Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory backbenchers warn “Cameron may have to break up the co

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory backbenchers warn “Cameron may have to break up the coalition to remain leader”

“A growing number of the talented 2010 intake of MPs, who could play a key role in deciding Cameron’s fate, now believe their party should withdraw from the coalition at least a year before the next general election in 2015.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Very clear there's a large chunk of Con MPs who are determined to get rid of Cameron and don't care less if Con loses the GE. Indeed they probably want Con to lose the GE.

    Can't imagine what Dave can do. Either he does stuff like cancel Gay marriage which would in itself guarantee Con loses the GE. Or he ploughs on and the backbenchers guarantee Con loses the GE.

    I guess he just ploughs on and hopes for the best. No alternative really.

    Not sure whether he could do a Major and call a leadership election himself right now. I'm not sure whether such a mechanism exists.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    This is more support for my theory that Tory backbenchers have got a bet on who can make Cameron do the most ridiculous thing.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2013
    @MikeL

    "Either he does stuff like cancel Gay marriage which would in itself guarantee Con loses the GE."

    I think that's taking things a bit far.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Is the confidence vote in the Paddy Power bet what you get when when 46 MPs sign a letter? If so 4/1 for "face one and win" looks like a bargain.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    I'm not sure collapsing the Coalition would lead to an early GE - look at the timing.

    Nobody is going to do anything just before the Euros which are on 22 May 2014. Once we get past that the window is pretty narrow before the summer holidays. In practice I think it's unlikely that a GE would actually get called in that window - bearing in mind the parliamentary procedure required and nobody would want a GE in July.

    Then after that there's only a tiny parliamentary window in Sept (less than 2 weeks I think), then the Party Conferences and after that it's too late for a GE as it would be well into November after the time for a campaign.

    So not sure what would happen but this all reminds me of the posts about an early GE in 2009. The way the timetable works is that in practice it is very, very difficult for there to be a GE between July and February.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Per Sunday Times:

    "Nadine Dorries, who recently had the Tory whip restored, last night claimed Cameron had until autumn to raise his game."

    Did Nadine not say last summer that there would be a leadership challenge before the end of the year (ie 31 December 2012)?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    MikeL said:

    I'm not sure collapsing the Coalition would lead to an early GE - look at the timing.

    Nobody is going to do anything just before the Euros which are on 22 May 2014. Once we get past that the window is pretty narrow before the summer holidays. In practice I think it's unlikely that a GE would actually get called in that window - bearing in mind the parliamentary procedure required and nobody would want a GE in July.

    Then after that there's only a tiny parliamentary window in Sept (less than 2 weeks I think), then the Party Conferences and after that it's too late for a GE as it would be well into November after the time for a campaign.

    So not sure what would happen but this all reminds me of the posts about an early GE in 2009. The way the timetable works is that in practice it is very, very difficult for there to be a GE between July and February.

    If the Tories left the coalition Labour would want to call a no confidence vote, and the LibDems would have to decide whether to let the PM stay on. Wouldn't parliament be recalled for that? I suppose the PM could decline to recall them, but it wouldn't look great to stagger on for months with nobody sure what was going on or who was in charge.

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Poor old Tories.

    They still don't realise under FPTP a coalition with the LibDems is the best it's ever going to get..
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    It's usually best to bet on governments in trouble staggering on without doing anything drastic. We debated leader change endlessly in 2008-10 (early election not so much, ugh), but the conclusion was always that it would lead to more rather than trouble, especially as it might not work. Pulling into minority government status doesn't seem to achieve much - the Tories get to propose their stuff and get it voted down vs. merely saying they'd like to propose it, but... Would the public be impressed?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited May 2013
    Just to add on why I think that 4/1 is great, here's my understanding of the way the rules work.

    Anyone can send a letter to the 1922 committee chairman. The letter then stays on file until there are 46 of them. The number of letters collected so far is confidential, so when you send your letter you don't know for sure if you're number 46. You can ask your colleagues, but they're a bunch of lying politicians.

    So the upshot is that you could easily get a leadership election no confidence vote without having a proper plot in place to see it through. At that point obviously things may take on a life of their own, but calling the election no confidence vote is a very low bar compared to winning it.

    Edited: leadership election -> no confidence vote
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Are there any Conservative MPs who still think they can win a majority in 2015? Seems a bit unlikely to me, given that 37% still left them 20 seats short last time and their current polling average is 28% with UKPR.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    It's usually best to bet on governments in trouble staggering on without doing anything drastic. We debated leader change endlessly in 2008-10 (early election not so much, ugh), but the conclusion was always that it would lead to more rather than trouble, especially as it might not work.

    I take the general point, but there are also some important differences in the party leadership processes, namely that the Labour rules are designed for stable government even at the cost of being stuck with a duff leader, while the Conservative rules seem to have been designed for maximum entertainment.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    '37% still left them 20 seats short...'

    '37% and a 7% lead still left them ...'

    The bold clause is the most important under FPTP, especially for the poor old Tories, who are playing on a pitch that's angled at 45 degrees...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    I certainly think that if there was a vote of no confidence then Cameron would almost certainly win it.

    IDS was a total disaster and an obvious vote loser yet he only lost 90-75.

    With Cam being a known vote winner plus the "payroll vote" (even though it's a secret ballot) I would have thought it's very hard to see him actually losing.

    I guess the only issue would be whether he might resign if he won only fairly narrowly - say if he got under 60%. Supposedly Major was going to resign if he got under 215 and he actually got 218!
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Remember Kellner thinks Con could get a majority with only a 5% lead.

    He also thinks Lab may need a lead of 7% to get a majority. See link:

    http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509

    Just to add on why I think that 4/1 is great, here's my understanding of the way the rules work.

    Anyone can send a letter to the 1922 committee chairman. The letter then stays on file until there are 46 of them. The number of letters collected so far is confidential, so when you send your letter you don't know for sure if you're number 46. You can ask your colleagues, but they're a bunch of lying politicians.

    So the upshot is that you could easily get a leadership election without having a proper plot in place to see it through. At that point obviously things may take on a life of their own, but calling the election is a very low bar compared to winning it.

    Yes, that's quite convincing (and I see what you mean about entertainment value). It'd be ironical if it was Nadine's vote that triggered it - she doesn't seem terribly grateful to be welcomed back.

    But if there was a vote, would Cameron really want to hang on? The best he could hope for would be some sort of ambiguous victory, say a 2-1 margin, and Maggie was heading for that when she chucked in the towel. Is Cameron really made of sterner stuff?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    Maggie didn't win anything like a 2-1 margin. First ballot was:

    Maggie 204
    Heseltine 152
    Abstentions 16

    I'd expect Cameron to win any vote far more decisively than that.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708


    But if there was a vote, would Cameron really want to hang on? The best he could hope for would be some sort of ambiguous victory, say a 2-1 margin, and Maggie was heading for that when she chucked in the towel. Is Cameron really made of sterner stuff?

