MalcolmG Galloway Must be the only man in the country vociferously anti Israel, anti Thatcher, anti Blair and anti Coalition AND vociferously anti Salmond. I disagree with him on most things but his 'JustSayNaw' campaign has helped show the No campaign is a broad church and for that he should be commended
Could the Tories hold it in the middle of January during the middle of the cold and wet winter?
They could, but other parties might claim that's too long a wait and vote for it to be sooner.
What they could do if they felt like it is stick it in late mid-October, a couple of weeks after the (probably won) Scottish referendum and smack on Lib Dem conference.
I'm puzzled by all the references to the 'Declaration of Human Rights'. Has anyone calling for its signing by immigrants actually read it? It's a collection frankly, of bland, meaningless clichés written in a standard of English that would disgrace a fairly dim five-year-old. In fact, I will go so far as to say I would not accept it if it was handed in as homework - I would insist it was rewritten. It was drawn up by a bunch of second-rate lawyers who had an exaggerated idea of their own importance, intelligence and understanding of philosophy and ethics (amusing as that irony is) and it shows. In fact, it is quite painfully obvious. Apart from anything else, many of its clauses are actually contradictory (for example, Article 26 clauses 1 and 3 are impossible together - one officially bans private education, three makes it clear that private education should be available to parents). It is a complete nonsense.
A more useful step, one that has the merit of simplicity and ease of administration, would be a declaration that:
1) The applicant has committed no crime that would be punishable under British law (bearing in mind various countries have restrictions under criminal law, e.g. censorship that we should be helping victims of)
2) The applicant will accept the primacy of British law in all matters and all ways above any cultural, religious or ethnic customs.
That pretty much covers everything, I think. I could sign that declaration - but in all conscience I would never sign something as terrible as the UNDHR.
"......Saudi Arabia and that, according to the reports, there seemed to be a concerted attempt to impose Saudi values (which I consider abhorrent) on British schoolchildren."
What about imposing Saudi values on a commercials director employed to shoot a Pantene hair commercial and being informed at the PPM.......
"you cant show hair and skin together"
"Obviously you don't include the face?"
"Yes that does include the face"
"You're having me on!"
"No we're not really...."
"How can I do a hair commercial with a girl swinging her hair around without showing her face?"
"......Saudi Arabia and that, according to the reports, there seemed to be a concerted attempt to impose Saudi values (which I consider abhorrent) on British schoolchildren."
What about imposing Saudi values on a commercials director employed to shoot a Pantene hair commercial and being informed at the PPM.......
"you cant show hair and skin together"
"Obviously you don't include the face?"
"Yes that does include the face"
"You're having me on!"
"No we're not really...."
"How can I do a hair commercial with a girl swinging her hair around without showing her face?"
Could the Tories hold it in the middle of January during the middle of the cold and wet winter?
They could, but other parties might claim that's too long a wait and vote for it to be sooner.
What they could do if they felt like it is stick it in late mid-October, a couple of weeks after the (probably won) Scottish referendum and smack on Lib Dem conference.
I think it'll be 16th/23rd October. It wouldn't be fair to have it any earlier due to IndyRef and the party conferences.
The Tories HAVE to run against Carswell - and if his association has gone UKIP with him then they will have to parachute in Spadtivists from elsewhere. Carswell defecting is bad, much of the local association also defecting is far worse, not running "our kind of Conservatism" against "his kind" is suicidal.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
I said a while ago here that UKIP would one day replace The Conservative Party; I still believe that, and the momentum seems to be increasing. The Tories have let themselves be outflanked for the first time in their history. You can't 'middle-flank' -look at the Lib Dems. Look at Rotherham, look at Stafford, look at EU policy -who wants to look for votes in the 'middle' of that?
It's not that you can't middle-flank, it's that the Tories have been double flanked.
The emergence of the SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80s resulted in Lab and the Tories heading towards the centre from previously polarised positions to defend their inside flanks (this bringing of politics to the centre is probably the greatest influence the party has had).
What the Tories have struggled with is that (although to be realistic, it's not the first time in history there's ever been a party to the right of the Conservatives) having moved to cover their inside flank, they're now also being attacked on their outside flank.
(Also it takes a lot to replace a major established party, the only way UKIP even comes close to replacing the conservatives is if the Conservatives implode on a scale we haven't seen in British politics for almost a century)
It does take a lot, but it has happened (Whigs/Liberals).
Easterross Far more people say they have seen Yes street stalls, Yes town hall meetings or Yes posters when polled. But more people also say they have been canvassed by the No campaign (when you include face to face or telephone canvassing combined) or been leafleted by No. Ultimately it seems to me Yes has a more visible presence and both sides will see a huge turnout by their supporters, but on the day it could well be No which does slightly better with the undecided http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21612194-scotlands-pro-independence-movement-will-outlive-next-months-referendum-ayell-be-back
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
There was a discussion about this when Carswell resigned - the Tories get to call it on a date of their choosing - consensus was earliest likely to be a week after their conference or later if they hold an open primary.
No they don't. Anyone can move it, anyone can amend it. They have to get it voted through, which is normally the former party of the 'resigning' MP but not if the others think they're doing anything too tactical.
The Tories HAVE to run against Carswell - and if his association has gone UKIP with him then they will have to parachute in Spadtivists from elsewhere. Carswell defecting is bad, much of the local association also defecting is far worse, not running "our kind of Conservatism" against "his kind" is suicidal.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
I said a while ago here that UKIP would one day replace The Conservative Party; I still believe that, and the momentum seems to be increasing. The Tories have let themselves be outflanked for the first time in their history. You can't 'middle-flank' -look at the Lib Dems. Look at Rotherham, look at Stafford, look at EU policy -who wants to look for votes in the 'middle' of that?
