Four of the local Conservative members who signed my Conservative opponent's nomination papers have now told me they will be voting UKIP 0 replies 157 retweets 113 favorites"
I think Cameron could unilaterally leave the EU tomorrow, deport every Latvian by Monday, kidnap Jean- Claude Juncker, besiege Boulogne and fish-slap Merkel in the face; Rochester & Strood would still vote UKIP on 20th November.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I did wonder if the EAW vote would tip Mr Hannan towards leaving.
I attended an MEP hustings in May where Mr Hannan was representing the Conservatives. The EAW was the issue that most animated both him, and Alan Stevens the UKIP representative.
Four of the local Conservative members who signed my Conservative opponent's nomination papers have now told me they will be voting UKIP 0 replies 157 retweets 113 favorites"
I think Cameron could unilaterally leave the EU tomorrow, deport every Latvian by Monday, kidnap Jean- Claude Juncker, besiege Boulogne and fish-slap Merkel in the face; Rochester & Strood would still vote UKIP on 20th November.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognising he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If he reneged, he would defect.
Quite possibly, but there's zero chance of Cameron reneging so that is not an issue.
I've got a lot of time for Dan Hannan. I don't quite share his views, but he argues his position extremely well and IMO is the best advocate of us leaving the EU. I also like the fact that he looks at the big picture of the interests of the country, rather than being motivated by some childish spat with Cameron which seems to be the prime motivation of many of the Kippers.
If he were to defect, the significance would be that he'd given up, that he had concluded there was no hope of us leaving the EU, and that therefore a principled but futile gesture was the only remaining option.
Yes, he's a great advocate for BOO because he understands that we'll only leave if the case to do so is positive, warm and internationalist in outlook and flavour. He is very intelligent.
If he were to defect, it would be very serious for the Conservative Party. I know many backbenchers and party members who'd follow him.
Conversely, a Carswell/Farage/Hannan/James/Nuttal/Aker UKIP frontbench would actually be a very effective Commons parliamentary unit.
Hamilton/Atkinson/Ayling et al should be kept well away.
In a significant unrelated development about 2016 in America, the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged his support for Rand Paul for president, the most significant GOP establishment endorsement you can get:
TimB She has got a lot of pork for the state, but agree LA is a red state and has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton so she is likely to lose
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognising he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If he reneged, he would defect.
Quite possibly, but there's zero chance of Cameron reneging so that is not an issue.
I've got a lot of time for Dan Hannan. I don't quite share his views, but he argues his position extremely well and IMO is the best advocate of us leaving the EU. I also like the fact that he looks at the big picture of the interests of the country, rather than being motivated by some childish spat with Cameron which seems to be the prime motivation of many of the Kippers.
If he were to defect, the significance would be that he'd given up, that he had concluded there was no hope of us leaving the EU, and that therefore a principled but futile gesture was the only remaining option.
If he defects then that will be more a comment on his view of the Conservative party than it will be on the state of EU Secession. It is noticeable that his tone has changed radically over recent months and rather than being generally supportive as he once was of the party leadership he is now increasingly hostile.
The next big thing is Cameron's proposals to restrict EU immigration. After today's performance do you think it will be:
(a) a points system (b) a strong emergency brake (c) a weak emergency brake (d) window dressing around benefits and the jobless
I was doing some research into that for my blog, but stopped for the reasons you mentioned. I thought (originally) he'd pitch for the 75k cap on annual EU migrants, with freedom of movement only for the highest skilled workers within that cap.
But I actually think it'll be meaningless stuff on (c) with a bit of (d) that'll fool people for about 90 minutes.
I've been having great fun reading through the last couple of threads, and the desperate attempts of our resident ultra-Tory loyalists to defend the smoke and mirrors of the near perfect chancellor.
Dan Hannan says it how it is, and now his fellow Conservatives are telling him to go and join UKIP.
What will they do when we've all joined UKIP?
I certainly feel much closer to joining UKIP after the farce I've witnessed this afternoon. For 20 minutes, I thought Osborne might have secured something concrete.
Why did he bother trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Does he take us all for fools?
It would have been better to tell it how it is, and explain his own disappointment that it couldn't be better, but it was the best deal he could get from the EU. The battle would go on as part of the EU renegotiation etc.
PS. Roger Helmer, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were (and are) all close political and personal friends of Dan Hannan. I'm sure he still feels an affinity with them.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
I think the problem for the Conservative leadership is they're strongly committed to EU membership, but can't sell it to Conservative voters. So, they make eurosceptic noises, and hope people won't read the small print.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I did wonder if the EAW vote would tip Mr Hannan towards leaving.
