There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
Wouldn't sway the Yes voters I spoke to. They have completely bought the line that Scots politicians in Holyrood (John Swinney, Mike Russell FFS) will do a better job than Scots politicians in Westminster (Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling)
Again, logic and reason have no place in this debate.
your example shows it indeed has merit. Brown and Darling were abject failures, even together they would struggle to run a bath.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
It si too late anyway , people have voted by post.
To be fair to him even when he was a Tory MP during their most intolerant periods he never had any truck with racists and homophobes. What he's saying is that the Tory Party should ignore them and cast them adrift. They don't need people with those attitudes anymore. And I think he's right
Considering the complete failure to recruit ethnic minorities to the Conservative cause and the minuscule size of the gay community, it appears you are flat out wrong.
"Poor, white, thick and old", that is Parris's view and according to him such people's views should be ignored.
This profiling of UKIP's electorate has been noted before. Since voter segmentation is useful (the best way to attract votes is segment the voters, work out which group is most amenable to your cause, and tailor your message to them), it's perhaps better formulated as "white skin blue collar, grey hair", since that's a more neutral choice of words. Additionally, "uneducated" is not the same as "thick" (but you already knew that, apols)
If you want to use short hand you might want to say white working class. That's fine by me, the effect is the same. Parris is saying that the Conservatives should ignore the views of such people, which, of course, is unnecessary advice as that party has been doing just that for decades. Labour has been doing the same and the Lib Dems don't even seem to acknowledge their existence.
The shit seems to have hit the fan because a party has grown up based upon listening to the views of people who have been abandoned by the big three parties. Those parties are now failing around trying to work out how to cope with this new threat. The truth is that they cannot.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
It si too late anyway , people have voted by post.
Don't be silly, the vast majority will vote on the day.
I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
Which is a different position than SO.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
He might resign, but that's a long way from must.
I don't suppose Lord North was reponsible for almost anything that led to the loss of the American colonies and Chamberlain was certainly not personally responsible for almost anything driving events in 1940 but they still had to go. If it's a yes then Cameron will find himself in the same position - it happened on his watch and history will allocate most of the blame to him.
Chamberlain tried to appease Hilter and was made to look a fool. Cameron refused to appease Salmond with DevoMax and will be shown to have successfully called his bluff.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
It si too late anyway , people have voted by post.
Don't be silly, the vast majority will vote on the day.
It will not be believed, I expect they will try to trick people before the 18th but most know they are lying toads and will ignore. They have cried wolf far too often.
"Poor, white, thick and old", that is Parris's view and according to him such people's views should be ignored.
This profiling of UKIP's electorate has been noted before. Since voter segmentation is useful (the best way to attract votes is segment the voters, work out which group is most amenable to your cause, and tailor your message to them), it's perhaps better formulated as "white skin blue collar, grey hair", since that's a more neutral choice of words. Additionally, "uneducated" is not the same as "thick" (but you already knew that, apols)
If you want to use short hand you might want to say white working class. That's fine by me, the effect is the same. Parris is saying that the Conservatives should ignore the views of such people, which, of course, is unnecessary advice as that party has been doing just that for decades. Labour has been doing the same and the Lib Dems don't even seem to acknowledge their existence.
The shit seems to have hit the fan because a party has grown up based upon listening to the views of people who have been abandoned by the big three parties. Those parties are now failing around trying to work out how to cope with this new threat. The truth is that they cannot.
Bingo. The Tories have been outflanked. All that remains is the messy slaughter. Labour still has a chance to protect its flank.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
It si too late anyway , people have voted by post.
While they were voting by post NO were ahead in every poll. I'm not sure that's a great argument for you. And it's the elderly, the crucial NO constituency, who will be voting by post, most of all.
NO therefore must have a lot of votes in the bag.
The big worry for NO is the undecided younger people, and previous non voters, especially Labourites, who are now switching to YES and will vote YES on the 18th, unless persuaded otherwise.
A declaration of Scottish devomax would, I reckon, bring them back on board. They get almost everything they want with none of the risk, and Scotland does not have to be divided into two bitter camps.
Sean, everybody knows they are liars, they have form and no-one will be stupid enough to believe them. They had their chance and blew it.
I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
Which is a different position than SO.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
He might resign, but that's a long way from must.
I don't suppose Lord North was reponsible for almost anything that led to the loss of the American colonies and Chamberlain was certainly not personally responsible for almost anything driving events in 1940 but they still had to go. If it's a yes then Cameron will find himself in the same position - it happened on his watch and history will allocate most of the blame to him.
Quite.
On a BETTING topic, I wonder if some people, with inside knowledge of polling, are making enormous sums of money from indyref, given the amount of dosh changing hands.
The temptation must be huge. If you know a big poll is coming, an hour or two before everyone else - like YouGov last week - with a bit of nifty footwork you can surely cash in.
