@Smarmeron said: Has anyone worked out yet that "piloted" aircraft are becoming a thing of the past? One of the limitations of any fighter aircraft is the squishy bit that sits in the seats and is affected by G forces. Manned aircraft will still have a place, but less so. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thats true. In another decade or so the "pilots" will be sitting in offices or tents and guiding the plane from there. Something what the army* does now for drones. Would be good jobs for @TGOHF or @TheWatcher the let out their frustrations.
* I said the army because there will not be any need for a separate air force once all planes are pilotless.
Do you think it will be a bit of a bugger when a decently equipped modern military jams the control signal, which means the UAV will default to safe haven mode and fly home? Or don't you see it being an issue?
Nothing is ever perfect or perfected and science, wether military or civilian is always in flux. Sure there will be failures and mistakes, there always are.
Be a bit of a bugger if a drone is turned against its owner, by an enemy power.
Interesting times on an aircraft carrier when your own robot is about to bomb you.
I've occasionally wondered whether it might be possible to identify the senders of computer viruses and reverse engineer the bug so that it infected the originators.
I wonder how the Chinese Government, for example, might react if it found all its systems suddenly went down as a result of such a dirty trick. It could hardly complain publicly.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?
So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.
Got it.
Too scared to have an EU referendum incase it was lost - so tried to hole it beneath the water.
Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.
That's the problem with the modern Tory, they have bought into this idiotic idea that softly, softly works and that by trading with pariah nations and turning them into suppliers or customers we can ensure they modernise and democratise. That is purportedly why the aid budget was increased so vastly. In reality halving the aid budget spending half the saving on increasing the size of the military and the other half on reducing the deficit would make us safer as a nation. The UK Aid budget is £13.6bn this year, which seems insane given that we are running a ~£100bn deficit and we are slashing and burning at defence with a newly belligerent Russia, possible tension between China and regional powers, ISIL and the new threat from "lone wolf" terrorists on British soil. It is truly one of those policies from a Tory government that makes me wonder what the hell the leadership think voters want.
You don´t understand. The Tory leadership, like the Labour leadership, hate their own voters. Living in their own little cocoon they all believe in ever increasing aid budgets. Has anyone seen how the politicos all gang up together to defend the foreign aid budget whenever this is asked on QT.
But isn't the foreign aid budget less than our net contribution to EU?
Not this year, the EU net contribution will be around £9bn, the foreign aid budget is about £13bn including the money funnelled through EU aid programmes.
Well it's the same order of magnitude. Per head of population, EU citizens receive more in UK aid than non-EU.
What a stupid argument. There are real benefits to being in the EU such as single market access. There is nothing like that with aid spending. To draw any kind of comparison between EU spending and aid spending is frankly ridiculous. Also, I don't know how 50% higher spending on aid than the net EU contribution is close? It's a pretty vast difference.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?
So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.
Got it.
42.4% of the electorate voted for either the Labour or Conservative parties in 2010. In 1955 it was 73.8%.
There's the whole other half of the country that doesn't want to be forced to choose between the two. It's not the 1950s now.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
He defected on principle. I know this is something that you find difficult to understand as you Tories seem to lack all principles but that is what happened.
Claims that he was going to lose to UKIP are just fanciful.
Well I'm very pro-EU and I'm also very pro-immigration (I don't much like the Conservative policies on immigration either, to be honest). I also find UKIP very intolerant in general. So I guess you can see that the sort of society that UKIP wants to bring about is not one that I'd feel very happy in. Aside from not liking the UKIP message I like even less the hectoring and divisive way in which Farage and his chums go about delivering it.
Well, not really, no. I can't quite see what the practical outworkings of this terror entail. You mention no difference that the EU makes to your life, no aspect you would be bereft of, other than the fact that within the EU we have more immigration, and you like that. I take it you're not persuaded by UKIP's argument that if immigration were controlled by Westminster, we could allow more immigration in such circumstances where it was desirable.
I don't think we've really got the bottom of why something should terrify you, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.
Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?
The current welfare system, including the NHS, is based on the Beveridge report. Although William Beveridge, an economist and a Liberal MP, was defeated at the 1945 election, the successful Labour Party then implemented his proposals.
As Lord Beveridge he went on to lead the Liberals in the House of Lords.
So Liberals have as much claim to the NHS as Labour.
Didn't Lloyd George kick start the modern pension system?
Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.
Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.
Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.
You just don't get it. He shouldn't have 'handled things better'; he shouldn't have 'listened'; he shouldn't have had more barbeques; he shouldn't have sneered less and developed an estuary accent -he should have simply realised that he is there to represent the party that people voted for, rather than the party being there to represent him. That's it. Not difficult.
Just because he did not do the action you wanted, did not mean he did not 'listen' to that viewpoint, or indeed other viewpoints.
There can be many views, but often only one action. Assuming that your views were not listened to just because another decision was made is the height of childishness. Any leader has to weigh up differing opinions, the facts they have, and their own opinions and prejudices before making any decision.
Or are you claiming that the UKIP-favourable arm of the party is the only 'true' Conservative arm, and the only one Cameron should listen to?
I am sure there were many differing opinions -the ones that Cameron has listened to being the ones coming out of Ken Clarke, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Lib Dems, and skype calls with Joe Biden. He's consistently capitulated to nearly everyone in the world with the exception of the Tory Party.
Decide or decline sounds like one of those late afternoon quiz shows....
'And coming up after Pointless, Decide or Decline.....where Conservative MPs face their careers ending if they can't decide to agree with David Cameron quickly enough...