I attended an MEP hustings in May where Mr Hannan was representing the Conservatives. The EAW was the issue that most animated both him, and Alan Stevens the UKIP representative.
If I was Dan Hannan I would be seriously reconsidering how much you can trust the Tory leadership today. He's clearly disgusted by the weasel lines being trotted out today. If the Tories can wriggle out of this by pretending they've halved the bill, I'm sure they can come up with logical backflips to wriggle out of the EU referendum while denying they've done any such thing. The dishonesty is such that I almost don't have the energy to even engage with the loyalists any more. Everyone independent can see very clearly who is telling porkies.
Four of the local Conservative members who signed my Conservative opponent's nomination papers have now told me they will be voting UKIP 0 replies 157 retweets 113 favorites"
I think Cameron could unilaterally leave the EU tomorrow, deport every Latvian by Monday, kidnap Jean- Claude Juncker, besiege Boulogne and fish-slap Merkel in the face; Rochester & Strood would still vote UKIP on 20th November.
I've been having great fun reading through the last couple of threads, and the desperate attempts of our resident ultra-Tory loyalists to defend the smoke and mirrors of the near perfect chancellor.
Dan Hannan says it how it is, and now his fellow Conservatives are telling him to go and join UKIP.
What will they do when we've all joined UKIP?
I certainly feel much closer to joining UKIP after the farce I've witnessed this afternoon. For 20 minutes, I thought Osborne might have secured something concrete.
Why did he bother trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Does he take us all for fools?
It would have been better to tell it how it is, and explain his own disappointment that it couldn't be better, but it was the best deal he could get from the EU. The battle would go on as part of the EU renegotiation etc.
PS. Roger Helmer, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were (and are) all close political and personal friends of Dan Hannan. I'm sure he still feels an affinity with them.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
I think the problem for the Conservative leadership is they're strongly committed to EU membership, but can't sell it to Conservative voters. So, they make eurosceptic noises, and hope people won't read the small print.
A forlorn hope.
The worst part is that people realize they lied and lied again, so their credibility is shot. Even if they tell the truth on some other issue, the public won't believe them because of lack of credibility.
Everyone suspects that politicians are liars, but when it's confirmed time and time again then they will stop listening even if you tell the truth.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognising he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If he reneged, he would defect.
Quite possibly, but there's zero chance of Cameron reneging so that is not an issue.
I've got a lot of time for Dan Hannan. I don't quite share his views, but he argues his position extremely well and IMO is the best advocate of us leaving the EU. I also like the fact that he looks at the big picture of the interests of the country, rather than being motivated by some childish spat with Cameron which seems to be the prime motivation of many of the Kippers.
If he were to defect, the significance would be that he'd given up, that he had concluded there was no hope of us leaving the EU, and that therefore a principled but futile gesture was the only remaining option.
If he defects then that will be more a comment on his view of the Conservative party than it will be on the state of EU Secession. It is noticeable that his tone has changed radically over recent months and rather than being generally supportive as he once was of the party leadership he is now increasingly hostile.
Nah. That won't fly. Dan Hannan is one of the most respected Conservatives I know, and one of the most persuasive writers and compelling speakers. If he leaves the Conservative party, 'schism' won't come close to describing the aftermath.
The next big thing is Cameron's proposals to restrict EU immigration. After today's performance do you think it will be:
(a) a points system (b) a strong emergency brake (c) a weak emergency brake (d) window dressing around benefits and the jobless
I was doing some research into that for my blog, but stopped for the reasons you mentioned. I thought (originally) he'd pitch for the 75k cap on annual EU migrants, with freedom of movement only for the highest skilled workers within that cap.
But I actually think it'll be meaningless stuff on (c) with a bit of (d) that'll fool people for about 90 minutes.
If it's stuff that only covers unemployed immigrants, that's less than 10% of them and will probably be under 5% by 2017. Given that Cameron's supposed to be reducing immigration by 60% it'll have next to no effect. They've already coughed up on the money that the EU can just demand out of nowhere, and they'll now back down on immigration. They've got their orders from Merkel and Juncker.
David Herdson/TUD The Tories provided confidence and supply to the SNP from 2007-2011 at Holyrood, no reason the SNP could not do the same at Westminster
There was not a confidence and supply arrangement between the SNP and SCons (there was a fudged kind of c & s with the Scottish Greens).
Nah. That won't fly. Dan Hannan is one of the most respected Conservatives I know, and one of the most persuasive writers and compelling speakers. If he leaves the Conservative party, 'schism' won't come close to describing the aftermath.
It's that kind of scenario which I think might well leave us with a decade or more of disastrous Labour government. No matter how unpopular Labour make themselves, they'd still win repeatedly if there were such a schism.
