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.
By 'exploiting for political gain' you mean mentioning the issue at all.
Strange attitude to take to a crime that seems to apply to no other and especially strange in a police commissioner election.
Also, deeply hypocritical on your part as you were quite happy to use the clerical child abuse scandal for the political gain of one of your favoured groups.
Incidentally, things have been so active politically recently there hasn't a Nighthawks for ages. Is it some kind of record.
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.
Mr Booth. FPTP is far harsher on, and more likely to destroy parties outside the big 2. PR far more helpful to them.
1. The idea that the Lib Dems are only surviving through tactical voting is nonsense. 2. The idea that PR would be more likely to destroy them is also nonsense (or codswallop, if re-using words is in poor style).
I feel this attitude of Conservatives to both AV and the UKIP debate is shown very clearly. At the time of the AV referendum, I supposed Tories advocating for FPTP felt that its encouragement for tactical votes over genuine preferences was a necessary evil for a system which had other merits (simplicity, strong majorities etc). But with their arguments against UKIP they believe that dishonesty in FPTP is a feature, not a flaw. They actively want a system that encourages tactical votes for the big two so they can the more working class demographic that prefers UKIP to get in line. It shows how they never lost their pre-WW2 belief in hierarchical society, where people should get in line behind their elites.
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.
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'.
They don't like it when you put it quite like that......
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. 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. ........ Cameron a noted liar and slippery eel, will simply lie, lie and lie again to keep us in...... No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
Q: Has Cameron disowned ALL his party's 2010 Manifesto? Ans: No. Some parts he has had to drop mainly to do a coalition with the LDs. Most of the maifesto is being implemented. Q: Has Farage disowned ALL his party's 2010 Manifesto? Ans: Yes.
Now if MikeK you judge Cameron as a liar, then presumably you rate Farage's scale of lying as much much worse. Yet you wish to stick with Farage. Go figure?
Labour 315 Conservative 277 Lib Dem 26 Ukip 4 SNP 8 Plaid 2
As 'A week is a long time in politics' are you calling May 2015? Or are you just dragging your knuckles along the ground in an attempt to get some attention...?
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.
By 'exploiting for political gain' you mean mentioning the issue at all.
Strange attitude to take to a crime that seems to apply to no other and especially strange in a police commissioner election.
Also, deeply hypocritical on your part as you were quite happy to use the clerical child abuse scandal for the political gain of one of your favoured groups.
Incidentally, things have been so active politically recently there hasn't a Nighthawks for ages. Is it some kind of record.
Always wrong Ninoinoz
Tom said Farage should stop adding to the distress of local families. “I find it abhorrent that Ukip are trying to make political gains from this and use it as a tool. It is not what my family wants.
“Ukip have rarely mentioned child abuse before they came here. It is obvious why they are mentioning it now. It’s for the game
No hypocrisy on my part, as I said about the Catholic abuse scandals, there was a desire to protect the group/organisation rather than protect the victims and prosecute those doing the abuse, the same applies to the grooming gangs.
Also can you link me to Maria Miller's 2012 conference speech which you said the subject was about gay marriage. So we can all judge for ourselves.
I'm out so for the rest of the afternoon, so if I don't reply, I'm not ignoring you.
PS - To any traitorous pig dogs thinking of defecting to UKIP, can you hang fire till 8pm ta.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
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.
Outcome: Spending 525, taxes 405, deficit 120
That's a pretty clear difference.
Like most people who actually have to work hard for a living, I went by the newspaper headlines the next day.
I love the predictions of labour posters who act as if the Scottish referendum never happened and the massive Lab-SNP swing in the most recent poll was a fiction.
Utter denial. Utter refusal to see the truth.
Come 2015 they'll all come back to you right??? yeh right....
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?
U
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".
A vote to withdraw will be a vote to withdraw - even as someone likely to vote yes I would accept the outcome; any attempt to renegotiate the failed renegotiations would be a travesty. It won't happen. And, as well you know, none of the other EU referendums were about a country withdrawal.
By the way, your 'package' arrived safely a couple of weeks back. It may feature as the prime celebration of Dave's victory sometime during the early hours of May 8th 2015. And I'll be thinking fondly of you.
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.
The Greens haven't yet managed standing candidates in more than half of the seats at a GE.
They're not going to have anything close to the same base, let alone larger.
Looking forward and with the electorate's dislike of politicians, I would not be surprised if the Greens grew in the UK to be as strong as they are in say Germany.
- 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)
Ultimately Charles all that amounts to is that the magic money tree gets another shaking whenever this government wants to buy votes or whenever a political problem arises or whenever one of Cameron's pet projects needs to be funded.
Now all political parties are pretty much the same in that regard.
But I am someone for whom 'rebalancing the economy' and 'living within your means' are actually worthwhile ideas.
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:
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.
It was a matter decided by each region iirc, and many were against standing them at all. A view that was rather reinforced by the elections themselves.
Having googled around, it's a didn't rather than couldn't.
"The Liberal Democrats have followed up their pledge to scrap police and crime commissioners (PCCs) with a decision not to put up a candidate for the vacant South Yorkshire post."
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.
But just where would you vote UKIP tactically to keep Labour out? Thats a bit of a fantasy. Where does UKIP threaten Labour?
anotherDave, UKIP will outspend the LDs at GE2015.
I doubt that. But I don't much care.
UKIP have their target seats. They have plenty of money to run good campaigns in those seats. They seem to know what they're doing, and plenty of voters seem to like them.
That's all that matters. Don't dwell on what the LDs are/are not doing.
I feel this attitude of Conservatives to both AV and the UKIP debate is shown very clearly. At the time of the AV referendum, I supposed Tories advocating for FPTP felt that its encouragement for tactical votes over genuine preferences was a necessary evil for a system which had other merits (simplicity, strong majorities etc). But with their arguments against UKIP they believe that dishonesty in FPTP is a feature, not a flaw. They actively want a system that encourages tactical votes for the big two so they can the more working class demographic that prefers UKIP to get in line. It shows how they never lost their pre-WW2 belief in hierarchical society, where people should get in line behind their elites.
Bit of an inferiority complex here or a bit of family history?