Decide or decline not a strong slogan, for the following reason. A successful slogan must have a hook as well as bait. The bait is sounding good, being catchy, being memorable, generating agreement. The hook is a lot harder -it's how the slogan applies only to what you're selling, and excludes the competition. 'It's the real thing' Coca cola's legendary slogan, emphasising the brand's authenticity set against the 'young pretender' of Pepsi, is an example of such a slogan.
'Decide or decline' sounds ok, there's a fairly clever double meaning on decline, but there's not much hook -I could just as easily read this slogan and 'decide' it was time to vote UKIP. It only really works as an attack on Labour, and there are probably comparatively few Labour voters exercised by national decline -otherwise they wouldn't vote Labour.
What they should have done is a double attack along the lines of the 'make believe dreams of UKIP' or the 'real nightmares of five years of Labour'. 'If you can't face a socialist nightmare, but don't believe separatist daydreams, vote Conservative'. It needs finessing obviously, but I haven't had long.
I'm sticking with "Conservative or Bust!"
It may be a false dichotomy, but it conveys a clear and defensible-ish message & refers back to a film(?) that target voters will remember.
Decide or decline sounds like one of those late afternoon quiz shows....
'And coming up after Pointless, Decide or Decline.....where Conservative MPs face their careers ending if they can't decide to agree with David Cameron quickly enough...
Decide or decline not a strong slogan, for the following reason. A successful slogan must have a hook as well as bait. The bait is sounding good, being catchy, being memorable, generating agreement. The hook is a lot harder -it's how the slogan applies only to what you're selling, and excludes the competition. 'It's the real thing' Coca cola's legendary slogan, emphasising the brand's authenticity set against the 'young pretender' of Pepsi, is an example of such a slogan.
'Decide or decline' sounds ok, there's a fairly clever double meaning on decline, but there's not much hook -I could just as easily read this slogan and 'decide' it was time to vote UKIP. It only really works as an attack on Labour, and there are probably comparatively few Labour voters exercised by national decline -otherwise they wouldn't vote Labour.
What they should have done is a double attack along the lines of the 'make believe dreams of UKIP' or the 'real nightmares of five years of Labour'. 'If you can't face a socialist nightmare, but don't believe separatist daydreams, vote Conservative'. It needs finessing obviously, but I haven't had long.
I'm sticking with "Conservative or Bust!"
It may be a false dichotomy, but it conveys a clear and defensible-ish message & refers back to a film(?) that target voters will remember.
Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.
Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?
The current welfare system, including the NHS, is based on the Beveridge report. Although William Beveridge, an economist and a Liberal MP, was defeated at the 1945 election, the successful Labour Party then implemented his proposals.
As Lord Beveridge he went on to lead the Liberals in the House of Lords.
So Liberals have as much claim to the NHS as Labour.
Didn't Lloyd George kick start the modern pension system?
They have a lot to answer for, them Liberals.
The Liberals also pioneered a fashion for splitting successful established parties due to matters of Constitution and Nationality, to the benefit of newly-established parties with less centrist policies.
Trend-setters in every way. They say everything that goes out of fashion will one day be back in fashion...
Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.
Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?
It was great though, people who can remember life before the NHS are eternally grateful.
What is the greatest achievement of this Govt?
Digging the country out of the biggest economic snit pit ever made by Labour whilst taking low income workers out of tax altogether.
Number of other countries which copied the NHS model ?
Deficit reduction is miles off target you really think that is the biggest achievement.
Re personal income tax allowance that was an LD policy wasnt it
George wanted to cut 50p rate to 40p to prove we are(n;t) all in it together.
The govt are cutting its discretionary spending quite significantly, not least public sector jobs. Its creating lots of other jobs - well the economy is. Its put pensions reform to the forefront which is allowing labour to spin a lie about real wages And its sensibly reausted its target for the 'structural' deficit in light of the eurozone crisis.
Peter Kellner discusses the arithmetic of the rise of SNP and UKIP with it being harder for Conservative or Labour to form a majority government after the next election. See .....
Whilst not a prediction, he sees it will be harder for either party to achieve a majority and also harder to form a coalition with far fewer Lib Dems to join with.
Hmmm Diane James isn't standing in Eastleigh... Nuttall also hasn't chosen
Decide or decline sounds like one of those late afternoon quiz shows....
'And coming up after Pointless, Decide or Decline.....where Conservative MPs face their careers ending if they can't decide to agree with David Cameron quickly enough...
Decide or decline not a strong slogan, for the following reason. A successful slogan must have a hook as well as bait. The bait is sounding good, being catchy, being memorable, generating agreement. The hook is a lot harder -it's how the slogan applies only to what you're selling, and excludes the competition. 'It's the real thing' Coca cola's legendary slogan, emphasising the brand's authenticity set against the 'young pretender' of Pepsi, is an example of such a slogan.
'Decide or decline' sounds ok, there's a fairly clever double meaning on decline, but there's not much hook -I could just as easily read this slogan and 'decide' it was time to vote UKIP. It only really works as an attack on Labour, and there are probably comparatively few Labour voters exercised by national decline -otherwise they wouldn't vote Labour.
What they should have done is a double attack along the lines of the 'make believe dreams of UKIP' or the 'real nightmares of five years of Labour'. 'If you can't face a socialist nightmare, but don't believe separatist daydreams, vote Conservative'. It needs finessing obviously, but I haven't had long.
I'm sticking with "Conservative or Bust!"
Hmmm.... bust. But doesn't remind the voters of this Boris gem:
"If you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts, and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase."
You may have missed my post on the previous thread, but can you find any evidence of the OSCE "confirming" mass graves in Eastern Ukraine? I mean if they've confirmed it, that should be pretty big news and would be on their website.