I've been having great fun reading through the last couple of threads, and the desperate attempts of our resident ultra-Tory loyalists to defend the smoke and mirrors of the near perfect chancellor.
Dan Hannan says it how it is, and now his fellow Conservatives are telling him to go and join UKIP.
What will they do when we've all joined UKIP?
I certainly feel much closer to joining UKIP after the farce I've witnessed this afternoon. For 20 minutes, I thought Osborne might have secured something concrete.
Why did he bother trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Does he take us all for fools?
It would have been better to tell it how it is, and explain his own disappointment that it couldn't be better, but it was the best deal he could get from the EU. The battle would go on as part of the EU renegotiation etc.
PS. Roger Helmer, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were (and are) all close political and personal friends of Dan Hannan. I'm sure he still feels an affinity with them.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
I think the problem for the Conservative leadership is they're strongly committed to EU membership, but can't sell it to Conservative voters. So, they make eurosceptic noises, and hope people won't read the small print.
A forlorn hope.
That could change, as you've said. The Conservative leadership used to secretly have the horn for the ERM and the Euro, but virtually none do now. However, we don't have the luxury of being in a position to suffer a Labour government at the moment.
I think a weak Tory minority is on the cards for 2015. But it'll be soaking wet, and the party will dissolve very quickly afterwards; it'll make the 1990s infighting look like a picnic.
In a significant unrelated development about 2016 in America, the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged his support for Rand Paul for president, the most significant GOP establishment endorsement you can get:
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
It does look now as if even fairly conservative Democrats can't win in the South. Conservatives have totally realigned into the Republican Party. As recently as the mid 2000s, Southern conservative Democrats were numerous.
I've been having great fun reading through the last couple of threads, and the desperate attempts of our resident ultra-Tory loyalists to defend the smoke and mirrors of the near perfect chancellor.
Dan Hannan says it how it is, and now his fellow Conservatives are telling him to go and join UKIP.
What will they do when we've all joined UKIP?
I certainly feel much closer to joining UKIP after the farce I've witnessed this afternoon. For 20 minutes, I thought Osborne might have secured something concrete.
Why did he bother trying to pull the wool over our eyes? Does he take us all for fools?
It would have been better to tell it how it is, and explain his own disappointment that it couldn't be better, but it was the best deal he could get from the EU. The battle would go on as part of the EU renegotiation etc.
PS. Roger Helmer, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless were (and are) all close political and personal friends of Dan Hannan. I'm sure he still feels an affinity with them.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
I think the problem for the Conservative leadership is they're strongly committed to EU membership, but can't sell it to Conservative voters. So, they make eurosceptic noises, and hope people won't read the small print.
A forlorn hope.
I rather like Mr Cummings description of HMG/Conservatives EU policy:
"...whining, rude, dishonest, unpleasant, childishly belligerent in public while pathetically craven in private, and overall hollow"
The next big thing is Cameron's proposals to restrict EU immigration. After today's performance do you think it will be:
(a) a points system (b) a strong emergency brake (c) a weak emergency brake (d) window dressing around benefits and the jobless
I was doing some research into that for my blog, but stopped for the reasons you mentioned. I thought (originally) he'd pitch for the 75k cap on annual EU migrants, with freedom of movement only for the highest skilled workers within that cap.
But I actually think it'll be meaningless stuff on (c) with a bit of (d) that'll fool people for about 90 minutes.
If it's stuff that only covers unemployed immigrants, that's less than 10% of them and will probably be under 5% by 2017. Given that Cameron's supposed to be reducing immigration by 60% it'll have next to no effect. They've already coughed up on the money that the EU can just demand out of nowhere, and they'll now back down on immigration. They've got their orders from Merkel and Juncker.
It's worse. I think Merkel and Juncker have worked out Cameron doesn't really know how to do negotiation, or how to call their bluff and tell them to p*ss off when they outmanoeuvre him. So they just sell him some waffle, walk all over him, and he repeatedly comes up short.
A much tougher, skilful more ruthless politician could get something out of this. But Cameron's heart isn't in it, and he doesn't know what he's doing anyway.
In a significant unrelated development about 2016 in America, the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged his support for Rand Paul for president, the most significant GOP establishment endorsement you can get:
Best price for the GOP nomination 7/1 with Ladbrokes.
The most significant GOP establishment endorsements are the Koch brothers. Nobody gives a damn what McConnell thinks.
The Koch brothers belong to the business establishment not the political, absent the president and the vice-president, the senate majority leader is No.3 in power in american politics or if you discount the VP then he's No.2.
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
It does look now as if even fairly conservative Democrats can't win in the South. Conservatives have totally realigned into the Republican Party. As recently as the mid 2000s, Southern conservative Democrats were numerous.
