""[The UK] benefits from an ICT uptake that is one of the highest in the world. That, coupled with a highly competitive and large market, allows for highly sophisticated and innovative businesses to spring up and develop," the report said."
" a highly competitive and large market." That is what Scotland is apparently seriously considering giving up. We must be mad.
Why should anyone care about the economy being more "competitive" for rich people if all they're getting are crappy wages and bad living standards?
Actually, the new GDP revisions mean that GDP per capita has now gone up under the Coalition. It's a measly rise of. 0.5%, but at least it is positive.
I'm happy to slam this government for their many failings, but to be fair, they have kick started robust growth, slashed unemployment, and now we know that living standards ARE rising.
It's not an entirely depressing picture.
Where the Tories totally lack grit is stuff like Rotherham. The nation is crying out for firm Tory leadership, yet we just get pathetic hand wringing. Tsk.
The government also deserves credit for falling private sector debt, and a public sector that will actually start falling on present plans around 2017/18. So I don't buy the "recovery built on sand line". I actually think when we get to the point where people are calling for interest rate rises, the Keynesian argument can actually be turned on the left: it would then be a good time to start cutting government spending more quickly.
But yes, the places the government has done badly on are things like immigration, integration, the EU and civil liberties. Hence the rise of UKIP.
My latest projection of UKIP seats to be won at the 2015 GE.
Things are looking up for UKIP. If Scotland votes Yes, the number of seats will be 47 If Scotland votes No, the number of seats will be 44
And the projection above is without a Clacton win with Carswell. Should Carswell win, expect the number of seats won to increase by at least 12%.
Are you seriously suggesting UKIP will win over 50 seats if Carswell wins? What odds can one get on that?
Carswell and UKIO (and all those pensioners whose votes he seems so sure of)? Finkelstein in The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4194922.ece has read Carswells Book - The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy - and listed its salient points for his idea of a government. Is this a kipper agenda? Is it the voters? 1. Taxes should be cut for the rich and increased for the middle class and the poor. We shouldn’t be taking the lowest paid out of tax. 2 Income tax should be replaced by taxes on consumption and property that are not progressive. 3 The government was wrong to step in and save ordinary depositors’ cash when the Royal Bank of Scotland was about to shut cash machines. 4 The government should have cut more spending in this parliament and should cut faster in future. 5 Reducing state pensions. 6 Interest rates should be raised. 7 The NHS should be privatised. The government shouldn’t run healthcare. 8 This should also happen in education. Schools should be run much more like supermarkets. 9 The education budget should be halved. 10 The welfare budget should be halved.
As Filkinstein says, it is not that the ideas themselves are necessarily stupid. The issue is whether he is right that implementing these ideas is both plausible and even more so with his ideas on 'iDemocracy'He pointedly adds, 'I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Carswell will enter his by-election campaign calling for the privatisation of the NHS and higher taxes in Clacton so that they can share the burden with the taxpayers of Islington.'
Finkelstein is being utterly disingenuous about this. In many cases listed above Carswell does not say these things should happen but that they will happen. He is writing about the collapse of the Western social welfare system (amongst many other things) and his basic thesis is that the social state as we understand it is now unsustainable in the medium term and we need to get used to that idea and learn how to deal with it.
In that he is of course absolutely right and even Finklestein admits it.
Of course since you have clearly not read the book and so rely upon the interpretation of others you wouldn't know this.
My latest projection of UKIP seats to be won at the 2015 GE.
Things are looking up for UKIP. If Scotland votes Yes, the number of seats will be 47 If Scotland votes No, the number of seats will be 44
And the projection above is without a Clacton win with Carswell. Should Carswell win, expect the number of seats won to increase by at least 12%.
Are you seriously suggesting UKIP will win over 50 seats if Carswell wins? What odds can one get on that?
1. Taxes should be cut for the rich and increased for the middle class and the poor. We shouldn’t be taking the lowest paid out of tax. 2 Income tax should be replaced by taxes on consumption and property that are not progressive. 3 The government was wrong to step in and save ordinary depositors’ cash when the Royal Bank of Scotland was about to shut cash machines. 4 The government should have cut more spending in this parliament and should cut faster in future. 5 Reducing state pensions. 6 Interest rates should be raised. 7 The NHS should be privatised. The government shouldn’t run healthcare. 8 This should also happen in education. Schools should be run much more like supermarkets. 9 The education budget should be halved. 10 The welfare budget should be halved.
A few of those would benefit UKIP's rich backers. Some of that is sheer madness, such as Numbers 3 and 9.
Yes, and of course several of them (notably 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) either directly contradict what we know of UKIP policy, or would make many UKIP supporters run a mile.
I very much doubt that Douglas Carswell will be a member of UKIP in five years' time.
He might still be there, but as leader, Farage having imploded.
Mr. Neil, you don't think it's odd that the electoral register went missing?
My favourite conspiracy is global warming. Are we at 15 or 20 years of flat-lining temperatures, completely unexplained by the alarmist guesswork of men who claim to be scientists and then increase their confidence in their own forecasts from 90% to 95% after their predictions are confounded by reality?
We're at about 11 years of no warming of land temperatures. However, a true global picture would also include sea temperatures, for which the data is currently very preliminary.
As Filkinstein says, it is not that the ideas themselves are necessarily stupid.
That's all tory loyalists have to offer. Jibes about UKIP and threats about Labour.
All the same Carswell will have time to discover the UKIP GE manifesto at Doncaster. As a Kipper he will have to abide with this manifesto though he will have a chance to to add input at the conference.
Are any bookies offering odds on a united Ireland by, say, 2025?
Just thinking of the back of a BBC news article. If Scotland does vote YES, surely there's a chance NI might either also secede (unlikely to be viable as independent state) or reunite with Ireland in a further referendum as unionists lose heart.
Or (for a crazy betting scenario) could NI even split from the UK and reunify just with an independent Scotland?
Viability as a nation state is no impediment to independence.
It is in respect of convincing people to vote for it.
It should be, but the heart wins out normally.
How economically viable is Kosovo? How about a myriad African and South Pacific island nations?
Kosovo is not very economically viable, but being not very economically viable is preferable to being ethnically cleansed by your government.
I also don't think we should have uncontrolled free movement from the whole world (and to be fair we never have and probably never will)
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police." - A.J.P. Taylor
Back then there were cost and practicalities that reduced free movement.
