Dear England, I have tried, really tried,to understand your fixation with money, to the exclusion of all else, your over inflated ego, and your uncaring selfishness. All these things I could perhaps have put up with in the hope you might one day change. What I can't put up with is your lack of basic understanding of anything that offers no financial reward. So....it comes to this England, go and hang out with that slut America, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. Bye, Scotland.
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amuse
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Which is another thing where the Conservatives have gone wrong.
You should have aimed to become more libertarian.
So gay marriage coincides with attempts at plebibition and various nanny state and surveillance state measures.
A good point. I'm sure I pick and mix my own stances to be liberal on just like the Tories - it's just some of the ones they choose not be libertarian on I would rather they were.
Our P Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
strategy by Dave.
There is
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Votal
A pretr.
It happened under a Tory PM, it only happened thanks to a Tory PM
And .
If people are going to blame Cameron for losing the Union because he was the PM of when it happened, then he should be allowed to take credit for all the good things that happened during his tenure as PM
Now that's just silly
No that's mainly fair, although even though plenty are blaming Cameron for handling the referendum poorly, it doesn't seem like he is getting the bulk of the blame, he's just getting more crap by virtue of his position, which is unavoidable. Poor historians of the future will blame him first, as his name will be the one people see first as PM who lost the Union, but as we've heard, others will get plenty more criticism by those more versed in history.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
John Redwood's on Newsnight calling for an English parliament and telling Peter Hain "Whats it got to do with you? You're Welsh"
That's a good point from Redwood.
Well, yes and no. The Welsh have every right to comment, and be consulted, on the future constitutional makeup of the country of which they form a part.
But of course, so do the English, and so far no-one has asked us.
John Redwood's on Newsnight calling for an English parliament and telling Peter Hain "Whats it got to do with you? You're Welsh"
Where does it end though. Can hear the Yorkshire folk now.
The last King of York died on Stainmore.
Why do lefties want to dismember England? Actually I believe in radical decentralisation, but it should be done by England, just as Scotland has chosen to centralise itself (eg by the imposition of a national police force, something the English have always regarded as an affront to civil liberties). Not by a UK government dismembering England into imagined subunits prior to devolution.
"It can't be that ugly if it has taken recent events to shine a light on it."
Those of us who don't have issues with spare rooms and disabilities don't spend much time thinking about them but when they're pointed out and we are forced to look at the unacceptable disparities between the haves and have nots it becomes shameful and shaming
I have neither a spare room or disabilities, and though I can understand some disagreement with the bedroom tax, I remain baffled at the 'end of the world' vibe Labour have given it all these years. It's one of those issues where the level of outrage seems completely out of proportion, notwithstanding heart pulling cases which occur to some degree whenever there is some major change in such systems, people fall through cracks.
In any case, people occasionally reference evidence that plenty of times people will state support for a particular position, until they find out it is a Tory policy, or whatever, so it hardly matters whether a policy is mostly unobjectionable, or at least not as objectionable as stated, for a lot of people whoever is behind it is enough to condemn it.
Again Labour's ludicrous moral hyperbole is coming back to bite them on the arse. You can only spend so many years chanting Evil Tories, Evil Tories, Evil Baby Burning Tories before some of your stupider constituents start to believe you, and will then vote primarily to Get Rid of Tories rather than for voting for YOU, even if that means breaking up a hugely successful nation and ensuring financial chaos.
It's not quantum thermodynamics. Labour's grotesque moral posturing is now returning as a horrible moral lesson. Labour might lose Scotland, with all that entails for the party born in Scotland.
An ambitious argument, even by your considerable standards. Did it occur to you that our socialist friends in the North may want rid of the Tories because of their actual policies rather than because of the way Labour present their policies?
Bang on the money with that post Beverley, and great to see you back posting too.
Hi Fitalass - lovely to see you are still here. How are fitalad and the boys doing? I think that the last time I was on here the middle lad had something coming up - army try-out or some such?
At this end my eldest goes to Uni this weekend and all is in chaos here. The younger one is still at college and goes back tomorrow.
This whole referendum thing has me very annoyed The sheer stupidity of the politicians firing up resentment, false expectation and complacency followed by the current panic. What a mess. My friends in Scotland are worried and some of them are considering moving south, others hope it will all come to a halt but my worry is that bad blood has been stoked up too far now.
We could do with a more mature politics. Personally I could probably do with a new mortgage as mine is with Bank of Scotland.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
You are voting LD though arent you?
I'll end up voting Tory, bar one council election in 2003, when the Tory candidate was a bell end, I've voted Tory in election since I've had the vote.
Dear England, I have tried, really tried,to understand your fixation with money, to the exclusion of all else, your over inflated ego, and your uncaring selfishness. All these things I could perhaps have put up with in the hope you might one day change. What I can't put up with is your lack of basic understanding of anything that offers no financial reward. So....it comes to this England, go and hang out with that slut America, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out. Bye, Scotland.
John Redwood's on Newsnight calling for an English parliament and telling Peter Hain "Whats it got to do with you? You're Welsh"
That's a good point from Redwood.
Well, yes and no. The Welsh have every right to comment, and be consulted, on the future constitutional makeup of the country of which they form a part.
But of course, so do the English, and so far no-one has asked us.
Did Tories always eat babies or did it start with Thatcher?
I think the where there is discord let us bring harmony bollox was what did it for me. I dont consider Ken Clarke a baby eater and certainly despise Blair post Iraq more than Cameron but the North of England City dwellers really do hate Tories.
Nearly as much as the Scots do.
By bringing in the poll tax a year earlier.
Seriously though what's the big objection about that.
England got the very same poll tax a year later.
And it was the disasterous revaluation of Scottish domestic rates in 1986 which led to the poll tax being introduced.
In any case its not unusual for new government policies to be introduced in one part of the country on a test basis before full national implementation.
Now I can understand why many Scots might have bad memories of the poll tax - like any big tax changes there were losers and winners, with those who lost out inevitablly being more vocal.
But the 'introduced a year early' is just bizarre whining.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
"It can't be that ugly if it has taken recent events to shine a light on it."
Those of us who don't have issues with spare rooms and disabilities don't spend much time thinking about them but when they're pointed out and we are forced to look at the unacceptable disparities between the haves and have nots it becomes shameful and shaming
I have neither a spare room or disabilities, and though I can understand some disagreement with the bedroom tax, I remain baffled at the 'end of the world' vibe Labour have given it all these years. It's one of those issues where the level of outrage seems completely out of proportion, notwithstanding heart pulling cases which occur to some degree whenever there is some major change in such systems, people fall through cracks.
In any case, people occasionally reference evidence that plenty of times people will state support for a particular position, until they find out it is a Tory policy, or whatever, so it hardly matters whether a policy is mostly unobjectionable, or at least not as objectionable as stated, for a lot of people whoever is behind it is enough to condemn it.