Here is the relevant passage from the initial report by the OSCE:
'The ‘military police’ of ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (‘DPR’) told the SMM that three unmarked graves allegedly containing multiple bodies had been found; two of them were located in a coal mine Komunar near the village Nyzhnia Krynka (35km north-east of Donetsk) and one inside the village. The SMM proceeded to the scene and saw in the coal mine two areas located fifty metres apart, each containing two human bodies. All four corpses were in the process of decomposition. The SMM also saw eight 9mm Makarov pistol cartridges approximately five meters away from the bodies.' http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/124216
So the "mass graves" contained two bodies each? This is the OSCE confirming mass graves is it?
I think we have established pretty clearly that Russia Today just makes shit up.
Surely as the Tories tack right towards UKIP they are in danger of losing one nation supporters like TSE
UKIP are the one nation party. It's the other three that are the "no nation" party, continuing as they are on making this country a mere region of a European super state.
Peter Kellner discusses the arithmetic of the rise of SNP and UKIP with it being harder for Conservative or Labour to form a majority government after the next election. See .....
Whilst not a prediction, he sees it will be harder for either party to achieve a majority and also harder to form a coalition with far fewer Lib Dems to join with.
Hmmm Diane James isn't standing in Eastleigh... Nuttall also hasn't chosen
Wonder where they could be lining up
After the last candidate's fall from grace, Great Yarmouth is currently available, isn't it?
Peter Kellner discusses the arithmetic of the rise of SNP and UKIP with it being harder for Conservative or Labour to form a majority government after the next election. See .....
Whilst not a prediction, he sees it will be harder for either party to achieve a majority and also harder to form a coalition with far fewer Lib Dems to join with.
Hmmm Diane James isn't standing in Eastleigh... Nuttall also hasn't chosen
Wonder where they could be lining up
After the last candidate's fall from grace, Great Yarmouth is currently available, isn't it?
It sure is...
I am a member of UKIP so can look up all of these by the way
Funny old day isn't - disastrous 24 hours for the Conservatives and we then get two good polls for them - Ashcroft level and Populus Lab lead 2.
OK - it's all almost certainly random movement but there is no sign of any immediate adverse electoral impact.
Worth remembering that 99% of people take far, far less interest in political goings on than everyone on here.
Polling usually favours a party during its conference more than usual. Would wait until the conference season is over and dust has settled to pay much attention
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?
So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.
Got it.
42.4% of the electorate voted for either the Labour or Conservative parties in 2010. In 1955 it was 73.8%.
There's the whole other half of the country that doesn't want to be forced to choose between the two. It's not the 1950s now.
Turn it on its head 57.6% of the population didn't vote Labour or Conservatives at the last General Election
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
He defected on principle. I know this is something that you find difficult to understand as you Tories seem to lack all principles but that is what happened.
Claims that he was going to lose to UKIP are just fanciful.
Reckless's seat wasn't exactly marginal, either.
Loathsome as the idea may be, it is just possible he acted on principle.
Selected highlights for those without access to the paywall:
"A Labour government fronted by Ed Miliband will writhe like a tortured animal for five years as it tries to reconcile beliefs it cannot afford with spending cuts it cannot avoid. With no majority in England, and led by a man whom voters take as seriously as a municipal environment officer, the government could end in the kind of shambles that takes a generation to live down.
That might still be better than the ordeal awaiting a Conservative administration."
"Press the right on what more Mr Cameron could realistically do for them, and they waffle about personal snubs. He is high-handed, yes, but he is the prime minister. His first duty is to run a country, not to wet-nurse a minority of mewling intransigents in his party. The right has had an astonishingly good deal from him over the years. If it was not enough, nothing he does in the next parliament will be enough either. And if they believe Britain will elect a considerably more conservative government in their lifetime, their confidence is better than their judgment.
At this point, it is customary to prescribe this or that course of action. But there is little Mr Cameron can do. A quarter of a century has passed since Tories were happy with a leader. This says more about them than the leaders. Perhaps the rebels will eventually join Ukip en masse, leaving behind a manageable Tory party in the political equivalent of a good bank-bad bank restructuring. But while they remain, they will not be sated."
There was mention on PB recently that Lab doesn't have a 35% glass ceiling. Indeed they don't - Blair was endorsed by 45% in opinion polls IIRC. Likewise Tories duly united and with the right leader could certainly make early 40's. However I can't see Ukip struggling above 30% at best especially as it's by far the most disliked party according to that recent polling, thread headed by PB the other day.
Therefore in reality it exists at best as a pressure group or spoiler against the Tory party for GE 2015 with its objectives never likely to be fulfilled except in so far their personal hatred of Cameron will be sated by a consequent Tory election defeat.and his resignation . Unless PR is passed in the next parliament they will then fade away as the failure of Labour once again to tackle the problems of the deficit and wider economy will lead a swing back to the only party that can obtain enough Commons seats to provide an alternative.
It never occurs to Ukipers that after a period of Miliband the UK will possibly not be in a position to contemplate leaving the EU in their preferred 2020 - 2025 time scale.
This is literally the worst that that Economist article can sum up with -worst case scenario:
'The most likely outcome would be that Britain would find itself as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again.' -
In other words; much ado about sod all! Becoming a self-governing nation, with every aspect of our nationhood already in place, no cost, massive immediate financial benefits, and we should worry about this because (in not so many words), other countries in the EU won't like it very much, and things may be a bit limited, and we won't get back in? Really?
Funny old day isn't - disastrous 24 hours for the Conservatives and we then get two good polls for them - Ashcroft level and Populus Lab lead 2.
OK - it's all almost certainly random movement but there is no sign of any immediate adverse electoral impact.
Worth remembering that 99% of people take far, far less interest in political goings on than everyone on here.