Indeed. A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.
My latest projection of UKIP seats to be won at the 2015 GE.
Things are looking up for UKIP. If Scotland votes Yes, the number of seats will be 47 If Scotland votes No, the number of seats will be 44
And the projection above is without a Clacton win with Carswell. Should Carswell win, expect the number of seats won to increase by at least 12%.
Are you seriously suggesting UKIP will win over 50 seats if Carswell wins? What odds can one get on that?
Carswell and UKIO (and all those pensioners whose votes he seems so sure of)?
10 The welfare budget should be halved.
As Filkinstein says, it is not that the ideas themselves are necessarily stupid. The issue is whether he is right that implementing these ideas is both plausible and even more so with his ideas on 'iDemocracy'He pointedly adds, 'I think it is highly unlikely that Mr Carswell will enter his by-election campaign calling for the privatisation of the NHS and higher taxes in Clacton so that they can share the burden with the taxpayers of Islington.'
Finkelstein is being utterly disingenuous about this. In many cases listed above Carswell does not say these things should happen but that they will happen. He is writing about the collapse of the Western social welfare system (amongst many other things) and his basic thesis is that the social state as we understand it is now unsustainable in the medium term and we need to get used to that idea and learn how to deal with it.
In that he is of course absolutely right and even Finklestein admits it.
Of course since you have clearly not read the book and so rely upon the interpretation of others you wouldn't know this.
Planning to visit Clacton in the lead up to the election Richard?
My latest projection of UKIP seats to be won at the 2015 GE.
Things are looking up for UKIP. If Scotland votes Yes, the number of seats will be 47 If Scotland votes No, the number of seats will be 44
And the projection above is without a Clacton win with Carswell. Should Carswell win, expect the number of seats won to increase by at least 12%.
Are you seriously suggesting UKIP will win over 50 seats if Carswell wins? What odds can one get on that?
1. Taxes should be cut for the rich and increased for the middle class and the poor. We shouldn’t be taking the lowest paid out of tax. 2 Income tax should be replaced by taxes on consumption and property that are not progressive. 3 The government was wrong to step in and save ordinary depositors’ cash when the Royal Bank of Scotland was about to shut cash machines. 4 The government should have cut more spending in this parliament and should cut faster in future. 5 Reducing state pensions. 6 Interest rates should be raised. 7 The NHS should be privatised. The government shouldn’t run healthcare. 8 This should also happen in education. Schools should be run much more like supermarkets. 9 The education budget should be halved. 10 The welfare budget should be halved.
A few of those would benefit UKIP's rich backers. Some of that is sheer madness, such as Numbers 3 and 9.
Yes, and of course several of them (notably 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10) either directly contradict what we know of UKIP policy, or would make many UKIP supporters run a mile.
I very much doubt that Douglas Carswell will be a member of UKIP in five years' time.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
Mr. Neil, you don't think it's odd that the electoral register went missing?
My favourite conspiracy is global warming. Are we at 15 or 20 years of flat-lining temperatures, completely unexplained by the alarmist guesswork of men who claim to be scientists and then increase their confidence in their own forecasts from 90% to 95% after their predictions are confounded by reality?
We're at about 11 years of no warming of land temperatures. However, a true global picture would also include sea temperatures, for which the data is currently very preliminary.
And the extent of sea-ice. The evidence there is pretty one way.
Conspiracy or not it's undeniable that we are changing the planet. That may have the warming effects which are alleged, or it may have other effects. Scientists love a good test tube experiment, but it's just careless to do such a thing when everything you own, or care for is in the test tube with the experiment.
So the specific claims don't matter a jot. The general principle really does.
Members of the public have shouted and jeered at Rotherham councillors during a meeting to discuss last week's damning report about child sexual abuse.
Dozens of people packed into a small chamber at the Town Hall, with one man demanding to know why they didn't act after a seminar about exploitation in 2005.
One woman received applause after she shouted: "We are very angry and we don't know why all of you haven't resigned."
Just wait until the people realise this has happened across the whole country. It may be that the powers that be try to keep it quiet, but hopefully some resourceful journalist will show cover-ups have happened elsewhere.
Ironic that Tories weren't critical of Carswell's book when he was a Tory
Who's critical of it? It's very interesting, as he always is.
The difference, though, is that he was just one of some 300 Tory MPs, and within that very much his own man, with no party position other than as a back-bencher. That's fine, of course, but less manageable in a party with currently zero MPs, in which he'll be one of the two leading figures.
Mr. Neil, you don't think it's odd that the electoral register went missing?
My favourite conspiracy is global warming. Are we at 15 or 20 years of flat-lining temperatures, completely unexplained by the alarmist guesswork of men who claim to be scientists and then increase their confidence in their own forecasts from 90% to 95% after their predictions are confounded by reality?
We're at about 11 years of no warming of land temperatures. However, a true global picture would also include sea temperatures, for which the data is currently very preliminary.
And the extent of sea-ice. The evidence there is pretty one way.
Conspiracy or not it's undeniable that we are changing the planet. That may have the warming effects which are alleged, or it may have other effects. Scientists love a good test tube experiment, but it's just careless to do such a thing when everything you own, or care for is in the test tube with the experiment.
So the specific claims don't matter a jot. The general principle really does.
Indeed. The acidification of the world's oceans is also pretty clear. Basically, polluting the only planet you have is a bad idea, and a sensible conservative should prudentially try to limit that pollution. We shouldn't follow the green line of abandoning capitalism, but where we can sensibly incentivise more efficiency and prudent use of resources we should. Japan has done fantastic things with smart regulation of electric appliances and and improved power plants and I don't think anyone there feels like they're living in some sort of socialist state.
Carswell has sewn up his constituency too well for him to be impractical. He seems a formidable organizer and politician.
Yes I'm sure he is.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan of Carswell in many ways. It's just that it seems a bit optimistic to assume he'll be any less of a maverick in UKIP than he was in the Conservative Party.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Cameron has lost a chunk of the right, how much of the centre will he lose getting to the point you would support him?
Let's face it kippers have taken over the lib dem role of spouting solutions to problems they will never have to solve.
Finally if the kippers on this board are anything to go by the loathing of Cameron for his lack of purity has made him irredeemable in their eyes no matter what he says.