Yep, it's been a slow and steady trend since the 1960s. The problem with the GOP is that the South is so out of sync with the rest of the conutry. And parts of the south, mainly Florida and Virginia, but one day North Carolina too, are becoming increasingly less southern in culture. Virginia is looking very far out of reach for them these days.
In a significant unrelated development about 2016 in America, the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged his support for Rand Paul for president, the most significant GOP establishment endorsement you can get:
Best price for the GOP nomination 7/1 with Ladbrokes.
The most significant GOP establishment endorsements are the Koch brothers. Nobody gives a damn what McConnell thinks.
The Koch brothers belong to the business establishment not the political, absent the president and the vice-president, the senate majority leader is No.3 in power in american politics or if you discount the VP then he's No.2.
They have far more political influence than Mitch McConnell does.
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
It does look now as if even fairly conservative Democrats can't win in the South. Conservatives have totally realigned into the Republican Party. As recently as the mid 2000s, Southern conservative Democrats were numerous.
Yep, it's been a slow and steady trend since the 1960s. The problem with the GOP is that the South is so out of sync with the rest of the conutry. And parts of the south, mainly Florida and Virginia, but one day North Carolina too, are becoming increasingly less southern in culture. Virginia is looking very far out of reach for them these days.
The Plains States seem pretty much in sync with the South now. They're sparsely populated, but each one returns as many Senators as California.
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
It does look now as if even fairly conservative Democrats can't win in the South. Conservatives have totally realigned into the Republican Party. As recently as the mid 2000s, Southern conservative Democrats were numerous.
Yep, it's been a slow and steady trend since the 1960s. The problem with the GOP is that the South is so out of sync with the rest of the conutry. And parts of the south, mainly Florida and Virginia, but one day North Carolina too, are becoming increasingly less southern in culture. Virginia is looking very far out of reach for them these days.
The Plains States seem pretty much in sync with the South now. They're sparsely populated, but each one returns as many Senators as California.
That's fair. Iowa seems to be swinging strongly right. But again, no good for presidential elections.
To give you the importance of the McConnell endorsement to Rand Paul, it is very unusual for a senate leader to endorse a candidate and so early. The last time a senate majority leader endorsed a candidate was back in the early 2000 primaries for George W. Bush.
Also as a comparison, Ron Paul got zero endorsements from the senate apart from his son in 2012.
Evening all. Just back from watching Interstellar - the word epic is certainly appropriate. Really enjoyable watch, but I must admit some of the science went over my head, especially the last 20 minutes!
On the owed money, I get the criticism of the government here about halving monies if that would have happened anyway; yet I don't remember anyone at the time £1.7 billion was highlighted suggesting the reality would simply be 50% of that figure. So Osborne has then had clarification of this, which is a good thing no? It also raises questions why others did not know it was going to be 50% unless they were also playing politics by highlighting the top line figure as a means of heightening the critique of the EU?
In a significant unrelated development about 2016 in America, the senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged his support for Rand Paul for president, the most significant GOP establishment endorsement you can get:
Best price for the GOP nomination 7/1 with Ladbrokes.
The most significant GOP establishment endorsements are the Koch brothers. Nobody gives a damn what McConnell thinks.
The Koch brothers belong to the business establishment not the political, absent the president and the vice-president, the senate majority leader is No.3 in power in american politics or if you discount the VP then he's No.2.
They have far more political influence than Mitch McConnell does.
You underestimate the symbolism of this, as I said it is very rare for an endorsement of that size to happen and so early. The senate leader usually endorses a candidate only after he's secured the nomination for president.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognising he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If he reneged, he would defect.
. was the only remaining option.
If he defects then that will be more a comment on his view of the Conservative party than it will be on the state of EU Secession. It is noticeable that his tone has changed radically over recent months and rather than being generally supportive as he once was of the party leadership he is now increasingly hostile.
Nah. That won't fly. Dan Hannan is one of the most respected Conservatives I know, and one of the most persuasive writers and compelling speakers. If he leaves the Conservative party, 'schism' won't come close to describing the aftermath.
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that if Hannan did defect it would be an indictment of the Conservative Party and not an indictment of the possibilities of EU withdrawal as had been previously suggested. I fully agree it would be a seismic moment for the Tory party should he depart but that is a different point to the one I was making.
Socrates The same is true in the North East in reverse, the GOP could not even win New Hampshire, which used to be a solid red state and voted for Bush in 2000, even in a nationally good year. The North East is now as blue as the south is red, a total transformation from when the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Democrats the Confederacy. The West and Mid West are now the key swing regions
Evening all. Just back from watching Interstellar - the word epic is certainly appropriate. Really enjoyable watch, but I must admit some of the science went over my head, especially the last 20 minutes!
