Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
There is a part of me that thinks that this may be a good election for the Tories to lose and that 5 years of Ed could kill Labour for ever.
There is another part of me that thinks that the reasons why that may be the case won't make it worth the benefit.
There's also a third part that's aware that people who wish to lose elections for tactical reasons usually have cause to rue that desire later.
Indeed - as you imply 5 years of Ed may also sink this country for ever. It might also make calling an EU referendum after 2020 very difficult as the UK would not look an attractive proposition for inward investment and may need to hold on to nanny EU's coat tails.
To believe the country might be sunk for ever suggests you have little belief in the British people. I do believe in them. Miliband will likely be a setback but no miserable Labour misfit is capable of breaking the British people.
That Tories seem to believe this just demonstrates how much Labour has undermined them and sent them to a very bad place psychologically. One might diagnose it as a type of political Stockholm syndrome,
Well the previous Labour administration came close to doing that so you have to excuse my concerns. I also have confidence in the British people but tend to feel the quirks in the electoral system will not lead to the outcome you want. If against my expectations Labour do well they will be re-elected in 2020 with the right remaining split and no EU referendum being available. If they do badly the scenario I describe before comes into play.
Only if the situation remains the same. If Miliband wins Cameron is gone. Things will no longer be the same.
" You can't unilaterally un-ratify a treaty which 26 other countries have ratified and which restructures the EU"
Well, you can by leaving the EU. I suppose that is UKIPs argument.
Indeed, and if there is a Conservative government they will be able to argue for leaving the EU when the referendum is held. If there isn't a Conservative government, we'll be stuck where we are.
With a Tory government pretending to get concessions from the EU and then holding a referendum it will probably get an "in" vote. I'm sure the EU will play ball with them to get the right result and then revert to type afterwards.
If Labour get in and are as big a disaster as we're all expecting then UKIP will gain a lot of support for 2020 allowing them to demand when the referendum is held and be in a much stronger position to win it.
Farage has not yet been able to hold his MEPs together from one set of EC elections to the next. If Farage can do this......
...Cameron do better? How my MPs has he lost since the last election?
Farage only has to keep a dozen or so on board. Never managed it in 3 previous groups of MEPs. 300 is a much much bigger number than 12. UKIP currently has 24.
haha lighten up!
You made the criticism before remembering the UKIP defections, it was an open goal
This whole thing about UKIP losing MEP's when its primary aim is to make all it's MEP's redundant has the potency of wet flatulence!
Would you prefer the stat that UKIP has lost 50% of all MPs that it has every had?
(Don't think there is anyone other than Spink and Carswell?)
or how about the one that the Tories have not won a majority for 22 years (and at this rate will likely not win a majority in the next 22 years either)
Now that window!
We've been through a bad patch recently.
But these things come around. After all, we were in opposition from 1712-1762.
Come back to me in 30 years time and I might be getting a little twitchy ;-)
She is tremendously lucky to have such a winnable seat at such a young age, every candidate I've ever known below the age of about 35 is normally given total no hoper seats ! Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
There is a part of me that thinks that this may be a good election for the Tories to lose and that 5 years of Ed could kill Labour for ever.
There is another part of me that thinks that the reasons why that may be the case won't make it worth the benefit.
There's also a third part that's aware that people who wish to lose elections for tactical reasons usually have cause to rue that desire later.
Indeed - as you imply 5 years of Ed may also sink this country for ever. It might also make calling an EU referendum after 2020 very difficult as the UK would not look an attractive proposition for inward investment and may need to hold on to nanny EU's coat tails.
To believe the country might be sunk for ever suggests you have little belief in the British people. I do believe in them. Miliband will likely be a setback but no miserable Labour misfit is capable of breaking the British people.
That Tories seem to believe this just demonstrates how much Labour has undermined them and sent them to a very bad place psychologically. One might diagnose it as a type of political Stockholm syndrome,
Well the previous Labour administration came close to doing that so you have to excuse my concerns. I also have confidence in the British people but tend to feel the quirks in the electoral system will not lead to the outcome you want. If against my expectations Labour do well they will be re-elected in 2020 with the right remaining split and no EU referendum being available. If they do badly the scenario I describe before comes into play.
Only if the situation remains the same. If Miliband wins Cameron is gone. Things will no longer be the same.
Ok so you have the scalp of Cameron so someone maybe BoJo takes over over. Is that person going to dismantle the Tory party? Are Ukip going to disband once a tough Eurosceptic becomes Tory leader? Of course not so the right will remain split.
" You can't unilaterally un-ratify a treaty which 26 other countries have ratified and which restructures the EU"
Well, you can by leaving the EU. I suppose that is UKIPs argument.
Indeed, and if there is a Conservative government they will be able to argue for leaving the EU when the referendum is held. If there isn't a Conservative government, we'll be stuck where we are.
With a Tory government pretending to get concessions from the EU and then holding a referendum it will probably get an "in" vote. I'm sure the EU will play ball with them to get the right result and then revert to type afterwards.
If Labour get in and are as big a disaster as we're all expecting then UKIP will gain a lot of support for 2020 allowing them to demand when the referendum is held and be in a much stronger position to win it.
Farage has not yet been able to hold his MEPs together from one set of EC elections to the next. If Farage can do this......
...Cameron can do better?
How my MPs has he lost since the last election?
Less than 1%.
What percentage of MEPs has Farage lost in the last 5 years?
edit: Carswell, Reckless & Mensch. Considered Newark as a replacement rather than a loss.
Brilliant!
Lighten up you cant twist everything x
Not twisting anything. Just calling you out on your BS...
God you are a bore!
As if a UKIPper isn't going to cite Cameron failing to keep his MPs from defecting when people criticise Farage for some Latvian MEP leaving a group!
Sooooo touchy
Smiley face insert!!! all in light heart:):):)
Just responding to your criticism...
I just hate the misuse of statistics...
(edit: any my view on the Latvian Question is - if the comments on here are true - it's a shabby and pathetic trick by the EPP. If you disagree with a group argue with them. Don't try to close them down through procedural games)
I can't help thinking that a 22 year old has better things to do than to become a backbench MP. If she loses she'll come to think of it as a great mercy.
She is tremendously lucky to have such a winnable seat at such a young age, every candidate I've ever known below the age of about 35 is normally given total no hoper seats ! Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
Do you think the age thing will make a difference?
