A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Thanks for the UKIP policy link. Well worth a read. Have they costed all these populist promises?
Abolishing HS2, the ministry of fun and climate change initiatives, reducing foreign aid to the mentioned stuff (I'd have like to have seen support for global female education in there but hey ho) and leaving the EU will save some cash.
There is alot of stuff I like in there though, must admit.
"House prices have dropped in London for the first time in more than three years and are set to fall further this year, according to estate agents in the capital."
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Thanks for the UKIP policy link. Well worth a read. Have they costed all these populist promises?
Abolishing HS2, the ministry of fun and climate change initiatives, reducing foreign aid to the mentioned stuff (I'd have like to have seen support for global female education in there but hey ho) and leaving the EU will save some cash.
There is alot of stuff I like in there though, must admit.
We need to be realistic that those are pretty small fry in the full scheme of things though. UKIP has a genuine weakness here. There's a good albeit dated chart here of where the money is:
Third... And in other news. I would like to report a fault to the site after catching up with yesterday's threads. My irony meter completely blew a major fuse when I came across this comment from @___Bobajob___ - "You really are sanctimonious. Give it a rest." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Haha!
Good thread. Interesting times ahead. This victory will propel UKIP further from the shadows into the limelight, with all that entails. No longer will they be just a fringe protest party, but be accountable in Parliament. When the media Westminster machine rolls on College Green, will it be Farage or their MP Carswell who speaks? When the froth subsides on Farage's breakfast pint the time for UKIP to be taken seriously will have arrived. And that's a two-edged sword.
Yawn.
so we now get 7 months of Tory sledging in the run up to the GE. Why don't they just get some decent policies ?
Hugely unimaginative, one term in office and Cameron has run out of ideas,
In the health sector, the workforce is heartily sick of politically-motivated change. Little wonder that so many are taking early retirement or moving abroad.
Meanwhile, Miliband proposes even more change and reorganisation.
"House prices have dropped in London for the first time in more than three years and are set to fall further this year, according to estate agents in the capital."
What will we talk about at dinner parties now?
Taking the chance to move up the ladder while it's cheaper to do so?
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Thanks for the UKIP policy link. Well worth a read. Have they costed all these populist promises?
Abolishing HS2, the ministry of fun and climate change initiatives, reducing foreign aid to the mentioned stuff (I'd have like to have seen support for global female education in there but hey ho) and leaving the EU will save some cash.
There is alot of stuff I like in there though, must admit.
"– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover."
Is this a genuine possibility, or something written on the back of Nigel's fag packet?
(genuine question- could it be done?)
"– Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers."
Why would you need to do that if you've already sorted out immigration?
Bring Me Sunshine - From LabourList, by Emma Burnell
"Labour do not currently talk like an insurgent opposition. We do not currently allow ourselves to offer hope – only to counsel that our despair will be less awful than the despair others may bring. Vote Labour because we’re not the Tories (and aren’t the Lib Dems awful) seems to be our most constant and consistent refrain. It will not be enough and it will not be heard – not from us.......
My challenge to the Labour Party is this: stop talking about David Cameron. Stop talking about Nick Clegg. Doing so is our reflexive comfort zone and it’s winning no voters. Instead we need a positive vision of what Labour is for. Who Labour is for and how we are going to deliver."
Asking when the two main parties are going to tell the truth. More of a concern IMHO is the article fails to mention our balance of payments situation. Running at something like -£3 billion a month, I think. As William Keegan wrote last week, "the principal macroeconomic problem facing the British economy is the size of its balance of payments deficit." We aren't making and doing enough stuff anymore.
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Thanks for the UKIP policy link. Well worth a read. Have they costed all these populist promises?
No idea. I am certainly wanting to see a lot more detail on their plans but there are at least revenue raising and cost cutting suggestions in there rather than it just being a straight spending splurge.
"So what have we learned from the party conferences this Autumn? Well originality is apparently not my strong point, and to that end I’ve come to the same conclusion as everybody else: that there are large swathes of the electorate who are disillusioned, angry, alienated from politics, and feeling ripped off and unrepresented. Unfortunately this conclusion, which is an axiom to most and an emerging point of discussion for the broadsheet press (particularly when it’s used as an explanation for the rise of UKIP), seems to have largely passed our political leaders by.
There was a palpable sense of a bullet dodged at Labour conference after the Scottish referendum, and inadequate interest in why nearly half of Scotland’s population decided they’d rather live in a foreign country than be tied to Westminster. Sure, the leaders called for change – but you got the sense that they were only calling for change because they thought that’s what you have to do to make sure things stay the same....
The sense of disillusionment goes way beyond the Labour Party, beyond even Westminster, and stretches to the entire establishment. One could even argue there is a global demand for people-focused societies, given the international social movements, with their demands for better public services and true democracy, which have emerged since the financial crisis of 2008. Labour always gets disproportionate flak at a time of distrust in politics, because it is expected to stand up for those who are distrusting; but it’s important to recognise the magnitude of the problem instead of pinning it all on the last 4 years of Labour policy. There need to be big answers to big questions......
But unless we have some idea of what we want that change to look like, we won’t get anywhere except for unnerving Clacton by-elections."
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
Bring Me Sunshine - From LabourList, by Emma Burnell
"Labour do not currently talk like an insurgent opposition. We do not currently allow ourselves to offer hope – only to counsel that our despair will be less awful than the despair others may bring. Vote Labour because we’re not the Tories (and aren’t the Lib Dems awful) seems to be our most constant and consistent refrain. It will not be enough and it will not be heard – not from us.......
My challenge to the Labour Party is this: stop talking about David Cameron. Stop talking about Nick Clegg. Doing so is our reflexive comfort zone and it’s winning no voters. Instead we need a positive vision of what Labour is for. Who Labour is for and how we are going to deliver."
We saw a recent example -- in both directions -- with Indyref. YESNP's positive position almost won. Against BT's negativity, YESNP was further ahead on points with each poll -- until the Great Clunking Fist climbed into the ring with a positive message about the benefits of union.
"The Tories have given far more detailed thought to minority government than Labour – an exact repeat of the pattern before the 2010 result, for which Labour was hopelessly unprepared. The Tories believe they may well be able to govern alone in a hung parliament. One senior Tory puts it simply: “We want to govern without the Lib Dems.”
The core Tory commitment is to an EU referendum. A bill would come early in the parliament, before negotiations about the EU were complete. Tory strategists believe a bill could be delivered without a coalition. Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems would want to be seen to defeat the referendum bill in the Commons. But the risk of it being blocked in the Lords is real. For that reason, the Tories plan to use the Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords after a repeat vote, to push the referendum bill through. The 2017 date for the referendum has been set with this scenario in mind.
Labour’s approach to minority government is more visceral. A senior Labour source says candidly: “We haven’t thought it through yet. We badly need to do so.” The truth of this can hardly be overstated.