It's not that you can't middle-flank, it's that the Tories have been double flanked.
The emergence of the SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80s resulted in Lab and the Tories heading towards the centre from previously polarised positions to defend their inside flanks (this bringing of politics to the centre is probably the greatest influence the party has had).
What the Tories have struggled with is that (although to be realistic, it's not the first time in history there's ever been a party to the right of the Conservatives) having moved to cover their inside flank, they're now also being attacked on their outside flank.
(Also it takes a lot to replace a major established party, the only way UKIP even comes close to replacing the conservatives is if the Conservatives implode on a scale we haven't seen in British politics for almost a century)
It does take a lot, but it has happened (Whigs/Liberals).
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
Could the Tories hold it in the middle of January during the middle of the cold and wet winter?
They could, but other parties might claim that's too long a wait and vote for it to be sooner.
What they could do if they felt like it is stick it in late mid-October, a couple of weeks after the (probably won) Scottish referendum and smack on Lib Dem conference.
I think it'll be 16th/23rd October. It wouldn't be fair to have it any earlier due to IndyRef and the party conferences.
Mr. Corporeal, it could happen. Enough short-sighted toy-throwers dwell on the Conservative backbenches to do it.
If it's only blues, then it'll drive away Labour voters and entice more old fashioned Conservatives, making it even worse for the blues. But if Farage can get more defections from both major parties then he could become an even bigger threat to the pair of them. A Labour defection would be substantial for UKIP. I can't see it happening, but if I were him I'd be aiming for that, to help keep the white working class on board.
Rochdale Pioneers Exactly the Tories should hold an open primary to pick their candidate, who wold probably end up being a local, and thus could claim to be more democratic than UKIP while also getting some energy and vigour back in the local association
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
I agree that FPTP is really only suited to a strong two party system and if we have a period of having four main parties, it is more likely we will have coalition government. I am not sure the Tories will accept changing to PR and will have to work a bit harder to rebuild their support around the UK. This will mean that Tories will have to make major changes to the way they elect candidates and to how they organise their party. Too much power is held by the leader and their clique, with little democracy within the party. The Tories don't even pretend to hold votes at their party conferences.
Labour are going to have to change as well and I think this is something that Ed Miliband recognises. I think Labour will try to distance themselves from the unions and give more power to Labour party members. There is no reason why in this modern age that party members cannot take part in helping form their parties policies and to vote on issues.
My instinct is that Labour will win the next election and will probably form a coalition with the Lib Dems. The Tories will elect Boris as their new leader and I think he will be much more agressive, particularly on EU reform. I personally don't like Boris as a politician, but I can see him becoming PM in 2020, as people like him for some reason.
LuckyGuy1983 UKIP would never replace the Tories, the only way they could become the major party of the centre-right under FPTP would be to merge with the Tories and effectively take them over, as the Canadian Reform Party did with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Canadian Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. Of course Labour has a party to its left flank too, the Greens, and the Greens have already taken one seat off Labour, Brighton Pavilion, UKIP have yet to win one parliamentary seat off the Tories at an election. If you include Galloway winning Bethnal Green and Bradford Labour has already lost 3 MPs to more leftwing parties, the Tories have not lost 1 MP to a more rightwing party
Still, we can all be thankful Warsi warned us about militant atheists.
It comes down to the rather sticky question of who decides what a religion is. Is anyone who self-identifies as something counted among it no matter what they actually believe? Does there have to be a level of compatibility with their views?
It's a rather unanswerable question of course, and the reason politicians tend to stick to that line is because what they say gets twisted and taken out of context for effect. His Grace's piece reckons 10 million out of 1.8 billion Muslims, but any politician trying to draw that distinction is going to draw headlines that ignore it.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Sadsack Tory loser tries to accuse someone of drinking. Grow up you imbecile, intelligent people do not drink in the morning and do not have to stoop to the gutter as they can debate and argue points. You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
He was put in by the national party without the locals having any say, which is the kind of thing he's vocally opposed in the past and called for open primaries to lessen the power of central parties to do this.
Not too much firewater consumed last nite, I hope?
Hi @Peter. I'm keeping my powder dry on this one. I myself am ambivalent about Carswell and Clacton. On the one hand welcoming Carswell into the UKIP fold. On the other hand, I believe that UKIP could have done very well if Carswell had never jumped.
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
It takes a lot is an understatement.
There are certain immutable laws that govern life, and one such is divergence. If Darwin is to be believed, the giraffe and the horse were once one animal. They diverged to remain successful. As do branches of a tree. Convergence is against nature. A cross between the Tories and Labour (without the nasty bits of either) sounds nice in the short term, but the end result is a recipe for being trampled on by both sides, not to mention useless politically, no change, no real solutions. A middle flank is a defunct animal. Thatcher knew this instinctively. Today's Conservative party doesn't. Some of them are delighted to have been outflanked on the right, as part of their ludicrous 'detoxification' strategy. Very silly. The only real solution would have been to use their vastly dominant position, roll over and squash UKIP by assimilating them. Cameron has wrecked that.
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
There was a discussion about this when Carswell resigned - the Tories get to call it on a date of their choosing - consensus was earliest likely to be a week after their conference or later if they hold an open primary.
Knowing that UKIP will almost certainly win a Clacton by-election, why would the Conservatives want to hold an election this year and have a UKIP MP in Parliament making trouble.
Also once we get within a few months of next May, the excuse can be made that a by-election is an unnecesary expense and could be cancelled entirely.
Conservatives stand a much better chance of winning Clacton on a general election campaign than in a by-election.