    Wasn't Thatcher's problem that she was told she was going to lose the second ballot? Cameron wouldn't have that problem, because under the current rules if he wins the confidence vote, the process ends and the revolt is quashed.

    Prime Ministers don't often give up the job willingly, and Cameron seems to perform well under pressure, like with his speech at the party conference before the election that wasn't.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695

    Wasn't Thatcher's problem that she was told she was going to lose the second ballot? Cameron wouldn't have that problem, because under the current rules if he wins the confidence vote, the process ends and the revolt is quashed.

    Prime Ministers don't often give up the job willingly, and Cameron seems to perform well under pressure, like with his speech at the party conference before the election that wasn't.

    Yes. If you assume that everyone who abstained would go for Heseltine on the second ballot then Maggie only needed to lose 18 supporters from the first ballot to give a 186-186 tie.

    So she was in very grave danger indeed - I would say odds on she would have lost.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    @MikeL

    I see Kellner has been following my comments attentively. Lol...

    Interesting article nonetheless.

    I didn't spot the 'Con could get a majority with only a 5% lead' bit, btw, which is frankly nonsense, unless the LDs collapse back to 1970s levels...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited May 2013


    A cap on the number of times patients can visit their GP in a year is being considered by the Conservative Party, it emerged yesterday.

    A Tory consultation document on local health provision asks activists whether they agree or disagree with the idea of an annual limit on GP appointments. The paper also asks whether evening and weekend appointments with GPs and consultants are a "luxury the country cannot afford".

    Is that an actual thing somebody wants to do? This questionnaire sounds more like a polling exercise than a serious policy proposal.

    Conservative opinion polls will often ask whether people want Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean it's something the Conservatives are planning to try to bring about.

    Edited to add: Although the way the Tory party is behaving lately maybe Ed Miliband PM _is_ what they're trying to bring about...
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    So, re Labour majority...

    Polls say NO
    Swingback says NO
    Local Elections say NO

    Which leaves us with a second hung parliament in succession in 2015. (first time since 1910)

    Place your bets accordingly. FWIW, I aim to have a 5 figure sum on that outcome...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    RodCrosby said:

    @MikeL

    I didn't spot the 'Con could get a majority with only a 5% lead' bit, btw, which is frankly nonsense, unless the LDs collapse back to 1970s levels...

    That was in another article he wrote a few months ago.

    I can't be bothered to search for it but from memory it was based on a result of Con 39, Lab 34, LD ??.

    Can't remember exactly but I think he was saying something along the lines that with Double Incumbency bonus that would mean no Con losses to Lab and then if Con pick up 19 from LD they get a majority. He may have also been allowing for SF which would mean only 16 Con gains from LD.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    @MikeL

    Con+Lab combined vote share up over 6% on 2010?

    Pigs flying over Westminster, more likely...
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Something further on the article for Tim.
    Mr Shapps has described the Conservative Policy Forum as a "direct line from our members to Oliver Letwin MP, the minister for government policy...


    A cap on the number of times patients can visit their GP in a year is being considered by the Conservative Party, it emerged yesterday.

    A Tory consultation document on local health provision asks activists whether they agree or disagree with the idea of an annual limit on GP appointments. The paper also asks whether evening and weekend appointments with GPs and consultants are a "luxury the country cannot afford".

    Is that an actual thing somebody wants to do? This questionnaire sounds more like a polling exercise than a serious policy proposal.

    Conservative opinion polls will often ask whether people want Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean it's something the Conservatives are planning to try to bring about.

    Edited to add: Although the way the Tory party is behaving lately maybe Ed Miliband PM _is_ what they're trying to bring about...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    SUNDAY TIMES YOUGOV:

    Lab 40, Con 30, LD 10, UKIP 14

    Per Anthony Wells (in Sunday Times):

    "61% of people think David Cameron is not in control of his party, compared to only 24% who think he is.

    On Tory modernisation, only 16% of people think David Cameron got modernisation right - 33% think he did not go far enough (including most Labour and Lib Dem voters), 32% think he went too far and abandoned too many traditional Tory subjects (including three-quarters of UKIP supporters)."


  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,695
    YOUGOV:

    Economic Optimism is -30, the least negative it has been since May 2010.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013

    Is that an actual thing somebody wants to do? This questionnaire sounds more like a polling exercise than a serious policy proposal...

    It's the Conservative Policy Forum:

    http://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/

    This is a means by which ordinary members get to consider and debate issues before policy is formed. The way it works is that, about once a month, a discussion paper on a given topic is issued, with a set of questions on specific policy issues raised. Recent topics include immigration, secondary education, university education, welfare reforms, etc. Usually the discussion papers are quite well researched and quite meaty. Members who are interested (anyone in the party can take part) meet in smallish groups, discuss the paper, and send their answers to the specific questions to CCHQ, who collate the answers and present a summary of the results to the relevant front-bench MP. The discussion papers, summary of responses and the reply of the minister are all published on the CPF website.

    I don't know whether other parties have a similar way for party members to debate policy, but it works very well. (Incidentally, it's also a great answer to people who moan that the views of ordinary members are not listened to. Invariably, people who say this don't actually bother to take part).

    So it's neither a polling exercise nor a policy proposal, but a discussion. Quite often the items up for discussion will include a range of options, some of which will be controversial; this is usually because the paper identifies a difficult problem and wants to test attitudes towards the difficult choices which might need to be taken to address them.

    It's typical of the infantilising effect of the media on policy discussion that this particular paper is being attacked. Perhaps the party shouldn't bother to discuss anything.

    Edit: The paper is here:

    http://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/sites/www.conservativepolicyforum.com/files/local_health_discussion_brief.doc
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    RodCrosby said:

    '37% still left them 20 seats short...'

    '37% and a 7% lead still left them ...'

    The bold clause is the most important under FPTP, especially for the poor old Tories, who are playing on a pitch that's angled at 45 degrees...

    It is more like 60 degrees now.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 24th May - CON 30%, LAB 40%, LD 10%, UKIP 14%; APP -38
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    How effective do you think the current coalition
    government is at dealing with the threat from
    extremism and terrorism?

    Effective 41(0)
    Ineffective 47(+9)
    DK 12(-8)

    How would you rate the chances of you or a
    member of your family or a good friend being
    killed or wounded in a terrorist attack? Do you
    think the chances are...?

