politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Comres: European Election poll

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Comres: European Election poll

UKIP will be delighted with this poll, the Tories will be alarmed to be polling at 21% but delighted they’re only 2% behind Labour. The Lib Dems are polling higher than they did in 2009.

Read the full story here

MikeK

First:
FPT:
taffys said:
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.

The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.

The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.

But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.

and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
---------------
I could't have put better, taffys.

....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.

Charles

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

kle4

I'm surprised UKIP had been so low before this one. Very encouraging for the LDs too

kle4

FPT

It's somewhat suspicious to me that UKIP often appear to claim automatically to believe in everything the 'mainstream' parties do not, making them the only alternative. It may not be that way, but it comes across like that, and it feels very reactionary, as though their only driving force is find out what the main parties support, in general, and then oppose it. Of course, sometimes all the main parties believe in something because most people do believe in it too, but either way the UKIP strategy seems dependent on chasing their rivals, rather than forming their own ideas sometimes.

Charles

Who are the others that are getting killed? Or is it the result of their votes remaining stable but UKIP attracting a lot of NOTA?

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

Who are the others that are getting killed? Or is it the result of their votes remaining stable but UKIP attracting a lot of NOTA?

Well in 2009 others included the Greens at 8.6%, the BNP 6.2%, here's the full results from 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm

stodge

A little clarity required on TSE's generally excellent commentary,

It's inaccurate to say that somehow David Cameron supports a referendum while Messrs Miliband anc Clegg do not.

The Conservatives are not supporting a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.

Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.

Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.

Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.

It is therefore misleading and a simplistic swallowing of the CCHQ line to assume that "only the Conservatives" will offer a referendum. It's entirely possible Labour and the Lib Dems will offer a similar commitment prior to the 2015 General Election and that's a long way off.

Very much along the lines of "Vote UKIP, get Labour" it's a Conservative line designed to woo the gullible but with very little basis in fact.

TheScreamingEagles

There was a comres poll in January.

Then the VI for the Euros was

ComRes/People – CON 22%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 23%, GRN 5%, Others 8%

Which means changes since then are

UKIP +4

Lab -12

Tories -1

LD + 10

Others -2

Alanbrooke

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

curse of the new thread !

A lot in there I agree with Charles, but it still doesn't explain the CP blindspot, maybe it's just something as simple as DC doesn't want the job enough. But when the papers now come round to thinking of his "legacy" there isn't going to be much positive to say. Perhaps he was the right PM for different times, but at present he's letting events dictate to him.

TheScreamingEagles

stodge said:

A little clarity required on TSE's generally excellent commentary,

It's inaccurate to say that somehow David Cameron supports a referendum while Messrs Miliband anc Clegg do not.

The Conservatives are not supporting a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.

Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.

Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.

Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.

It is therefore misleading and a simplistic swallowing of the CCHQ line to assume that "only the Conservatives" will offer a referendum. It's entirely possible Labour and the Lib Dems will offer a similar commitment prior to the 2015 General Election and that's a long way off.

Very much along the lines of "Vote UKIP, get Labour" it's a Conservative line designed to woo the gullible but with very little basis in fact.

Understood, Stodge, I've amended the header to make it clear it is the Times' commentary, not mine.

Alanbrooke

MikeK said:

First:
FPT:
taffys said:
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.

The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.

The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.

But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.

and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
---------------
I could't have put better, taffys.

....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.

Well Mike it's taken you a while to notice then, since I've been saying the same things since GOs second year as CoE.

Plato

OT this is quite incredible - and sounds absolutely horrific.

"Cotard’s Syndrome is among the most rare diseases in the world and it is thought that it affects just few hundred people at any one time.

It is linked to depression and comes in a variety of forms including some who feel that their limbs are no longer functioning.

Writing in New Scientist magazine, Graham describes how baffled doctors referred him to neurologists Adam Zeman at the University of Exeter and Steven Laureys at the University of Liège in Belgium.

He said: “I didn't want to face people. There was no point. I lost my sense of smell and my sense of taste. There was no point in eating because I was dead. It was a waste of time speaking as I never had anything to say.”

The nadir was when he felt compelled to go to his local cemetery as he thought he would fit in.

He said: "I just felt I might as well stay there. It was the closest I could get to death. The police would come and get me, though, and take me back home."

Graham’s recovery started with scans which found that levels of activity in parts of his brain were so low they were more consistent with somebody in a vegetative state.

Mr Laureys said: ‘"I've been analysing (brain) scans for 15 years and I've never seen anyone who was on his feet, who was interacting with people, with such an abnormal scan result.

"Graham's brain function resembles that of someone during anaesthesia or sleep.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10081702/Man-with-Walking-Corpse-Syndrome-believes-he-is-dead.html

Charles

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

curse of the new thread !

A lot in there I agree with Charles, but it still doesn't explain the CP blindspot, maybe it's just something as simple as DC doesn't want the job enough. But when the papers now come round to thinking of his "legacy" there isn't going to be much positive to say. Perhaps he was the right PM for different times, but at present he's letting events dictate to him.

Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that DC is a reasonably good PM, but not a very good politician. Better that way round than the alternative (e.g. Blair or Brown)

Grandiose

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

SouthamObserver

MikeK said:

First:
FPT:
taffys said:
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.

The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.

The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.

But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.

and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
---------------
I could't have put better, taffys.

....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.