"There is another angle to consider, that of electoral fairness. A UKIP win, consolidating their position as the fourth major national party, would go still further to undermining the legitimacy of FPTP; a system that only really works well with two dominant parties. I wrote in March that the Tories’ 2015 manifesto should include a commitment to introducing PR (open lists in constituencies of about five MPs would be best). The events this week have made that all the more necessary."
Blow me down ! PB Tories had a go at me [ particularly M Dancer ] when I had suggested other forms of representation were fairer. They believed in FPTP as a matter of principle.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Sadsack Tory loser tries to accuse someone of drinking. Grow up you imbecile, intelligent people do not drink in the morning and do not have to stoop to the gutter as they can debate and argue points. You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
He was put in by the national party without the locals having any say, which is the kind of thing he's vocally opposed in the past and called for open primaries to lessen the power of central parties to do this.
Nope if you want to be technically correct he was, for a few minutes at least, the UKIP MP for Clacton given that he announced his joining of UKIP at the start of the speech and his resignation of his seat at the end.
It is all arguing about angels on the head of a pin but since that seems to be what his detractors are doing it is worth pointing out that they are not only morally but also factually wrong. As I said the sight of Tories so utterly bereft of any other argument that they have to try and run with this is both amusing and sad.
Edit. I wasn't of course referring to you as a Tory as I know you don't lean that way.
MalcolmG Galloway Must be the only man in the country vociferously anti Israel, anti Thatcher, anti Blair and anti Coalition AND vociferously anti Salmond. I disagree with him on most things but his 'JustSayNaw' campaign has helped show the No campaign is a broad church and for that he should be commended
yes I agree him, the orange order , bnp , brittanica , the Tories and all the other nasty groups certainly show them up for what they really are. Every racist and bigot in the UK is aligned for sure in the NO campaign, 'jstsayNAW' shows how pathetic they are , had to drop Better Together as it was seen through , No thanks flatlined so they try to show they are down with the lower classes by trying to use a localise version of NO. Desperate group of desperados for sure.
PS No church would want to be associated with the rag tag bunch of saddos in that unholy alliance
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
LOL, Tories only ever implement what will fill their pockets, now they have little helpers.
Mr. 1983, not quite. Convergent evolution is a known scientific phenomenon whereby differing species reach similar physiological answers for certain challenges (not to be confused with common ancestry which also sees widespread similarities, such as the one-two-many bone structure of limbs).
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
It seems to me simply incredible that any Labour MPs would ever defect to UKIP. At least some "disillusioned" Tory MPs can convince themselves that UKIP's political platform (such as it is - i doubt they will produce serious policies to match the critical rhetoric) is likely to broadly match their own opinions (Europe/Immigration/taxation/small state etc etc), and so they are not defecting over a 'single issue'.
So if UKIP are claiming that there are 8-10 of them in talks is IMO transparent nonsense.
Easterross Far more people say they have seen Yes street stalls, Yes town hall meetings or Yes posters when polled. But more people also say they have been canvassed by the No campaign (when you include face to face or telephone canvassing combined) or been leafleted by No. Ultimately it seems to me Yes has a more visible presence and both sides will see a huge turnout by their supporters, but on the day it could well be No which does slightly better with the undecided http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21612194-scotlands-pro-independence-movement-will-outlive-next-months-referendum-ayell-be-back
I am sure your expert opinion from down south , gleaned from London papers, will reassure him and encourage him to ignore the reality he sees.
Not too much firewater consumed last nite, I hope?
Hi @Peter. I'm keeping my powder dry on this one. I myself am ambivalent about Carswell and Clacton. On the one hand welcoming Carswell into the UKIP fold. On the other hand, I believe that UKIP could have done very well if Carswell had never jumped.
UKIP never stood a chance against Carswell. As arguably the most Eurosceptic MP in Parliament and with a massive personal vote in the constituency, Clapton would have been one of the least likely wins for UKIP at the election.
Not too much firewater consumed last nite, I hope?
Hi @Peter. I'm keeping my powder dry on this one. I myself am ambivalent about Carswell and Clacton. On the one hand welcoming Carswell into the UKIP fold. On the other hand, I believe that UKIP could have done very well if Carswell had never jumped.
Remarkably prudent of you, Mike.
It is indeed a risk route, but the potential upside is very considerable so on the whole a good development for the Kippers, I think.
RichardTyndall UKIP already had picked a candidate for Clacton, Roger Lord, who should have been their by-election candidate too by rights or at least Carswell should have had to fight him for it. There is less than a year before the general election, if some MPs refuse to campaign for a Tory candidate could be grounds for CCHQ and their local association to deselect them and get a loyalist in to replace them as PPC
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
It takes a lot is an understatement.
There are certain immutable laws that govern life, and one such is divergence. If Darwin is to be believed, the giraffe and the horse were once one animal. They diverged to remain successful. As do branches of a tree. Convergence is against nature. A cross between the Tories and Labour (without the nasty bits of either) sounds nice in the short term, but the end result is a recipe for being trampled on by both sides, not to mention useless politically, no change, no real solutions. A middle flank is a defunct animal. Thatcher knew this instinctively. Today's Conservative party doesn't. Some of them are delighted to have been outflanked on the right, as part of their ludicrous 'detoxification' strategy. Very silly. The only real solution would have been to use their vastly dominant position, roll over and squash UKIP by assimilating them. Cameron has wrecked that.
That's a very interesting point about nature (although I doubt it's truth there too(, it's just got sod all to do with politics.
Politics is a market place. There's quite a few supermarkets between Aldi and Waitrose for example.
Likewise compare the Labour party's success when they came off their far-left perch to a more centrist position.