My intuition tells me it matters little one way or the other, but I don't know what the precedents are. She's certainly got a tough fight on her hands.
(edit: any my view on the Latvian Question is - if the comments on here are true - it's a shabby and pathetic trick by the EPP. If you disagree with a group argue with them. Don't try to close them down through procedural games)
" You can't unilaterally un-ratify a treaty which 26 other countries have ratified and which restructures the EU"
Well, you can by leaving the EU. I suppose that is UKIPs argument.
Indeed, and if there is a Conservative government they will be able to argue for leaving the EU when the referendum is held. If there isn't a Conservative government, we'll be stuck where we are.
With a Tory government pretending to get concessions from the EU and then holding a referendum it will probably get an "in" vote. I'm sure the EU will play ball with them to get the right result and then revert to type afterwards.
If Labour get in and are as big a disaster as we're all expecting then UKIP will gain a lot of support for 2020 allowing them to demand when the referendum is held and be in a much stronger position to win it.
Farage has not yet been able to hold his MEPs together from one set of EC elections to the next. If Farage can do this......
...Cameron do better? How my MPs has he lost since the last election?
Farage only has to keep a dozen or so on board. Never managed it in 3 previous groups of MEPs. 300 is a much much bigger number than 12. UKIP currently has 24.
haha lighten up!
You made the criticism before remembering the UKIP defections, it was an open goal
This whole thing about UKIP losing MEP's when its primary aim is to make all it's MEP's redundant has the potency of wet flatulence!
Would you prefer the stat that UKIP has lost 50% of all MPs that it has every had?
(Don't think there is anyone other than Spink and Carswell?)
or how about the one that the Tories have not won a majority for 22 years (and at this rate will likely not win a majority in the next 22 years either)
Now that window!
We've been through a bad patch recently.
But these things come around. After all, we were in opposition from 1712-1762.
Come back to me in 30 years time and I might be getting a little twitchy ;-)
Good point we might also have a better idea of the success or otherwise of the French Revolution by then.
To believe the country might be sunk for ever suggests you have little belief in the British people. I do believe in them. Miliband will likely be a setback but no miserable Labour misfit is capable of breaking the British people.
'Ever' is a long time, but having lived through a decade and a half of steady national decline from the mid-sixties, which then required drastic and painful action to correct when reality was finally faced, I for one have no desire for a repeat.
And who knows - this time around, there might not be another Maggie to rescue us even in that timescale - it was touch and go last time.
But these things come around. After all, we were in opposition from 1712-1762.
Come back to me in 30 years time and I might be getting a little twitchy ;-)
As an aside, this is quite a good explanation of why my father's family switched our support to the Tories (my mother's family continued to be starry-eyed lefties until the 1880s)
She is tremendously lucky to have such a winnable seat at such a young age, every candidate I've ever known below the age of about 35 is normally given total no hoper seats ! Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
Do you think the age thing will make a difference?
My intuition tells me it matters little one way or the other, but I don't know what the precedents are. She's certainly got a tough fight on her hands.
No - people who attend hustings and so forth are far more politically interested than the general population. I don't think it matters who the candidate is if you aren't the incumbent.
Far more relevant is if the people of Nuneaton and Bedworth believe their MP (Marcus Jones) has been a good'un or not. Looking at Lord Ashcroft's tables it seems he doesn't really have a negative or positive personal vote.
So I don't think it affects her chances either way.
Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
There is a part of me that thinks that this may be a good election for the Tories to lose and that 5 years of Ed could kill Labour for ever.
There is another part of me that thinks that the reasons why that may be the case won't make it worth the benefit.
There's also a third part that's aware that people who wish to lose elections for tactical reasons usually have cause to rue that desire later.
Indeed - as you imply 5 years of Ed may also sink this country for ever. It might also make calling an EU referendum after 2020 very difficult as the UK would not look an attractive proposition for inward investment and may need to hold on to nanny EU's coat tails.
To believe the country might be sunk for ever suggests you have little belief in the British people. I do believe in them. Miliband will likely be a setback but no miserable Labour misfit is capable of breaking the British people.
That Tories seem to believe this just demonstrates how much Labour has undermined them and sent them to a very bad place psychologically. One might diagnose it as a type of political Stockholm syndrome,
Well the previous Labour administration came close to doing that so you have to excuse my concerns. I also have confidence in the British people but tend to feel the quirks in the electoral system will not lead to the outcome you want. If against my expectations Labour do well they will be re-elected in 2020 with the right remaining split and no EU referendum being available. If they do badly the scenario I describe before comes into play.
Only if the situation remains the same. If Miliband wins Cameron is gone. Things will no longer be the same.
Ok so you have the scalp of Cameron so someone maybe BoJo takes over over. Is that person going to dismantle the Tory party? Are Ukip going to disband once a tough Eurosceptic becomes Tory leader? Of course not so the right will remain split.
Farage's stated objective is to destroy the Conservative Party. That's why he is despised by many.
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
Either that photo has caught her in a really bad light or the job of Home Sec is ageing her alot.
Somewhat more seriously - the one thing that really scared me from her appearance - the comments about 'spending so much time signing bugging warrants etc.' along with 'the number [I] refuse to sign is very very small' - Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but is that not a prelude to her saying that it's a waste of her time, and the security services should be able to decide for themselves?
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
It's not daft at all. If we knew which handful of hay held the needle, it would be easy to find it. But we don't. That is the whole point.
The phrasing of needles and haystacks was originally from the Director of GCHQ, Iain Lobban, rather than being May's personal invention. Presumably if there was some easy way to identify the needle without even looking at any of the hay then that would be their preference.
Sir Iain attempted a metaphor. The internet, he said, was “an enormous hay field”, and his job was to “collect hay from those parts of the field which might be lucrative in terms of containing needles or fragments of needles”. The hay came from “only a tiny proportion of that field”, and he was “very, very well aware that within that haystack there’s going to be plenty of hay which is innocent”. He did not, he insisted, “intrude upon the surrounding hay”. He elaborated on this theme for quite some time. “I’m looking for needles, I’m looking for fragments of needles. I do not look at the hay.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10434183/Sketch-Tinker-Tailor-Needle-Haystack.html
Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
Why add the Con and UKIP shares of the vote, you could add Labour + Alliance in the 80s and get them over 50%...