Another way of putting this is that UKIP believes in the arbitrary application of the law, the other parties believe in the rule of law.

taffys

Another way of putting this is that UKIP believes in the arbitrary application of the law, the other parties believe in the rule of law.

That's one way of looking at it SO, but it is perhaps a bit harsh. UKIP contend they can change the framework of the law to allow for more and quicker deportations, whilst guaranteeing basic freedoms at the same time.

I don;t know whether they can, but its worth remembering Britain somehow rubbed along before foreign courts and foreign governments got involved in our system of justice.

TheScreamingEagles

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

edmundintokyo

A caveat on the secondaries about leaving the EU etc: The poll was paid for by a pressure group called Open Europe. (It supports EU membership, but wants a less integrationist EU). Pressure groups don't fund polling to help people who want to bet on politics, so they may well have gamed the way the questions were asked to get the outcome they want.

It's possible that they've gamed the party shares as well, but unless their strategy is very cunning and sophisticated it seems a bit unlikely as it's showing big scores for both UKIP (too BOO for them) and the LibDems (too pro-integration for them).

Grandiose

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

At GE, just maybe. But I don't think the "Vote Yellow, get Blue" mantra really applies to Europe. Of course, perhaps people are less ashamed to vote LD at any level - but there's not been any recovery in the GE polling figures.

Is there a COMRES poll before January for comparison?

TheScreamingEagles

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

At GE, just maybe. But I don't think the "Vote Yellow, get Blue" mantra really applies to Europe. Of course, perhaps people are less ashamed to vote LD at any level - but there's not been any recovery in the GE polling figures.

Is there a COMRES poll before January for comparison?

I know, my tongue was somewhere in the vicinity of my cheek when I made that comment.

Nope, no polls prior to January, there's been very few Euro polls, this is only the third poll on the Euros, in this parliament.

Alanbrooke

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

curse of the new thread !

A lot in there I agree with Charles, but it still doesn't explain the CP blindspot, maybe it's just something as simple as DC doesn't want the job enough. But when the papers now come round to thinking of his "legacy" there isn't going to be much positive to say. Perhaps he was the right PM for different times, but at present he's letting events dictate to him.

Fundamentally it comes down to the fact that DC is a reasonably good PM, but not a very good politician. Better that way round than the alternative (e.g. Blair or Brown)

Errr don't you need to be a good politician to be a PM ? I'd say DC is a mediocre PM, he hasn't really got a sense of where he wants to take the country. There's still no answer to the question what's the point of David Cameron ?

He hasn't really got to grips with economic reform, he has spent too much of his political capital on secondary issues and now he's running out of time since the GE electoral cycle kicks in about this time next year. In his defence he hasn't allowed the UK's situation to get worse, but then he hasn't made it better either. I can't help but think it's five years of marking time.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

FluffyThoughts

Edward Samuel Miliband does not need to win an election, European or otherwise. His loyalty is genetically entwined into his "family" and re-enforced by Lavalite preeching from his 'Pata'....

Go... UKIP!

Charles

tim said:

@Charles.

the false folk memories

Ha.
Let me guess, the stories about false Labour folk memories have been passed down for 12 generations to you.

You're an unwitting encapsulation of the Tory problem.

No: just saying that Labour has a structural advantage in large parts of the country. That this structural advantage is based on myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Indeed, it makes it harder to combat effectively than a purely fact based argument.

edit: I'm a strong believer in the difference between logos and mythos. Read some Karen Armstrong if you have time: hard work but very rewarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

Sunil_Prasannan

Comres (EU)/The Sunil on Bank Holiday:

Tory/UKIP 48%
Euroholics 41%

Plato

Matt is brilliant once again

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

FluffyThoughts

edmundintokyo said:

... Pressure groups don't fund polling to help people who want to bet on politics, so they may well have gamed the way the questions were asked to get the outcome they want.

Totally agree. Can people stop posting anything polled by Al-Beeb!

Charles

tim said:

@Charles

No: just saying that Labour has a structural advantage in large parts of the country. That this structural advantage is based on myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Funnier by the minute.

Poor poor Tories, it's all so unfair

It's not unfair. Labour has done a very good job over a generation in creating a structural advantage (some due to luck, some due to Tory mistakes, so due to effective Labour strategy).

The challenge for the Tories is how to combat it.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

I think you are reading more into my statement than I meant. But why is saying something is wrong "repellant". Fine: disagree with me; argue against my point. But the fact that I make the point doesn't negate what I stand for.

For instance: the myth among some on the left that Thatcher was uniquely evil. She wasn't - she made mistakes, like everyone, but believed that what she was doing was right.

Charles

tim said:

Charles said:

tim said:

@Charles

No: just saying that Labour has a structural advantage in large parts of the country. That this structural advantage is based on myth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Funnier by the minute.

Poor poor Tories, it's all so unfair

It's not unfair. Labour has done a very good job over a generation in creating a structural advantage (some due to luck, some due to Tory mistakes, so due to effective Labour strategy).

The challenge for the Tories is how to combat it.

The recent outpouring of Tory mythology regarding soft on crime, skyrocketing dependency culture, high tax Thatcher doesn't even register.

It's really not Labour's fault that the Tories have been taken over by a chumocracy that couldn't even get a majority against Brown.