The idea that a wider flank position is more useful than a centrist one is bizarre.
It's about owning political territory, and that is set as much by your opponent parties as your own.
The Conservatives should use an open primary and hold the by-election asap consistent with that. They should then, wholly without personal rancour (Carswell is a good and intelligent man), throw the kitchen sink at it and hope for the best.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
In which case why is it that some of the easiest bits of their manifesto pledges - the ones that are also actually in the Coalition agreement - are the bits they have not enacted? Claiming this is due to coalition government is simply not logical.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Sadsack Tory loser tries to accuse someone of drinking. Grow up you imbecile, intelligent people do not drink in the morning and do not have to stoop to the gutter as they can debate and argue points. You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
I thought I'd made myself clear enough earlier.
So stop.
Considering I had not seen your post , fine. I have replied in kind to the sad git and if he refrains I will not have to reciprocate. But I will not tolerate lowlife toerags accusing me of being a drunkard without right of reply.
LuckyGuy1983 UKIP would never replace the Tories, the only way they could become the major party of the centre-right under FPTP would be to merge with the Tories and effectively take them over, as the Canadian Reform Party did with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Canadian Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. Of course Labour has a party to its left flank too, the Greens, and the Greens have already taken one seat off Labour, Brighton Pavilion, UKIP have yet to win one parliamentary seat off the Tories at an election. If you include Galloway winning Bethnal Green and Bradford Labour has already lost 3 MPs to more leftwing parties, the Tories have not lost 1 MP to a more rightwing party
I do not see the Greens as a left wing flanking attack on Labour, because I do not see Labour's left wing as having a tendency to vote green. I could be wrong -I haven't studied it. I also see them as against history somewhat. Energy security is key to the future, and we have saddled ourselves with useless expensive turbines and little else. Meanwhile sympathy for environmentalism will continue to be worn down by Governments and supranational bodies imposing green taxes and regulations while the earth cools. Ecology is a message for prosperous times when it can be afforded. (Not saying we shouldn't care for our planet -we absolutely should, just saying where I see perceptions going). Let's remember the Greens only got their MEPs because of AIFE stealing votes from UKIP.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
In which case why is it that some of the easiest bits of their manifesto pledges - the ones that are also actually in the Coalition agreement - are the bits they have not enacted? Claiming this is due to coalition government is simply not logical.
Parts of the coalition agreement have not been implemented the same way that parts of single party government manifestos never get implemented.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
RichardTyndall UKIP already had picked a candidate for Clacton, Roger Lord, who should have been their by-election candidate too by rights or at least Carswell should have had to fight him for it. There is less than a year before the general election, if some MPs refuse to campaign for a Tory candidate could be grounds for CCHQ and their local association to deselect them and get a loyalist in to replace them as PPC
I do love it when the party fanatics thrash around like this.
It is going to be amusing to watch Cameron drive yet more MPs into UKIP if he tries this. I might even start wondering if he will survive to the next election if he is so stupid.
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
He was put in by the national party without the locals having any say, which is the kind of thing he's vocally opposed in the past and called for open primaries to lessen the power of central parties to do this.
Nope if you want to be technically correct he was, for a few minutes at least, the UKIP MP for Clacton given that he announced his joining of UKIP at the start of the speech and his resignation of his seat at the end.
It is all arguing about angels on the head of a pin but since that seems to be what his detractors are doing it is worth pointing out that they are not only morally but also factually wrong. As I said the sight of Tories so utterly bereft of any other argument that they have to try and run with this is both amusing and sad.
Edit. I wasn't of course referring to you as a Tory as I know you don't lean that way.
I don't think anything you said contradicted any of my points.
Depending on the technicalities of him being a UKIP MP or not (which is arguing about angels dancing, although as a sidenote angels dancing on the head of a pin was part of a technical theological/physical debate about the nature of angels and if they could occupy the same space at once) doesn't make a difference to the locals not having a say.
Being the incumbent MP is not an automatic bypassing of local selection (although it tends to be in practice). He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate, the kind of central party control he himself has explicitly opposed.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
In which case why is it that some of the easiest bits of their manifesto pledges - the ones that are also actually in the Coalition agreement - are the bits they have not enacted? Claiming this is due to coalition government is simply not logical.
Parts of the coalition agreement have not been implemented the same way that parts of single party government manifestos never get implemented.
But your exact quote was "At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other." which is clearly ludicrous given that both sides were in agreement on the proposals and had it written into their original document. How many bits of legislation have they passed in the last few years which were not in the Coalition Agreement?
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality, I would encourage you to broaden your reading pool on the referendum and thus get a broader view on the topic. There are a dearth of NO sites but you will be able to find many sites giving balanced views and good ones on YES as well. Not all have one sided partisan views but all give a much better view than the msm which is pathetic and just regurgitated party broadcasts for unionists.
PS: I had already read the article this morning , and whilst correct in that YES will not go away even if vote goes against it , the premise re NO is not that accurate. I look at NEWSNOW.co.uk every day re the referendum. It used to be wall to wall rubbishing of YES , never had a good word or article on it. However big changes recently where the foreign articles are now looking at it and not just parroting UK papers and even the UK articles are now heading the other way. Today I would say most are YES oriented, massive change.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
In which case why is it that some of the easiest bits of their manifesto pledges - the ones that are also actually in the Coalition agreement - are the bits they have not enacted? Claiming this is due to coalition government is simply not logical.
Parts of the coalition agreement have not been implemented the same way that parts of single party government manifestos never get implemented.
But your exact quote was "At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other." which is clearly ludicrous given that both sides were in agreement on the proposals and had it written into their original document. How many bits of legislation have they passed in the last few years which were not in the Coalition Agreement?