Labour’s gut instinct in favour of minority government is not simply tribal, however. It is also nourished by the belief that a minority Miliband government could repeat Harold Wilson’s strategy in similar circumstances in 1964 and February 1974 by front-loading its period in office with popular moves – increasing the minimum wage, freezing electricity prices, lowering student fees – before calling an early election in the hope of winning a majority mandate.
The insuperable problem is that this is old thinking. The passing in 2011 of the fixed-term parliaments act rules it out. Unless the law is changed, Miliband would not be able to call a second election: that would require two-thirds support from the Commons so the Tories would have to back it. Since that is unlikely, any minority government will probably have to serve a full five-year term – so any party planning for minority government will have to think long, not short. It will only survive by calculating the parts of its programme that can win a majority, and then doing deals. There is a UK precedent well worth examining: Alex Salmond’s minority SNP government in Scotland served a full term from 2007 by ensuring that the Tories at Holyrood would back most of its measures.
The Conservatives have grasped this. Labour has not. In both cases, however, a political mix of pride and prejudice increasingly makes coalition a second-best option – and single-party minority government a likely prospect in a future hung parliament."
Amusing stuff but it assumes the average UKIP voter gives a toss about Europe, when NOTA is probably the prime motivation. Ask the LibDems how many of their voters cared about AV.
Looking at the most anti-EU constituencies, theres a lot of UKIP's better results.
Yeah. Austerity doesn't work. Balls was right. Brown was right. Osborne was wrong but will get away with it because Germany imposed austerity on Europe and Balls was sat on to avoid a split with Darling and the Blairites.
Just to say many thanks to those who responded to my request yesterday.
So what did I do? I read the forecasts by the 'experts' -far too vague and short-termish. Spoke to our banks who did not have a clue.
So after taking yesterday's closing rate, added on banking charges, added a good margin that would not upset the EU client and ended up with E1.35 to 1 GBP for up to 1st May 2015.
After that date we agreed to look again at the terms of the contract and revise exchange rates according to the prevailing values. As a minnow when dealing with a global multi-billion global giant, I felt that was as good a deal as we may get. Of course if the GBP loses value against the Euro, then we are on the right side, and the margin in our contract will allow for a rate of E1.40.
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course that's the whole point.
Morning all
The one thing that will kill off UKIP as a political party is a referendum on EU membership. IF there is a referendum, David Cameron will approach it with one of two cases - either a renegotiated package or no renegotiated package.
Okay, then, option 1 - the renegotiated package which UKIP will of course oppose. If the package is supported, we stay in the EU and the "question" is settled for a generation. If not, we seek to withdraw and there will doubtless be a political realignment as Cameron is forced to resign as Prime Minister and a new Conservative leader and Prime Minister takes us out of the EU.
Option 2 - with a heavy heart, Cameron says there is no alternative but to leave the EU. If the electorate agree, he is endorsed and the process of departure begins - if the electorate rejects this and votes to stay in, Cameron is finished and the Conservatives descend into civil war.
So, the only way to keep the Referendum alive as a distant dream, a bit like the Holy Grail, or STV for Westminster elections, is to see the Conservatives out of Government and that means some form of Labour Government after 2015. The problem for Farage is UKIP will face a vengeful Conservative Party which will do one of two things - either a) attempt to destroy them by fighting every UKIP-held Council seat or b) by electing a clearly Eurosceptic leader seek to win them over and given that you kill more flies with honey than with flypaper, it'll be option B so the post-Cameron Conservatives will say all the things on the EU and immigration that UKIP supporters want to hear and that will be the end of UKIP.
I can't see UKIP as a political force by 2020 but its messages and beliefs will be very much alive.
Asking when the two main parties are going to tell the truth. More of a concern IMHO is the article fails to mention our balance of payments situation. Running at something like -£3 billion a month, I think. As William Keegan wrote last week, "the principal macroeconomic problem facing the British economy is the size of its balance of payments deficit." We aren't making and doing enough stuff anymore.
Mr Hannan says we have a trade surplus with the non-EU world.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
"– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover."
Is this a genuine possibility, or something written on the back of Nigel's fag packet?
(genuine question- could it be done?)
"– Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers."
Why would you need to do that if you've already sorted out immigration?
A couple of other points to throw into the mix in response to Corporeal's excellent thread.
UKIP do not whip their councillors nor their MPs. They oppose whipping on principle - something I agree with wholeheartedly and which is also something Carswell agrees with.
I wonder if they intend to continue with that with their MPs.
Secondly and slightly OT, UKIP have put up their policies in some areas on the website. Interesting to see what common ground there is between them and the Carswell/Hannan agenda (which I agree with wholeheartedly).
Thanks for the UKIP policy link. Well worth a read. Have they costed all these populist promises?
Abolishing HS2, the ministry of fun and climate change initiatives, reducing foreign aid to the mentioned stuff (I'd have like to have seen support for global female education in there but hey ho) and leaving the EU will save some cash.
There is alot of stuff I like in there though, must admit.
"– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover."
Is this a genuine possibility, or something written on the back of Nigel's fag packet?
(genuine question- could it be done?)
"– Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers."
Why would you need to do that if you've already sorted out immigration?
How do companies pay taxes if they are losing money on their turnover/ how are comanies encouraged to invest? This is before you get to the absurdities af abolishing HS2.
As for 'discriminate in favour of British workers' - employers have to find willing and able British workers first. The problem is that if UKIP were to turn the British ecomomy and British trade upside down there would be no businesses looking for workers.
Mr. Punter, also worth considering that ISIS probably has supporters in various European countries.
So does The Flat Earth Society, Morris, although I grant they are a little less dangerous.
My point was of course that the overwhelming majority of Turks in Germany, many of whom are Gastarbeiter, would be opposed to and horrified by ISIS. They have much to lose from its activities.
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Okay, then, option 1 - the renegotiated package which UKIP will of course oppose. If the package is supported, we stay in the EU and the "question" is settled for a generation.
Cameron's "renegotiation" can't possibly have been completed and ratified by 2017, so it's going to consist largely or entirely of promises for the future. Cameron is bound to exaggerate the importance of what he's negotiated, so if there's an "in" vote then by 2020 UKIP will be (rightly) saying that the 2017 referendum was a fraud, and demanding another one.
If not, we seek to withdraw and there will doubtless be a political realignment as Cameron is forced to resign as Prime Minister and a new Conservative leader and Prime Minister takes us out of the EU.
This just increases the importance of UKIP (or their successor), as the EU issue will now be centre stage and there will be a huge range of options ranging from rebadging the status quo, through a Norway-like semi-detached arrangement, all the way to actual independence. And whatever the government of the day ends up with, it will involve all kinds of compromises that UKIP will be able to get outraged about and pretend to reverse.
Option 2 - with a heavy heart, Cameron says there is no alternative but to leave the EU. If the electorate agree, he is endorsed and the process of departure begins
if the electorate rejects this and votes to stay in, Cameron is finished and the Conservatives descend into civil war.