    High 10(+2)
    Low 54 (-5)
    Almost non-existent 26(+7)
    DK 11(-3)

    Which of the following statements about British
    Muslims comes closest to your own view? Compared to July 2005

    Practically all British Muslims are peaceful, law-
    abiding citizens who deplore Wednesday's killing as
    much as everyone else. 20(-3)

    The great majority are peaceful and law-abiding
    citizens but there is a dangerous minority who feel
    no sense of loyalty to this country and are prepared
    to carry out, or at least to condone, acts of terrorism.
    60(-4)

    A large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense
    of loyalty to this country and are prepared to
    condone or even carry out acts of terrorism. 14(+4)

    DK 6(+3)

    Do you think the leaders of Britain's Muslim
    community are doing the best they can to fight
    terrorism, or are a significant number of of them
    turning a blind eye to it?

    The leaders of Britain's Muslim community are
    doing the best they can to fight terrorism. 28

    A significant number of the leaders of Britain's
    Muslim communities are turning a blind eye to
    terrorism. 50

    DK 22

    Thinking about Britain's involvement in
    Afghanistan and Iraq, which of the following
    best reflects your view?

    Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
    increased the risk of terrorist attack, and was the
    wrong thing to do. 40

    Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
    increased the risk of terrorist attack, but was still the
    right thing to do. 30

    Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
    not really increased the risk of terrorist attack, but
    was still the wrong thing to do. 7

    Britain's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has
    not really increased the risk of terrorist attack and was the right thing to do. 4

    None of these. 4

    DK. 14

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Financier said:

    YouGov

    How would you rate the chances of you or a
    member of your family or a good friend being
    killed or wounded in a terrorist attack? Do you
    think the chances are...?

    High 10(+2)
    Low 54 (-5)
    Almost non-existent 26(+7)
    DK 11(-3)

    Is there are way we could prevent the 74% of brainiacs who replied anything except "almost non-existent" from voting? I'm thinking maybe we could spread a rumour that ballot boxes have been known to explode if people put too many votes in them.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    As you may know, there is a difference between
    tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people
    use artificial but legal methods to minimise the
    tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where
    companies/people act illegally to pay less tax,
    or no tax at all.
    In general, do you think it is acceptable or
    unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?

    It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 29(+3)
    Unacceptable: 62 (-2)
    DK: 8(-1)

    Which party, if any, do you think would do the
    most to cut down on tax AVOIDANCE?
    Cons 15
    LAB 21
    LD 5
    UKIP 8
    None of them 31
    DK 29

    In recent months several well known companies
    have been criticised for not paying enough tax
    in the UK. Do you currently boycott the
    products or services of any companies in
    response to them not paying their fair share of
    tax?
    Yes, there are companies I actively boycott because
    of they don't pay enough tax. 20
    No, while I care whether companies pay tax I don't
    really know enough about the subject or which
    companies don't pay tax to boycott them. 42
    No, the price and quality and other considerations
    are more important to me than whether a company
    pays tax. 25
    Not sure. 13

    Thinking specifically about some of the
    companies that have been accused of not
    paying enough taxation in the UK, which of the
    following best applies to you?
    AMAZON
    I sometimes shop at Amazon: 79
    I used to shop at Amazon but have recently stopped
    doing so because of the issue of tax. 8
    I used to shop using Amazon, but have stopped
    doing so for other reasons. 3
    I never shopped at Amazon anyway. 7
    DK. 3

    STARBUCKS:
    I sometimes buy drinks or food from Starbucks. 22
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks but
    have recently stopped doing so because of the
    issue of tax. 13
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks, but
    have stopped doing so for other reasons. 8
    I never bought drinks or food from Starbucks
    anyway. 55
    DK. 2

    GOOGLE:
    Use: 87
    Used but stopped - tax: 5
    Used but stopped:2
    Never used. 4
    DK. 3



  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Conservatives detaching from the Coalition is fraught with dangers of which some are :

    1. How to engineer a break without being blamed for potential destabilization economically and constitutionally.
    2. Allows the LibDems a no fault detachment to attack new minority government with relative impunity.
    3. Timing of GE effectively out of PM's hands.
    4. HoC business effectively out of government hands.
    5. Hands various Opposition groups stick "puts party before country."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Some fascinating UKIP outliers in the YouGov supplementaries (UKIP vs OA):

    Cameron & Tory party modernisation - Cameron did:
    Not enough: -20
    Too much: +53

    Govt on terrorism threat:
    Effective: -16
    Ineffective: +24

    Chances you/your family a victim of terrorist attack:
    High: +9
    Almost non-existent: -9

    Muslims & terrorism:
    Practically all peaceful: -15
    Large proportion condone acts of terror: +22
    Leaders doing best to fight terrorism: -18
    Significant number turn blind eye: +31

    On causes of terrorism:
    Afghanistan/Iraq intervention: +20

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited May 2013
    JackW said:

    Conservatives detaching from the Coalition is fraught with dangers

    indeed. They'd need to be really stupid to do that........oh......

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RE You Gov answers. They are knee jerk reactions
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    RE You Gov answers. They are knee jerk reactions

    Not all knees jerk the same way.....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,595
    Said "Tory backbenchers" are being very foolish. Sometimes they give the impression that they fear a Cameron victory in 2015 more than anything.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    RE You Gov answers. They are knee jerk reactions

    How do you know that they are not underlying fears that people have been able to express anonymously instead of being accused of racism?

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @financier

    I don't,. It would be interesting is someone had access to the answers if they have been asked previously .... I just think there is bound to be a knee jerk reaction after what has happened

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    I don't,. It would be interesting is someone had access to the answers if they have been asked previously .... I just think there is bound to be a knee jerk reaction after what has happened

    The data has overall changes vs July 2005 - but there will be no break out for UKIP supporters from then:

    http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/pdc1opqf1w/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-240513.pdf
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Good morning, everyone.

    It'll be interesting to see whether Lotus (or anyone else, perhaps Perez) try and do a one stop strategy, or whether everyone will be on two stops.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    edited May 2013
    Financier said:

    YouGov

    As you may know, there is a difference between
    tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people
    use artificial but legal methods to minimise the
    tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where
    companies/people act illegally to pay less tax,
    or no tax at all.
    In general, do you think it is acceptable or
    unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?