In some cases I think 'were' is an important word there.
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
It takes a lot is an understatement.
There are certain immutable laws that govern life, and one such is divergence. If Darwin is to be believed, the giraffe and the horse were once one animal. They diverged to remain successful. As do branches of a tree. Convergence is against nature. A cross between the Tories and Labour (without the nasty bits of either) sounds nice in the short term, but the end result is a recipe for being trampled on by both sides, not to mention useless politically, no change, no real solutions. A middle flank is a defunct animal. Thatcher knew this instinctively. Today's Conservative party doesn't. Some of them are delighted to have been outflanked on the right, as part of their ludicrous 'detoxification' strategy. Very silly. The only real solution would have been to use their vastly dominant position, roll over and squash UKIP by assimilating them. Cameron has wrecked that.
That's a very interesting point about nature (although I doubt it's truth there too(, it's just got sod all to do with politics.
Politics is a market place. There's quite a few supermarkets between Aldi and Waitrose for example.
Likewise compare the Labour party's success when they came off their far-left perch to a more centrist position.
The idea that a wider flank position is more useful than a centrist one is bizarre.
It's about owning political territory, and that is set as much by your opponent parties as your own.
But look at those supermarkets you mention -who is doing well, and who is being squeezed? Doing well -Aldi, Lidl. M&S food. Being squeezed -Morrisons, Sainsbury's -even the mighty Tesco is faltering somewhat. Either end doing well. Middle being squeezed. Same with vast numbers of other 'middle' brands that try to cover all bases -divergent branches come off, the middle is left behind. You speak of a marketplace -I am a marketer and my theory comes from the marketing literature. 'The Mushy Middle' is a place to be avoided by sensible marketers.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
LuckyGuy1983 No, you are wrong, even the Greens leader Natalie Bennett used to be a Labour activist. The Greens also won MEPs in 1999, 2004 and 2009, at none of those elections did the AIFE steal votes from UKIP. The Greens have policies on far more issues than the environment, they are anti austerity, for higher taxes, socially liberal and for drugs legalisation, are for non-violence and anti war and PR, ie all positions to the left of Labour
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Sadsack Tory loser tries to accuse someone of drinking. Grow up you imbecile, intelligent people do not drink in the morning and do not have to stoop to the gutter as they can debate and argue points. You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
I thought I'd made myself clear enough earlier.
So stop.
But how is Unionist plant Malclog supposed to drive people away from voting Yes without being so abusive?
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
It takes a lot is an understatement.
There are certain immutable laws that govern life, and one such is divergence. If Darwin is to be believed, the giraffe and the horse were once one animal. They diverged to remain successful. As do branches of a tree. Convergence is against nature. A cross between the Tories and Labour (without the nasty bits of either) sounds nice in the short term, but the end result is a recipe for being trampled on by both sides, not to mention useless politically, no change, no real solutions. A middle flank is a defunct animal. Thatcher knew this instinctively. Today's Conservative party doesn't. Some of them are delighted to have been outflanked on the right, as part of their ludicrous 'detoxification' strategy. Very silly. The only real solution would have been to use their vastly dominant position, roll over and squash UKIP by assimilating them. Cameron has wrecked that.
That's a very interesting point about nature (although I doubt it's truth there too(, it's just got sod all to do with politics.
Politics is a market place. There's quite a few supermarkets between Aldi and Waitrose for example.
Likewise compare the Labour party's success when they came off their far-left perch to a more centrist position.
The idea that a wider flank position is more useful than a centrist one is bizarre.
It's about owning political territory, and that is set as much by your opponent parties as your own.
But look at those supermarkets you mention -who is doing well, and who is being squeezed? Doing well -Aldi, Lidl. M&S food. Being squeezed -Morrisons, Sainsbury's -even the mighty Tesco is faltering somewhat. Either end doing well. Middle being squeezed. Same with vast numbers of other 'middle' brands that try to cover all bases -divergent branches come off, the middle is left behind. You speak of a marketplace -I am a marketer and my theory comes from the marketing literature. 'The Mushy Middle' is a place to be avoided by sensible marketers.
Either end is currently doing well in terms of current trend, but in overall terms the big four, occupying various spots in the middle are still massively ahead of them.
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
In which case why is it that some of the easiest bits of their manifesto pledges - the ones that are also actually in the Coalition agreement - are the bits they have not enacted? Claiming this is due to coalition government is simply not logical.
Parts of the coalition agreement have not been implemented the same way that parts of single party government manifestos never get implemented.
But your exact quote was "At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other." which is clearly ludicrous given that both sides were in agreement on the proposals and had it written into their original document. How many bits of legislation have they passed in the last few years which were not in the Coalition Agreement?
In some cases I think 'were' is an important word there.
I agree. But it strikes me that it ois the Tories rather than the Lib Dems who have changed their minds so again David's claims that it is Coalition that has caused the lack of legislation is not viable.
MalcolmG I think the Yes campaigners drowning out Jim Murphy shows Yes has many unpleasant people too
You mean that there should not be freedom of expression and only unionist MP's with loudspeakers should be able to voice their views. Very funny version of democracy that you support. You do not believe ordinary public should be allowed to disagree with politicians, surely you are not suggesting we should have a British Nationalist state with no freedom of speech. Some people may go over the top but let me assure you the NO side have more than YES do. That aside as long as violence is not being used or crimes committed , if he chooses to get on his soapbox he should not expect everybody to agree with him , listen quietly , etc. If he is not up to real canvassing he should stick to normal unionist invitee only meetings and not try to kid on he is a real politician.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Sadsack Tory loser tries to accuse someone of drinking. Grow up you imbecile, intelligent people do not drink in the morning and do not have to stoop to the gutter as they can debate and argue points. You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
I thought I'd made myself clear enough earlier.