Again Labour's ludicrous moral hyperbole is coming back to bite them on the arse. You can only spend so many years chanting Evil Tories, Evil Tories, Evil Baby Burning Tories before some of your stupider constituents start to believe you, and will then vote primarily to Get Rid of Tories rather than for voting for YOU, even if that means breaking up a hugely successful nation and ensuring financial chaos.
It's not quantum thermodynamics. Labour's grotesque moral posturing is now returning as a horrible moral lesson. Labour might lose Scotland, with all that entails for the party born in Scotland.
An ambitious argument, even by your considerable standards. Did it occur to you that our socialist friends in the North may want rid of the Tories because of their actual policies rather than because of the way Labour present their policies?
Because Scotland wants to be a lovely "Nordic state" and stop the Tories privatising healthcare provision, as is done in... um... all the Nordic states.
John Redwood's on Newsnight calling for an English parliament and telling Peter Hain "Whats it got to do with you? You're Welsh"
That's a good point from Redwood.
Well, yes and no. The Welsh have every right to comment, and be consulted, on the future constitutional makeup of the country of which they form a part.
But of course, so do the English, and so far no-one has asked us.
Why should the Welsh be consulted on an English only matter? The English were not consulted on any devolution matters regarding Wales and Scotland.
"It can't be that ugly if it has taken recent events to shine a light on it."
Those of us who don't have issues with spare rooms and disabilities don't spend much time thinking about them but when they're pointed out and we are forced to look at the unacceptable disparities between the haves and have nots it becomes shameful and shaming
I have neither a spare room or disabilities, and though I can understand some disagreement with the bedroom tax, I remain baffled at the 'end of the world' vibe Labour have given it all these years. It's one of those issues where the level of outrage seems completely out of proportion, notwithstanding heart pulling cases which occur to some degree whenever there is some major change in such systems, people fall through cracks.
In any case, people occasionally reference evidence that plenty of times people will state support for a particular position, until they find out it is a Tory policy, or whatever, so it hardly matters whether a policy is mostly unobjectionable, or at least not as objectionable as stated, for a lot of people whoever is behind it is enough to condemn it.
Again Labour's ludicrous moral hyperbole is coming back to bite them on the arse. You can only spend so many years chanting Evil Tories, Evil Tories, Evil Baby Burning Tories before some of your stupider constituents start to believe you, and will then vote primarily to Get Rid of Tories rather than for voting for YOU, even if that means breaking up a hugely successful nation and ensuring financial chaos.
It's not quantum thermodynamics. Labour's grotesque moral posturing is now returning as a horrible moral lesson. Labour might lose Scotland, with all that entails for the party born in Scotland.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Sorry, your reply did deserve more than a three word reply.
Social liberals should vote Tory, because we are becoming, and ARE socially liberal, we need more people to vote Tory to help that reality.
Labour aren't currently offering any economic liberalism (I mean just look at their policies on energy and renting), Labour's economic liberalism isn't a reality, it is a pipe dream.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Not on immigration.
The favourite to be next Tory leader, is very pro-immigration.
Yes, and it will be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome. The Conservatives will be idiots if they replace Cameron with Johnson. The latter solves none of the former's issues.
Did Tories always eat babies or did it start with Thatcher?
I think the where there is discord let us bring harmony bollox was what did it for me. I dont consider Ken Clarke a baby eater and certainly despise Blair post Iraq more than Cameron but the North of England City dwellers really do hate Tories.
Nearly as much as the Scots do.
By bringing in the poll tax a year earlier.
Seriously though what's the big objection about that.
England got the very same poll tax a year later.
And it was the disasterous revaluation of Scottish domestic rates in 1986 which led to the poll tax being introduced.
In any case its not unusual for new government policies to be introduced in one part of the country on a test basis before full national implementation.
Now I can understand why many Scots might have bad memories of the poll tax - like any big tax changes there were losers and winners, with those who lost out inevitablly being more vocal.
But the 'introduced a year early' is just bizarre whining.
You are missing the point. When Scotland complained about the poll tax, the complaints were ignored. When England complained about the poll tax, it was scrapped. Your argument would only be valid if the poll tax had been kept, but the English Tories caved in in the face of massive by-election defeats by the Lib Dems.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
@Socrates Most Scots want a government to run their country, instead of letting business run it. The present UK system allows the voices of the few to drown out the voices of the majority. This is nothing to do with left or right, it is a basic fact.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Not on immigration.
The favourite to be next Tory leader, is very pro-immigration.
Yes, and it will be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome. The Conservatives will be idiots if they replace Cameron with Johnson. The latter solves none of the former's issues.
A majority of voters at the Euros voted for parties that are in favour of unlimited immigration.
So two weeks after the Rotherham report and still no response from the government.
How about a Telegraph blog asking these questions:
1) Why no action from Theresa May about a police force which has collaberated with child rapists ?
2) Why has the Rotherham child welfare services not been placed into special measures by the government as those of other local councils have been placed in the past ?
3) How much did the former Communities Minister, the well connected locally, Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and why did she do nothing ?
4) Why has David Cameron been willing to preside over total government non-action ?
The answer to (4) is IMO Matthew Parris style metropolitan class hatred for wwc 'up north'.
I was going to give it another week, on the hope that something would be announced. But it seems like nothing is in the works. They're trying to sweep it all under the carpet again, with no light shone on all the other towns this has happened in. And they wonder why people vote UKIP.
Usual Westminster behaviour! And then they insult us by leaving it until after May next week to publish the inquiry into child abuse at Westminster itself. We're fed up of being shown contempt by the establishment, as is the case with so many other matters.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
UKIP have got enough resources for heavens sake to throw the book at 2 by-elections around 250 miles apart from each other!
Anyone else think such a large drop would make an excellent opportunity to buy the pound? I'm not a currency trader, but the pragmatic effects of things like this are often less than expected, aren't they? So the currency would recover as people realised that an independent Scotland wasn't going to be that different on a day-to-day basis.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
I am clueless about wheres where in the North, but I thought Nuttal was a scouser?
Stockports nr Manchester, I know that much.. went to a great stag do at Bredbury Hall once!
Well, I agree that the current rush by the Clegg, Miliband and Cameron - in cahoots with Gordon Brown, FFS - is embarrassingly vacuous, and the Saltire nonsense is the tackiest gimmick I've seen for years.
But then, perhaps it makes sense. The Yes side seem to be doing rather well, which can only mean that Scots are hugely swayed by vacuous arguments and tacky gimmicks, like this one:
John Redwood's on Newsnight calling for an English parliament and telling Peter Hain "Whats it got to do with you? You're Welsh"
That's a good point from Redwood.
Well, yes and no. The Welsh have every right to comment, and be consulted, on the future constitutional makeup of the country of which they form a part.
But of course, so do the English, and so far no-one has asked us.
Aren't the English the ones who are asking ?