There's plenty of Tory myth as well. That said it tends to have an 'intellectual' appeal rather than a 'community' appeal so is rather less effective in political terms (at least outside the activist base)

If you've noticed, as well, my main point was that Cameron doesn't effectively appeal to the C1/C2s that won Thatcher her majorities.

OldKingCole

Delighted by the LibDem share, but find it difficult to believe.

edmundintokyo

Charles said:

I think you are reading more into my statement than I meant. But why is saying something is wrong "repellant". Fine: disagree with me; argue against my point. But the fact that I make the point doesn't negate what I stand for.

For instance: the myth among some on the left that Thatcher was uniquely evil. She wasn't - she made mistakes, like everyone, but believed that what she was doing was right.

I don't think Thatcher was uniquely evil I'm going to try to make this point without invoking Godwin's Law, but believing what you were doing was right wouldn't actually be contradictory to being uniquely evil.

MonikerDiCanio

OldKingCole said:

Delighted by the LibDem share, but find it difficult to believe.

Shocking poll for Labour. They're bleeding eurosceptic votes to UKIP and europhile votes to the LibDems. EdM's european strategy has failed.

MikeK

TheScreamingEagles said:

stodge said:

A little clarity required on TSE's generally excellent commentary,

It's inaccurate to say that somehow David Cameron supports a referendum while Messrs Miliband anc Clegg do not.

The Conservatives are not supporting a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.

Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.

Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.

Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.

It is therefore misleading and a simplistic swallowing of the CCHQ line to assume that "only the Conservatives" will offer a referendum. It's entirely possible Labour and the Lib Dems will offer a similar commitment prior to the 2015 General Election and that's a long way off.

Very much along the lines of "Vote UKIP, get Labour" it's a Conservative line designed to woo the gullible but with very little basis in fact.

Understood, Stodge, I've amended the header to make it clear it is the Times' commentary, not mine.

Blimey! If you believe Stodge's bunkum, you'll believe anything.
All three parties have promised referendums and reneged on their promises. These parties will keep on promising and keep on lying to the people. Even the most gullible will change position if beaten on the head enough times; apparently not Stodge or for that matter, TSE.

Socrates

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

Yes, they expanded the public sector to take all these people on. That led to its own problems.

Let's also remember that unemployment at its very peak under Thatcher was 11%. Hollande has achieved the same in France - and it's rising. Would you give Hollande the same amount of opprobrium you give Thatcher? At least Thatcher achieved badly needed reform. I personally place the main responsibility on those that allowed the subsidies to creep up and up for the UK coal industry, which was always going to force a nasty experience when they had to be taken away.

TheScreamingEagles

MikeK said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

stodge said:

A little clarity required on TSE's generally excellent commentary,

It's inaccurate to say that somehow David Cameron supports a referendum while Messrs Miliband anc Clegg do not.

The Conservatives are not supporting a referendum.NOW which is the same as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UKIP want a referendum now but they can say that safe in the knowledge it won't happen as they are around 326 seats short of making it happen.

Ed Miliband has not ruled out a referendum if he wins a majority in 2015 - he has only ruled out one before 2015. Nick Clegg's position is similar.

Therefore, none of the three main parties with seats in the Commons is advocating a referendum before 2015 - the Conservatives are only committed to having one after 2015 subject to a two-year renegotiation process if they win a majority.

Note this means that IF they are in Opposition, they are not committed to supporting a proposal for a referendum put forward by, for example, a minority Labour Government.

It is therefore misleading and a simplistic swallowing of the CCHQ line to assume that "only the Conservatives" will offer a referendum. It's entirely possible Labour and the Lib Dems will offer a similar commitment prior to the 2015 General Election and that's a long way off.

Very much along the lines of "Vote UKIP, get Labour" it's a Conservative line designed to woo the gullible but with very little basis in fact.

Understood, Stodge, I've amended the header to make it clear it is the Times' commentary, not mine.

Blimey! If you believe Stodge's bunkum, you'll believe anything.
All three parties have promised referendums and reneged on their promises. These parties will keep on promising and keep on lying to the people. Even the most gullible will change position if beaten on the head enough times; apparently not Stodge or for that matter, TSE.

Never mind, maybe you'll understand one day just what Stodge and I were discussing.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

I think you are reading more into my statement than I meant. But why is saying something is wrong "repellant". Fine: disagree with me; argue against my point. But the fact that I make the point doesn't negate what I stand for.

For instance: the myth among some on the left that Thatcher was uniquely evil. She wasn't - she made mistakes, like everyone, but believed that what she was doing was right.

It's the dismissal of certain views as "false folk memories" that is repellant. It's akin to a dismissive wave of the hand. I find that repellant - the view, that is, not the person expressing it. I probably agree with much of what you stand for. I am pro free markets, private enterprise, private property, aspiration etc.

edmundintokyo

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

Wait until we see the full detail of the poll. What OpenEurope might have done is asked all the other questions about your preferred Europe strategy first, then tacked the party preference vote on later. That would explain the high UKIP score and the mysteriously high LibDem result, as people would cluster around the parties with their preferred EU strategy, rather than the ones they prefer overall.

Socrates

On topic. The poll suffers from the idea that "repatriating powers but staying in the EU" is one cohesive position. It's very possible there are people choosing that option that won't be satisfied with whatever powers are repatriated.

Socrates

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

I think you are reading more into my statement than I meant. But why is saying something is wrong "repellant". Fine: disagree with me; argue against my point. But the fact that I make the point doesn't negate what I stand for.