So stop.
But how is Unionist plant Malclog supposed to drive people away from voting Yes without being so abusive?
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
Mr. Tyndall, you don't know that. You believe it, but that is not the same thing.
I know what Cameron has said and I know what others have said about his intentions. I am afraid that any Eurosceptic relying upon Cameron to get us out of the EU is quite simply deluding themselves.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
I do not understand your point. Putting the issue to a referendum means that Cameron does not get to decide as it becomes a matter for the British people as a whole. Do you think that Cameron would renege on his promise to hold the referendum?
LuckyGuy1983 Actually Sainsbury's is holding its market share, it is Tesco, Asda and Morrisons who are being squeezed. M and S food is doing OK, M and S clothing is in freefall.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
The fact that if you are actually in Scotland, the only place you see No Thanks signs ( they had to drop Better Together given it was shown to be lies ) is in fields , in towns all you see are YES signs. That is very telling and supports the reality that landowners are NO but the people are YES. Is that simple enough.
Under FPTP though you have to win the centre and hold your base, that is why Blair did so well, and indeed Major won in 1992. If you only appeal to your base you will be thrashed, as Hague and Foot were on the most rightwing and leftwing manifestos either main party has produced
If we did have PR both the Greens and UKIP would win significant numbers of MPs as leftwingers and rightwingers would vote for them as they already do at Euro elec.tions under PR. Under FPTP though in most seats it ends up Tory v Labour as only 2 parties can win the 1 seat
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Personally I think the EU is an anti-democratic abomination. But...I can see that the sort of arguments being used to destroy the Scottish YES campaign will be used in force in just the same way when (or if) a similar EU referendum comes along.
Much as I want it, I think the chances of the UK actually getting to choose and then indeed choosing to leave the EU are pretty much zero. How depressing.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Isn't Carswell's stated criticism of Cameron on the referendum inconsistent with his decision to join UKIP? UKIP want to leave the EU under all circumstances - they only want a referendum because they think they can win it. To criticise Cameron for apparently not seeking genuine reform, just enough to win a referendum, is a criticism someone in principled favour of the EU (reformed) should make, not someone who wants to leave the EU. Surely nobody in UKIP is contemplating a scenario where they might campaign to stay in, if the reforms offered are "genuine"? (and none of this revert to a simple 'trading arrangement' nonsense - that obviously is never going to happen - even if we left the EU!)
"He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate"
I believe it was Mr. Loony, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here yesterday that the UKIP rule books states that in the event of a by-election it is for the NEC to choose the candidate. If that is true then nobody should have any beef about what has happened. A bit more tact would have been good but that Lord fellow (who I was inclined to think was a spoof when I saw some of his pronouncements - machine gun up his nose, indeed - what a prick) has no real complaint.
Malcolm G There is a difference between some heckling and intimidation, including drowning out and threats of violence, with one Yes campaigner threatening to 'knock out' a Murphy aide
who will get mandatory government programmes next, better not drink , be fat , be skinny , ginger , unemployed , disabled etc they will be after you next
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
In Fife and Motherwell? Far more likely to be Labour voters (or past Labour voters).
[Edit:] A serious point. Much of the internet discussion about this tends to that view - partly because the Yes movement is not top-down organised in the way you imply, and partly because of the tensions within the Labour Party (both more widely and within the current hierarchy).
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
The fact that if you are actually in Scotland, the only place you see No Thanks signs ( they had to drop Better Together given it was shown to be lies ) is in fields , in towns all you see are YES signs. That is very telling and supports the reality that landowners are NO but the people are YES. Is that simple enough.
I'd give up putting up posters if YesVandals were constantly defacing them
And I suspect that the change from Better Together to No Thanks is more to with including the word No (which is on the ballot paper) than any admission of guilt over lying.. Do you have any hard facts to back that claim up?
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
Malcolm G There is a difference between some heckling and intimidation, including drowning out and threats of violence, with one Yes campaigner threatening to 'knock out' a Murphy aide
The guy was sticking a camera in the man's face, Murphy's goons should follow sensible practices also.
PersonallyI can see that the sort of arguments being used to destroy the Scottish YES campaign will be used in force in just the same way when (or if)a similar EU referendum.
At least if we leave the EU we know what currency we'll use and what our central bank will be. The Scots know neither.
"A UKIP win, consolidating their position as the fourth major national party, would go still further to undermining the legitimacy of FPTP;"
No it wouldn't. It would show that FPTP works in that it is able to allow the election of minor parties. Undermining the legitimacy of FPTP would mean having no UKIP MPs, very few Lib Dem MPs, and very many UKIP and Lib Dem (and Green, etc.) votes.
The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
The Yessers do have a credible alternative; it's FREEDOM!!!!
The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
LOL, patrick I hope you remember this silly post as you chew on that large Humble pie
Personally I think the EU is an anti-democratic abomination. But...I can see that the sort of arguments being used to destroy the Scottish YES campaign will be used in force in just the same way when (or if) a similar EU referendum comes along.
Much as I want it, I think the chances of the UK actually getting to choose and then indeed choosing to leave the EU are pretty much zero. How depressing.
I can understand why UKIP might secretly fear a referendum as they would expect the Establishment to behave in the way you describe. And then all would be lost - it is a high stakes gamble for them. This is what happened in 1975. But just what is the UKIP masterplan to secure our withdrawal from the EU?