How is this prevented? Is it prevented?
Especially bearing in mind that the campaigns presumably have private polling that they're not telling us about. There must be quite a bit of information out there that we're not getting.
This is sort-of supposed to be the point of prediction markets: If people have inside information, they'll share it by betting and moving the price. But it seems like a good reason for everyone else not to bet on this right now.
There is also the point that a surprisingly big part of the yes vote fervently believes that if the vote is no, there will be a vengeful Westminster backlash against the people of Scotland, devolution will be revoked etc. etc. So much for 'No' being fear-mongers, this contention is actually a key message for the 'Yes' campaign. I was flabbergasted when I heard it. A new settlement offer would allay those fears.
Lucky, I am sure it would be a certainty, we know how these back stabbers operate.
Well there you go. If all party leaders signed an agreement -there could even be a HOC vote, that would be that. I know constitutionally it would still be possible to go back on it, but not politically.
It si too late anyway , people have voted by post.
Don't be silly, the vast majority will vote on the day.
It will not be believed, I expect they will try to trick people before the 18th but most know they are lying toads and will ignore. They have cried wolf far too often.
Sadly, I don't actually even think they will. I don't honestly think they really give a enough of a shit. That's your tragedy and mine.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
I agree that Ed Miliband's position would also be under threat after YES. This is a neglected possibility, but it is one being openly discussed in lefty blogs.
If Cameron would have to go as the PM who lost the union, Ed M would maybe have to go as the guy who presided over the electoral crippling of Labour, after a vote which shifted rUK (and Scotland, probably) significantly to the right.
Labour's botched Devolution, and then their hideous complacency this last two years (under Miliband) has been one of the main reasons Scots might now secede.
And yes, Thatcher's Tories must also take some of the blame. But she is dead.
Miliband's position would be more under threat if No does end up winning comfortably (not an outcome to be written off: No voters seem to have good cause to be shy at the moment). If it's Yes, Labour will be so shocked at the implications, they'll probably freeze like rabbits in the headlights. If it's No, then it's all systems go for 2015, which throws the spotlight on Miliband.
The other side of the equation is who do you replace Miliband with? Balls? Burnham? Cooper? Not exactly an improvement. On the other hand, if Darling has pulled off a good result in Scotland, closing down the subject for a generation, he might be a more plausible alternative leader. That said, shifting any Labour leader's a tough job, if they want to stay. Ask Gordon Brown.
That's just bizarrely stupid. Why would Miliband be under threat if he gets a decisive NO??
The Westminster parties will all sigh with relief and get back to fighting the next GE - and UKIP.
Because he's a wonkish dweeb who can only sustain a lead of a few points against a not very good government, with no other Westminster opposition. The point is that it's not Miliband who would have got a decisive No; it'd be Darling. People might well ask whether the Scot would make a better leader and potentially PM, a question to which many would answer in the affirmative.
I've not read Parris but perused the Tim Stanley riposte and the various comments and it's fair to say Parris has hit a nerve (or several).
But that's the point.
Sometimes writers (and I include SeanT in this to place him in exalted company) seek to provoke - the formation of argument is almost secondary to the use of provocative language in order to generate a response which generates more interest etc.. Parris has succeeded brilliantly in provoking a response - SeanT does it very well.
So we come back to why those UKIP supporters (it would seem) are so tetchy. It seems almost a facet of their being to take umbrage at all and any slightest criticism. Those who support the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have suffered or enjoyed this mocking critique for decades. UKIP are new but have to get used to the fact that not everybody likes them, supports them or agrees with them.
Whether it's your schooling, the way you eat a bacon sandwich or the number of women you've slept with, the ability of the media to pick on an entirely non-political characteristic and use it as an attack method against a political figure is legendary. Party supporters, whether wearing pinstripe suits or having beards and sandals, aren't immune either.
If you want to use short hand you might want to say white working class. That's fine by me, the effect is the same. Parris is saying that the Conservatives should ignore the views of such people, which, of course, is unnecessary advice as that party has been doing just that for decades. Labour has been doing the same and the Lib Dems don't even seem to acknowledge their existence.
The shit seems to have hit the fan because a party has grown up based upon listening to the views of people who have been abandoned by the big three parties. Those parties are now failing around trying to work out how to cope with this new threat. The truth is that they cannot.
I agree. The term "WWC" is value-laden but the concept is still valid, and the fact that they feel estranged from the Lab/Lib/Cons is a heckuva problem for the latter which they have not yet found a way to cope with. And until they do, UKIP are the only team on the pitch...
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
I agree that Ed Miliband's position would also be under threat after YES. This is a neglected possibility, but it is one being openly discussed in lefty blogs.
If Cameron would have to go as the PM who lost the union, Ed M would maybe have to go as the guy who presided over the electoral crippling of Labour, after a vote which shifted rUK (and Scotland, probably) significantly to the right.