For instance: the myth among some on the left that Thatcher was uniquely evil. She wasn't - she made mistakes, like everyone, but believed that what she was doing was right.

It's the dismissal of certain views as "false folk memories" that is repellant. It's akin to a dismissive wave of the hand. I find that repellant - the view, that is, not the person expressing it. I probably agree with much of what you stand for. I am pro free markets, private enterprise, private property, aspiration etc.

He didn't dismiss it. He asked it as a question, for others to justify the argument to prove it was more than a false folk memory.

edmundintokyo

tim said:

The greatest danger David Cameron faces is an unexpected confidence vote

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100218842/the-greatest-danger-david-cameron-faces-is-an-unexpected-confidence-vote/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

It's an amazing process, isn't it? You send a letter without knowing how many have already been sent, so you don't know if it's going to cause a confidence vote or not. It's like Russian Roulette, except the gun is pointing at someone else's head.

Like I said the other day about the Paddy Power 4/1, I think the upshot is that there will probably be a confidence vote, but at some random time without anything like a workable plot in place, so David Cameron will win it.

Charles

tim said:

@Charles

There's plenty of Tory myth as well. That said it tends to have an 'intellectual' appeal

Funnier and funnier.

Which bit is funny? Or inaccurate?

TheScreamingEagles

edmundintokyo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

Wait until we see the full detail of the poll. What OpenEurope might have done is asked all the other questions about your preferred Europe strategy first, then tacked the party preference vote on later. That would explain the high UKIP score and the mysteriously high LibDem result, as people would cluster around the parties with their preferred EU strategy, rather than the ones they prefer overall.

Indeed, I'd like to see the weightings on this poll.

The last ComRes Westminster VI poll had the Lib Dems on 8%

SouthamObserver

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

Yes, they expanded the public sector to take all these people on. That led to its own problems.

Let's also remember that unemployment at its very peak under Thatcher was 11%. Hollande has achieved the same in France - and it's rising. Would you give Hollande the same amount of opprobrium you give Thatcher? At least Thatcher achieved badly needed reform. I personally place the main responsibility on those that allowed the subsidies to creep up and up for the UK coal industry, which was always going to force a nasty experience when they had to be taken away.

I have never heaped opprobrium on Mrs T. As I have said on here before, without her I probably would not have had the life I have had. I owe plenty to her; just as I owe plenty to the welfare state. But I would not dismiss the very real experiences that plenty of others had in the 80s as false memories.

SouthamObserver

Socrates said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

FPT

Alanbrooke said:

JackW said:

@Alanbrooke - Some interesting points there.

To my mind the rise of Ukip is really quite simple and arises from the confluence of several disparate factors, amongst which are :

1. A growing disconnect between all parties and the public.
2. A continuing disconnect between voters and the EU
3. The absence of the LibDems as opposition to a Conservative government.
4. The Conservatives move to more socially liberal policies.
5. An uninspiring Labour opposition.
6. Normal mid-term blues.
7. Farage as a high profile media friendly leader.
8. Until recently little in depth scrutiny of Ukip policies.
9. Immigration as a continuing concern.

Well while that might explain the rise of UKIP, what the tribal blues have yet to explain is why the current CP can't connect with people who should naturally vote for it. Effectively the blues are increasingly a southern regionalist party with little to offer outside their homelands.

The mantra the voters will come back seems very complacent imo. As someone who's voted blue for most of my adult life I won't at the next GE since I can't see the point. What do the blues offer someone in the Midlands, the North or in Scotland ? There appears very little of note in the conservative debate to engage these parts of the country, therein lies part of the "disconnect" between the current CP and its potential supporters. Have the Conservatives have become a bunch of lazy sods who can't be bothered chasing votes or have they disconnected with the real world to the point where they have no ideas on moving the whole of the country forward ? Whatever it is the lack of dynamism is no better than Ed's lack of policy and decerves to get its rewards at the ballot box.

I think the problem is simply that Blair - an internationalist metropolitan - was the dominant political figure when our current leaders were growing up.

The Tories wanted to emulate him, so elected the same as their leader.

The problem is that, while Labour can rely on many social organisations - the false folk memories, the unions, etc - to preserve links to the ordinary many in the street (and Blair saw this - hence Precott) the Tories can't and haven't given those people who might be able to do that (Hague, Pickles?) sufficient freedom and authority.

It's ironic, perhaps, but Labour can afford an elitest leader in the way the Tories can't. (This is not to say that someone of Cameron's background *can't* connect or show concern for the bulk of the nation, but that he personally appears incapable of doing so)

Charles, saying voters have "false folk memories" is a wonderful encapsulation of a Tory attitude which ensures that many of us who do believe in free markets, enterprise and private ownership would never consider voting Tory. It is magnificently arrogant and perfectly repellant. Congratulations!

Can you explain how it is magnificant'y arrogant and perfectly repellant?

For instance (and don't really want to get into a debate about the specifics because we have done it to death and it's incidental to the argument): the Tories get the blame for closing down the coal industry, while Labour closed a large number of mines as well.

Is that not a 'false folk memory'? Clearly the Tories deserve some blame - for not facing the inevitable in a more compassionate manner and often giving the impression that they revelled in it (the 'hard-faced men') - but not all the blame.