Except it's a terrible (And frankly patronising) piece of logic to do so - because Alliance voters were not Labour on holiday, and UKIP voters are choosing UKIP, not the Tories.
Labour + Lib Dems got over 50% in the last election. Didn't mean a thing.
Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
Why add the Con and UKIP shares of the vote, you could add Labour + Alliance in the 80s and get them over 50%...
Except it's a terrible (And frankly patronising) piece of logic to do so - because Alliance voters were not Labour on holiday, and UKIP voters are choosing UKIP, not the Tories.
Labour + Lib Dems got over 50% in the last election. Didn't mean a thing.
Don't see the parallel myself. Thatcher obtained a much higher vote share than Ed is likely to do. Ed could win a majority on just a third of the votes if the Tory/UKIP split is something like 30%/20% but will be sustained by Scot Lab MPs. I certainly wasn't making any point about Ukip voters being Tories on holiday but rather given those numbers Ed won't have a lot of moral authority to pursue a leftist agenda even if he was able to do (and financial constraints mean he won't)..
You delude yourself. The Labourites are so arrogant they won´t care to run roughshod over their opponents whatever their % vote is, so long as they can.
Mr. Nabavi, I don't think it's a just measure to try and get as much data as possible from everyone and claim that's necessary for national security. Some data acquisition will be necessary, but throwing out vast nets like enormous fishing vessels to trawl the cyber-ocean for every little fish means many dolphins as well as tuna will be caught.
Mind you, I'm even more concerned by the rampant overuse of RIPA.
As a young Conservative gentleman once said: Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
Either that photo has caught her in a really bad light or the job of Home Sec is ageing her alot.
Somewhat more seriously - the one thing that really scared me from her appearance - the comments about 'spending so much time signing bugging warrants etc.' along with 'the number [I] refuse to sign is very very small' - Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but is that not a prelude to her saying that it's a waste of her time, and the security services should be able to decide for themselves?
Mrs May replied: "I think there is - not a contract entered into - but an unwritten agreement between the individual and the state that the state is going to do everything they can to keep them safe and secure."
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
Either that photo has caught her in a really bad light or the job of Home Sec is ageing her alot.
Somewhat more seriously - the one thing that really scared me from her appearance - the comments about 'spending so much time signing bugging warrants etc.' along with 'the number [I] refuse to sign is very very small' - Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but is that not a prelude to her saying that it's a waste of her time, and the security services should be able to decide for themselves?
Mrs May replied: "I think there is - not a contract entered into - but an unwritten agreement between the individual and the state that the state is going to do everything they can to keep them safe and secure."
The Tories have an image problem which I think they will find difficult to get rid of. This is why Miliband and Labour have talked about the Tories being the nasty party again. Labour will run a negative campaign on the Tories saying that they are the party that attack the vulnerable and don't mind people queuing up at food banks.
Cameron cannot keep using his disabled Son who died in defence saying he cares about the disabled. This does not work, as while people have empathy for Cameron as a parent, it is questionable whether he uses his experience to ensure the government has the right policies. Cameron and his wife are both multi-millionaires, so hardly parents raising disabled children in a council house, where they are getting penalised for using a spare room for storing disability aids.
If the Tories lose in 2015, they can point to mistakes they have made which make it easy for opponents to attack them. Some of the changes they have made don't save much money. The deficit is proving difficult to reduce because the tax take is down. If the Tories do surprisingly win in 2015, you can guarantee that they will increase VAT to 22.5%. People on low inccomes spend more of their income, so while they may benefit from a higher tax allowance, they will lose from any lost tax credits and increased VAT.
She is tremendously lucky to have such a winnable seat at such a young age, every candidate I've ever known below the age of about 35 is normally given total no hoper seats ! Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
Do you think the age thing will make a difference?
My intuition tells me it matters little one way or the other, but I don't know what the precedents are. She's certainly got a tough fight on her hands.
No - people who attend hustings and so forth are far more politically interested than the general population. I don't think it matters who the candidate is if you aren't the incumbent.
Far more relevant is if the people of Nuneaton and Bedworth believe their MP (Marcus Jones) has been a good'un or not. Looking at Lord Ashcroft's tables it seems he doesn't really have a negative or positive personal vote.
So I don't think it affects her chances either way.
Thanks, Pulpy.
That makes Nuneaton TCTC in my book, and UKIP not really a factor.
To believe the country might be sunk for ever suggests you have little belief in the British people. I do believe in them. Miliband will likely be a setback but no miserable Labour misfit is capable of breaking the British people.
'Ever' is a long time, but having lived through a decade and a half of steady national decline from the mid-sixties, which then required drastic and painful action to correct when reality was finally faced, I for one have no desire for a repeat.
And who knows - this time around, there might not be another Maggie to rescue us even in that timescale - it was touch and go last time.
Haha oh, chicken licken.
Oddly, I too feel the next election is vital. This Government has done more to wreck the fabric of our society than any other apart from Thatcher.
Wasteful firesales of public assets, expensive ideological experiments with education, undermining our NHS to the point that it might not survive another Tory term. Undermining public services, from SureStart to libraries. Zero hour contracts, foodbanks, the cost of living crisis. Spiteful attacks on the most vulnerable and disabled from IDS and the "not worth it" mob.
Meanwhile the real problems we face, like the lack of secure employment, housing, the unaccountable power of moguls, monopolies and big business, and most importantly our rotten financial system that caused our economic problems, haven't been fixed and in some cases the situation has got far worse.
The country can't see the back of Cameron and his dreadful crew soon enough.
She is tremendously lucky to have such a winnable seat at such a young age, every candidate I've ever known below the age of about 35 is normally given total no hoper seats ! Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
22 years old with no obvious experience outside of a politics degree and local council. Precisely the kind of candidate that we don't need entering parliament.
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
It's not daft at all. If we knew which handful of hay held the needle, it would be easy to find it. But we don't. That is the whole point.
The phrasing of needles and haystacks was originally from the Director of GCHQ, Iain Lobban, rather than being May's personal invention. Presumably if there was some easy way to identify the needle without even looking at any of the hay then that would be their preference.