Labour's botched Devolution, and then their hideous complacency this last two years (under Miliband) has been one of the main reasons Scots might now secede.
And yes, Thatcher's Tories must also take some of the blame. But she is dead.
Miliband's position would be more under threat if No does end up winning comfortably (not an outcome to be written off: No voters seem to have good cause to be shy at the moment). If it's Yes, Labour will be so shocked at the implications, they'll probably freeze like rabbits in the headlights. If it's No, then it's all systems go for 2015, which throws the spotlight on Miliband.
The other side of the equation is who do you replace Miliband with? Balls? Burnham? Cooper? Not exactly an improvement. On the other hand, if Darling has pulled off a good result in Scotland, closing down the subject for a generation, he might be a more plausible alternative leader. That said, shifting any Labour leader's a tough job, if they want to stay. Ask Gordon Brown.
That's just bizarrely stupid. Why would Miliband be under threat if he gets a decisive NO??
The Westminster parties will all sigh with relief and get back to fighting the next GE - and UKIP.
Because he's a wonkish dweeb who can only sustain a lead of a few points against a not very good government, with no other Westminster opposition. The point is that it's not Miliband who would have got a decisive No; it'd be Darling. People might well ask whether the Scot would make a better leader and potentially PM, a question to which many would answer in the affirmative.
What are the odds on Murphy as next Labour leader?
Whether it's your schooling, the way you eat a bacon sandwich or the number of women you've slept with, the ability of the media to pick on an entirely non-political characteristic and use it as an attack method against a political figure is legendary. Party supporters, whether wearing pinstripe suits or having beards and sandals, aren't immune either.
But rather unusual to do that to people whom you are trying to entice to voting for your party, is it not? Immediately before an election in a place they are concentrated?
Call it The Richard Dawkins School of Preaching - insult those you seek to convert. Interestingly, he's another White African.
I think he has made mistakes but he has to decide if he is good enough or should fall on his sword. I think all of the Westminster leaders are very poor and he is the best of a bad lot.
Which is a different position than SO.
There are people arguing he MUST resign, even though he wasn't responsible for almost anything that is driving the vote.
He might resign, but that's a long way from must.
I don't suppose Lord North was reponsible for almost anything that led to the loss of the American colonies and Chamberlain was certainly not personally responsible for almost anything driving events in 1940 but they still had to go. If it's a yes then Cameron will find himself in the same position - it happened on his watch and history will allocate most of the blame to him.
Quite.
On a BETTING topic, I wonder if some people, with inside knowledge of polling, are making enormous sums of money from indyref, given the amount of dosh changing hands.
The temptation must be huge. If you know a big poll is coming, an hour or two before everyone else - like YouGov last week - with a bit of nifty footwork you can surely cash in.
How is this prevented? Is it prevented?
Bookies can usually work out who has seen an embargoed poll, they will eventually close the account or restrict the amount you can stake.
Shaw was formerly Head of Counter Terrorism at the MoD so knows whereof he speaks. Along with Paddy Ashdown and Richard Dannatt last weekend, this is far and away the most coherent analysis of events in the Middle East I've read and miles clear of the hyperbole and fear-driven ranting that has dominated much of the media in the past fortnight.
I've not read Parris but perused the Tim Stanley riposte and the various comments and it's fair to say Parris has hit a nerve (or several).
But that's the point.
Sometimes writers (and I include SeanT in this to place him in exalted company) seek to provoke - the formation of argument is almost secondary to the use of provocative language in order to generate a response which generates more interest etc.. Parris has succeeded brilliantly in provoking a response - SeanT does it very well.
So we come back to why those UKIP supporters (it would seem) are so tetchy. It seems almost a facet of their being to take umbrage at all and any slightest criticism. Those who support the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have suffered or enjoyed this mocking critique for decades. UKIP are new but have to get used to the fact that not everybody likes them, supports them or agrees with them.
Whether it's your schooling, the way you eat a bacon sandwich or the number of women you've slept with, the ability of the media to pick on an entirely non-political characteristic and use it as an attack method against a political figure is legendary. Party supporters, whether wearing pinstripe suits or having beards and sandals, aren't immune either.
The problem is that he is not mocking any particular person or politician but an entire class of voters namely the elderly and the non-rich. You can mock the poor because they vote Labour but mocking the elderly who vote en mass for your own party is suicide.
Whether it's your schooling, the way you eat a bacon sandwich or the number of women you've slept with, the ability of the media to pick on an entirely non-political characteristic and use it as an attack method against a political figure is legendary. Party supporters, whether wearing pinstripe suits or having beards and sandals, aren't immune either.
But rather unusual to do that to people whom you are trying to entice to voting for your party, is it not? Immediately before an election in a place they are concentrated?