By dismissing something as a false folk memory you are saying it is wrong and you are absolving yourself of engagement - that is arrogant and repellant.

And the closing of the coal mines has never been an issue per se - it's what happened as a result of the closures. When mines closed under Labour there were other jobs to go to and communities were not torn apart.

I think you are reading more into my statement than I meant. But why is saying something is wrong "repellant". Fine: disagree with me; argue against my point. But the fact that I make the point doesn't negate what I stand for.

For instance: the myth among some on the left that Thatcher was uniquely evil. She wasn't - she made mistakes, like everyone, but believed that what she was doing was right.

It's the dismissal of certain views as "false folk memories" that is repellant. It's akin to a dismissive wave of the hand. I find that repellant - the view, that is, not the person expressing it. I probably agree with much of what you stand for. I am pro free markets, private enterprise, private property, aspiration etc.

He didn't dismiss it. He asked it as a question, for others to justify the argument to prove it was more than a false folk memory.

He said Labour can rely on false folk memories to maintain links with ordinary voters. It's that notion that I am calling into question.

RodCrosby

Here's my Euro Calculator again..
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AswNZWYSW1uvdFFtVGpSQzVoVXpGM253UkhrTEdFbVE&usp=sharing

GIN1138

A euro elections result like that would certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons.

NickPalmer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Grandiose said:

LD 18 (+10) since January.

Hmm.

Similarly the Labour loss seems too big to be explainable. MOE has probably worked to expand it.

It could be Clegg's differentiation strategy bearing fruit.

Lib Dem net gains in 2015, remember you read it here first.

At GE, just maybe. But I don't think the "Vote Yellow, get Blue" mantra really applies to Europe. Of course, perhaps people are less ashamed to vote LD at any level - but there's not been any recovery in the GE polling figures.

Is there a COMRES poll before January for comparison?

I know, my tongue was somewhere in the vicinity of my cheek when I made that comment.

Nope, no polls prior to January, there's been very few Euro polls, this is only the third poll on the Euros, in this parliament.

There was a fairly recent YouGov, showing Lab 31, UKIP 30, Con 21 (IIRC). The same sample had the usual sort of Labour lead of 10 or so, I think.

FluffyThoughts

Off-topic:

Sorry, but would it be offensive for Kenya to refuse to play test-match cricket with New Zealand? Maybe Pakistan and Ireland, together with The Netherlands, should invite the Kiwis, Zimbabwe and Scotland to join them in a new 'global' competition...?

Just imagine: "An Arc of Cricket Prosperity!" Oh, joy....

Edited-to-add: Maybe Sven could cobble a joint Danish/Swiss team? That would represent more than he ever achieved whilst as a Broxtowe MP....

CarlottaVance

"Lab -12"

Hence the circular discussion on "false folk memories".

Ed is Brilliant

Neil

@CarlottaVance

I dont think anyone is taking the poll too seriously.

CarlottaVance

Neil said:

@CarlottaVance
I dont think anyone is taking the poll too seriously.

Least of all voters. But it does rather undermine the "UKIP is only a problem for the Tories" (in electoral terms, its clearly a huge problem within the Tory party itself) - if the leading opposition party cannot do better mid term in a deeply unpopular government.

Neil

CarlottaVance said:

But it does rather undermine the "UKIP is only a problem for the Tories"

It doesnt really - the fact remains that the better UKIP does at the next GE the more difficult it will be for the Tories to beat Labour.

Sunil_Prasannan

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Dave, for lack of a better word, is good. Dave is right, Dave works. Dave clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Dave, in all of his forms; Dave for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Dave, you mark my words, will not only save the Tory Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK. Thank you very much.

AveryLP

Sleazy Labour on the slide.

Next

Neil said:

CarlottaVance said:

But it does rather undermine the "UKIP is only a problem for the Tories"

It doesnt really - the fact remains that the better UKIP does at the next GE the more difficult it will be for the Tories to beat Labour.

There's a difference between voting for UKIP at the Euros (which this poll relates to), and voting for UKIP at a GE and letting Labour in.

Neil

Next said:

There's a difference between voting for UKIP at the Euros (which this poll relates to), and voting for UKIP at a GE and letting Labour in.

And the more people who do the latter the bigger the problem for the Tories. Despite what many pb-ers want to believe.

JosiasJessop

Plato said:

OT this is quite incredible - and sounds absolutely horrific.

"Cotard’s Syndrome is among the most rare diseases in the world and it is thought that it affects just few hundred people at any one time.

It is linked to depression and comes in a variety of forms including some who feel that their limbs are no longer functioning.

Writing in New Scientist magazine, Graham describes how baffled doctors referred him to neurologists Adam Zeman at the University of Exeter and Steven Laureys at the University of Liège in Belgium.

He said: “I didn't want to face people. There was no point. I lost my sense of smell and my sense of taste. There was no point in eating because I was dead. It was a waste of time speaking as I never had anything to say.”

The nadir was when he felt compelled to go to his local cemetery as he thought he would fit in.

He said: "I just felt I might as well stay there. It was the closest I could get to death. The police would come and get me, though, and take me back home."

Graham’s recovery started with scans which found that levels of activity in parts of his brain were so low they were more consistent with somebody in a vegetative state.

Mr Laureys said: ‘"I've been analysing (brain) scans for 15 years and I've never seen anyone who was on his feet, who was interacting with people, with such an abnormal scan result.