    It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 29(+3)
    Unacceptable: 62 (-2)
    DK: 8(-1)

    Which party, if any, do you think would do the
    most to cut down on tax AVOIDANCE?
    Cons 15
    LAB 21
    LD 5
    UKIP 8
    None of them 31
    DK 29

    In recent months several well known companies
    have been criticised for not paying enough tax
    in the UK. Do you currently boycott the
    products or services of any companies in
    response to them not paying their fair share of
    tax?
    Yes, there are companies I actively boycott because
    of they don't pay enough tax. 20
    No, while I care whether companies pay tax I don't
    really know enough about the subject or which
    companies don't pay tax to boycott them. 42
    No, the price and quality and other considerations
    are more important to me than whether a company
    pays tax. 25
    Not sure. 13

    Thinking specifically about some of the
    companies that have been accused of not
    paying enough taxation in the UK, which of the
    following best applies to you?
    AMAZON
    I sometimes shop at Amazon: 79
    I used to shop at Amazon but have recently stopped
    doing so because of the issue of tax. 8
    I used to shop using Amazon, but have stopped
    doing so for other reasons. 3
    I never shopped at Amazon anyway. 7
    DK. 3

    STARBUCKS:
    I sometimes buy drinks or food from Starbucks. 22
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks but
    have recently stopped doing so because of the
    issue of tax. 13
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks, but
    have stopped doing so for other reasons. 8
    I never bought drinks or food from Starbucks
    anyway. 55
    DK. 2

    GOOGLE:
    Use: 87
    Used but stopped - tax: 5
    Used but stopped:2
    Never used. 4
    DK. 3



    Thanks for this. Those figures would seem to indicate that Starbucks could be in some trouble; by my calculation 22/13 would seem to indicate a loss of 30-40% of their customers. That must be one of hell of a boon to Costa.

    I am boycotting Starbucks (though tbh the fact that I don't like their coffee helps make the decison quite an easy one). I would boycott Google and Amazon if it was a relatively easy thing to do - but, of course, it's not.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    RE You Gov answers. They are knee jerk reactions

    Not all knees jerk the same way.....
    The position that both Coalition partners has IMHO taken of the long game has been the correct one politically.

    They both knew the dangers of mid term blues and "events dear boy events" that might cause waves but were relying on five years of stable government and better long term economic news to steer their fortunes to a safe port. This should remain their objective.

    Instead some Conservative mutinous loons appear intent on a unstable rudderless ship that is no longer in control of their destination or caring if the next captain is Admiral Ed Bonkers and his merry crew of economic ship wreckers !!



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,741
    Not only would Cameron win a no confidence vote but I think there would be genuine anger and deselections at those who had triggered it.

    Cameron remains more popular than his party. He also remains Prime Minister with the ability to control the agenda that gives. Those that want to break up the Coalition should think about whether their chances of keeping their jobs would be enhanced by Prime Minister Miliband taking over, passing some populist spending rubbish and then going to the country. There is more than one way to make a majority in this Parliamennt.

    This really is stupid and self defeating. Some tories really need to get a grip.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    For those who think it is morally wrong to avoid tax.
    I wonder how many of them drive gas guzzlers. They should be doing so. Driving anything else, or using public transport is avoiding tax.
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621



    I am boycotting Starbucks (though to tbh the fact that I don't like their coffee helps make the decison quite an easy one). I would boycott Google and Amazon if it was a relatively easy thing to do - but, of course, it's not.

    I am boycotting McDonalds. An easy thing to do anyway, but given that they're cutting down on CO2 emissions, I see this as a way of avoiding tax that they would pay on less so called 'eco-friendly' alternatives.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    Labour's lead apparently resuming normal service this week. Also a 7-point bounce in Ed's leader rating (-35 to -28). Dave also up (-30 to -27), Nick -59 to -57. (Time that YG also asked views on Farage regularly.) All three improvements probably reflect people thinking they behaved well over Woolwich.

    Generally reasonably level-headed responses apart from, as EiT notes, the statistically paranoid belief that respondents are at some significant risk of terrorist attack. But the authorities tend to overplay these things too. I remember all waste bins being removed from the local Attenborough railway station when fears about the IRA spiked - the general local feeling was that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear.

    Thanks for the overnight corrections from EiT and MikeL - was too lazy to look up Maggie's result. Impressive how close Heseltine got - wonder how things would have worked out if he'd won? Would he have been more or less effective against Tony than John Major?
  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    I'm beginning to think the most recent batch of Tory MPs were in fact Labour Party sleepers. There's just no other explanation for them to be behaving so self destructively! Hilarious.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Although boring, I must concur with the general consensus. Breaking up the Coalition early without even the pretence of a pretext would be moronic.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331



    I am boycotting Starbucks (though to tbh the fact that I don't like their coffee helps make the decison quite an easy one). I would boycott Google and Amazon if it was a relatively easy thing to do - but, of course, it's not.

    I am boycotting McDonalds. An easy thing to do anyway, but given that they're cutting down on CO2 emissions, I see this as a way of avoiding tax that they would pay on less so called 'eco-friendly' alternatives.
    Me too, but in my case, it's because I would get more taste and nutritional value from eating my own snot.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    For those who think it is morally wrong to avoid tax.
    I wonder how many of them drive gas guzzlers. They should be doing so. Driving anything else, or using public transport is avoiding tax.

    There's obviously a difference between doing things that the system was designed to encourage you to do and finding loopholes and jurisdictional gaps that allow you to avoid taxes. So no, driving a more efficient car isn't the same thing as transferring your IP to a tax haven and paying yourself what you would otherwise be paying in tax in royalities to license it back to yourself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    Financier said:

    YouGov

    As you may know, there is a difference between
    tax AVOIDANCE, whereby companies/people
    use artificial but legal methods to minimise the
    tax they pay, and tax EVASION, where
    companies/people act illegally to pay less tax,
    or no tax at all.
    In general, do you think it is acceptable or
    unacceptable to LEGALLY avoid paying tax?

    It is acceptable to legally avoid tax 29(+3)
    Unacceptable: 62 (-2)
    DK: 8(-1)

    Which party, if any, do you think would do the
    most to cut down on tax AVOIDANCE?
    Cons 15
    LAB 21
    LD 5
    UKIP 8
    None of them 31
    DK 29

    In recent months several well known companies
    have been criticised for not paying enough tax
    in the UK. Do you currently boycott the
    products or services of any companies in
    response to them not paying their fair share of
    tax?
    Yes, there are companies I actively boycott because
    of they don't pay enough tax. 20
    No, while I care whether companies pay tax I don't
    really know enough about the subject or which
    companies don't pay tax to boycott them. 42
    No, the price and quality and other considerations
    are more important to me than whether a company
    pays tax. 25
    Not sure. 13

    Thinking specifically about some of the
    companies that have been accused of not
    paying enough taxation in the UK, which of the
    following best applies to you?
    AMAZON
    I sometimes shop at Amazon: 79
    I used to shop at Amazon but have recently stopped
    doing so because of the issue of tax. 8
    I used to shop using Amazon, but have stopped
    doing so for other reasons. 3
    I never shopped at Amazon anyway. 7
    DK. 3

    STARBUCKS:
    I sometimes buy drinks or food from Starbucks. 22
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks but
    have recently stopped doing so because of the
    issue of tax. 13
    I used to buy drinks or food from Starbucks, but
    have stopped doing so for other reasons. 8
    I never bought drinks or food from Starbucks
    anyway. 55
    DK. 2

    GOOGLE:
    Use: 87
    Used but stopped - tax: 5
    Used but stopped:2
    Never used. 4
    DK. 3



    Thanks for this. Those figures would seem to indicate that Starbucks could be in some trouble; by my calculation 22/13 would seem to indicate a loss of 30-40% of their customers. That must be one of hell of a boon to Costa.