Polling usually favours a party during its conference more than usual. Would wait until the conference season is over and dust has settled to pay much attention
If you are a betting man, Stereo, I'd wait longer than that.
You have two significant by-elections due in ten days time. Rochester will follow on in, probably, a month or so.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?
So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.
Got it.
42.4% of the electorate voted for either the Labour or Conservative parties in 2010. In 1955 it was 73.8%.
There's the whole other half of the country that doesn't want to be forced to choose between the two. It's not the 1950s now.
Turn it on its head 57.6% of the population didn't vote Labour or Conservatives at the last General Election
The English are sick to death of Labour and Tory
Perhaps .... but in the real world that's the choice they are stuck with for who will be PM in 2015.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?
He defected on principle. I know this is something that you find difficult to understand as you Tories seem to lack all principles but that is what happened.
Claims that he was going to lose to UKIP are just fanciful.
Reckless's seat wasn't exactly marginal, either.
Loathsome as the idea may be, it is just possible he acted on principle.
If he really did have principles, why did he blatantly lie to Grant Shapps on the phone. He could have easily found a form of words to get himself out of the particularly campaigning commitment.
He has come over as a complete sh1t by his behaviour.
Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.
Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.
Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.
You just don't get it. He shouldn't have 'handled things better'; he shouldn't have 'listened'; he shouldn't have had more barbeques; he shouldn't have sneered less and developed an estuary accent -he should have simply realised that he is there to represent the party that people voted for, rather than the party being there to represent him. That's it. Not difficult.
Just because he did not do the action you wanted, did not mean he did not 'listen' to that viewpoint, or indeed other viewpoints.
There can be many views, but often only one action. Assuming that your views were not listened to just because another decision was made is the height of childishness. Any leader has to weigh up differing opinions, the facts they have, and their own opinions and prejudices before making any decision.
Or are you claiming that the UKIP-favourable arm of the party is the only 'true' Conservative arm, and the only one Cameron should listen to?
I am sure there were many differing opinions -the ones that Cameron has listened to being the ones coming out of Ken Clarke, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Lib Dems, and skype calls with Joe Biden. He's consistently capitulated to nearly everyone in the world with the exception of the Tory Party.
Selected highlights for those without access to the paywall:
"A Labour government fronted by Ed Miliband will writhe like a tortured animal for five years as it tries to reconcile beliefs it cannot afford with spending cuts it cannot avoid. With no majority in England, and led by a man whom voters take as seriously as a municipal environment officer, the government could end in the kind of shambles that takes a generation to live down.
That might still be better than the ordeal awaiting a Conservative administration."
"Press the right on what more Mr Cameron could realistically do for them, and they waffle about personal snubs. He is high-handed, yes, but he is the prime minister. His first duty is to run a country, not to wet-nurse a minority of mewling intransigents in his party. The right has had an astonishingly good deal from him over the years. If it was not enough, nothing he does in the next parliament will be enough either. And if they believe Britain will elect a considerably more conservative government in their lifetime, their confidence is better than their judgment.
At this point, it is customary to prescribe this or that course of action. But there is little Mr Cameron can do. A quarter of a century has passed since Tories were happy with a leader. This says more about them than the leaders. Perhaps the rebels will eventually join Ukip en masse, leaving behind a manageable Tory party in the political equivalent of a good bank-bad bank restructuring. But while they remain, they will not be sated."
He was wearing very unstylish David Brent style Cuban heels on the Sunday Politics yesterday!
Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.
Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?
The current welfare system, including the NHS, is based on the Beveridge report. Although William Beveridge, an economist and a Liberal MP, was defeated at the 1945 election, the successful Labour Party then implemented his proposals.
As Lord Beveridge he went on to lead the Liberals in the House of Lords.
So Liberals have as much claim to the NHS as Labour.
Didn't Lloyd George kick start the modern pension system?
They have a lot to answer for, them Liberals.
Yep, Lloyd George and Churchill (known as the terrible twins), part of the Liberal reforms that knocked through the foundations of the welfare state (pensions, sickness insurance etc) and established the supremacy of the commons over the Lords.
It's a much mulled over note of Liberal history that while the party was electorally in the doldrums, Beveridge (Liberal MP) and Keynes (Liberal Lord) were dominating British governance (and in Keynes' case, much wider).
I understand that you might like your mass graves more plentifully stocked, but what we have clearly established is that RT are, if anything, guilty of no more than sensationalism. You said they weren't verified; they were.
Unfortunately, their impressive haul of victims came from a picture of Iraq in 2003. Making 'shit' up?
I am fully aware of RT's bias and its close links to the Russian Government, and the necessity of taking what they publish with a pinch of salt. I am also of the opinion that Britain's establishment news sources are no better, and at times far worse. See their reprehensible smear campaign against UKIP if you disagree. But the difference between us is I still read those sources. I might passionately disagree, but I still want to know what they're saying; what the other line is. You don't.
Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.
As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.
These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).
Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.
So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.
UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate
Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.
So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose
I point out he was massive odds on to win
You say that makes it worse
Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?
Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.
Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?
The current welfare system, including the NHS, is based on the Beveridge report. Although William Beveridge, an economist and a Liberal MP, was defeated at the 1945 election, the successful Labour Party then implemented his proposals.
As Lord Beveridge he went on to lead the Liberals in the House of Lords.
So Liberals have as much claim to the NHS as Labour.
Didn't Lloyd George kick start the modern pension system?
They have a lot to answer for, them Liberals.
Yep, Lloyd George and Churchill (known as the terrible twins), part of the Liberal reforms that knocked through the foundations of the welfare state (pensions, sickness insurance etc) and established the supremacy of the commons over the Lords.