"Graham's brain function resembles that of someone during anaesthesia or sleep.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10081702/Man-with-Walking-Corpse-Syndrome-believes-he-is-dead.html

Off-topic:

I read a detective novel by Harry Bingham recently where the protagonist - a DC in South Wales police - had suffered from Cotard's Syndrome during her teenage years. It's a book with some rather interesting ideas, if a rather eccentric and unbelievable plot.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Talking-Dead-Harry-Bingham/dp/1409140865

Having said that, as a child Mrs J believed that all adults - every single one - were robots, and that she was the only living human being. The phase lasted for a few years, and she still believes that everyone must go through that phase as children.

I've often wondered if that's why she went into technology... ;-)

perdix

MikeK said:

First:
FPT:
taffys said:
The difference between UKIP and the mainstream parties boils down to one thing. Belief in the current governmental framework.

The main parties believe in it, and are committed to working within it. UKIP don't think its fit for purpose.

The recent terror case is a great example. The tories are promising crackdowns and gags of preachers, but its all within the current legal framework.

But people don;t want that. They want these people thrown out and their benefits withdrawn. In some cases even if they are British citizens. The main parties will never go there because its outside a legal framework they all believe in, or at least can't be ar&ed to change.

and that explains why UKIP are, and will continue to be, a force.
---------------
I could't have put better, taffys.

....and to Alanbrooke: Let's not quibble over semantics, the point is I notice a change in your attitude if not entirely in your thinking. And theres nothing wrong with that.

So basically ukip are irrational.

Plato

OT I'm a huge fan of illusions and magic - has anyone seen Penn & Teller live?

I've seen several magicians live and the Vegas ones are superb - been in the front row for one literally 5ft from a disappearing car/motorcycle and had no idea how the showman did it.

This trick from Fool Us is always impressive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz0mq_H0mqA

and this is superb tabletop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eip7JrQ6IdE

AveryLP

Neil said:

CarlottaVance said:

But it does rather undermine the "UKIP is only a problem for the Tories"

It doesnt really - the fact remains that the better UKIP does at the next GE the more difficult it will be for the Tories to beat Labour.

Neil, I think you are underestimating the extent to which UKIP is undergoing a transformation from an intellectually coherent anti-EU lobby group to a far right racist party appealing to life's losers.

A prominent LSE professor of International History has recently noted that UKIP party's leader doesn't even know where to put his apostrophes. He has concluded UKIP has "gone completely fruitcake".

In the circumstances it is quite reasonable for the disinterested to conclude that UKIP is now far greater a threat to Labour than the Conservative Party.

MonikerDiCanio

" UKIP party's leader "

My ,my.

AveryLP

MonikerDiCanio said:

" UKIP party's leader "

My ,my.

Its all over for UKIP, Moniker.

FluffyThoughts

Punctuation:

Niether Wee Timmy nor Wodger seem to understand the purpose of a comma. Neil opens a clause with a hypen but fails to close it (so maybe he should use a semi-colon[?]).

Not since 'A'-Level English have I seen a :-. Maybe AveryLP or one of our resident Dulwich-College former students could remind this frazzled Forest Hill Boys curiousity regarding it's purpose...?

FluffyThoughts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22680499

Put that bloody light out!

Richard_Tyndall

AveryLP said:

Neil said:

CarlottaVance said:

But it does rather undermine the "UKIP is only a problem for the Tories"

It doesnt really - the fact remains that the better UKIP does at the next GE the more difficult it will be for the Tories to beat Labour.

Neil, I think you are underestimating the extent to which UKIP is undergoing a transformation from an intellectually coherent anti-EU lobby group to a far right racist party appealing to life's losers.

A prominent LSE professor of International History has recently noted that UKIP party's leader doesn't even know where to put his apostrophes. He has concluded UKIP has "gone completely fruitcake".

In the circumstances it is quite reasonable for the disinterested to conclude that UKIP is now far greater a threat to Labour than the Conservative Party.

You really are getting desperate with your spinning ALP.

"A prominent LSE professor of International History has recently noted that UKIP party's leader doesn't even know where to put his apostrophes. He has concluded UKIP has "gone completely fruitcake".

Should be corrected to "A former UKIP leader who left in a sulk after the party refused to do what he wanted has always taken every opportunity to attack his former colleagues"

UKIP are not a far right racist party any more than the Tories - actually given their restrictions on membership probably far less than the Tories.

Morris_Dancer

That all looks closer than I would've guessed. I would've imagined UKIP miles ahead, Labour a very clear second and Lib Dems some way off the blues.

Neil

Richard_Tyndall said:

You really are getting desperate with your spinning ALP.

Come on, Richard, he clearly wasnt being serious.

Or, in UKIP-speak.

He' clearly, wasn;t be-ing serious?

Roger

OT. For all those who like a huge production number Baz Luhrmann's "The great Gatsby" is well worth seeing. It has little to do with Scott Fitzgerald's novel-it's more like an updated Busby Berkeley but perfect for a bank holiday Monday

MikeK

Neil said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

You really are getting desperate with your spinning ALP.

Come on, Richard, he clearly wasnt being serious.

Or, in UKIP-speak.

He' clearly, wasn;t be-ing serious?