Hopefully, we will now. But to date, devolution has been treated solely as a matter for the Scots, and the Welsh, and the Northern Irish.
@SamCoatesTimes: @thetimes Exclusive - Sir John Major suggests the last Labour government - implying Gordon Brown - to blame for Scottish turmoil
What's he playing at? I thought Sir John had designs on being the father of the nation. This is no time for settling old political scores. Incidentally has anyone spotted the man who won three general elections with huge majorities in Scotland amidst all this? Has he been told to keep quiet? Talk about all political careers ending in failure.
Actually Tony Blair could do something remarkable. He needs to join Rupert Murdoch and get behind Scottish independence. Obviously he'd be lying but that's never bothered him in the past.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
Given that all the parties are ratcheting up to fight a General Election in 8 months time, having not long ago fought a national election and UKIP will be targetting 12 or more seats (and seem to have reasonable financial backing these days) its a bit of a stretch to think that holding two by elections on the same day is going to cause them too much of a problem. More likely Labour really just want to get it done so that nobody can build up any sort of momentum in the constituency so that its no contest.
The Scottish Parliament was fiddled by Labour to stop one party controlling all - it was the SNP that smashed that additional barrier. (It's a much harder position to achieve than in Westminster.) But that doesn't really change your analysis much!
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
It's a local election, I don't see why two shouldn't be held simultaneously in different parts of the UK, it has happened before.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Not on immigration.
The favourite to be next Tory leader, is very pro-immigration.
Yes, and it will be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome. The Conservatives will be idiots if they replace Cameron with Johnson. The latter solves none of the former's issues.
A majority of voters at the Euros voted for parties that are in favour of unlimited immigration.
Your posts tonight demonstrate why the Conservatives are vanishing down the plughole.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
Given that all the parties are ratcheting up to fight a General Election in 8 months time, having not long ago fought a national election and UKIP will be targetting 12 or more seats (and seem to have reasonable financial backing these days) its a bit of a stretch to think that holding two by elections on the same day is going to cause them too much of a problem. More likely Labour really just want to get it done so that nobody can build up any sort of momentum in the constituency so that its no contest.
Seems the thinking is if UKIP piss up in Clacton they will have "the big mo"...
@Socrates Most Scots want a government to run their country, instead of letting business run it. The present UK system allows the voices of the few to drown out the voices of the majority. This is nothing to do with left or right, it is a basic fact.
And the Scottish system is different in what way, exactly? It's a parliamentary system with the government selected from sitting MPs, just like the UK.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Not on immigration.
The favourite to be next Tory leader, is very pro-immigration.
Yes, and it will be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome. The Conservatives will be idiots if they replace Cameron with Johnson. The latter solves none of the former's issues.
Well, I agree that the current rush by the Clegg, Miliband and Cameron - in cahoots with Gordon Brown, FFS - is embarrassingly vacuous, and the Saltire nonsense is the tackiest gimmick I've seen for years.
But then, perhaps it makes sense. The Yes side seem to be doing rather well, which can only mean that Scots are hugely swayed by vacuous arguments and tacky gimmicks, like this one:
England should have the chance to at least vote on whether they want a Parliament, if Scotland votes yes or no. However would it need another Parliament if Scotland votes yes, there would only be 53 (sitting) non English MPs. The current Welsh and NI settlement would mean English votes for English laws would be much more achievable, only really effecting NHS and education.
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
It's a local election, I don't see why two shouldn't be held simultaneously in different parts of the UK, it has happened before.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
It's being done deliberately so one of the main parties who would be in with a shot can't campaign there properly. You know full well that's a big difference from what has happened before. People's sense of fairness goes completely out of the window when it comes to UKIP.
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
It's a local election, I don't see why two shouldn't be held simultaneously in different parts of the UK, it has happened before.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
Given that all the parties are ratcheting up to fight a General Election in 8 months time, having not long ago fought a national election and UKIP will be targetting 12 or more seats (and seem to have reasonable financial backing these days) its a bit of a stretch to think that holding two by elections on the same day is going to cause them too much of a problem. More likely Labour really just want to get it done so that nobody can build up any sort of momentum in the constituency so that its no contest.
It's not that they can't fight both, but you can never do two things as well as just one - not in politics. Northern Kipper activists can head to Heywood, or they can be bussed to Clacton. Every day Farage spends in Heywood, he (and the journos and cameras following him) isn't in Clacton. And so on.
If UKIP win big in Clacton and come no-where in Heywood, it will be worth more to them than a more modest win and a creditable second place in Heywood (which is in truth the best they can hope for). It's not a trade-off worth taking in my mind.
So social liberals should vote for the party that will be socially liberal one day, not a party that already is? Do you advocate economic liberals voting for Labour because a future leader will be more centralist than EdM?
No, vote Tory
An old-fashioned party man. I appreciate that, though I'd have appreciated even more something which engaged with my argument. You said social liberals should vote Tory because you are "becoming more" socially liberal. Surely they should vote for a party which already is? And if not then doesn't your logic mean right-wingers should vote Labour as soon as they begin "becoming more" right-wing, instead of voting for a party they currently agree with?
Will it be that much of a big deal? Clacton's in the bag already...
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Clacton probably is, but UKIP would be crazy to send any major resource away from the seat. At this point not winning would be seriously damaging, and given the polls even winning by a small margin won't be ideal (though the headlines will still be 'First UKIP MP!'). The bird in the hand is worth so many in the bush UKIP won't send many people, bar maybe Paul Nuttall since it's his area, to Heywood if they have any sense.
UKIP have got enough resources for heavens sake to throw the book at 2 by-elections around 250 miles apart from each other!
assuming the by-election is covered in national news - there's always the possibility the publicity UKIP will get as being favourites to win Clacton would have a knock-on effect in Middleton, although admittedly not as much as if it was held a week later.
Interesting developments. What they will demonstrate, in the event of a No vote, is that this is very much Scotland suing for the divorce. RUK is practically begging Scotland to stay in the relationship. The fall-out, which will undoubtedly be bad economically, will be Scotland's responsibility and her responsibility alone. It will mean that there will be absolutely no need for the RUK to have any compunction about driving an extremely hard deal. Rejected suitors tend to react badly.
If the politicians do what they say they are going to do, the following will happen.
1) Scottish request for a currency union will be turned down flat. 2) Salmond will renege on Scotland's share of national debt. 3) Huge market turbulence will damage everyone and the Scottish "transition" via the Panama model will look completely impossible. 4) Scotland will have to establish central bank and own currency in the worst possible consequences. Austerity all-round. 5) Scotland will sue for entry to Europe and adoption of Euro in the worst possible of all circumstances.
Really lovely prospect.
5 Scotland will get vetoed by UK on EU membership unitl it settles its debts - why wouldn't we ?
UK won't need to. Spain will be happy to oblige.
Why didn't the UK veto Spain's membership of the EU until they conceded Gibraltar?
