Wildly O/T: I'm just translating Danish vehicle registraiton legislation, and have discovered that it's illegal to drive UK vehicles there unless the asymmetric short-range illumination from the headlamps (associated with left-hand driving) is corrected or covered up. That's all news to me. Are most cars in Britain fitted with asymmetric headlamps? Do we have the reverse rule for foreign cars coming through the Chunnel? Does anyone enforce it?
You can buy kits for just about all makes of cars to sort out the headlamp issue when driving on the continent (the same rules apply in France and just about everywhere). Whether the law is ever enforced over there I don't know. Probably, it isn't but if could be if some flic wanted to get stroppy or there was a crash involving an unmodified UK vehicle at night. The kits cost only a few pounds and take ten minutes to install.
As far as I know there is no corresponding rule for left hand-drive cars over here, probably because there doesn't need to be as the asymmetric bit of the illumination of left-hand drive cars when driven on the left puts more light onto the footpath/verge and so does not cause a problem for on-coming road users.
Wildly O/T: I'm just translating Danish vehicle registraiton legislation, and have discovered that it's illegal to drive UK vehicles there unless the asymmetric short-range illumination from the headlamps (associated with left-hand driving) is corrected or covered up. That's all news to me. Are most cars in Britain fitted with asymmetric headlamps? Do we have the reverse rule for foreign cars coming through the Chunnel? Does anyone enforce it?
back in the day, you used to put black stickers over part of the headlights to stop the beam dazzling oncoming driverless
Hell, the left even had a catchy slogan with Thatcher the Milk Snatcher, even though most schoolkids (according to chaps who were at school at the time on a Sky paper review) were bloody glad to be rid of it.
The 'chaps' on Sky News were probably puny w.....s. Not only did I like the milk, I'd guzzle at least a pint on the morning paper round.
At our school the milk had invariably been in the sun for about five hours before we got our third of a pint of cream-cheese topped whey....
Mr. Richard, dafter still is UKIP, the party that wants to leave the EU, campaigning against a party (and doing a great job of reducing its chances of gaining office) that wants a referendum on leaving the EU.
MD
That really is as big a line of drivel as the 'borrowing has been higher only because of EuroZone problems' you said last week.
UKIP's aim is to leave the EU.
The best way of achieving that is with an anti-EU Conservative leader not with the promise of a fake establishment EU referendum from a proven liar.
Remind me when was the last time an anti-EU vote was respected ?
Mr. Richard, dafter still is UKIP, the party that wants to leave the EU, campaigning against a party (and doing a great job of reducing its chances of gaining office) that wants a referendum on leaving the EU.
I'm wondering how Miliband's 'Friends, let me say it plainly: our future lies inside not outside the European Union.' line from his conference speech will play with certain BOO-leaning UKIPpers.
I don't think the Lib Dems will hold many seats unless they can improve on their current ratings. If a party loses 75% of its vote, overall, incumbents aren't going to outperform sufficiently well to hold on.
2010 GE was interesting. The Lib Dems did quite well in Somerset, Gloucestershire and the suburban middle-class city seats - like Cheadle, Sutton & Cheam, Solihull, Leeds NW and Bristol West.
On the other hand, they suffered quite badly in Cornwall and lost several strong seats to the Tories: Winchester, Oxford West & Abingdon, Montgomeryshire, Richmond Park and came within a whisker of losing Mid Dorset and North Poole. Some seats previously held in 2005 also ended up looking irrecoverable for them, such as Newbury and Guildford.
That was all on the back of the supposed Cleggasm.
Electoral Calculus summed up the LD 2010 result as:
"The Lib Dems gained in weak seats and declined in strong seats, which is rather curious and hard to explain. "
I live in Dundee West. It has been a safe Labour seat for a long time and I have had no hesitation in voting tory, recognising it is a wasted vote but wanting to register my view.
Next time around it looks distinctly marginal, in fact I would say on current polling the SNP are favourites to take it. I really don't want that and am contemplating voting tactically for the first time in my life.
There is just one thing that's getting in the way, as Lilly Allen used to sing in a slightly different context. Actually 2 things. Firstly I understand the Labour candidate will again be Jim McGovern, a man who (a) thought it was appropriate and (b) morally correct to vote against gay marriage in England. And then there is the Ed thing.
Its not easy being a marginal voter.
The SNP are still available at 7/4 to take Dundee West. As I noted yesterday on my post, this looks outstanding value.
Thanks for your comment on Dumfries. At 8/1, I've had a punt on the back of that. Your logic made sense.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
I don't think the Lib Dems will hold many seats unless they can improve on their current ratings. If a party loses 75% of its vote, overall, incumbents aren't going to outperform sufficiently well to hold on.
You are ignoring the very detailed polling that Lord A is carrying out. The LDs will be doing nothing more than putting paper candidates up in 500+ seats. No campaigning beyond the free delivery leaflet. In the 57 seats being defended and perhaps 10 others they will be throwing everything at.
We also know how much better LD incumbents are rated by voters compared with CON or LAB ones. YouGov polling last year had net dissatisfaction of 13% for CON MPs, 4% for LAB MPs and plus 13% for LD MPs.
The LDs are very skilled at marketing themselves as the best party to stop the Tories which is a real problem for the blues.
I don't doubt that Lib Dem incumbents will outperform their party. But, nobody can completely defy political gravity. Even if incumbents can keep their vote loss down to "only" 25-30% a lot of them would be in trouble. That's what happened in Scotland in 2011, where the Lib Dems lost 9 out of 11 constituency MSPs.
Hell, the left even had a catchy slogan with Thatcher the Milk Snatcher, even though most schoolkids (according to chaps who were at school at the time on a Sky paper review) were bloody glad to be rid of it.
The 'chaps' on Sky News were probably puny w.....s. Not only did I like the milk, I'd guzzle at least a pint on the morning paper round.
I recall the school milk being served at school breaktime, tepid and unappetising. Not many partook.
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The Conservatives 2014 EU Parliament campaign was mostly lies. It's not hard to see their 2015 offer as lies too.
I don't think the Lib Dems will hold many seats unless they can improve on their current ratings. If a party loses 75% of its vote, overall, incumbents aren't going to outperform sufficiently well to hold on.
2010 GE was interesting. The Lib Dems did quite well in Somerset, Gloucestershire and the suburban middle-class city seats - like Cheadle, Sutton & Cheam, Solihull, Leeds NW and Bristol West.
On the other hand, they suffered quite badly in Cornwall and lost several strong seats to the Tories: Winchester, Oxford West & Abingdon, Montgomeryshire, Richmond Park and came within a whisker of losing Mid Dorset and North Poole. Some seats previously held in 2005 also ended up looking irrecoverable for them, such as Newbury and Guildford.
That was all on the back of the supposed Cleggasm.
Electoral Calculus summed up the LD 2010 result as:
"The Lib Dems gained in weak seats and declined in strong seats, which is rather curious and hard to explain. "
Mr. Dave, Cameron didn't want AV but held the vote, he didn't want Scottish independence, but co-operated to allow the vote. Hard to see both why he would renege on a vote included in his own manifesto, and how he'd survive more than six minutes if he did so.
Interesting piece in The Times today - "Labour sees election slipping away". Much unhappiness at the 35% strategy and expectation it will fail. One Labour MP said that Ed's conference speech was "the stuff of TV comedies" (presumably "The Thick of It"?) and as a leader he would "probably go down in history as one of the worst".
I live in Dundee West. It has been a safe Labour seat for a long time and I have had no hesitation in voting tory, recognising it is a wasted vote but wanting to register my view.
Next time around it looks distinctly marginal, in fact I would say on current polling the SNP are favourites to take it. I really don't want that and am contemplating voting tactically for the first time in my life.
There is just one thing that's getting in the way, as Lilly Allen used to sing in a slightly different context. Actually 2 things. Firstly I understand the Labour candidate will again be Jim McGovern, a man who (a) thought it was appropriate and (b) morally correct to vote against gay marriage in England. And then there is the Ed thing.
Its not easy being a marginal voter.
David , there is no difference between Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories, both crap and only interested in lining their own pockets. Hopefully both will get what they deserve.
I live in Dundee West. It has been a safe Labour seat for a long time and I have had no hesitation in voting tory, recognising it is a wasted vote but wanting to register my view.
Next time around it looks distinctly marginal, in fact I would say on current polling the SNP are favourites to take it. I really don't want that and am contemplating voting tactically for the first time in my life.