Oh yes he was. Avery gets very testy whenever the very name UKIP is mentioned. Probably the type to be behind dirty tricks like the these:

Avril K ‏@FreebornTrukip
Dirty tricks in Brighton
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10445445.Ukip_activist_accuses_opposition_of__dirty_tricks__ahead_of_Brighton_meeting/?ref=twtrec …

AndreaParma_82

Regional elections in Valle d'Aosta

Autonomist Coalition 47.9% (down from 61.95% in 2008)
Progressist Coalition 40.5% (up from 27.4%)
Grillo's 5 Stars 6.62%
PDL 4.11% (down from 10.65%)

Autonomists keep the overall majority with 18 seats. Progressists got 15 seats. Grillo 2. PDL lost their seats.

PD polled 8.88% (compared to 9.31% last time) holding their 3 seats within the centre-left coalition (biggest parties are regional based movements)

Turnout 73.03%

nigel4england

AveryLP said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

" UKIP party's leader "

My ,my.

Its all over for UKIP, Moniker.

Not sure which is worse, Tim and his lunatic spinning or Avery and his desperation.

welshowl

Morris_Dancer said:

That all looks closer than I would've guessed. I would've imagined UKIP miles ahead, Labour a very clear second and Lib Dems some way off the blues.

Agreed. Were the Euros held now I'd expect both the Tory and Lib Dem vote to crash (one to UKIP the other vaguely in a green direction) and Labour to do a lot better than either but still no great shakes considering. But of course the election isn't for a long long time so there's a lot to happen yet.

Do we think there's a "shy UKIP voter" syndrome going on with the pollsters here and generally? They did better in the locals than predicted. Do by elections at council level have any data at all to back that up?

DavidL

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

edmundintokyo

welshowl said:

Do we think there's a "shy UKIP voter" syndrome going on with the pollsters here and generally? They did better in the locals than predicted. Do by elections at council level have any data at all to back that up?

They did better than general election polling at the time would have predicted, but there wasn't a general election. Did anyone even do any nationwide local election polling?

AndreaParma_82

I would be very surprised to see LibDems polling 18% in next year's Euro. It would be their best showing since PR was introduced. Actually it's almost on par with 19% polled by SDP-Alliance in 1984

DavidL

Talking of madness, why are England still batting?

Weird. Beginning to wonder if they are hiding an injury to a front line bowler.

welshowl

DavidL said:

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

Amen to that. Not quite certain where we are with the Severn Bareage these days mind. If it could pay it would provide utterly predictable, not affected by the weather, clean power ( once you've built it ) for about 5% of the UK's electric needs .

AndyJS

There's something seriously fishy about this poll putting the LDs on 18%. That just can't be right.

welshowl

DavidL said:

Talking of madness, why are England still batting?

Weird. Beginning to wonder if they are hiding an injury to a front line bowler.

Or the weather forecast is so rubbish they know a result is unlikely so they fancy some batting practice. Having said that Root's just taken one for the team hurrying along ..... So dunno.

AndyJS

@DavidL

We've seen this before with Alistair Cooke. He's hyper-defensive when declaring.

AndyJS

The poll is suspect not just because of the 18% LD figure on its own but because they're only 5% behind Labour which is bonkers.

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

If Robert's around he can fill you in on the details, but it doesn't make sense to say renewables have to stand on their own two feet and make a profit but that you still want new nuclear, as if on the same terms that _can_ stand on its own two feet and make a profit.

Nuclear has always been heavily subsidized one way or another. One of the subsidies I'm paying for in my taxes is that the utilities running the power stations weren't fully insured against accidents, and taxpayers are left picking up the tab for when there turned out to be some unexpected third-party liabilities.

DavidL

AndyJS said:

@DavidL

We've seen this before with Alistair Cooke. He's hyper-defensive when declaring.

Finally. NZ need 468 having scored 449 in the series so far.
Other than demonstrating that Bairstow and Root are ready for the Champions Trophy I really don't know what the last hour achieved. And I think we already knew that.

MikeK

welshowl said:

DavidL said:

Talking of madness, why are England still batting?

Weird. Beginning to wonder if they are hiding an injury to a front line bowler.

Or the weather forecast is so rubbish they know a result is unlikely so they fancy some batting practice. Having said that Root's just taken one for the team hurrying along ..... So dunno.

England declare. UKIP bowlers in the dressing room. LOL.

AveryLP

MikeK said:

Neil said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

You really are getting desperate with your spinning ALP.

Come on, Richard, he clearly wasnt being serious.

Or, in UKIP-speak.

He' clearly, wasn;t be-ing serious?

Oh yes he was. Avery gets very testy whenever the very name UKIP is mentioned. Probably the type to be behind dirty tricks like the these:

Avril K ‏@FreebornTrukip
Dirty tricks in Brighton
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10445445.Ukip_activist_accuses_opposition_of__dirty_tricks__ahead_of_Brighton_meeting/?ref=twtrec …

I have cancelled my earlier post in sympathy, Mr. K.

I have no wish to be part of any dirty trick's.

AndyJS

Bad weather is apparently forecast for later today and tomorrow at Headingley...

AveryLP

AndreaParma_82 said:

Regional elections in Valle d'Aosta

Grillo's 5 Stars 6.62%

Turnout 73.03%

Kipper's to note.

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

If Robert's around he can fill you in on the details, but it doesn't make sense to say renewables have to stand on their own two feet and make a profit but that you still want new nuclear, as if on the same terms that _can_ stand on its own two feet and make a profit.