This is the only path that actually settles the issue, but as you say it could cause some tension in the Conservative Party and UKIP may well be able to take advantage of that.
Theres an awful lot of Turks in Germany: 4 million I believe.
I wouldn't necessarily take Russia Today's word that they were 'Pro-IS' - given Turkey's history with Kurds, they might easily have been 'anti-Kurd'......
"Senior Lib Dem ‘ordered destruction of document on Cyril Smith abuse claims’ Liz Lynne, candidate to become party president, denies telling former PA to get rid of notes about abuse at Knowl View school"
May 2015 is going to be an existensial fight for Labour - because of Scotland / the Vow. They lose - they're dead.
Good thing that they have such an inspiring, popular, deep thinking, big hitting leader. ;-)
No.
The Indy Ref was THE existential fight for Labour with all their Scottish seats. What they have in 2015 is a regular General Election. They may win or lose, but losing the Indy ref would have been far far bigger in the long term for Labour than GE 2015.
If Dave gets a majority Labour are going to suffer EVFEL and new boundaries for 100% certain. Their whole spendy lefty nannying agenda across health, education, policing, etc, etc would then be dead. Sindy caused England to awake - and that's Labour worst fear.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
"Senior Lib Dem ‘ordered destruction of document on Cyril Smith abuse claims’ Liz Lynne, candidate to become party president, denies telling former PA to get rid of notes about abuse at Knowl View school"
I don't have a financial interest but I'm one of the electorate. There are some interesting candidates coming forward and I'm pretty certain the next LD President will be a woman as all the four announced candidates are female.
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Clegg probably gets the boot unless he gets back into government, and the LibDems have been suggesting they won't support a minority government. So unless it's a "two or three short, buy off some Northern Irish" type of minority I suppose it's either a coalition or a new election.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Clegg probably gets the boot unless he gets back into government, and the LibDems have been suggesting they won't support a minority government. So unless it's a "two or three short, buy off some Northern Irish" type of minority I suppose it's either a coalition or a new election.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Say it's a new election - does anyone have any money to fight it?
If Dave gets a majority Labour are going to suffer EVFEL and new boundaries for 100% certain. Their whole spendy lefty nannying agenda across health, education, policing, etc, etc would then be dead. Sindy caused England to awake - and that's Labour worst fear.
You do of course know that the "spendy lefty nanny" Cameron has ring-fenced spending on health and it has risen since 2010.
Do you realise this or is this part of your anti-Labour whiny moany whingey Righty routine ?
On topic, Corporeal is right that eventually Carswell will open up splits within UKIP as he tries to stick to his principles and they come up against Farage's preference for policies that change with Farage's mood.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
Nope, just one of those convenient myths you like to spread. If UKIP did not exist I would still not vote for Cameron. I would not be surprised to find the same applies to the majority of UKIP supporters.
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Clegg probably gets the boot unless he gets back into government, and the LibDems have been suggesting they won't support a minority government. So unless it's a "two or three short, buy off some Northern Irish" type of minority I suppose it's either a coalition or a new election.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Say it's a new election - does anyone have any money to fight it?
I guess everybody can tap their previous donors for a little bit more, but in any case it's mostly a zero-sum game, right?
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
re public sector: Socrates your guesses are pretty good in terms of order, but slightly low in terms of quantum: The order is
Denmark, 33% UK, 30.5% France, 30% Germany, 26% Spain, 21.5%
What about Portugal?
Where are your numbers from? After I guessed I did a quick Google and found public sector employment of 5.4 million, and total employment of 30.2 million. That gets you to 18%.
Denmark surprised me. I wonder what all their extra public sector workers are doing.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
Even using that logic, the primary purpose would surely be independence, rather than just a referendum.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
Correct. Why do you think it is, Mr. Hopkins? Is that was is written in the articles of association? Where is it written that the primary purpose of the party is a referendum? The only people that I know of that claim it is are Conservative leaning posters on this site and only then since Cameron came up with his promise.
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Clegg probably gets the boot unless he gets back into government, and the LibDems have been suggesting they won't support a minority government. So unless it's a "two or three short, buy off some Northern Irish" type of minority I suppose it's either a coalition or a new election.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Say it's a new election - does anyone have any money to fight it?
I guess everybody can tap their previous donors for a little bit more, but in any case it's mostly a zero-sum game, right?
Well I was thinking - although it's mostly a zero sum game, if it actually helps those who rely more on activists on the ground rather than air / leaflet wars - and who that might benefit. On the other hand, if some parties can raise required funds more quickly from donors than others, so it isn't zero sum?
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
I'm a numbers person, so let's look at some numbers to examine this. We'll use the September ICM poll for the Guardian.
The headline poll results are: Con 33%, Lab 35%, LD 10%, UKIP 9% Using Electoral Calculus this gives us a result of: Labour majority of 22
Now, let's imagine that UKIP decide to stand aside for the 2015 GE, and advise their supporters to vote Conservative "to guarantee a referendum on EU membership in 2017". Will all UKIP supporters obediently follow this sort of instruction. Some will. Some won't vote at all. some would rather vote Labour or Lib Dem if denied the option of voting for UKIP.
We will reallocate voters from UKIP according to the parties that people voted for in 2010. This is probably the best approximation to what would happen. About half of UKIP's current supporters say they voted for one of LibLabCon in 2010, roughly in the ratio 3:1:1
So very approximately we can add 3 percentage points to the Conservative share and 1 each to the Labour and Lib Dem shares.
The UKIP stand aside shares are: Con 36%, Lab 36%, LD 11%, UKIP 0% Using Electoral Calculus this gives us a result of: Labour 7 seats short of a majority.
It certainly makes a difference - about a twenty seat swing between Labour and the Conservatives - but not necessarily enough of a difference to determine the identity of the Prime Minister: Miliband becomes Prime Minister in both scenarios with that ICM poll. The cost to UKIP - and the wider BOO cause - is that UKIP would not have the MPs or votes to force the media to pay attention to them and their policies, diminishing the prominence of EU membership in public debate.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
Correct. Why do you think it is, Mr. Hopkins? Is that was is written in the articles of association? Where is it written that the primary purpose of the party is a referendum? The only people that I know of that claim it is are Conservative leaning posters on this site and only then since Cameron came up with his promise.
Mr Llama, virtually all core policies of UKIP require independence from the EU (since UKIP are not interested in renegotiation only). Therefore to implement anything they want in a meaningful way they will need independence. By convention, such matters are handled in this country by a referendum. Therefore, by name and by policy, their primary purpose is an IndyRef from the EU.
I had a fascinating chat with my Local Authority Finance expert friend last evening. He pointed out that the biggest "costs" on any LA are the young (up to 16) and the old (65+) so the double whammy of rising birth rates and rising life expectancies has hit Councils very hard in terms of provision of schools and residential/day care facilities. It's also true that costs in these sectors are rising well above CPI.