Sir Iain attempted a metaphor. The internet, he said, was “an enormous hay field”, and his job was to “collect hay from those parts of the field which might be lucrative in terms of containing needles or fragments of needles”. The hay came from “only a tiny proportion of that field”, and he was “very, very well aware that within that haystack there’s going to be plenty of hay which is innocent”. He did not, he insisted, “intrude upon the surrounding hay”. He elaborated on this theme for quite some time. “I’m looking for needles, I’m looking for fragments of needles. I do not look at the hay.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10434183/Sketch-Tinker-Tailor-Needle-Haystack.html
Mrs May obviously does not have Bernard Woolley working for her using that metaphor
Labour has a leader problem, so the attack line for the day is uncaring baby eating Tories, using a 'bedroom tax' to make disabled parents poorer. Coming from a party which shunted off disabled delegates to one side to improve a photo opportunity of the deadwood at the top.
In other news this week, the unemployment total, inflation rates and the stock markets fell.
The Tories have an image problem which I think they will find difficult to get rid of. This is why Miliband and Labour have talked about the Tories being the nasty party again. Labour will run a negative campaign on the Tories saying that they are the party that attack the vulnerable and don't mind people queuing up at food banks.
Cameron cannot keep using his disabled Son who died in defence saying he cares about the disabled. This does not work, as while people have empathy for Cameron as a parent, it is questionable whether he uses his experience to ensure the government has the right policies. Cameron and his wife are both multi-millionaires, so hardly parents raising disabled children in a council house, where they are getting penalised for using a spare room for storing disability aids.
If the Tories lose in 2015, they can point to mistakes they have made which make it easy for opponents to attack them. Some of the changes they have made don't save much money. The deficit is proving difficult to reduce because the tax take is down. If the Tories do surprisingly win in 2015, you can guarantee that they will increase VAT to 22.5%. People on low inccomes spend more of their income, so while they may benefit from a higher tax allowance, they will lose from any lost tax credits and increased VAT.
'Vote for the Millionaire Milibands from exclusive Primrose Hill!' - Oh, wait...
Oddly, I too feel the next election is vital. This Government has done more to wreck the fabric of our society than any other apart from Thatcher.
Wasteful firesales of public assets, expensive ideological experiments with education, undermining our NHS to the point that it might not survive another Tory term. Undermining public services, from SureStart to libraries. Zero hour contracts, foodbanks, the cost of living crisis. Spiteful attacks on the most vulnerable and disabled from IDS and the "not worth it" mob.
Meanwhile the real problems we face, like the lack of secure employment, housing, the unaccountable power of moguls, monopolies and big business, and most importantly our rotten financial system that caused our economic problems, haven't been fixed and in some cases the situation has got far worse.
The country can't see the back of Cameron and his dreadful crew soon enough.
Well, as you know, I think this is the best government bar Maggie for half a century.
Most of what your say is pure unvarnished fantasy. The idea that there has been an 'undermining' of public services is ludicrous, and the suggestion there have been 'spiteful attacks on the most vulnerable' makes the Kippers look like models of sanity. The plain fact is that, despite the most dramatic pressure on the public finances in peacetime since at least the 1930s, public services have been maintained quite remarkably well - indeed there is no measurable deterioration; on most measures things have improved.
Still, even leaving aside all that, the idea that Ed Miliband, of all people on this earth, will actually be able to do better at at time when everyone agrees that, even in the most optimistic scenario, public spending will have to be cut considerably, is absolutely out with the fairies.
If you really do believe that - and I find it hard to believe that anyone really does - you've got a big, big shock coming.
Oooh - Didn't notice that Jeremy Browne was standing down in Taunton Deane at the next GE. That has to make another Lib-Con coalition less likely I reckon.
Theresa May's comment that innocent people's data is being harvested and searched without their permission is fine because there's an "unwritten agreement" is positively Orwellian. Is this what our politicians think of the consent of the governed these days?
Ed M in "power" on a national 33% vote share here we come. Not sure how he can morally represent the people with a possible Con plus Ukip vote share of around 50% and being propped up by Scot Lab MPs.
There is a part of me that thinks that this may be a good election for the Tories to lose and that 5 years of Ed could kill Labour for ever.
There is another part of me that thinks that the reasons why that may be the case won't make it worth the benefit.
There's also a third part that's aware that people who wish to lose elections for tactical reasons usually have cause to rue that desire later.
Indeed - as you imply 5 years of Ed may also sink this country for ever. It might also make calling an EU referendum after 2020 very difficult as the UK would not look an attractive proposition for inward investment and may need to hold on to nanny EU's coat tails.
/blockquote>
Well the previous Labour administration came close to doing that so you have to excuse my concerns. I also have confidence in the British people but tend to feel the quirks in the electoral system will not lead to the outcome you want. If against my expectations Labour do well they will be re-elected in 2020 with the right remaining split and no EU referendum being available. If they do badly the scenario I describe before comes into play.
Only if the situation remains the same. If Miliband wins Cameron is gone. Things will no longer be the same.
Ok so you have the scalp of Cameron so someone maybe BoJo takes over over. Is that person going to dismantle the Tory party? Are Ukip going to disband once a tough Eurosceptic becomes Tory leader? Of course not so the right will remain split.
Farage's stated objective is to destroy the Conservative Party. That's why he is despised by many.
Presumably by splitting the party with half joining Ukip and the other half joining up with Orange Booker Lib Dems perhaps. Oh were life so simple! Even at the height of the current Ukip uprising the Tories still command nearly a third of the votes. Cameron is still relatively popular at least compared to Ed and Nick. After a 2015 defeat and a Cameron departure internecine warfare would simply continue with Labour remaining the beneficiary. At a guess PR would not be on the agenda.
Theresa May's comment that innocent people's data is being harvested and searched without their permission is fine because there's an "unwritten agreement" is positively Orwellian. Is this what our politicians think of the consent of the governed these days?
Well they certainly haven't got my permission to do nothing about people wanting to blow up me and my family. Have they got yours?
Theresa May's comment that innocent people's data is being harvested and searched without their permission is fine because there's an "unwritten agreement" is positively Orwellian. Is this what our politicians think of the consent of the governed these days?
Well they certainly haven't got my permission to do nothing about people wanting to blow up me and my family. Have they got yours?
What I don't understand Richard is why you view the risk from terrorism as so unique that it justifies the unlimited extension of state power, but the many other causes of premature death do not justify the same reaction?
When it comes to the use of state power in reaction to terrorism you sound really quite Stalinist, and yet you're anti-statist on almost everything else. It's bizarrely inconsistent.