Some very interesting responses to your comment ref the Treaty but nobody responded to your actual point.
At the time the border was closed and sealed by Franco. Everything had to be imported by sea and food was scarce. Mrs Thatcher insisted that the border was opened before lifting the threat of veto. It was a huge victory for us and we've never forgotten.
Today (the 10th as it already is here in Gib) is our National Day
It's a Bank Holiday and there will be a carnival atmosphere all day. The place will be one huge street party and *everyone* will be wearing red and white. If you've never seen it then words cannot describe the intensity of the pride of nationhood and the celebration of a people united.
"A staunch Conservative has been expelled from his party because he signed a nomination paper for his wife to stand as a UKIP candidate at this year's local elections.
John Waine has lost his lifelong membership of Nuneaton Conservative Association through what he calls "a lawyer's interpretation of one very brief clause in the constitution". "
One critical factor escapes analysts relating to turnout and it is this: the SNP has perhaps the most sophisticated voter ID system in the West with a minimum of 8 years of database population. On referendum day there will be an army of call centre volunteers and contracted workers contacting everyone on this database reminding them to vote. In 2007 this accounted for a 5% rise in the SNP vote and the marginal SNP victory. How do I know this? I know the guy who designed it..! The No campaign has nothing so sophisticated.
That's Scottish ingenuity for you, and shows you prima facie evidence why an independent Scotland can succeed.
Absolute masterclass from Salmond today to link a Yes vote to Cameron's position becoming untenable as PM. Imagine if you're a wavering SLAB voter and you hear that compared to the reheated panic devolution measures that BT are offering. Its like comparing a gleaming Aston Martin on a sunny day compared to a Lada on a grey dreary day!
And another lesson from the last few years of politics is this - Salmond and Farage who have had jobs in the real world are doing so much better than the miserable trio of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, the latter two very much career politicians and Cameron whose only job in the real job was the botched merger between Carlton and Granada. We can all do without the SPAD career politicans - I hope the events of the next few years will quite rightly consign them to the dustbin of history - we've had enough of your political games and machinations over the past few decades.
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
It's a local election, I don't see why two shouldn't be held simultaneously in different parts of the UK, it has happened before.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
Evening all. Some fascinating arguments and a lot of emotion on show unsurprisingly. It seems to be me here on pb.com that a number of unionists seem to be weakening in their support for that union based on a combination of (a) fatigue with the referendum itself and making the same arguments defending the union, alongside (b) a distrust of the establishment in Westminster. Ironically it seems to me that this is exactly the approach Salmond is taking to win votes in Scotland and it is winning on pb.com too!
I passionately want the UK to stick together and although it is difficult I think we need to recognise that despite the perceived strengths, weaknesses, missteps and tactical errors of the Westminster establishment, the members of that establishment will not be in political office indefinitely. Moreover, the system itself is likely to be shaken up regardless of the result next Thursday.
From my conservative perspective I hope we can take a step back and pursue constitutional reform in a rather calm way, regardless of the Scotland vote. But we should also not confuse the short term anger with particularly politicians, with the medium term anger with the establishment, with the long term future of a country itself in my opinion. That is why I remain supportive of the Union and hope (whilst believing too) that it will be a No vote on Thursday week. We then need to take a collective breath and re-make the UK for the 21st century politically and finally begin to speak about what it means to be British.
Yet more cynical Westminster style politics to rebel against then - plus ca change!
Really unpleasant stuff, and thoroughly undemocratic. Surely the people of Heywood & Middleton deserve a fair courting by all the parties? Labour really have contempt for their own voters.
It's a local election, I don't see why two shouldn't be held simultaneously in different parts of the UK, it has happened before.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
Think Labour are moving the writ pre funeral
The other parties could presumably block it.
Not sure they would, they fear UKIP success just as much as Labour does.
@SamCoatesTimes: @thetimes Exclusive - Sir John Major suggests the last Labour government - implying Gordon Brown - to blame for Scottish turmoil
What's he playing at? I thought Sir John had designs on being the father of the nation. This is no time for settling old political scores. Incidentally has anyone spotted the man who won three general elections with huge majorities in Scotland amidst all this? Has he been told to keep quiet? Talk about all political careers ending in failure.
Actually Tony Blair could do something remarkable. He needs to join Rupert Murdoch and get behind Scottish independence. Obviously he'd be lying but that's never bothered him in the past.
I believe Blair is fully employed bringing peace to the Middle East.
Either that or counting the millions JP Morgan gave him.
@Socrates Most Scots want a government to run their country, instead of letting business run it. The present UK system allows the voices of the few to drown out the voices of the majority. This is nothing to do with left or right, it is a basic fact.
If you want to see the business domination of a small Celtic country of five million people than you only need to look to Ireland. The elite is even a smaller cosy group there than in the UK, with all the property developers, bankers and politicians on first name terms. And it's clear Salmond is exactly the same:
Evening all. Some fascinating arguments and a lot of emotion on show unsurprisingly. It seems to be me here on pb.com that a number of unionists seem to be weakening in their support for that union based on a combination of (a) fatigue with the referendum itself and making the same arguments defending the union, alongside (b) a distrust of the establishment in Westminster. Ironically it seems to me that this is exactly the approach Salmond is taking to win votes in Scotland and it is winning on pb.com too!
I passionately want the UK to stick together and although it is difficult I think we need to recognise that despite the perceived strengths, weaknesses, missteps and tactical errors of the Westminster establishment, the members of that establishment will not be in political office indefinitely. Moreover, the system itself is likely to be shaken up regardless of the result next Thursday.
From my conservative perspective I hope we can take a step back and pursue constitutional reform in a rather calm way, regardless of the Scotland vote. But we should also not confuse the short term anger with particularly politicians, with the medium term anger with the establishment, with the long term future of a country itself in my opinion. That is why I remain supportive of the Union and hope (whilst believing too) that it will be a No vote on Thursday week. We then need to take a collective breath and re-make the UK for the 21st century politically and finally begin to speak about what it means to be British.
Some splendid points, and I think you capture the fatigue point particularly well. At least one unionist is keeping their spirit and energy up, I only wish I could as well.
Well, I agree that the current rush by the Clegg, Miliband and Cameron - in cahoots with Gordon Brown, FFS - is embarrassingly vacuous, and the Saltire nonsense is the tackiest gimmick I've seen for years.
But then, perhaps it makes sense. The Yes side seem to be doing rather well, which can only mean that Scots are hugely swayed by vacuous arguments and tacky gimmicks, like this one:
I think thats probably the most critical comment you've ever written on here about Cam - Things must be getting serious.
pbTory endorses pbTory (some of us know our true friends)....but Richard is right, this spectacle is toe-crawlingly degrading (though it's precisely what Super Sage Sean Thomas was demanding, was he not?). If the Scots want to leave, fair enough, but grovelling is simply embarrassing.