Even those Authorities which now rely on central Government largesse for one third of their funding (by various means) are worried about the post-2015 financial picture with Osborne talking of £25 billion in cuts. With key areas ring fenced, what does that leave ? Defence - can't see that being a runner with the Conservative backbenches or local Government.
One of the things that's happening and often below the radar is the consolidation of local authorities by collaboration and partnership. Large authorities are joining together to share functions, space and staff and giving themselves a bigger say in procuring goods and services.
The logical conclusion of this is bottom-up regionalism or a patchwork of interconnected authorities. In many ways, these new alignments of local authorities will under a more devolved system be able to do much of the proposed waste of money and space that would be an English Parliament.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
Some ask the same things about the other parties.
Are the Conservatives really that conservative a party anymore ?
Does Labour still represent the interests of labour ?
Are the Liberal Democrats still liberals and democrats ?
UKIP do have the UK independent from Europe in their manifesto, but David Cameron has described himself as a liberal Conservative, Labour are oft seen as the party to favour the feckless and reckless the most, and the Liberals for the most part (Save Jeremy Browne, David Laws and perhaps Clegg and Alexander) are a very different beast to the classical liberals of old.
I'm sceptical about the chances of a second election in 2015. The election is almost certainly in May. Parliament would need to be colossally hung for it to be impossible for a two party grouping to deliver a majority (whether in the form of a coalition or a minority government). The public are going to be in a mood to punish any party that brings about a second election. So all parties will tread carefully before doing so.
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
Indeed, I'm completely biased but I thought Nick's speech yesterday was absolutely superb and certainly the equal, if not better than, Cameron's effort last week and light years in front of Ed M.
It was a passionate, articulate defence of the Party, its performance in Coalition and its impact on the country. A recognition of mistakes made and harsh challenges to be faced, granted, but an excellent and inspiring argument for a vote for the Party next May.
I had a fascinating chat with my Local Authority Finance expert friend last evening. He pointed out that the biggest "costs" on any LA are the young (up to 16) and the old (65+) so the double whammy of rising birth rates and rising life expectancies has hit Councils very hard in terms of provision of schools and residential/day care facilities. It's also true that costs in these sectors are rising well above CPI.
Even those Authorities which now rely on central Government largesse for one third of their funding (by various means) are worried about the post-2015 financial picture with Osborne talking of £25 billion in cuts. With key areas ring fenced, what does that leave ? Defence - can't see that being a runner with the Conservative backbenches or local Government.
One of the things that's happening and often below the radar is the consolidation of local authorities by collaboration and partnership. Large authorities are joining together to share functions, space and staff and giving themselves a bigger say in procuring goods and services.
The logical conclusion of this is bottom-up regionalism or a patchwork of interconnected authorities. In many ways, these new alignments of local authorities will under a more devolved system be able to do much of the proposed waste of money and space that would be an English Parliament.
Indeed - we are starting to see it with the London Boroughs talking about a Common Investment Vehicle (or similar) for their Pension Funds. What is interesting and less analogous to your devolution comment is that the combinations seem to be different for different services, so that it is still at Council level where decisions have to be made and influence taken.
Mr Llama, virtually all core policies of UKIP require independence from the EU (since UKIP are not interested in renegotiation only). Therefore to implement anything they want in a meaningful way they will need independence. By convention, such matters are handled in this country by a referendum. Therefore, by name and by policy, their primary purpose is an IndyRef from the EU.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer given by my semi-learned but honourable friend, Mr. Eagles, a few minutes ago.
A referendum may be one step of many that have to be taken but as I said, "The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum."
Thanks for pointing us to the article, it is interesting but raises a number of questions. If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election. Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
Clegg probably gets the boot unless he gets back into government, and the LibDems have been suggesting they won't support a minority government. So unless it's a "two or three short, buy off some Northern Irish" type of minority I suppose it's either a coalition or a new election.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Say it's a new election - does anyone have any money to fight it?
I guess everybody can tap their previous donors for a little bit more, but in any case it's mostly a zero-sum game, right?
Well I was thinking - although it's mostly a zero sum game, if it actually helps those who rely more on activists on the ground rather than air / leaflet wars - and who that might benefit. On the other hand, if some parties can raise required funds more quickly from donors than others, so it isn't zero sum?
I guess those two factors would tend to cancel out: Con can raise money quicker, but (at least per Nick Palmer) rely on it more than Lab. The rest never had any money to speak of in the first place.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
No, the primary purpose is to have the UK leave the EU. If that is hindered by a false referendum based on impossible promises then that should not be the aim of UKIP./
One objection to my previous post is that the ICM rating for UKIP is lower than with other pollsters, so we will repeat the exercise with the latest Lord Ashcroft poll.
This is: Con 32%, Lab 30%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 17% Electoral Calculus: Labour 16 short of a majority
Two-thirds of UKIP voters in this poll say they voted for one of LibLabCon in 2010, in the ratio 9:6:5, so the change in vote shares is Con +5.5, Lab +3.5, Lib Dem +3
This gives: Con 37.5%, Lab 33.5%, Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 0% Electoral Calculus: Conservatives 12 short of a majority
With this poll, the effect of UKIP standing aside would be to change the identity of the Prime Minister.
There's only a small range of outcomes where UKIP standing aside would be decisive on determining the identity of the Prime Minister, and thus the occurrence of a referendum on EU membership. In all other cases, whether with Cameron or Miliband Prime Minister, UKIPs cause would be better served by having MPs in Parliament to argue their case.
So it seems to me illogical to argue that UKIP must be scared of a referendum if they don't support the Conservatives, or must have baser ulterior motives, because the cost-benefit analysis really doesn't favour a strategy of UKIP supporting Cameron. It's more likely to harm the cause than to benefit it.
Indeed - we are starting to see it with the London Boroughs talking about a Common Investment Vehicle (or similar) for their Pension Funds. What is interesting and less analogous to your devolution comment is that the combinations seem to be different for different services, so that it is still at Council level where decisions have to be made and influence taken.
Indeed, different groups of authorities are working on different collaborative projects in areas like Procurement, IT, Property, Finance etc. One thing my friend told me is that both the Conservatives and Labour were talking about Cities and Counties in the same sentence so the granting of more powers to Birmingham and Manchester would also go to Cornwall and Surrey and this is a huge step forward from a mainly City-based initiative.
Look also for Cities and Counties to want to take on more Health services from the NHS and be able to plan the provision of Health Services within their areas. The one problem for me remains the absurd two-tier structure. Districts are financially small potatoes whereas a county like Surrey has an economy and population similar to that of Birmingham.
Mr. Stodge, disagree entirely. Also, an English Parliament is not something that would necessarily be exclusive of giving more power to local councils.