    I am boycotting Starbucks (though to tbh the fact that I don't like their coffee helps make the decison quite an easy one). I would boycott Google and Amazon if it was a relatively easy thing to do - but, of course, it's not.
    Mrs J and I were discussing this over porridge this morning - there is a good Economist article on companies that are essentially stateless for tax purposes.
    The company (Apple) is incorporated in Ireland but in effect is managed from America (where its board meetings are held). This lets it claim it is a resident of nowhere for tax purposes, thanks to a difference between Irish and American rules: America bases residency on where a firm is incorporated; Ireland on where it is managed or otherwise controlled. Mr Levin called this the “Holy Grail” of tax avoidance: stateless profits, beyond the reach of all taxmen.
    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578399-testimony-capitol-hill-apples-boss-made-case-corporate-tax-reform-more-ways?zid=291&ah=906e69ad01d2ee51960100b7fa502595

    I'm not against legal tax avoidance. But this gaming of the international rules seems rather gratuitous. It needs to be stopped, but that will need international agreement.

    But what gets me are the hordes of mindless Apple fanbois. I nipped into the Apple store yesterday for a quick laugh, - the store was bustling with idiots willing to pay a large surplus for a logo and image.

    I think we should instantly put a 25% tax on all Apple products - firstly to regain the tax they are not paying (if the US government does not want it, then we might as well have it), and secondly as an idiocy tax against the people stupid enough to buy their products.

    Needless to say, :-)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

    Gay Marriage wasn't mentioned in the Tory election manifesto Jacko, and you cannot claim it was. Please stay behind your heather-bound ramparts and desist in trying to bring your ideologies to our pleasant land.



  • I am boycotting McDonalds. An easy thing to do anyway, but given that they're cutting down on CO2 emissions, I see this as a way of avoiding tax that they would pay on less so called 'eco-friendly' alternatives.

    I too am boycotting McDonalds. Although it is more to do with the wanky private parking companies they employ

  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621



    There's obviously a difference between doing things that the system was designed to encourage you to do and finding loopholes and jurisdictional gaps that allow you to avoid taxes. So no, driving a more efficient car isn't the same thing as transferring your IP to a tax haven and paying yourself what you would otherwise be paying in tax in royalities to license it back to yourself.

    And I obviously chose one of the more ridiculous examples just to make a point.

    What happens if I put extra money in my pension. I'm mid 50s, had to sell the house a couple of years ago because the business went bad, it is picking up again now.

    Should I be putting maximum business earnings into a pension (I'm a contractor) and not paying any tax? Or is that immoral. I am actually in this position.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    @ThomasNashe: I guess we'll find out eventually when these companies report their results, but I doubt the boycotts are as successful as that poll would suggest. More likely the people answering the poll are answering on behalf of the ethical, politically-engaged citizens they would like to be, rather than the shallow, soulless, apathetic consumers that they actually are.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Labour's lead apparently resuming normal service this week. Also a 7-point bounce in Ed's leader rating (-35 to -28). Dave also up (-30 to -27), Nick -59 to -57. (Time that YG also asked views on Farage regularly.) All three improvements probably reflect people thinking they behaved well over Woolwich.

    Generally reasonably level-headed responses apart from, as EiT notes, the statistically paranoid belief that respondents are at some significant risk of terrorist attack. But the authorities tend to overplay these things too. I remember all waste bins being removed from the local Attenborough railway station when fears about the IRA spiked - the general local feeling was that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear.

    Thanks for the overnight corrections from EiT and MikeL - was too lazy to look up Maggie's result. Impressive how close Heseltine got - wonder how things would have worked out if he'd won? Would he have been more or less effective against Tony than John Major?

    For YouGov Farage is still persona non grata. and in the way they prepare their polls, they wish that UKIP would go away and hide. Pathetic for such an organisation, really.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

    Gay Marriage wasn't mentioned in the Tory election manifesto Jacko, and you cannot claim it was. Please stay behind your heather-bound ramparts and desist in trying to bring your ideologies to our pleasant land.

    I never said it was in the Conservative manifesto, oh loony fruitcaker.

    Kindly spend more time reading posts and not inventing your own facts.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708



    There's obviously a difference between doing things that the system was designed to encourage you to do and finding loopholes and jurisdictional gaps that allow you to avoid taxes. So no, driving a more efficient car isn't the same thing as transferring your IP to a tax haven and paying yourself what you would otherwise be paying in tax in royalities to license it back to yourself.

    And I obviously chose one of the more ridiculous examples just to make a point.

    What happens if I put extra money in my pension. I'm mid 50s, had to sell the house a couple of years ago because the business went bad, it is picking up again now.

    Should I be putting maximum business earnings into a pension (I'm a contractor) and not paying any tax? Or is that immoral. I am actually in this position.
    There's a contiuum with some grey areas, but pension tax relief is a deliberate policy to encourage people to save for their old age rather than ending up broke and needing support from the taxpayer. Taking advantage of it doesn't sound unethical at all.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    edited May 2013
    MikeK said:

    Labour's lead apparently resuming normal service this week. Also a 7-point bounce in Ed's leader rating (-35 to -28). Dave also up (-30 to -27), Nick -59 to -57. (Time that YG also asked views on Farage regularly.) All three improvements probably reflect people thinking they behaved well over Woolwich.

    Generally reasonably level-headed responses apart from, as EiT notes, the statistically paranoid belief that respondents are at some significant risk of terrorist attack. But the authorities tend to overplay these things too. I remember all waste bins being removed from the local Attenborough railway station when fears about the IRA spiked - the general local feeling was that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear.

    Thanks for the overnight corrections from EiT and MikeL - was too lazy to look up Maggie's result. Impressive how close Heseltine got - wonder how things would have worked out if he'd won? Would he have been more or less effective against Tony than John Major?

    For YouGov Farage is still persona non grata. and in the way they prepare their polls, they wish that UKIP would go away and hide. Pathetic for such an organisation, really.
    "that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear."

    Sorry Nick, but I think that comment is particularly stupid.