It's a much mulled over note of Liberal history that while the party was electorally in the doldrums, Beveridge (Liberal MP) and Keynes (Liberal Lord) were dominating British governance (and in Keynes' case, much wider).
Well there you go. 'What have the Liberals ever done for us, mate?'
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
Just because he did not do the action you wanted, did not mean he did not 'listen' to that viewpoint, or indeed other viewpoints.
There can be many views, but often only one action. Assuming that your views were not listened to just because another decision was made is the height of childishness. Any leader has to weigh up differing opinions, the facts they have, and their own opinions and prejudices before making any decision.
Or are you claiming that the UKIP-favourable arm of the party is the only 'true' Conservative arm, and the only one Cameron should listen to?
I am sure there were many differing opinions -the ones that Cameron has listened to being the ones coming out of Ken Clarke, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Lib Dems, and skype calls with Joe Biden. He's consistently capitulated to nearly everyone in the world with the exception of the Tory Party.
Again, you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that the 'Tory Party' equates with your personal views on Europe. It is perfectly possible to be a Conservative and believe, on the balance of things, that we are better off in. It is equally possible to be a Conservative and believe we need reform.
What is very noticeable on here, particularly after the SIndy defeat, is that UKIPpers, with one or two honourable exceptions, are incapable of giving an alternative vision of the country outside Europe. All we get is a rant-list of things they do not like, and which will be magically better if we left.
I actively want a referendum. I've no idea how I'd vote in any such referendum because the question has yet to be put (*), but am willing to be convinced by reasoned argument on either side.
Well, not really, no. I can't quite see what the practical outworkings of this terror entail. You mention no difference that the EU makes to your life, no aspect you would be bereft of, other than the fact that within the EU we have more immigration, and you like that. I take it you're not persuaded by UKIP's argument that if immigration were controlled by Westminster, we could allow more immigration in such circumstances where it was desirable.
I don't think we've really got the bottom of why something should terrify you, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
Well I didn't realise that you were expecting me to submit an entire essay on the subject. LOL I'm a single finger typist for goodness' sake... Have mercy!
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
Well given that the Economist has been wrong on just about every issue with regard to the EU over the last two decades I think that only a complete fool would believe them this time. The triumph of hope over experience in spades.
Avi Mayer @AviMayer 52m Netanyahu: The Nazis believed in a master race. Militant Islam believes in a master faith. #UNGA
A bit like Catholicism then.
Or equally wrong.
What's the Catholic equivalent of ISIL?
Well, they may not be quite so bad, but nobody ever expected The Spanish Inquisition.
Fortunately, the Inquisition was formally disbanded 180 years ago.
Yes, but I bet if the technology had existed at the time it would happily have televised its activities to put the fear of you-know-who into the heretic.
But they've stopped now, so everything's ok.
I guess ISIS will stop in due course, if people will only give them a little time. 180 years you say....?
A J ELDER-BROWN UKIP @theblindblogger 31m Possibly ANOTHER election in Kent imminent, namely @PCCKent. Anne Barnes is on her way out - not before time I say! @UKIP #UKIP #VoteUKIP
I must have missed the minute when they didnt talk about ukip in unflattering terms
Well last year there was quite a kerfuffle because Nigel Farage - leader of a rival party - was banned from attending the Conservative party conference. He was still invited to various fringe meetings.
So there seems to have been a remarkable amount of bonhomie towards UKIP's leader in the ranks of at least some Conservatives, given that they were supposedly direct electoral rivals.
Avi Mayer @AviMayer 52m Netanyahu: The Nazis believed in a master race. Militant Islam believes in a master faith. #UNGA
A bit like Catholicism then.
Or equally wrong.
What's the Catholic equivalent of ISIL?
You don't have to go back far in history to find evil things being done in the name of Catholicism. Go further back in history and there are plenty. The same is true of many religions; Islam is just the latest of these.
Which is why I've got so much time for Pope Francis. He's the first pope in a few generations who seems to understand that things need to change in Catholicism. If you expect adherents to ignore evil for too long in the name of that religion, you will lose adherents.
Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.
Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.
Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.
Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?
In the hypothetical world of a Cameron majority and administration post 2015, do you really think there is any chance that his MPs would allow him to sail through 2017 without having the Euro referendum. There is nil chance of that happening. He would have a mass and majority loosing walkout. (Assuming it was a manifesto promise)
Cameron has gone several times out of his way to make a referendum likely if he is PM. He has stated he is opposed to ever closer union - and he is right. He has also put through 2 referendums which were not his idea but necessary by force of circumstances and would have been inimical to him if lost.
Only the totally cussed would not take as being fair and given that his concerns are for the UK economy and Britain's place in the world and not some bigoted affliction with the EU. There are arguments to be had about whether IN or OUT is best and further arguments about what to do thereafter, but one argument against is not to moronically blame the PM for being duplicitous.
What is surely clear is that with EdM in charge there will be no referendum, and there will be inevitable creeping ever closer to the EU. The other point is that even if OUT there is the almost inevitable likelihood of creeping ever closer to the EU under a labour govt, just like they do in Norway. This is because the EU is here and not going to go away. But increasingly the I see the EU issue as a Trojan Horse for the extreme right and the inevitable odious policies that come from that direction. When you see the outpourings of kippers its difficult to think otherwise.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
We're long-term subscribers to the Economist, and even I say that it is rather one-eyed when it comes to Europe. That does not mean it does not have cogent arguments about the EU; just that it often ignores contrary arguments.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
Given how the Euro turned out, I feel quite comfortable on how my postings have stacked up versus the Economist's. As I do with the immoral bastards that would like to keep 1400 child rapes on the quiet while making identical slurs at me. What do you do, form a sad little club and share notes?