If Scotland gets devomax, the only way for England to have equality is through an English Parliament. We can't have taxes levelled at a smaller scale, it'd divide England into puny, pathetic little regions.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
No, the primary purpose is to have the UK leave the EU. If that is hindered by a false referendum based on impossible promises then that should not be the aim of UKIP./
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
Almost every treaty or organisation involves some loss of sovereignty, however slight. When we sign extradition treaties, we agree under certain circumstances, to do things we would not otherwise do (and are legally obliged to do so).
So, after years of happily believing the consensus view on warming (i.e. it's happening), I'm beginning to waver a bit. Hard to explain stuff like this...
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
No, the primary purpose is to have the UK leave the EU. If that is hindered by a false referendum based on impossible promises then that should not be the aim of UKIP./
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
No, the primary purpose is to have the UK leave the EU. If that is hindered by a false referendum based on impossible promises then that should not be the aim of UKIP./
Have referenda ever changed the status quo?
I would suggest if you are talking solely about in the UK then the data set is too small to draw any real conclusions.
Certainly when the Government and Opposition both support the status quo then change is not likely to be successful.
The smallest English 'ceremonial' counties by population are Rutland (~40,000), Isle of Wight (~140,000), Herefordshire (~180,000), Northumberland (~320,000), Shropshire (~470,000), Cumbria (~500,000) and Cornwall (~540,000).
The comparison doesn't look that ridiculous. Also, if one were to devolve to my proposed regions, loosely based on the Heptarchy, then the smallest constituent unit would be Cornwall, which is a comparable size to Wyoming in absolute terms, and of course is much larger as a proportion of England than Wyoming is of the US.
Good Morning. Looks like a good day for by-elections. A year ago the vast majority of PBers and the MSM were still saying that UKIP would be lucky to reach 5% in a GE and that 99% of tories would return home. They aren't saying it now.....
Two years ago I put £90 at 9/1 on UKIP winning the Euro elections. I do not recall saying anything about under "5% at the GE and 99% returning home". As I have a good track record in predicting UKIP, my thoughts are that the odds are still in favour of UKIP helping bring in an Ed Miliband Govt at GE2015 and as a direct result we have no european referendum this side of 2020.
And of course you would still be wrong. What will bring in a Labour government is the ineptitude of Cameron and his ability ti alienate great swathes of his natural support. That UKIP has been one of the beneficiaries of this is great for them but the blame lies squarely on Cameron's shoulders.
Is Cameron one of the biggest causes of UKIP's growth? Answer Yes. Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes. Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum. I know lots of Conservative leaning posters on here like to say that it is because it enables them to construct a story that, perhaps, makes them feel warm and superior, but that doesn't make it true.
So you're saying that the primary purpose of the UK Independence Party is not a referendum on the independence of the UK?
Fascinating.
No, the primary purpose is to have the UK leave the EU. If that is hindered by a false referendum based on impossible promises then that should not be the aim of UKIP./
Have referenda ever changed the status quo?
Scottish and Welsh devolution referenda did.
True, they were proposed and backed by the Labour government in 1997 that had won a landslide victory earlier that year.
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
These things happen.
You should see the "Will Ebola effect the outcome of the next General Election" thread I've got planned.
Mr. Stodge, disagree entirely. Also, an English Parliament is not something that would necessarily be exclusive of giving more power to local councils.
If Scotland gets devomax, the only way for England to have equality is through an English Parliament. We can't have taxes levelled at a smaller scale, it'd divide England into puny, pathetic little regions.
I struggle with the concept of treating England as though it was one homogenous entity. London is very different from rural Devon for example and that has to be recognised. Having power devolved to lower levels doesn't make anyone less "English" - that's absurd.
I have no issue with different tax rates or cities and counties setting their own taxes - New York does it, Stockholm does it - nobody thinks of them as being less American or Swedish respectively. All those who are arguing for an English Parliament really want is perpetual Conservative Government and that would mean, for areas like East Ham, perpetual Opposition (unless of course anyone is advocating having the English Parliament elected under STV in which case that's a very different kettle of worms).
Heywood and Middleton - new post from Election-data:
"...Labour will win Heywood & Middleton tomorrow, and Liz McInnes will likely do some handsomely. However if Labour believe that a win is a win, and fail to recognise the paucity of their appeal to those without hope in communities across the north west, then UKIP stand ready to fill that void."
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
Indeed, I'm completely biased but I thought Nick's speech yesterday was absolutely superb and certainly the equal, if not better than, Cameron's effort last week and light years in front of Ed M.
It was a passionate, articulate defence of the Party, its performance in Coalition and its impact on the country. A recognition of mistakes made and harsh challenges to be faced, granted, but an excellent and inspiring argument for a vote for the Party next May.
But I'm biased...
But I'm biased.
@stodge; of course you are. Same as I'm biased for UKIP. On the other hand Nick and Cammo go around like conjoined twins: Massive liars, both. Big lies, small lies, lies as big as your....well you know what.
Talking of speeches, Farages was the best of of the lot. Fancy not mentioning it, stodgy.
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
These things happen.
You should see the "Will Ebola effect the outcome of the next General Election" thread I've got planned.
Ross Noble did a 2 hour routine mainly based on Ebola coming to the UK as well as funny references to SINDY last night. He was touring Scotland for 2 weeks of SINDY
Had a great day yesterday.
Hugh Grant quite funny playing Hugh Grant
Dracula shite your pants time in 3D still have bats in my eyes
Mr Noble very funny
And won £400 on WI in cricket ODI
Hope some of you took advantage of my betting post where WI were available at 11/8 when shouldve been well odds on. Went on to win by well over 100 runs
I haven't read the comments on the thread but I have to say yesterday morning's thread header on the expected demise of Nick Clegg must go down as one of the strangest and most inaccurate ones in PB history.
These things happen.
You should see the "Will Ebola effect the outcome of the next General Election" thread I've got planned.
Ross Noble did a 2 hour routine mainly based on Ebola coming to the UK as well as funny references to SINDY last night. He was touring Scotland for 2 weeks of SINDY
Had a great day yesterday.
Hugh Grant quite funny playing Hugh Grant
Dracula shite your pants time in 3D still have bats in my eyes
Mr Noble very funny
And won £400 on WI in cricket ODI
Hope some of you took advantage of my betting post where WI were available at 11/8 when shouldve been well odds on. Went on to win by well over 100 runs
So, after years of happily believing the consensus view on warming (i.e. it's happening), I'm beginning to waver a bit. Hard to explain stuff like this...
You can break global warming down into two separate questions, or sets of questions.
1. Does the release of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels lead to the Earth accumulating energy and consequently warming up?
2. What effect will that have on agriculture, flooding, heatwaves, droughts, storms, etc - ie on the weather?
The discrepancy between observed Antarctic sea ice and the climate models tells us that there is something wrong, or missing, in the climate models so that their predictions of (2) are not perfect.
It doesn't have any bearing on the first question, because the evidence for that is from basic physics, many other observations - eg of ocean temperatures - and satellite measurements of radiative balance. It's not really the climate models that are involved in answering that question.
