All of 3 of tonight's polls have one thing in common, LD's polling 6&7, LD's are still slowly digging lower.
You wouldn't think it possible for them to go lower.
But apparently it is.
Actually they have picked up a bit, at the moment they are averaging just under 8, a couple of weeks ago it was just over 7.5%. UKIP have fallen back from about 15.5% to 14% but seem to be moving up a bit again. The Labour lead did stretch to over 4 but is now back to just over 3.5%
(based on the unscientific method of a spreadsheet which averages the polls over approximately the same time period as the graph on the Wikipedia polls page)
Well the three most recent polls (tonight) have them 6-7.
At what stage do they cut and run?
There is a great scene in The Great Race where Tony Curtis, when marooned on an iceberg with his opponent Jack Lemmon, tells Lemmon not to panic. Lemmon responds "I'm not panicking. But when the water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to do something...."
Close to being my all time favourite film.. after Casablanca and Blade Runner.
As I have said before, we would get on well. Agreeing on social issues and cinema, but nothing on economics.
Casablanca is my favourite film.
My business partner and I have exactly that relationship, agreeing on almost everything except economic/size of state issues. It actually works very well :-)
A number of my friends are lefties, but they tend to be individualist, libertarian types of lefties so we agree on more than we disagree on. Although I try to avoid mentioning that I actually vote Tory.
Kippers hate Cameron more than they hate Miliband and vice versa.
And Kippers are increasingly incoherent in their rage and policies. I cannot see a Kipper Tory coalition working.
a UKIP-Tory pact could not work because they hate Cameroons more than Miliband, and would prefer no pledge for a referendum from Labour to a pledge to hold a referendum from a Cameron led Tory party.
Yes, the raw hatred of UKIP members towards Cameron is curious. I wonder what brought it on. Yes, he was privately schooled but so was Nigel Farage. Cameron has dabbled in one policy that could be deemed progressive and anti-Christian - gay marriage. But Thatcher abolished corporal punishment in schools and introduced Sunday trading, which is surely just as bad or worse, yet most of them still adore her. No, I just can't work it out!
...
There it is that face of the nasty party alive and well!
Have we another Mr Ting Tong?
You do know that the former chief Cameroon cheerleader here referred to Muslims as 'ragheads' ?
To be fair I've said worse things about Muslims.
Fortunately Avery never told me, as a Muslim to choose which side I am on as one Kipper did here
Sadly it seems there are parts of this country where Muslims do have to choose which side they are on.
Well I live in Hope, well I live in Dore, which ain't that far from Hope.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
TBH, Mr @corporeal - I've never recovered from your explanation of Liberalism from about 4yrs ago.
I'm sure your scholarly definition is quite correct - it just doesn't fit with what I assumed it meant. Liberalism isn't libertarism at all. My error in thinking they were even distant cousins.
Some of the LDs stand for more state control than any Liberals could claim to stomach; and some are almost as green as the authoritarians led by Bennet and Lucas.
The LDs are not 'liberals' are they? There still is a 'Liberal Party' Its hard to say what it is - but I'd have to guess its hand wringing Social Democrat. Its a plausible stance to take. It comes a long way second best to me, but in the main the criticism I have of them is that in govt they just want to dis their partners and milk what they can for themselves. The last 5 years are not about high sounding principles at all, its just about fiddling an angle to look good and survive.
You seem fundamentally confused about the nature of politics and coalition.
Kippers hate Cameron more than they hate Miliband and vice versa.
And Kippers are increasingly incoherent in their rage and policies. I cannot see a Kipper Tory coalition working.
a UKIP-Tory pact could not work because they hate Cameroons more than Miliband, and would prefer no pledge for a referendum from Labour to a pledge to hold a referendum from a Cameron led Tory party.
Yes, the raw hatred of UKIP members towards Cameron is curious. I wonder what brought it on. Yes, he was privately schooled but so was Nigel Farage. Cameron has dabbled in one policy that could be deemed progressive and anti-Christian - gay marriage. But Thatcher abolished corporal punishment in schools and introduced Sunday trading, which is surely just as bad or worse, yet most of them still adore her. No, I just can't work it out!
...
There it is that face of the nasty party alive and well!
Have we another Mr Ting Tong?
You do know that the former chief Cameroon cheerleader here referred to Muslims as 'ragheads' ?
To be fair I've said worse things about Muslims.
Fortunately Avery never told me, as a Muslim to choose which side I am on as one Kipper did here
Sadly it seems there are parts of this country where Muslims do have to choose which side they are on.
Well I live in Hope, well I live in Dore, which ain't that far from Hope.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
Source for that claim? All polling I've ever seen shows Cameron is viewed better than the Party not the other way around. Unlike Miliband.
Whichever way you look at it the criticism of Cameron is hysteric baloney used by people who are fundamentally cowards, bigots and cowardly bigots, exploiting dark fears for their own nefarious ends.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, Labour and LibDem supporters bear our periods of adversity with more sang froid than the Tories, some of whom appear to go quite literally nuts.
(1) TSE writes rubbish over long threads (2) TSE is over-exciteable (3) TSE believes he is a "journalist" - I thought TSE was a lawyer (4) TSE believes he has "influence" (5) It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt
Back to lurking until the site recovers from the cuckoo.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
You do realise that Brown virtually completely purged, disgraced or nullified the Blairites so now they have absolutely no influence on the Labour Party don't you? That is of course after Labour had lost 4 million votes with another million on the way out of the door.
Oh and of course Blair's Clause IV moment was the moment when Labour deserted the WWC who now they are increasingly getting in a panic over seeing as their votes are disappearing off to UKIP.
Still if you do still fancy an Oozlum Bird strategy by all means go for it!
You do realise I abhor Labour and all they stand for and I think Brown is one of the worst leaders ever. He did so after Blair won 13 years of power.