    IANAE, but I thought the dangers of litter-bin bombs is that few people ever check them (whereas an abandoned bag might well be noticed), the often-metal casing provides extra shrapnel, and the fact the IRA did use them.

    Two children died in the Warrington bombing, where the bombs were put inside litter bins. Dozens others were injured. Someone got killed in another litter bin bomb at Victoria Station in 1991. Hardly just blowing up a bin.

    Therefore removal, although annoying, did make some sense.

    (Edit: the reply is to Nick, not MikeK. Blame morning idiocy on my part)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    edited May 2013
    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.

    As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    @ThomasNashe: I guess we'll find out eventually when these companies report their results, but I doubt the boycotts are as successful as that poll would suggest. More likely the people answering the poll are answering on behalf of the ethical, politically-engaged citizens they would like to be, rather than the shallow, soulless, apathetic consumers that they actually are.

    You may well be right (depressingly). However, I do think Starbucks is particularly vulnerable, because unlike in the cases of Google and Amazon, it's pretty easy for us 'shallow, soulless, apathetic consumers' to cross the road and have a coffee at Costa.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    MikeK said:

    Labour's lead apparently resuming normal service this week. Also a 7-point bounce in Ed's leader rating (-35 to -28). Dave also up (-30 to -27), Nick -59 to -57. (Time that YG also asked views on Farage regularly.) All three improvements probably reflect people thinking they behaved well over Woolwich.

    Generally reasonably level-headed responses apart from, as EiT notes, the statistically paranoid belief that respondents are at some significant risk of terrorist attack. But the authorities tend to overplay these things too. I remember all waste bins being removed from the local Attenborough railway station when fears about the IRA spiked - the general local feeling was that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear.

    Thanks for the overnight corrections from EiT and MikeL - was too lazy to look up Maggie's result. Impressive how close Heseltine got - wonder how things would have worked out if he'd won? Would he have been more or less effective against Tony than John Major?

    For YouGov Farage is still persona non grata. and in the way they prepare their polls, they wish that UKIP would go away and hide. Pathetic for such an organisation, really.
    "that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear."

    Sorry Nick, but I think that comment is particularly stupid.

    IANAE, but I thought the dangers of litter-bin bombs is that few people ever check them (whereas an abandoned bag might well be noticed), the often-metal casing provides extra shrapnel, and the fact the IRA did use them.

    Two children died in the Warrington bombing, where the bombs were put inside litter bins. Dozens others were injured. Someone got killed in another litter bin bomb at Victoria Station in 1991. Hardly just blowing up a bin.

    Therefore removal, although annoying, did make some sense.

    (Edit: the reply is to Nick, not MikeK. Blame morning idiocy on my part)
    Rest easy. I forgive you. :^)

  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621



    There's a contiuum with some grey areas, but pension tax relief is a deliberate policy to encourage people to save for their old age rather than ending up broke and needing support from the taxpayer. Taking advantage of it doesn't sound unethical at all.

    That might be your view. I wonder what 'the public' think.

    Discussing this with a retired NHS manager a few weeks ago, he said it was immoral to do that, people shouldn't be allowed to avoid tax in that way. ''What about your pension?", I asked. The NHS paid for that, so it is OK for me, not for you. Aha, I understand.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,252
    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.

    As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.



    Just the minor inconvenience of bankruptcy and at least 50 years of misery and unrivaled poverty we face whilst trying to pay the debts he ran up during that brief period.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.

    As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.

    As it's Sunday let us pray for those in the PB parish who are in want, namely Roger.

    We pray that our dearly beloved Roger who is in want of a book on UK economic history 2005-2010 no longer suffers.

    We pray dear Lord that Roger returns soon to the bosom of the PB family and there is once more able to take up his role as anti-tipster of our humble community.

    Amen.

  • Roger said:


    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure

    Wasn't most of this built on PFI and hasn't been paid for yet?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

    Gay Marriage wasn't mentioned in the Tory election manifesto Jacko, and you cannot claim it was. Please stay behind your heather-bound ramparts and desist in trying to bring your ideologies to our pleasant land.

    I never said it was in the Conservative manifesto, oh loony fruitcaker.

    Kindly spend more time reading posts and not inventing your own facts.

    Oh, my tartan friend! Maybe; but it's the manifesto, which in a party that keeps it's word, is the programme that is promised to be carried out. Of course Cammo and Co break their word every day, and Cammo himself, an inveterate liar, is past master at stabbing his own supporters in the back.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Morris_Dancer - Any comment please?

    Mercedes are at the centre of a technical row in Formula 1 after doing a three-day tyre test between the Spanish and Monaco grands prix.

    In-season testing in F1 is forbidden and Red Bull and Ferrari are considering a protest against Mercedes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22672228
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.

    As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.



    Just the minor inconvenience of bankruptcy and at least 50 years of misery and unrivaled poverty we face whilst trying to pay the debts he ran up during that brief period.
    Is the UK bankrupt? Who do I talk to about buying assets from the receivers? Thanks to Abenomics my Toto shares are through the roof, so if the price is right I'm in the market for a national park and a couple of air bases.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    edited May 2013
    Financier said:

    @Morris_Dancer - Any comment please?

    Mercedes are at the centre of a technical row in Formula 1 after doing a three-day tyre test between the Spanish and Monaco grands prix.

    In-season testing in F1 is forbidden and Red Bull and Ferrari are considering a protest against Mercedes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22672228

    I'd like more info; the rules on testing (e.g. the farcical straight-line promotional days they do at Duxford and elsewhere) are complex. But three days of tyre testing seems egregious. But that's just from the headline.

    For anyone sad interested, a summary of the rules can be found at http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8713/

    (Edit: more details at the Autosport website: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/107671 Whether what happened was in the rules or not is way above my pay scale, and I can see both sides of the argument. It probably comes down to a comma in the regulations somewhere...)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

    Gay Marriage wasn't mentioned in the Tory election manifesto Jacko, and you cannot claim it was. Please stay behind your heather-bound ramparts and desist in trying to bring your ideologies to our pleasant land.

    I never said it was in the Conservative manifesto, oh loony fruitcaker.

    Kindly spend more time reading posts and not inventing your own facts.

    Oh, my tartan friend! Maybe; but it's the manifesto, which in a party that keeps it's word, is the programme that is promised to be carried out. Of course Cammo and Co break their word every day, and Cammo himself, an inveterate liar, is past master at stabbing his own supporters in the back.
    It's clearly escaped your notice that this Coalition government didn't have a manifesto !!