I am making one of my regular trips to Fort William tomorrow for 4 days,the event attracts people from all over the UK but a healthy contingent of Scots,I will be very interested to form my own opinion on the indy following discussions in the bars etc.
For the avoidance of doubt I am from North England,and prefer a "No",but only just.I do of course have plans to relocate my pension arrangements,and bank account in the case of "Yes",and I suspect I am not alone. If Scotland votes yes I will be a little bit sad,but wish them good luck.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Ironic that Tories weren't critical of Carswell's book when he was a Tory
Who's critical of it? It's very interesting, as he always is.
The difference, though, is that he was just one of some 300 Tory MPs, and within that very much his own man, with no party position other than as a back-bencher. That's fine, of course, but less manageable in a party with currently zero MPs, in which he'll be one of the two leading figures.
I don't see why they would want to manage him -I hope his ideas strengthen and contribute to UKIP's policy platform -especially his ideas on direct democracy, which hopefully ensure that the public never again sleepwalks into an abject surrender of their liberties to a supranational body.
As for being a threat to Nigel, Nigel openly acknowledges he's not the best person to lead UKIP in the long term. Being a one man band and having the entire party's fortunes riding on his quips, speeches, debating skills etc. is clearly exhausting and gives the press a single target to try and destroy. The party had already been attempting to move to a sort of 'shadow cabinet' format and bring others to the fore -Carswell coming can therefore only be an enormous help and a relief to Nigel.
Is being in favour of cohesive families and a strong sense of civic responsibility inconsistent with being against inequality and intolerance now? Note that even if you take the quotes out of context they're only in opposition if you assume that the "British Asian way of life" is in opposition to "British values".
The second pair, it seems pretty clear that he's talking about referring to terrorists as "Islamists" versus referring to them as "Islamist Extremists". This is completely consistent, it's the same distinction as me talking about "Chrisitans, like the ones who bomb abortion clinics..." versus "Christian fundamentalists, like the ones who bomb abortion clinics..."
The last pair, the after one isn't even a quote from Cameron, it's a quote from a Sky News article.
""[The UK] benefits from an ICT uptake that is one of the highest in the world. That, coupled with a highly competitive and large market, allows for highly sophisticated and innovative businesses to spring up and develop," the report said."
" a highly competitive and large market." That is what Scotland is apparently seriously considering giving up. We must be mad.
Why should anyone care about the economy being more "competitive" for rich people if all they're getting are crappy wages and bad living standards?
Actually, the new GDP revisions mean that GDP per capita has now gone up under the Coalition. It's a measly rise of. 0.5%, but at least it is positive.
I'm happy to slam this government for their many failings, but to be fair, they have kick started robust growth, slashed unemployment, and now we know that living standards ARE rising.
It's not an entirely depressing picture.
Where the Tories totally lack grit is stuff like Rotherham. The nation is crying out for firm Tory leadership, yet we just get pathetic hand wringing. Tsk.
The government also deserves credit for falling private sector debt, and a public sector that will actually start falling on present plans around 2017/18. So I don't buy the "recovery built on sand line". I actually think when we get to the point where people are calling for interest rate rises, the Keynesian argument can actually be turned on the left: it would then be a good time to start cutting government spending more quickly.
But yes, the places the government has done badly on are things like immigration, integration, the EU and civil liberties. Hence the rise of UKIP.
But yes, the places the government has done badly on are things like immigration, integration, the EU and civil liberties. Hence the rise of UKIP.
All the touchy feely stuff where the LDs gave them cover to continue NuLab policies.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Sanity will prevail when Cameron and his clique are removed. It's the only opportunity that the Conservatives have to remain a significant political force.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
"How good this government is".
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Sanity will prevail when Cameron and his clique are removed. It's the only opportunity that the Conservatives have to remain a significant political force.
The question is whether the Conservative party you're invisioning would every be able to win power. In 2010, fresh from the financial crisis with everyone blaming the Labour party they were already sick of, against the charisma-vacuum of Gordon Brown, they couldn't even win a majority. And it wasn't because any significant amount of right wing votes were going elsewhere.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
Just to get the panic stricken headless chickens in the Tory party frothing even more. When Farage named his front bench there was one notable omission. He hasn't named a Foreign spokesman. Could it be Carswell? I don't think so. he would fit the democracy role far better. Could it be that there is someone yet unnamed (a Tory?) waiting in the wings
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
He can support a change to a different system and still not expect it to happen. If Kippers were saying "Vote UKIP... but only on the condition that we have a change in our electoral system or it looks pretty likely it'll happen soon" then that'd be a different matter.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
It isn't as simple as you try to make it either
Who would've said five years ago that ukip plus com would be almost 50%? If you think that' they won't do a deal in that scenario in 2019 post Cameron rather than let Miliband have another five years, them I think you can't have thougt about it all, or just say anything to get elected a la Dave
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
Plus Labour will import millions of third world voters as soon as they get their hands on power. Someone should investigate "Tony's Britons" and the gerrymandering of the UK political system.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
How well did the public take the last opportunity for a change? Or was Cameron so magnificent he persuaded them to vote no change against there better instincts, like he will on an EU referendum as kippers seem to fear?
Just to get the panic stricken headless chickens in the Tory party frothing even more. When Farage named his front bench there was one notable omission. He hasn't named a Foreign spokesman. Could it be Carswell? I don't think so. he would fit the democracy role far better. Could it be that there is someone yet unnamed (a Tory?) waiting in the wings
Don't be silly.
Kippers wouldn't dream of talking to Johnny Foreigner, hence there's no need for a role to deal with them.
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
One of the top two concerns of the British public is immigration, yes, according to IpsosMORI this month. But that's a completely ridiculous metric. The top concern, by a massive margin, throughout 2010, 2011, and 2012 was the Economy, which is now much less of a concern. So the government has done a brilliant job in addressing the main concern, right?
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
He can support a change to a different system and still not expect it to happen. If Kippers were saying "Vote UKIP... but only on the condition that we have a change in our electoral system or it looks pretty likely it'll happen soon" then that'd be a different matter.
But David doesn't. He simultaneously argues for UKIP supporters shouldn't vote for their first choice political party because the electoral system hurts them for doing so, while completely supporting the electoral system that causes this fault. The reason behind it is because the unfair system is the only way the Tories can get their votes.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Sanity will prevail when Cameron and his clique are removed. It's the only opportunity that the Conservatives have to remain a significant political force.