Are you really planning on voting Labour so as to elect another SLAB MP to vote for higher taxes and fewer services in England ? SNP MPs, to their credit, abstain on English issues.
If so you're going to have pride of place on my list of pro-Labour establishment Tories.
The polls show that the LDs are and are viewed as the party of pro-Immigration, pro-Human Rights Act, pro Europe - all of which I expect to be ratified at their conference.
Yes the LDs will have caveats to all of these, but most of the electorate do not read caveats (even if thy understand them). It only takes a headline of another immigrant murderer/rapist being allowed to stay in the UK due to his/her human right to a family life as interpreted under the Human Rights Act and the LDs again are on the wrong side of public opinion.
The LDs are split on economic policy as shown by the today's spat between D Alexander and Vince Cable. Do they have an economic policy?
The September YG polls average show that the LDs have lost about 23% of their 2010 VI to Greens and UKIP, compared to 15% in January. Also it is mainly their young people who support the Greens (anti-fracking?).
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
Lastly, what does the LDs stand for in 2014; we know what they are against (they shout that from the rooftops) but what are their policies to get the UK out of the mess in which it was left in 2010? I do not expect their Conference to reveal any light on this matter.
Mr. Dave, Cameron didn't want AV but held the vote, he didn't want Scottish independence, but co-operated to allow the vote. Hard to see both why he would renege on a vote included in his own manifesto, and how he'd survive more than six minutes if he did so.
The majority of Conservative Party MPs were happy to oppose an EU referendum in 2011. Happy to accede to the UK passing power over justice and home affairs to the EU in 2014. Are these the people you think will be holding Mr Cameron to account?
I disagree (partly, at least). Labour continually attacks the character of their opposing party, and it sinks in over time. The Conservatives (and others) are no saints, but it seems systematic on the part of Labour, and sometimes others.
Come off it they are all bashing the hell out of each other. The Tories called Blair the devil FFS
Looking back that would seem to be a statement of truth.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
Surely, that all depends on the seat you live in. If you live in Heywood & Middleton, Rotherham, Grimsby, Thanet South, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth, Clacton, Boston & Skegness, Plymouth Moor View, etc. Then it's perfectly rational for someone who's opposed to the EU to vote UKIP. If you live in a seat that's safe for the Conservatives or Labour, it's rational to vote UKIP. Likewise, if you have a europhile Conservative MP.
Only in a minority of battleground seats would it be self-defeating to vote UKIP.
Interesting piece in The Times today - "Labour sees election slipping away". Much unhappiness at the 35% strategy and expectation it will fail. One Labour MP said that Ed's conference speech was "the stuff of TV comedies" (presumably "The Thick of It"?) and as a leader he would "probably go down in history as one of the worst".
Who is this Labour MP? Mr or Mrs Balls?
The 35% strategy is total stupidity. It *will* fail. It reminds me of all those Labour talking heads who blamed their loss in 1987 and 1992 on the Lib Dems "splitting" the centre-left vote.
This is simply the same blind ignorance working in reverse. You can't kick-out an incumbent government and win a majority without taking some of their voters off them directly.
Yes, Lib Dem-Lab defectors will win them seats from the Conservatives - possibly up to 20 seats. But, no, it's not a "firewall" and they won't win the election with it.
Mr. Dave, the referendum that wasn't in the manifesto? An omission which the media tried to use to cause a pre-election split at a Conservative conference?
I would, except that I do not think Cameron would renege on such a manifesto promise.
Mr. Owls, never fear, I shall vote Conservative. I may write a short comedy piece about it, if Balls loses.
I don't think the Lib Dems will hold many seats unless they can improve on their current ratings. If a party loses 75% of its vote, overall, incumbents aren't going to outperform sufficiently well to hold on.
You are ignoring the very detailed polling that Lord A is carrying out. The LDs will be doing nothing more than putting paper candidates up in 500+ seats. No campaigning beyond the free delivery leaflet. In the 57 seats being defended and perhaps 10 others they will be throwing everything at.
We also know how much better LD incumbents are rated by voters compared with CON or LAB ones. YouGov polling last year had net dissatisfaction of 13% for CON MPs, 4% for LAB MPs and plus 13% for LD MPs.
The LDs are very skilled at marketing themselves as the best party to stop the Tories which is a real problem for the blues.
I don't doubt that Lib Dem incumbents will outperform their party. But, nobody can completely defy political gravity. Even if incumbents can keep their vote loss down to "only" 25-30% a lot of them would be in trouble. That's what happened in Scotland in 2011, where the Lib Dems lost 9 out of 11 constituency MSPs.
When we look at the results of 2011 in Holyrood and 2014 European elections we see that a wipout of LD MPs is likely. The constituency effect will preserve a few.
But Mikes proposition is accurate in most respects. Consider Norman Lamb in North Norfolk as an example. He won the seat in 2001, formely considered a safe Tory seat, with a small majority of hundreds, but this was 10 000 by 2010. He is one of the more effective LD ministers and even if his vote slips back a bit, are his former voters who disapprove of the Tories going to vote Tory to out him? And even if some go to Labour this will be offset by an increased UKIP vote detracting from the kipper vote on the saxon shore.
I think the LDs will have 25-30 seats in 2015, and have bet on this band, and also taken it into account on the next leader market.
"It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?"
I found that best answered by reading the Daily Mail yesterday. In what could be described as the TORY VALUES/CLEAVAGE edition and in it was everything a non dimwitted xenophobe would find repellent (except for the cleavages)
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The LDs have 2,200 councillors, UKIP 370, the Greens 170.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The EuroZone crisis had already started before the general election.
If Osborne didn't take into account the effects of it in his budget predictions then he was incompetant.
Now please answer my question - when was the last time an anti-EU vote respected ?
We've had anti-EU votes in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark and all were ignored by the establishment.
That is what would happen to an anti-EU vote in the UK UNLESS we had an anti-EU government, and under the Cameroons that we will never have.
Also please explain why UKIP defeating Labour in the SYPCC and H&M elections help's Labour.
Yet the establishment Tories here are happy to let Labour win those elections.
Perhaps the establishment Tories prefer a pro-EU EdM government to an anti-EU Con-UKIP coalition ?
I note the "Conservative Minority Government" option in the "Post Election Government" Ladbrokes market I gently tipped the other day is now suspended.
You could have got on at a very generous 10/1 before. Paddy Power only offer(ed) 5/1.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
I won't vote UKIP, even though I have sympathy with some of UKIP's policies, because I don't want to see Farage anywhere near executive office.
Same here, although I find little to enthuse me in what UKIP policies I can discern - mainly it seems to be a wish that the 21st Century would go away.
As with the SNP, UKIP attribute our problems to 'an other' that if only we escaped (Westminster or Brussels) we would be miraculously free from.
Lazy and dishonest (note, I am referring to the current parties, there are posters on here from both camps who are neither and are aware of their parties' shortcomings).
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
It must really grate with many left wing people that the Lib Dems can survive through pure tactical voting even though virtually no-one likes them anymore. As a silver lining maybe this could move Labour towards supporting PR. It's virtually impossible to destroy the Lib Dems through FPTP; PR might do it. The 2010 LD vote could scatter to Labour, Green, Ukip and Tory in that order.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
Worth noting that in the SYPCC election, TSE will have two votes: one for a first preference and one to take a stab at who might be in the final round if his first preference isn't. A voter therefore has little incentive to vote tactically. There is a scenario where his or her first preference is likely to finish fourth, while his next-preferred option is likely to finish a close third and so it's worth 'redistributing in advance' to try and get that candidate into the final round. This might be attractive to some English Democrat voters who prefer UKIP over the Tories (or vice versa) and anticipate such a result for second (and also Labour falling short of 50%).
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
Mr. Booth, supporting or opposing a voting system simply because of the petty party political impact is not on. The system has to be sound for the country, not for a party.
Mr. Richard, yes, in the same way someone in hospital with flu can then develop worse symptoms or catch MRSA.
I did answer your question, the last time an EU vote was respected in this country was about 40 years ago. If you're talking about other countries, I agree that their votes were just ignored and re-run after they changed the title and fiddled with the font of the EU constitution. None were so serious as an In/Out vote, however.