It was you who evoked the memory of Blair's 'modernisation' project as some sort of exemplar to follow. I was just pointing out how it crashed and burned and as it goes left us with your favourite politician Brown and then Miliband and was integral to the medium term decline of the Labour Party. Chances are that Tory Party will potentially go through the same sort of upheaval. Who knows who will end up as Tory leader after Cameron is forced out next year?
Whichever way you look at it the criticism of Cameron is hysteric baloney used by people who are fundamentally cowards, bigots and cowardly bigots, exploiting dark fears for their own nefarious ends.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, Labour and LibDem supporters bear our periods of adversity with more sang froid than the Tories, some of whom appear to go quite literally nuts.
As the post directly above you appears to confirm!
Your comment on a "Cast Iron Promise" is either: (a) deliberately misremembering, (b) mischievously misremembering, or (c) actually misremembering. Which is it?
There was no point holding a Ref after Brown snuck in and already signed it, and Cameron never promised to do so.
There is no mis-remembering. The Cast Iron Promise was deliberately misleading and a number of us were saying so when it was originally made. It was designed specifically to make people think it meant one thing when it meant entirely something else. It is very sad that so many people fell for it.
Of course you will try to claim otherwise as you were caught out by the fact that after the event so many people came to see it as the lie it was intended to be.
The fact that you Cameroon's are still in denial about this after all this time shows just how out of touch you are.
...
As Quincel showed earlier when he posted the actual Cameron quote, your position and that of the Cameroons in general on the question of Lisbon is intellectually bankrupt.
How are your homophobic councillors doing by the way? Still hoping colleagues die of Aids?
You mean the 2007 newspaper article? Which said ''If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.''
So if a treaty emerged from these negotiations when he was PM he would hold a referendum before ratification. This when the election could be anytime and the treaty ratification process was in flux. The 2009 manifesto is even clearer. And following the 2010 election the govt passed a law about referendums and treaties. Not to mention Cameron pushing Salmond into a referendum. And this was a referendum where he was not in charge!
You continue to be desperate. And clearly you struggle with English comprehension. So just for the record of course the treaty was agreed and ratified by John Gordon Brown - before Cameron became PM.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
Source for that claim? All polling I've ever seen shows Cameron is viewed better than the Party not the other way around. Unlike Miliband.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints. There may be valid reasons to be illiberal on migration but it's still illiberal.
And what about opposing equal marriage? I'm assuming you recognise that as illiberal.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Well I was against gay marriage on the grounds that we now have three different types of legal partnership all with slightly different rules, which is stupid. I would have abolished marriage and made civil partnership available to everyone.
I don't see why climate change is either way, a lot of warmists want to introduce quite swingeing restrictions on personal freedom.
Similarly immigration. I have nothing against people from different ethnic origins, I just think it is illiberal to tax people who already live here and give their money to anyone who feels like arriving in the country. If we banned immigrants from claiming benefits for 10 years after their arrival, I would be happy to agree a pretty liberal immigration policy. Short of that, I believe that nationality is a members' club and the members should be able to decide who to let in.
I think you are confusing left-liberal shibboleths with people who are actually in favour of personal freedom.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
Source for that claim? All polling I've ever seen shows Cameron is viewed better than the Party not the other way around. Unlike Miliband.
Tonight's Com Res poll has Cameronn at -23%.
No worse than his party and how long has he been leader now? He's getting judged on far more than modernisation now.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
You do realise that Brown virtually completely purged, disgraced or nullified the Blairites so now they have absolutely no influence on the Labour Party don't you? That is of course after Labour had lost 4 million votes with another million on the way out of the door.
Oh and of course Blair's Clause IV moment was the moment when Labour deserted the WWC who now they are increasingly getting in a panic over seeing as their votes are disappearing off to UKIP.
Still if you do still fancy an Oozlum Bird strategy by all means go for it!
You do realise I abhor Labour and all they stand for and I think Brown is one of the worst leaders ever. He did so after Blair won 13 years of power.
It was you who evoked the memory of Blair's 'modernisation' project as some sort of exemplar to follow. I was just pointing out how it crashed and burned and as it goes left us with your favourite politician Brown and then Miliband and was integral to the medium term decline of the Labour Party. Chances are that Tory Party will potentially go through the same sort of upheaval. Who knows who will end up as Tory leader after Cameron is forced out next year?
It didn't crash and burn electorally it was the most popular that party ever was. Abandoning it burned.
Kippers hate Cameron more than they hate Miliband and vice versa.
And Kippers are increasingly incoherent in their rage and policies. I cannot see a Kipper Tory coalition working.
a UKIP-Tory pact could not work because they hate Cameroons more than Miliband, and would prefer no pledge for a referendum from Labour to a pledge to hold a referendum from a Cameron led Tory party.
Yes, the raw hatred of UKIP members towards Cameron is curious. I wonder what brought it on. Yes, he was privately schooled but so was Nigel Farage. Cameron has dabbled in one policy that could be deemed progressive and anti-Christian - gay marriage. But Thatcher abolished corporal punishment in schools and introduced Sunday trading, which is surely just as bad or worse, yet most of them still adore her. No, I just can't work it out!
...
There it is that face of the nasty party alive and well!
Have we another Mr Ting Tong?
You do know that the former chief Cameroon cheerleader here referred to Muslims as 'ragheads' ?
Miserable day for Cameron. I'd like to shed Crocodile Tears, but hey, I'm sure the PB Tories and AudreyAvery will find reasons why it's bad for Ed!
It's 50/50 whether the morning thread is going to be an Ed is crap thread.
C'mon, you know it's true: you feel it. Lemme at him.
I write Ed is crap threads, I get criticised, I write Ed is not crap threads, I get criticised.
Is a no win scenario.
So let us do the work (and take the criticism) for you!
Is this why more people didn't answer Dave's call to arms on the Big Society?
You do some voluntary work to help out others, and they either thanklessly take it all for granted or just snipe at you.