    Additionally governments and indeed backbenchers bring measures to parliament outwith any manifesto and parliament decides on such measures. The HoC has very clearly decided on a government free vote on the issue of gay marriage.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Financier, at first glance that would appear to break the rules, but as Mr. Jessop points out the rules are rather complicated. If the FIA knew about it they can hardly punish Mercedes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    The Mail on Sunday has extracts from Ann Widdecombe's memoirs - Howard 'a gloating bully', Cameron 'obsessed with his image', her Peerage vetoed over her opposition to hunting. More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330986/The-wrath-Widdy-Ann-Widdecombe-brands-Michael-Howard-gloating-bully-blasts-Cameron-obsessed-image-explosive-new-book.html
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tim said:

    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    JackW said:

    This is starting to remind me of Northern Ireland where a single issue party (Democratic Unionists) emerged and after that single issue became a political hot potato, quite suddenly took over most of the official unionist seats leaving them an irrelevance.

    While UKIP were founded on opposition to EU membership, the single issue that has done the damage to the Conservative party is gay marriage, and now Christopher Booker has pointed out that even this has it's roots in European schenanigans ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10080015/Its-time-we-knew-the-real-gay-marriage-story.html ).

    Never glad confident morning again Cameron.

    I'm afraid the view that gay marriage has damaged the Conservative or is the driver of Ukip support is a myth.

    Cameron and other senior Conservative made clear their support for gay marriage over 3 years ago when Ukip were polling very poorly.

    Whether Mr Booker is an impartial arbiter of gay law reforms and the EU is a matter of debate but I'd think it's not a view that carries much weight in those European countries that have already approved the measure !!

    Gay Marriage wasn't mentioned in the Tory election manifesto Jacko, and you cannot claim it was. Please stay behind your heather-bound ramparts and desist in trying to bring your ideologies to our pleasant land.

    I never said it was in the Conservative manifesto, oh loony fruitcaker.

    Kindly spend more time reading posts and not inventing your own facts.

    Oh, my tartan friend! Maybe; but it's the manifesto, which in a party that keeps it's word, is the programme that is promised to be carried out. Of course Cammo and Co break their word every day, and Cammo himself, an inveterate liar, is past master at stabbing his own supporters in the back.
    It's clearly escaped your notice that this Coalition government didn't have a manifesto !!

    Additionally governments and indeed backbenchers bring measures to parliament outwith any manifesto and parliament decides on such measures. The HoC has very clearly decided on a government free vote on the issue of gay marriage.
    The Coalition had a coalition agreement.
    Which ruled out the NHS reorganisation six weeks before it was announced.
    A Sunday morning pissing contest on Coalition/Labour broken pledges ?!?

    Hhhmmm .... A most unedifying spectacle .... Pass, thanks all the same.

  • Rollo57Rollo57 Posts: 6
    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure

    Roger, most of this was put in place by Labour, the Tories scrapped some, the PFI ones, because the build that has gone through will soon be Privatised. Along with Mail, Rail, Water and Police, the NHS as already gone and Education will be next alongside Royal Mail. It's all in here; http://www.andrewlansley.co.uk/newsevent.php?newseventid=21 And this was 2005.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    edited May 2013
    @HYUFD


    "The Mail on Sunday has extracts from Ann Widdecombe's memoirs - Howard 'a gloating bully', Cameron 'obsessed with his image', her Peerage vetoed over her opposition to hunting. More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330986/The-wrath-Widdy-Ann-Widdecombe-brands-Michael-Howard-gloating-bully-blasts-Cameron-obsessed-image-explosive-new-book.html"

    Good old Ann! She's suddenly become my favourite Tory.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @tim

    We have been here before. NO Govt could govern if had to stick to its manifesto down to the last letter, circumstances dictate otherwise..., and your hero Blair did not have a war in Iraq in the Labour Manifesto but he still went ahead with it on very dubious evidence..
  • Rollo57Rollo57 Posts: 6
    Roger, also notice here; http://youtu.be/OkTnCtg_Omk were it's spoken that the hospitals with PFI's, will be the hospitals that A&E services will be used at. These are the hospitals deemed to fail and will not be able to afford to tender past issuing tablets, because their budgets will be tied up in A&E and paying off PFI's. This is why A& E is struggling now, it is purposely being starved of nurse's? To make it look bad in the eyes of the public. These will eventually fall away and the NHS logo will be taken down everywhere and people will wake up one morning to no-more NHS. This is explained in the link at three minutes, at one minute thirty seconds She explains how the bill can't be reversed without government being sued! Listen to it all it's enlightening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Tim/Roger - Yes well worth reading the article, looks like it is a Memoir that would b worth buying. Tim - I think Dave has travelled Easyjet before if I remember!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314
    Roger said:

    @HYUFD

    "The Mail on Sunday has extracts from Ann Widdecombe's memoirs - Howard 'a gloating bully', Cameron 'obsessed with his image', her Peerage vetoed over her opposition to hunting. More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330986/The-wrath-Widdy-Ann-Widdecombe-brands-Michael-Howard-gloating-bully-blasts-Cameron-obsessed-image-explosive-new-book.html"

    Good old Ann! She's suddenly become my favourite Tory.

    Strange that no-one is seeing this attack on Cameron through the prism of her rather strongly held Catholic views. Although admirable in many ways, Widdecombe's brand of social conservatism (e.g. anti-abortion, anti the ordination of women) is not my cup of tea.

    For instance, I bet she's not in favour of gay marriage. In her eyes Cameron will not be a Conservative.

    It's a good job that her sort of views are dying out amongst the general population...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509



    "that if the worst the IRA could do was blow up a rubbish bin in our sleepy station, the reaction would be more derision than fear."

    Sorry Nick, but I think that comment is particularly stupid.

    IANAE, but I thought the dangers of litter-bin bombs is that few people ever check them (whereas an abandoned bag might well be noticed), the often-metal casing provides extra shrapnel, and the fact the IRA did use them.

    Two children died in the Warrington bombing, where the bombs were put inside litter bins. Dozens others were injured. Someone got killed in another litter bin bomb at Victoria Station in 1991. Hardly just blowing up a bin.

    Therefore removal, although annoying, did make some sense.

    Possibly in a crowded station like Victoria, but Attenborough station typically has about two people standing around, probably nowhere near the bin, and there is no law that says bins must be metallic. More to the point, there are endless places one can put a bomb - for instance, car bombs are easy to plant in parked vehicles, but we don't ban car parking. An attempt to combat terrorism by trying to single out places they might use is hopeless (and it was done under Labour so I'm not making a political point).

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    The donor story is interesting in that the latest party finance figures from the Electoral Commission suggested that UKIP were talking a good game on donations in an effort to encourage reality to follow suit. The predicted surge in donations did not then materialise.