I hope UKIP does take the Labour seat. I think it unlikely, however.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, given the state of the deficit under Labour it does not surprise me. The starting point coupled with the crisis in the eurozone was always going to make reducing it to zero this term difficult, especially when in coalition with the Lib Dems. However, more could've been done, but the overall job has been pretty good.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
Worth noting that in the SYPCC election, TSE will have two votes: one for a first preference and one to take a stab at who might be in the final round if his first preference isn't. A voter therefore has little incentive to vote tactically. There is a scenario where his or her first preference is likely to finish fourth, while his next-preferred option is likely to finish a close third and so it's worth 'redistributing in advance' to try and get that candidate into the final round. This might be attractive to some English Democrat voters who prefer UKIP over the Tories (or vice versa) and anticipate such a result for second (and also Labour falling short of 50%).
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
The Lib Dems didn't nominate any candidates in the general round of PCC elections. It seems to be a stand of principle for them (that, coupled with the fact that they wouldn't win, I expect).
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
And are you aware that borrowing here is higher than in almost all EuroZone countries ?
Mainly because the ECB is bond-buying with the direct objective is keeping down yields. It's a backhand way of Germany subsidising the south without causing public ire.
Also economic growth causes bond yields to rise, something no-one seems to ever understand.
"It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?"
I found that best answered by reading the Daily Mail yesterday. In what could be described as the TORY VALUES/CLEAVAGE edition and in it was everything a non dimwitted xenophobe would find repellent (except for the cleavages)
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The Conservatives 2014 EU Parliament campaign was mostly lies. It's not hard to see their 2015 offer as lies too.
It is now months since UKIP won the European elections - and yet we are still in Europe! Why? Feckin' useless they are....
But establishment Tories demand that UKIP supporters vote tactically Conservative when they have no intention of voting tactically UKIP to defeat Labour.
It seems to establishment Tories that its only important to keep Labour out of office if the beneficiaries are the Conservatives.
Not really. If UKIP are not yet qualified as a suitable vote then it comes down to whether you prefer executive authority to be wielded by Ed Miliband or David Cameron.
As the Conservatives have not shown they are worthy of a positive vote and as they aren't willing to vote tactically anti-Labour they have nobody to blame but themselves when people vote for other parties.
I disagree. The Tories have made good progress in addressing many of the issues that Labour left behind them. They may only be 1/3 of the way through clearing up the Augean Stables, but it is better than letting the muck continue to pile up as Brown was proposing.
Thanks for all the illuminating (ha) responses on headlamps! I knew I could rely on PB.
Two more anecdotes.
A previous car of mine had adjustable headlamps for precisely this reason. A small lever to move them from left hand to right hand and back again.
My current car has an explicit note in the manual that adjustment is not required when driving abroad as they have been aligned somehow to work on either side without concern.
Mr. Jonathan, the left dislike Blair more than the right, and often claim he was just a Tory in disguise.
Mr. Bob, possibly, or perhaps they had a valid but differing opinion to yours.
Mr. Herdson, PR is the work of Satan. It diminishes democratic accountability by reducing manifesto promises to bargaining chips, and shifts the decision of who forms the next government from the people to the political class.
It's a question of lesser of evils. I agree that PR isn't ideal and that manifestoes become less promises and more aspirations. However, if we are - as appears to be the case - moving into a genuinely 4+ party system, I just don't see that FPTP can be reconciled with it. If we can also expect more hung parliaments than in the past, then that criticism of PR also falls as it wouldn't be any different from what we have now.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The LDs have 2,200 councillors, UKIP 370, the Greens 170.
Mr. Dave, the referendum that wasn't in the manifesto? An omission which the media tried to use to cause a pre-election split at a Conservative conference?
I would, except that I do not think Cameron would renege on such a manifesto promise.
Mr. Owls, never fear, I shall vote Conservative. I may write a short comedy piece about it, if Balls loses.
You cannot seriously believe Balls will lose in 2015?
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
So what are they supposed to do Morris_Dancer? Abandon themselves entirely as a party for the off-chance Cameron will win? And in doing so, permanently allow the Conservatives to return to their "chase the Guardanista vote" strategy as there would be no alternative on the right. Goodbye any action on immigration. Goodbye any chance of an English parliament. Etc.
What's barking is the number of Tory supporters who think UKIP's entire existence should be abolished for one roll of the dice on one single issue.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
Worth noting that in the SYPCC election, TSE will have two votes: one for a first preference and one to take a stab at who might be in the final round if his first preference isn't. A voter therefore has little incentive to vote tactically. There is a scenario where his or her first preference is likely to finish fourth, while his next-preferred option is likely to finish a close third and so it's worth 'redistributing in advance' to try and get that candidate into the final round. This might be attractive to some English Democrat voters who prefer UKIP over the Tories (or vice versa) and anticipate such a result for second (and also Labour falling short of 50%).
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
I asked Eagles that yesturday.
He said he would vote Conservative only and not transfer his vote as he dislikes Labour and UKIP equally.
Mr. Owls, it's possible, but unlikely. With a majority of 1,000, less than last time's BNP vote, it's worth a shot.
Mr. Herdson, that depends if you believe we're shifting to a 3 party system. If someone with no knowledge of UK politics saw the last 20 opinion polls they may well say we have one: Conservatives, Labour and UKIP. Change can and does happen in FPTP (as we saw with the Liberals, Labour and Lib Dems).
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The LDs have 2,200 councillors, UKIP 370, the Greens 170.
No I'm saying the LDs have a lot of financial and organisational strength. Currently more than the Greens/UKIP.
I think momentum is currently with UKIP and the Greens. I think the LDs are going to find the 3rd party position hard to regain, competing against UKIP/Greens, but post 2015 election the LDs will still have a larger local government base to build from. Probably a larger Westminster base too, but I think 2015 is going to be worse for the LDs than their worst case scenario.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The EuroZone crisis had already started before the general election.
If Osborne didn't take into account the effects of it in his budget predictions then he was incompetant.
Now please answer my question - when was the last time an anti-EU vote respected ?
We've had anti-EU votes in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark and all were ignored by the establishment.
That is what would happen to an anti-EU vote in the UK UNLESS we had an anti-EU government, and under the Cameroons that we will never have.
Also please explain why UKIP defeating Labour in the SYPCC and H&M elections help's Labour.
Yet the establishment Tories here are happy to let Labour win those elections.
Perhaps the establishment Tories prefer a pro-EU EdM government to an anti-EU Con-UKIP coalition ?
Are you seriously suggesting, I mean seriously, that if a 2017 referendum voted to leave the EU, Cameron and the 'establishment' (scary) would ignore it?
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
It's an STV election, my second vote is dependent on the candidates, I will cast my vote accordingly. As you said yourself, the UKIP candidate is deeply uninspiring, the Tory candidate is impressive and given the recent events in South Yorkshire, the role of PCC is going to be very important.
In the last week we've had a parent of one of the victims has accused Nigel Farage accused exploiting child abuse issue for political gain in Middleton & Heywood, you can understand why people are reluctant to vote for them, particularly given the events in South Yorkshire
In case you missed it in the past, but I've stated here many times, I'll likely to vote Lib Dem at the general election, to make sure Labour have no chance here.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
What's barking is the number of Tory supporters who think UKIP's entire existence should be abolished for one roll of the dice on one single issue.
Socrates, getting a referendum WAS the main policy of UKIP. Now I do accept that these days UKIP policy is a more fluid proposition (which day of the week is it?), but to abandon a fundamental tenet is actually worse than the infamous LD pledge on tuition fees.
Entirely why the Lechlade group was so right and could have saved UKIP.
The junior school I went to was clearly superior, news to me.
We'd have complained like buggery if the milk had been anything but drinkable, ie chilled. I also remember that for a time we had strawberry, banana and chocolate milk.
If you think I might be exaggerating about complaining, we did, regularly, about quite a lot and with some success.
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
Mr. Richard, given the state of the deficit under Labour it does not surprise me. The starting point coupled with the crisis in the eurozone was always going to make reducing it to zero this term difficult, especially when in coalition with the Lib Dems. However, more could've been done, but the overall job has been pretty good.
How many hundreds of billions would this government have to miss their predictions by for you to consider the overall job has not been 'pretty good' ?
Note also that the response of Cameron and Osborne to missing their borrowing targets has not been fiscal restraint but repeated shaking of the magic money tree - from mortgage subsidies to NHS ring fencing to increasing overseas aid to promises of future tax cuts.
Mr. Bob, you're the anti-matter version of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch, reminiscing about your luxurious school
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, I opposed (and still do) the ring-fencing of Health, increase in Aid budget and lack of funds for Defence. I'm also a pragmatist, not an idealist. In broad terms the performance of the government has, economically, been good.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?
Their relish for throwing people they are supposed to represent under the nearest bus.
Latest example? Sellers of annuities. Previous example? Social conservatives.