Theresa May's comment that innocent people's data is being harvested and searched without their permission is fine because there's an "unwritten agreement" is positively Orwellian. Is this what our politicians think of the consent of the governed these days?
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin. 1755
Looks as if Vicky Fowler amongst others has been repeating the attack lines...
"I know first-hand how amazing our NHS is but it needs protecting so that future generations are able to benefit from our incredible health service. “Our health service doesn’t deserve David Cameron’s broken promises. Under this Tory-led government we’ve lost 4,000 nurses, seen ambulance queues outside hospitals double and now A&E waiting times are at a nine year high. “I am going to be campaigning hard to win for Nuneaton, because we can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.”
What I don't understand Richard is why you view the risk from terrorism as so unique that it justifies the unlimited extension of state power, but the many other causes of premature death do not justify the same reaction?
When it comes to the use of state power in reaction to terrorism you sound really quite Stalinist, and yet you're anti-statist on almost everything else. It's bizarrely inconsistent.
I don't think it justifies the "unlimited extension of state power"? When on earth did I ever say that, or anything which could conceivably be interpreted as that?
I'm a simple chap. I'm extremely keen on civil liberties, but I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public, or carrying out other valid functions of the state, and civil liberties. For example, innocent people can and are put in jail, on remand. In fact by definition they are legally innocent at the time, and in practice are quite often innocent in the everyday sense that they didn't commit the crime. It's hard to imagine a more drastic infringement of the liberties of an innocent person, yet we accept this as an unavoidable necessity to protect the public. As long as it is properly overseen, it commands public support.
So, to turn to Mrs May's haystack, it's a theoretical breach of my privacy if some computer in GCHQ is whizzing through zillions of email headers which happen to include mine. But, really, is it so bad? Compared with being locked up as an innocent man, of course not. You don't even know it's happening, it costs you nothing (unlike being unfairly accused of a crime, which might bankrupt you), it has absolutely zero effect on your life. As a breach of your civil liberties it hardly rates 1 out of 10. It's not as bad as, say, having to keep your ID card record up to date, on pain of a £1000 fine, as the last lot proposed. And of course it's absolutely nothing whatsoever compared with 90-day detention without even being told in general terms what you're supposed to have done, as the last lot proposed.
To call this Stalinist is completely absurd. Stalinist is being arrested at dawn and sent off to a camp in Siberia. People really should keep a sense of perspective.
Of course, even the limited breach of civil liberties in the surveillance powers would be unacceptable if it were unnecessary. But it is necessary - it's how they find the right handful of hay to take a close look at, in order to find that needle.
The irony in the whole thing is that the public as a whole cares not a jot about any of this. Quite the reverse, in fact - they spend much of their time putting their private life on Facebook, so as to make absolutely certain that not only the UK government, but also the US government and unaccountable private corporations, know every detail of their lives.
Looks as if Vicky Fowler amongst others has been repeating the attack lines...
"I know first-hand how amazing our NHS is but it needs protecting so that future generations are able to benefit from our incredible health service. “Our health service doesn’t deserve David Cameron’s broken promises. Under this Tory-led government we’ve lost 4,000 nurses, seen ambulance queues outside hospitals double and now A&E waiting times are at a nine year high. “I am going to be campaigning hard to win for Nuneaton, because we can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.”
Looks as if Vicky Fowler amongst others has been repeating the attack lines...
"I know first-hand how amazing our NHS is but it needs protecting so that future generations are able to benefit from our incredible health service. “Our health service doesn’t deserve David Cameron’s broken promises. Under this Tory-led government we’ve lost 4,000 nurses, seen ambulance queues outside hospitals double and now A&E waiting times are at a nine year high. “I am going to be campaigning hard to win for Nuneaton, because we can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.”
Presumably there must be some boot camp somewhere where Labour candidates and MPs are drilled in repeating mindless slogans until they are incapable of saying anything else.
Looks as if Vicky Fowler amongst others has been repeating the attack lines...
"I know first-hand how amazing our NHS is but it needs protecting so that future generations are able to benefit from our incredible health service. “Our health service doesn’t deserve David Cameron’s broken promises. Under this Tory-led government we’ve lost 4,000 nurses, seen ambulance queues outside hospitals double and now A&E waiting times are at a nine year high. “I am going to be campaigning hard to win for Nuneaton, because we can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.”
Presumably there must be some boot camp somewhere where Labour candidates and MPs are drilled in repeating mindless slogans until they are incapable of saying anything else.
Labour are allegedly big fans of Stanley Kubrick, and I've heard from impeccable sources that they have an underground cinema at their HQ. It explains everything.
Theresa May's comment that innocent people's data is being harvested and searched without their permission is fine because there's an "unwritten agreement" is positively Orwellian. Is this what our politicians think of the consent of the governed these days?
Well they certainly haven't got my permission to do nothing about people wanting to blow up me and my family. Have they got yours?
This is an infantile response that demeans you. Did you believe that the government did nothing about the IRA terrorist threat for decades, when we were at risk of getting blown up? Don't be so bloody stupid and black and white about this. Governments are perfectly capable of protecting us from terrorism without mass intrusions of the privacy of millions of individual people.
An unwritten agreement is one where an agreement of another form of agreement has been established, usually verbal. The people who are having their data taken have not agreed to at all, and it's deeply cynical to distort phrases like "unwritten agreement" to pretend there is an agreement to justify such intrusions when there is none. It is the equivalent of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". Theresa May is using words to mean their opposite. It's reminiscent of John Reid saying big brother tactics improve civil liberties because the greatest civil liberty is personal security. It is the hallmark of authoritarians.
I don't think it justifies the "unlimited extension of state power"? When on earth did I ever say that, or anything which could conceivably be interpreted as that?
I'm a simple chap. I'm extremely keen on civil liberties, but I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public, or carrying out other valid functions of the state, and civil liberties. For example, innocent people can and are put in jail, on remand. In fact by definition they are legally innocent at the time, and in practice are quite often innocent in the everyday sense that they didn't commit the crime. It's hard to imagine a more drastic infringement of the liberties of an innocent person, yet we accept this as an unavoidable necessity to protect the public. As long as it is properly overseen, it commands public support.