One of the interesting but not remarked on findings in the various Lord Ashcroft marginal polls is that when asked specifically about their own constituency Lib Dem support goes up not just in the Lib Dem held seats and marginals but also in the Con/Lab marginals . In Bedford for example it increased from 9% to 14% and in Bolton West for example from 6% to 8% .
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.
Mr Booth. FPTP is far harsher on, and more likely to destroy parties outside the big 2. PR far more helpful to them.
1. The idea that the Lib Dems are only surviving through tactical voting is nonsense. 2. The idea that PR would be more likely to destroy them is also nonsense (or codswallop, if re-using words is in poor style).
PR MAY destroy them. Under FPTP they are too well dug in. But PR can destroy any party. That's what's so good about it. Under the current system it is hard to imagine that in 100 years time we'd have anything other than Labour/Tory dominance.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
I feel this attitude of Conservatives to both AV and the UKIP debate is shown very clearly. At the time of the AV referendum, I supposed Tories advocating for FPTP felt that its encouragement for tactical votes over genuine preferences was a necessary evil for a system which had other merits (simplicity, strong majorities etc). But with their arguments against UKIP they believe that dishonesty in FPTP is a feature, not a flaw. They actively want a system that encourages tactical votes for the big two so they can the more working class demographic that prefers UKIP to get in line. It shows how they never lost their pre-WW2 belief in hierarchical society, where people should get in line behind their elites.
Bit of an inferiority complex here or a bit of family history?
You always know someone is on weak grounds when they substitute personal insults for argument. It's very sad that you think people can only support egalitarianism and popular sovereignty because of an "inferiority complex" or "family history".
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.
The Greens haven't yet managed standing candidates in more than half of the seats at a GE.
They're not going to have anything close to the same base, let alone larger.
Looking forward and with the electorate's dislike of politicians, I would not be surprised if the Greens grew in the UK to be as strong as they are in say Germany.
It's possible, but a long way off and I wouldn't rate it as likely. They've a long way to go.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
Yeah. The Liberal Democrats. You really wanted Cameron to go for a Referendum Bill when he has no majority and the other parties would vote it down? Again, a bizarre failure to acknowledge that the world is round not flat....
One of the interesting but not remarked on findings in the various Lord Ashcroft marginal polls is that when asked specifically about their own constituency Lib Dem support goes up not just in the Lib Dem held seats and marginals but also in the Con/Lab marginals . In Bedford for example it increased from 9% to 14% and in Bolton West for example from 6% to 8% .
Perhaps because people then think about their own local candidate rather than toxic Clegg. It almost amuses me that you are so happy to be lead by such political excrement.
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.
Mr Booth. FPTP is far harsher on, and more likely to destroy parties outside the big 2. PR far more helpful to them.
1. The idea that the Lib Dems are only surviving through tactical voting is nonsense. 2. The idea that PR would be more likely to destroy them is also nonsense (or codswallop, if re-using words is in poor style).
PR MAY destroy them. Under FPTP they are too well dug in. But PR can destroy any party. That's what's so good about it. Under the current system it is hard to imagine that in 100 years time we'd have anything other than Labour/Tory dominance.
That just isn't true.
FPTP is more likely to crush parties outside the dominant parties (usually 2) than PR. Go look at Duverger's law and the follow-ons from that.
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? ,,,,,,
How about starting from a position that goes back to the first objective of achieving a referendum. Then look at the 200 Labour seats where Cons have no chance and standing UKIP people to build the base. Add in a couple of LDs where the Cons or Lab have no chance and then 6 or so cast iron chances of a UKIP MP winning whoever the opposition is.
We then get a Parliament with circa 330 Cons, 260 lab, 20 LDs and 5 UKIP etc. At the referendum 75% of the Con MPs are BOO aligned with UKIP, 25% (inc Cameron) go with Lab, LD etc.
I accept Hannon's judgement that the renegotiation would not achieve much but I would add that leaving without saying why is bad practice. If in the referendum BOO wins then we are out. If referendum lost we stay in, but Cameron and the europhile group days are numbered, they either join the LDs or face extinction inside the Conservatives. All within 3 years.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
er.
Cobblers! When was PR for General Elections introduced? We had a referendum on AV, which isn’t the same thing at all.
One of the interesting but not remarked on findings in the various Lord Ashcroft marginal polls is that when asked specifically about their own constituency Lib Dem support goes up not just in the Lib Dem held seats and marginals but also in the Con/Lab marginals . In Bedford for example it increased from 9% to 14% and in Bolton West for example from 6% to 8% .
Perhaps because people then think about their own local candidate rather than toxic Clegg. It almost amuses me that you are so happy to be lead by such political excrement.
Unfair, more people are happy having a drink with Clegg than Miliband.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
UKIP could say anything they wanted through this parliament, as they had zero power to do anything. Words are easy, as their 2010 manifesto showed.
Cameron's delivered an independence referendum and an electoral reform referendum, neither of which he wanted. The track record indicates he'd give an EU referendum.
What the BOOers need to be doing is preparing for any referendum: learn the lessons from the Scottish Indy referendum and get a decent proposal for the public. Unfortunately for them, this involves more effort than simply complaining.
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.
The Conservatives are supposed to represent, amongst others, the financial interest in this country. The largest annuity industry in the world deserved a Green Paper at least, not to be crippled in an afternoon.
Similarly, changing a several thousand year institution deserved at least a mention in the manifesto or Coalition Agreement.
And demographics is a slow, but relentless, process you must remember.
How about starting from a position that goes back to the first objective of achieving a referendum. Then look at the 200 Labour seats where Cons have no chance and standing UKIP people to build the base. Add in a couple of LDs where the Cons or Lab have no chance and then 6 or so cast iron chances of a UKIP MP winning whoever the opposition is.
Why don't you list these 200 and a couple seats where (a) the Conservatives have no chance of winning and (b) UKIP do? There aren't any. This tactic would inevitably mean the same thing as UKIP not standing. It would mean the collapse of the party for a generation when they are on the cusp of achieving parliamentary power. And again, this is (1) for the off-chance that the Tories manage not to lose the election anyway, (2) ignoring what these choices mean for a referendum in the parliament after next (3) ignoring the impact UKIP would have on winning that referendum, and (4) assuming that UKIP's only policy is leaving the EU.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
"the Coalition Agreement (p. 27) specifically tied boundary changes not to an elected Lords but to the AV referendum."
