Europe and likely gay marriage next week, it is still as nothing compared to the barking mad insanity that some tories like Dorries seem to be harbouring over UKIP just because some of their views coincide with the kippers more than Cammie's. UKIP don't want to be best friends with tories. What they want is tory voters and as many of them as possible. They also aren't going to apologise for that or be reluctant to take them. Particularly when they appear to be so freely given.
Problem is Cammie has clearly given a masterclass in how to alienate his base and backbench MPs. As you said EiT, someone needs to ram it home that the kippers are not allies they are opponents and it can't be anyone from the chumocracy for obvious reasons.
Dorries is a very good example.
Previously she was rude about the leadership, and was kicked out. Within 10 days of being let back in she is being fundamentally disloyal to the party that got her elected.
While she, a single MP, may think that UKIP-Tory joint candidates are a good thing it is against party rules.
She should advocate to change in private, not in public. It's an utter contemptuous betrayal of everyone who worked so hard to get her elected. Deselection is the right way forward.
Would be interested in David Herdson's views though
Quite right. That's been the sort of shift that's been seen in recent weeks, from private grumblings that occasionally get reported and the occasional large rebellion, to outright defiance to, defection from, and comtempt for, the leadership and party as a whole. If I were a Tory who is not a UKIPer at heart I'd be super pissed.
It is good though that those who really wish they were UKIP, or that the Tories would essentially become UKIP, are finally being honest with themselves though.
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
Mr Stodge, to gain your support for BOO, we'd have to show that it would make you and Mrs Stodge wealthier? At least that's more honest than most Europhiles.
A proof is a tough ask. You accept that the EU doesn't work very well at the moment, and represents an expensive extra layer of corrupt bureaucracy. Its original purpose, to provide a 1950's solution to a 1930's problem (Germany) has been and gone. Free trade areas are getting less important---look at the % of govt revenue that comes from import duty; it is trivially small. The internet is now more important than free trade areas. EU requirement for ever-closer-union by definition requires a common currency. If the Euro had never been invented, we'd all be better off---including you and Mrs Stodge.
An increasing number of UK economists and politicians recognise that giving notice to quit the EU should not worry any of us. It would not be merely humouring 'loons and headbangers', but a positive act, which would remove uncertainty at a stroke. As a good European, you would be pleased that it would be also good for Europe, as they'd have to re-design their edifice to take more account of their people.
Thanks for the response, David. I'm not sure if I'm being "honest" or, like many other people, acting on motivated self-interest. I don't see why I should be worse off simply to indulge those who want us out of the EU but I take a lot of the statistics bandied around on both sides with a bucket of salt. One of the inevitabilities of the EU is that the wealthier countries would have to support the poorer ones just as the wealthier regions of the UK subsidise the poorer. As a Londoner, I should argue for London to leave both the UK and the EU on that basis but I don't. I'm altruistic enough to know that in the end impoverishing my neighbour will only come back to bite me in the long run so, yes, I accept that in the EU the UK and Germany as the successful economies should be contributing more to support the poorer nations.
That doesn't condone corruption and I fully agree that much needs to be done to address the failings of the institutions some of which have been appalling. The concept of a common currency, widely slated on here, isn't without some merit and I could certainly envisage a number of countries within the EU adopting a common currency and it working well for them. However, the "one size fits all" wasn't ever going to work. A "northern Euro" might actually work very well for example and would be worth serious consideration.
I don't agree that we should simply give notice without an informed and comprehensive debate as to where our economic future lies. Do we look at the EEA, NAFTA or, as you suggest, none of the above? What would be the actual consequences for business and the consumer of us no longer being part of the European Union? All I hear from the BOO side is high-level rose-tinted images of utopian prosperity if only we could rid ourselves of Brussels. To paraphrase, "they would say that, wouldn't they?". My argument is that if it were so positive and easy, we'd have done it which makes me think there are some downsides which, understandably, the BOO side don't want to talk about or haven't considered.
I don't think having an objective assessment of the implications of any course of action is an unreasonable starting-point for debate even if both sides accept that their course of action has some negative consequences. I could be persuaded to vote to leave the EU but no one has come anywhere near that at this stage.
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
I agree, but then we are talking about politicians who, as a group, have never been renowned for either their intelligence or their honesty.
There's the makings of a really good TV series in there on countries that don't legally exist, their origins and the problems they face. Kosovo, Transnistrian Moldova, Northern Cyprus and Abkhazia would all be good for inclusion.
Simon Reeve (one of the best travel 'presenters' imo) did almost exactly that with a series called "Places that Don't Exist'. It was before the days of constant TV regurgitation and internet archiving, so don't know how easy it would be to access now.
He has a new show starting tonight on BBC about Australia.
I saw his show on Cuba last year... V interesting how the people react to the govt letting the genie out of the bottle there
But the most amazing thing for me is that he is 40-41, looks much younger than that
Mr Stodge, to gain your support for BOO, we'd have to show that it would make you and Mrs Stodge wealthier? At least that's more honest than most Europhiles.
A proof is a tough ask. You accept that the EU doesn't work very well at the moment, and represents an expensive extra layer of corrupt bureaucracy. Its original purpose, to provide a 1950's solution to a 1930's problem (Germany) has been and gone. Free trade areas are getting less important---look at the % of govt revenue that comes from import duty; it is trivially small. The internet is now more important than free trade areas. EU requirement for ever-closer-union by definition requires a common currency. If the Euro had never been invented, we'd all be better off---including you and Mrs Stodge.
An increasing number of UK economists and politicians recognise that giving notice to quit the EU should not worry any of us. It would not be merely humouring 'loons and headbangers', but a positive act, which would remove uncertainty at a stroke. As a good European, you would be pleased that it would be also good for Europe, as they'd have to re-design their edifice to take more account of their people.
Thanks for the response, David. I'm not sure if I'm being "honest" or, like many other people, acting on motivated self-interest. I don't see why I should be worse off simply to indulge those who want us out of the EU but I take a lot of the statistics bandied around on both sides with a bucket of salt. One of the inevitabilities of the EU is that the wealthier countries would have to support the poorer ones just as the wealthier regions of the UK subsidise the poorer. As a Londoner, I should argue for London to leave both the UK and the EU on that basis but I don't. I'm altruistic enough to know that in the end impoverishing my neighbour will only come back to bite me in the long run so, yes, I accept that in the EU the UK and Germany as the successful economies should be contributing more to support the poorer nations.
That doesn't condone corruption and I fully agree that much needs to be done to address the failings of the institutions some of which have been appalling. The concept of a common currency, widely slated on here, isn't without some merit and I could certainly envisage a number of countries within the EU adopting a common currency and it working well for them. However, the "one size fits all" wasn't ever going to work. A "northern Euro" might actually work very well for example and would be worth serious consideration.
I don't agree that we should simply give notice without an informed and comprehensive debate as to where our economic future lies. Do we look at the EEA, NAFTA or, as you suggest, none of the above? What would be the actual consequences for business and the consumer of us no longer being part of the European Union? All I hear from the BOO side is high-level rose-tinted images of utopian prosperity if only we could rid ourselves of Brussels. To paraphrase, "they would say that, wouldn't they?". My argument is that if it were so positive and easy, we'd have done it which makes me think there are some downsides which, understandably, the BOO side don't want to talk about or haven't considered.
I don't think having an objective assessment of the implications of any course of action is an unreasonable starting-point for debate even if both sides accept that their course of action has some negative consequences. I could be persuaded to vote to leave the EU but no one has come anywhere near that at this stage.
Personally I think that has already been made quite clear. By leaving the EU our relationship with the rest of Europe would automatically revert to that of an EEA member since we are already a member of that organisation. This in itself is a huge improvement on the current situation and would then allow breathing space for us to discuss what we want to do next.
When the ship is sinking and you have a lifeboat available you don't stop for too long to worry about which shore you are eventually going to land on. You take the opportunity available, get into the lifeboat and then start making plans.
The suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would lead to a 'fractured Europe' is bizarre.
There may be a good case to be made that our continuing membership of the EU is, on balance, of benefit to the UK.
But apart from giving a 'warm feeling' to europhiles, one hasn't been made. (This is not to under-value 'warm feelings'. The USP of insurance companyies is selling such warm feelings. And that is a very successful industry).
It's also pretty much the BOO position which is why it's now causing so much trouble for the tory party.
The days of EU splits being all about Eurosceptics and Europhiles are over. It's now fundamentally about OUT or IN. Portillo let the cat out of the bag when he said what was the point of Euroscepticism if it didn't eventually lead to OUT.
In the eyes of Farage and the kippers if you aren't BOO you're basically as good as a Europhile and that view is gaining ground in the tory party where it will prove very dangerous for the leadership. Now and in the future.
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
The Tories can't find inner peace until they have fought the class war in the open that they are fighting behind the scenes. As the rise of UKIP has little to do with Europe so the attacks on Cameron are more about class and the chums inability to win the last election as they are about policy.
Yup - that's what I said further down the the thread. The EU is a proxy for a wider fight within the Conservative Party. If it really were just about a referendum, what Cameron has promised should have been enough. I understand why UKIP won't accept that, but it makes absolutely no sense that Tory MPs and members will not either. It seems to me they lack the guts to fight their corner out in the open or to take the plunge and move over to UKIP. Either option would put their (mostly) safe seats in dire peril. Weak, weak, weak, as someone once said.
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
As the rise of UKIP has little to do with Europe so the attacks on Cameron are more about class and the chums inability to win the last election as they are about policy.
The ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll says:
"44 per cent want an “in/out” referendum immediately,"
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
As the rise of UKIP has little to do with Europe so the attacks on Cameron are more about class and the chums inability to win the last election as they are about policy.
The ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll says:
"44 per cent want an “in/out” referendum immediately,"
It's also pretty much the BOO position which is why it's now causing so much trouble for the tory party.
The days of EU splits being all about Eurosceptics and Europhiles are over. It's now fundamentally about OUT or IN. Portillo let the cat out of the bag when he said what was the point of Euroscepticism if it didn't eventually lead to OUT.
In the eyes of Farage and the kippers if you aren't BOO you're basically as good as a Europhile and that view is gaining ground in the tory party where it will prove very dangerous for the leadership. Now and in the future.
It is also the position that recognises the reality of the EU and our relationship with it. Cameron will utterly fail to get any concessions from the EU because that is utterly against the nature of the beast. His position as such - and the previous positions such as 'In Europe not run by Europe' are fundamentally dishonest. You either accept the EU on its own terms or you leave.
Mr. Jonathan, I disagree with you in several ways.
Firstly, there is no dichotomy between a Europe with an EU and a fractured Europe. We have peaceful relations with the US and Canada without the EU; why not with France and Germany?
Secondly, if something's inevitable then wishing it away achieves nothing.
Thirdly, if pain is greater the longer it's put off (cutting a deficit, say...) then the responsible thing is to tear the plaster off sooner, rather than later. Ripping up leg hair might hurt, but it's better than tearing off skin.
Mr. Observer, I agree wholeheartedly. There's a number of blue backbenchers who work prefer the sanctity of uncompromised ideals in the purity of opposition, without having to muddy their hands with the dirty business of governing.
If they kick off so much that the country's led by either Miliband or Miliband & Clegg (hardly a force for EU-scepticism) then all they're effectively working *for* Brussels.
The only realistic way we'll get a referendum is for Cameron to win a majority. His backbenchers will then be in the perfect position to politely deliver a request for such a vote, which he'll go ahead with or not (and, if not, the 1922 Committee will end his tenure as Conservative leader and PM).
I agree. If you believe the EU is a major issue and having a say on our continued membership is a major priority for you the Tories are your only sensible bet in 2015. That many right wing Tories are not willing to let Dave just get on with things on that basis tells everyone very clearly that the EU is not the real issue.
No it doesn't. It simply tells you that Dave is not considered credible or trustworthy. A win at the next election for a Tory leader who has no intention of acting honestly on the issue of the EU and who will do everything he can to prevent the people having a proper say on the matter would actually be the very worst outcome for Eurosceptics. Not only would they be no clioser to achieving their aims but they would again have delayed replacing the Europhile leader with someone more in tune with the country and the party. Cameron winning the next election would set back any chance of us leaving the EU by many more years than Ed winning.
I can see that makes sense as a UKIP posiiton. But if you are a right wing Tory MP or member and you believe that, surely you are in the wrong party or you should be challenging Cameron's leadership openly and with the aim of getting him replaced. To do anything else is, surely, completely destructive and dishonest.
As the rise of UKIP has little to do with Europe so the attacks on Cameron are more about class and the chums inability to win the last election as they are about policy.
The ICM/Sunday Telegraph poll says:
"44 per cent want an “in/out” referendum immediately,"
The suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would lead to a 'fractured Europe' is bizarre.
Why? Do you think that Germany or France would not/should not be allowed to follow the UK? It would be hypocritical to support BOO without at least admitting a model would be created for others to follow.
The suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would lead to a 'fractured Europe' is bizarre.
Why? Do you think that Germany or France would not/should not be allowed to follow the UK? It would be hypocritical to support BOO without at least admitting a model would be created for others to follow.
Mr. Jonathan, I disagree with you in several ways.
Firstly, there is no dichotomy between a Europe with an EU and a fractured Europe. We have peaceful relations with the US and Canada without the EU; why not with France and Germany?
Hmmm. Go to a library.
Secondly, if something's inevitable then wishing it away achieves nothing.
It is not remotely inevitable.
Thirdly, if pain is greater the longer it's put off (cutting a deficit, say...) then the responsible thing is to tear the plaster off sooner, rather than later. Ripping up leg hair might hurt, but it's better than tearing off skin.
Most interesting thing from last night's discussion for me was that Charles is willing to concede the possibility of future Conservative gains in northern England to UKIP.
Which means any future Conservative government would need to be a coalition, either with UKIP or the LibDems.
In which case the Cameroons have permanently crippled the Conservative party.
I wonder how Avery would view Charles's defeatism.
I wouldn't blame the Cameron, except in that he has failed to address a problem that has been groing for 15 years: the Conservatives seem to have forgotten how to connect with the small businessman and the skilled working class (the "yeomanry" if you like - the backbone of England).
Both New Labour and the Conservatives became seduced by a corporatist vision of the world. They enjoyed hanging out with FTSE100 chairman and in supranational bodies rather too much, and have lost sight of what matters: creating a stable society in which people who are willing to work hard can make a decent living.
I don't like UKIP one bit. I think Farage is a fool, and God help us all if he gets anywhere near power. But they are just highlighting a problem: the political elites are disconnected from the country in a big way.
It's not a terminal problem, but clearly the Conservatives need to rethink their world view and rediscover what they are about. Labour has more of a luxury, in that their disaffected seem to go to NOTA rather than to another party, but there are signs that is changing as well.
I agree with much of that.
As I once said you're the man Cameron should have been.
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
This is why I now think having a general election as soon as possible might be in the Conservative party's interest.
The longer the present disconnect continues between establishment and people the stronger UKIP will become and it will be the Conservative party which loses the most from that.
Mr. Jonathan, whilst I'm quite aware modern history isn't my forte I find the notion that the EU has stopped another world war fanciful. The fact is that all sides were desperate to avoid a war. The EU is a symptom of that, not the cause preventing war itself.
I'm perplexed as to how the end of the EU would equate to the severance of a limb. What would we be losing? The ability of foreigners to force laws upon us? A free market can be had through bilateral or multilateral trade deals, there is no need or desire for political power to be centred in Belgium.
The EU has not had audited accounts for well over a decade. There is no European demos, and even if there were the president and high representative and every single commissioner is not elected. Its economic policy (the eurozone) has been dictated by blind ideology and EU-philia which has led to a sovereign debt crisis.
The suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would lead to a 'fractured Europe' is bizarre.
Why? Do you think that Germany or France would not/should not be allowed to follow the UK? It would be hypocritical to support BOO without at least admitting a model would be created for others to follow.
It must be galling for europhiles that Farage is easily the most popular UK politician on the Continent.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
It is also the position that recognises the reality of the EU and our relationship with it. Cameron will utterly fail to get any concessions from the EU because that is utterly against the nature of the beast. His position as such - and the previous positions such as 'In Europe not run by Europe' are fundamentally dishonest. You either accept the EU on its own terms or you leave.
Actually I had thought the BOO position was even more stark in that not only do they consider it can't be reformed but that future closer political union was inevitable, undesirable and undemocratic.
IN has their own case which involves stating the benefits they consider the EU offers and disadavantages they see as not being in it while countering that any institution can be reformed with sufficient political will and that the EU elections are democratic.
Either way the debate has moved on and sooner or later the tory party will have to tackle that shift head on. I suspect after 2015.
More turbulent ex-chancellors, this time in the Sunday Post of all places. A sad state of affairs when a politician's admission of past dishonesty is strangely comforting.
'HEALEY ADMITS OIL TAX COVER-UP
The former Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, has admitted his Government played down the value of Scotland’s oil reserves in the 1970s because of the threat of nationalism. Now Lord Healey of Riddlesden, the Labour peer said tax receipts from oil is the biggest factor behind Westminster opposition to both next year’s and the 1979 independence referendum. The 95-year-old also claimed the Westminster parties are “worried stiff” about Scots voting Yes in next year’s poll because of the valuable income from the North Sea. Meanwhile he joined former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson in backing a bid for the UK to quit the European Union. Lord Healey said the UK would “suffer enormously” without the billions of pounds of tax from North Sea oil. He said: “I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it. I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it [independence], they should have it and we would just need to adjust. But I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent. Yes, I would think so… with the oil.”'
I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on here, but is the current outbreak of Tory BOOism related to people scared of being deselected if they disappoint their local parties, and will it calm down once the Westminster selection decisions have been made?
Interesting counterfactual: Cameron SHOULD have called a referendum on Lisbon, yes, even after the event.
He should have made this a deal-breaker with the Lib Dems. You want an AV referendum? - we get a Lisbon referendum. It would have been very hard for Clegg to say No, given that the Lib Dems had an EU vote in their manifesto. And they were desperate for AV. So I reckon they would have agreed.
If Cameron had got that vote, several things would have ensued:
1. This would have astonished, in a good way, every sentient Brit: a politician actually keeping his promises on a European referendum?? Unheard of. But amazing. Yay Cameron.
2. He would have secured his reputation as cast-iron Cam, the Man You Can Rely On. Instead of the gaylording ponceyboots we see today. This iron-cladding would have seen him through at least one more general election, I reckon.
3. The vote would have been won by the eurosceptics, of course. Causing chaos and confusion in our European relationship. But who cares, our European relationship is in chaos and confusion anyway, and is now actively in doubt for the first time: that was not the position pre-Lisbon.
4. After the No vote, Cameron could have set up committees and commissions to agonise over Europe for a few years, putting everything safely in the long grass. Eurosceptic steam would have been vented = no rise of UKIP. And no horrible split in the Tory party. Cameron the sceptic hero!
5. With Lisbon legally questioned, by the entire British electorate, Cameron would have been in a position to properly defend assaults on the City of London - which Lisbon explicity allowed.
Result: champagne for everyone. Result: big Tory win in 2015.
Your alternative history is fascinating SeanT, maybe you should write fantasies as Harry Turtledove does.
Re, Cammo. He didn't give that Cast Iron Guarantee the time of day. IIRC, he and Haige stood shoulder to shoulder giving short shrift to that promise, saying it was all too late, pity, alas, etc.
From that decisive moment everything flows: a failed election, the coalition, the Tory implosion.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
Civilisation started in Mesopotamia , Blair's wanton hi-tech assault on Mesopotamia didn't make him civilised.
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
As a family we have a feet in multiple camps: an urban family that lives in the country; that mixes with the landed aristocracy but is neither landed or titled; that runs a small business that is commonly perceived to be neither small nor a business; an archetypal English family that comes from Ireland and America.
Gives us an unusual perspective on the world. Separate but equal you might say ;-)
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
Civilisation started in Mesopotamia , Blair's wanton hi-tech assault on Mesopotamia didn't make him civilised.
I didn't say it did. But it didn't make him not civilised either.
People who deliberately target civilians or who base missile emplacements in hospitals and schools are uncivilised. We don't do that.
4. After the No vote, Cameron could have set up committees and commissions to agonise over Europe for a few years, putting everything safely in the long grass. Eurosceptic steam would have been vented = no rise of UKIP. And no horrible split in the Tory party. Cameron the sceptic hero!
So the British vote no to Lisbon, Lisbon had already passed so it hasn't been changed, the British haven't got to vote on EU membership, but Cameron has set up some committees.
That sounds like Cameron would be exactly where he is now, except that the BOO people, whether Con or UKIP, would be much, much angrier.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
Civilisation started in Mesopotamia , Blair's wanton hi-tech assault on Mesopotamia didn't make him civilised.
I didn't say it did. But it didn't make him not civilised either.
People who deliberately target civilians or who base missile emplacements in hospitals and schools are uncivilised. We don't do that.
Also remember that Blair's grosse aktion in Iraq led to the televised hanging of Sadaam. Blair's rule was barbaric.
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
I can't agree
Killing thousands of innocent people at great emotional and economic cost to our soldiers and national coffers(to achieve very little) vs killing a dozen or so evil guilty murderers doesn't make sense to me
Every poll reveals how fractured and factional we are - be it the union of Europe or the disunited Kingdom. This batch show that no one among the current mob of cloned dullards is capable of representing anything like a majority in this country.
The winner in all of this will be the cleverest advocate of decentralisation/devolution whilst on friendly terms.
To be fair to the Lib Dems. they have probably the most honest position on Europe. They are generally in favour on principle.
The Tories are in favour as long as it's profitable and Labour are in favour because they can sneak in back-door legislation on employee benefits without the major problem of having to put them in the manifesto (and lose).
UKIP are against because of perceived meddling (a big plus for Labour), and some Tories are against because the costs may outweigh the advantages.
But as this is politics, only the LDs can tell the truth - and no one is listening.
The suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would lead to a 'fractured Europe' is bizarre.
Why? Do you think that Germany or France would not/should not be allowed to follow the UK? It would be hypocritical to support BOO without at least admitting a model would be created for others to follow.
UKIP is not prescriptive, and if other countries wished to a have a different relationship with an altered EU, after we give notice to quit, fine.
It is so obvious to so many of us that the EU has no appetite for the UK to have a substantive re-negotiation of their deal with the EU. Cameron clearly has no enthusiasm for it either. Why any tories think the idea is significant, let alone a runner, remains a mystery.
Mr. Jonathan, whilst I'm quite aware modern history isn't my forte I find the notion that the EU has stopped another world war fanciful. The fact is that all sides were desperate to avoid a war. The EU is a symptom of that, not the cause preventing war itself.
Who said anything about war? A post EU Europe would be a mess on our doorstep that we would be desperate to influence. We would end up creating EU 2.0.
I'm perplexed as to how the end of the EU would equate to the severance of a limb. What would we be losing? The ability of foreigners to force laws upon us? A free market can be had through bilateral or multilateral trade deals, there is no need or desire for political power to be centred in Belgium.
The Balkanisation of Europe is no answer.
The EU has not had audited accounts for well over a decade. There is no European demos, and even if there were the president and high representative and every single commissioner is not elected. Its economic policy (the eurozone) has been dictated by blind ideology and EU-philia which has led to a sovereign debt crisis.
So why not argue for reform. Account audited and a clearer federation of powers?
to a have a different relationship with an altered EU, after we give notice to quit, fine.