On the owed money, I get the criticism of the government here about halving monies if that would have happened anyway; yet I don't remember anyone at the time £1.7 billion was highlighted suggesting the reality would simply be 50% of that figure. So Osborne has then had clarification of this, which is a good thing no? It also raises questions why others did not know it was going to be 50% unless they were also playing politics by highlighting the top line figure as a means of heightening the critique of the EU?
So Osborne received 'clarification' yet stayed silent until today and everybody else was possibly playing politics? OK.
Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before he defects. But I think he's staying for the time being because he enjoys being inside the big tent pissing out.
He says, and I believe him, that he is staying because he wants the UK to have an opportunity to leave the EU, and of course because he supports Cameron's position on most other issues.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognises he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO case from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If Cameron reneged or pussyfooted out of it, he would defect very quickly.
I actually know Dan. He is staying because the Conservatives have offered a vote on membership of the EU. I think he also recognising he's the leading Conservative MEP and has a much greater influence and voice making the BOO from within the party, rather than out.
But he's torn between what he feels is his duty, and his affinity with his friends. He has no love for Cameron. If he reneged, he would defect.
. was the only remaining option.
If he defects then that will be more a comment on his view of the Conservative party than it will be on the state of EU Secession. It is noticeable that his tone has changed radically over recent months and rather than being generally supportive as he once was of the party leadership he is now increasingly hostile.
Nah. That won't fly. Dan Hannan is one of the most respected Conservatives I know, and one of the most persuasive writers and compelling speakers. If he leaves the Conservative party, 'schism' won't come close to describing the aftermath.
I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that if Hannan did defect it would be an indictment of the Conservative Party and not an indictment of the possibilities of EU withdrawal as had been previously suggested. I fully agree it would be a seismic moment for the Tory party should he depart but that is a different point to the one I was making.
No manofkent, I think everyone might be playing politics as I note on my blog www.thesceptredisle.wordpress.com. The Chancellor may well be playing clever with the figures, while the critics failed to note that the final bill would be half of what was raised two weeks ago to give them a bigger stick to hit the government and EU over the head with!
No manofkent, I think everyone might be playing politics as I note on my blog www.thesceptredisle.wordpress.com. The Chancellor may well be playing clever with the figures, while the critics failed to note that the final bill would be half of what was raised two weeks ago to give them a bigger stick to hit the government and EU over the head with!
Its hard to make assumptions about the association of the bill with the rebate when one is not aware of the deals on offer. For example nobody could be aware that Osborne was attempting to defer the payments as he has done. Furthermore we are not yet fully availed of how this is going to work because in practice the rebate is derived from the total net contribution we make to the EU annually and not on individual bills. Therefore how much the rebate will be in any year is very dependent on what the spend for that year is so if you ask me, the assertion that this will lead directly to a £850 million rebate is presumptious to say the least. Even now the solution laid out doesn't fully fit together in the way it is being spun.
The bottom line is the only people who at this stage can have any sort of complete handle on this are the Treasury and Brussels and neither seem to want to provide full disclosure.
So once again our politician prove to be a pack of lying c**nts. Then they have the sheer audacity to claim we the electorate malign them.
People on here have complained before that if a politician tells the truth they won't get elected perhaps if they stopped being such lying shits people might be inclined to believe what they say and support them when they make unpopular pronouncement. An honest politician if there is such a thing would command respect when he stood up and said sorry guys we need to raise taxes or cut services.
On the other hand politicians that claim the can keep taxes low, services the same and also embark on austerity are obviously lying.
Time to come clean guys and tell it how it is rather than insult our intelligence with your crap lies
Speedy Huckabee has skeletons in his closet from what I have read, which would make it difficult for him to win back his evangelical constituency if they come out
An honest politician if there is such a thing would command respect when he stood up and said sorry guys we need to raise taxes or cut services.
You are talking about someone like Tony Benn or Keith Joseph, who certainly commanded respect, but note that neither ever commanded the support of any great numbers of the people. There is a difference.
Socrates The same is true in the North East in reverse, the GOP could not even win New Hampshire, which used to be a solid red state and voted for Bush in 2000, even in a nationally good year. The North East is now as blue as the south is red, a total transformation from when the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the Democrats the Confederacy. The West and Mid West are now the key swing regions
I suggest that we don't know which US states are the next swing states. The South looked like a swing region until the 2000s thanks to Clinton. Who knows which states only look Democratic thanks to Obama?
An honest politician if there is such a thing would command respect when he stood up and said sorry guys we need to raise taxes or cut services.
You are talking about someone like Tony Benn or Keith Joseph, who certainly commanded respect, but note that neither ever commanded the support of any great numbers of the people. There is a difference.