Call it The Richard Dawkins School of Preaching - insult those you seek to convert. Interestingly, he's another White African.
This is the proposal I am going to put into my Telegraph blog.
It could and should have been done a while back. But the Westminster parties put their own interests first. Between them they have thrown the Union away. And now it's too late. Who in Scotland would believe them? It is extraordinary. Not only Cameron should resign, EdM should go too. To destroy a country for entirely preventable reasons is unforgivable.
I agree that Ed Miliband's position would also be under threat after YES. This is a neglected possibility, but it is one being openly discussed in lefty blogs.
If Cameron would have to go as the PM who lost the union, Ed M would maybe have to go as the guy who presided over the electoral crippling of Labour, after a vote which shifted rUK (and Scotland, probably) significantly to the right.
Labour's botched Devolution, and then their hideous complacency this last two years (under Miliband) has been one of the main reasons Scots might now secede.
And yes, Thatcher's Tories must also take some of the blame. But she is dead.
Miliband's position would be more under threat if No does end up winning comfortably (not an outcome to be written off: No voters seem to have good cause to be shy at the moment). If it's Yes, Labour will be so shocked at the implications, they'll probably freeze like rabbits in the headlights. If it's No, then it's all systems go for 2015, which throws the spotlight on Miliband.
The other side of the equation is who do you replace Miliband with? Balls? Burnham? Cooper? Not exactly an improvement. On the other hand, if Darling has pulled off a good result in Scotland, closing down the subject for a generation, he might be a more plausible alternative leader. That said, shifting any Labour leader's a tough job, if they want to stay. Ask Gordon Brown.
That's just bizarrely stupid. Why would Miliband be under threat if he gets a decisive NO??
The Westminster parties will all sigh with relief and get back to fighting the next GE - and UKIP.
Because he's a wonkish dweeb who can only sustain a lead of a few points against a not very good government, with no other Westminster opposition. The point is that it's not Miliband who would have got a decisive No; it'd be Darling. People might well ask whether the Scot would make a better leader and potentially PM, a question to which many would answer in the affirmative.
What are the odds on Murphy as next Labour leader?
Since we're apparently STILL in a referendum polling drought, I guess I'll spew up my thoughts on what's required for a Yes victory. Interested to see what others think.
As I recall, there was a definite polling improvement for No shortly after the first debate, which had just about faded away by the eve of the second debate- though with the few number of polls, that might not be entirely accurate. The two explanations are that either the first debate's effect on the polls was just a bounce, which completely disappeared by the second debate, or that the first debate did have some lasting benefit for No, which was then erased by some Yes momentum from some other source.
So given that, here are three statements which may be true or false:
1. The boost that the second debate gave Yes won't fade away entirely (or at all) by polling day 2. Yes already had some momentum from sources other than debates, which will continue until polling day. 3. The polls systematically underestimate the Yes vote
My reading is that 1 on its own would not be enough to deliver Yes a victory, and 2 or 3 on their own would be very unlikely to.
1 can't be enough on its own simply because the polls still showed No ahead after the Salmond debate. If Yes had no further momentum (2 false) and the polls were accurate (3 false) then Yes couldn't win.
For 2 it's not quite so clear-cut, but it would take a lot of momentum to overcome the polling No had on the eve of the second debate, which would be necessary to win on the day (3 false). Assuming that the second debate doesn't contribute to that momentum (1 false) it's hard to see where it'd be coming from. Maybe more energy/excitement as the actual day draws near, but it still seems like a huge swing just from energy alone.
For 3 alone, the polls on the day would have to be where they were on the eve of the second debate (combination of 1 and 2), which would mean that whatever mistake they were making that was leading to systematically understimating Yes would have to be pretty huge. Not impossibly, especially given how referendums like this are rare and have lots of unique factors, but it certainly still seems pretty unlikely.
As soon as we get a couple of polls in, we should be able to tighten up how likely 1 and 2 are- though we won't be able to distinguish between them. If we saw cross-over, or polls continuing to tighten since debate 2 at a sufficient rate that they might cross over by polling day, then 1 or 2 together could win it for Yes, without 3. If polls since debate 2 were stalling (or falling back) then Yes would have to rely on 3 with little (or no) help from 1 and 2.
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
Thanks for the various comments. As I said, I've not read the Parris article but it does seem to have got some people very agitated,
The Conservatives do need the elderly - if the 65+ voter fractures, it's game completely over for David Cameron. The problem then becomes the viability of the welfare system for the pensioners. As an example, Mr Stodge Senior is 86 and worked all his life after leaving National Service until retiring at 64.
He is passionate about the free tv licence, the Freedom Pass and the free prescription. Whether such things are truly affordable when the country is £100 billion or more in the hole on an annual basis isn't the point. Any Government that tries to take these things away will be signing their own death warrant.
The SNP seem to be campaigning mostly on a YES vote meaning no more Tory governments, having lost the argument on economics.