It's fine.
I'm amused by the attacks, at various stages I've been called a deluded Labour supporter, or a deluded Lib Dem, a Cybernat, a Farage fan boy.
The high point is when other journalists use my articles.
News night for example this week, asked the question I posed on Monday, will Labour's brand bring them power.
You are virtually the most famous person I know what with the Newsnight thingy and being retweeted by sexy day time TV presenters thingy.
I was also once re-tweeted by Lord Ashcroft & Tom Watson.
I also once propositioned Kirsty Gallacher
Tom Watson the Golfer?
I used to fancy Kirsty but she is out of my league and yours
Tom Watson the Labour MP (he also follows me on twitter)
This week, several Labour MPs tweeted one of my threads
I once got retweeted by that TSEofPB bloke.
Since you're around, can you reassure Mr Casino Royale about your experiences, about the joys of scheduling a guest piece by you then a major news story breaking.
He has a piece that was scheduled to go up, about 5 mins after Mark Reckless defected
Reckless here showing almost all the nonsense written by Tories about his reaction to ukip supporters chanting today, and Cameron's diplomacy and EU intentions to be absolute nonsense
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 27/09/2014 22:36 Reckless's account of conversation with Cameron about EU budget cut suggests PM v.contemptuous towards backbenchers specc.ie/1rrKrhX
The problem is the Tories despise them. Well, so do the LDs and Labour. Not yet sure about UKIP.
No, the Tories don't. As a rule, Tories don't despise anyone.
The metropolitan elite that has temporarily captured our party may do, however...
When Charles complains about the 'metropolitan elite' we know a tipping point has been reached.
I have to say I was rocked back by that comment from Mr. Charles. That maybe the biggest criticism of the Conservative Party that I have read on this site in seven years. Amazing, and definitely a keeper.
All this talk of defections. I was starting to panic that Neil Hamilton might defect from UKIP to the Tory Party. We would politely have to decline.
Tories have long memories and never forgive political treachery. Kippers are kidding themselves if they think we will form a coalition with them. They can climb into bed with the Labour party they are doing their best to help get elected.
Most Kippers will tell you that there job isn't to prop up the Tory Party.
It's to replace them.
We are the UK's oldest political party and will still be around long after Nigel's kippers have been eaten for breakfast by Gideon's pet cat.
I believe there's still a few continuity-Liberal Party councillors around.
The so-called continuity Liberal party is a new party created in 1989.
The Liberal Democrats are the continuation of the old Liberal party and could make a claim about being the oldest political party (whether the Liberals or Conservatives are older is a very abitrary and semantic based discussion iirc).
We've had this discussion before, but when you add the Peelites, the Liberal Unionists, the Imperial Preferencers, the Gladstonian Radicals and the National Liberals all of the historical Liberal Party is now part of the Tory Party.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
Source for that claim? All polling I've ever seen shows Cameron is viewed better than the Party not the other way around. Unlike Miliband.
Tonight's Com Res poll has Cameronn at -23%.
No worse than his party and how long has he been leader now? He's getting judged on far more than modernisation now.
He hasn't modernised the appeal of the Conservative party: it is no more popular with floating voters than it was before, but he has succeeded in shedding 50% of the party's members, several of his MPs, and a good chunk of his working class voter base.
The only thing holding the Tories up is (ironically) himself. For some reason, Cameron is viewed as a relatively competent and credible leader who stands up for Britain's interests.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints. There may be valid reasons to be illiberal on migration but it's still illiberal.
And what about opposing equal marriage? I'm assuming you recognise that as illiberal.
We need less government not more.
As someone has just pointed out, liberalism and libertarianism are very different things.
Indeed, one of the founding principles of Libertarianism is the concept of propertarianism which very much incorporates the principle of controlled borders. It is, in many ways, too extreme for me and it is the basis for the US style of Libertarianism which I do not espouse but even in a more moderate form it is accepted that one of the principle tasks of a small state structure is the control of borders for the benefit of those living within the country.
Reckless supports gay marriage (as do I). Why Carswell opposes it I don't know since his opposition goes against almost everything else he stands for and has written about.
Of course on your point about less government I agree 100%. It is just a shame that none of the three main parties do.
All of 3 of tonight's polls have one thing in common, LD's polling 6&7, LD's are still slowly digging lower.
You wouldn't think it possible for them to go lower.
But apparently it is.
Actually they have picked up a bit, at the moment they are averaging just under 8, a couple of weeks ago it was just over 7.5%. UKIP have fallen back from about 15.5% to 14% but seem to be moving up a bit again. The Labour lead did stretch to over 4 but is now back to just over 3.5%
(based on the unscientific method of a spreadsheet which averages the polls over approximately the same time period as the graph on the Wikipedia polls page)
Well the three most recent polls (tonight) have them 6-7.
At what stage do they cut and run?
There is a great scene in The Great Race where Tony Curtis, when marooned on an iceberg with his opponent Jack Lemmon, tells Lemmon not to panic. Lemmon responds "I'm not panicking. But when the water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to do something...."
JohnLilburne You cannot abolish the religious institution of marriage. I believe UKIP policy is to cap immigration, not just stop immigrants claiming benefits
Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) 27/09/2014 21:56 Lord Ashcroft reveals new polling in the Sunday Times. 27% of Tory voters from 2010 have abandoned the party. 73% of them now backing Ukip
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
If we changed the benefit system they'd be bigger net contributors.
All of 3 of tonight's polls have one thing in common, LD's polling 6&7, LD's are still slowly digging lower.
You wouldn't think it possible for them to go lower.
But apparently it is.
Actually they have picked up a bit, at the moment they are averaging just under 8, a couple of weeks ago it was just over 7.5%. UKIP have fallen back from about 15.5% to 14% but seem to be moving up a bit again. The Labour lead did stretch to over 4 but is now back to just over 3.5%
(based on the unscientific method of a spreadsheet which averages the polls over approximately the same time period as the graph on the Wikipedia polls page)
Well the three most recent polls (tonight) have them 6-7.