I can assure you, after it's happened to you, anyone but the Conservative Party is preferable.
Were the Tories really supposed to look after sellers of annuities? Or perhaps the buyers of these very poor value products? I am grateful for the latter!
And for Social Conservatives; I take it that you mean gay marriage, which becomes less remarkable by the day. It seems to make a few people happy, and has already become part of the fabric of British life.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
As I said establishment Tories are happy to have establishment Labour in government.
All their bewailing about how terrible an EdM government would be is fake.
Yes and there is plenty of money to finance Labour's spending plans. Well, I heard those nice Mr. Osborne and Mr. Cameron say there was plenty of money for tax cuts, at least.
Why do the Tories insist on treating the public like idiots?
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure. If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
The polls show that the LDs are and are viewed as the party of pro-Immigration, pro-Human Rights Act, pro Europe - all of which I expect to be ratified at their conference.
Yes the LDs will have caveats to all of these, but most of the electorate do not read caveats (even if thy understand them). It only takes a headline of another immigrant murderer/rapist being allowed to stay in the UK due to his/her human right to a family life as interpreted under the Human Rights Act and the LDs again are on the wrong side of public opinion.
The LDs are split on economic policy as shown by the today's spat between D Alexander and Vince Cable. Do they have an economic policy?
The September YG polls average show that the LDs have lost about 23% of their 2010 VI to Greens and UKIP, compared to 15% in January. Also it is mainly their young people who support the Greens (anti-fracking?).
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
Lastly, what does the LDs stand for in 2014; we know what they are against (they shout that from the rooftops) but what are their policies to get the UK out of the mess in which it was left in 2010? I do not expect their Conference to reveal any light on this matter.
Well said Mr Financier - the Lib Dems appear to have lost their way and whatever is revealed over the next few days in Glasgow, I don’t believe circling the wagons at conference and firing arrows at their coalition partners for the umpteenth time will be the panacea they are hoping for.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, I opposed (and still do) the ring-fencing of Health, increase in Aid budget and lack of funds for Defence. I'm also a pragmatist, not an idealist. In broad terms the performance of the government has, economically, been good.
I'm with you on all that, MD. I think the next Conservative government will divert cash from not renewing the 0.7% GDP aid target to fund defence, but I still don't think that'll be enough to repair the damage done in 2010-2014.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
So what are they supposed to do Morris_Dancer? Abandon themselves entirely as a party for the off-chance Cameron will win? And in doing so, permanently allow the Conservatives to return to their "chase the Guardanista vote" strategy as there would be no alternative on the right. Goodbye any action on immigration. Goodbye any chance of an English parliament. Etc.
What's barking is the number of Tory supporters who think UKIP's entire existence should be abolished for one roll of the dice on one single issue.
Didn't you know? The rest of the world exists for the Tories' convenience.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
No I'm saying the LDs have a lot of financial and organisational strength. Currently more than the Greens/UKIP.
UKIP have as many if not more members than the LDs. They have more cash and have 10 times the number of EC funded staff. This cut about 50 LD staff. The councillor position may move into balance with UKIP during the next parliament and the LDs losses of MPs (half at least) will remove 100+ LD HoC funded staff.
It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?
Their relish for throwing people they are supposed to represent under the nearest bus.
Latest example? Sellers of annuities. Previous example? Social conservatives.
I can assure you, after it's happened to you, anyone but the Conservative Party is preferable.
There are lots of people who loathe the Conservatives because they see them as only being interested in rich people. Most people who feel that way are on the left, but some are on the right. It's the biggest single obstacle the party faces (the number of people who won't vote Conservative because they see them as illiberal is vastly smaller). But, it was ever thus.
More interesting though are people who largely share the Conservatives' values, but won't vote for them. They're the one's who feel let down and betrayed by Conservative governments.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
It's an STV election, my second vote is dependent on the candidates, I will cast my vote accordingly. As you said yourself, the UKIP candidate is deeply uninspiring, the Tory candidate is impressive and given the recent events in South Yorkshire, the role of PCC is going to be very important.
In the last week we've had a parent of one of the victims has accused Nigel Farage accused exploiting child abuse issue for political gain in Middleton & Heywood, you can understand why people are reluctant to vote for them, particularly given the events in South Yorkshire
In case you missed it in the past, but I've stated here many times, I'll likely to vote Lib Dem at the general election, to make sure Labour have no chance here.
I don't think the Lib Dems will hold many seats unless they can improve on their current ratings. If a party loses 75% of its vote, overall, incumbents aren't going to outperform sufficiently well to hold on.
You are ignoring the very detailed polling that Lord A is carrying out. The LDs will be doing nothing more than putting paper candidates up in 500+ seats. No campaigning beyond the free delivery leaflet. In the 57 seats being defended and perhaps 10 others they will be throwing everything at.
We also know how much better LD incumbents are rated by voters compared with CON or LAB ones. YouGov polling last year had net dissatisfaction of 13% for CON MPs, 4% for LAB MPs and plus 13% for LD MPs.
The LDs are very skilled at marketing themselves as the best party to stop the Tories which is a real problem for the blues.
I don't doubt that Lib Dem incumbents will outperform their party. But, nobody can completely defy political gravity. Even if incumbents can keep their vote loss down to "only" 25-30% a lot of them would be in trouble. That's what happened in Scotland in 2011, where the Lib Dems lost 9 out of 11 constituency MSPs.
FPTP held the Libdems back, it will now ameliorate their losses.
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The EuroZone crisis had already started before the general election.
If Osborne didn't take into account the effects of it in his budget predictions then he was incompetant.
Now please answer my question - when was the last time an anti-EU vote respected ?
We've had anti-EU votes in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark and all were ignored by the establishment.
That is what would happen to an anti-EU vote in the UK UNLESS we had an anti-EU government, and under the Cameroons that we will never have.
Also please explain why UKIP defeating Labour in the SYPCC and H&M elections help's Labour.
Yet the establishment Tories here are happy to let Labour win those elections.
Perhaps the establishment Tories prefer a pro-EU EdM government to an anti-EU Con-UKIP coalition ?
Are you seriously suggesting, I mean seriously, that if a 2017 referendum voted to leave the EU, Cameron and the 'establishment' (scary) would ignore it?
Mr. Royale, agree, alas, but would add Defence has been neglected for over a decade before that. It was practically the only department spend-happy Labour didn't fling money at.
Right, I am enjoying this debate, but have to try and get a lot of work done to a very close deadline (which emerged from the shadows, not unlike a ninja). I shall endeavour to return today with the pre-race piece [hope so, anyway, given the race starts at 7am].
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The Lib Dems used to have 5,000 a 60% drop. That is from FPTP (90%) so expect FPTP to eventually cut 60%+ of LD MPs.
All their current councillors have been elected since 2010. (In 2010 they had 3,900.)
In several years with 40% net losses in seats that were up for election.
I'm not saying the LDs are in robust health! I'm saying they are stronger relative to UKIP/Greens as an organisation than you might think looking at the national polls.
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
As I said establishment Tories are happy to have establishment Labour in government.
All their bewailing about how terrible an EdM government would be is fake.
Yes and there is plenty of money to finance Labour's spending plans. Well, I heard those nice Mr. Osborne and Mr. Cameron say there was plenty of money for tax cuts, at least.
Why do the Tories insist on treating the public like idiots?
The speech was clear that the spending cuts will come first to balance the budget by 2018, with the tax cuts to follow. The changes in allowances (actually not very different to inflationary increases over 5 years) are to follow, and in part will be offset by cuts in in work benefits.
To an extent it is the usual smoke and mirrors that all chancellors use to give with one hand and take away with the other.
I also think it wrong to ringfence areas, even the NHS, for more than a year in advance. It is just setting hostages to fortune.
Mr. Richard, given the state of the deficit under Labour it does not surprise me. The starting point coupled with the crisis in the eurozone was always going to make reducing it to zero this term difficult, especially when in coalition with the Lib Dems. However, more could've been done, but the overall job has been pretty good.
How many hundreds of billions would this government have to miss their predictions by for you to consider the overall job has not been 'pretty good' ?
Note also that the response of Cameron and Osborne to missing their borrowing targets has not been fiscal restraint but repeated shaking of the magic money tree - from mortgage subsidies to NHS ring fencing to increasing overseas aid to promises of future tax cuts.
Each of those, however, have a rationale.