The question is whether the Conservative party you're invisioning would every be able to win power. In 2010, fresh from the financial crisis with everyone blaming the Labour party they were already sick of, against the charisma-vacuum of Gordon Brown, they couldn't even win a majority. And it wasn't because any significant amount of right wing votes were going elsewhere.
Possibly not, but 'the right' can win power again. The right has been consistently outpolling the left in every recent opinion poll I've seen. That's great news for conservatives, even if its not great news for Conservatives.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
It isn't as simple as you try to make it either
Who would've said five years ago that ukip plus com would be almost 50%? If you think that' they won't do a deal in that scenario in 2019 post Cameron rather than let Miliband have another five years, them I think you can't have thougt about it all, or just say anything to get elected a la Dave
Labour + Lib Dem in 2010 were at 52%. Why didn't they do a deal? Because a combined 50% of the vote doesn't mean you have a majority of seats.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
It isn't as simple as you try to make it either
Who would've said five years ago that ukip plus com would be almost 50%? If you think that' they won't do a deal in that scenario in 2019 post Cameron rather than let Miliband have another five years, them I think you can't have thougt about it all, or just say anything to get elected a la Dave
The problem with that, as you well know, is that for every vote he gains on the right from a pact with ukip, he loses on the left. Many of the Conservatives on this site have said they could not vote conservative in the event of a UKIP pact.
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
One of the top two concerns of the British public is immigration, yes, according to IpsosMORI this month. But that's a completely ridiculous metric. The top concern, by a massive margin, throughout 2010, 2011, and 2012 was the Economy, which is now much less of a concern. So the government has done a brilliant job in addressing the main concern, right?
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
I'm not asking them to magic away the problem. I'm asking them to make even half way progress towards their target. But they haven't. They're not even moving in the right direction on either EU immigration or non-EU immigration right now.
Why not tighten the points system further? Why not bring back the primary purpose rule? Why not raise the income level you need to bring in an arranged wife from Kashmir? Why not raise the income level for work visas beyond £20,500? Even if the Lib Dems block it, you can at least promise it in your manifesto for next time. But we just get silence.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
Well, that is a completely different point. If we had a PR system then of course the entire political landscape would be different. But we don't, and we're not going to in the foreseeable future. That is the reality.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
He can support a change to a different system and still not expect it to happen. If Kippers were saying "Vote UKIP... but only on the condition that we have a change in our electoral system or it looks pretty likely it'll happen soon" then that'd be a different matter.
But David doesn't. He simultaneously argues for UKIP supporters shouldn't vote for their first choice political party because the electoral system hurts them for doing so, while completely supporting the electoral system that causes this fault. The reason behind it is because the unfair system is the only way the Tories can get their votes.
Well, I support an alternative electoral system too, so if we were going to have a conversation about which electoral system is best I'd probably agree with you rather than him.
But where (perhaps!) all three of us can agree is that a change in the electoral system certainly doesn't seem imminent, especially with the defeat of AV just a few years behind us. So in the real world- rather than the ideal world in which such a change came about soon- what is the solution to his problem with a split Right handing Labour power?
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
One of the top two concerns of the British public is immigration, yes, according to IpsosMORI this month. But that's a completely ridiculous metric. The top concern, by a massive margin, throughout 2010, 2011, and 2012 was the Economy, which is now much less of a concern. So the government has done a brilliant job in addressing the main concern, right?
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
I'm not asking them to magic away the problem. I'm asking them to make even half way progress towards their target. But they haven't. They're not even moving in the right direction on either EU immigration or non-EU immigration right now.
Why not tighten the points system further? Why not bring back the primary purpose rule? Why not raise the income level you need to bring in an arranged wife from Kashmir? Why not raise the income level for work visas beyond £20,500? Even if the Lib Dems block it, you can at least promise it in your manifesto for next time. But we just get silence.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Sanity will prevail when Cameron and his clique are removed. It's the only opportunity that the Conservatives have to remain a significant political force.
The question is whether the Conservative party you're invisioning would every be able to win power. In 2010, fresh from the financial crisis with everyone blaming the Labour party they were already sick of, against the charisma-vacuum of Gordon Brown, they couldn't even win a majority. And it wasn't because any significant amount of right wing votes were going elsewhere.
Possibly not, but 'the right' can win power again. The right has been consistently outpolling the left in every recent opinion poll I've seen. That's great news for conservatives, even if its not great news for Conservatives.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
This really isn't complicated.
So support a change to an electoral system where this doesn't happen.
He can support a change to a different system and still not expect it to happen. If Kippers were saying "Vote UKIP... but only on the condition that we have a change in our electoral system or it looks pretty likely it'll happen soon" then that'd be a different matter.
But David doesn't. He simultaneously argues for UKIP supporters shouldn't vote for their first choice political party because the electoral system hurts them for doing so, while completely supporting the electoral system that causes this fault. The reason behind it is because the unfair system is the only way the Tories can get their votes.
Basically, the message from the Conservatives seems to be: it's the fault of their ex-voter if they decide they no longer want to support them; never of the Conservative Party itself.
It's an unbelievably arrogant and pompous thing to say. Can you imagine a private firm operating that way about its ex-customers?
It'd go out of business in weeks. And there's still NO sign the Conservative Party or its leadership "get it".
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
One of the top two concerns of the British public is immigration, yes, according to IpsosMORI this month. But that's a completely ridiculous metric. The top concern, by a massive margin, throughout 2010, 2011, and 2012 was the Economy, which is now much less of a concern. So the government has done a brilliant job in addressing the main concern, right?
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
The Coalition has done a remarkable job with the economy and that success is attracting huge numbers of immigrants. So why in the name of God did Cameron make his idiotic, undesirable and impossible immigration pledge?
Why not tighten the points system further? Why not bring back the primary purpose rule? Why not raise the income level you need to bring in an arranged wife from Kashmir? Why not raise the income level for work visas beyond £20,500? Even if the Lib Dems block it, you can at least promise it in your manifesto for next time. But we just get silence.
They are doing those things. [Actually, whisper it quietly, but even Labour at the end of their period in government finally got round to recognising the problem and put in place a reasonable points-based system.].
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Sanity will prevail when Cameron and his clique are removed. It's the only opportunity that the Conservatives have to remain a significant political force.