What is "White Dee" doing anywhere near the Tory party conference? Shame on the Policy Exchange think tank for inviting her. She is a thief and a liar.
The whole benefit street program was a mix of in some cases exploiting individuals who clearly had some serious issues / were exploited and with some cases where it was clear they were the classic Daily Mail story where life on benefits has become a life choice.
She was most definitely not in the former category.
Avi Mayer @AviMayer 52m Netanyahu: The Nazis believed in a master race. Militant Islam believes in a master faith. #UNGA
A bit like Catholicism then.
Or equally wrong.
What's the Catholic equivalent of ISIL?
You don't have to go back far in history to find evil things being done in the name of Catholicism. Go further back in history and there are plenty. The same is true of many religions; Islam is just the latest of these.
Which is why I've got so much time for Pope Francis. He's the first pope in a few generations who seems to understand that things need to change in Catholicism. If you expect adherents to ignore evil for too long in the name of that religion, you will lose adherents.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
We're long-term subscribers to the Economist, and even I say that it is rather one-eyed when it comes to Europe. That does not mean it does not have cogent arguments about the EU; just that it often ignores contrary arguments.
I cut my subs to the Economist after they were proved wrong on the Euro. Anyone ever see an apology from them?
Avi Mayer @AviMayer 52m Netanyahu: The Nazis believed in a master race. Militant Islam believes in a master faith. #UNGA
A bit like Catholicism then.
Or equally wrong.
What's the Catholic equivalent of ISIL?
You don't have to go back far in history to find evil things being done in the name of Catholicism. Go further back in history and there are plenty. The same is true of many religions; Islam is just the latest of these.
Which is why I've got so much time for Pope Francis. He's the first pope in a few generations who seems to understand that things need to change in Catholicism. If you expect adherents to ignore evil for too long in the name of that religion, you will lose adherents.
I agree; I think he's a wonderful man.
Me too.
If we would only give ISIL a couple of thousand years, I expect they too would throw up a few equally commendable individuals.
TheScreamingEagles said: Dave if you're reading this, first ennoble JohnO, secondly, pass a law banning Mike Smithson from going on holiday ever again.
Ta.
Wholly unrealistic in my view, but restricting him to a maximum of say 8 holidays per annum would be fair in my view.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
We're long-term subscribers to the Economist, and even I say that it is rather one-eyed when it comes to Europe. That does not mean it does not have cogent arguments about the EU; just that it often ignores contrary arguments.
I cut my subs to the Economist after they were proved wrong on the Euro. Anyone ever see an apology from them?
No. But I also kept my subs to Private Eye after their MMR insanity, before they *eventually* apologised, many years later.
The Economist is like any other media outlet: you'll get the most out of it if you know it's biases. And whilst it has certain weaknesses, I find it in general an excellent read. For instance it covers technology particularly well for a general press.
Today's Ashcroft poll has Tories and Labour on 32% and LDs on 8%. So the Tories on their lowest general election level since 2001, Labour on a total which is less than Kinnock got in 1992 and the LDs doing worse than David Steel in 1979. A race to the bottom for all of them!
@BBCsarahsmith: Can Tories make a post-referendum Scottish comeback? Win more than one seat in 2015? On @BBCScot2014 we discuss how to detoxify the brand
Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.
Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.
Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.
Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.
Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?
In the hypothetical world of a Cameron majority and administration post 2015, do you really think there is any chance that his MPs would allow him to sail through 2017 without having the Euro referendum. There is nil chance of that happening. He would have a mass and majority loosing walkout. (Assuming it was a manifesto promise)
Cameron has gone several times out of his way to make a referendum likely if he is PM. He has stated he is opposed to ever closer union - and he is right. He has also put through 2 referendums which were not his idea but necessary by force of circumstances and would have been inimical to him if lost.
Only the totally cussed would not take as being fair and given that his concerns are for the UK economy and Britain's place in the world and not some bigoted affliction with the EU. There are arguments to be had about whether IN or OUT is best and further arguments about what to do thereafter, but one argument against is not to moronically blame the PM for being duplicitous.
What is surely clear is that with EdM in charge there will be no referendum, and there will be inevitable creeping ever closer to the EU. The other point is that even if OUT there is the almost inevitable likelihood of creeping ever closer to the EU under a labour govt, just like they do in Norway. This is because the EU is here and not going to go away. But increasingly the I see the EU issue as a Trojan Horse for the extreme right and the inevitable odious policies that come from that direction. When you see the outpourings of kippers its difficult to think otherwise.
Looks like you are as ignorant about Norway as you are about almost everything else.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
You know the Economist is on weak ground when it has to devote time to this argument:
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
Who to agree with? Respected and very well written newspaper or perma-posting internet blowhard with a hard on for certain ethnic groups?
Given how the Euro turned out, I feel quite comfortable on how my postings have stacked up versus the Economist's. As I do with the immoral bastards that would like to keep 1400 child rapes on the quiet while making identical slurs at me. What do you do, form a sad little club and share notes?
I for one am not asking you to agree with the Economist. But there are a lot of issues in the article and its only one article and one point of view and only some issues. But these issues exist and need to be confronted with somewhat more diligence than the usual web based commentator is capable of. You are right about the Euro, although its inception is so long ago I do not recall the Economist's stance. But is that the point? The article does mention 'trade deals' a la Switzerland for instance and points out the issues. It also discusses the issue of rights of residence if we left not least all the UK citizens currently living and working profitably in the EU.
Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.
...
Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.
Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?
In the hypothetical world of a Cameron majority and administration post 2015, do you really think there is any chance that his MPs would allow him to sail through 2017 without having the Euro referendum. There is nil chance of that happening. He would have a mass and majority loosing walkout. (Assuming it was a manifesto promise)
Cameron has gone several times out of his way to make a referendum likely if he is PM. He has stated he is opposed to ever closer union - and he is right. He has also put through 2 referendums which were not his idea but necessary by force of circumstances and would have been inimical to him if lost.