It is so obvious to so many of us that the EU has no appetite for the UK to have a substantive re-negotiation of their deal with the EU. Cameron clearly has no enthusiasm for it either. Why any tories think the idea is significant, let alone a runner, remains a mystery.
It's a bet that the necessary reforms to the EU (for economic reasons) will require Treaty change - as Germany has said repeatedly - and that this will need approval from the UK voters. So they have to make it attractive to us.
Of course, may be there is a weasel way around a Treaty change, who knows.
On a more interesting topic ... that's the first time I've watched most of Eurovision for many years. When did it turn into the Judy Garland Appreciation Society?
I quite liked the Swedish hostess, though.
She looked at the crowd around her .... "Never mind, boys, you just haven't met the right girl yet."
As for the UK entry ... why do did we enter the old lady with a bus pass? It was Englebert last year so we have form. Who's up for next year? Paul McCartney?
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
On a more interesting topic ... that's the first time I've watched most of Eurovision for many years. When did it turn into the Judy Garland Appreciation Society?
I quite liked the Swedish hostess, though.
She looked at the crowd around her .... "Never mind, boys, you just haven't met the right girl yet."
As for the UK entry ... why do did we enter the old lady with a bus pass? It was Englebert last year so we have form. Who's up for next year? Paul McCartney?
Don't want to hijack the thread, but this stealthy Labour lie needs to be nailed before it gets a chance to prosper: the idea that invading Iraq might actually have been justified.
From pb yesterday:
"asjohnstone Posts: 41 Seriously, people are still bleating on about Iraq?
In hindsight I still think the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing, and will ultimately be seen as being in the best interests of the Iraqi people."
Funnily enough, this news came out of Iraq yesterday, though it got rather lost:
"The death toll in Iraq from four consecutive days of violence has reached at least 140 people, stirring fears that rising sectarian conflicts could lead the country into civil war."
So, more than ten years after Shock & Awe, Iraq is still immersed in blood and violence, and is now staring at a second civil war, that's if the first civil war, kicked off by us, ever really ended.
Yes, clearly, our invasion was "correct"; doubtless Blair and Brown and the Labour war cabinet acted in "the best interests of the Iraqi people".
" It became necessary to destroy Iraq to save it "
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Not having capital punishment makes us a civilised society.
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
I can't agree
Killing thousands of innocent people at great emotional and economic cost to our soldiers and national coffers(to achieve very little) vs killing a dozen or so evil guilty murderers doesn't make sense to me
Why does it have to be vs? Ideally we wouldn't go to war, but if you do you should try to not commit wanton war crimes (I have zero doubt we have committed some, torture for example), but it's very easy to just not execute people. It isn't a case of war is ok, killing murderers bad. We do not always go to war for justifiable reasons, and that is terrible, but ultimately by our own actions as a nation we cannot guarantee it not happen, but we can guarantee we won't execute people.
One can be mitigated, the other can be prevented, so they're not comparable in that sense, so it's just a matter of whether or not someone thinks killing prisoners is acceptable or worthwhile, not whether that is worse than going to war, and no-one is going to convince others of it, and sooner or later we'll get into absurd generalisations of 'So you approve of deadly murderers not paying for their crimes?' or 'SO you enjoy being a barbarian?' that sort of thing. It's a pointless debate.
Anyway, must be off, come on England, very tight test match at Lords.
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Interesting article on crime by Crimewatch's Nick Ross (plugging a book).
"... it really is true that opportunity makes the thief. To a vast extent it also creates the football hooligan, drink-driver, and knife-wielding youth too.
This is why crime rates rise, and it is how we make them fall."
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Don't know him, but know similar people (I grew up 10 years later in the same area).
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
The EU has not had audited accounts for well over a decade.
What are you thinking the EU should be doing here? They do audits, they do a bunch of checks, they always find some fraud in at least one of the member states administering some EU program or other, and they always qualify the accounts to say that they can't certify that all the money is being properly spent, because it isn't.
We could give greater powers to the Court of Auditors or the Commission to suspend payments to member states if they thought they were administering them badly, while still requiring those member states to make the contributions, but that would be mean more power for Brussels over Britain. Is that what you want?
I'm beginning to feel sorry for Cameron this morning,especially when you have so called tory supporting newspapers trying to get headlines you would think the guardian or mirror would be after.
Labour in standard spin we are not really on the left but in the centre, one nation thingy...yawn mode http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22585407. Hodge first of all ramping up the evils of (apparently just American) multinationals that pay sod all tax in the UK. Now MilliMuppet talking about getting multinationals to publish etc...normal vapid nonsense. Gordon and his proteges allowed the tax avoidance regime to persist and strengthen, I have zero faith that they will do anything substantial at all about it.
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Don't know him, but know similar people (I grew up 10 years later in the same area).
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
How much of Oxfordshire is still landed estates ?
There's plenty of big landed estates in the northern industrial areas but they are now educational institutions, museums, hotels or golf courses (for example SamCam's Normanby Hall).
Those that are still private residences tend to be owned by 'working class boy become self made businessman' such as Conservative donor and DFS owner Graham Kirkham. And I don't see Cameron being impressed by or impressing Monty Python style rich Yorkshiremen.
Tories should look on the bright side,after all these headlines about Dave and his chum clique he's just bound to do some hilarious "normal bloke" photo ops. Just enjoy the comedy, you'll miss him when he's gone
And I'm going to enjoy the comedy labour government in 2015,now that will be fun.
That's pretty much fixed in Lisbon. The parties put up candidates, the voters vote in the Euro elections and the winning side gets their guy.
I say "pretty much" because it's technically still possible that the member states will refuse to nominate the winner and defy the parliament to vote their own guy down, but it's pretty unlikely. Once the process has been followed for a couple of cycles it'll be baked into the system and it'll become pretty much impossible for them to fail to nominate the winner.
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Don't know him, but know similar people (I grew up 10 years later in the same area).
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
How much of Oxfordshire is still landed estates ?
There's plenty of big landed estates in the northern industrial areas but they are now educational institutions, museums, hotels or golf courses (for example SamCam's Normanby Hall).
Those that are still private residences tend to be owned by 'working class boy become self made businessman' such as Conservative donor and DFS owner Graham Kirkham. And I don't see Cameron being impressed by or impressing Monty Python style rich Yorkshiremen.
He grew up on the Hampshire/Berkshire borders.
I was a little further East (10-15 miles). But within, say, 25 miles of him you have - at least - Highclere (Downton), Manydown, Whiteacre, Ashe Park, Hackwood, Malshanger, Douai, Deane, Stratfield Saye, Daneshill, Vyne, Wherwell, Longparish. That's just the product of 5 minutes and doesn't really cover the area to the North and West of him because I really don't know that area well. I'm sure there are plenty more.
"The real Ukip problem for the Tories is that people are making a connection between membership of the EU and their own economic future.
They believe that their (or their children’s) job prospects are damaged by the influx of EU migration. They see the eurozone in constant crisis and fear the contagion may be contributing to the UK’s problems. They think that recovery is being delayed by absurd EU regulations and directives."
Robin Brant @robindbrant As Europe and Howe bubbles away gay marriage back on the agenda for 34 Tory assoc chairs handing protest letter to d street this hour.
Bet thats a cross section of old, male and beige.
There's suddenly a big political space opening up for Cleggism.
"Pretty much the same as the Tories, only we don't have to waste our time dealing with drama queens so we can get on with our fecking jobs".
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Don't know him, but know similar people (I grew up 10 years later in the same area).
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
How much of Oxfordshire is still landed estates ?
There's plenty of big landed estates in the northern industrial areas but they are now educational institutions, museums, hotels or golf courses (for example SamCam's Normanby Hall).
Those that are still private residences tend to be owned by 'working class boy become self made businessman' such as Conservative donor and DFS owner Graham Kirkham. And I don't see Cameron being impressed by or impressing Monty Python style rich Yorkshiremen.