I would suggest that UKIP should look to its greatest asset, which is the popular appeal of Nigel Farage. This was demonstrated in spades by the demolition job he did on Clegg. This really is the best hope I can think of as far as UKIP is concerned. Those with a vested interest in maintaining EU membership will do what they will do no matter what.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
The fact that if you are actually in Scotland, the only place you see No Thanks signs ( they had to drop Better Together given it was shown to be lies ) is in fields , in towns all you see are YES signs. That is very telling and supports the reality that landowners are NO but the people are YES. Is that simple enough.
Malcolm's quite right. I was in a former hardcore Labour area yesterday and the ratio of Yes to No signs was 5:1 - and in an area where a decade or two ago a Yes sign would have risked a brick through the window, and even today still does to some extent. All sorts of explanations from the No side, of course, but still very striking.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Under FPTP though you have to win the centre and hold your base, that is why Blair did so well, and indeed Major won in 1992. If you only appeal to your base you will be thrashed, as Hague and Foot were on the most rightwing and leftwing manifestos either main party has produced
Isn't the point that to win at FPTP you have to seize and hold the common ground not the centre ground. If one looks at the one nation conservatives their concentration was on policies that could appeal to the working classes as much as to the middle and upper class voters and that didn't mean the triangulation nonsense of Clinton, Blair and, now, Cameron.
It maybe that I shall be proved very wrong but it seems to me a lot of support for UKIP is coming from the fact that they are not class based and do appeal to voters across the spectrum. The are in fact whether by design, though more probably, by accident making a grab for the common ground.
RichardTyndall I am sorry, but UKIP is a separate party from the Tories, if any Tory MP refused to canvass for the Tory candidate in a by-election against Labour or the LDs they would rightly face calls to be deselected, it is the height of hypocrisy for Tory MPs to refuse to canvass for a Tory candidate in a by-election against UKIP and expect to get away with it!
This is a specific ethnic issue more than a religious one, says a community worker in a city near Rotherham. Young Pakistani men are increasingly alienated from their conservative parents, who want them to marry girls from back home (often the Mirpur district in Kashmir) and also from religious leaders, who often cannot speak English. Discussions of sex are taboo at home and in the mosque, so some learn about it from pornography, about misogyny from rap music and come to view white women as fair game (though the report also suggests Pakistani girls were abused, and that this was hushed up).
Comments
What they could do if they felt like it is stick it in late mid-October, a couple of weeks after the (probably won) Scottish referendum and smack on Lib Dem conference.
A more useful step, one that has the merit of simplicity and ease of administration, would be a declaration that:
1) The applicant has committed no crime that would be punishable under British law (bearing in mind various countries have restrictions under criminal law, e.g. censorship that we should be helping victims of)
2) The applicant will accept the primacy of British law in all matters and all ways above any cultural, religious or ethnic customs.
That pretty much covers everything, I think. I could sign that declaration - but in all conscience I would never sign something as terrible as the UNDHR.
Full text is here:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
"......Saudi Arabia and that, according to the reports, there seemed to be a concerted attempt to impose Saudi values (which I consider abhorrent) on British schoolchildren."
What about imposing Saudi values on a commercials director employed to shoot a Pantene hair commercial and being informed at the PPM.......
"you cant show hair and skin together"
"Obviously you don't include the face?"
"Yes that does include the face"
"You're having me on!"
"No we're not really...."
"How can I do a hair commercial with a girl swinging her hair around without showing her face?"
"That's why we booked you!"
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21612194-scotlands-pro-independence-movement-will-outlive-next-months-referendum-ayell-be-back
It takes a lot is an understatement.
They aren't immigrants
Visas, declarations etc would not have stopped them
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/as-long-as-obama-spouts-warsi-fallacy.html
Still, we can all be thankful Warsi warned us about militant atheists.
If it's only blues, then it'll drive away Labour voters and entice more old fashioned Conservatives, making it even worse for the blues. But if Farage can get more defections from both major parties then he could become an even bigger threat to the pair of them. A Labour defection would be substantial for UKIP. I can't see it happening, but if I were him I'd be aiming for that, to help keep the white working class on board.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
Labour are going to have to change as well and I think this is something that Ed Miliband recognises. I think Labour will try to distance themselves from the unions and give more power to Labour party members. There is no reason why in this modern age that party members cannot take part in helping form their parties policies and to vote on issues.
My instinct is that Labour will win the next election and will probably form a coalition with the Lib Dems. The Tories will elect Boris as their new leader and I think he will be much more agressive, particularly on EU reform. I personally don't like Boris as a politician, but I can see him becoming PM in 2020, as people like him for some reason.
It's a rather unanswerable question of course, and the reason politicians tend to stick to that line is because what they say gets twisted and taken out of context for effect. His Grace's piece reckons 10 million out of 1.8 billion Muslims, but any politician trying to draw that distinction is going to draw headlines that ignore it.
The Conservatives have not implemented their election manifesto either. No government ever has implemented its manifesto in full. At least the coalition has the excuse of having to compromise with each other.
You show yourself for what you are a lowlife rolling in the gutter imagining your betters are like yourself.
Knowing that UKIP will almost certainly win a Clacton by-election, why would the Conservatives want to hold an election this year and have a UKIP MP in Parliament making trouble.
Also once we get within a few months of next May, the excuse can be made that a by-election is an unnecesary expense and could be cancelled entirely.
Conservatives stand a much better chance of winning Clacton on a general election campaign than in a by-election.
Blow me down ! PB Tories had a go at me [ particularly M Dancer ] when I had suggested other forms of representation were fairer. They believed in FPTP as a matter of principle.
Really ?
So stop.
It is all arguing about angels on the head of a pin but since that seems to be what his detractors are doing it is worth pointing out that they are not only morally but also factually wrong. As I said the sight of Tories so utterly bereft of any other argument that they have to try and run with this is both amusing and sad.