Doubtless wishful thinking (and avoiding the abject humiliation of losing bets to Malcolmg and James Kelly), but wouldn't it be hugely amusing if No did win by a clear (10%?) margin?
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
There seems to be a bit of a panic about Scotland voting for independence. Think they should calm down a bit and concentrate on discussing how a yes or no vote would affect Scotland and rUK. The YES campaign are currently dominating, because they are getting Labour and neutrals to think about Scotland not ever being ruled again by Tories in London.
If the pound slides, there is a stock market plunge and companies start reducing investment plans, everyone will lose. It could tip the UK back into recession.
So two weeks after the Rotherham report and still no response from the government.
How about a Telegraph blog asking these questions:
1) Why no action from Theresa May about a police force which has collaberated with child rapists ?
2) Why has the Rotherham child welfare services not been placed into special measures by the government as those of other local councils have been placed in the past ?
3) How much did the former Communities Minister, the well connected locally, Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and why did she do nothing ?
4) Why has David Cameron been willing to preside over total government non-action ?
The answer to (4) is IMO Matthew Parris style metropolitan class hatred for wwc 'up north'.
I was going to give it another week, on the hope that something would be announced. But it seems like nothing is in the works. They're trying to sweep it all under the carpet again, with no light shone on all the other towns this has happened in. And they wonder why people vote UKIP.
Usual Westminster behaviour! And then they insult us by leaving it until after May next week to publish the inquiry into child abuse at Westminster itself. We're fed up of being shown contempt by the establishment, as is the case with so many other matters.
I find it stunning, absolutely stunning. I mean, for God's sake, FOURTEEN HUNDRED CHILDREN WERE RAPED IN ONE TOWN. It was covered up THREE TIMES. We have evidence of similar patterns of abuse, with little to no action by the authorities, in TWENTY OTHER PLACES. And the woman that did the report said it was likely the same scale of abuse happened in some of these towns.
Seriously, if this sort of thing can't wake up the political elite from their slumber, what the hell will? This is the worst crime wave that has ever hit the country in a hundred years. Likely thousands and thousands of children have been raped due to political negligence. And they're STILL not doing anything about it. Cameron and Clegg must have discussed such things. Clearly a decision has been taken to keep it on the quiet because Joe Public can't be trusted with the truth. ####ing bastards. The lot of them.
Our PM is powerless to stop the break up of the Union. His very appearance in Scotland is likely to make matters worse.
Completely useless ruled out DevoMax from the outset and cant even fly the fookin Saltire
Tories are Toxic in Scotland Wales and every Northern City.
I really hope Gordon and Ed can save the Union.
This is on a knife edge and the more the Scots see of the PM the greater the chance they will leave. IMHO
Getting rid of a net 58 non Tory MPs is a brilliant, almost masterful strategy by Dave.
There is a certain amusement in that the very failure which will end him will also make his successor's job quite a bit easier.
I am really uncertain where my vote will fall in May 2015 I must say. Labour have failed to inspire, the Tories have been underwhelming at best and disagreeable in several areas as well as being total failures in certain others (especially if Yes wins and the Tories implode and tack hard right), UKIP don't seem like the right fit for a wimpy social liberal like me, the LDs will abandon any of their remaining appealing points to try and present as Labour-lite again I'd guess, and probably no Independent will stand in my area again.
That only leaves a possible Green or BNP candidate to pick from.
Vote Tory, a social liberal should vote for the party that made gay marriage legal
A point in their favour, but I don't see much hope of the Tories become more liberal or sustaining many liberal attitudes for much longer. It's time for a hard tack to the right it seems. It'll be a fun ride to watch at least.
We're becoming more socially liberal.
Not on immigration.
The favourite to be next Tory leader, is very pro-immigration.
Yes, and it will be the biggest hurdle for him to overcome. The Conservatives will be idiots if they replace Cameron with Johnson. The latter solves none of the former's issues.
A majority of voters at the Euros voted for parties that are in favour of unlimited immigration.
Your posts tonight demonstrate why the Conservatives are vanishing down the plughole.
I think TSE is attemting to demonstrate the political ability that Sheffield Hallam Conservatives have become renowned for.
Actually, one more thing - do we know which leader came up with the idea of cancelling PMQs and going an impromptu holiday in Scotland? I wonder at what point they were sufficiently rattled to make that phone call, or reach out through intermediaries.
Steven Woolfe has just been selected as UKIP candidate for Stockport for the general election, but I think he might be a good choice for the Heywood&Middleton by-election, as someone mentioned earlier.
"A staunch Conservative has been expelled from his party because he signed a nomination paper for his wife to stand as a UKIP candidate at this year's local elections.
John Waine has lost his lifelong membership of Nuneaton Conservative Association through what he calls "a lawyer's interpretation of one very brief clause in the constitution". "
I know of a few cases like that and the sensible thing is to forget it rather than reach for the expulsion gun. In our mild-mannered neck of the woods everyone looks the other way when there's a family issue or simply a mild eccentricity. I can think of half a dozen similar cases involving all the main parties in recent years.
So two weeks after the Rotherham report and still no response from the government.
How about a Telegraph blog asking these questions:
1) Why no action from Theresa May about a police force which has collaberated with child rapists ?
2) Why has the Rotherham child welfare services not been placed into special measures by the government as those of other local councils have been placed in the past ?
3) How much did the former Communities Minister, the well connected locally, Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and why did she do nothing ?
4) Why has David Cameron been willing to preside over total government non-action ?
The answer to (4) is IMO Matthew Parris style metropolitan class hatred for wwc 'up north'.
I was going to give it another week, on the hope that something would be announced. But it seems like nothing is in the works. They're trying to sweep it all under the carpet again, with no light shone on all the other towns this has happened in. And they wonder why people vote UKIP.
Usual Westminster behaviour! And then they insult us by leaving it until after May next week to publish the inquiry into child abuse at Westminster itself. We're fed up of being shown contempt by the establishment, as is the case with so many other matters.
I find it stunning, absolutely stunning. I mean, for God's sake, FOURTEEN HUNDRED CHILDREN WERE RAPED IN ONE TOWN. It was covered up THREE TIMES. We have evidence of similar patterns of abuse, with little to no action by the authorities, in TWENTY OTHER PLACES. And the woman that did the report said it was likely the same scale of abuse happened in some of these towns.
Seriously, if this sort of thing can't wake up the political elite from their slumber, what the hell will? This is the worst crime wave that has ever hit the country in a hundred years. Likely thousands and thousands of children have been raped due to political negligence. And they're STILL not doing anything about it. Cameron and Clegg must have discussed such things. Clearly a decision has been taken to keep it on the quiet because Joe Public can't be trusted with the truth. ####ing bastards. The lot of them.
Absolutely Socrates. No one in their right minds should be voting for any of the career political class politics that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband espouse.