Indeed, which is what gives the lie to all this "Cameron could have, should have, might have" nonsense.
Alex Salmond got a huge cheer in the second debate when he basically called Alistair Darling a Tory. That is the level of debate. You can win the argument by shouting "Tory" (you get extra points for Thatcher)
This is also why the bedroom tax farce is such a big deal for Labour politicians. They voted against the Tories, the SNP didn't. The Tartan Tories are back (they say)
So once again I ask the question, what steps could Cameron have taken that don't result in him still being a Tory at this point in the campaign?
Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) 06/09/2014 09:43 David Cameron should specifically repudiate Matthew Parris - as, when he stood for the Conservative leadership, he repudiated Simon Heffer.
But then you can just get a friend to bet for you?
Is there a law against this kind of betting, as there is with insider trading?
Well that friend would see their account closed.
There are laws such as conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, but this sort of betting on embargoed polls would NOT count, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mike, myself and other PBers who have access to embargoed polls would never bet on that information, until it was publicly available.
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
Thanks for the various comments. As I said, I've not read the Parris article but it does seem to have got some people very agitated,
The Conservatives do need the elderly - if the 65+ voter fractures, it's game completely over for David Cameron. The problem then becomes the viability of the welfare system for the pensioners. As an example, Mr Stodge Senior is 86 and worked all his life after leaving National Service until retiring at 64.
He is passionate about the free tv licence, the Freedom Pass and the free prescription. Whether such things are truly affordable when the country is £100 billion or more in the hole on an annual basis isn't the point. Any Government that tries to take these things away will be signing their own death warrant.
Quite right. There is a conundrum here. In the past, we have been able to afford these. We are told we are richer [ per capita ] then we were 10/20 years ago.
So why can't we afford them today ? If we choose to give away tax breaks and then plead we cannot afford these basic rights then that is a wholly different thing.
Most of the high tax countries like the Scandanavians are the happiest, richest , most educated....
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
To be honest, most of the really vituperative stuff has come from those claiming to be UKIP supporters. I don't doubt UKIP has had some mud thrown at it but some of those claiming to stand under its banner have said some appalling things (though more reasonable supporters have in fairness disowned the really bad language).
UKIP carries a lot of anger around - rightly or wrongly- but you can't govern or be taken seriously by just being angry all the time. There has to be some optimism beyond the "hope" that leaving the EU seems to offer. There has to be a positive message beyond the anger about immigration and the EU. The problem is we know so little about where UKIP is on the "bread and butter" issues.
But then you can just get a friend to bet for you?
Is there a law against this kind of betting, as there is with insider trading?
Well that friend would see their account closed.
There are laws such as conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, but this sort of betting on embargoed polls would count, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mike, myself and other PBers who have access to embargoed polls would never bet on that information, until it was publicly available.
When do we normally see Sunday YouGov indypolls? IIRC it's about 9-10pm?
Five hours away. Eesh.
Think I may need to do some work to distract myself, as my country teeters on the edge.
Later.
In the last few occasions, it has gone up between 9pm and 1am.
Thanks for the various comments. As I said, I've not read the Parris article but it does seem to have got some people very agitated,
The Conservatives do need the elderly - if the 65+ voter fractures, it's game completely over for David Cameron. The problem then becomes the viability of the welfare system for the pensioners. As an example, Mr Stodge Senior is 86 and worked all his life after leaving National Service until retiring at 64.
He is passionate about the free tv licence, the Freedom Pass and the free prescription. Whether such things are truly affordable when the country is £100 billion or more in the hole on an annual basis isn't the point. Any Government that tries to take these things away will be signing their own death warrant.
I’m 76, Stodge. I’m not well off; comfortable but no more. I’m grateful for, but not that bothered about, the free TV licence. I’d get very cross if the Freedom pass went, but I wouldn’t mind too much if I had to pay £20 a year for it. Prescription charges are a nonsense anyway and some Government soon will have to do some sort of rationalisation. If we are in a mess, and as an ex-NHS worker I’m in some myserious way responsible I’ll take my share of helping to get out of the whatsit. I didn’t, though, ask the banks to send me the credit card application forms which used to come through the door, nor the offers of loans with an unspecified pay-off date. What does worry me is that my teacher granddaughter has been so demotivated by a series of curriculum changes and Government requirements that she wants to quit as soon as she can find something else and that her (graduate) brother has had all sorts of problems getting a training place at all. I also worry that I might be paying too much for gas and electricity and that I should be spending lots of time switching. I worry about using the trains because even in this neck of the woods we’ve two “cheap” fares to London, dependent upon when we come back.