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:
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.
It was a matter decided by each region iirc, and many were against standing them at all. A view that was rather reinforced by the elections themselves.
Having googled around, it's a didn't rather than couldn't.
"The Liberal Democrats have followed up their pledge to scrap police and crime commissioners (PCCs) with a decision not to put up a candidate for the vacant South Yorkshire post."
I'm sure that had nothing to do with the cost of fighting the election, or the £5k deposit, for that matter.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
Yeah. The Liberal Democrats. You really wanted Cameron to go for a Referendum Bill when he has no majority and the other parties would vote it down? Again, a bizarre failure to acknowledge that the world is round not flat....
The Lib Dems had an in-out vote in their manifesto. It could have got through with most of their votes and enough Labour dissenters. Stop trying to pass the buck.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
UKIP could say anything they wanted through this parliament, as they had zero power to do anything. Words are easy, as their 2010 manifesto showed.
Cameron's delivered an independence referendum and an electoral reform referendum, neither of which he wanted. The track record indicates he'd give an EU referendum.
What the BOOers need to be doing is preparing for any referendum: learn the lessons from the Scottish Indy referendum and get a decent proposal for the public. Unfortunately for them, this involves more effort than simply complaining.
The lesson from the Scottish IndyRef seems to be get into Government and control at least some of the levers of power.
Dragging the Conservatives to Euroscepticism or Ukip into Government is the way to go.
The over-riding requirement for 2010-2015 was to prevent Labour getting anywhere near the economy. Frankly, nothing much else has mattered in this period, other than stopping Labour from scattering yet more salt onto the fields.
People can bitch and moan about how little the deficit has been cut or public spending reined in. But the admiration of Hollande's France by Labour and the continual wrong calls made by Ed Balls and Ed Miliband on the UK economy give an inkling of just how far up Shit Creek the UK would currently be.
Labour 315 Conservative 277 Lib Dem 26 Ukip 4 SNP 8 Plaid 2
If you are using Baxter (which is hokum) than would mean Labour and Tories pretty much tied at 34/35%. I do not belive Labour and Tories tying would give Labour a 38 seat lead.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
I always thought that the deal was AV referendum = boundary changes. If it was AV Referendum and Lord Reform = boundary changes, then it shows that the Tories negotiated very badly in the first place.
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.
Yes I agree that the SNP in Dundee West are outstanding value. One other concern for Labour is how much of their organisation was imported (mainly from Glasgow somewhat ironically) to support their No campaign. The once mighty Labour machine in Dundee has really fallen apart. And their resources are going to be seriously stretched next time around.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
Yeah. The Liberal Democrats. You really wanted Cameron to go for a Referendum Bill when he has no majority and the other parties would vote it down? Again, a bizarre failure to acknowledge that the world is round not flat....
The Lib Dems had an in-out vote in their manifesto. It could have got through with most of their votes and enough Labour dissenters. Stop trying to pass the buck.
Bullshit. Clegg was utterly determined to have no referendum vote. As you well know.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
er.
Cobblers! When was PR for General Elections introduced? We had a referendum on AV, which isn’t the same thing at all.
Just one example!
Are you a Lib Dem? And are you still calling for PR? I suppose the Lib Dems might break even in terms of share of votes/seats at the next election.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
UKIP could say anything they wanted through this parliament, as they had zero power to do anything. Words are easy, as their 2010 manifesto showed.
Cameron's delivered an independence referendum and an electoral reform referendum, neither of which he wanted. The track record indicates he'd give an EU referendum.
What the BOOers need to be doing is preparing for any referendum: learn the lessons from the Scottish Indy referendum and get a decent proposal for the public. Unfortunately for them, this involves more effort than simply complaining.
The lesson from the Scottish IndyRef seems to be get into Government and control at least some of the levers of power.
Dragging the Conservatives to Euroscepticism or Ukip into Government is the way to go.
No.
You need to convince the public that you have a credible and workable vision for a UK outside the EU. If you can do that, people will favour anti-EU parties.
Moving parties without moving the public will reduce vote shares for those parties.
One of the interesting but not remarked on findings in the various Lord Ashcroft marginal polls is that when asked specifically about their own constituency Lib Dem support goes up not just in the Lib Dem held seats and marginals but also in the Con/Lab marginals . In Bedford for example it increased from 9% to 14% and in Bolton West for example from 6% to 8% .
Perhaps because people then think about their own local candidate rather than toxic Clegg. It almost amuses me that you are so happy to be lead by such political excrement.
In LD held seats, perhaps. But in Lab/Con marginals?
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.
What happens when the next recession arrives ?
If Labour are in power, import three million third world immigrants to ensure they get reelected.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
Its easy for UKIP to support a referendum in this parliament because there is not a majority in it for one. In any event a referendum to blindly leave the EU is silly, where then would we be? Oh yes OUT. But the EU would still be there - how then would we relate to it? Pure guesswork and wishfull thinking... We will however need to renegotiate because the Eurozone part of the EU is going to grow closer together. We need to know just what our position might be. If you do not like what is on offer you can vote in 2017. It may well be that despite the negotiations the emerging Euro-EU is not for us (how can we tell?). That might make many of us vote to leave. But don't be fooled into thinking that leaving will not be fraught with dangers for our economy.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
Crikey, not that old chestnut again. Please, Mr. Corporeal, Mr. Clegg said that there was absolutely no link between HoL reform and boundary reform. He said several times including as I recall in Parliament. It was only latter, when he was behaving like a spoiled two year old, that he decided there was a link after all.
Furthermore, Clegg introduced the bill that lead to the change in boundaries, he was eloquent about the need for that bill and he voted for it. For him to then turn round and vote down the outcome of what he said was necessary and good, may have led those of a less charitable mind to the conclusion that the man is a total berk, as well as being untrustworthy.
I am surprised that as a Lib Dem supporter you wish to bring the whole sorry episode to peoples' minds.