- Mortgage subsidies: house prices are too high (that's one reason why I'd be ok with a much larger annual value based property tax but not a mansion tax). But until you fix that (without killing the the banks in the process) then it can't be right that there is a generation unable to afford to buy their own homes
- NHS ringfencing. I'd rather that they took a serious look at the structure of the NHS and figured out how to deliver excellent healthcare more effectively (and probably with an element of co-pays and fees). But, unfortunately, that would be politically suicidal. There is too much to do at the moment to tackle this problem as well (I'd say that fixing welfare and education are higher priorities in terms of life impact for future generations)
- Increasing overseas aid: there is clearly a role for overseas aid, and it is a useful form of soft power projection. But I don't like the arbitrary target that seems to have been set - I would have thought that they should do a proper analysis to figure out the optimal spending. From memory (haven't checked) I think the annual budget is £13bn. I'd look seriously at reducing this by £3-5bn which I'm sure you could do without impacting the aims of the programme
- Future tax cuts: People have been through an incredibly tough time, and the next 5 years are going to be worse still. It's important to give people a sense of a positive future; a "dividend" if you like. Absolutely spending needs to be cut, and the deficit brought into line, but it's not unreasonable to reduce the burden on taxpayers with a proportion of that. Let's say you cut spending by £25bn. Would it really be so bad to cut people £5bn of that back in tax cuts? (And don't forget that targeted tax cuts will help increase spending and release some of the pressure on people who are losing out from the squeeze on public spending)
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
It's an STV election, my second vote is dependent on the candidates, I will cast my vote accordingly. As you said yourself, the UKIP candidate is deeply uninspiring, the Tory candidate is impressive and given the recent events in South Yorkshire, the role of PCC is going to be very important.
In the last week we've had a parent of one of the victims has accused Nigel Farage accused exploiting child abuse issue for political gain in Middleton & Heywood, you can understand why people are reluctant to vote for them, particularly given the events in South Yorkshire
In case you missed it in the past, but I've stated here many times, I'll likely to vote Lib Dem at the general election, to make sure Labour have no chance here.
Don't you live in Hallam?
I do. It's to make sure Labour get crushed here rather than just defeated.
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
So what are you suggesting they do? Not fight the 2015 election? That would certainly knock them back for a generation. Why would any donor donate or any activist put in their limited hours for a party that throws in the towel out of nowhere? If they did that and Cameron still lost (the likelihood), the entire eurosceptic cause would be in complete disarray, and Labour would feel comfortable in fully selling us out to a European superstate. It would be an absolute disaster. Even if a Miliband government collapsed and we had another election in 2016, Cameron's successor (May?) could avoid including the referendum in the next manifesto. It would be the 2030s before we got another strong eurosceptic party, and by that time mass immigration will likely have changed the British nation beyond recognition and leaving might never happen.
A much better course would be to on course to be the third largest party for the 2020 elections, guaranteeing the Tories will have to commit to a referendum again, and likely Labour too. As the third largest party, they'd also then be in a much more public position to make the eurosceptic case in the referendum debate, and it would be much harder for the BBC to marginalise their case. A strongly performing UKIP in 2015 would also mean the tactical imperatives for their next leadership election means a eurosceptic would be much more likely to win. It's clearly the best option for eurosceptics going forward.
Of course, the ideal situation, if the Conservatives are genuine in believing that Miliband is a disaster, is for an electoral alliance as advocated by people like Hannan. The Conservatives can stand down for UKIP in about 15 seats, while UKIP can stand down for the Tories in 250 or so. Farage has suggested something similar (although starting from a higher number of seats as his negotiating position), but the Tories refuse. The reason for that? Because they'd rather have Miliband as PM then UKIP having a small presence in parliament. That says all you need to know about how genuine Tory euroscepticism actually is.
"Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished."
No, you are arguing for all its members and supporters not to vote for it but to vote Conservative instead. You don't see a problem with that, possibly because, as you said earlier you were not around, when we had Wilson's referendum on the EEC.
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure. If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
I did and think the same.
You both did but your views are flawed. Cameron will never allow a referendum that even gives a chance for a vote to leave the UK a chance. The MSParties and MSM would on the occasion of a referendum pull out all the the stops. The population will be bombarded with propaganda day and night on the beauties of staying in the EU. Cameron a noted liar and slippery eel, will simply lie, lie and lie again to keep us in.
A party like UKIP with much poorer resources would be swamped and it's voice barely heard above the noise.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
I think the question is Mr Dancer, whether the Conservatives would've done it without UKIP.
As the rise of the Alliance/Lib Dems etc in the centre forced the big two parties away from polarisation and towards the centre-ground, so UKIP's presence pressures them in a different way.
Parties understand nothing so forcefully as a threat to votes. It may be UKIP's greatest influence (as the Lib Dems has been) is to threaten Conservative votes enough to push them into full blown Euroskepticism. That a UKIP PM is inconceivable in the foreseeable future, doesn't mean voting that way isn't advancing their goals.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, I opposed (and still do) the ring-fencing of Health, increase in Aid budget and lack of funds for Defence. I'm also a pragmatist, not an idealist. In broad terms the performance of the government has, economically, been good.
It depends on how you define good.
Six hundred billion borrowed; industrial production, productivity and real wages lower than in 2010; house prices subsidised and inequality rising; £90bn balance of payments deficit during the last four quarters.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The Lib Dems used to have 5,000 a 60% drop. That is from FPTP (90%) so expect FPTP to eventually cut 60%+ of LD MPs.
All their current councillors have been elected since 2010. (In 2010 they had 3,900.)
In several years with 40% net losses in seats that were up for election.
I'm not saying the LDs are in robust health! I'm saying they are stronger relative to UKIP/Greens as an organisation than you might think looking at the national polls.
OK. It was estimated by Eric Pickles that each LD cllr lost would cost the LDs 2 activists. That being the case, 1,700 fewer cllrs since GE2010 campaign is a net loss of 3,400 activists. A massive drop in a party that relies on its GOTV operation in the year or so campaign into a GE.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
No I'm saying the LDs have a lot of financial and organisational strength. Currently more than the Greens/UKIP.
UKIP have as many if not more members than the LDs. They have more cash and have 10 times the number of EC funded staff. This cut about 50 LD staff. The councillor position may move into balance with UKIP during the next parliament and the LDs losses of MPs (half at least) will remove 100+ LD HoC funded staff.
On current numbers I believe the LDs have slightly more members than UKIP. UKIP are gaining members faster though.
Financially the LDs are a lot stronger. The published 2013 accounts show the LDs with a £7.3 million annual income vs UKIP £2.4 million, Green £ 880,000.
I often wonder why I could never vote Conservative. The policies only differ slightly from Lab and LD, and like any party, they have a fair share of loons but not an excess.
I think it's a perceived attitude - almost an historical left-over. The sort of attitude that Labour now have but try to keep hidden - a disdain for less posh people. It was ingrained in me since childhood but difficult to erase.
Roger's attitude may be tongue-in-cheek, but it typifies old-fashioned Tories and the new posh Labour party. The "We know best, so just do as you're told?" A sort of EU mindset that leads to Ukip growing.
The Daily Mail is a hoot, but it is what it is. The Guardian a predictable bed-wetting orgy. But let people read what they want. They are adults even if some elements in politics cannot understand this.
I can never understand anyone voting Green, but Neil, who comes across as sensible and thoughtful, does. Fine, if they win, I'll make the best of our new living quarters in the cave.
Mr. Herdson, PR is the work of Satan. It diminishes democratic accountability by reducing manifesto promises to bargaining chips, and shifts the decision of who forms the next government from the people to the political class.
FPTP is the work of Satan. It diminishes democratic accountability by enabling a Party with perhaps one-third of the vote to impose their manifesto promises on an electorate of whom two-thirds have rejected it. And shifts the decision of who forms the next government from all the people to a relatively few swing voters in swing constituencies. How is that for Satanic? And it is kept in place by the Parties who benefit from it. How is that for immoral?
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
As I said establishment Tories are happy to have establishment Labour in government.
All their bewailing about how terrible an EdM government would be is fake.
Yes and there is plenty of money to finance Labour's spending plans. Well, I heard those nice Mr. Osborne and Mr. Cameron say there was plenty of money for tax cuts, at least.
Why do the Tories insist on treating the public like idiots?
Then you misheard, or most likely didn't listen (I get the sense that you have already made up your mind).
The Tories said said (illustrative numbers): Spending is 500. Taxes are 400 and the deficit is 100. We will reduce spending by 25. Of that we will use 20 to reduce the deficit and 5 to reduce taxes.
Outcome: Spending 475, taxes 395, deficit 80.