While you are quite correct in what you state your conclusion in my opinion is wrong
if some politicians tell the truth they wont be elected
if all politicians tell the truth the electorate will actually believe them.
All politicians are liars that goes without saying however a step in the right direction would be to make politicians set out a manifesto in which they can say
These points are non negotiable and legally binding on us if you vote for us
These points are thing we think we may be able to do but cant tell until we see the books.
With the point 1 that would be open to judicial review and breach would imply heavy fines on the party.
I voted conservative in 2010 I would have cast my vote elsewhere if I knew what they would actually do if elected vs their promises in their manifesto. I am sure many voters feel the same.
EPG The swing states are Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Iowa. Florida and Virginia are also swing states but not really southern, the former full of NE retirees, the latter the DC exurbs. They have been the swing states which have backed Bush and now Obama
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
It does look now as if even fairly conservative Democrats can't win in the South. Conservatives have totally realigned into the Republican Party. As recently as the mid 2000s, Southern conservative Democrats were numerous.
The last white Democratic Congressman in the South lost his seat.
Well I really hope that Sturgeon and the SNP don't have to rely on the Scottish Conservative party at Holyrood or at local council level again any time soon.... What an opportunistic hypocrite.
"Salmond ran a minority government from 2007 to 2011, but relied heavily on the Tories to pass all four of his annual budgets – including his budget in the first year of the Tory-led government at Westminster in 2011, with total spending over that time worth about £120bn.
In return for that support, he agreed with the Tories to introduce some of the most popular policies of his first term, helping him to a landslide victory in the 2011 Scottish elections.
The Tories enjoyed the deal because it helped them prove their support for the devolved parliament, after their popularity was heavily hit by their vigorous opposition to devolution until 1997.
The SNP is also in coalition with the Tories in at least one Scottish council, South Ayrshire, and has been in multi-party coalitions with the Conservatives and other parties several times since taking power in 2007."
The SNP @theSNP 18 mins18 minutes ago Answering an audience q on #ge2015, @NicolaSturgeon says the SNP will never go into coalition with the Tories #SNPTour
Do you ever get dizzy gazing down upon us mere political anoraks of various political persuasions from the lofty heights of your own self styled political utopia?
"But anyone who dares to criticise Farage is attacked by all the UKIP loyalists who get more desperate by the week in their defence of the indefensible.
All credit to the Conservative posters on here like David Herdson. I may not agree at all with their politics but again they are more than willing to criticise Cameron where they feel it is justified.
I am afraid the one party that stands out head and shoulders clear of the rest in their blind sycophantic protection off their leader are the UKIPpers.
Yep, after a bit of editing, I dare say this statement now rings equally true to a fair few NON UKIP PBbers who must sometimes think they have landed on the Telegraph threads rather than PB.com these days.
MikeSmithson said: Interesting CON attack on Mark Reckless Is it an 'attack' when it is pointed out that Mark Reckless was previously supporting building on the site and apparently is now against building on the site? He has the opportunity to say that when the facts change he changes his mind. But have the facts changed - are the nightingales no longer on the site?
Reckless does have a history of doing the opposite what he promised the day before. Now most people can be a bit economical with the truth, but Reckless is more brazen than most. Or maybe he just forgets what he said a few days earlier? It could be a new disability?
A devastating critique from Mr Smithson. But UKIP are incredibly thin skinned. They like to dish it out with brutal ads themselves and are very free with casual smears and misrepresentations but oh dear me anyone criticism Nigel or one of his acolytes and there are howls of anguish.
Tell me one Tory poster on here who is as critical of Cameron or attacks him as much as I do Farage?
Only tonight both Socrates and I have criticised Farage over his support of the marine who murdered a prisoner. I and other UKIP members have made clear our dissatisfaction with him as a leader. But anyone who dares to criticise Cameron is attacked by all the Tory loyalists who get more desperate by the week in their defence of the indefensible.
All credit to the Labour posters on here like Ben M. I may not agree at all with their politics but again they are more than willing to criticise Miliband where they feel it is justified.
I am afraid the one party that stands out head and shoulders clear of the rest in their blind sycophantic protection off their leader are the Tories.
You hit the nail on the head with that comment. At the end of the day, the timing of this financial demand and the even more limited payment date applied smacked of some political manoeuvring from within the EU to make life as difficult as possible for Cameron and Osborne in the run up to our GE.