@oxfordsimon - FPT you mentioned having both your ankles broken... IIRC that's where the expression "to be hobbled" comes from. Like being "hamstrung" is to have those tendons sliced.
Gruesome medieval stuff that's never quite died out.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
UKIP could say anything they wanted through this parliament, as they had zero power to do anything. Words are easy, as their 2010 manifesto showed.
Cameron's delivered an independence referendum and an electoral reform referendum, neither of which he wanted. The track record indicates he'd give an EU referendum.
What the BOOers need to be doing is preparing for any referendum: learn the lessons from the Scottish Indy referendum and get a decent proposal for the public. Unfortunately for them, this involves more effort than simply complaining.
The lesson from the Scottish IndyRef seems to be get into Government and control at least some of the levers of power.
Dragging the Conservatives to Euroscepticism or Ukip into Government is the way to go.
No.
You need to convince the public that you have a credible and workable vision for a UK outside the EU. If you can do that, people will favour anti-EU parties.
Moving parties without moving the public will reduce vote shares for those parties.
The public support returning to a "trade agreement and little more". We just need to convince the public that that is only possible outside the EU.
The "credible and workable vision" will not need much. People can see pretty clearly how familiar nations from Canada to Australia work, and we don't have fundamental issues like currency to work about. We will have (a) a free trading agreement with the EU, (b) controlled borders and a points system, (c) free trade agreements with other nations, (d) sovereignty of parliament, (e) an end to the CAP, reducing food prices and (f) more money to spend on the NHS. What's the difficulty?
I feel this attitude of Conservatives to both AV and the UKIP debate is shown very clearly. At the time of the AV referendum, I supposed Tories advocating for FPTP felt that its encouragement for tactical votes over genuine preferences was a necessary evil for a system which had other merits (simplicity, strong majorities etc). But with their arguments against UKIP they believe that dishonesty in FPTP is a feature, not a flaw. They actively want a system that encourages tactical votes for the big two so they can the more working class demographic that prefers UKIP to get in line. It shows how they never lost their pre-WW2 belief in hierarchical society, where people should get in line behind their elites.
Bit of an inferiority complex here or a bit of family history?
You always know someone is on weak grounds when they substitute personal insults for argument. It's very sad that you think people can only support egalitarianism and popular sovereignty because of an "inferiority complex" or "family history".
You got me totally wrong. I am very interested in people's motivation for voting a certain way and not considering any other option.
Some people vote according to a political party's track record but many others I have met vote for often two reasons - we have always voted for X and it would be disloyal to change our vote; or that a party's policies caused Y or Z to happen to my parents/grandparents and so I will never vote for them!
So many people vote for historical reasons which may be biased or based on imperfect recollections and are often quite vehement about perceived past injustices.
Politics and political policies has to be both practical and possible and be able to react to and reflect changes brought about by future and perhaps unforeseen events. This is now much more difficult as we are part of a fast-changing technical and global economy, instead of just focusing on a UK economy..
Some people vote for ideals which are likely never to be realised, whilst others vote for the short term financial gain or stability.
Personally, I do take account of a party's track record, including any destructive politics of envy, and usually vote for the party that gives all people the best possible chances of equality of opportunity rather equality of outcome - for most of us are responsible for our own outcomes, but some do not have equality of opportunity.
I can't help but feel that most of us don't admire politicians who whine/shout That's Not Fair - even if they've a fair axe to grind.
It just doesn't look strong or resilient. And that's essential if you want to be seen as a leader or a representative. Playing the victim may get you a few temporary sympathy votes - but that's more for X-Factor than Westminster.
It will be interesting to see how UKIP fares in Con-Lib marginals too and which they dislike more - Con or Lib. I'm not sure that "amplifying" the May-Clegg spat (if it is that specific spat, and not just a general "differentiation") will be entirely wise - as it involves repeating the original calumny/claim and sounding whiny in an area that motivates your supporters but may deter considerers......and UKIP voters.....
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.
I'm sorry this is - unusually for you Socrates - wildly factually incorrect.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
It you have a Silkwood shower afterwards? And a tetanus jab just to be sure?
Roger said:Yesterday I read a copy of the Daily Mail. It was cover to cover with the Tories returning to good old fashioned BRITISH values. Story after story of prejudice and bile with pictures of stern looking Tories holding the stage.
it occurred to me that rather like the the Scottish referendum the country splits down the middle. There are two basic choices. You either hold the values of the Mail or you find them as repulsive as I do and choose the means to make sure they don't prevail. The economy counts for nothing. You're one side of this divide or the other.
I think the Lib Dems are going to do much better than many think. The necessity to keep the Chris Graylings of this word in their boxes will be so overwhelming that progressives from all sides will raise from their slumbers and make sure they vote against them..
The over-riding requirement for 2010-2015 was to prevent Labour getting anywhere near the economy. Frankly, nothing much else has mattered in this period, other than stopping Labour from scattering yet more salt onto the fields.
People can bitch and moan about how little the deficit has been cut or public spending reined in. But the admiration of Hollande's France by Labour and the continual wrong calls made by Ed Balls and Ed Miliband on the UK economy give an inkling of just how far up Shit Creek the UK would currently be.
This is the coalition that hasn't cut the deficit by any more than Labour planned. And you need to stop going on about France. The left is generally much more interested in countries like Germany and the Scandanavians. Francaphobia isn't a uniquely Conservative trait you know. As for Hollande, whatever his failings he came to power in 2012 promising to challenge Merkel's stupid austerity fetish. Sadly his hands have been tied by his conservative friends in Berlin.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
Crikey, not that old chestnut again. Please, Mr. Corporeal, Mr. Clegg said that there was absolutely no link between HoL reform and boundary reform. He said several times including as I recall in Parliament. It was only latter, when he was behaving like a spoiled two year old, that he decided there was a link after all.
Furthermore, Clegg introduced the bill that lead to the change in boundaries, he was eloquent about the need for that bill and he voted for it. For him to then turn round and vote down the outcome of what he said was necessary and good, may have led those of a less charitable mind to the conclusion that the man is a total berk, as well as being untrustworthy.