The question is whether the Conservative party you're invisioning would every be able to win power. In 2010, fresh from the financial crisis with everyone blaming the Labour party they were already sick of, against the charisma-vacuum of Gordon Brown, they couldn't even win a majority. And it wasn't because any significant amount of right wing votes were going elsewhere.
Possibly not, but 'the right' can win power again. The right has been consistently outpolling the left in every recent opinion poll I've seen. That's great news for conservatives, even if its not great news for Conservatives.
Well, how do you see that happening?
I see the Conservatives maintaining their base in London and the Home Counties, and UKIP representing the right almost everywhere else. Perhaps with a third independent Conservative Party offshoot here in Scotland. They should have done this years ago anyway but Cameron wouldn't have it. Division is brilliant -do you think Pepsi and Coke would have got anywhere by having a pact? Their competition over the course of 70 years has made brown fizzy liquid a staple. A divided right is a winning right.
The Coalition have done a remarkable job with the economy and that success is attracting huge numbers of immigrants. So why in the name of God did Cameron make his idiotic, undesirable and impossible immigration pledge?
Why aren't there more polls? Because obviously the Scotch will vote no, obviously because we've scared them over the currency and EastEnders so they'll do as they're told. Why waste money on polling?
Of course when its a yes - and it WILL be yes - it'll be seen as a massive shock, it'll spook the markets, there will be a press onslaught against Cameron, and that's just the start.
I see the Conservatives maintaining their base in London and the Home Counties, and UKIP representing the right almost everywhere else. Perhaps with a third independent Conservative Party offshoot here in Scotland. They should have done this years ago anyway but Cameron wouldn't have it. Division is brilliant -do you think Pepsi and Coke would have got anywhere by having a pact? Their competition over the course of 70 years has made brown fizzy liquid a staple. A divided right is a winning right.
Are you envisioning that they wouldn't run candidates against each other? If not, the maths is still very difficult to make up. If even 5% or 10% in a constituency was consistently going to the secondary conservative party which would normally be going to the main one, it'd be an absolutely huge electoral barrier.
I see the Conservatives maintaining their base in London and the Home Counties, and UKIP representing the right almost everywhere else. Perhaps with a third independent Conservative Party offshoot here in Scotland. They should have done this years ago anyway but Cameron wouldn't have it. Division is brilliant -do you think Pepsi and Coke would have got anywhere by having a pact? Their competition over the course of 70 years has made brown fizzy liquid a staple. A divided right is a winning right.
Are you envisioning that they wouldn't run candidates against each other? If not, the maths is still very difficult to make up. If even 5% or 10% in a constituency was consistently going to the secondary conservative party which would normally be going to the main one, it'd be an absolutely huge electoral barrier.
I don't see that the existence of the Lib Dems has been a huge barrier to Labour.
Immigration was always framed around EU-immigrants - normally white, Christian, so fair game.
Never was the concern about third world immigration voiced publicly - mainly non-white, significantly non-Christian.
Wonder if this will now change. Of course, any attempt to control one would bring about the usual howls of racism. Like the Labour-Rotherham scandal. But only one set was part of Labour's vote bank. That self-immolating jihadis also come from this sub-sector is merely anecdotal. Of course.
The Tories could have easily targeted the second, but didn't for fear of being labelled racist although the LDs probably had something to do with it.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
Well, well that is a change from only a few months ago, Richard, where you said or inferred that UKIP would disappear up its own arsehole and be lucky to get the 3% it got in 2010. You have changed your tune quite a lot in that time.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-sequence, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Because the opposition to Miliband will be completely divided. In that scenario it doesn't matter how unpopular and disastrous Ed Miliband. He'll still get re-elected, in a FPTP system where Labour has in any case a huge advantage from vote distribution and boundaries.
Things really are looking pretty bleak for the Tories, it is true. At times they've shown glimpses of perhaps being able to handle or at least mitigate the many issues that were standing in their way to largest party status, but now even a potentially terrible Labour government doesn't seem like it will save them.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
Makes me sad when you use crap arguments as your normally a shrewdie
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-esque, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Cameron's about to prove that crap PMs only get one term
I think Cameron's been ok as a PM, even with plenty of failures. The problem is he's been a disastrous leader of his party, even if only part of that has to do with his leadership, except for where his leadership has failed to deal with problems that already existed within his party.
I see the Conservatives maintaining their base in London and the Home Counties, and UKIP representing the right almost everywhere else. Perhaps with a third independent Conservative Party offshoot here in Scotland. They should have done this years ago anyway but Cameron wouldn't have it. Division is brilliant -do you think Pepsi and Coke would have got anywhere by having a pact? Their competition over the course of 70 years has made brown fizzy liquid a staple. A divided right is a winning right.
Are you envisioning that they wouldn't run candidates against each other? If not, the maths is still very difficult to make up. If even 5% or 10% in a constituency was consistently going to the secondary conservative party which would normally be going to the main one, it'd be an absolutely huge electoral barrier.
I don't see that the existence of the Lib Dems has been a huge barrier to Labour.
You don't? If Labour wins the next election, there's a very good chance that it'll be thanks to the shrinking Lib Dem party. And that's with the Lib Dems between Labour and the Tories politically, sucking up votes from both directions (though admittedly more from the left than the right).
But okay, let's maybe put some numbers to it and see if it makes sense. You said opinion polls put the Right ahead. Roughly what proportion of people do you see has preferring your conservative parties over either a centrist or leftist party? And in roughly what proportion of constituencies do you see one of these two parties winning?
Why aren't there more polls? Because obviously the Scotch will vote no, obviously because we've scared them over the currency and EastEnders so they'll do as they're told. Why waste money on polling?
Of course when its a yes - and it WILL be yes - it'll be seen as a massive shock, it'll spook the markets, there will be a press onslaught against Cameron, and that's just the start.
So bugger polls. Enjoy the calm whilst ye can....
I don't think the tabloid press will necessarily be that hash on Cameron. Many English first types might ask themselves what right do the Scots have to see off an English PM who wisely hasn't bothered getting involved too much in their provincial squabble.The 'broadsheets' are a different matter. Guardian Telegraph and Independent will probably hammer him and the FT will speculate. I expect The Times to remain loyal, but who knows.
The pressure on Cameron won't come immediately from middle England, but from the great and the good - defence, finance, Oxford dons, diplomats, the sort of grouping Cameron might like to think himself a part of. They will be urging him out. The lack of contingency planning might do for him if he tries to hang on. The English may not care but they want a PM who is prepared.