    With respect to Tory backbenchers, I have said before that their bolshiness is setting the agenda,and to that extent is successful. At times I wonder about them though. It looks as though they are suffering from some cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that the Tories failed to win a majority at the last election, yet Cameron managed to become PM.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    AndyJS said:

    Are there any Conservative MPs who still think they can win a majority in 2015? Seems a bit unlikely to me, given that 37% still left them 20 seats short last time and their current polling average is 28% with UKPR.

    If things went well for the Conservatives ie made a few gains from the LibDems, held their own against Labour and stopped a UKIP breakthrough I think they might get 315 MPs.

    Then what ?

    A minority government at the mercy of every backbench oddball and malcontent.

    Being criticized on everything by Labour, LibDems and UKIP.

    Unable any more to blame everything on Gordon Brown.

    Having to sort out all the problems they (and other governments) postponed before 2015.

    Sounds like political hell to me.


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,252

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure and a social liberalism no one could have predicted.

    As Cameron is increasingly looking like a vacuous charlatan born with a silver spoon in his mouth the reputation of the son of the manse could enjoy an unexpected renaissance.



    Just the minor inconvenience of bankruptcy and at least 50 years of misery and unrivaled poverty we face whilst trying to pay the debts he ran up during that brief period.
    Is the UK bankrupt? Who do I talk to about buying assets from the receivers? Thanks to Abenomics my Toto shares are through the roof, so if the price is right I'm in the market for a national park and a couple of air bases.


    Very trite, a select few are coining it in as ever , the majority are suffering. Smart ar**s like you are typical
    of the "I am all right jack" rich twats beggaring the country at large whilst lining their own pockets.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Tim Ha Ha! Josias - Indeed, and the article also discusses her drugs speech in 2001. She also considered libel over an attempt by Tatchell to out her apparently but the rumours got nowhere so she declined, they also detail hilarious accusations by the Howard camp that she was being wooed by Derek Lewis and wanted to give Howard an exorcism!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    Unrivalled prosperity to a champagne socialist maybe but not if you were a factory worker or someone who became an ex factory worker during this unrivaled prosperity.
    Roger said:


    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure

    The new schools and hospitals are on the PFI and many will be pulled down before they've been fully paid for.

    Where are the improvements in infrastructure ?

    Where are the new power stations and transport networks ?

    A potemkin village of buy-to-let flats and PFI buildings in metropolitan areas is neither unrivalled prosperity or improvements in infrastructure.


  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    Something which I've noticed is the contemptuous disdain which the 'public school Tories' such as Avery, JackW and Eagles himself feel for UKIP.

    Not good for the image of the Conservative party when a posh leadership relies on posh supporters. The whole image seems to be one of "know your place and don't talk back". The underlying arrogance being exuded, intentionally or not, is more damaging to the Conservatives than any number of policy failures.

    If there's one word which the Conservatives NEED to be assoicated with its 'aspiration'.

    At the moment the one word the Conservatives ARE associated with is 'privilege'.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,312

    Roger said:

    Through the dim mists of time the much discredited Gordon Brown is now not looking too bad. He remained in one of the two great offices of State for thirteen years during which we experienced unrivaled prosperity.

    Unrivalled prosperity to a champagne socialist maybe but not if you were a factory worker or someone who became an ex factory worker during this unrivaled prosperity.
    Roger said:


    The signs are everywhere. New schools and hospitals massive improvements in infrastructure

    The new schools and hospitals are on the PFI and many will be pulled down before they've been fully paid for.

    Where are the improvements in infrastructure ?

    Where are the new power stations and transport networks ?

    A potemkin village of buy-to-let flats and PFI buildings in metropolitan areas is neither unrivalled prosperity or improvements in infrastructure.


    Yep, Brown was a classic advocate of doing everything on the Never-Never and planning on having skipped town when the bill came in. If a normal person did that it would be called fraud.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Tim/Another Richard - But Farage himself went to Dulwich (even if his deputy, Paul Nuttall, went to a comp)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    Something which I've noticed is the contemptuous disdain which the 'public school Tories' such as Avery, JackW and Eagles himself feel for UKIP.

    Not good for the image of the Conservative party when a posh leadership relies on posh supporters. The whole image seems to be one of "know your place and don't talk back". The underlying arrogance being exuded, intentionally or not, is more damaging to the Conservatives than any number of policy failures.

    If there's one word which the Conservatives NEED to be assoicated with its 'aspiration'.

    At the moment the one word the Conservatives ARE associated with is 'privilege'.

    May I suggest UKIP often hold other people view's in disdain as well? A few weeks ago I was chatting to a UKIP supporter and member on here, who happened to be local to me. When I said I was generally in favour of certain new developments in the area, he said that there were three other parties I could vote for.

    For all he knew I might have been in agreement with all of UKIP's other policies. But for him, that one policy was enough to tell me to p*** off and vote for someone else.

    It wasn't exactly mature politics.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited May 2013
    HYUFD said:

    Tim/Another Richard - But Farage himself went to Dulwich (even if his deputy, Paul Nuttall, went to a comp)



    UKIP is wooing Old Labour ;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330871/Now-UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-sets-sights-working-class-Labour-voters.html

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,519
    HYUFD said:

    Tim/Another Richard - But Farage himself went to Dulwich (even if his deputy, Paul Nuttall, went to a comp)

    But Farage, or for that matter Blair or Boris, doesn't give the impression of looking down upon those who didn't.

    Neither did the likes of Douglas-Home or Douglas Hurd. They might have appeared rather grand and somewhat out of touch but they never exuded the petulant arrogance that the Cameroons and their supporters do.

    Its one thing being born into a more privileged position in life but people with real class don't think themselves better or need to think themselves better than others because of it.

    But the Cameroons wallow in a "I'm superior to you and I want you to feel inferior" mentality. The arrogance and insecurity which the Cameroons suffer from REQUIRES everyone else to feel inferior.

    That's the mentality which causes revolutions and that's what we're now seeing on the political right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,314

    HYUFD said:

    Tim/Another Richard - But Farage himself went to Dulwich (even if his deputy, Paul Nuttall, went to a comp)

    UKIP is wooing Old Labour ;

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330871/Now-UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-sets-sights-working-class-Labour-voters.html
    Farage is becoming increasingly impressive wrt strategy (*), although some of that is down to luck and timing. He has turned a laughing-stock party to a serious political force, and is causing damage to all the other parties to different degrees. You have to be impressed, even if you don't agree with the politics.

    But two factors still remain: the party only has one real main media man - Farage himself - there is no strength in depth with the media (a problem the Greens also have).

    Secondly, if they are going to get any MPs they have to do their utmost to get strength on the ground, something the Lib Dems excel at.

    (*) I think his tactics are often questionable, however.
This discussion has been closed.