Only the totally cussed would not take as being fair and given that his concerns are for the UK economy and Britain's place in the world and not some bigoted affliction with the EU. There are arguments to be had about whether IN or OUT is best and further arguments about what to do thereafter, but one argument against is not to moronically blame the PM for being duplicitous.
What is surely clear is that with EdM in charge there will be no referendum, and there will be inevitable creeping ever closer to the EU. The other point is that even if OUT there is the almost inevitable likelihood of creeping ever closer to the EU under a labour govt, just like they do in Norway. This is because the EU is here and not going to go away. But increasingly the I see the EU issue as a Trojan Horse for the extreme right and the inevitable odious policies that come from that direction. When you see the outpourings of kippers its difficult to think otherwise.
Looks like you are as ignorant about Norway as you are about almost everything else.
I have relatives who live there. I was there in the spring. Being in the EEA, Norway has no option but to follow the EEA obligations which are regularly changed to keep it in line with the EU. The whole point of the EEA is to facilitate membership of the internal market. But go head keep avoiding reality. Life must be easy for you that way.
I have relatives who live there. I was there in the spring. Being in the EEA, Norway has no option but to follow the EEA obligations which are regularly changed to keep it in line with the EU. The whole point of the EEA is to facilitate membership of the internal market. But go head keep avoiding reality. Life must be easy for you that way.
Hardly. You might visit occasionally but I spent 15 years working in Norway and was involved in both local and anti-EU politics there so excuse me if I tell you you are talking garbage. You keep on believing your biased idiocy whilst the rest of us deal with facts.
Comments
I wonder how the Chinese Government, for example, might react if it found all its systems suddenly went down as a result of such a dirty trick. It could hardly complain publicly.
He's the anti-Mel Gibson.
There's the whole other half of the country that doesn't want to be forced to choose between the two. It's not the 1950s now.
Claims that he was going to lose to UKIP are just fanciful.
I don't think we've really got the bottom of why something should terrify you, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
They have a lot to answer for, them Liberals.
Ah yes the people who told us we absolutely had to join the Euro.
It may be a false dichotomy, but it conveys a clear and defensible-ish message & refers back to a film(?) that target voters will remember.
Trend-setters in every way. They say everything that goes out of fashion will one day be back in fashion...
And its sensibly reausted its target for the 'structural' deficit in light of the eurozone crisis.
Wonder where they could be lining up
"If you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts, and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase."
I think we have established pretty clearly that Russia Today just makes shit up.
Stacy Herbert @stacyherbert · 1m
Sex scandal in France results in media commenting on grammatical errors in love letters (see Sarkozy / Bruni).
OK - it's all almost certainly random movement but there is no sign of any immediate adverse electoral impact.
Worth remembering that 99% of people take far, far less interest in political goings on than everyone on here.
I am a member of UKIP so can look up all of these by the way
"Once out of the EU, the country would have little say in the regulations and laws that would continue to bind its industry. It would be consulted by the European Commission but would have no voice in the increasingly powerful European Parliament, and no vote. In Euro-jargon, it would be a decision-shaper, but not a decision-maker."
As opposed to the maker of decisions we are in Europe right now!
So it squeezes in that ridiculous argument, but somehow has no space to describe a simple free trade deal agreement like Korea or (nearly) Canada has. And it fails to mention all the other free trade deals we could sign.
The English are sick to death of Labour and Tory
Loathsome as the idea may be, it is just possible he acted on principle.
UKIP's @Nigel_Farage "UKIP are not about Right or Left, We are about Right and Wrong" #GE2015 #UKIP
Is he using it In the 'now-ish' sense, or more the 'when-hell-freezes-over' sense?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/00627680-4594-11e4-9b71-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3EhHG7bCR
Selected highlights for those without access to the paywall:
"A Labour government fronted by Ed Miliband will writhe like a tortured animal for five years as it tries to reconcile beliefs it cannot afford with spending cuts it cannot avoid. With no majority in England, and led by a man whom voters take as seriously as a municipal environment officer, the government could end in the kind of shambles that takes a generation to live down.
That might still be better than the ordeal awaiting a Conservative administration."
"Press the right on what more Mr Cameron could realistically do for them, and they waffle about personal snubs. He is high-handed, yes, but he is the prime minister. His first duty is to run a country, not to wet-nurse a minority of mewling intransigents in his party. The right has had an astonishingly good deal from him over the years. If it was not enough, nothing he does in the next parliament will be enough either. And if they believe Britain will elect a considerably more conservative government in their lifetime, their confidence is better than their judgment.
At this point, it is customary to prescribe this or that course of action. But there is little Mr Cameron can do. A quarter of a century has passed since Tories were happy with a leader. This says more about them than the leaders. Perhaps the rebels will eventually join Ukip en masse, leaving behind a manageable Tory party in the political equivalent of a good bank-bad bank restructuring. But while they remain, they will not be sated."
Therefore in reality it exists at best as a pressure group or spoiler against the Tory party for GE 2015 with its objectives never likely to be fulfilled except in so far their personal hatred of Cameron will be sated by a consequent Tory election defeat.and his resignation . Unless PR is passed in the next parliament they will then fade away as the failure of Labour once again to tackle the problems of the deficit and wider economy will lead a swing back to the only party that can obtain enough Commons seats to provide an alternative.
It never occurs to Ukipers that after a period of Miliband the UK will possibly not be in a position to contemplate leaving the EU in their preferred 2020 - 2025 time scale.