So, to turn to Mrs May's haystack, it's a theoretical breach of my privacy if some computer in GCHQ is whizzing through zillions of email headers which happen to include mine. But, really, is it so bad? Compared with being locked up as an innocent man, of course not. You don't even know it's happening, it costs you nothing (unlike being unfairly accused of a crime, which might bankrupt you), it has absolutely zero effect on your life. As a breach of your civil liberties it hardly rates 1 out of 10. It's not as bad as, say, having to keep your ID card record up to date, on pain of a £1000 fine, as the last lot proposed. And of course it's absolutely nothing whatsoever compared with 90-day detention without even being told in general terms what you're supposed to have done, as the last lot proposed. Of course, even the limited breach of civil liberties in the surveillance powers would be unacceptable if it were unnecessary. But it is necessary - it's how they find the right handful of hay to take a close look at, in order to find that needle.
The irony in the whole thing is that the public as a whole cares not a jot about any of this. Quite the reverse, in fact - they spend much of their time putting their private life on Facebook, so as to make absolutely certain that not only the UK government, but also the US government and unaccountable private corporations, know every detail of their lives.
Again, it's so scary the rhetorical tactics you authoritarians use to justify this stuff. A fraction of the public is blase about your privacy so the state has the right to access your one on one webcam conversations? Jesus Christ, it scares me that intelligent people jump through these intellectual loops in order to justify the unjustifiable.
This is an infantile response that demeans you. Did you believe that the government did nothing about the IRA terrorist threat for decades, when we were at risk of getting blown up? Don't be so bloody stupid and black and white about this.
You are the one who is being stupidly black-and-white about this. Quite apart from anything else, the government did much the same during the IRA murder campaign - they monitored phone records. Unfortunately they weren't able to protect us fully; it was pretty damned horrible living in London at the time with all the bomb scares, many innocent people were maimed and killed, and the murderers got within an inch of killing the democratically-elected PM and her ministers (and also launched a mortar attack on John Major in No 10). To use this as an example in favour of doing less to protect the public is ludicrous; it should serve as an example of why the protection is needed.
This is an infantile response that demeans you. Did you believe that the government did nothing about the IRA terrorist threat for decades, when we were at risk of getting blown up? Don't be so bloody stupid and black and white about this.
You are the one who is being stupidly black-and-white about this. Quite apart from anything else, the government did much the same during the IRA murder campaign - they monitored phone records. Unfortunately they weren't able to protect us fully; it was pretty damned horrible living in London at the time with all the bomb scares, many innocent people were maimed and killed, and the murderers got within an inch of killing the democratically-elected PM and her ministers. To use this as an example in favour of doing less to protect the public is ludicrous.
You know full well my position isn't to not monitor communications. You continue to lie and pretend it is to try to knock down a strawman. I full support monitoring communciations, but just with individual warrants, as was the basis of English justice for centuries. You supposed "conservatives" don't give a damn about conserving the most important aspects of our inheritance.
Germany manages to survive with this system. Somehow they manage to not be constantly blown up by terrorists.
Again, it's so scary the rhetorical tactics you authoritarians use to justify this stuff. A fraction of the public is blase about your privacy so the state has the right to access your one on one webcam conversations? Jesus Christ, it scares me that intelligent people jump through these intellectual loops in order to justify the unjustifiable.
You can be very stupid sometimes. Repeat after me: There is a distinction between justifying something, and pointing out the the public as a whole are not concerned about it. They are TWO SEPARATE POINTS, get it?
I full support monitoring communciations, but just with individual warrants, as was the basis of English justice for centuries.
It wasn't. There has never been a requirement for individual warrants to monitor the addressees of letters or phone call logs, or to stand outside a pub and watch and photograph who goes in and out. And, as we have discussed many times before, the simple arithmetic of the matter means it is completely impossible to have individual warrants when looking for links; you have to look through billions of records.
The majority on here (PB Tories) are in utter denial!
You've only just noticed? Most of them are still praying to the swingbackcrossover fairies, as they have for, oooh 4 and a bit years now.
The Tories don't have many more hands to play, after Cameron's big unfunded tax cut pitch to the Right flopped.
They're pinning most of their hopes on their media smearing Miliband during the campaign. Lol, that should work.
Cameron's political gravestone will have three names on it: Lansley, Coulson, Crosby.
You seem to be just as much in denial. Labour are currently as popular as the Conservatives were under William Hague, yet you expect them to sweep to power.
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
Anybody interested in the American Mid-Term elections at the moment? Looking like a bit of a disaster for the Dems in the Senate. Likely to lose - Arkansas, Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, Louisiana (run off likely), West Virginia & South Dakota.
Only bright spots are North Carolina where Kay Hagan may hang on, and Georgia where Michelle Nunn is putting up a very solid showing in a red state.
Kansas and South Dakota are the wild cards, although I think the GOP will hold on in both cases.
Queue another 2 years of total gridlock in the pipeline then...
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
Ideal CV for a future Labour leader.
Only if she's swerved tax on an inheritance through a deed of variation.
I full support monitoring communciations, but just with individual warrants, as was the basis of English justice for centuries.
It wasn't. There has never been a requirement for individual warrants to monitor the addressees of letters or phone call logs, or to stand outside a pub and watch and photograph who goes in and out. And, as we have discussed many times before, the simple arithmetic of the matter means it is completely impossible to have individual warrants when looking for links; you have to look through billions of records.
What about reading the first line of letters, or the content of phone calls, as CCHQ does with emails and webcam conversations?
Also, the fact that they're now going through billions of records is a reason for more protections, not less.
And your claim that it's "completely impossible to have individual warrants when looking for links" is complete nonsense. You work out who your suspects are, then you monitor who is contacting them. This is what we did for decades and decades.
For the record, I think the fall in the stock market is caused by an accountant feeding the world debt into a supercomputer...... And proving incontrovertibly, that the entire world is now owned by a Mexican drug baron.(or possibly his lawyer/accountant )
Anybody interested in the American Mid-Term elections at the moment? Looking like a bit of a disaster for the Dems in the Senate. Likely to lose - Arkansas, Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, Louisiana (run off likely), West Virginia & South Dakota.
Only bright spots are North Carolina where Kay Hagan may hang on, and Georgia where Michelle Nunn is putting up a very solid showing in a red state.
Kansas and South Dakota are the wild cards, although I think the GOP will hold on in both cases.
Queue another 2 years of total gridlock in the pipeline then...