I am surprised that as a Lib Dem supporter you wish to bring the whole sorry episode to peoples' minds.
Wasn´t a reduction in the HoC in the LD Manifesto in 2010? Quietly binned after the event no doubt.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
Its easy for UKIP to support a referendum in this parliament because there is not a majority in it for one. In any event a referendum to blindly leave the EU is silly, where then would we be? Oh yes OUT. But the EU would still be there - how then would we relate to it? Pure guesswork and wishfull thinking... We will however need to renegotiate because the Eurozone part of the EU is going to grow closer together. We need to know just what our position might be. If you do not like what is on offer you can vote in 2017. It may well be that despite the negotiations the emerging Euro-EU is not for us (how can we tell?). That might make many of us vote to leave. But don't be fooled into thinking that leaving will not be fraught with dangers for our economy.
Mr. Path, the relationship between the UK and the EU in the event of the UK deciding to part company cannot be known before the decision to leave is made.
The process to be followed in the event of a member state withdrawing is set down in the Lisbon treaty. It clearly states that once a state has invoked Article 50 then there will be a period of negotiation lasting up to two years. So negotiations will happen after the decision to leave is made.
No! UKIP the only party that will guarantee to fight honestly to leave the EU.
This is what I find fascinating. I presume that UKIP will allow the people a choice via a referendum? Or will they just vote it through Westminster if they got 330 MPs?
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
UKIP have been quite clear on supporting a referendum. And in fact, UKIP have supported a referendum throughout this parliament, while the Tories only support one after an election they are expected to lose. It's pretty clear which party is restricting the input of the public.
The Tories would not have a majority in the current HoP for a EU Referendum. You should not promise that which it is impossible to deliver.
I've been comfortable with the coalition. I suspect most non-tribal voters have.
Understandably, staunch Labour voters have despised it, bitter at supposed left-leaning MPs propping up the Tories. But the most anger has come from those 2010 Lib Dem 'supporters' who became aghast at finding themselves 'supporting' a party in power.
I imagine this batch of voters are made up if the anti-everything brigade and those furious at Labour over the Iraq War. They are happier in permanent opposition, hating everything and blaming establishment conspiracies for everything.
Will these voters all vote Labour if they think Labour will win?
it must be hard for polling companies to read the minds of this group.
I too am generally content with the Coalitions record. Somethings could have been better, but it could easily have been a lot worse. Imagine having had 5 more years of Gordon...
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.
I'm sorry this is - unusually for you Socrates - wildly factually incorrect.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
(You are broadly right re bond yields, though)
1. They have sold northern European bonds and bought southern European bonds. The net effect of this does not matter so much as the last bit.
2. I'm not sure what point you're contradicting of mine here?
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.
By 'exploiting for political gain' you mean mentioning the issue at all.
Strange attitude to take to a crime that seems to apply to no other and especially strange in a police commissioner election.
Also, deeply hypocritical on your part as you were quite happy to use the clerical child abuse scandal for the political gain of one of your favoured groups.
Incidentally, things have been so active politically recently there hasn't a Nighthawks for ages. Is it some kind of record.
Always wrong Ninoinoz
Tom said Farage should stop adding to the distress of local families. “I find it abhorrent that Ukip are trying to make political gains from this and use it as a tool. It is not what my family wants.
“Ukip have rarely mentioned child abuse before they came here. It is obvious why they are mentioning it now. It’s for the game.
The reason Ukip are now mentioning it is because it has now become a major political issue, one not being grasped by the 'big three', perhaps because they're up to their necks in it.
For Labour to wheel out a father of an abused child for political gain is the truly abhorrent thing.
FrankBooth Germany has lower tax than France, Sweden until recently had a centre-right government and now has a far right party holding the balance of power, Finland still has a centre-right government
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".
EXACTLY! Cammo would go cap in hand to the EU bosses and on bended knees, tell them that there would be a quick new referendum that would give them the result they, and him, want.
#JohnO knows this in his heart but doesn't care. In all his protestations about UKIP's stance is his knowledge that with Cammo the EU vote is safe.
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.
But just where would you vote UKIP tactically to keep Labour out? Thats a bit of a fantasy. Where does UKIP threaten Labour?
The Fabian Society has provided a handy list of seats.
Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, South Shields, Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley are examples of seats where UKIP has a better chance than the Tories.
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 SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country. Labour merely damage it, sometimes severely, sometimes in trivial ways. I would of course prefer a Tory but barring a zombie apocalypse of epic proportions that would look a tad unlikely.
If Labour were safe, as they were in 2010, I would vote for what I believe in but I am between Scylla and Charybdis here.
"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."
I don't think it's a distain for un-posh people but rather for people who Harry Enfield used to take off so well. The little Englanders. The Bigots the ones who think in terms of English values as though they are inherently superior to those of anywhere else. Thatcher was the best (or worst) example
I've been comfortable with the coalition. I suspect most non-tribal voters have.
Understandably, staunch Labour voters have despised it, bitter at supposed left-leaning MPs propping up the Tories. But the most anger has come from those 2010 Lib Dem 'supporters' who became aghast at finding themselves 'supporting' a party in power.
I imagine this batch of voters are made up if the anti-everything brigade and those furious at Labour over the Iraq War. They are happier in permanent opposition, hating everything and blaming establishment conspiracies for everything.
Will these voters all vote Labour if they think Labour will win?
it must be hard for polling companies to read the minds of this group.
I too am generally content with the Coalitions record. Somethings could have been better, but it could easily have been a lot worse. Imagine having had 5 more years of Gordon...
Dave and Ed are both metropolitan Europhiles, so what's the difference?
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.
I'm sorry this is - unusually for you Socrates - wildly factually incorrect.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
(You are broadly right re bond yields, though)
1. They have sold northern European bonds and bought southern European bonds. The net effect of this does not matter so much as the last bit.
A qualitative decline rather than quantitative rise, in other words.
FrankBooth Germany has lower tax than France, Sweden until recently had a centre-right government and now has a far right party holding the balance of power, Finland still has a centre-right government
So what? They are the sort of societies many on the left in this country admire and they aren't likely to change that much soon. Anglo American capitalism as epitomised by the likes of Mitt Romney and George Osborne has little appeal there.