I see the Conservatives maintaining their base in London and the Home Counties, and UKIP representing the right almost everywhere else. Perhaps with a third independent Conservative Party offshoot here in Scotland. They should have done this years ago anyway but Cameron wouldn't have it. Division is brilliant -do you think Pepsi and Coke would have got anywhere by having a pact? Their competition over the course of 70 years has made brown fizzy liquid a staple. A divided right is a winning right.
Are you envisioning that they wouldn't run candidates against each other? If not, the maths is still very difficult to make up. If even 5% or 10% in a constituency was consistently going to the secondary conservative party which would normally be going to the main one, it'd be an absolutely huge electoral barrier.
I don't see that the existence of the Lib Dems has been a huge barrier to Labour.
You weren't around in the 80s? Labour ended up borrowing lots of the Tories' clothes.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
What a complete abdication of responsibility. You do realise it is Cameron who has lost a large chunk of the right?
Poppycock. The Conservative Party has been divided and ungovernable for a quarter of a century. It only united in desperation when Howard knocked some sense into it, and Cameron took over and did a brilliant job in dragging it back towards reality. Unfortunately, for reasons which are complex - but clearly partly the same as those driving the Front National in France and the Five Star Movement in Italy - the old suicidal urge seems to have re-arisen in the party's natural supporters. This is particularly odd given how good the government is, but there's no logic in this self-harm.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
Well said. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I wouldn't be voting for a party which saw UKIPesqe policies as the way forward.
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
One of the top two concerns of the British public is immigration, yes, according to IpsosMORI this month. But that's a completely ridiculous metric. The top concern, by a massive margin, throughout 2010, 2011, and 2012 was the Economy, which is now much less of a concern. So the government has done a brilliant job in addressing the main concern, right?
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
The Coalition has done a remarkable job with the economy and that success is attracting huge numbers of immigrants. So why in the name of God did Cameron make his idiotic, undesirable and impossible immigration pledge?
Because three quarters of the British public want immigration levels reduced. It has become one of the top three issues since the 1990s. The typical annual level of net immigration then was typically 50-70k a year and commanded broad public support. Hence Cameron's mainfesto commitment to reduce immigration to those levels again - the "tens of thousands":
There is still plenty to be done on bogus students, family "reunions" and sensible controls on freedom of movement of EU workers - but we'd need to leave the EU to do it:
If we did that, we should be able to cut net immigration substantially and hold it in the 75,000-120,000 per year band, which would probably be good enough, give the public confidence it's well under control and ensure its economically non-prejudicial.
Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh.
I would.
Well here's one that does just that. The obsession with Europe is truly comforting - it shows how the Tories are on a completely different wavelength from most of the electorate. I did a great deal of canvassing in the run-up to the local elections in London and the number of voters who raised the subject of Europe with me was precisely zero.
@PickardJE: Britain has added more people to its workforce in last four years than the other 27 EU countries combined (net figures). Story coming....
Net figures? As in they've added the countries with a negative change to the countries witha positive change? What a bizarre way of coming up with a statistic.
For an example of how misleading it can be, if hypothetically all 28 countries had had a net loss of people in their respective workforces, then it'd be easily possible- and in fact quite likely- for this statement to be true for all 28 of them. If the mean across all countries had been 0, it'd probably be true for about half of them.
"Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh."
I find Cameron's unpopularity amongst the right on here very strange. I'm not a fan of Tory leaders of any sort but Cameron is more palatable than most. What's more I can't for the life of me see him losing the next election. Quite simply the middle ground has nowhere else to go and neither has the (sane) right.
Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh.
I would.
Well here's one that does just that. The obsession with Europe is truly comforting - it shows how the Tories are on a completely different wavelength from most of the electorate. I did a great deal of canvassing in the run-up to the local elections in London and the number of voters who raised the subject of Europe with me was precisely zero.
"Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh."
I find Cameron's unpopularity amongst the right on here very strange. I'm not a fan of Tory leaders of any sort but Cameron is more palatable than most. What's more I can't for the life of me see him losing the next election. Quite simply the middle ground has nowhere else to go and neither has the (sane) right.
Bugger. Why did you say that?
I'm logging onto Betfair and reviewing my positions on Ed Miliband as next PM.
Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh.
I would.
Well here's one that does just that. The obsession with Europe is truly comforting - it shows how the Tories are on a completely different wavelength from most of the electorate. I did a great deal of canvassing in the run-up to the local elections in London and the number of voters who raised the subject of Europe with me was precisely zero.
It's a curious issue in that regard. Aside from immigration, which is tied up more generally with the issue of Europe, it feels like most people do not care so much about the EU to bang on about it all the time in the manner of UKIP and the Tories, but equally, if your raise it with most people I find that they will be pretty passionate about it, usually closer to the UKIP position or at least the Tory position (I'm not really clear what Labour's position on Europe is, except to stress they do not love it). I suspect most people do not think we can do anything about it, so why bang on about it, but they are negative or at least unenthusiastic about it.
Poor Richard, the question is where will the Tory party be in 5 years time? The future doesn't look great.
I agree that the future doesn't look great. You lot seem quite likely to wreck the country, and put Labour into power for a decade or more.
Makes me sad when you use crap arguments as your normally a shrewdie
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-esque, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Cameron's about to prove that crap PMs only get one term
I think Cameron's been ok as a PM, even with plenty of failures. The problem is he's been a disastrous leader of his party, even if only part of that has to do with his leadership, except for where his leadership has failed to deal with problems that already existed within his party.
Interesting observation. A couple of years ago I wrote to my last MP (Peter Lilley fwiw) noting that a signifiant number of MPs live of their voices in front of the camera was not helping the party. He kindly wrote back saying that wasn't fair and was a result of a, then, media line. I'm not sure that he's correct. There are a small number of MPs who are (a) in love with their own voices and (b) look back to the 1980s and Thatcher as nirvana and have tapped into what a media myth of no compromise which is entirely false (and the intellectual similarity between her ousting, let down around her, and the memory that Hitler tapped into about the German army not being beaten on the battlefield is interesting*). There is of course false memory syndrome and equally people looking back to their 20s as the best of times (UKIP of course relies on the same memory of white Empire preference and the 1950s). Ultimately those MPs will never be satisfied. Intellectually Carswell falls into the no compromise camp. He may find UKIP challenging at a variety of levels.