Thanks Ally.
Yes, always interested to hear what's going on Stateside, even if markets are thin on the ground just now.
How is Walker getting on in Wisconsin? The polls make it very close. (I've backed him for the GoP nomination, but if he loses to Burke, I reckon I can tear my voucher up.)
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
There will be no Tory gains from LAB in 2015
The wheels have come off and the UKIP surge have seen to that despite Ed being Crap
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
There will be no Tory gains from LAB in 2015
The wheels have come off and the UKIP surge have seen to that despite Ed being Crap
Would you like to bet on that. I'll take £50.
Given your certainty you'll be offering odds of 20/1?
@Labour candidates, there's another corker for Southampton Itchen. She's 29 years old, a guardian journalist, TV political commentator and - wait for it - a sitting councillor for Peckham, in London.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
Ideal CV for a future Labour leader.
Maybe, but I don't see the words lesbian, ethnic or single-parent in there anywhere, so maybe not.
Comments
But these things come around. After all, we were in opposition from 1712-1762.
Come back to me in 30 years time and I might be getting a little twitchy ;-)
Mind you it is tricky to find winnable seats for the Conservatives in Coventry ^_~
Not that the EU has done much good for businesses in the PIIGS so far.
My intuition tells me it matters little one way or the other, but I don't know what the precedents are. She's certainly got a tough fight on her hands.
Oh, the irony...
And who knows - this time around, there might not be another Maggie to rescue us even in that timescale - it was touch and go last time.
I wonder how Theresa May got on at school, when it came to English:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642607
Apparently, we need a haystack (of data) if we are to search for a needle.
Wouldn't it be better to have a tiny amount of hay? Then you could find the needle more easily.
I appreciate searching through data is qualitatively different to searching through physical objects, but her use of language is daft.
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=phr
Far more relevant is if the people of Nuneaton and Bedworth believe their MP (Marcus Jones) has been a good'un or not. Looking at Lord Ashcroft's tables it seems he doesn't really have a negative or positive personal vote.
So I don't think it affects her chances either way.
The phrasing of needles and haystacks was originally from the Director of GCHQ, Iain Lobban, rather than being May's personal invention. Presumably if there was some easy way to identify the needle without even looking at any of the hay then that would be their preference.
Sir Iain attempted a metaphor. The internet, he said, was “an enormous hay field”, and his job was to “collect hay from those parts of the field which might be lucrative in terms of containing needles or fragments of needles”. The hay came from “only a tiny proportion of that field”, and he was “very, very well aware that within that haystack there’s going to be plenty of hay which is innocent”. He did not, he insisted, “intrude upon the surrounding hay”. He elaborated on this theme for quite some time. “I’m looking for needles, I’m looking for fragments of needles. I do not look at the hay.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10434183/Sketch-Tinker-Tailor-Needle-Haystack.html
You delude yourself. The Labourites are so arrogant they won´t care to run roughshod over their opponents whatever their % vote is, so long as they can.
Mind you, I'm even more concerned by the rampant overuse of RIPA.
As a young Conservative gentleman once said:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Cameron cannot keep using his disabled Son who died in defence saying he cares about the disabled. This does not work, as while people have empathy for Cameron as a parent, it is questionable whether he uses his experience to ensure the government has the right policies. Cameron and his wife are both multi-millionaires, so hardly parents raising disabled children in a council house, where they are getting penalised for using a spare room for storing disability aids.
If the Tories lose in 2015, they can point to mistakes they have made which make it easy for opponents to attack them. Some of the changes they have made don't save much money. The deficit is proving difficult to reduce because the tax take is down. If the Tories do surprisingly win in 2015, you can guarantee that they will increase VAT to 22.5%. People on low inccomes spend more of their income, so while they may benefit from a higher tax allowance, they will lose from any lost tax credits and increased VAT.
Islamic State 'being driven out of Syria's Kobane'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29647314
*waits for SeanT*
If she worked for Congressman Charlie Wilson, she'd get the nickname Jailbait.
Thanks, Pulpy.
That makes Nuneaton TCTC in my book, and UKIP not really a factor.
Oddly, I too feel the next election is vital. This Government has done more to wreck the fabric of our society than any other apart from Thatcher.
Wasteful firesales of public assets, expensive ideological experiments with education, undermining our NHS to the point that it might not survive another Tory term. Undermining public services, from SureStart to libraries. Zero hour contracts, foodbanks, the cost of living crisis. Spiteful attacks on the most vulnerable and disabled from IDS and the "not worth it" mob.
Meanwhile the real problems we face, like the lack of secure employment, housing, the unaccountable power of moguls, monopolies and big business, and most importantly our rotten financial system that caused our economic problems, haven't been fixed and in some cases the situation has got far worse.
The country can't see the back of Cameron and his dreadful crew soon enough.
So no actual viable policies from Labour; just rants against the nasty Tories, and made-up claims about "putting up VAT".
This isn't the 90s. Miliband isn't Blair. And the UK really cannot afford another Labour gov at the moment.
Sorry chaps, try again.
Strange then, that labour has pledged to continue with most of the measures that have been passed by the coalition.
Even ed's most radical measures, energy freeze and mansion tax, are being quietly rowed away from or softened.
In other news this week, the unemployment total, inflation rates and the stock markets fell.
I would say that the one word that describes what has happened to the UKIP grouping is "stymied".
Most of what your say is pure unvarnished fantasy. The idea that there has been an 'undermining' of public services is ludicrous, and the suggestion there have been 'spiteful attacks on the most vulnerable' makes the Kippers look like models of sanity. The plain fact is that, despite the most dramatic pressure on the public finances in peacetime since at least the 1930s, public services have been maintained quite remarkably well - indeed there is no measurable deterioration; on most measures things have improved.
Still, even leaving aside all that, the idea that Ed Miliband, of all people on this earth, will actually be able to do better at at time when everyone agrees that, even in the most optimistic scenario, public spending will have to be cut considerably, is absolutely out with the fairies.
If you really do believe that - and I find it hard to believe that anyone really does - you've got a big, big shock coming.
What's going on with Labour candidates. Loads of them seem to be straight out of school and seemingly are still waiting for their balls to drop.
That has to make another Lib-Con coalition less likely I reckon.
Victoria the Younger. She could be PM at 23.