Labour said: Spending is 500. The deficit is 100. We will increase spending by 25. But don't worry we are going to raise 5 in taxes and spend it 5 times to fund the 25.
The polls show that the LDs are and are viewed as the party of pro-Immigration, pro-Human Rights Act, pro Europe - all of which I expect to be ratified at their conference.
Yes the LDs will have caveats to all of these, but most of the electorate do not read caveats (even if thy understand them). It only takes a headline of another immigrant murderer/rapist being allowed to stay in the UK due to his/her human right to a family life as interpreted under the Human Rights Act and the LDs again are on the wrong side of public opinion.
The LDs are split on economic policy as shown by the today's spat between D Alexander and Vince Cable. Do they have an economic policy?
The September YG polls average show that the LDs have lost about 23% of their 2010 VI to Greens and UKIP, compared to 15% in January. Also it is mainly their young people who support the Greens (anti-fracking?).
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
Lastly, what does the LDs stand for in 2014; we know what they are against (they shout that from the rooftops) but what are their policies to get the UK out of the mess in which it was left in 2010? I do not expect their Conference to reveal any light on this matter.
Well said Mr Financier - the Lib Dems appear to have lost their way and whatever is revealed over the next few days in Glasgow, I don’t believe circling the wagons at conference and firing arrows at their coalition partners for the umpteenth time will be the panacea they are hoping for.
Why interupt the enemy making mistakes? History repeating again and again.
I wonder what the result would be if Mike ran a poll on PB on changing the voting system. Is FPTP still appropriate, when there is significant support for parties other than Con/Lab/Lib ?
I should imagine that Labour would not want to change from FPTP while they benefit from the current system, but this might change if boundaries are changed, fewer MP's are elected and non English MP's can't vote on English only issues. I can't see the Tories wanting change, as I think they see merit in the current system and think they can win majorities. The Lib Dems were in favour of PR, but in 2015 they may benefit from FPTP, due to their fortress strategy.
'The polls show that the LDs are and are viewed as the party of pro-Immigration, pro-Human Rights Act, pro Europe - all of which I expect to be ratified at their conference.'
This stuff went down a treat at the euros almost resulting in a complete wipe out.
No doubt there will be lots of students and young people falling over each other in the rush to vote tactically for the Lib Dems next May.
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
Worth noting that in the SYPCC election, TSE will have two votes: one for a first preference and one to take a stab at who might be in the final round if his first preference isn't. A voter therefore has little incentive to vote tactically. There is a scenario where his or her first preference is likely to finish fourth, while his next-preferred option is likely to finish a close third and so it's worth 'redistributing in advance' to try and get that candidate into the final round. This might be attractive to some English Democrat voters who prefer UKIP over the Tories (or vice versa) and anticipate such a result for second (and also Labour falling short of 50%).
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
Couldn't or didn't? I know we didn't run any in Wales at all when the elections came round.
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
The Lib Dems used to have 5,000 a 60% drop. That is from FPTP (90%) so expect FPTP to eventually cut 60%+ of LD MPs.
All their current councillors have been elected since 2010. (In 2010 they had 3,900.)
In several years with 40% net losses in seats that were up for election.
I'm not saying the LDs are in robust health! I'm saying they are stronger relative to UKIP/Greens as an organisation than you might think looking at the national polls.
OK. It was estimated by Eric Pickles that each LD cllr lost would cost the LDs 2 activists. That being the case, 1,700 fewer cllrs since GE2010 campaign is a net loss of 3,400 activists. A massive drop in a party that relies on its GOTV operation in the year or so campaign into a GE.
It should be remembered that the number of LibDem councillors had been falling for several years before 2010.
Which might help to explain their underperformance in 2010.
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
So what are you suggesting they do? Not fight the 2015 election? That would certainly knock them back for a generation. Why would any donor donate or any activist put in their limited hours for a party that throws in the towel out of nowhere? If they did that and Cameron still lost (the likelihood), the entire eurosceptic cause would be in complete disarray, and Labour would feel comfortable in fully selling us out to a European superstate. It would be an absolute disaster. Even if a Miliband government collapsed and we had another election in 2016, Cameron's successor (May?) could avoid including the referendum in the next manifesto. It would be the 2030s before we got another strong eurosceptic party, and by that time mass immigration will likely have changed the British nation beyond recognition and leaving might never happen.
A much better course would be to on course to be the third largest party for the 2020 elections, guaranteeing the Tories will have to commit to a referendum again, and likely Labour too. As the third largest party, they'd also then be in a much more public position to make the eurosceptic case in the referendum debate, and it would be much harder for the BBC to marginalise their case. A strongly performing UKIP in 2015 would also mean the tactical imperatives for their next leadership election means a eurosceptic would be much more likely to win. It's clearly the best option for eurosceptics going forward.
Of course, the ideal situation, if the Conservatives are genuine in believing that Miliband is a disaster, is for an electoral alliance as advocated by people like Hannan. The Conservatives can stand down for UKIP in about 15 seats, while UKIP can stand down for the Tories in 250 or so. Farage has suggested something similar (although starting from a higher number of seats as his negotiating position), but the Tories refuse. The reason for that? Because they'd rather have Miliband as PM then UKIP having a small presence in parliament. That says all you need to know about how genuine Tory euroscepticism actually is.
Blimey, three tortured paragraphs when all you needed to say was 'I want Cameron to lose in 2015, because if he wins there will be a democratic referendum in 2017 in which the majority is likely to vote to remain in the EU'.
And are you aware that borrowing here is higher than in almost all EuroZone countries ?
You are correct but missing a key component: GDP growth. The UK deficit may be increasing by 4.5% but GDP is increasing by 3.2%; in France the deficit is 3% and growth is negligible. Which is the better; which is worse?
We all would like to see the debt mountain reduced but we have to sacrifice other things. Maybe a campaign to expel Wales and The Province of Norn Iron would balance the books...?
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
It's an STV election, my second vote is dependent on the candidates, I will cast my vote accordingly. As you said yourself, the UKIP candidate is deeply uninspiring, the Tory candidate is impressive and given the recent events in South Yorkshire, the role of PCC is going to be very important.
In the last week we've had a parent of one of the victims has accused Nigel Farage accused exploiting child abuse issue for political gain in Middleton & Heywood, you can understand why people are reluctant to vote for them, particularly given the events in South Yorkshire
In case you missed it in the past, but I've stated here many times, I'll likely to vote Lib Dem at the general election, to make sure Labour have no chance here.
Don't you live in Hallam?
I do. It's to make sure Labour get crushed here rather than just defeated.
But you said you were going to vote tactically in order to be sure Labour didn't get in. So for all your protestations that Clegg is safe you still feel the need to vote tactically rather than for the party you support.
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
As I said establishment Tories are happy to have establishment Labour in government.
Which part of 'lesser of two evils' is 'happy'?
Unlike (some) Kippers I am not motivated by a dislike of 'an other' - but by a positive support for a party which gets closest to many of my views (tho on civil liberties the Lib Dems are streets ahead of anyone else, as Grayling reinforced yesterday... but 2015 is not a 'civil liberties' election - I look forward to that later...)
Mr. Richard, in the last referendum we had, before I was born.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
The EuroZone crisis had already started before the general election.
If Osborne didn't take into account the effects of it in his budget predictions then he was incompetant.
Now please answer my question - when was the last time an anti-EU vote respected ?
We've had anti-EU votes in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark and all were ignored by the establishment.
That is what would happen to an anti-EU vote in the UK UNLESS we had an anti-EU government, and under the Cameroons that we will never have.
Also please explain why UKIP defeating Labour in the SYPCC and H&M elections help's Labour.
Yet the establishment Tories here are happy to let Labour win those elections.
Perhaps the establishment Tories prefer a pro-EU EdM government to an anti-EU Con-UKIP coalition ?
Are you seriously suggesting, I mean seriously, that if a 2017 referendum voted to leave the EU, Cameron and the 'establishment' (scary) would ignore it?
No, of course they would not ignore it any more than they ignored the anti-Eu referendum results in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark. There would be a period of frantic negotiation, a new, sounding, deal would be cobbled together, which would be supported by all the great and good, the BBC, the EU would chuck even larger loads of money at the stay-in campaign and we would be required to vote again and to "get it right this time".
Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.
Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.
So vote Conservative get Labour.
It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.
Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.