Nuclear has always been heavily subsidized one way or another. One of the subsidies I'm paying for in my taxes is that the utilities running the power stations weren't fully insured against accidents, and taxpayers are left picking up the tab for when there turned out to be some unexpected third-party liabilities.

That's a fair point EiT but the difference I see is that new nuclear (which I specified) is much cheaper because the amount of waste is hugely reduced and it gives secure base load which renewables (other than possibly the Severn barrage) do not. These decisions should have been taken 7 or 8 years ago and are still being ducked. Not good for UK manufacturing, growth, employment or heating bills.

MikeK

AveryLP said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Regional elections in Valle d'Aosta

Grillo's 5 Stars 6.62%

Turnout 73.03%

Kipper's to note.

Another false comparison, Avery.

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

If Robert's around he can fill you in on the details, but it doesn't make sense to say renewables have to stand on their own two feet and make a profit but that you still want new nuclear, as if on the same terms that _can_ stand on its own two feet and make a profit.

Nuclear has always been heavily subsidized one way or another. One of the subsidies I'm paying for in my taxes is that the utilities running the power stations weren't fully insured against accidents, and taxpayers are left picking up the tab for when there turned out to be some unexpected third-party liabilities.

Right. Aside from accidents, even run of the mill decommissioning costs for nuclear are huge.

Garethofthevale

AveryLP said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Regional elections in Valle d'Aosta

Grillo's 5 Stars 6.62%

Turnout 73.03%

Kipper's to note.

Er. They polled more than the mainstream right wing party (PDL) though. LOL

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

welshowl said:

Do we think there's a "shy UKIP voter" syndrome going on with the pollsters here and generally? They did better in the locals than predicted. Do by elections at council level have any data at all to back that up?

They did better than general election polling at the time would have predicted, but there wasn't a general election. Did anyone even do any nationwide local election polling?

I've come to the conclusion that the shy factor isn't about being right wing, it's just about the Tory brand.

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

This is a story about German power generation but it could so easily have been our own: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10079798/IEA-warns-Germany-on-soaring-green-dream-costs.html

The IEA warns that the rising cost of electricity driven by subsidies for green and renewable energy threaten support for the whole green agenda. Well quite.

I think frustration with this sort of nonsense drives a lot of UKIP's support. The last government's handling of energy policy came pretty close to wilful incompetence (Ed Miliband, take a bow). The Lib Dems in this government have not been much better.

Yes to shale gas.
Yes to clean coal technology.
Yes to new nuclear.
Now. Right now.
If renewables can stand on their own two feet and make a profit fine. Otherwise stop it.

If Robert's around he can fill you in on the details, but it doesn't make sense to say renewables have to stand on their own two feet and make a profit but that you still want new nuclear, as if on the same terms that _can_ stand on its own two feet and make a profit.

Nuclear has always been heavily subsidized one way or another. One of the subsidies I'm paying for in my taxes is that the utilities running the power stations weren't fully insured against accidents, and taxpayers are left picking up the tab for when there turned out to be some unexpected third-party liabilities.

That's a fair point EiT but the difference I see is that new nuclear (which I specified) is much cheaper because the amount of waste is hugely reduced and it gives secure base load which renewables (other than possibly the Severn barrage) do not.

It may or may not turn out to be cheaper. They're always cheap at the powerpoint stage. But the commercial fact right now is that nobody will build a nuclear power station in Britain without all kinds of government price guarantees and hidden subsidies.

It may still end up comparing favourably to available renewable, or to fossil fuels if you count the damage costs of the CO2 you emit properly. But these comparisons are quite difficult to do, because nuclear power stations take ages to plan and build, then need to run for several decades, and you don't know what the costs of renewable energy will look like over those timescales.

Socrates

Muslim organisations have failed to teach young people that there is a democratic route to express discontent, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095

JamesKelly

'McColl poses key questions for No campaign'

In a major intervention into the independence debate one of Scotland’s leading businessmen has posed a series of key questions for the No campaign.

Questioning what the incentives would be in Scotland after a No vote Mr McColl said “If it is a No vote and the status quo, I think we are looking into a very sad future”.

Jim McColl asks in an interview with today’s Scotsman how voting no will rebalance the UK economy away from its London centric focus; what options Scotland will have other than UK driven austerity; what further incentives there will be for business in Scotland; and how the one size fits all approach to welfare that is leaving many people facing harsh cuts in essential support can be tackled.

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/may/mccoll-poses-key-questions-no-campaign

BoredInParis

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

welshowl said:

Do we think there's a "shy UKIP voter" syndrome going on with the pollsters here and generally? They did better in the locals than predicted. Do by elections at council level have any data at all to back that up?

They did better than general election polling at the time would have predicted, but there wasn't a general election. Did anyone even do any nationwide local election polling?

I've come to the conclusion that the shy factor isn't about being right wing, it's just about the Tory brand.

You're not the only one.

Roger

@Socrates

"I've come to the conclusion that the shy factor isn't about being right wing, it's just about the Tory brand."

I think that's true and has been exacerbated by the Etonian question. Private schooling hasn't previously been on anyone's radar but now out of nowhere people are asking whether it's reasonable for the leadership of the Tory Party to chant the benefits of the public school which is only open to a tiny privileged section of the population. The children of the wealthy. It feels Dickensian.