*this is the internet so FAOD I'm not saying that conservative MPs in their 50s are Nazis....
10.4 Will the local results be announced by the Chief Counting Officer or by the local Counting Officers? Counting Officers will report local totals to the CCO who will confirm them and authorise local announcements. Local totals will also be announced by the CCO in Edinburgh. A final declaration of the national result will be made by the CCO following receipt and verification of all 32 local totals.
Anyone got any info on how/when/where the result of the IndyRef is going to be declared?
"The Chief Counting Officer intends to operate the results collation centre and announce the referendum result from the Royal Highland Centre at Ingliston near Edinburgh"
Announcement expected in the morning following the vote, exact timing uncertain.
"Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh."
I find Cameron's unpopularity amongst the right on here very strange. I'm not a fan of Tory leaders of any sort but Cameron is more palatable than most. What's more I can't for the life of me see him losing the next election. Quite simply the middle ground has nowhere else to go and neither has the (sane) right.
It amazes me that a Labour supporter would think Cameron has the centre ground sewn up.
Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh.
I would.
Well here's one that does just that. The obsession with Europe is truly comforting - it shows how the Tories are on a completely different wavelength from most of the electorate. I did a great deal of canvassing in the run-up to the local elections in London and the number of voters who raised the subject of Europe with me was precisely zero.
It's a curious issue in that regard. Aside from immigration, which is tied up more generally with the issue of Europe, it feels like most people do not care so much about the EU to bang on about it all the time in the manner of UKIP and the Tories, but equally, if your raise it with most people I find that they will be pretty passionate about it, usually closer to the UKIP position or at least the Tory position (I'm not really clear what Labour's position on Europe is, except to stress they do not love it). I suspect most people do not think we can do anything about it, so why bang on about it, but they are negative or at least unenthusiastic about it.
It's the banging on about Europe that grates with people,not the issue itself
Because three quarters of the British public want immigration levels reduced. It has become one of the top three issues since the 1990s. The typical annual level of net immigration then was typically 50-70k a year and commanded broad public support. Hence Cameron's mainfesto commitment to reduce immigration to those levels again - the "tens of thousands":
There is still plenty to be done on bogus students, family "reunions" and sensible controls on freedom of movement of EU workers - but we'd need to leave the EU to do it:
If we did that, we should be able to cut net immigration substantially and hold it in the 75,000-120,000 per year band, which would probably be good enough, give the public confidence it's well under control and ensure its economically non-prejudicial.
Net immigration in the 20th Century as a whole was marginally negative and only began to consistently go positive in the 1990's. To assume returning to the 1990's growth levels would be satisfactory is presumptious. We had not experienced persistent high levels of net immigration in the 1990's or the high levels of opposition to it. Any government bringing immigration under control will have to make a significant statement. I suspect 600,000 net immigrants in 5 years certainly would not do it. My own estimate is that it would need to be closer to 200,000 or perhaps 250,000
The other consideration is the 75-120 thousand range does not allow accommodation and public services much chance to catch up with the 3 million immigrants net who have entered the country in the last 15 years. For the first period it would need to be much lower than that probably to allow things to work their way through and demonstrate to the public that public services were improving. Quoting previously discredited Home Office surveys (guesstimates) will just not cut it. Voters will have to see the improvements for themselves and because of the electoral cycle do so within the first 5 years.
Once the voter has confidence in the Governments immigration controls then it would become a debate about how many immigrants could enter on average each year and the Government will likely have some flexibility..
"Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh."
I find Cameron's unpopularity amongst the right on here very strange. I'm not a fan of Tory leaders of any sort but Cameron is more palatable than most. What's more I can't for the life of me see him losing the next election. Quite simply the middle ground has nowhere else to go and neither has the (sane) right.
It's not really that strange. Cameron pitched himself as being more to the centre, or able to appeal to the centre, than the hard Tory right. Therefore, when his popularity starts to wane and the electoral math looks difficult, that part of the party, wherein is to be found the most vocal and passionate ideological Tories, will feel that appeal to the centre is not working and they should be true to themselves, and that Cameron is not one of them.
And the middle ground will go to Labour. Why wouldn't they? Most people will not believe Tory claims that Miliband will be some radical hard left demon or some such, and with someone as weak as Cameron, even an uninspiring Miliband will not frighten many. Even if people like Cameron, he is not able to lead his party convincingly on many issues, and people know it.
Comments
But yes, the places the government has done badly on are things like immigration, integration, the EU and civil liberties. Hence the rise of UKIP.
In that he is of course absolutely right and even Finklestein admits it.
Of course since you have clearly not read the book and so rely upon the interpretation of others you wouldn't know this.
Conspiracy or not it's undeniable that we are changing the planet. That may have the warming effects which are alleged, or it may have other effects. Scientists love a good test tube experiment, but it's just careless to do such a thing when everything you own, or care for is in the test tube with the experiment.
So the specific claims don't matter a jot. The general principle really does.
I watch these spectacular assertions to the effect that "we never deal with terrorists".
And regret that Gerry Adams inter alia aren't present in the Commons to make the speakers think!
The difference, though, is that he was just one of some 300 Tory MPs, and within that very much his own man, with no party position other than as a back-bencher. That's fine, of course, but less manageable in a party with currently zero MPs, in which he'll be one of the two leading figures.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan of Carswell in many ways. It's just that it seems a bit optimistic to assume he'll be any less of a maverick in UKIP than he was in the Conservative Party.
Let's face it kippers have taken over the lib dem role of spouting solutions to problems they will never have to solve.
Finally if the kippers on this board are anything to go by the loathing of Cameron for his lack of purity has made him irredeemable in their eyes no matter what he says.
For the avoidance of doubt I am from North England,and prefer a "No",but only just.I do of course have plans to relocate my pension arrangements,and bank account in the case of "Yes",and I suspect I am not alone.
If Scotland votes yes I will be a little bit sad,but wish them good luck.
Let's hope that sanity prevails, but clearly that is less likely now than it was a couple of weeks ago.
As for being a threat to Nigel, Nigel openly acknowledges he's not the best person to lead UKIP in the long term. Being a one man band and having the entire party's fortunes riding on his quips, speeches, debating skills etc. is clearly exhausting and gives the press a single target to try and destroy. The party had already been attempting to move to a sort of 'shadow cabinet' format and bring others to the fore -Carswell coming can therefore only be an enormous help and a relief to Nigel.