At what stage do they cut and run?
There is a great scene in The Great Race where Tony Curtis, when marooned on an iceberg with his opponent Jack Lemmon, tells Lemmon not to panic. Lemmon responds "I'm not panicking. But when the water reaches my bottom lip I'm sure as hell going to do something...."
The Julie Andrews (stage version) My Fair Lady soundtrack is good one.
You are terribly desperate to keep repeating lies like this . The issue was quite clearly put forward at a time when there was total uncertainty about when the treaty might be ratified. Both the 2009 and 2010 manifestos were quite clear and not misleading at all. And as promised Cameron has made clear that he does not want ever closer union and is proposing a referendum just as soon as he can get a majority for it in parliament.
You need to keep peddling your rubbish to keep yourself happy in your fantasy... and before you start off with all your whinging again, its a tough job having to point it out and the nasty habits of the ting tong tendancy in UKIP, but someone's got to do it.
What you and the rest of the tory party fail to understand is that lisbon was only one thing
I voted tory in 2010
I voted for abolishing the deficit....I get a government that still feels its ok to borrow 100 bn a year
I voted for an end to the nanny state.... I get Claire perry internet porn filters, minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packs
I voted for a return to civil liberties ----I get increased surveillance powers for GCHQ
I voted for a reduction of state spending....I get none
I voted for a tougher line on the EU....I get Cameron hailing it as a victory that he limited the increase in budget to double inflation
I voted for free market energy policies....I get green shite foisted upon me
Frankly if I wanted to vote for a left of centre party I would have voted Labour at least they are honest about it.
The tories have lost my vote until they prove they are labour lite. They aren't going to do that with idiot boy Cameron in charge
Your comment on a "Cast Iron Promise" is either: (a) deliberately misremembering, (b) mischievously misremembering, or (c) actually misremembering. Which is it?
There was no point holding a Ref after Brown snuck in and already signed it, and Cameron never promised to do so.
There is no mis-remembering. The Cast Iron Promise was deliberately misleading and a number of us were saying so when it was originally made. It was designed specifically to make people think it meant one thing when it meant entirely something else. It is very sad that so many people fell for it.
Of course you will try to claim otherwise as you were caught out by the fact that after the event so many people came to see it as the lie it was intended to be.
The fact that you Cameroon's are still in denial about this after all this time shows just how out of touch you are.
...
As Quincel showed earlier when he posted the actual Cameron quote, your position and that of the Cameroons in general on the question of Lisbon is intellectually bankrupt.
How are your homophobic councillors doing by the way? Still hoping colleagues die of Aids?
You mean the 2007 newspaper article? Which said ''If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.''
So if a treaty emerged from these negotiations when he was PM he would hold a referendum before ratification. This when the election could be anytime and the treaty ratification process was in flux. The 2009 manifesto is even clearer. And following the 2010 election the govt passed a law about referendums and treaties. Not to mention Cameron pushing Salmond into a referendum. And this was a referendum where he was not in charge!
You continue to be desperate. And clearly you struggle with English comprehension. So just for the record of course the treaty was agreed and ratified by John Gordon Brown - before Cameron became PM.
Your spinning is desperate. Go back and look at what both Quincel and I wrote about the intentionally false perceptions that were generated by Cameron.
Still no comment on your homophobic councillors. I really am starting to wonder if you are a bigot or a hypocrite the way you keep avoiding the question.
Hopefully in an ideal world the defections can help complete Cameron's modernisation project in the same way as Blair moved Labour on from the far left. It will be a shame to see Labour return to power next year if they do but hopefully then a socially liberal and sensible Conservative Party can return at the following election.
Unfortunately, Cameron's modernisation project is one that fails to appeal to the electorate
Source for that claim? All polling I've ever seen shows Cameron is viewed better than the Party not the other way around. Unlike Miliband.
Tonight's Com Res poll has Cameronn at -23%.
No worse than his party and how long has he been leader now? He's getting judged on far more than modernisation now.
He hasn't modernised the appeal of the Conservative party: it is no more popular with floating voters than it was before, but he has succeeded in shedding 50% of the party's members, several of his MPs, and a good chunk of his working class voter base.
The only thing holding the Tories up is (ironically) himself. For some reason, Cameron is viewed as a relatively competent and credible leader who stands up for Britain's interests.
That's just the political cycle. Parties in office lose members over time and those out can but no guarantees gain. With a longterm downwards trend.
Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) 27/09/2014 21:56 Lord Ashcroft reveals new polling in the Sunday Times. 27% of Tory voters from 2010 have abandoned the party. 73% of them now backing Ukip
And yet somehow they will replace that entirely with people in Con-Lab marginals making a least-worse choice. It's a theory.
" It's the Tories' failure to engage with the C1/C2s that has meant they have struggled to build a winning electoral platform for 20 years.
I don't believe that group is especially political - they was competant and efficient government, sensible economic policy (and I include immigration within that) and a leader who appears engaged with their needs. "
Indeed.
But if Charles can see it why can't the Cameroons. Why do the Cameroons support the Matthew Parris line ?
Why do you sound surprised?
I do my best to bridge the four nations in the UK, keep close to both London and the country, spend time with SMEs and multinationals and spend a significant amount of time building relationships in Europe and the States.
There is more to the Conservative tradition than a bunch of mediocre metropolitans
JohnLilburne You cannot abolish the religious institution of marriage. I believe UKIP policy is to cap immigration, not just stop immigrants claiming benefits
Marriage is a civil institution not a religious one. Though feel free to tack on any religious froth you believe in.
JohnLilburne You cannot abolish the religious institution of marriage.
Of course not. But what the State recognises isn't the religious institution of marriage, it is the civil institution, and for some reason we now have three slightly different ones.