He grew up on the Hampshire/Berkshire borders.
I was a little further East (10-15 miles). But within, say, 25 miles of him you have - at least - Highclere (Downton), Manydown, Whiteacre, Ashe Park, Hackwood, Malshanger, Douai, Deane, Stratfield Saye, Daneshill, Vyne, Wherwell, Longparish. That's just the product of 5 minutes and doesn't really cover the area to the North and West of him because I really don't know that area well. I'm sure there are plenty more.
Are these still owned by 'old' money or is it newer City money or a combination ?
And is there a similar trend to such estates becoming educational institutions, museums, hotels and golf courses as there is in the north ?
Hopefully this has already been mentioned, but the latest Scottish Panelbase poll shows the Yes campaign in the independence referendum cutting the gap to just eight points, and shows the SNP in a massive lead for Holyrood -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (n/c) No 44% (-2)
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2) Labour 30% (n/c) Conservatives 13% (+1) Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c) Labour 27% (+2) Conservatives 13% (+1) Greens 6% (-2) Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
Because Cameron is hidebound by his rural and Etonian upbringing.
Only a certain variety of rural upbringing - the landed gentry, 'doff your cap peasant' variety. Certainly not the working class, small holdings rural of the type UKIP did well in at the local elections.
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Don't know him, but know similar people (I grew up 10 years later in the same area).
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
How much of Oxfordshire is still landed estates ?
There's plenty of big landed estates in the northern industrial areas but they are now educational institutions, museums, hotels or golf courses (for example SamCam's Normanby Hall).
Those that are still private residences tend to be owned by 'working class boy become self made businessman' such as Conservative donor and DFS owner Graham Kirkham. And I don't see Cameron being impressed by or impressing Monty Python style rich Yorkshiremen.
He grew up on the Hampshire/Berkshire borders.
I was a little further East (10-15 miles). But within, say, 25 miles of him you have - at least - Highclere (Downton), Manydown, Whiteacre, Ashe Park, Hackwood, Malshanger, Douai, Deane, Stratfield Saye, Daneshill, Vyne, Wherwell, Longparish. That's just the product of 5 minutes and doesn't really cover the area to the North and West of him because I really don't know that area well. I'm sure there are plenty more.
Are these still owned by 'old' money or is it newer City money or a combination ?
And is there a similar trend to such estates becoming educational institutions, museums, hotels and golf courses as there is in the north ?
Old money [including Victorian business]: Highclere (Carnarvon), Manydown (farming), Ashe Park (finance), Malshanger (mustard), Deane (finance), Stratfield Saye (Wellington) New money (finance): Whiteacre, Longparish New money (industrial): Wherwell Foreign investors: Hackwood Church: Douai
Vyne now national trust and Daneshill has been sold and build over. Dogmersfield is now the Four Seasons
There are a lot that have become schools and hotels, relatively fewer that have become museums.
Hampshire always had relatively few 'great houses' because it was so close to London and the Marquess of Winchester (the local magnate) was translated to the Duchy of Bolton and moved to the North. When Bolton became extinct, the Marquessette moved south again but had sold off lots of land (it was now a junior branch) and had less influence. The English links petered out in the 60s and the current (18th) Marquis is based in South Africa.
The Earldoms of Southhampton and Portsmouth looked south, while the Earls of Oxford looked to the Midlands. That meant that the National Trust never took over too many as a lot of the houses were more country manors than really high quality estates.
Robin Brant @robindbrant As Europe and Howe bubbles away gay marriage back on the agenda for 34 Tory assoc chairs handing protest letter to d street this hour.
Bet thats a cross section of old, male and beige.
There's suddenly a big political space opening up for Cleggism.
"Pretty much the same as the Tories, only we don't have to waste our time dealing with drama queens so we can get on with our fecking jobs".
Problem is there seems to be plenty of drama queens and general weirdos among the LibDem ranks.
And they prefer to waste their time talking about electoral reform and the House of Lords.
Not to mention the broken promise on tuition fees has damned the LibDems for a generation.
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
Hopefully this has already been mentioned, but the latest Scottish Panelbase poll shows the Yes campaign in the independence referendum cutting the gap to just eight points, and shows the SNP in a massive lead for Holyrood -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (n/c) No 44% (-2)
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2) Labour 30% (n/c) Conservatives 13% (+1) Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c) Labour 27% (+2) Conservatives 13% (+1) Greens 6% (-2) Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
The scare stories and wheeling Brown out of the crypt have helped them big time then.
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
The odd thing about British politics right now is that there isn't anybody in the EPP at all. British voters will have no way to support the mainstream centre-right candidate for Commission President.
Classical liberalism is a niche market, but moderate conservatism isn't. It's maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. That's why the Conservative Party is currently split over gay marriage and EU membership, rather than everybody just opposing gay marriage and EU membership.
If the Tories can't fill that space any more, well, politics abhors a vacuum...
A disastrous performance by the Kiwis at Lords. Less, I think, poor batting than a much-improved England performance benefitting from a nice humid atmosphere encouraging plenty of movement.
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Still civilians and if anyone looked back over British history I bet they could have a field day on civilians getting in the way. Its a fantasy just like the one that we are still a world power rather than a two bit backwater sliding ever further down the pecking order
There is a degree of naivety on the behalf of the BOO brigade that an EU exit would somehow excuse the UK from European politics and for the first time in history we would somehow manage to escape the European sphere of influence.
If history shows us anything, it is that the UK has a massive interest in influencing the course of continental politics. The BOO have not said how they propose to do that outside the EU.
Erm...,
By showing that free, sovereign states can exist within a globally competitive environment? Demonstrating that Europe does not have to be a monolithic "super-power" to be able to compete with the developing world? Allowing diverse solutions to be lab-tested within national boundaries?
I can understand that simple-minded socialism cannot grasp anything outside the norms of the hive but, you know, maybe competition between disparate and diverse solutions could offer more? The alternative is following the endless road to collective nirvana; a path oft' trodden by failed philosopies....
Spot on. Europe as a whole was much more innovative when it was like that. The corrupt monster-state sucks all the energy out. The only problem with it was all the wars but nukes solve that.
I see that silly old duffer Lord Howe has chimed up this morning.
I can't understand why these people such as Ken Clarke, Lord Mandelson, Lord Howe and Lord Heseltine, who were so completely and totally wrong about the Euro, are still taken seriously now.
By rights these supremely silly people should be totally irrelevent to national coversation - And in the case of Mandelson possibly run out of the country altogether...
The Wisdom index is NOT a poll. However, the public may not be that wrong in their perceptions. The LD probably will get around 15% in the election. I think the UKIP 16% is the generous one.
Otherwise, Labour's lead is between 6 - 11%. Normally, not so good. With the UKIP factor, not so bad !
Tories not hitting 30% in any poll. They could soon hit 25% if this "disunity" thing gets traction.
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Still civilians and if anyone looked back over British history I bet they could have a field day on civilians getting in the way. Its a fantasy just like the one that we are still a world power rather than a two bit backwater sliding ever further down the pecking order
Even by 2050, the UK will be in the top 6% of economies in the world.
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
The odd thing about British politics right now is that there isn't anybody in the EPP at all. British voters will have no way to support the mainstream centre-right candidate for Commission President.
Classical liberalism is a niche market, but moderate conservatism isn't. It's maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. That's why the Conservative Party is currently split over gay marriage and EU membership, rather than everybody just opposing gay marriage and EU membership.
If the Tories can't fill that space any more, well, politics abhors a vacuum...
Why is staying in the EU the moderate position? It's less mainstream in public opinion than leaving.
The EU has not had audited accounts for well over a decade.
What are you thinking the EU should be doing here? They do audits, they do a bunch of checks, they always find some fraud in at least one of the member states administering some EU program or other, and they always qualify the accounts to say that they can't certify that all the money is being properly spent, because it isn't.