Lazy long term lurker here. I rarely comment on issues on PB; as the range and quality of views, usually cover my viewpoint much better than I could. I must say however, that I am amazed at the "panic in the ranks" at the prospect of a YES vote. I really can't see it happening. I still would bet on NO by something like 60/40.. 55/45. I think the negative ( ie currency) campaigning by BT will deter enough Scots to see NO home comfortably. Even if YES wins... will it really be that terrible? Scotland is not going to be towed off into Mid Atlantic. We will ( despite all the rhetoric ) still be major trading partners. As to the Union, well if it helps our political elite to finally realise we are no longer a world superpower; then that would be a bonus. It's time our politicians focussed on our own problems; and ceased running round the world trying to sort other peoples issues.
Why do people like Parris hate the WWC so much? You just wouldn't get an article written about any other section of society that dug them out just for being who they are
You could say poshos get stick but that's more for being thoughtless and lacking empathy rather than for being posh and rich
Is being old fashioned and politically incorrect really as bad as fighting for Isis and covering up child abuse? It seems to get more criticism
The YES campaign seem to atract all the hotheads who want to turn it into a socialist militant stronghold. Some of the behaviour of YES supporters trying to shout down Jim Murphy have looked pretty awful. IF Scotland votes for independence, some of these people would still be unhappy with a Scottish government in Edinburgh.
Oh , how dare they have freedom of speech and be able to challenge Murphy's lies. You great dribbling halfwit.
Malcolm, you must be one of the hotheads I was referring to, you skelly numpty.
I really hate nationalism in all its forms. It is not personal, as I feel the same about English nationalist etc.
The SNP seem to be campaigning mostly on a YES vote meaning no more Tory governments, having lost the argument on economics.
Shucks, you dribbling moron what are you on about. I am a YES voter not a nationalist of any sort you imbecilic turnip. You must be extremely thick if you base your pathetic puerile post on the fact that \i said Murphy lied. Get lost you stupid steaming pile of bovine ordure.
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Everything you say is true, and entirely irrelevant.
He will have lost the Union. A third of the nation's territory. FFS of course he will resign.
On what planet is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland a "failure"?
If Scotland votes "Yes" we will be facing a crisis - what sort of PM abandons his post under these circumstances?
Parris demonstrates why his advice to the Conservative party should be ignored. Is there a more out of touch member of the metro chattering classes? He always had a hint of a really nasty side. Such as when he outed Mandelson.
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Everything you say is true, and entirely irrelevant.
He will have lost the Union. A third of the nation's territory. FFS of course he will resign.
On what planet is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland a "failure"?
If Scotland votes "Yes" we will be facing a crisis - what sort of PM abandons his post under these circumstances?
Will Cameron have the energy? There's going to be a lot to do if Scotland votes for independence, starting with recruiting a new country to the UK to take their place. (I'm thinking Denmark.)
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Everything you say is true, and entirely irrelevant.
He will have lost the Union. A third of the nation's territory. FFS of course he will resign.
On what planet is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland a "failure"?
If Scotland votes "Yes" we will be facing a crisis - what sort of PM abandons his post under these circumstances?
Will Cameron have the energy? There's going to be a lot to do if Scotland votes for independence, starting with recruiting a new country to the UK to take their place. (I'm thinking Denmark.)
I cannot see Cameron resigning because of a Yes vote.
* He didn't start the devolution bandwagon, Labour did.
* Scottish voters choose the SNP against a poor Labour showing in 2011.
* If Bitter Together loses, then that will be a Labour campaign failure.
How is any of this Cameron's fault? He gave a referendum and will abide by it. UKIP on here are deriding Cameron and saying he won't give an EU referendum. Yet when he provides one to Scotland, he is also derided?
There are a number of issues one can complain about the government, but giving a referendum to the Scottish people when they indicated a preference (via voting SNP) is not one of them.
Everything you say is true, and entirely irrelevant.
He will have lost the Union. A third of the nation's territory. FFS of course he will resign.
On what planet is respecting the democratic will of the people of Scotland a "failure"?
If Scotland votes "Yes" we will be facing a crisis - what sort of PM abandons his post under these circumstances?
Will Cameron have the energy? There's going to be a lot to do if Scotland votes for independence, starting with recruiting a new country to the UK to take their place. (I'm thinking Denmark.)
We should take back Ireland, and enforce the Treaty of Troyes.
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
To be honest, most of the really vituperative stuff has come from those claiming to be UKIP supporters. I don't doubt UKIP has had some mud thrown at it but some of those claiming to stand under its banner have said some appalling things (though more reasonable supporters have in fairness disowned the really bad language).
UKIP carries a lot of anger around - rightly or wrongly- but you can't govern or be taken seriously by just being angry all the time. There has to be some optimism beyond the "hope" that leaving the EU seems to offer. There has to be a positive message beyond the anger about immigration and the EU. The problem is we know so little about where UKIP is on the "bread and butter" issues.