Lab 33.9% (-0.2)
Con 31.2% (-0.4)
UKIP 16.7% (+0.5)
LD 8.1% (nc)
Lab lead 2.7% (+0.2)
When it comes to the use of state power in reaction to terrorism you sound really quite Stalinist, and yet you're anti-statist on almost everything else. It's bizarrely inconsistent.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
I) Have a very long wait
II) Have the political story of the year
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 42m 42 minutes ago
Back in 2011 #Labour dominated the GB Westminster by-election scene. Lab 53%, LD 15, Con 14, SNP 6, UKIP 5, BNP 2.5%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522762669548642304
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 39m 39 minutes ago
#Labour also first in GB Westminster by-elections in 2012. Lab 49%, Con 14, Res 13, UKIP 10, LD 6, BNP & Grn 2, PC 1%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522763818469195776
Seem to be putting Europe in the frame as the chief culprit for market turbulence.
It won;t be just British fruitcakes who are moaning about the continent's little social and economic experiments soon, perhaps.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29646705
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522529343847673856
"I know first-hand how amazing our NHS is but it needs protecting so that future generations are able to benefit from our incredible health service.
“Our health service doesn’t deserve David Cameron’s broken promises. Under this Tory-led government we’ve lost 4,000 nurses, seen ambulance queues outside hospitals double and now A&E waiting times are at a nine year high.
“I am going to be campaigning hard to win for Nuneaton, because we can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.”
http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Vicky-Fowler-Labour-parliamentary-candidate/story-20284837 detail/story.html#ixzz3GK739Bij
I'm a simple chap. I'm extremely keen on civil liberties, but I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between protecting the public, or carrying out other valid functions of the state, and civil liberties. For example, innocent people can and are put in jail, on remand. In fact by definition they are legally innocent at the time, and in practice are quite often innocent in the everyday sense that they didn't commit the crime. It's hard to imagine a more drastic infringement of the liberties of an innocent person, yet we accept this as an unavoidable necessity to protect the public. As long as it is properly overseen, it commands public support.
So, to turn to Mrs May's haystack, it's a theoretical breach of my privacy if some computer in GCHQ is whizzing through zillions of email headers which happen to include mine. But, really, is it so bad? Compared with being locked up as an innocent man, of course not. You don't even know it's happening, it costs you nothing (unlike being unfairly accused of a crime, which might bankrupt you), it has absolutely zero effect on your life. As a breach of your civil liberties it hardly rates 1 out of 10. It's not as bad as, say, having to keep your ID card record up to date, on pain of a £1000 fine, as the last lot proposed. And of course it's absolutely nothing whatsoever compared with 90-day detention without even being told in general terms what you're supposed to have done, as the last lot proposed.
To call this Stalinist is completely absurd. Stalinist is being arrested at dawn and sent off to a camp in Siberia. People really should keep a sense of perspective.
Of course, even the limited breach of civil liberties in the surveillance powers would be unacceptable if it were unnecessary. But it is necessary - it's how they find the right handful of hay to take a close look at, in order to find that needle.
The irony in the whole thing is that the public as a whole cares not a jot about any of this. Quite the reverse, in fact - they spend much of their time putting their private life on Facebook, so as to make absolutely certain that not only the UK government, but also the US government and unaccountable private corporations, know every detail of their lives.
When you add up the numbers I think you will find history shows that it was safe in Conservative hands as well as Labour.
Just better run by Tories than profligate Labour.
"This is an endorsement of Ed Miliband" ffsake !
Labour will probably hold H&M at the GE but she seemed to be a terrible candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
You should listen to one of your crew - SeanT - who now predicts a small Labour majority or at worst a Labour plurality.
The writing is on the wall - this Tory regime is on its last legs and to be honest good riddance!
Or another one?
'Just better run by Tories than profligate Labour.'
Labour 8% spending cuts to the NHS in Wales,Tory increases in NHS spending in England
An unwritten agreement is one where an agreement of another form of agreement has been established, usually verbal. The people who are having their data taken have not agreed to at all, and it's deeply cynical to distort phrases like "unwritten agreement" to pretend there is an agreement to justify such intrusions when there is none. It is the equivalent of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". Theresa May is using words to mean their opposite. It's reminiscent of John Reid saying big brother tactics improve civil liberties because the greatest civil liberty is personal security. It is the hallmark of authoritarians.
You've only just noticed? Most of them are still praying to the swingbackcrossover fairies, as they have for, oooh 4 and a bit years now.
The Tories don't have many more hands to play, after Cameron's big unfunded tax cut pitch to the Right flopped.
They're pinning most of their hopes on their media smearing Miliband during the campaign. Lol, that should work.
Cameron's political gravestone will have three names on it: Lansley, Coulson, Crosby.
Obviously he was keen to win it but '...it's just a by-election.'
Hmmm....no hostages to fortune there, John.
Germany manages to survive with this system. Somehow they manage to not be constantly blown up by terrorists.
''No sign yet of the mythical Chilcott report'
What a farce,not to mention the waste of time & money.
She has no connections to Southampton whatever, and (the classic) degree in PPE from Oxford. Westminster bubble written all over her.
An interesting one to watch, and a possible Con gain from Lab.
Not so sure now. Maybe I've called this wrong. It didn't sound brimful of confidence.
Only bright spots are North Carolina where Kay Hagan may hang on, and Georgia where Michelle Nunn is putting up a very solid showing in a red state.
Kansas and South Dakota are the wild cards, although I think the GOP will hold on in both cases.
Queue another 2 years of total gridlock in the pipeline then...
Also, the fact that they're now going through billions of records is a reason for more protections, not less.
And your claim that it's "completely impossible to have individual warrants when looking for links" is complete nonsense. You work out who your suspects are, then you monitor who is contacting them. This is what we did for decades and decades.
And proving incontrovertibly, that the entire world is now owned by a Mexican drug baron.(or possibly his lawyer/accountant )
Yes, always interested to hear what's going on Stateside, even if markets are thin on the ground just now.
How is Walker getting on in Wisconsin? The polls make it very close. (I've backed him for the GoP nomination, but if he loses to Burke, I reckon I can tear my voucher up.)
The wheels have come off and the UKIP surge have seen to that despite Ed being Crap
Given your certainty you'll be offering odds of 20/1?
If anything else starts "Itchen", get yourself down to the STD clinic.