Worth noting that in the SYPCC election, TSE will have two votes: one for a first preference and one to take a stab at who might be in the final round if his first preference isn't. A voter therefore has little incentive to vote tactically. There is a scenario where his or her first preference is likely to finish fourth, while his next-preferred option is likely to finish a close third and so it's worth 'redistributing in advance' to try and get that candidate into the final round. This might be attractive to some English Democrat voters who prefer UKIP over the Tories (or vice versa) and anticipate such a result for second (and also Labour falling short of 50%).
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
The Lib Dems didn't nominate any candidates in the general round of PCC elections. It seems to be a stand of principle for them (that, coupled with the fact that they wouldn't win, I expect).
Yes they did - you probably just didn't notice them. There's a map on the Wikipedia page:
Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished. Some coherence would be nice, though. I want to leave the EU. Damaging the Conservatives in 2015 damages the chances of that happening. Damaging Labour enhances the prospect of a departure.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
I think the question is Mr Dancer, whether the Conservatives would've done it without UKIP.
As the rise of the Alliance/Lib Dems etc in the centre forced the big two parties away from polarisation and towards the centre-ground, so UKIP's presence pressures them in a different way.
Parties understand nothing so forcefully as a threat to votes. It may be UKIP's greatest influence (as the Lib Dems has been) is to threaten Conservative votes enough to push them into full blown Euroskepticism. That a UKIP PM is inconceivable in the foreseeable future, doesn't mean voting that way isn't advancing their goals.
Indeed.
The exit route from the EU has always been via an anti-EU Conservative PM.
Comments
As far as I know there is no corresponding rule for left hand-drive cars over here, probably because there doesn't need to be as the asymmetric bit of the illumination of left-hand drive cars when driven on the left puts more light onto the footpath/verge and so does not cause a problem for on-coming road users.
That really is as big a line of drivel as the 'borrowing has been higher only because of EuroZone problems' you said last week.
UKIP's aim is to leave the EU.
The best way of achieving that is with an anti-EU Conservative leader not with the promise of a fake establishment EU referendum from a proven liar.
Remind me when was the last time an anti-EU vote was respected ?
Perhaps the public only like Lib Dems when they're all things to all men, and aren't known for anything controversial personally?
Thanks for your comment on Dumfries. At 8/1, I've had a punt on the back of that. Your logic made sense.
Also, are you suggesting the eurozone sovereign debt crisis did not damage growth here, leading to higher borrowing?
UKIP wants to leave the EU, but is quite happy to harm the most realistic short-term prospect for doing so and (generally) help the EU-phile Miliband. That's not so much cognitive dissonance as barking mad.
Who is this Labour MP? Mr or Mrs Balls?
If so you're going to have pride of place on my list of pro-Labour establishment Tories.
Unfortunately a house move may be your only solution
Yes the LDs will have caveats to all of these, but most of the electorate do not read caveats (even if thy understand them). It only takes a headline of another immigrant murderer/rapist being allowed to stay in the UK due to his/her human right to a family life as interpreted under the Human Rights Act and the LDs again are on the wrong side of public opinion.
The LDs are split on economic policy as shown by the today's spat between D Alexander and Vince Cable. Do they have an economic policy?
The September YG polls average show that the LDs have lost about 23% of their 2010 VI to Greens and UKIP, compared to 15% in January. Also it is mainly their young people who support the Greens (anti-fracking?).
If the LDs are going to retreat to their core seats for 2015 and lose even a third of these, this is a very dangerous strategy as they will have diminished severely their base from which to rebuild. Most probably UKIP will have a larger base (and even the Greens) from which to progress.
Lastly, what does the LDs stand for in 2014; we know what they are against (they shout that from the rooftops) but what are their policies to get the UK out of the mess in which it was left in 2010? I do not expect their Conference to reveal any light on this matter.
(smile)
Only in a minority of battleground seats would it be self-defeating to vote UKIP.
This is simply the same blind ignorance working in reverse. You can't kick-out an incumbent government and win a majority without taking some of their voters off them directly.
Yes, Lib Dem-Lab defectors will win them seats from the Conservatives - possibly up to 20 seats. But, no, it's not a "firewall" and they won't win the election with it.
I would, except that I do not think Cameron would renege on such a manifesto promise.
Mr. Owls, never fear, I shall vote Conservative. I may write a short comedy piece about it, if Balls loses.
But Mikes proposition is accurate in most respects. Consider Norman Lamb in North Norfolk as an example. He won the seat in 2001, formely considered a safe Tory seat, with a small majority of hundreds, but this was 10 000 by 2010. He is one of the more effective LD ministers and even if his vote slips back a bit, are his former voters who disapprove of the Tories going to vote Tory to out him? And even if some go to Labour this will be offset by an increased UKIP vote detracting from the kipper vote on the saxon shore.
I think the LDs will have 25-30 seats in 2015, and have bet on this band, and also taken it into account on the next leader market.
"It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?"
I found that best answered by reading the Daily Mail yesterday. In what could be described as the TORY VALUES/CLEAVAGE edition and in it was everything a non dimwitted xenophobe would find repellent (except for the cleavages)
http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
If Osborne didn't take into account the effects of it in his budget predictions then he was incompetant.
Now please answer my question - when was the last time an anti-EU vote respected ?
We've had anti-EU votes in France, Netherlands, Ireland and Denmark and all were ignored by the establishment.
That is what would happen to an anti-EU vote in the UK UNLESS we had an anti-EU government, and under the Cameroons that we will never have.
Also please explain why UKIP defeating Labour in the SYPCC and H&M elections help's Labour.
Yet the establishment Tories here are happy to let Labour win those elections.
Perhaps the establishment Tories prefer a pro-EU EdM government to an anti-EU Con-UKIP coalition ?
You could have got on at a very generous 10/1 before. Paddy Power only offer(ed) 5/1.
If it comes back up at a similar price, grab it.
As with the SNP, UKIP attribute our problems to 'an other' that if only we escaped (Westminster or Brussels) we would be miraculously free from.
Lazy and dishonest (note, I am referring to the current parties, there are posters on here from both camps who are neither and are aware of their parties' shortcomings).
So no, I would not vote tactically UKIP to 'keep Labour out' - Labour is much the lesser of two evils.
Also worth noting that the Lib Dems couldn't even nominate a candidate for the election, given that they ran Sheffield not so long ago.
Mr. Richard, yes, in the same way someone in hospital with flu can then develop worse symptoms or catch MRSA.
I did answer your question, the last time an EU vote was respected in this country was about 40 years ago. If you're talking about other countries, I agree that their votes were just ignored and re-run after they changed the title and fiddled with the font of the EU constitution. None were so serious as an In/Out vote, however.
I hope UKIP does take the Labour seat. I think it unlikely, however.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, given the state of the deficit under Labour it does not surprise me. The starting point coupled with the crisis in the eurozone was always going to make reducing it to zero this term difficult, especially when in coalition with the Lib Dems. However, more could've been done, but the overall job has been pretty good.
Also economic growth causes bond yields to rise, something no-one seems to ever understand.
So are you a non-dimwtted xenophobe who just loves cleavage?
All their bewailing about how terrible an EdM government would be is fake.
A previous car of mine had adjustable headlamps for precisely this reason. A small lever to move them from left hand to right hand and back again.
My current car has an explicit note in the manual that adjustment is not required when driving abroad as they have been aligned somehow to work on either side without concern.
Surely that chance passed in 2010.
I understand Richmond is very nice.
Latest example? Sellers of annuities.
Previous example? Social conservatives.
I can assure you, after it's happened to you, anyone but the Conservative Party is preferable.
What's barking is the number of Tory supporters who think UKIP's entire existence should be abolished for one roll of the dice on one single issue.
He said he would vote Conservative only and not transfer his vote as he dislikes Labour and UKIP equally.
Mr. Herdson, that depends if you believe we're shifting to a 3 party system. If someone with no knowledge of UK politics saw the last 20 opinion polls they may well say we have one: Conservatives, Labour and UKIP. Change can and does happen in FPTP (as we saw with the Liberals, Labour and Lib Dems).
I think momentum is currently with UKIP and the Greens. I think the LDs are going to find the 3rd party position hard to regain, competing against UKIP/Greens, but post 2015 election the LDs will still have a larger local government base to build from. Probably a larger Westminster base too, but I think 2015 is going to be worse for the LDs than their worst case scenario.
In the last week we've had a parent of one of the victims has accused Nigel Farage accused exploiting child abuse issue for political gain in Middleton & Heywood, you can understand why people are reluctant to vote for them, particularly given the events in South Yorkshire
In case you missed it in the past, but I've stated here many times, I'll likely to vote Lib Dem at the general election, to make sure Labour have no chance here.