There is plenty on UKIP policy around @Stodge if you cared to look. http://www.ukip.org/ There will be the UKIP conference at the end of this month in Doncaster. Why don't you go up there with NP XMP and learn a thing or two.
Why do people like Parris hate the WWC so much? You just wouldn't get an article written about any other section of society that dug them out just for being who they are...
You're way off beam @Stodge, about Mathew Parris' article. UKIP are no strangers to hostile and venomous propaganda. The MSM has thrown about every piece of mud at us that they can. We are quite used to it by now and are getting nice and hardened. By election time there should be a fine sheen to our blade.
To be honest, most of the really vituperative stuff has come from those claiming to be UKIP supporters. I don't doubt UKIP has had some mud thrown at it but some of those claiming to stand under its banner have said some appalling things (though more reasonable supporters have in fairness disowned the really bad language).
UKIP carries a lot of anger around - rightly or wrongly- but you can't govern or be taken seriously by just being angry all the time. There has to be some optimism beyond the "hope" that leaving the EU seems to offer. There has to be a positive message beyond the anger about immigration and the EU. The problem is we know so little about where UKIP is on the "bread and butter" issues.
I know a number of kippers. They are angry but have no positive ideas about the future. Mostly they think that being outside the EU will make us happy ever.
Comments
As usual.
The shit seems to have hit the fan because a party has grown up based upon listening to the views of people who have been abandoned by the big three parties. Those parties are now failing around trying to work out how to cope with this new threat. The truth is that they cannot.
Unusually, I have no real bets in mind. I think it's going to be very tight. So, pre-race piece will be up later, when the markets have warmed up.
They had their chance and blew it.
This is sort-of supposed to be the point of prediction markets: If people have inside information, they'll share it by betting and moving the price. But it seems like a good reason for everyone else not to bet on this right now.
And its not the first time:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/09/an-open-letter-to-matthew-parris-and-a-question-does-the-conservative-party-really-want-to-stay-together.html
I've not read Parris but perused the Tim Stanley riposte and the various comments and it's fair to say Parris has hit a nerve (or several).
But that's the point.
Sometimes writers (and I include SeanT in this to place him in exalted company) seek to provoke - the formation of argument is almost secondary to the use of provocative language in order to generate a response which generates more interest etc.. Parris has succeeded brilliantly in provoking a response - SeanT does it very well.
So we come back to why those UKIP supporters (it would seem) are so tetchy. It seems almost a facet of their being to take umbrage at all and any slightest criticism. Those who support the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have suffered or enjoyed this mocking critique for decades. UKIP are new but have to get used to the fact that not everybody likes them, supports them or agrees with them.
Whether it's your schooling, the way you eat a bacon sandwich or the number of women you've slept with, the ability of the media to pick on an entirely non-political characteristic and use it as an attack method against a political figure is legendary. Party supporters, whether wearing pinstripe suits or having beards and sandals, aren't immune either.
Call it The Richard Dawkins School of Preaching - insult those you seek to convert. Interestingly, he's another White African.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/jonathan-shaw-we-can-only-beat-islamic-state-with-muslim-support-9714234.html
Shaw was formerly Head of Counter Terrorism at the MoD so knows whereof he speaks. Along with Paddy Ashdown and Richard Dannatt last weekend, this is far and away the most coherent analysis of events in the Middle East I've read and miles clear of the hyperbole and fear-driven ranting that has dominated much of the media in the past fortnight.
You can mock the poor because they vote Labour but mocking the elderly who vote en mass for your own party is suicide.
He's from africa too.
As I recall, there was a definite polling improvement for No shortly after the first debate, which had just about faded away by the eve of the second debate- though with the few number of polls, that might not be entirely accurate. The two explanations are that either the first debate's effect on the polls was just a bounce, which completely disappeared by the second debate, or that the first debate did have some lasting benefit for No, which was then erased by some Yes momentum from some other source.
So given that, here are three statements which may be true or false:
1. The boost that the second debate gave Yes won't fade away entirely (or at all) by polling day
2. Yes already had some momentum from sources other than debates, which will continue until polling day.
3. The polls systematically underestimate the Yes vote
My reading is that 1 on its own would not be enough to deliver Yes a victory, and 2 or 3 on their own would be very unlikely to.
1 can't be enough on its own simply because the polls still showed No ahead after the Salmond debate. If Yes had no further momentum (2 false) and the polls were accurate (3 false) then Yes couldn't win.
For 2 it's not quite so clear-cut, but it would take a lot of momentum to overcome the polling No had on the eve of the second debate, which would be necessary to win on the day (3 false). Assuming that the second debate doesn't contribute to that momentum (1 false) it's hard to see where it'd be coming from. Maybe more energy/excitement as the actual day draws near, but it still seems like a huge swing just from energy alone.