We could give greater powers to the Court of Auditors or the Commission to suspend payments to member states if they thought they were administering them badly, while still requiring those member states to make the contributions, but that would be mean more power for Brussels over Britain. Is that what you want?
The EU, like any other government body, is perfectly entitled to control where it's own money is going. If they don't suspend payments to governments where money is going missing, we should do it in our payments to the EU. I was speaking to a Briton who has lived for a decade in Bulgaria and he was telling me it was outrageous how much money was wasted. I asked them if things were improving at all and his answer was "How can things improve when there is no expectation for things not to be corrupt?"
Yes and we have never bombed or blown up civilians, made mistakes with our drones, rendition etc and god knows what else we have not found out, UK likes to make out it is better than johnny foreigner but kid on as much as they like it is far from the truth.
Dresden for instance
Dresden was a legitimate military target - a major rail junction 60 miles from the Russian front. Berlin suffered much heavier bombing with fewer casualties - all down to the preparation of the local authorise - the Dresden Gaulieter was corrupt and incompetent.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
Still civilians and if anyone looked back over British history I bet they could have a field day on civilians getting in the way. Its a fantasy just like the one that we are still a world power rather than a two bit backwater sliding ever further down the pecking order
Absurd hyperbole - I detest when people proclaim that Britain is some piddling nothing which has delusions of world power., as it is arguing against something no rational personal claims is the truth in the first place. We know perfectly well we are not a world power, in the sense of a superpower. Yes, we may still try to do things, involve ourselves in things, which are more difficult for us to achieve now, or beyond us as it turns out, but that doesn't mean we somehow think we are still a superpower or something.
We are, however, still a significant power, and that other powers are or will eclipse us and we know that, does not mean we are not aware of this or that we cannot still contribute meaningfully and in a significant way.
Our politicians seem well aware of this fact as well, in fact, hence pussyfooting around involving us in things we clearly would like to involve ourselves in. The only fantasy being put about is that the British government or public are still somehow stuck in the 'scramble for Africa' phase of international relations in terms of our position on the world stage.
It's maddening to me. There's so much about this country that is not as great as it was or could be, but arrogance at our national importance (outside of pretensions at how much the Americans need us/like us) is not one of our problems, in fact we put ourselves down about the good things about the country, and mock our own influence to well beyond the actuality of it, and constantly worry about doing anything because we're so little and insignificant. To call that arrogance is misguided, insulting and just plain nonsensical, all to back up someone's narrative of how they like to think the nation is going.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for Cameron this morning,especially when you have so called tory supporting newspapers trying to get headlines you would think the guardian or mirror would be after.
The newspapers are so desperate to survive financially they would betray their grandmothers for 50p.
Tories not hitting 30% in any poll. They could soon hit 25% if this "disunity" thing gets traction.
Thats the weird thing, the "Tories" are NOT divided.
The bizarre, useless, Etonian fopocracy currently leading the party is divided from the other 90%. Then you still have the occasional Europhile from the 70's and 80's like Howe and Heseltine (people who have been wrong about pretty much everything for the past 40 years) given far more prominence by the media than they should and thus a party thats actually quite united around its euroscepticism looks massively divided.
Silly old duffers like Howe are really a side-show. The main issue is the leadership being so out of the touch with the vast majority of their party. Cameron was elected as Conservative leader pretending to be a eurosceptic but has turned out to be a profound europhile.
That's the main problem here... Well, that and the fact he is absoluely useless at politics, blew an unloseable general election, ran the worst election campaign for 30 years, is governing in the same manner in which he ran the worst election campaign in 30 years and showed absolutely no sign of understanding, nevermind acting decisively on, the importance of the UKIP county council result and the game changing moment Lord Lawson intervened in the european issue.
I've thought for some time that the Tories have got to get rid of Cameron and the fopocracy before the election. Cameron (and those around him) is the problem.
The next election is winnable for the Tories, but I can't see how they dare go into it with Cameron and Osborne leading the party - A D.I.V.O.R.C.E is looming and it was entirely unavoidable and is entirely down to Camerons complete uselessness as a politician.
If the wisdom index is driven by what the people in it think will happen then that will be influenced by what all the people around them are saying. I think this means any sudden changes will lag as it will take time for the individuals in the index to pick up the change among all the people they know.
Tories not hitting 30% in any poll. They could soon hit 25% if this "disunity" thing gets traction.
Cameron was elected as Conservative leader pretending to be a eurosceptic but has turned out to be a profound europhile.
Well, he wasn't elected on the basis that he must become UKIP as I recall, which is what so many of his doubters appear to be demanding, and not, it must be said, purely on matters relating to the EU, so I don't think that is the whole issue.
I think it's more that the Tories and to a lesser extent the public have moved on a bit from where Cameron was trying to take people, a significant number never liked it and detested the Coalition, and now that polling and elections have made Cameron weaker they smell blood in the water and are willing to blow their own kneecaps off if it means removing the Cameron growth on the heel of the Tory party, and his lack of authority has ensured Cameron has opened the door for all his other critics to join them in picking at the freshly created stump.
Comments
If history shows us anything, it is that the UK has a massive interest in influencing the course of continental politics. The BOO have not said how they propose to do that outside the EU.
[Not saying Cameron isn't to blame for the situation, just that the blame is shared between him and some backbenchers].
The EU's going to disintegrate sooner or later, and the eurozone will only hurry that process along. There's a rising level of integration without the corresponding democratic mandate.
Both New Labour and the Conservatives became seduced by a corporatist vision of the world. They enjoyed hanging out with FTSE100 chairman and in supranational bodies rather too much, and have lost sight of what matters: creating a stable society in which people who are willing to work hard can make a decent living.
I don't like UKIP one bit. I think Farage is a fool, and God help us all if he gets anywhere near power. But they are just highlighting a problem: the political elites are disconnected from the country in a big way.
It's not a terminal problem, but clearly the Conservatives need to rethink their world view and rediscover what they are about. Labour has more of a luxury, in that their disaffected seem to go to NOTA rather than to another party, but there are signs that is changing as well.
I also don't believe there's an upside to the increasing level of integration within the eurozone without any democratic mandate for it, and without addressing or even acknowledgint the fundamental truth that the eurozone just can't work. The nations within it are too different in terms of size, economy and culture.
It should never have come to this point but Churchill's quote about the choice between Europe and the Open Sea is even more apposite today than when he made it in 1944.
Why isn't Somaliland recognised internationally?
Dorries is the perfect example but not for reasons Cammie will appreciate.
I said yesterday what was most incomprehensible was that she was booted out for her jungle nonsense when her pact lunacy is not only far more damaging but fundamentally at odds with her party. Any tory leader would stamp on that, not just Cammie. You can't stand for two different parties on a 'joint ticket' with two whips, it's bonkers.
The problem being Cammie was getting worried about how 'nasty' the continuing TV show exclusion appeared. He's almost as insecure about how things look to women voters as his background. So when he pulled her back in he was basically giving her free rein. To dump her again now will make it look like he has a personal grudge against her because of what she's said about him in the past about arrogant out of touch posh boys.
She is only a symptom however. The real disease is the attitude that if the tories are nice enough to the kippers they'll play nice back. No, they won't. That's just as deluded as thinking mere insults from Cammie will stop them.
By showing that free, sovereign states can exist within a globally competitive environment? Demonstrating that Europe does not have to be a monolithic "super-power" to be able to compete with the developing world? Allowing diverse solutions to be lab-tested within national boundaries?
I can understand that simple-minded socialism cannot grasp anything outside the norms of the hive but, you know, maybe competition between disparate and diverse solutions could offer more? The alternative is following the endless road to collective nirvana; a path oft' trodden by failed philosopies....
It is good though that those who really wish they were UKIP, or that the Tories would essentially become UKIP, are finally being honest with themselves though.