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 SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country. Labour merely damage it, sometimes severely, sometimes in trivial ways. I would of course prefer a Tory but barring a zombie apocalypse of epic proportions that would look a tad unlikely.
If Labour were safe, as they were in 2010, I would vote for what I believe in but I am between Scylla and Charybdis here.
Wouldn't voting SNP increase the chances of Dave staying in Downing Street?
(After lots of questions on all the policies outlined at the Tory conference.)
If the Conservatives win the next election do you think that you personally will be better or worse off in five years time?
Ukip voters: 13% Better off 50% Worse off
Net -37%
And if Labour win the next election do you think that you personally will be better or worse off in five years time?
Ukip voters: 4% Better off 66% Worse off
Net -62%
I think policy promises will make little difference to a significant rump of Ukip voters - it's a negative emotional response to most politicians and modernity.
- 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)
Ultimately Charles all that amounts to is that the magic money tree gets another shaking whenever this government wants to buy votes or whenever a political problem arises or whenever one of Cameron's pet projects needs to be funded.
Now all political parties are pretty much the same in that regard.
But I am someone for whom 'rebalancing the economy' and 'living within your means' are actually worthwhile ideas.
Its not a magic money tree. If the structural deficit is eliminated then some of the then surplus is not 'magic'. The purpose of cutting expenditure is in actual fact to make room for tax cuts which are in turn beneficial to the economy and help it sustain public spending in future on a sound basis.
FB It is Merkel who has been pushing austerity on the rest of the EU, she has cut spending far more than both George Bushes ever did. Even Jeb Bush admires Sweden's free school programme, a model for Michael Gove, Finland selects at 16. Hollande has imposed a 75% tax on companies paying employees more than a million euros
Nothing new there - only fools would put their lifestyle in the hands of an ex-KGB power-hungry man.
The article does ignore the facts that the Saudis have dropped the price of oil to increase sales and also that the USA could become a net exporter of oil and gas.
The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.
I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.
When did he tell you this?
Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.
I always thought that the deal was AV referendum = boundary changes. If it was AV Referendum and Lord Reform = boundary changes, then it shows that the Tories negotiated very badly in the first place.
The Lib Dems threw a wobbly because they thought that the referendum was a mere formality, and that the Tories wouldn't fight it very hard. Whether this was based on naivety or a private understanding between Clegg and Cameron, it basically meant that they were looking for an excuse to get one back.
With Lords Reform the commitment in the Coalition Agreement was very weak. It was, I think, simply to bring forward proposals, and when Tory backbenchers indicated that they were not going to meekly allow Clegg to push through any old bollocks that he fancied, it provided a fig leaf for the Lib Dems to pursue their revenge for the AV referendum.
It's all pretty childish, but the root cause was that Clegg completely failed to win the public debate on the AV referendum and he's got nobody to blame for that but himself.
In the grand scheme of things the boundary changes really weren't that important. I think they would have been worth something like 10 seats for Cameron? Small beer really.
I've been comfortable with the coalition. I suspect most non-tribal voters have.
Understandably, staunch Labour voters have despised it, bitter at supposed left-leaning MPs propping up the Tories. But the most anger has come from those 2010 Lib Dem 'supporters' who became aghast at finding themselves 'supporting' a party in power.
I imagine this batch of voters are made up if the anti-everything brigade and those furious at Labour over the Iraq War. They are happier in permanent opposition, hating everything and blaming establishment conspiracies for everything.
Will these voters all vote Labour if they think Labour will win?
it must be hard for polling companies to read the minds of this group.
I too am generally content with the Coalitions record. Somethings could have been better, but it could easily have been a lot worse. Imagine having had 5 more years of Gordon...
Dave and Ed are both metropolitan Europhiles, so what's the difference?
I've been comfortable with the coalition. I suspect most non-tribal voters have.
Understandably, staunch Labour voters have despised it, bitter at supposed left-leaning MPs propping up the Tories. But the most anger has come from those 2010 Lib Dem 'supporters' who became aghast at finding themselves 'supporting' a party in power.
I imagine this batch of voters are made up if the anti-everything brigade and those furious at Labour over the Iraq War. They are happier in permanent opposition, hating everything and blaming establishment conspiracies for everything.
Will these voters all vote Labour if they think Labour will win?
it must be hard for polling companies to read the minds of this group.
I too am generally content with the Coalitions record. Somethings could have been better, but it could easily have been a lot worse. Imagine having had 5 more years of Gordon...
Dave and Ed are both metropolitan Europhiles, so what's the difference?
Charles - ''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 ''
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.
I'm sorry this is - unusually for you Socrates - wildly factually incorrect.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
(You are broadly right re bond yields, though)
1. They have sold northern European bonds and bought southern European bonds. The net effect of this does not matter so much as the last bit.
2. I'm not sure what point you're contradicting of mine here?
Not true, again.
The ECB has been a net seller of Irish, Italian, Greek and Spanish bonds.
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.
I'm sorry this is - unusually for you Socrates - wildly factually incorrect.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
(You are broadly right re bond yields, though)
1. They have sold northern European bonds and bought southern European bonds. The net effect of this does not matter so much as the last bit.
2. I'm not sure what point you're contradicting of mine here?
Not true, again.
The ECB has been a net seller of Irish, Italian, Greek and Spanish bonds.
Comments
Strange attitude to take to a crime that seems to apply to no other and especially strange in a police commissioner election.
Also, deeply hypocritical on your part as you were quite happy to use the clerical child abuse scandal for the political gain of one of your favoured groups.
Incidentally, things have been so active politically recently there hasn't a Nighthawks for ages. Is it some kind of record.
1. The idea that the Lib Dems are only surviving through tactical voting is nonsense.
2. The idea that PR would be more likely to destroy them is also nonsense (or codswallop, if re-using words is in poor style).
I feel this attitude of Conservatives to both AV and the UKIP debate is shown very clearly. At the time of the AV referendum, I supposed Tories advocating for FPTP felt that its encouragement for tactical votes over genuine preferences was a necessary evil for a system which had other merits (simplicity, strong majorities etc). But with their arguments against UKIP they believe that dishonesty in FPTP is a feature, not a flaw. They actively want a system that encourages tactical votes for the big two so they can the more working class demographic that prefers UKIP to get in line. It shows how they never lost their pre-WW2 belief in hierarchical society, where people should get in line behind their elites.