For 3 alone, the polls on the day would have to be where they were on the eve of the second debate (combination of 1 and 2), which would mean that whatever mistake they were making that was leading to systematically understimating Yes would have to be pretty huge. Not impossibly, especially given how referendums like this are rare and have lots of unique factors, but it certainly still seems pretty unlikely.
As soon as we get a couple of polls in, we should be able to tighten up how likely 1 and 2 are- though we won't be able to distinguish between them. If we saw cross-over, or polls continuing to tighten since debate 2 at a sufficient rate that they might cross over by polling day, then 1 or 2 together could win it for Yes, without 3. If polls since debate 2 were stalling (or falling back) then Yes would have to rely on 3 with little (or no) help from 1 and 2.
I really hate nationalism in all its forms. It is not personal, as I feel the same about English nationalist etc.
The SNP seem to be campaigning mostly on a YES vote meaning no more Tory governments, having lost the argument on economics.
The Conservatives do need the elderly - if the 65+ voter fractures, it's game completely over for David Cameron. The problem then becomes the viability of the welfare system for the pensioners. As an example, Mr Stodge Senior is 86 and worked all his life after leaving National Service until retiring at 64.
He is passionate about the free tv licence, the Freedom Pass and the free prescription. Whether such things are truly affordable when the country is £100 billion or more in the hole on an annual basis isn't the point. Any Government that tries to take these things away will be signing their own death warrant.
Alex Salmond got a huge cheer in the second debate when he basically called Alistair Darling a Tory. That is the level of debate. You can win the argument by shouting "Tory" (you get extra points for Thatcher)
This is also why the bedroom tax farce is such a big deal for Labour politicians. They voted against the Tories, the SNP didn't. The Tartan Tories are back (they say)
So once again I ask the question, what steps could Cameron have taken that don't result in him still being a Tory at this point in the campaign?
06/09/2014 09:43
David Cameron should specifically repudiate Matthew Parris - as, when he stood for the Conservative leadership, he repudiated Simon Heffer.
There are laws such as conspiracy to defraud bookmakers, but this sort of betting on embargoed polls would NOT count, I think.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mike, myself and other PBers who have access to embargoed polls would never bet on that information, until it was publicly available.
But it'd be hard to accuse anyone riled by Parris' article of the same kind of hypersensitivity.
So why can't we afford them today ? If we choose to give away tax breaks and then plead we cannot afford these basic rights then that is a wholly different thing.
Most of the high tax countries like the Scandanavians are the happiest, richest , most educated....
UKIP carries a lot of anger around - rightly or wrongly- but you can't govern or be taken seriously by just being angry all the time. There has to be some optimism beyond the "hope" that leaving the EU seems to offer. There has to be a positive message beyond the anger about immigration and the EU. The problem is we know so little about where UKIP is on the "bread and butter" issues.
Job done for Parris and the comment Editor at the Times
If we are in a mess, and as an ex-NHS worker I’m in some myserious way responsible I’ll take my share of helping to get out of the whatsit.
I didn’t, though, ask the banks to send me the credit card application forms which used to come through the door, nor the offers of loans with an unspecified pay-off date.
What does worry me is that my teacher granddaughter has been so demotivated by a series of curriculum changes and Government requirements that she wants to quit as soon as she can find something else and that her (graduate) brother has had all sorts of problems getting a training place at all.
I also worry that I might be paying too much for gas and electricity and that I should be spending lots of time switching. I worry about using the trains because even in this neck of the woods we’ve two “cheap” fares to London, dependent upon when we come back.
I rarely comment on issues on PB; as the range and quality of views, usually cover my viewpoint much better than I could.
I must say however, that I am amazed at the "panic in the ranks" at the prospect of a YES vote.
I really can't see it happening. I still would bet on NO by something like 60/40.. 55/45.
I think the negative ( ie currency) campaigning by BT will deter enough Scots to see NO home comfortably.
Even if YES wins... will it really be that terrible? Scotland is not going to be towed off into Mid Atlantic. We will ( despite all the rhetoric ) still be major trading partners.
As to the Union, well if it helps our political elite to finally realise we are no longer a world superpower; then that would be a bonus.
It's time our politicians focussed on our own problems; and ceased running round the world trying to sort other peoples issues.
You could say poshos get stick but that's more for being thoughtless and lacking empathy rather than for being posh and rich
Is being old fashioned and politically incorrect really as bad as fighting for Isis and covering up child abuse? It seems to get more criticism
You must be extremely thick if you base your pathetic puerile post on the fact that \i said Murphy lied.
Get lost you stupid steaming pile of bovine ordure.
Hmm. My own feeling has swung wildly over months (a couple of times). I hope you're right.
If Scotland votes "Yes" we will be facing a crisis - what sort of PM abandons his post under these circumstances?
twitter.com/calgacus/status/508252834400567296/photo/1
There will be the UKIP conference at the end of this month in Doncaster. Why don't you go up there with NP XMP and learn a thing or two.