What I take from it is that climate models are probably not good enough to guide multi-billion pound plans for adapting to climate change, because they can't accurately predict what the precise local changes that result will be. Consequently, we'd be much better off cutting greenhouse gas emissions so that as little warming happens as possible.
Obviously some people on pb.com think that the answer to 1 is "No", but the Antarctic sea ice alone does not have much bearing on that question. If you look at the surface temperature observations - www.hadobs.org - it is obvious that the global mean is warmer than average, and yet there are still some areas where it is colder than average (for August 2014 it was the Northern Territories in Australia, much of China, some of Siberia and a few other areas)
Mr. Me, the appropriate comparison is Scotland, not a US state.
If it's good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England. Why do some people inconsistently want a single Parliament for Scotland, but want to cut England up? England isn't some political plaything, the property of short-term airhead political pygmies to do with as they please.
I have nothing against devolving more power to local councils provided we first have an English Parliament.
Mr. Stodge, that must be why Scotland has multiple parliaments. After all, the islands, lowlands and highlands are all very different. Wait a minute...
Indeed - we are starting to see it with the London Boroughs talking about a Common Investment Vehicle (or similar) for their Pension Funds. What is interesting and less analogous to your devolution comment is that the combinations seem to be different for different services, so that it is still at Council level where decisions have to be made and influence taken.
Districts are financially small potatoes whereas a county like Surrey has an economy and population similar to that of Birmingham.
And the Surrey borough of Elmbridge (the beating heart of Middle England) pays more income tax than Manchester!
stodge -no reason to think an English parliament would provide perpetual Tory rule. The main problem with it is that the union couldn't survive. PM Ed and English first minister Boris? It would be totally destabilising. I don't think we can now be complacent about the union. The demographics in Scotland are clear, the NO campaign was completely uninspiring and the coup de grace delivered to Mr Salmond was a 'vow', the outcome from which is not at all clear - though there will be big expectations in Scotland. An increased chance of the Tories staying in power in Westminster won't help either. More than that, the arteries down south are hardening. The English now sense that the Scots don't much like them and are only in this marriage for the money. An antipathy that will no doubt reinforce itself both ways.
Comments
Germany: Pro-IS mob attacks Kurdish protesters with MACHETES and KNIVES http://fb.me/1msvJzTe1
Theres an awful lot of Turks in Germany: 4 million I believe.
There is alot of stuff I like in there though, must admit.
NE Derbyshire (LAB)1980 to 1996
Bracknell (CON) in 1979
Chesterfield (LD and LAB) 1997 to date
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e4c250c-4ec0-11e4-a1ef-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3FZ4HjNJu
"House prices have dropped in London for the first time in more than three years and are set to fall further this year, according to estate agents in the capital."
What will we talk about at dinner parties now?
http://www.cuer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Public-spending-2011-12.jpg
"– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover."
Is this a genuine possibility, or something written on the back of Nigel's fag packet?
(genuine question- could it be done?)
"– Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers."
Why would you need to do that if you've already sorted out immigration?
"Labour do not currently talk like an insurgent opposition. We do not currently allow ourselves to offer hope – only to counsel that our despair will be less awful than the despair others may bring. Vote Labour because we’re not the Tories (and aren’t the Lib Dems awful) seems to be our most constant and consistent refrain. It will not be enough and it will not be heard – not from us.......
My challenge to the Labour Party is this: stop talking about David Cameron. Stop talking about Nick Clegg. Doing so is our reflexive comfort zone and it’s winning no voters. Instead we need a positive vision of what Labour is for. Who Labour is for and how we are going to deliver."
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/bring-me-sunshine/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/199bcc08-4e29-11e4-bfda-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3FdSV7evv
Asking when the two main parties are going to tell the truth. More of a concern IMHO is the article fails to mention our balance of payments situation. Running at something like -£3 billion a month, I think. As William Keegan wrote last week, "the principal macroeconomic problem facing the British economy is the size of its balance of payments deficit." We aren't making and doing enough stuff anymore.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/debt-scolds-ignore-the-falling-deficit.html
"So what have we learned from the party conferences this Autumn? Well originality is apparently not my strong point, and to that end I’ve come to the same conclusion as everybody else: that there are large swathes of the electorate who are disillusioned, angry, alienated from politics, and feeling ripped off and unrepresented. Unfortunately this conclusion, which is an axiom to most and an emerging point of discussion for the broadsheet press (particularly when it’s used as an explanation for the rise of UKIP), seems to have largely passed our political leaders by.
There was a palpable sense of a bullet dodged at Labour conference after the Scottish referendum, and inadequate interest in why nearly half of Scotland’s population decided they’d rather live in a foreign country than be tied to Westminster. Sure, the leaders called for change – but you got the sense that they were only calling for change because they thought that’s what you have to do to make sure things stay the same....
The sense of disillusionment goes way beyond the Labour Party, beyond even Westminster, and stretches to the entire establishment. One could even argue there is a global demand for people-focused societies, given the international social movements, with their demands for better public services and true democracy, which have emerged since the financial crisis of 2008. Labour always gets disproportionate flak at a time of distrust in politics, because it is expected to stand up for those who are distrusting; but it’s important to recognise the magnitude of the problem instead of pinning it all on the last 4 years of Labour policy. There need to be big answers to big questions......
But unless we have some idea of what we want that change to look like, we won’t get anywhere except for unnerving Clacton by-elections."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/08/hung-parliament-2015-liberal-democrats-coalition
"The Tories have given far more detailed thought to minority government than Labour – an exact repeat of the pattern before the 2010 result, for which Labour was hopelessly unprepared. The Tories believe they may well be able to govern alone in a hung parliament. One senior Tory puts it simply: “We want to govern without the Lib Dems.”
The core Tory commitment is to an EU referendum. A bill would come early in the parliament, before negotiations about the EU were complete. Tory strategists believe a bill could be delivered without a coalition. Neither Labour nor the Lib Dems would want to be seen to defeat the referendum bill in the Commons. But the risk of it being blocked in the Lords is real. For that reason, the Tories plan to use the Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords after a repeat vote, to push the referendum bill through. The 2017 date for the referendum has been set with this scenario in mind.
Labour’s approach to minority government is more visceral. A senior Labour source says candidly: “We haven’t thought it through yet. We badly need to do so.” The truth of this can hardly be overstated.
Labour’s gut instinct in favour of minority government is not simply tribal, however. It is also nourished by the belief that a minority Miliband government could repeat Harold Wilson’s strategy in similar circumstances in 1964 and February 1974 by front-loading its period in office with popular moves – increasing the minimum wage, freezing electricity prices, lowering student fees – before calling an early election in the hope of winning a majority mandate.