The religious institution of marriage is between two individuals, their conscience and (in some circumstances) their church.
I have always said I couldn't get married:
* I am an atheist so do not recognise that a representative of God has the power to marry me. * I am a libertarian so do not recognise that the State has the power to marry me. That is between me and my intended.
All the State needs to do is to recognise that people are in a partnership, and IMO there should be one set of regulations for doing so.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
THE Economist, which campaigns in favour of absolute unrestricted migration cannot be considered a neutral authority on this matter.
>Your spinning is desperate. Go back and look at what both Quincel and I wrote about the intentionally false perceptions that were generated by Cameron.
Still no comment on your homophobic councillors. I really am starting to wonder if you are a bigot or a hypocrite the way you keep avoiding the question.
The article was written in the context of the election that never was and even refers to the upcoming election. You can't ignore that with any intellectual creditability.
As for homophobes I know you weren't referring to me but we'd be better off without them IMO.
Your comment on a "Cast Iron Promise" is either: (a) deliberately misremembering, (b) mischievously misremembering, or (c) actually misremembering. Which is it?
There was no point holding a Ref after Brown snuck in and already signed it, and Cameron never promised to do so.
There is no mis-remembering. The Cast Iron Promise was deliberately misleading and a number of us were saying so when it was originally made. It was designed specifically to make people think it meant one thing when it meant entirely something else. It is very sad that so many people fell for it.
Of course you will try to claim otherwise as you were caught out by the fact that after the event so many people came to see it as the lie it was intended to be.
The fact that you Cameroon's are still in denial about this after all this time shows just how out of touch you are.
...
As Quincel showed earlier when he posted the actual Cameron quote, your position and that of the Cameroons in general on the question of Lisbon is intellectually bankrupt.
How are your homophobic councillors doing by the way? Still hoping colleagues die of Aids?
You mean the 2007 newspaper article? Which said ''If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.''
So if a treaty emerged from these negotiations when he was PM he would hold a referendum before ratification. This when the election could be anytime and the treaty ratification process was in flux. The 2009 manifesto is even clearer. And following the 2010 election the govt passed a law about referendums and treaties. Not to mention Cameron pushing Salmond into a referendum. And this was a referendum where he was not in charge!
You continue to be desperate. And clearly you struggle with English comprehension. So just for the record of course the treaty was agreed and ratified by John Gordon Brown - before Cameron became PM.
Your spinning is desperate. Go back and look at what both Quincel and I wrote about the intentionally false perceptions that were generated by Cameron.
Still no comment on your homophobic councillors. I really am starting to wonder if you are a bigot or a hypocrite the way you keep avoiding the question.
I'm fairly sure the two aren't mutually exclusive. Although there are bigots in all parties.
You are terribly desperate to keep repeating lies like this . The issue was quite clearly put forward at a time when there was total uncertainty about when the treaty might be ratified. Both the 2009 and 2010 manifestos were quite clear and not misleading at all. And as promised Cameron has made clear that he does not want ever closer union and is proposing a referendum just as soon as he can get a majority for it in parliament.
You need to keep peddling your rubbish to keep yourself happy in your fantasy... and before you start off with all your whinging again, its a tough job having to point it out and the nasty habits of the ting tong tendancy in UKIP, but someone's got to do it.
What you and the rest of the tory party fail to understand is that lisbon was only one thing
I voted tory in 2010
I voted for abolishing the deficit....I get a government that still feels its ok to borrow 100 bn a year
I voted for an end to the nanny state.... I get Claire perry internet porn filters, minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packs
I voted for a return to civil liberties ----I get increased surveillance powers for GCHQ
I voted for a reduction of state spending....I get none
I voted for a tougher line on the EU....I get Cameron hailing it as a victory that he limited the increase in budget to double inflation
I voted for free market energy policies....I get green shite foisted upon me
Frankly if I wanted to vote for a left of centre party I would have voted Labour at least they are honest about it.
The tories have lost my vote until they prove they are labour lite. They aren't going to do that with idiot boy Cameron in charge
While I voted LD I had wanted Cameron to be PM for many of the reasons you list, and so now I feel in a bit of a bind. Labour seem no closer to addressing the same sorts of concerns, the LDs don't fill me with confidence even on things like civil liberties, and the Tories have either chosen not to do many of the things I wanted (not that I expected all of the Tory priorities to match my own), or were so incompetent they failed to do so, and while I want UKIP to do well, I want them to make Labour and the Tories work for their votes and I'm all for them having plenty of MPs, their policies certainly do not match my views in many key areas.
Which way is a man to vote in such circumstances? I may not even get the opportunity to vote for some Independent even if I wanted to. As it is a safe Tory seat and I really don't think they deserve to be hit as hard as they have been, I guess I might vote LD out of sympathy and add to their pitiful vote share?
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
THE Economist, which campaigns in favour of absolute unrestricted migration cannot be considered a neutral authority on this matter.
Name anything or anyone who is entirely neutral. I believe strongly in the same as The Economist does on this matter. The figures are true the opinions are up for debate.
the One Nation Tories of which I am proud to say I am one. We neither swing to the left nor the right. We hover in the centre ground which we have occupied for more than three centuries.
And I'm proud to call myself a Liberal Unionist, friends and partners of the One Nation Tories more more than a century
If they are still polling 6pts by December they might as well cut and run on some point of principle, hoping for a bounce.
6%
FFS. I voted for them in 2010.
I don't know. Ashdown was a man mountain compared to our current crop - just look at the Ed is Crap/Dave is Crap stuff on here. The current trio make Neil, Paddy and John look like a trio of giants!
>Your spinning is desperate. Go back and look at what both Quincel and I wrote about the intentionally false perceptions that were generated by Cameron.
Still no comment on your homophobic councillors. I really am starting to wonder if you are a bigot or a hypocrite the way you keep avoiding the question.