Entirely why the Lechlade group was so right and could have saved UKIP.
We'd have complained like buggery if the milk had been anything but drinkable, ie chilled. I also remember that for a time we had strawberry, banana and chocolate milk.
If you think I might be exaggerating about complaining, we did, regularly, about quite a lot and with some success.
If voting against the Conservatives would increase the prospect of leaving, I'd do that (and did, in the last European election). Many Kippers seem to have decided loyalty to the party takes precedence over loyalty to the goal of leaving the EU. It's a poor choice, in my view.
Note also that the response of Cameron and Osborne to missing their borrowing targets has not been fiscal restraint but repeated shaking of the magic money tree - from mortgage subsidies to NHS ring fencing to increasing overseas aid to promises of future tax cuts.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Richard, I opposed (and still do) the ring-fencing of Health, increase in Aid budget and lack of funds for Defence. I'm also a pragmatist, not an idealist. In broad terms the performance of the government has, economically, been good.
And for Social Conservatives; I take it that you mean gay marriage, which becomes less remarkable by the day. It seems to make a few people happy, and has already become part of the fabric of British life.
Why do the Tories insist on treating the public like idiots?
Labour 315
Conservative 277
Lib Dem 26
Ukip 4
SNP 8
Plaid 2
More interesting though are people who largely share the Conservatives' values, but won't vote for them. They're the one's who feel let down and betrayed by Conservative governments.
Right, I am enjoying this debate, but have to try and get a lot of work done to a very close deadline (which emerged from the shadows, not unlike a ninja). I shall endeavour to return today with the pre-race piece [hope so, anyway, given the race starts at 7am].
To an extent it is the usual smoke and mirrors that all chancellors use to give with one hand and take away with the other.
I also think it wrong to ringfence areas, even the NHS, for more than a year in advance. It is just setting hostages to fortune.
- Mortgage subsidies: house prices are too high (that's one reason why I'd be ok with a much larger annual value based property tax but not a mansion tax). But until you fix that (without killing the the banks in the process) then it can't be right that there is a generation unable to afford to buy their own homes
- NHS ringfencing. I'd rather that they took a serious look at the structure of the NHS and figured out how to deliver excellent healthcare more effectively (and probably with an element of co-pays and fees). But, unfortunately, that would be politically suicidal. There is too much to do at the moment to tackle this problem as well (I'd say that fixing welfare and education are higher priorities in terms of life impact for future generations)
- Increasing overseas aid: there is clearly a role for overseas aid, and it is a useful form of soft power projection. But I don't like the arbitrary target that seems to have been set - I would have thought that they should do a proper analysis to figure out the optimal spending. From memory (haven't checked) I think the annual budget is £13bn. I'd look seriously at reducing this by £3-5bn which I'm sure you could do without impacting the aims of the programme
- Future tax cuts: People have been through an incredibly tough time, and the next 5 years are going to be worse still. It's important to give people a sense of a positive future; a "dividend" if you like. Absolutely spending needs to be cut, and the deficit brought into line, but it's not unreasonable to reduce the burden on taxpayers with a proportion of that. Let's say you cut spending by £25bn. Would it really be so bad to cut people £5bn of that back in tax cuts? (And don't forget that targeted tax cuts will help increase spending and release some of the pressure on people who are losing out from the squeeze on public spending)
A much better course would be to on course to be the third largest party for the 2020 elections, guaranteeing the Tories will have to commit to a referendum again, and likely Labour too. As the third largest party, they'd also then be in a much more public position to make the eurosceptic case in the referendum debate, and it would be much harder for the BBC to marginalise their case. A strongly performing UKIP in 2015 would also mean the tactical imperatives for their next leadership election means a eurosceptic would be much more likely to win. It's clearly the best option for eurosceptics going forward.
Of course, the ideal situation, if the Conservatives are genuine in believing that Miliband is a disaster, is for an electoral alliance as advocated by people like Hannan. The Conservatives can stand down for UKIP in about 15 seats, while UKIP can stand down for the Tories in 250 or so. Farage has suggested something similar (although starting from a higher number of seats as his negotiating position), but the Tories refuse. The reason for that? Because they'd rather have Miliband as PM then UKIP having a small presence in parliament. That says all you need to know about how genuine Tory euroscepticism actually is.
"Mr. Socrates, not arguing for UKIP to be abolished."
No, you are arguing for all its members and supporters not to vote for it but to vote Conservative instead. You don't see a problem with that, possibly because, as you said earlier you were not around, when we had Wilson's referendum on the EEC.
Cameron will never allow a referendum that even gives a chance for a vote to leave the UK a chance. The MSParties and MSM would on the occasion of a referendum pull out all the the stops. The population will be bombarded with propaganda day and night on the beauties of staying in the EU. Cameron a noted liar and slippery eel, will simply lie, lie and lie again to keep us in.
A party like UKIP with much poorer resources would be swamped and it's voice barely heard above the noise.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
As the rise of the Alliance/Lib Dems etc in the centre forced the big two parties away from polarisation and towards the centre-ground, so UKIP's presence pressures them in a different way.
Parties understand nothing so forcefully as a threat to votes. It may be UKIP's greatest influence (as the Lib Dems has been) is to threaten Conservative votes enough to push them into full blown Euroskepticism. That a UKIP PM is inconceivable in the foreseeable future, doesn't mean voting that way isn't advancing their goals.
Six hundred billion borrowed; industrial production, productivity and real wages lower than in 2010; house prices subsidised and inequality rising; £90bn balance of payments deficit during the last four quarters.
What happens when the next recession arrives ?
Financially the LDs are a lot stronger. The published 2013 accounts show the LDs with a £7.3 million annual income vs UKIP £2.4 million, Green £ 880,000.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/political-parties-annual-accounts/details-of-accounts
I often wonder why I could never vote Conservative. The policies only differ slightly from Lab and LD, and like any party, they have a fair share of loons but not an excess.
I think it's a perceived attitude - almost an historical left-over. The sort of attitude that Labour now have but try to keep hidden - a disdain for less posh people. It was ingrained in me since childhood but difficult to erase.
Roger's attitude may be tongue-in-cheek, but it typifies old-fashioned Tories and the new posh Labour party. The "We know best, so just do as you're told?" A sort of EU mindset that leads to Ukip growing.
The Daily Mail is a hoot, but it is what it is. The Guardian a predictable bed-wetting orgy. But let people read what they want. They are adults even if some elements in politics cannot understand this.
I can never understand anyone voting Green, but Neil, who comes across as sensible and thoughtful, does. Fine, if they win, I'll make the best of our new living quarters in the cave.
The Tories said said (illustrative numbers): Spending is 500. Taxes are 400 and the deficit is 100. We will reduce spending by 25. Of that we will use 20 to reduce the deficit and 5 to reduce taxes.
Outcome: Spending 475, taxes 395, deficit 80.
Labour said: Spending is 500. The deficit is 100. We will increase spending by 25. But don't worry we are going to raise 5 in taxes and spend it 5 times to fund the 25.
Outcome: Spending 525, taxes 405, deficit 120
That's a pretty clear difference.
I should imagine that Labour would not want to change from FPTP while they benefit from the current system, but this might change if boundaries are changed, fewer MP's are elected and non English MP's can't vote on English only issues. I can't see the Tories wanting change, as I think they see merit in the current system and think they can win majorities. The Lib Dems were in favour of PR, but in 2015 they may benefit from FPTP, due to their fortress strategy.
'The polls show that the LDs are and are viewed as the party of pro-Immigration, pro-Human Rights Act, pro Europe - all of which I expect to be ratified at their conference.'
This stuff went down a treat at the euros almost resulting in a complete wipe out.
No doubt there will be lots of students and young people falling over each other in the rush to vote tactically for the Lib Dems next May.
Which might help to explain their underperformance in 2010.
We all would like to see the debt mountain reduced but we have to sacrifice other things. Maybe a campaign to expel Wales and The Province of Norn Iron would balance the books...?
Unlike (some) Kippers I am not motivated by a dislike of 'an other' - but by a positive support for a party which gets closest to many of my views (tho on civil liberties the Lib Dems are streets ahead of anyone else, as Grayling reinforced yesterday... but 2015 is not a 'civil liberties' election - I look forward to that later...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales_police_and_crime_commissioner_elections,_2012
In general, they contested seats across the south of England and in the big northern force areas.
UKIP and the Lib Dems both nominated 24 candidates (out of 41 constituencies) in 2012.
The exit route from the EU has always been via an anti-EU Conservative PM.