The insuperable problem is that this is old thinking. The passing in 2011 of the fixed-term parliaments act rules it out. Unless the law is changed, Miliband would not be able to call a second election: that would require two-thirds support from the Commons so the Tories would have to back it. Since that is unlikely, any minority government will probably have to serve a full five-year term – so any party planning for minority government will have to think long, not short. It will only survive by calculating the parts of its programme that can win a majority, and then doing deals. There is a UK precedent well worth examining: Alex Salmond’s minority SNP government in Scotland served a full term from 2007 by ensuring that the Tories at Holyrood would back most of its measures.
The Conservatives have grasped this. Labour has not. In both cases, however, a political mix of pride and prejudice increasingly makes coalition a second-best option – and single-party minority government a likely prospect in a future hung parliament."
http://constituencyopinion.org.uk/uncategorized/clacton-is-the-most-euroskeptic-constituency-in-the-uk/
http://constituencyopinion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/euroscepticism.xls
Just to say many thanks to those who responded to my request yesterday.
So what did I do? I read the forecasts by the 'experts' -far too vague and short-termish. Spoke to our banks who did not have a clue.
So after taking yesterday's closing rate, added on banking charges, added a good margin that would not upset the EU client and ended up with E1.35 to 1 GBP for up to 1st May 2015.
After that date we agreed to look again at the terms of the contract and revise exchange rates according to the prevailing values. As a minnow when dealing with a global multi-billion global giant, I felt that was as good a deal as we may get. Of course if the GBP loses value against the Euro, then we are on the right side, and the margin in our contract will allow for a rate of E1.40.
Morning all
The one thing that will kill off UKIP as a political party is a referendum on EU membership. IF there is a referendum, David Cameron will approach it with one of two cases - either a renegotiated package or no renegotiated package.
Okay, then, option 1 - the renegotiated package which UKIP will of course oppose. If the package is supported, we stay in the EU and the "question" is settled for a generation. If not, we seek to withdraw and there will doubtless be a political realignment as Cameron is forced to resign as Prime Minister and a new Conservative leader and Prime Minister takes us out of the EU.
Option 2 - with a heavy heart, Cameron says there is no alternative but to leave the EU. If the electorate agree, he is endorsed and the process of departure begins - if the electorate rejects this and votes to stay in, Cameron is finished and the Conservatives descend into civil war.
So, the only way to keep the Referendum alive as a distant dream, a bit like the Holy Grail, or STV for Westminster elections, is to see the Conservatives out of Government and that means some form of Labour Government after 2015. The problem for Farage is UKIP will face a vengeful Conservative Party which will do one of two things - either a) attempt to destroy them by fighting every UKIP-held Council seat or b) by electing a clearly Eurosceptic leader seek to win them over and given that you kill more flies with honey than with flypaper, it'll be option B so the post-Cameron Conservatives will say all the things on the EU and immigration that UKIP supporters want to hear and that will be the end of UKIP.
I can't see UKIP as a political force by 2020 but its messages and beliefs will be very much alive.
My point was of course that the overwhelming majority of Turks in Germany, many of whom are Gastarbeiter, would be opposed to and horrified by ISIS. They have much to lose from its activities.
If Labour try to govern for the fixed term as a minority they will surely be a lame duck government from about 6 months in. They may just decide to provoke a vote of confidence and trigger an election that way. If PBers are correct, Ed isn't as wily as Harold Wilson was and they would then lose the following election.
Surely it's time for Labour to start thinking about all the possible results of next May's election.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/08/senior-lib-dem-liz-lynne-accused-destroy-document-cyril-smith-abuse-claims
"Senior Lib Dem ‘ordered destruction of document on Cyril Smith abuse claims’
Liz Lynne, candidate to become party president, denies telling former PA to get rid of notes about abuse at Knowl View school"
Will the size and distribution of UKIP's vote bring in an Ed Miliband Govt Answer Yes.
Just because Cameron did make mistakes does not give UKIP a free pass at killing off the chances of a referendum this side of 2020 or beyond. There is also the fact that UKIP have conveniently forgotten their primary purpose - a referendum. One of those inconvenient truths.
I wasn't going to vote for Liz.
Say it's a new election, what happens then? Do we reckon anyone has time to switch out their leader?
Do you realise this or is this part of your anti-Labour whiny moany whingey Righty routine ?
Denmark, 33%
UK, 30.5%
France, 30%
Germany, 26%
Spain, 21.5%
Fascinating.
Where are your numbers from? After I guessed I did a quick Google and found public sector employment of 5.4 million, and total employment of 30.2 million. That gets you to 18%.
Denmark surprised me. I wonder what all their extra public sector workers are doing.
What is the first objective in UKIP's constitution?
The Party believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should only be governed by her own citizens and that its governance shall at all times be conducted first and foremost in the interests of the United Kingdom and its peoples and that the only laws that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
To that end it shall be the policy of the Party that the United Kingdom shall cease to be a member of the European Union and shall not thereafter make any Treaty or join any international organisation which involves in any way the surrender of any part of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty. The Party further believes that the integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “The United Kingdom”) should be maintained.
http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution
Damn it, Mr. Eagles, why spoil everyone's fun.
The headline poll results are: Con 33%, Lab 35%, LD 10%, UKIP 9%
Using Electoral Calculus this gives us a result of: Labour majority of 22
Now, let's imagine that UKIP decide to stand aside for the 2015 GE, and advise their supporters to vote Conservative "to guarantee a referendum on EU membership in 2017". Will all UKIP supporters obediently follow this sort of instruction. Some will. Some won't vote at all. some would rather vote Labour or Lib Dem if denied the option of voting for UKIP.
We will reallocate voters from UKIP according to the parties that people voted for in 2010. This is probably the best approximation to what would happen. About half of UKIP's current supporters say they voted for one of LibLabCon in 2010, roughly in the ratio 3:1:1
So very approximately we can add 3 percentage points to the Conservative share and 1 each to the Labour and Lib Dem shares.
The UKIP stand aside shares are: Con 36%, Lab 36%, LD 11%, UKIP 0%
Using Electoral Calculus this gives us a result of: Labour 7 seats short of a majority.
It certainly makes a difference - about a twenty seat swing between Labour and the Conservatives - but not necessarily enough of a difference to determine the identity of the Prime Minister: Miliband becomes Prime Minister in both scenarios with that ICM poll. The cost to UKIP - and the wider BOO cause - is that UKIP would not have the MPs or votes to force the media to pay attention to them and their policies, diminishing the prominence of EU membership in public debate.
Even those Authorities which now rely on central Government largesse for one third of their funding (by various means) are worried about the post-2015 financial picture with Osborne talking of £25 billion in cuts. With key areas ring fenced, what does that leave ? Defence - can't see that being a runner with the Conservative backbenches or local Government.
One of the things that's happening and often below the radar is the consolidation of local authorities by collaboration and partnership. Large authorities are joining together to share functions, space and staff and giving themselves a bigger say in procuring goods and services.
The logical conclusion of this is bottom-up regionalism or a patchwork of interconnected authorities. In many ways, these new alignments of local authorities will under a more devolved system be able to do much of the proposed waste of money and space that would be an English Parliament.