The article was written in the context of the election that never was and even refers to the upcoming election. You can't ignore that with any intellectual creditability.
As for homophobes I know you weren't referring to me but we'd be better off without them IMO.
I took that as read Philip. My comment is not directed at the Tory party in general, only at those like Flightpath who try to claim that UKIP is a hotbed of bigotry whilst willfully ignoring the racists and homophobes in their own party. As I said earlier it is very much a question of glasshouses and stones.
Miliband trusted more on Welfare benefits - to slash them or protect them? It was my understanding people generally indicate they support cuts to welfare (even if in practice they end up being less positive most of the time), and I doubt people trust Miliband to do that.
It's always been a total myth that people like the Tories' welfare cuts. This is the third poll in just the past week that's given Labour a lead on welfare.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
That's not true. The House of Lords report found no financial benefit to the host nation from migrants. Migrationwatch found a net loss.
Miliband trusted more on Welfare benefits - to slash them or protect them? It was my understanding people generally indicate they support cuts to welfare (even if in practice they end up being less positive most of the time), and I doubt people trust Miliband to do that.
It's always been a total myth that people like the Tories' welfare cuts.
RT Carswell voted against gay marriage and is sceptical of climate change, Reckless wants a much tougher line on immigration, they are not social liberals
Being skeptical of climate change is in no way illiberal. It just shows a basic understanding of science.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
Sure it is illiberal. A Libertarian position entails letting people best determine how and where they live not artificial government constraints.
But does it involve taxing the current residents of a country and giving it to foreigners who want to come and live here?
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
Our benefit system does nothing of the kind. The Economist and other serious reviews on this subject consistently show migrants to be net contributors. It is native layabouts who abuse the system that are the problem not the hard working migrants that fund them.
THE Economist, which campaigns in favour of absolute unrestricted migration cannot be considered a neutral authority on this matter.
I read the Economist occasionally but cannot recall them campaigning for anything, let alone unrestricted immigration.
Could you supply some evidence for your assertion?
Miliband trusted more on Welfare benefits - to slash them or protect them? It was my understanding people generally indicate they support cuts to welfare (even if in practice they end up being less positive most of the time), and I doubt people trust Miliband to do that.
It's always been a total myth that people like the Tories' welfare cuts.
Even the housing benefit cap of 26k? I've never personally heard anyone criticise it, not that I discount the possibility people outside my own bubble doing so (bubble of low middle to poor income people that it is), which is a first for me.
If they are still polling 6pts by December they might as well cut and run on some point of principle, hoping for a bounce.
6%
FFS. I voted for them in 2010.
I don't know. Ashdown was a man mountain compared to our current crop - just look at the Ed is Crap/Dave is Crap stuff on here. The current trio make Neil, Paddy and John look like a trio of giants!
Have you seen matt Fordes impression of Ed Miliband
Reckless here showing almost all the nonsense written by Tories about his reaction to ukip supporters chanting today, and Cameron's diplomacy and EU intentions to be absolute nonsense
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) 27/09/2014 22:36 Reckless's account of conversation with Cameron about EU budget cut suggests PM v.contemptuous towards backbenchers specc.ie/1rrKrhX
That's a really interesting article - thanks for posting.
To me, it just shows that a big part of Cameron's problem has been his arrogance, his temper and an astonishing lack of interpersonal skills. His interactions with his backbenchers come across as distant, diffident and rude. And (this is almost even worse) because he doesn't really believe anything, or lead any point of view, he doesn't command much respect to make up for those interpersonal weaknesses. People don't trust him because they can't - he could change from one week to the next.
You can like someone and not respect them: you treat them civilly, perhaps enjoy their social company, but otherwise ignore them professionally. You can dislike someone and respect them: they can be effective bosses that command reluctant loyalty.
But... disliked and disrespected? Think of the people you know at work (and outside of it) who you both dislike and don't respect.
See? It's hard to stop defectors when that happens.
The difficulties of managing a 'broad church' within the Conservative Party is partly a cover for Cameron's personal failings.
How very convenient. The ball appears to have got kicked over the long grass into the next door neighbour's garden, down a slope, over the road, and into a deep black hole.
Miliband trusted more on Welfare benefits - to slash them or protect them? It was my understanding people generally indicate they support cuts to welfare (even if in practice they end up being less positive most of the time), and I doubt people trust Miliband to do that.
It's always been a total myth that people like the Tories' welfare cuts.
Even the housing benefit cap of 26k? I've never personally heard anyone criticise it
It's complete madness as a policy but you're right that it's popular with the public (I posted one of many polls on it below).
Miliband trusted more on Welfare benefits - to slash them or protect them? It was my understanding people generally indicate they support cuts to welfare (even if in practice they end up being less positive most of the time), and I doubt people trust Miliband to do that.
It's always been a total myth that people like the Tories' welfare cuts.
Even the housing benefit cap of 26k? I've never personally heard anyone criticise it, not that I discount the possibility people outside my own bubble doing so (bubble of low middle to poor income people that it is), which is a first for me.
Welfare is a good example of where the public have one opinion on a policy in theory, but a completely different opinion on the actual real-life effects. Sure, anyone is going to cheer the idea of cracking down on the real scroungers -- I'm as bleeding-heart as they come on welfare, and even I wouldn't mind if there was some surefire way of weeding out all the fake "bad backs" of people who just can't be bothered working.
But people's opinions really do change when it's a friend or relative who's affected by them (as opposed to one of those faraway scroungers they hear about in the media), who they see as being unfairly punished. In fact when I was canvassing quite regularly up until a year ago, loads of people were saying they were doubly angry with the government on welfare because, as they saw it, "they're going after the people who really need the help, while at the same time they're leaving the real scroungers alone".
Yes, a very interesting article, which perhaps goes some way to explaining what is going on and why Labour and UKIP between them look as though they might put Ed M into No 10. Compare and contrast:
About 1 in 8 of those who did not vote for the party in 2010 say they may do so next time. These people are united by a positive view of the prime minister and the belief that the Tories are on the right track and need more time to finish the job.