I'm certainly no fan of Cameron's, but these are very misleading
For the first pair, if you read the 2007 quote in context ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/may/13/comment.communities ) you see that the values he's refering to are "families and communities [which] are incredibly strong and cohesive, and... a sense of civic responsibility which puts the rest of us to shame." Whereas the 2014 quote (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-values-article-by-david-cameron) is talking about British values as opposed to "not believing in democracy" being "completely intolerant of others" and "equality not being your bag"
Is being in favour of cohesive families and a strong sense of civic responsibility inconsistent with being against inequality and intolerance now? Note that even if you take the quotes out of context they're only in opposition if you assume that the "British Asian way of life" is in opposition to "British values".
The second pair, it seems pretty clear that he's talking about referring to terrorists as "Islamists" versus referring to them as "Islamist Extremists". This is completely consistent, it's the same distinction as me talking about "Chrisitans, like the ones who bomb abortion clinics..." versus "Christian fundamentalists, like the ones who bomb abortion clinics..."
The last pair, the after one isn't even a quote from Cameron, it's a quote from a Sky News article.
All the touchy feely stuff where the LDs gave them cover to continue NuLab policies.
If Ed Miliband is so awful, and so Hollande-esque, why would you think labour be in charge for a decade or so
Cameron's about to prove that crap PMs only get one term
The top concern to the British public is immigration. Cameron targeted a 60% reduction in net immigration. Care to tell me how much either EU or non-EU net immigration has fallen since 2010?
This really isn't complicated.
Who would've said five years ago that ukip plus com would be almost 50%? If you think that' they won't do a deal in that scenario in 2019 post Cameron rather than let Miliband have another five years, them I think you can't have thougt about it all, or just say anything to get elected a la Dave
Kippers wouldn't dream of talking to Johnny Foreigner, hence there's no need for a role to deal with them.
As for immigration, the reason the government can't magic away the problem is that it is bloody hard to do so, starting from where we are. There is no quick or easy solution.
Why not tighten the points system further? Why not bring back the primary purpose rule? Why not raise the income level you need to bring in an arranged wife from Kashmir? Why not raise the income level for work visas beyond £20,500? Even if the Lib Dems block it, you can at least promise it in your manifesto for next time. But we just get silence.
But where (perhaps!) all three of us can agree is that a change in the electoral system certainly doesn't seem imminent, especially with the defeat of AV just a few years behind us. So in the real world- rather than the ideal world in which such a change came about soon- what is the solution to his problem with a split Right handing Labour power?
Much like Rotherham
It's an unbelievably arrogant and pompous thing to say. Can you imagine a private firm operating that way about its ex-customers?
It'd go out of business in weeks. And there's still NO sign the Conservative Party or its leadership "get it".
I would.
Of course when its a yes - and it WILL be yes - it'll be seen as a massive shock, it'll spook the markets, there will be a press onslaught against Cameron, and that's just the start.
So bugger polls. Enjoy the calm whilst ye can....
Pakistan 16%
India 10%
USA 6%
Nepal 5%
Bangladesh 4%
Percentage of adults employed by country of origin, marriage visas, females:
Pakistan 8%
India 43%
USA 55%
Nepal N/A
Bangladesh 20%
UK population 55%
"They come to work"
Never was the concern about third world immigration voiced publicly - mainly non-white, significantly non-Christian.
Wonder if this will now change. Of course, any attempt to control one would bring about the usual howls of racism. Like the Labour-Rotherham scandal. But only one set was part of Labour's vote bank. That self-immolating jihadis also come from this sub-sector is merely anecdotal. Of course.
The Tories could have easily targeted the second, but didn't for fear of being labelled racist although the LDs probably had something to do with it.
What's your plan? Deny Marriage/Partnership VISAs to certain countries and not others?
That is what it would take, given your figures.
The British polity is not there yet. But it might yet get there.
But okay, let's maybe put some numbers to it and see if it makes sense. You said opinion polls put the Right ahead. Roughly what proportion of people do you see has preferring your conservative parties over either a centrist or leftist party? And in roughly what proportion of constituencies do you see one of these two parties winning?
The pressure on Cameron won't come immediately from middle England, but from the great and the good - defence, finance, Oxford dons, diplomats, the sort of grouping Cameron might like to think himself a part of. They will be urging him out. The lack of contingency planning might do for him if he tries to hang on. The English may not care but they want a PM who is prepared.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10436228
There is still plenty to be done on bogus students, family "reunions" and sensible controls on freedom of movement of EU workers - but we'd need to leave the EU to do it:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/what-can-be-done
If we did that, we should be able to cut net immigration substantially and hold it in the 75,000-120,000 per year band, which would probably be good enough, give the public confidence it's well under control and ensure its economically non-prejudicial.
For an example of how misleading it can be, if hypothetically all 28 countries had had a net loss of people in their respective workforces, then it'd be easily possible- and in fact quite likely- for this statement to be true for all 28 of them. If the mean across all countries had been 0, it'd probably be true for about half of them.
"Labour supporters must read these threads, and laugh and laugh and laugh."
I find Cameron's unpopularity amongst the right on here very strange. I'm not a fan of Tory leaders of any sort but Cameron is more palatable than most. What's more I can't for the life of me see him losing the next election. Quite simply the middle ground has nowhere else to go and neither has the (sane) right.
Of course, all of this would require much stricter policing and enforcement by UK immigration control:
http://www.balancedmigration.com/content/uploads/2012/10/ourcase.pdf
Mr. Roger, I hope you're right but rather fear you're not.
I'm logging onto Betfair and reviewing my positions on Ed Miliband as next PM.
*this is the internet so FAOD I'm not saying that conservative MPs in their 50s are Nazis....
Counting Officers will report local totals to the CCO who will confirm them and authorise local announcements. Local totals will also be announced by the CCO in Edinburgh. A final declaration of the national result will be made by the CCO following receipt and verification of all 32 local totals.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland
And the middle ground will go to Labour. Why wouldn't they? Most people will not believe Tory claims that Miliband will be some radical hard left demon or some such, and with someone as weak as Cameron, even an uninspiring Miliband will not frighten many. Even if people like Cameron, he is not able to lead his party convincingly on many issues, and people know it.