Edit. I wasn't of course referring to you as a Tory as I know you don't lean that way.
PS No church would want to be associated with the rag tag bunch of saddos in that unholy alliance
So if UKIP are claiming that there are 8-10 of them in talks is IMO transparent nonsense.
It is indeed a risk route, but the potential upside is very considerable so on the whole a good development for the Kippers, I think.
Politics is a market place. There's quite a few supermarkets between Aldi and Waitrose for example.
Likewise compare the Labour party's success when they came off their far-left perch to a more centrist position.
The idea that a wider flank position is more useful than a centrist one is bizarre.
It's about owning political territory, and that is set as much by your opponent parties as your own.
Parts of the coalition agreement have not been implemented the same way that parts of single party government manifestos never get implemented.
It is going to be amusing to watch Cameron drive yet more MPs into UKIP if he tries this. I might even start wondering if he will survive to the next election if he is so stupid.
Depending on the technicalities of him being a UKIP MP or not (which is arguing about angels dancing, although as a sidenote angels dancing on the head of a pin was part of a technical theological/physical debate about the nature of angels and if they could occupy the same space at once) doesn't make a difference to the locals not having a say.
Being the incumbent MP is not an automatic bypassing of local selection (although it tends to be in practice). He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate, the kind of central party control he himself has explicitly opposed.
PS: I had already read the article this morning , and whilst correct in that YES will not go away even if vote goes against it , the premise re NO is not that accurate.
I look at NEWSNOW.co.uk every day re the referendum. It used to be wall to wall rubbishing of YES , never had a good word or article on it. However big changes recently where the foreign articles are now looking at it and not just parroting UK papers and even the UK articles are now heading the other way. Today I would say most are YES oriented, massive change.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Was New Labour too mushy middle?
Some people may go over the top but let me assure you the NO side have more than YES do. That aside as long as violence is not being used or crimes committed , if he chooses to get on his soapbox he should not expect everybody to agree with him , listen quietly , etc. If he is not up to real canvassing he should stick to normal unionist invitee only meetings and not try to kid on he is a real politician.
"Why do Islamic extremists—like those who killed the American journalist James Foley—choose beheading as their savage tactic of choice? "
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/the-reluctance-to-talk-about-the-link-between-beheadings-and-islam/
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Much as I want it, I think the chances of the UK actually getting to choose and then indeed choosing to leave the EU are pretty much zero. How depressing.
"He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate"
I believe it was Mr. Loony, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here yesterday that the UKIP rule books states that in the event of a by-election it is for the NEC to choose the candidate. If that is true then nobody should have any beef about what has happened. A bit more tact would have been good but that Lord fellow (who I was inclined to think was a spoof when I saw some of his pronouncements - machine gun up his nose, indeed - what a prick) has no real complaint.
Ed Miliband Warns UK Must Turn Young From Terror With 'Mandatory De-Radicalisation Programme'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/30/ed-miliband-terror-isis_n_5740326.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK
who will get mandatory government programmes next, better not drink , be fat , be skinny , ginger , unemployed , disabled etc they will be after you next
[Edit:] A serious point. Much of the internet discussion about this tends to that view - partly because the Yes movement is not top-down organised in the way you imply, and partly because of the tensions within the Labour Party (both more widely and within the current hierarchy).
http://www.deesidepiper.co.uk/news/local-headlines/no-thanks-to-vandalism-deeside-posters-targeted-1-3490894
And I suspect that the change from Better Together to No Thanks is more to with including the word No (which is on the ballot paper) than any admission of guilt over lying.. Do you have any hard facts to back that claim up?
Shadsy had one but I can't find it right now.
Mark Reckless was favorite at 3/1.
No it wouldn't. It would show that FPTP works in that it is able to allow the election of minor parties. Undermining the legitimacy of FPTP would mean having no UKIP MPs, very few Lib Dem MPs, and very many UKIP and Lib Dem (and Green, etc.) votes.
I can understand why UKIP might secretly fear a referendum as they would expect the Establishment to behave in the way you describe. And then all would be lost - it is a high stakes gamble for them. This is what happened in 1975. But just what is the UKIP masterplan to secure our withdrawal from the EU?
I would suggest that UKIP should look to its greatest asset, which is the popular appeal of Nigel Farage. This was demonstrated in spades by the demolition job he did on Clegg. This really is the best hope I can think of as far as UKIP is concerned. Those with a vested interest in maintaining EU membership will do what they will do no matter what.
Malcolm's quite right. I was in a former hardcore Labour area yesterday and the ratio of Yes to No signs was 5:1 - and in an area where a decade or two ago a Yes sign would have risked a brick through the window, and even today still does to some extent. All sorts of explanations from the No side, of course, but still very striking.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
It maybe that I shall be proved very wrong but it seems to me a lot of support for UKIP is coming from the fact that they are not class based and do appeal to voters across the spectrum. The are in fact whether by design, though more probably, by accident making a grab for the common ground.
This is a specific ethnic issue more than a religious one, says a community worker in a city near Rotherham. Young Pakistani men are increasingly alienated from their conservative parents, who want them to marry girls from back home (often the Mirpur district in Kashmir) and also from religious leaders, who often cannot speak English. Discussions of sex are taboo at home and in the mosque, so some learn about it from pornography, about misogyny from rap music and come to view white women as fair game (though the report also suggests Pakistani girls were abused, and that this was hushed up).
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21614151-utterly-shockingand-distinctively-britishchild-sex-abuse-scandal-see-no-evil-hear-no-evil
Interesting piece (as so often) from Alex Massie on indyref, for those interested.