They worry that a change of government could mean going back to square one on the deficit and undoing what progress has been made on immigration and welfare reform.
That's fine as far as it goes, but look at this:
nearly half of defectors said either austerity was no longer necessary or had never been needed in the first place.
In other words, what we are seeing is similar to the denial of the late 60's and the 70s. It took the UK a decade and a half to come to its senses then and face reality. I see no reason to assume voters are any more realistic today than they were then.
The problem is the Tories despise them. Well, so do the LDs and Labour. Not yet sure about UKIP.
No, the Tories don't. As a rule, Tories don't despise anyone.
The metropolitan elite that has temporarily captured our party may do, however...
The deeply frustrating thing is that UKIP has a good deal of sensible policies (as well as some very stupid ones) and clearly connect with many of the disenfranchised voters in a way the mainstream parties do not.
But while they have such a lightweight as leader and are so many of their supporters are intolerant towards their fellow citizens (I'm not suggesting this is necessarily party policy, although Farage has indulged in dog whistling from time to time) they are unsupportable as the next government.
The only thing worse than Miliband as PM would be Farage having any senior role in the executive.
You are calling Farage a lightweight with Cameron, Clegg and Milliband heading up the establishment parties? The only thing that makes Cameron a heavyweight is his ever expanding girth and nothing could make the other two anything but featherweights.
As for intolerance its not Kippers going round accusing people who they have no knowledge of being swivel-eyed nutters, fruitcakes and closet racists. You Tories really are priceless. You need to take a long long look in the mirror......
Cameron's crap at politics. He's lazy, high handed and dismissive of people he doesn't know well. But he's actually been a pretty reasonable PM in the actual business of governing, despite a terrible legacy.
Farage has done nothing to demonstrate that he's anything more than a cheery pub bore.
As for intolerance: "nutters, fruitcakes, loonies" etc is rude. And dismissive. But not intolerant. Intolerant is judging people on the basis of the colour of their skin, or their religion. Or preventing people who love each other from getting married simply because they happen to be the same sex.
No 10 source on the Mark Reckless byelection: "We would hope to win it"
I've just been reading about Alan Clark's "hopes" about Margaret Thatcher in the Charles Moore biography; "I don't want actual penetration, just a really good snog."
Comments
I'd be mentioning Classical History/Military battles in every sentence.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?241227-German-navy-is-left-with-only-5-operational-helicopters
but the comments. Maybe the MoD isn't so bad after all.
You'll note that both UKIP and Labour are more popular than the EU.
None of these options are actually popular.
Though agreed with Richard these are not the really extreme ones.
I have also been called Reggie.
The election next year will be a choice between two alternative leaders, both of whom most people instinctively dislike.
The least unpopular and most credible PM candidate will win.
I'm sure your scholarly definition is quite correct - it just doesn't fit with what I assumed it meant. Liberalism isn't libertarism at all. My error in thinking they were even distant cousins.
(1) TSE writes rubbish over long threads
(2) TSE is over-exciteable
(3) TSE believes he is a "journalist" - I thought TSE was a lawyer
(4) TSE believes he has "influence"
(5) It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt
Back to lurking until the site recovers from the cuckoo.
Tougher lines on immigration is also not illiberal. It only becomes illiberal if you start deciding who should enter the country based on spurious reasons like skin colour or nationality.
I also once propositioned Kirsty Gallacher
I used to fancy Kirsty but she is out of my league and yours
''If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.''
So if a treaty emerged from these negotiations when he was PM he would hold a referendum before ratification. This when the election could be anytime and the treaty ratification process was in flux.
The 2009 manifesto is even clearer.
And following the 2010 election the govt passed a law about referendums and treaties. Not to mention Cameron pushing Salmond into a referendum. And this was a referendum where he was not in charge!
You continue to be desperate.
And clearly you struggle with English comprehension. So just for the record of course the treaty was agreed and ratified by John Gordon Brown - before Cameron became PM.
And what about opposing equal marriage? I'm assuming you recognise that as illiberal.
We need less government not more.
This week, several Labour MPs tweeted one of my threads
I don't see why climate change is either way, a lot of warmists want to introduce quite swingeing restrictions on personal freedom.
Similarly immigration. I have nothing against people from different ethnic origins, I just think it is illiberal to tax people who already live here and give their money to anyone who feels like arriving in the country. If we banned immigrants from claiming benefits for 10 years after their arrival, I would be happy to agree a pretty liberal immigration policy. Short of that, I believe that nationality is a members' club and the members should be able to decide who to let in.
I think you are confusing left-liberal shibboleths with people who are actually in favour of personal freedom.
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf
Our benefit system completely screws up the "market" for immigration.
How out of touch I've become since joining the Tories.
He has a piece that was scheduled to go up, about 5 mins after Mark Reckless defected
Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman)
27/09/2014 22:36
Reckless's account of conversation with Cameron about EU budget cut suggests PM v.contemptuous towards backbenchers specc.ie/1rrKrhX
EXCL: 30% of Conservative councillors support an electoral pact with UKIP at the General Election. 63% opposed #bbcsp /ComRes (1/5)
EXCL: 45% of Conservative councillors would vote to leave EU if referendum tomorrow. 39% would vote to stay in #bbcsp/ComRes (2/5)
EXCL: 31% of Conservative councillors believe David Cameron was right to pursue legalising gay marriage. 60% disagree #bbcdp/ComRes (3/5)
EXCL: 86% of Conservative cllrs say immigration is too high. 49% think climate change is happening but humans not mainly responsible (4/5)
EXCL: 56% of Conservative councillors say spending cuts the government have announced so far have not gone far enough #bbcdp/ComRes (5/5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union
The only thing holding the Tories up is (ironically) himself. For some reason, Cameron is viewed as a relatively competent and credible leader who stands up for Britain's interests.