The Greens haven't yet managed standing candidates in more than half of the seats at a GE.
They're not going to have anything close to the same base, let alone larger.
Q: Has Farage disowned ALL his party's 2010 Manifesto? Ans: Yes.
Now if MikeK you judge Cameron as a liar, then presumably you rate Farage's scale of lying as much much worse. Yet you wish to stick with Farage. Go figure?
Tom said Farage should stop adding to the distress of local families. “I find it abhorrent that Ukip are trying to make political gains from this and use it as a tool. It is not what my family wants.
“Ukip have rarely mentioned child abuse before they came here. It is obvious why they are mentioning it now. It’s for the game
No hypocrisy on my part, as I said about the Catholic abuse scandals, there was a desire to protect the group/organisation rather than protect the victims and prosecute those doing the abuse, the same applies to the grooming gangs.
Also can you link me to Maria Miller's 2012 conference speech which you said the subject was about gay marriage. So we can all judge for ourselves.
I'm out so for the rest of the afternoon, so if I don't reply, I'm not ignoring you.
PS - To any traitorous pig dogs thinking of defecting to UKIP, can you hang fire till 8pm ta.
Assuming a referendum, the Conservatives are the party offering this referendum. But no. Because "it will be rigged for staying in". Whereas UKIP want what - a referndum rigged for leaving?
I find UKIP's lack of faith in the British people to decide what is best for Britain on matters European to be deeply troubling. UKIP knows best. No, it doesn't actually.
As 'Mr. Soundbite' Cameron would appreciate.
I love the predictions of labour posters who act as if the Scottish referendum never happened and the massive Lab-SNP swing in the most recent poll was a fiction.
Utter denial. Utter refusal to see the truth.
Come 2015 they'll all come back to you right??? yeh right....
Now all political parties are pretty much the same in that regard.
But I am someone for whom 'rebalancing the economy' and 'living within your means' are actually worthwhile ideas.
Having googled around, it's a didn't rather than couldn't.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2779842/No-Lib-Dem-candidate-PCC-post.html
"The Liberal Democrats have followed up their pledge to scrap police and crime commissioners (PCCs) with a decision not to put up a candidate for the vacant South Yorkshire post."
UKIP have their target seats. They have plenty of money to run good campaigns in those seats. They seem to know what they're doing, and plenty of voters seem to like them.
That's all that matters. Don't dwell on what the LDs are/are not doing.
In Bedford for example it increased from 9% to 14% and in Bolton West for example from 6% to 8% .
Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.
What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.
FPTP is more likely to crush parties outside the dominant parties (usually 2) than PR. Go look at Duverger's law and the follow-ons from that.
We then get a Parliament with circa 330 Cons, 260 lab, 20 LDs and 5 UKIP etc. At the referendum 75% of the Con MPs are BOO aligned with UKIP, 25% (inc Cameron) go with Lab, LD etc.
I accept Hannon's judgement that the renegotiation would not achieve much but I would add that leaving without saying why is bad practice. If in the referendum BOO wins then we are out. If referendum lost we stay in, but Cameron and the europhile group days are numbered, they either join the LDs or face extinction inside the Conservatives. All within 3 years.
Just one example!
Cameron's delivered an independence referendum and an electoral reform referendum, neither of which he wanted. The track record indicates he'd give an EU referendum.
What the BOOers need to be doing is preparing for any referendum: learn the lessons from the Scottish Indy referendum and get a decent proposal for the public. Unfortunately for them, this involves more effort than simply complaining.
Similarly, changing a several thousand year institution deserved at least a mention in the manifesto or Coalition Agreement.
And demographics is a slow, but relentless, process you must remember.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jessenorman/100258267/the-masters-of-truthiness-are-spreading-ignorance-about-lords-reform/
Dragging the Conservatives to Euroscepticism or Ukip into Government is the way to go.
People can bitch and moan about how little the deficit has been cut or public spending reined in. But the admiration of Hollande's France by Labour and the continual wrong calls made by Ed Balls and Ed Miliband on the UK economy give an inkling of just how far up Shit Creek the UK would currently be.
You need to convince the public that you have a credible and workable vision for a UK outside the EU. If you can do that, people will favour anti-EU parties.
Moving parties without moving the public will reduce vote shares for those parties.
In any event a referendum to blindly leave the EU is silly, where then would we be? Oh yes OUT. But the EU would still be there - how then would we relate to it? Pure guesswork and wishfull thinking...
We will however need to renegotiate because the Eurozone part of the EU is going to grow closer together. We need to know just what our position might be. If you do not like what is on offer you can vote in 2017. It may well be that despite the negotiations the emerging Euro-EU is not for us (how can we tell?). That might make many of us vote to leave. But don't be fooled into thinking that leaving will not be fraught with dangers for our economy.
Deputy prime minister's victory means party will stand by its current policy, to hold a referendum only if UK loses sovereignty
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/01/clegg-lib-dems-no-in-out-referendum-eu
Furthermore, Clegg introduced the bill that lead to the change in boundaries, he was eloquent about the need for that bill and he voted for it. For him to then turn round and vote down the outcome of what he said was necessary and good, may have led those of a less charitable mind to the conclusion that the man is a total berk, as well as being untrustworthy.
I am surprised that as a Lib Dem supporter you wish to bring the whole sorry episode to peoples' minds.
Gruesome medieval stuff that's never quite died out.
The "credible and workable vision" will not need much. People can see pretty clearly how familiar nations from Canada to Australia work, and we don't have fundamental issues like currency to work about. We will have (a) a free trading agreement with the EU, (b) controlled borders and a points system, (c) free trade agreements with other nations, (d) sovereignty of parliament, (e) an end to the CAP, reducing food prices and (f) more money to spend on the NHS. What's the difficulty?
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Wider-Lib-Dem-battleground-September-2014.pdf
Some people vote according to a political party's track record but many others I have met vote for often two reasons - we have always voted for X and it would be disloyal to change our vote; or that a party's policies caused Y or Z to happen to my parents/grandparents and so I will never vote for them!