And you have to ask yourself one question, who would the members of the EU prefer to be in charge of the UK after the next GE? Cameron and the Conservatives who have pledged to hold an In/Out referendum in 2017, but would they like UKIP simple prefer the far weaker Ed Miliband and a Labour Government or Lab/Libdem Coalition to be in charge instead because it would take an EU In/Out referendum off the table indefinitely? And this would leave Britain simple accepting what is dished out them by the EU in the longer term, a vote for UKIP is a vote for no change under another Labour Government with no renegotiation or a referendum on our membership of the EU. In other words, its a vote to put the Conservatives back into Opposition, and it leaves them totally powerless no matter how Eurosceptic their next Leader.
Cameron and Osborne caught telling porkies again. Not a surprise. Just add it to the list.
“Compared to a situation where the Commission was not going to table a new proposal, of course this is a victory for the UK…Given the amounts, I can understand that one wants to discuss both transparency and the calculations.” Swedish Finance Minister
The German Finance Minister did not want to talk about it at all. Its in none of their interests to talk up the result for the UK since it puts them in a bad light at home. They are all going out of their way to talk round the issue and be as obscure as possible.
There was most definitely a confidence and supply arrangement between the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives after the 2007 Holyrood elections, and if there had not been then the SNP wouldn't have got their annual budgets passed!!
David Herdson/TUD The Tories provided confidence and supply to the SNP from 2007-2011 at Holyrood, no reason the SNP could not do the same at Westminster
There was not a confidence and supply arrangement between the SNP and SCons (there was a fudged kind of c & s with the Scottish Greens).
Well £75 really. Minus the rebate of nectar points.
I bought a magazine. The price was £5
I handed the shopkeeper £10, but they didn't take half of it.
Clearly I paid the full £10
#KipperMath
Except it's also the maths of the Dutch, Austrian, Irish and Spanish governments, and the EC itself so maybe your analogy is completely wrong?
I bought a magazine. The price was £10
I told everyone in the shop there was no way in hell i was going to pay £10
The shopkeeper invited me around the back for a cup of tea
When I came out I paid him £5, and he agreed not to give me the £5 coupon I was going to be given next month.
I told everyone that I had only paid £5 but they didn't believe me.
#ToryMath
I have no idea what is going on in these analogies. Are we de facto paying 2bn euros or not, i.e. has the payment been reduced by not having the rebate applied to other things this year?
Do you ever get dizzy gazing down upon us mere political anoraks of various political persuasions from the lofty heights of your own self styled political utopia?
"But anyone who dares to criticise Farage is attacked by all the UKIP loyalists who get more desperate by the week in their defence of the indefensible.
All credit to the Conservative posters on here like David Herdson. I may not agree at all with their politics but again they are more than willing to criticise Cameron where they feel it is justified.
I am afraid the one party that stands out head and shoulders clear of the rest in their blind sycophantic protection off their leader are the UKIPpers.
Yep, after a bit of editing, I dare say this statement now rings equally true to a fair few NON UKIP PBbers who must sometimes think they have landed on the Telegraph threads rather than PB.com these days.
And what a surprise. In the middle of the night one of the sycophantic Tory hypocrites turns up to try and defend their idiocy when no one else is around.
Comments
Voters simply don't trust him. It's a damage limitation exercise now.
Lousiana has the third highest GDP growth in the US, and the US has had one of the best economic recoveries in the developed world.
Landrieu will lose, but not because of government policy. She'll lose because white southerners have a deep cultural aversion to Obama
I attended an MEP hustings in May where Mr Hannan was representing the Conservatives. The EAW was the issue that most animated both him, and Alan Stevens the UKIP representative.
If he were to defect, it would be very serious for the Conservative Party. I know many backbenchers and party members who'd follow him.
Conversely, a Carswell/Farage/Hannan/James/Nuttal/Aker UKIP frontbench would actually be a very effective Commons parliamentary unit.
Hamilton/Atkinson/Ayling et al should be kept well away.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/07/politics/mcconnell-support-rand-paul-2016/
Best price for the GOP nomination 7/1 with Ladbrokes.
But I actually think it'll be meaningless stuff on (c) with a bit of (d) that'll fool people for about 90 minutes.
A forlorn hope.
Even if they tell the truth on some other issue, the public won't believe them because of lack of credibility.
Everyone suspects that politicians are liars, but when it's confirmed time and time again then they will stop listening even if you tell the truth.
I think a weak Tory minority is on the cards for 2015. But it'll be soaking wet, and the party will dissolve very quickly afterwards; it'll make the 1990s infighting look like a picnic.
There will be a heavy defeat in 2020.
"...whining, rude, dishonest, unpleasant, childishly belligerent in public while pathetically craven in private, and overall hollow"
http://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/gesture-without-motion-from-the-hollow-men-in-the-bubble-and-a-free-simple-idea-to-improve-things-a-lot-which-could-be-implemented-in-one-day-part-i/
A much tougher, skilful more ruthless politician could get something out of this. But Cameron's heart isn't in it, and he doesn't know what he's doing anyway.