That doesn't condone corruption and I fully agree that much needs to be done to address the failings of the institutions some of which have been appalling. The concept of a common currency, widely slated on here, isn't without some merit and I could certainly envisage a number of countries within the EU adopting a common currency and it working well for them. However, the "one size fits all" wasn't ever going to work. A "northern Euro" might actually work very well for example and would be worth serious consideration.
I don't agree that we should simply give notice without an informed and comprehensive debate as to where our economic future lies. Do we look at the EEA, NAFTA or, as you suggest, none of the above? What would be the actual consequences for business and the consumer of us no longer being part of the European Union? All I hear from the BOO side is high-level rose-tinted images of utopian prosperity if only we could rid ourselves of Brussels. To paraphrase, "they would say that, wouldn't they?". My argument is that if it were so positive and easy, we'd have done it which makes me think there are some downsides which, understandably, the BOO side don't want to talk about or haven't considered.
I don't think having an objective assessment of the implications of any course of action is an unreasonable starting-point for debate even if both sides accept that their course of action has some negative consequences. I could be persuaded to vote to leave the EU but no one has come anywhere near that at this stage.
I saw his show on Cuba last year... V interesting how the people react to the govt letting the genie out of the bottle there
But the most amazing thing for me is that he is 40-41, looks much younger than that
When the ship is sinking and you have a lifeboat available you don't stop for too long to worry about which shore you are eventually going to land on. You take the opportunity available, get into the lifeboat and then start making plans.
There may be a good case to be made that our continuing membership of the EU is, on balance, of benefit to the UK.
But apart from giving a 'warm feeling' to europhiles, one hasn't been made. (This is not to under-value 'warm feelings'. The USP of insurance companyies is selling such warm feelings. And that is a very successful industry).
The days of EU splits being all about Eurosceptics and Europhiles are over.
It's now fundamentally about OUT or IN. Portillo let the cat out of the bag when he said what was the point of Euroscepticism if it didn't eventually lead to OUT.
In the eyes of Farage and the kippers if you aren't BOO you're basically as good as a Europhile and that view is gaining ground in the tory party where it will prove very dangerous for the leadership. Now and in the future.
"44 per cent want an “in/out” referendum immediately,"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10066273/Lets-quit-EU-say-46-per-cent-of-voters-in-poll.html
UKIP are the only party offering that 44% what they want.
And we think letting the murderer of little Tia live, while bombing innocent Iraqis makes us civilised
Firstly, there is no dichotomy between a Europe with an EU and a fractured Europe. We have peaceful relations with the US and Canada without the EU; why not with France and Germany?
Secondly, if something's inevitable then wishing it away achieves nothing.
Thirdly, if pain is greater the longer it's put off (cutting a deficit, say...) then the responsible thing is to tear the plaster off sooner, rather than later. Ripping up leg hair might hurt, but it's better than tearing off skin.
As I once said you're the man Cameron should have been.
So if you can see these things why can't Cameron and his circle ?
Or do some of them understand but don't care.
This is why I now think having a general election as soon as possible might be in the Conservative party's interest.
The longer the present disconnect continues between establishment and people the stronger UKIP will become and it will be the Conservative party which loses the most from that.
I'm perplexed as to how the end of the EU would equate to the severance of a limb. What would we be losing? The ability of foreigners to force laws upon us? A free market can be had through bilateral or multilateral trade deals, there is no need or desire for political power to be centred in Belgium.
The EU has not had audited accounts for well over a decade. There is no European demos, and even if there were the president and high representative and every single commissioner is not elected. Its economic policy (the eurozone) has been dictated by blind ideology and EU-philia which has led to a sovereign debt crisis.
It must be galling for europhiles that Farage is easily the most popular UK politician on the Continent.
Italy's favourite son is an avid fan ;
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000169296
Taking all reasonable steps to avoid innocent casulties in a time of war makes us civilised.
So, yes.
IN has their own case which involves stating the benefits they consider the EU offers and disadavantages they see as not being in it while countering that any institution can be reformed with sufficient political will and that the EU elections are democratic.
Either way the debate has moved on and sooner or later the tory party will have to tackle that shift head on. I suspect after 2015.
'HEALEY ADMITS OIL TAX COVER-UP
The former Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, has admitted his Government played down the value of Scotland’s oil reserves in the 1970s because of the threat of nationalism.
Now Lord Healey of Riddlesden, the Labour peer said tax receipts from oil is the biggest factor behind Westminster opposition to both next year’s and the 1979 independence referendum.
The 95-year-old also claimed the Westminster parties are “worried stiff” about Scots voting Yes in next year’s poll because of the valuable income from the North Sea. Meanwhile he joined former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson in backing a bid for the UK to quit the European Union.
Lord Healey said the UK would “suffer enormously” without the billions of pounds of tax from North Sea oil. He said:
“I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it. I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it [independence], they should have it and we would just need to adjust. But I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent. Yes, I would think so… with the oil.”'
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2013/05/tory-meps-leader-richard-ashworth-and-ex-ukip-defector-marta-andreasen-deselected.html
I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going on here, but is the current outbreak of Tory BOOism related to people scared of being deselected if they disappoint their local parties, and will it calm down once the Westminster selection decisions have been made?
Re, Cammo. He didn't give that Cast Iron Guarantee the time of day. IIRC, he and Haige stood shoulder to shoulder giving short shrift to that promise, saying it was all too late, pity, alas, etc.
From that decisive moment everything flows: a failed election, the coalition, the Tory implosion.
EDITED
Civilisation started in Mesopotamia , Blair's wanton hi-tech assault on Mesopotamia didn't make him civilised.
As a family we have a feet in multiple camps: an urban family that lives in the country; that mixes with the landed aristocracy but is neither landed or titled; that runs a small business that is commonly perceived to be neither small nor a business; an archetypal English family that comes from Ireland and America.
Gives us an unusual perspective on the world. Separate but equal you might say ;-)
People who deliberately target civilians or who base missile emplacements in hospitals and schools are uncivilised. We don't do that.
That sounds like Cameron would be exactly where he is now, except that the BOO people, whether Con or UKIP, would be much, much angrier.
Also remember that Blair's grosse aktion in Iraq led to the televised hanging of Sadaam. Blair's rule was barbaric.
Killing thousands of innocent people at great emotional and economic cost to our soldiers and national coffers(to achieve very little) vs killing a dozen or so evil guilty murderers doesn't make sense to me
The winner in all of this will be the cleverest advocate of decentralisation/devolution whilst on friendly terms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18816421
To be fair to the Lib Dems. they have probably the most honest position on Europe. They are generally in favour on principle.
The Tories are in favour as long as it's profitable and Labour are in favour because they can sneak in back-door legislation on employee benefits without the major problem of having to put them in the manifesto (and lose).
UKIP are against because of perceived meddling (a big plus for Labour), and some Tories are against because the costs may outweigh the advantages.
But as this is politics, only the LDs can tell the truth - and no one is listening.
Of course, may be there is a weasel way around a Treaty change, who knows.
On a more interesting topic ... that's the first time I've watched most of Eurovision for many years. When did it turn into the Judy Garland Appreciation Society?
I quite liked the Swedish hostess, though.
She looked at the crowd around her .... "Never mind, boys, you just haven't met the right girl yet."
As for the UK entry ... why do did we enter the old lady with a bus pass? It was Englebert last year so we have form. Who's up for next year? Paul McCartney?
"If Dave cuts a deal with UKIP I’m outta here"
"Moderate Tories must tell Cameron to stop wobbling and that they will quit the party if he has any truck with Farage"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3768271.ece
(paywall)
But why is Cameron so hidebound to his background ?
And so contemptuous of people whose background didn't have his advantages.
Winner/popular contestant of The Voice?
One can be mitigated, the other can be prevented, so they're not comparable in that sense, so it's just a matter of whether or not someone thinks killing prisoners is acceptable or worthwhile, not whether that is worse than going to war, and no-one is going to convince others of it, and sooner or later we'll get into absurd generalisations of 'So you approve of deadly murderers not paying for their crimes?' or 'SO you enjoy being a barbarian?' that sort of thing. It's a pointless debate.