Indeed, one of the founding principles of Libertarianism is the concept of propertarianism which very much incorporates the principle of controlled borders. It is, in many ways, too extreme for me and it is the basis for the US style of Libertarianism which I do not espouse but even in a more moderate form it is accepted that one of the principle tasks of a small state structure is the control of borders for the benefit of those living within the country.
Reckless supports gay marriage (as do I). Why Carswell opposes it I don't know since his opposition goes against almost everything else he stands for and has written about.
Of course on your point about less government I agree 100%. It is just a shame that none of the three main parties do.
Ms Monroe is perfect in it too.
I'm listening to the OST of The Jungle Book right now and what an epically good one it is.
27/09/2014 21:56
Lord Ashcroft reveals new polling in the Sunday Times. 27% of Tory voters from 2010 have abandoned the party. 73% of them now backing Ukip
I voted tory in 2010
I voted for abolishing the deficit....I get a government that still feels its ok to borrow 100 bn a year
I voted for an end to the nanny state.... I get Claire perry internet porn filters, minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packs
I voted for a return to civil liberties ----I get increased surveillance powers for GCHQ
I voted for a reduction of state spending....I get none
I voted for a tougher line on the EU....I get Cameron hailing it as a victory that he limited the increase in budget to double inflation
I voted for free market energy policies....I get green shite foisted upon me
Frankly if I wanted to vote for a left of centre party I would have voted Labour at least they are honest about it.
The tories have lost my vote until they prove they are labour lite. They aren't going to do that with idiot boy Cameron in charge
Still no comment on your homophobic councillors. I really am starting to wonder if you are a bigot or a hypocrite the way you keep avoiding the question.
I do my best to bridge the four nations in the UK, keep close to both London and the country, spend time with SMEs and multinationals and spend a significant amount of time building relationships in Europe and the States.
There is more to the Conservative tradition than a bunch of mediocre metropolitans
youtube.com/watch?v=1iwC2QljLn4
The religious institution of marriage is between two individuals, their conscience and (in some circumstances) their church.
I have always said I couldn't get married:
* I am an atheist so do not recognise that a representative of God has the power to marry me.
* I am a libertarian so do not recognise that the State has the power to marry me. That is between me and my intended.
All the State needs to do is to recognise that people are in a partnership, and IMO there should be one set of regulations for doing so.
As for homophobes I know you weren't referring to me but we'd be better off without them IMO.
Which way is a man to vote in such circumstances? I may not even get the opportunity to vote for some Independent even if I wanted to. As it is a safe Tory seat and I really don't think they deserve to be hit as hard as they have been, I guess I might vote LD out of sympathy and add to their pitiful vote share?
Rory Bremner's piss take was just totally inspired. youtube.com/watch?v=UP13Oc8CDxo
Apols, but I've no idea how to insert a YTube linky so it appears as a visual. Anyone who'd like to chip in - feel free.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/isabel-hardman/2014/09/mark-reckless-the-row-in-witney-that-made-me-lose-my-faith-in-david-cameron/
It appears to be that Cameron gave himself, and not Reckless, the credit for cutting the EU budget.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes 1m
No 10 source on the Mark Reckless byelection: "We would hope to win it"
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-papers/category/1
Could you supply some evidence for your assertion?
Aren't they great?!
To me, it just shows that a big part of Cameron's problem has been his arrogance, his temper and an astonishing lack of interpersonal skills. His interactions with his backbenchers come across as distant, diffident and rude. And (this is almost even worse) because he doesn't really believe anything, or lead any point of view, he doesn't command much respect to make up for those interpersonal weaknesses. People don't trust him because they can't - he could change from one week to the next.
You can like someone and not respect them: you treat them civilly, perhaps enjoy their social company, but otherwise ignore them professionally. You can dislike someone and respect them: they can be effective bosses that command reluctant loyalty.
But... disliked and disrespected? Think of the people you know at work (and outside of it) who you both dislike and don't respect.
See? It's hard to stop defectors when that happens.
The difficulties of managing a 'broad church' within the Conservative Party is partly a cover for Cameron's personal failings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2772197/Bishop-hits-delay-abuse-probe-led-lawyer-Leon-Brittan-links.html
How very convenient. The ball appears to have got kicked over the long grass into the next door neighbour's garden, down a slope, over the road, and into a deep black hole.
But people's opinions really do change when it's a friend or relative who's affected by them (as opposed to one of those faraway scroungers they hear about in the media), who they see as being unfairly punished. In fact when I was canvassing quite regularly up until a year ago, loads of people were saying they were doubly angry with the government on welfare because, as they saw it, "they're going after the people who really need the help, while at the same time they're leaving the real scroungers alone".
About 1 in 8 of those who did not vote for the party in 2010 say they may do so next time. These people are united by a positive view of the prime minister and the belief that the Tories are on the right track and need more time to finish the job.
They worry that a change of government could mean going back to square one on the deficit and undoing what progress has been made on immigration and welfare reform.
That's fine as far as it goes, but look at this:
nearly half of defectors said either austerity was no longer necessary or had never been needed in the first place.
In other words, what we are seeing is similar to the denial of the late 60's and the 70s. It took the UK a decade and a half to come to its senses then and face reality. I see no reason to assume voters are any more realistic today than they were then.
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5363/conservative-conference-faces-fresh-claims-over-paedophile-mps
Farage has done nothing to demonstrate that he's anything more than a cheery pub bore.
As for intolerance: "nutters, fruitcakes, loonies" etc is rude. And dismissive. But not intolerant. Intolerant is judging people on the basis of the colour of their skin, or their religion. Or preventing people who love each other from getting married simply because they happen to be the same sex.
I was shocked, I tell you.
I accidentally embedded a tweet with the front page of the Daily Mail that featured Miss Johansson looking sexy instead
I don't know how that happened.