So many people vote for historical reasons which may be biased or based on imperfect recollections and are often quite vehement about perceived past injustices.
Politics and political policies has to be both practical and possible and be able to react to and reflect changes brought about by future and perhaps unforeseen events. This is now much more difficult as we are part of a fast-changing technical and global economy, instead of just focusing on a UK economy..
Some people vote for ideals which are likely never to be realised, whilst others vote for the short term financial gain or stability.
Personally, I do take account of a party's track record, including any destructive politics of envy, and usually vote for the party that gives all people the best possible chances of equality of opportunity rather equality of outcome - for most of us are responsible for our own outcomes, but some do not have equality of opportunity.
It just doesn't look strong or resilient. And that's essential if you want to be seen as a leader or a representative. Playing the victim may get you a few temporary sympathy votes - but that's more for X-Factor than Westminster.
1. The ECB is a net seller of European sovereign debt. (See: http://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/05/the-ecbs-balance-sheet-continues-to-contract/). This removal of money from the system is one of the key reasons why the Eurozone is suffering a sharp decline in inflation.
2. Government spending has been drastically cut across the Eurozone, which is one of the major reasons why the economies have performed so poorly. In France, government spending has gone from 61.1% of GDP (2007) to 56.1% (2012); in Italy from 55.3% to 48.8%; in Spain from 47.3% to 41.1%. The same is true of Greece and Portugal (although not Ireland).
(You are broadly right re bond yields, though)
Roger said:Yesterday I read a copy of the Daily Mail. It was cover to cover with the Tories returning to good old fashioned BRITISH values. Story after story of prejudice and bile with pictures of stern looking Tories holding the stage.
it occurred to me that rather like the the Scottish referendum the country splits down the middle. There are two basic choices. You either hold the values of the Mail or you find them as repulsive as I do and choose the means to make sure they don't prevail. The economy counts for nothing. You're one side of this divide or the other.
I think the Lib Dems are going to do much better than many think. The necessity to keep the Chris Graylings of this word in their boxes will be so overwhelming that progressives from all sides will raise from their slumbers and make sure they vote against them..
Wasn´t a reduction in the HoC in the LD Manifesto in 2010? Quietly binned after the event no doubt.
The process to be followed in the event of a member state withdrawing is set down in the Lisbon treaty. It clearly states that once a state has invoked Article 50 then there will be a period of negotiation lasting up to two years. So negotiations will happen after the decision to leave is made.
It's my psychological insurance to insulate me from a probable Labour maj!
2. I'm not sure what point you're contradicting of mine here?
For Labour to wheel out a father of an abused child for political gain is the truly abhorrent thing.
..
#JohnO knows this in his heart but doesn't care. In all his protestations about UKIP's stance is his knowledge that with Cammo the EU vote is safe.
Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, South Shields, Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley are examples of seats where UKIP has a better chance than the Tories.
If Labour were safe, as they were in 2010, I would vote for what I believe in but I am between Scylla and Charybdis here.
"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."
I don't think it's a distain for un-posh people but rather for people who Harry Enfield used to take off so well. The little Englanders. The Bigots the ones who think in terms of English values as though they are inherently superior to those of anywhere else. Thatcher was the best (or worst) example
- Big Oil
- Big Pharma
- Big Tobacco
- Big Six [pick your industry and imply a cartel]
"The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country. Labour merely damage it,"
Good line.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4741/eu-mess
(After lots of questions on all the policies outlined at the Tory conference.)
If the Conservatives win the next election do you think that you personally will be better or worse off in five years time?
Ukip voters:
13% Better off
50% Worse off
Net -37%
And if Labour win the next election do you think that you personally will be better or worse off in five years time?
Ukip voters:
4% Better off
66% Worse off
Net -62%
I think policy promises will make little difference to a significant rump of Ukip voters - it's a negative emotional response to most politicians and modernity.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ij56ls8h0l/TimesResults_141002_Cameron_policies_Website.pdf
[Does anyone here have any memories of Len Shackleton?]
The purpose of cutting expenditure is in actual fact to make room for tax cuts which are in turn beneficial to the economy and help it sustain public spending in future on a sound basis.
Lab 35.8% (-0.2)
Con 32.0% (+0.4)
UKIP 14.6% (-0.1)
LD 7.5% (+0.2)
Lab lead 3.8% (-0.6)
Classic cover from a very decent Saffah band:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2471d2EbjbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEle9gUlUpg
Where is anotherDave...?
E.t.A: Better quality vid...!
The article does ignore the facts that the Saudis have dropped the price of oil to increase sales and also that the USA could become a net exporter of oil and gas.
With Lords Reform the commitment in the Coalition Agreement was very weak. It was, I think, simply to bring forward proposals, and when Tory backbenchers indicated that they were not going to meekly allow Clegg to push through any old bollocks that he fancied, it provided a fig leaf for the Lib Dems to pursue their revenge for the AV referendum.
It's all pretty childish, but the root cause was that Clegg completely failed to win the public debate on the AV referendum and he's got nobody to blame for that but himself.
In the grand scheme of things the boundary changes really weren't that important. I think they would have been worth something like 10 seats for Cameron? Small beer really.
But that is happening already.
https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/qipp
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-nhs-more-efficient-and-less-bureaucratic
There is an ongoing programme to that effect. The NHS target was 20 billion is 4 years. Even labour promised this in their 2010 manifesto. The question for Labour is why if 20 billion could be saved, why was it spent in the first place.
The ECB has been a net seller of Irish, Italian, Greek and Spanish bonds.
In February 2013, the ECB had holdings of €209bn of PIIGS debt. (See http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2013/html/pr130221_1.en.html)
In February 2014 that had fallen to €175.5bn (See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/ecb-bonds-idUSL6N0LT19220140224). In May 2014, it was €167.5bn (See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/ecb-bonds-idUSZYN0O643520140512). The latest number is under €150bn.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9df77a68-4971-11e4-8d68-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3FAnQBVxG
So the fall in ECB bond holdings may not only be due to sales.