I think thats probably the most critical comment you've ever written on here about Cam - Things must be getting serious.
I always say exactly what I think, but, unlike many, I keep a sense of proportion. This is tacky and desperate. That doesn't alter my view that the current government remains the best, bar Maggie, of the past half century. I remember plenty of tacky and desperate stuff from the Brown, Blair, Major, Heath, Callaghan, Wilson, and Heath governments. (It's true that I don't remember anything tacky or desperate about the Douglas-Home government, but then I don't remember anything positive about it either).
In any case, two points need to be made:
1) No will probably still win, which everyone seems to have forgotten. The desperate tactics, in all seriousness, make some sense; this is about focusing Scots' minds on the irreversible nature of a Yes vote, and the economic damage which it will do to them.
2) The principal responsibility for the mess - indeed almost all of it - is Labour's. They created the botched-up devolution structure. They fomented anti-English feeling in Scotland and nurtured a sense of grievance - Ed M was doing this as recently as a couple of days ago. And above all they completely screwed up the campaign, which had largely been left to them.
On that subject: why on earth did they choose such a defensive strapline as 'Better Together'? It's hardly inspirational, at best it seems to be saying the union is not quite as bad as the alternative. Why not something like 'United and Great'?
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
Was interesting to see Galloway's political tour of Scotland on Newsnight tonight. I couldn't help thinking that he is the Rommel of this Independence campaign - a first rate political orator tragically caught fighting for the wrong side being overwhelmed by events.
Did Tories always eat babies or did it start with Thatcher?
I think the where there is discord let us bring harmony bollox was what did it for me. I dont consider Ken Clarke a baby eater and certainly despise Blair post Iraq more than Cameron but the North of England City dwellers really do hate Tories.
Nearly as much as the Scots do.
By bringing in the poll tax a year earlier.
Seriously though what's the big objection about that.
England got the very same poll tax a year later.
And it was the disasterous revaluation of Scottish domestic rates in 1986 which led to the poll tax being introduced.
In any case its not unusual for new government policies to be introduced in one part of the country on a test basis before full national implementation.
Now I can understand why many Scots might have bad memories of the poll tax - like any big tax changes there were losers and winners, with those who lost out inevitablly being more vocal.
But the 'introduced a year early' is just bizarre whining.
You are missing the point. When Scotland complained about the poll tax, the complaints were ignored. When England complained about the poll tax, it was scrapped. Your argument would only be valid if the poll tax had been kept, but the English Tories caved in in the face of massive by-election defeats by the Lib Dems.
As Scotland had already complained about domestic rates revaluation what did they actually want instead ?
Thatcher, rightly or wrongly, was never one to pay heed to constant complainers.
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
Oh FFS. What is modern Scotland? Syria?
It's this bleating lefty bullshit which is leading you idiots to the precipice.
Scotland is one of the most prosperous parts of a rather prosperous and enviably stable country, the UK, which has never been invaded or conquered for a thousand years, has not seen violent revolution or civil war for 400 years, and has not known widespread natural disaster - tsunamis, earthquakes - EVER. We also have the global language as our mother tongue, and can travel the world expecting to be understood everywhere.
Our closest ally is the world's superpower. We have a spectacularly vibrant, free speaking culture. We can fly to anywhere in Europe, the most beautiful, fascinating part of the world - in an hour or two, for not much money. We live til we are 80, on average. We are a robustly growing economy, with deficit problems, however we have much lower unemployment than most of our neighbours.
We. Are. Lucky.
Scotland. Is. Lucky.
Of COURSE we have problems, but every nation has problems - for a start every human falls ill, and dies. Many humans are born stupid (like you) or otherwise handicapped. Poverty, relative or absolute, afflicts all societies (though note that we have no absolute poverty - no one in Scotland, or the UK, lives on one dollar a day, unlike a billion people in this world).
Yet you paint this Scotland as being a kind of Hobbesian dystopia, a social disaster, a land so wretched it must risk financial chaos to rid itself of evil English overlords.
If Scots buy this cavalcade of total crap then they really are a very stupid nation, and I wish you well as you f*ck off. Please don't delay your exit.
There seems to be a bit of a panic about Scotland voting for independence. Think they should calm down a bit and concentrate on discussing how a yes or no vote would affect Scotland and rUK. The YES campaign are currently dominating, because they are getting Labour and neutrals to think about Scotland not ever being ruled again by Tories in London.
If the pound slides, there is a stock market plunge and companies start reducing investment plans, everyone will lose. It could tip the UK back into recession.
There seems to be a bit of a panic about Scotland voting for independence. Think they should calm down a bit and concentrate on discussing how a yes or no vote would affect Scotland and rUK. The YES campaign are currently dominating, because they are getting Labour and neutrals to think about Scotland not ever being ruled again by Tories in London.
If the pound slides, there is a stock market plunge and companies start reducing investment plans, everyone will lose. It could tip the UK back into recession.
Its all minor fun and games before the onset of the sovereign debt crisis beginning October 2015.. We've been here before - remember all the scare stories that Frankfurt would overtake London as the chief financial centre of Europe by all the Eurocrats if the UK stayed out of the Euro? And look what that all amounted to! Its one thing to threaten moving your operations out of a country, quite another to carry it out in practice. At some point sterling will have a rally when all the speculative shorts currently in the market get scared and cover their positions - after all no market moves in a straight line ever.
If the Guardian report is correct, the political class has yet again managed to plumb new depths, by attempting to call a by-election in Heywood with unseemly haste just so it can coincide with the Clacton election. Maybe the report is wrong. I hope so.
If the Guardian report is correct, the political class has yet again managed to plumb new depths, by attempting to call a by-election in Heywood with unseemly haste just so it can coincide with the Clacton election. Maybe the report is wrong. I hope so.
If true, why would that be plumbing any greater depth than UKIP arranging a defection at a time of maximum benefit to them?
If the Guardian report is correct, the political class has yet again managed to plumb new depths, by attempting to call a by-election in Heywood with unseemly haste just so it can coincide with the Clacton election. Maybe the report is wrong. I hope so.
If true, why would that be plumbing any greater depth than UKIP arranging a defection at a time of maximum benefit to them?
FraserNelson: This, from no-voting Carol Craig, is simply the best piece of long-form analysis you will read on the Scottish debate http://t.co/7o4VG5P2o5
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
Oh FFS. What is modern Scotland? Syria?
It's this bleating lefty bullshit which is leading you idiots to the precipice.
Scotland is one of the most prosperous parts of a rather prosperous and enviably stable country, the UK, which has never been invaded or conquered for a thousand years, has not seen violent revolution or civil war for 400 years, and has not known widespread natural disaster - tsunamis, earthquakes - EVER. We also have the global language as our mother tongue, and can travel the world expecting to be understood everywhere.