Are the Conservatives really that conservative a party anymore ?
Does Labour still represent the interests of labour ?
Are the Liberal Democrats still liberals and democrats ?
UKIP do have the UK independent from Europe in their manifesto, but David Cameron has described himself as a liberal Conservative, Labour are oft seen as the party to favour the feckless and reckless the most, and the Liberals for the most part (Save Jeremy Browne, David Laws and perhaps Clegg and Alexander) are a very different beast to the classical liberals of old.
This issue is not unique to UKIP.
Rather more definitive than my explanation.
I have plenty more policy ideas available for parties that are running short.
It was a passionate, articulate defence of the Party, its performance in Coalition and its impact on the country. A recognition of mistakes made and harsh challenges to be faced, granted, but an excellent and inspiring argument for a vote for the Party next May.
But I'm biased...
A referendum may be one step of many that have to be taken but as I said, "The Primary Purpose of UKIP has never been, is not now, and never will be a referendum."
The headline for that piece is "Just how well hung does parliament need to make a grand coalition possible"
This is: Con 32%, Lab 30%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 17%
Electoral Calculus: Labour 16 short of a majority
Two-thirds of UKIP voters in this poll say they voted for one of LibLabCon in 2010, in the ratio 9:6:5, so the change in vote shares is Con +5.5, Lab +3.5, Lib Dem +3
This gives: Con 37.5%, Lab 33.5%, Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 0%
Electoral Calculus: Conservatives 12 short of a majority
With this poll, the effect of UKIP standing aside would be to change the identity of the Prime Minister.
There's only a small range of outcomes where UKIP standing aside would be decisive on determining the identity of the Prime Minister, and thus the occurrence of a referendum on EU membership. In all other cases, whether with Cameron or Miliband Prime Minister, UKIPs cause would be better served by having MPs in Parliament to argue their case.
So it seems to me illogical to argue that UKIP must be scared of a referendum if they don't support the Conservatives, or must have baser ulterior motives, because the cost-benefit analysis really doesn't favour a strategy of UKIP supporting Cameron. It's more likely to harm the cause than to benefit it.
Look also for Cities and Counties to want to take on more Health services from the NHS and be able to plan the provision of Health Services within their areas. The one problem for me remains the absurd two-tier structure. Districts are financially small potatoes whereas a county like Surrey has an economy and population similar to that of Birmingham.
If Scotland gets devomax, the only way for England to have equality is through an English Parliament. We can't have taxes levelled at a smaller scale, it'd divide England into puny, pathetic little regions.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/10/09/we_have_more_to_learn_says_scientist_antarctic_sea_ice_at_all_time_record/
Then all the Tories would never vote Tory again because they joined with the hated Labour party and all the Labour voters would....
(Puts pedant back in closet.)
Certainly when the Government and Opposition both support the status quo then change is not likely to be successful.
The smallest two US states by population are Vermont (~630,000) and Wyoming (~580,000)
The smallest English 'ceremonial' counties by population are Rutland (~40,000), Isle of Wight (~140,000), Herefordshire (~180,000), Northumberland (~320,000), Shropshire (~470,000), Cumbria (~500,000) and Cornwall (~540,000).
The comparison doesn't look that ridiculous. Also, if one were to devolve to my proposed regions, loosely based on the Heptarchy, then the smallest constituent unit would be Cornwall, which is a comparable size to Wyoming in absolute terms, and of course is much larger as a proportion of England than Wyoming is of the US.
You should see the "Will Ebola effect the outcome of the next General Election" thread I've got planned.
I have no issue with different tax rates or cities and counties setting their own taxes - New York does it, Stockholm does it - nobody thinks of them as being less American or Swedish respectively. All those who are arguing for an English Parliament really want is perpetual Conservative Government and that would mean, for areas like East Ham, perpetual Opposition (unless of course anyone is advocating having the English Parliament elected under STV in which case that's a very different kettle of worms).
"...Labour will win Heywood & Middleton tomorrow, and Liz McInnes will likely do some handsomely. However if Labour believe that a win is a win, and fail to recognise the paucity of their appeal to those without hope in communities across the north west, then UKIP stand ready to fill that void."
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/heywood-middleton-ii.html
@stodge; of course you are. Same as I'm biased for UKIP. On the other hand Nick and Cammo go around like conjoined twins: Massive liars, both. Big lies, small lies, lies as big as your....well you know what.
Talking of speeches, Farages was the best of of the lot. Fancy not mentioning it, stodgy.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/how-far-will-carswell-win-by-in-clacton/
Had a great day yesterday.
Hugh Grant quite funny playing Hugh Grant
Dracula shite your pants time in 3D still have bats in my eyes
Mr Noble very funny
And won £400 on WI in cricket ODI
Hope some of you took advantage of my betting post where WI were available at 11/8 when shouldve been well odds on. Went on to win by well over 100 runs
Odds of Lib Dems getting 10 seats or fewer at the election cut from 14/1 to 12/1. #ldconf
Wow, will it indeed be Two Taxi Time for Clegg & Co? Come back Martin Day .... all is forgiven!
How far will Carswell win by in Clacton? http://wp.me/p4Dp6d-ku
I don't know about percentages, but on the premise that the vote will overall be lower than at the last GE I've posited Carswells majority as 5,353
PS. Re: antifrank below (on minority government) whatever happened to my piece on that? It hasn't made the appearance you promised!
1. Does the release of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels lead to the Earth accumulating energy and consequently warming up?
2. What effect will that have on agriculture, flooding, heatwaves, droughts, storms, etc - ie on the weather?
The discrepancy between observed Antarctic sea ice and the climate models tells us that there is something wrong, or missing, in the climate models so that their predictions of (2) are not perfect.
It doesn't have any bearing on the first question, because the evidence for that is from basic physics, many other observations - eg of ocean temperatures - and satellite measurements of radiative balance. It's not really the climate models that are involved in answering that question.
What I take from it is that climate models are probably not good enough to guide multi-billion pound plans for adapting to climate change, because they can't accurately predict what the precise local changes that result will be. Consequently, we'd be much better off cutting greenhouse gas emissions so that as little warming happens as possible.
Obviously some people on pb.com think that the answer to 1 is "No", but the Antarctic sea ice alone does not have much bearing on that question. If you look at the surface temperature observations - www.hadobs.org - it is obvious that the global mean is warmer than average, and yet there are still some areas where it is colder than average (for August 2014 it was the Northern Territories in Australia, much of China, some of Siberia and a few other areas)
If it's good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England. Why do some people inconsistently want a single Parliament for Scotland, but want to cut England up? England isn't some political plaything, the property of short-term airhead political pygmies to do with as they please.
I have nothing against devolving more power to local councils provided we first have an English Parliament.
Mr. Stodge, that must be why Scotland has multiple parliaments. After all, the islands, lowlands and highlands are all very different. Wait a minute...
What's the atmosphere like? Febrile, I bet.