The last time a senate majority leader endorsed a candidate was back in the early 2000 primaries for George W. Bush.
Also as a comparison, Ron Paul got zero endorsements from the senate apart from his son in 2012.
On the owed money, I get the criticism of the government here about halving monies if that would have happened anyway; yet I don't remember anyone at the time £1.7 billion was highlighted suggesting the reality would simply be 50% of that figure. So Osborne has then had clarification of this, which is a good thing no? It also raises questions why others did not know it was going to be 50% unless they were also playing politics by highlighting the top line figure as a means of heightening the critique of the EU?
The senate leader usually endorses a candidate only after he's secured the nomination for president.
Goodnight.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100289873/eurosceptics-are-moderate-its-the-integrationists-who-are-unreasonable/
The bottom line is the only people who at this stage can have any sort of complete handle on this are the Treasury and Brussels and neither seem to want to provide full disclosure.
People on here have complained before that if a politician tells the truth they won't get elected perhaps if they stopped being such lying shits people might be inclined to believe what they say and support them when they make unpopular pronouncement. An honest politician if there is such a thing would command respect when he stood up and said sorry guys we need to raise taxes or cut services.
On the other hand politicians that claim the can keep taxes low, services the same and also embark on austerity are obviously lying.
Time to come clean guys and tell it how it is rather than insult our intelligence with your crap lies
Dave would probably have just said they weren't really Muslims
Michael Heaver (@Michael_Heaver)
07/11/2014 22:31
Islamist extremists were apparently plotting to murder the Queen pic.twitter.com/MzBvkgblDw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpEuyaG2i2c
He isn't keeping wicket, incidentally. They're going pretty well against Hong Kong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11214944/The-Labour-Partys-big-beasts-must-act-to-remove-Ed-Miliband-now.html
if some politicians tell the truth they wont be elected
if all politicians tell the truth the electorate will actually believe them.
All politicians are liars that goes without saying however a step in the right direction would be to make politicians set out a manifesto in which they can say
These points are non negotiable and legally binding on us if you vote for us
These points are thing we think we may be able to do but cant tell until we see the books.
With the point 1 that would be open to judicial review and breach would imply heavy fines on the party.
I voted conservative in 2010 I would have cast my vote elsewhere if I knew what they would actually do if elected vs their promises in their manifesto. I am sure many voters feel the same.
Hong Kong 57/4.
The Guardian - Alex Salmond accused of hypocrisy by former Scottish Tory leader
"Salmond ran a minority government from 2007 to 2011, but relied heavily on the Tories to pass all four of his annual budgets – including his budget in the first year of the Tory-led government at Westminster in 2011, with total spending over that time worth about £120bn.
In return for that support, he agreed with the Tories to introduce some of the most popular policies of his first term, helping him to a landslide victory in the 2011 Scottish elections.
The Tories enjoyed the deal because it helped them prove their support for the devolved parliament, after their popularity was heavily hit by their vigorous opposition to devolution until 1997.
The SNP is also in coalition with the Tories in at least one Scottish council, South Ayrshire, and has been in multi-party coalitions with the Conservatives and other parties several times since taking power in 2007."
"But anyone who dares to criticise Farage is attacked by all the UKIP loyalists who get more desperate by the week in their defence of the indefensible.
All credit to the Conservative posters on here like David Herdson. I may not agree at all with their politics but again they are more than willing to criticise Cameron where they feel it is justified.
I am afraid the one party that stands out head and shoulders clear of the rest in their blind sycophantic protection off their leader are the UKIPpers.
Yep, after a bit of editing, I dare say this statement now rings equally true to a fair few NON UKIP PBbers who must sometimes think they have landed on the Telegraph threads rather than PB.com these days.
And you have to ask yourself one question, who would the members of the EU prefer to be in charge of the UK after the next GE? Cameron and the Conservatives who have pledged to hold an In/Out referendum in 2017, but would they like UKIP simple prefer the far weaker Ed Miliband and a Labour Government or Lab/Libdem Coalition to be in charge instead because it would take an EU In/Out referendum off the table indefinitely? And this would leave Britain simple accepting what is dished out them by the EU in the longer term, a vote for UKIP is a vote for no change under another Labour Government with no renegotiation or a referendum on our membership of the EU. In other words, its a vote to put the Conservatives back into Opposition, and it leaves them totally powerless no matter how Eurosceptic their next Leader.
I told everyone in the shop there was no way in hell i was going to pay £10
The shopkeeper invited me around the back for a cup of tea
When I came out I paid him £5, and he agreed not to give me the £5 coupon I was going to be given next month.
I told everyone that I had only paid £5 but they didn't believe me.
#ToryMath