This is literally the worst that that Economist article can sum up with -worst case scenario:
'The most likely outcome would be that Britain would find itself as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again.' -
In other words; much ado about sod all! Becoming a self-governing nation, with every aspect of our nationhood already in place, no cost, massive immediate financial benefits, and we should worry about this because (in not so many words), other countries in the EU won't like it very much, and things may be a bit limited, and we won't get back in? Really?
Natasha Bolter, a former Labour supporter speaks on the failure of Labour to support the working class #UKIPConf14
Well named!
The political echo-chamber had already touted Wednesday as mostly likely, so that is probably what Dale was repeating...
You have two significant by-elections due in ten days time. Rochester will follow on in, probably, a month or so.
I'd keep your powder dry.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/turncoats-dickheads-what-the-tories-think-of-ukip/
Hmmm...like Iain and his blog, but this looks like a tease.
Avi Mayer @AviMayer 52m
Netanyahu: The Nazis believed in a master race. Militant Islam believes in a master faith. #UNGA
He has come over as a complete sh1t by his behaviour.
Or equally wrong.
It's a much mulled over note of Liberal history that while the party was electorally in the doldrums, Beveridge (Liberal MP) and Keynes (Liberal Lord) were dominating British governance (and in Keynes' case, much wider).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_grave
I understand that you might like your mass graves more plentifully stocked, but what we have clearly established is that RT are, if anything, guilty of no more than sensationalism. You said they weren't verified; they were.
Perhaps your disdain for graves containing only two war crime victims stems from being an avid BBC reader: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html
Unfortunately, their impressive haul of victims came from a picture of Iraq in 2003. Making 'shit' up?
I am fully aware of RT's bias and its close links to the Russian Government, and the necessity of taking what they publish with a pinch of salt. I am also of the opinion that Britain's establishment news sources are no better, and at times far worse. See their reprehensible smear campaign against UKIP if you disagree. But the difference between us is I still read those sources. I might passionately disagree, but I still want to know what they're saying; what the other line is. You don't.
Well there you go. 'What have the Liberals ever done for us, mate?'
Again, you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that the 'Tory Party' equates with your personal views on Europe. It is perfectly possible to be a Conservative and believe, on the balance of things, that we are better off in. It is equally possible to be a Conservative and believe we need reform.
What is very noticeable on here, particularly after the SIndy defeat, is that UKIPpers, with one or two honourable exceptions, are incapable of giving an alternative vision of the country outside Europe. All we get is a rant-list of things they do not like, and which will be magically better if we left.
I actively want a referendum. I've no idea how I'd vote in any such referendum because the question has yet to be put (*), but am willing to be convinced by reasoned argument on either side.
But I don't believe in magic.
(*) But am leaning towards BOO.
If we hold hands I'm sure I'll be brave enough to follow you.
Rod Crosby on Jewishness rarely ends well.
(oh sorry, 11 days late with that!)
But they've stopped now, so everything's ok.
I guess ISIS will stop in due course, if people will only give them a little time. 180 years you say....?
Possibly ANOTHER election in Kent imminent, namely @PCCKent.
Anne Barnes is on her way out - not before time I say!
@UKIP #UKIP #VoteUKIP
So there seems to have been a remarkable amount of bonhomie towards UKIP's leader in the ranks of at least some Conservatives, given that they were supposedly direct electoral rivals.
Yes, but they have better PR.
In fact its virtually an anagram
Which is why I've got so much time for Pope Francis. He's the first pope in a few generations who seems to understand that things need to change in Catholicism. If you expect adherents to ignore evil for too long in the name of that religion, you will lose adherents.
Sheffield Hallam - 7/2
South Thanet 12/5
Colne Valley 11/10
Only the totally cussed would not take as being fair and given that his concerns are for the UK economy and Britain's place in the world and not some bigoted affliction with the EU. There are arguments to be had about whether IN or OUT is best and further arguments about what to do thereafter, but one argument against is not to moronically blame the PM for being duplicitous.
What is surely clear is that with EdM in charge there will be no referendum, and there will be inevitable creeping ever closer to the EU. The other point is that even if OUT there is the almost inevitable likelihood of creeping ever closer to the EU under a labour govt, just like they do in Norway.
This is because the EU is here and not going to go away.
But increasingly the I see the EU issue as a Trojan Horse for the extreme right and the inevitable odious policies that come from that direction. When you see the outpourings of kippers its difficult to think otherwise.
The whole benefit street program was a mix of in some cases exploiting individuals who clearly had some serious issues / were exploited and with some cases where it was clear they were the classic Daily Mail story where life on benefits has become a life choice.
She was most definitely not in the former category.
If we would only give ISIL a couple of thousand years, I expect they too would throw up a few equally commendable individuals.
TheScreamingEagles said:
Dave if you're reading this, first ennoble JohnO, secondly, pass a law banning Mike Smithson from going on holiday ever again.
Ta.
Wholly unrealistic in my view, but restricting him to a maximum of say 8 holidays per annum would be fair in my view.
The Economist is like any other media outlet: you'll get the most out of it if you know it's biases. And whilst it has certain weaknesses, I find it in general an excellent read. For instance it covers technology particularly well for a general press.
@TelePolitics: Blog: Scotland is finally ready for a Tory revival http://t.co/gZQbvXt7Kd
But these issues exist and need to be confronted with somewhat more diligence than the usual web based commentator is capable of.
You are right about the Euro, although its inception is so long ago I do not recall the Economist's stance. But is that the point?
The article does mention 'trade deals' a la Switzerland for instance and points out the issues. It also discusses the issue of rights of residence if we left not least all the UK citizens currently living and working profitably in the EU.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/conservative-split-party-moderate-policies-hardliners