Our closest ally is the world's superpower. We have a spectacularly vibrant, free speaking culture. We can fly to anywhere in Europe, the most beautiful, fascinating part of the world - in an hour or two, for not much money. We live til we are 80, on average. We are a robustly growing economy, with deficit problems, however we have much lower unemployment than most of our neighbours.
We. Are. Lucky.
Scotland. Is. Lucky.
Of COURSE we have problems, but every nation has problems - for a start every human falls ill, and dies. Many humans are born stupid (like you) or otherwise handicapped. Poverty, relative or absolute, afflicts all societies (though note that we have no absolute poverty - no one in Scotland, or the UK, lives on one dollar a day, unlike a billion people in this world).
Yet you paint this Scotland as being a kind of Hobbesian dystopia, a social disaster, a land so wretched it must risk financial chaos to rid itself of evil English overlords.
If Scots buy this cavalcade of total crap then they really are a very stupid nation, and I wish you well as you f*ck off. Please don't delay your exit.
Its all part of the natural cycle of union, divorce, union, divorce..........Yes in the past it made a great deal of sense for Scotland to be in the Union. Times have moved on. And this isn't something peculiar to Britain - Brittany, the Basque region, Flanders, Wallonia, Catalonia, Galicia, Venice, Southern Tyrol, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, North Ossetia, Transdnistria in Moldova - all these regions are seeking separation from their nation state master - everything is linked in one shape or form.
Richard, absolutely agree with your first point, its all gone a bit Corporal Jones in the last week, which is just not British. But you know what, I haven't come across a Scots voter who has suddenly been swayed to vote Yes in the last six weeks. In fact, only know of one voter in recent months who was wavering, and they have now switched from a Yes to a No in recently.
Now back before the Holyrood elections, the swing from Labour to the SNP was very visible on the ground and I posted about it on here at the time. I genuinely have not sensed any new groundswell in support for Yes in recent weeks. But I have seen a few non political shy voters coming out and nailing their support for a No in the last few days as the media have whipped themselves into a frenzied meltdown.
I am still predicting a very high turnout, and one that will almost leave the campaign GOTV operations superfluous to requirements on the day. I am still predicting a comfortable No result delivered by the young, women and over 55's voting overwhelming to stay within the UK.
Well, I agree that the current rush by the Clegg, Miliband and Cameron - in cahoots with Gordon Brown, FFS - is embarrassingly vacuous, and the Saltire nonsense is the tackiest gimmick I've seen for years.
BREAKING NEWS: Alex Salmond has promised that DEATH, an evil English invention, will no longer stalk the fair land of Caledonia. Also, sniffly colds are Welsh, and henceforth forbidden.
If we are such a "UNITED" Kingdom then why do we have (for example) separate Football teams and leagues (and have had such since the mid-19th century)?
Separation has ALREADY occurred, at least at the international sporting level.
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
Was interesting to see Galloway's political tour of Scotland on Newsnight tonight. I couldn't help thinking that he is the Rommel of this Independence campaign - a first rate political orator tragically caught fighting for the wrong side being overwhelmed by events.
Rommel's giving him too much weight. Otto Skorzeny maybe.
BREAKING NEWS: Alex Salmond has promised that DEATH, an evil English invention, will no longer stalk the fair land of Caledonia. Also, sniffly colds are Welsh, and henceforth forbidden.
If we are such a "UNITED" Kingdom then why do we have (for example) separate Football teams and leagues (and have had such since the mid-19th century)?
Separation has ALREADY occurred, at least at the international sporting level.
That's just to enable us to compete, safely and without bitterness, against each other in some spheres, for the sake of fun.
@Socrates One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
Oh FFS. What is modern Scotland? Syria?
It's this bleating lefty bullshit which is leading you idiots to the precipice.
Scotland is one of the most prosperous parts of a rather prosperous and enviably stable country, the UK, which has never been invaded or conquered for a thousand years, has not seen violent revolution or civil war for 400 years, and has not known widespread natural disaster - tsunamis, earthquakes - EVER. We also have the global language as our mother tongue, and can travel the world expecting to be understood everywhere.
Our closest ally is the world's superpower. We have a spectacularly vibrant, free speaking culture. We can fly to anywhere in Europe, the most beautiful, fascinating part of the world - in an hour or two, for not much money. We live til we are 80, on average. We are a robustly growing economy, with deficit problems, however we have much lower unemployment than most of our neighbours.
We. Are. Lucky.
Scotland. Is. Lucky.
Of COURSE we have problems, but every nation has problems - for a start every human falls ill, and dies. Many humans are born stupid (like you) or otherwise handicapped. Poverty, relative or absolute, afflicts all societies (though note that we have no absolute poverty - no one in Scotland, or the UK, lives on one dollar a day, unlike a billion people in this world).
Yet you paint this Scotland as being a kind of Hobbesian dystopia, a social disaster, a land so wretched it must risk financial chaos to rid itself of evil English overlords.
If Scots buy this cavalcade of total crap then they really are a very stupid nation, and I wish you well as you f*ck off. Please don't delay your exit.
LOL the old Sean is back ha
There'll be another one along soon. Possibly in the lead up to the Survation poll.
If the Guardian report is correct, the political class has yet again managed to plumb new depths, by attempting to call a by-election in Heywood with unseemly haste just so it can coincide with the Clacton election. Maybe the report is wrong. I hope so.
If true, why would that be plumbing any greater depth than UKIP arranging a defection at a time of maximum benefit to them?
Because somebody died and they're not yet buried?
The article says:
It is understood that a senior Labour figure will seek the consent of Dobbin's family before any attempt to begin the process of setting a timetable for a byelection
and also points out that there is a Thursday deadline, otherwise they have to wait until November.
In the overall scheme of things, I think many deeper depths have been plumbed!
Comments
All these things I could perhaps have put up with in the hope you might one day change.
What I can't put up with is your lack of basic understanding of anything that offers no financial reward.
So....it comes to this England, go and hang out with that slut America, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Bye,
Scotland.
No that's mainly fair, although even though plenty are blaming Cameron for handling the referendum poorly, it doesn't seem like he is getting the bulk of the blame, he's just getting more crap by virtue of his position, which is unavoidable. Poor historians of the future will blame him first, as his name will be the one people see first as PM who lost the Union, but as we've heard, others will get plenty more criticism by those more versed in history.
Labour drops Clacton, the Tories drop H&M. UKIP gets to do both...
Why do lefties want to dismember England? Actually I believe in radical decentralisation, but it should be done by England, just as Scotland has chosen to centralise itself (eg by the imposition of a national police force, something the English have always regarded as an affront to civil liberties). Not by a UK government dismembering England into imagined subunits prior to devolution.
At this end my eldest goes to Uni this weekend and all is in chaos here. The younger one is still at college and goes back tomorrow.
This whole referendum thing has me very annoyed The sheer stupidity of the politicians firing up resentment, false expectation and complacency followed by the current panic. What a mess. My friends in Scotland are worried and some of them are considering moving south, others hope it will all come to a halt but my worry is that bad blood has been stoked up too far now.