Anyway, must be off, come on England, very tight test match at Lords.
"... it really is true that opportunity makes the thief. To a vast extent it also creates the football hooligan, drink-driver, and knife-wielding youth too.
This is why crime rates rise, and it is how we make them fall."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326656/How-Jill-Dandos-death-convinced-know-crime-wrong-NICK-ROSS-tells-shocking-truth-murder-friend-real-cause-crime.html
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/crime-hardback
Nice place in the country, but not grand. Surrounded by landed estates, mingle with them at parties. You either obssess about being part of that ground (classic snobbery) or you say whatever
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2326817/Tories-frenzy--Soapbox-Ed-caught-pants-down.html
We could give greater powers to the Court of Auditors or the Commission to suspend payments to member states if they thought they were administering them badly, while still requiring those member states to make the contributions, but that would be mean more power for Brussels over Britain. Is that what you want?
There's plenty of big landed estates in the northern industrial areas but they are now educational institutions, museums, hotels or golf courses (for example SamCam's Normanby Hall).
Those that are still private residences tend to be owned by 'working class boy become self made businessman' such as Conservative donor and DFS owner Graham Kirkham. And I don't see Cameron being impressed by or impressing Monty Python style rich Yorkshiremen.
In an interview with BBC Radio Wales, Lord Howe warned that Mr Hague's stance over the euro could cost the party the next election.
Lord Howe criticised Mr Hague's policy of staying out of the single currency during this and the next Parliament.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/299294.stm
Of course, the BBC didn't remind the reader of this when giving Howe lots of publicity this morning.
I say "pretty much" because it's technically still possible that the member states will refuse to nominate the winner and defy the parliament to vote their own guy down, but it's pretty unlikely. Once the process has been followed for a couple of cycles it'll be baked into the system and it'll become pretty much impossible for them to fail to nominate the winner.
I was a little further East (10-15 miles). But within, say, 25 miles of him you have - at least - Highclere (Downton), Manydown, Whiteacre, Ashe Park, Hackwood, Malshanger, Douai, Deane, Stratfield Saye, Daneshill, Vyne, Wherwell, Longparish. That's just the product of 5 minutes and doesn't really cover the area to the North and West of him because I really don't know that area well. I'm sure there are plenty more.
They believe that their (or their children’s) job prospects are damaged by the influx of EU migration. They see the eurozone in constant crisis and fear the contagion may be contributing to the UK’s problems. They think that recovery is being delayed by absurd EU regulations and directives."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10065503/David-Cameron-is-so-relaxed-I-want-to-slap-him.html
"Pretty much the same as the Tories, only we don't have to waste our time dealing with drama queens so we can get on with our fecking jobs".
http://mapsengine.google.com/map/view?mid=z62HvuGl_cWg.kpzJ88v3atIA
https://twitter.com/BWalker_1995/status/335934050646773760
And is there a similar trend to such estates becoming educational institutions, museums, hotels and golf courses as there is in the north ?
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (n/c)
No 44% (-2)
Constituency vote:
SNP 45% (-2)
Labour 30% (n/c)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (n/c)
Regional list vote:
SNP 45% (n/c)
Labour 27% (+2)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Greens 6% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
New money (finance): Whiteacre, Longparish
New money (industrial): Wherwell
Foreign investors: Hackwood
Church: Douai
Vyne now national trust and Daneshill has been sold and build over. Dogmersfield is now the Four Seasons
There are a lot that have become schools and hotels, relatively fewer that have become museums.
Hampshire always had relatively few 'great houses' because it was so close to London and the Marquess of Winchester (the local magnate) was translated to the Duchy of Bolton and moved to the North. When Bolton became extinct, the Marquessette moved south again but had sold off lots of land (it was now a junior branch) and had less influence. The English links petered out in the 60s and the current (18th) Marquis is based in South Africa.
The Earldoms of Southhampton and Portsmouth looked south, while the Earls of Oxford looked to the Midlands. That meant that the National Trust never took over too many as a lot of the houses were more country manors than really high quality estates.
And they prefer to waste their time talking about electoral reform and the House of Lords.
Not to mention the broken promise on tuition fees has damned the LibDems for a generation.
Perhaps the Cameroons and Cleggites should get together and form their own version of the FDP - 'progressive' conservatism and social liberalism based upon urban professionals worshipping high finance.
That's a niche market though outside of Notting Hill.
Classical liberalism is a niche market, but moderate conservatism isn't. It's maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. That's why the Conservative Party is currently split over gay marriage and EU membership, rather than everybody just opposing gay marriage and EU membership.
If the Tories can't fill that space any more, well, politics abhors a vacuum...
A disastrous performance by the Kiwis at Lords. Less, I think, poor batting than a much-improved England performance benefitting from a nice humid atmosphere encouraging plenty of movement.
Currently 54-8, it'll likely be over by tea.
The "Dresden was not a legitimate target" story was started by Goebels....
I can't understand why these people such as Ken Clarke, Lord Mandelson, Lord Howe and Lord Heseltine, who were so completely and totally wrong about the Euro, are still taken seriously now.
By rights these supremely silly people should be totally irrelevent to national coversation - And in the case of Mandelson possibly run out of the country altogether...
Otherwise, Labour's lead is between 6 - 11%. Normally, not so good. With the UKIP factor, not so bad !
Tories not hitting 30% in any poll. They could soon hit 25% if this "disunity" thing gets traction.
We are, however, still a significant power, and that other powers are or will eclipse us and we know that, does not mean we are not aware of this or that we cannot still contribute meaningfully and in a significant way.
Our politicians seem well aware of this fact as well, in fact, hence pussyfooting around involving us in things we clearly would like to involve ourselves in. The only fantasy being put about is that the British government or public are still somehow stuck in the 'scramble for Africa' phase of international relations in terms of our position on the world stage.
It's maddening to me. There's so much about this country that is not as great as it was or could be, but arrogance at our national importance (outside of pretensions at how much the Americans need us/like us) is not one of our problems, in fact we put ourselves down about the good things about the country, and mock our own influence to well beyond the actuality of it, and constantly worry about doing anything because we're so little and insignificant. To call that arrogance is misguided, insulting and just plain nonsensical, all to back up someone's narrative of how they like to think the nation is going.
The bizarre, useless, Etonian fopocracy currently leading the party is divided from the other 90%. Then you still have the occasional Europhile from the 70's and 80's like Howe and Heseltine (people who have been wrong about pretty much everything for the past 40 years) given far more prominence by the media than they should and thus a party thats actually quite united around its euroscepticism looks massively divided.
Silly old duffers like Howe are really a side-show. The main issue is the leadership being so out of the touch with the vast majority of their party. Cameron was elected as Conservative leader pretending to be a eurosceptic but has turned out to be a profound europhile.
That's the main problem here... Well, that and the fact he is absoluely useless at politics, blew an unloseable general election, ran the worst election campaign for 30 years, is governing in the same manner in which he ran the worst election campaign in 30 years and showed absolutely no sign of understanding, nevermind acting decisively on, the importance of the UKIP county council result and the game changing moment Lord Lawson intervened in the european issue.
I've thought for some time that the Tories have got to get rid of Cameron and the fopocracy before the election. Cameron (and those around him) is the problem.
The next election is winnable for the Tories, but I can't see how they dare go into it with Cameron and Osborne leading the party - A D.I.V.O.R.C.E is looming and it was entirely unavoidable and is entirely down to Camerons complete uselessness as a politician.
I think it's more that the Tories and to a lesser extent the public have moved on a bit from where Cameron was trying to take people, a significant number never liked it and detested the Coalition, and now that polling and elections have made Cameron weaker they smell blood in the water and are willing to blow their own kneecaps off if it means removing the Cameron growth on the heel of the Tory party, and his lack of authority has ensured Cameron has opened the door for all his other critics to join them in picking at the freshly created stump.
I'm not good at metaphors.