We could do with a more mature politics. Personally I could probably do with a new mortgage as mine is with Bank of Scotland.
England got the very same poll tax a year later.
And it was the disasterous revaluation of Scottish domestic rates in 1986 which led to the poll tax being introduced.
In any case its not unusual for new government policies to be introduced in one part of the country on a test basis before full national implementation.
Now I can understand why many Scots might have bad memories of the poll tax - like any big tax changes there were losers and winners, with those who lost out inevitablly being more vocal.
But the 'introduced a year early' is just bizarre whining.
"Put the Castrol GTX in the motor, we're heading Nort'!!'"
Social liberals should vote Tory, because we are becoming, and ARE socially liberal, we need more people to vote Tory to help that reality.
Labour aren't currently offering any economic liberalism (I mean just look at their policies on energy and renting), Labour's economic liberalism isn't a reality, it is a pipe dream.
Value of the pound likely to fall by at least 15%
Japanese bank Nomura warns investors to brace for sterling collapse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2748983/Scottish-independence-cataclysmic-shock-UK-economy-warn-global-banks-investors-urged-pull-money-Britian.html
Your argument would only be valid if the poll tax had been kept, but the English Tories caved in in the face of massive by-election defeats by the Lib Dems.
Most Scots want a government to run their country, instead of letting business run it.
The present UK system allows the voices of the few to drown out the voices of the majority.
This is nothing to do with left or right, it is a basic fact.
Stockports nr Manchester, I know that much.. went to a great stag do at Bredbury Hall once!
I'd get Steven Woolfe in there
But then, perhaps it makes sense. The Yes side seem to be doing rather well, which can only mean that Scots are hugely swayed by vacuous arguments and tacky gimmicks, like this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23225470
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they know they'd hardly ever be able to win a majority in such a body.
Actually Tony Blair could do something remarkable. He needs to join Rupert Murdoch and get behind Scottish independence. Obviously he'd be lying but that's never bothered him in the past.
Personally I think there should be a fixed timetable where the writ is moved immediately the seat is vacated, or the day after the funeral in the case of a deceased MP, to ensure voters are left unrepresented for as little a period as possible.
And Wales, not many.
If UKIP win big in Clacton and come no-where in Heywood, it will be worth more to them than a more modest win and a creditable second place in Heywood (which is in truth the best they can hope for). It's not a trade-off worth taking in my mind.
At the time the border was closed and sealed by Franco. Everything had to be imported by sea and food was scarce. Mrs Thatcher insisted that the border was opened before lifting the threat of veto. It was a huge victory for us and we've never forgotten.
Today (the 10th as it already is here in Gib) is our National Day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_National_Day
It's a Bank Holiday and there will be a carnival atmosphere all day. The place will be one huge street party and *everyone* will be wearing red and white. If you've never seen it then words cannot describe the intensity of the pride of nationhood and the celebration of a people united.
"A staunch Conservative has been expelled from his party because he signed a nomination paper for his wife to stand as a UKIP candidate at this year's local elections.
John Waine has lost his lifelong membership of Nuneaton Conservative Association through what he calls "a lawyer's interpretation of one very brief clause in the constitution".
"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11082955/Lifelong-Tory-kicked-out-of-the-party-for-signing-wifes-Ukip-nomination.html
Wonder if his real name is Marion?
I passionately want the UK to stick together and although it is difficult I think we need to recognise that despite the perceived strengths, weaknesses, missteps and tactical errors of the Westminster establishment, the members of that establishment will not be in political office indefinitely. Moreover, the system itself is likely to be shaken up regardless of the result next Thursday.
From my conservative perspective I hope we can take a step back and pursue constitutional reform in a rather calm way, regardless of the Scotland vote. But we should also not confuse the short term anger with particularly politicians, with the medium term anger with the establishment, with the long term future of a country itself in my opinion. That is why I remain supportive of the Union and hope (whilst believing too) that it will be a No vote on Thursday week. We then need to take a collective breath and re-make the UK for the 21st century politically and finally begin to speak about what it means to be British.
Either that or counting the millions JP Morgan gave him.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662
Good night all.
Doubtless wishful thinking (and avoiding the abject humiliation of losing bets to Malcolmg and James Kelly), but wouldn't it be hugely amusing if No did win by a clear (10%?) margin?
One of the reasons I am a "no", but the dream is powerful, and if it is a yes, I will shrug my shoulders and make the best of it. Even I can't believe the future in an independent Scotland will be much worse than what we already have.
If the pound slides, there is a stock market plunge and companies start reducing investment plans, everyone will lose. It could tip the UK back into recession.
Seriously, if this sort of thing can't wake up the political elite from their slumber, what the hell will? This is the worst crime wave that has ever hit the country in a hundred years. Likely thousands and thousands of children have been raped due to political negligence. And they're STILL not doing anything about it. Cameron and Clegg must have discussed such things. Clearly a decision has been taken to keep it on the quiet because Joe Public can't be trusted with the truth. ####ing bastards. The lot of them.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-empty-nesters.html
http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/050970528-steven-woolfe-stand-ukip-parliamentary-candidate-stockport-and-vows-‘rid-borough
In any case, two points need to be made:
1) No will probably still win, which everyone seems to have forgotten. The desperate tactics, in all seriousness, make some sense; this is about focusing Scots' minds on the irreversible nature of a Yes vote, and the economic damage which it will do to them.
2) The principal responsibility for the mess - indeed almost all of it - is Labour's. They created the botched-up devolution structure. They fomented anti-English feeling in Scotland and nurtured a sense of grievance - Ed M was doing this as recently as a couple of days ago. And above all they completely screwed up the campaign, which had largely been left to them.
On that subject: why on earth did they choose such a defensive strapline as 'Better Together'? It's hardly inspirational, at best it seems to be saying the union is not quite as bad as the alternative. Why not something like 'United and Great'?
Thatcher, rightly or wrongly, was never one to pay heed to constant complainers.
Now back before the Holyrood elections, the swing from Labour to the SNP was very visible on the ground and I posted about it on here at the time. I genuinely have not sensed any new groundswell in support for Yes in recent weeks. But I have seen a few non political shy voters coming out and nailing their support for a No in the last few days as the media have whipped themselves into a frenzied meltdown.
I am still predicting a very high turnout, and one that will almost leave the campaign GOTV operations superfluous to requirements on the day. I am still predicting a comfortable No result delivered by the young, women and over 55's voting overwhelming to stay within the UK.
Separation has ALREADY occurred, at least at the international sporting level.
It is understood that a senior Labour figure will seek the consent of Dobbin's family before any attempt to begin the process of setting a timetable for a byelection
and also points out that there is a Thursday deadline, otherwise they have to wait until November.
In the overall scheme of things, I think many deeper depths have been plumbed!