I think the native Americans were there first. Whilst some reservations are alcohol free, I don't think that is because they used to be muslim.
The native americans were just one bunch of migration. Im not sure if they can absolutely claim to be the first, just there before we got there.
The Tierra del Fuegans who live at the far southern end of Argentina/Chile were probably descendants of the first modern humans to live in the Americas.
From memory weren't there at least two distinct waves of immigration across what is now the Bering Straight?
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Tangential to this, Andy, your post reminded me of my thoughts earlier in the year on how best to vote in the Euros. I was keen to rid myself of the unpleasant Liberal MEP Graham Watson. Luckily for all of us the electorate obliged.
On the off-chance I just checked his MEPs website and its still alive (grahamwatsonmep.org) which is a rather bad show. I hope the supply of free money from the EUs 'communications allowance' has been turned off and I'm not still paying for this.
Reminds me of NPxMP leaving conments on here afterhe lost his seat under his "MP" account. Some people just can't let go.
In any election, when is the last time anyone who was a clear favourite on the day (or say within the last 48 hours) actually lost?
I think the last one I can remember was Kerry v Bush in 2004 when Kerry was about 1.3 based on early rumours of exit polls.
Obviously favourites can lose from a long way out (when opinions actually change in the period up to polling day). But it seems to me that when you get to the last 48 hours the clear favourite wins almost every single time.
Dunfermline by-election 2006. Labour's last leadership election 2010.
Heath, 1970. A famous surprise win over favourite Wilson.
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Thatcher and Bliar Blair were hated by millions, but still won three Elections each.
Before we mix those two together, I will point out that there are two quality differences between them.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
Been away fow a few days and lost touch with PB and the rest of the normal world.
Can somebody update me please? UKIP's price to win Rochester has dropped to an unbackable low, but I see no sign of further polling. Anything happened to justify it?
I see a rather iffy report from the Express about six potential defectors. Sounds very unlikely to me and I had the impression that Dave was doing well enough to frighten potential traitors back into line. Anything happened to stiffen their resolve, or is it all just 'noise'?
Thanks
Mostly the Tories throwing the towel and resigning to their fate. And that's on both Rochester and Dave.
MikeL The final RCP poll average in 2004 had Bush ahead, election 2000 may be a clearer example although Gore still won the popular vote and the final polls really had it tied
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Thatcher and Bliar Blair were hated by millions, but still won three Elections each.
Before we mix those two together, I will point out that there are two quality differences between them.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
No, Speedy. Thatcher improved her seats (but not her vote) at her second election, thereafter both fell. It's often forgotten that the total Tory vote in 1983 was lower than in 1979.
Blair wasn't "loathed" by any significant part of his party, AFAIR, until after the Iraq invasion.
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Thatcher and Bliar Blair were hated by millions, but still won three Elections each.
Before we mix those two together, I will point out that there are two quality differences between them.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
No, Speedy. Thatcher improved her seats (but not her vote) at her second election, thereafter both fell. It's often forgotten that the total Tory vote in 1983 was lower than in 1979.
Blair wasn't "loathed" by any significant part of his party, AFAIR, until after the Iraq invasion.
Thatcher was becoming more successful, in 1983 she had the falklands bounce, but 1987 was an election on her own domestic record and she won a landslide. Even today she is regarded as a success, loved by her party and respected by the opposition. Blair on the other hand is regarded as a failure, loathed by all corners of politics except a small dwindling circle around Dan Hodges and John Rentoul.
I had the joy of bumping into a couple of dozen Britain First loons in Rochester (and a battalion of local and British Transport plod) yesterday afternoon.
I didn't fancy their chances against the 4-500 locals and anti fascist protesters lined up at the station end of the High street who were determined not to let them down it on one of their "marches".
The thing that most riled me - and my non political mates who I'd met there for a pre match drink - was the fact they had the gall to purloin the Union flag as their symbol despite the fact it represents everything those goons are against.
Meanwhile in Scotland... It’s now been just about two months since Scotland voted on independence and those two months have been very different in the world of polling. From mid-September to mid-October, the available data showed an SNP surge from pretty much neck-and-neck with Labour to a lead of around 13 points, but we didn’t have any actual Scottish polls to corroborate it. Since then we’ve had several polls, all of which confirmed the significant swing in the SNP’s favour that we strongly suspected, but not much actual further movement! http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/scotland-snp-at-all-time-high.html
If there are 6 more Tory MPs ready to defect, they'd be better off doing it before Reckless wins not afterwards. The longer they take, the greater the certainty that Mark Reckless will win (and especially after (if) he does), the more cowardly and self serving their actions will appear.
So presumably we are now in for a period of 'will Dave quit' to alternate with 'will Ed quit'?
Meanwhile, Rochester heads to its inevitable conclusion and it's all about expectations management. Seems I didn't miss a lot.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 7m7 minutes ago William Hill betting http://goo.gl/jBN1WA : 2+ MPs to defect to UKIP between Rochester and GE15. Odds move from 6/4 to evens.
There is a 50/50 chance of a no confidence vote on Cameron, if there is a vote I expect no further defections as the rebels will have a chance to get rid of Dave from inside the party, if there is no vote then it's game on for defections to UKIP.
I think the native Americans were there first. Whilst some reservations are alcohol free, I don't think that is because they used to be muslim.
The native americans were just one bunch of migration. Im not sure if they can absolutely claim to be the first, just there before we got there.
The Tierra del Fuegans who live at the far southern end of Argentina/Chile were probably descendants of the first modern humans to live in the Americas.
From memory weren't there at least two distinct waves of immigration across what is now the Bering Straight?
Kennewick man was found to be Polynesian, so from the south.
Mr. 1983, not only that, the timetable's pretty tight.
There can't be any by-election during Christmas and the New Year holidays, so that will throw it into the new year, however with it really being so close to the GE the argument for triggering a by-election is reduced. Already polls in Rochester were more in favour of the argument that a by-election so close to the GE is a waste of money than in Clacton, so I expect that the public will not support a by-election just 4 months from the GE.
Perhaps UKIP can hold an unofficial poll, for the public to say if there is a need for a by-election, as an escape route.
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Thatcher and Bliar Blair were hated by millions, but still won three Elections each.
Before we mix those two together, I will point out that there are two quality differences between them.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
No, Speedy. Thatcher improved her seats (but not her vote) at her second election, thereafter both fell. It's often forgotten that the total Tory vote in 1983 was lower than in 1979.
Blair wasn't "loathed" by any significant part of his party, AFAIR, until after the Iraq invasion.
Thatcher was becoming more successful, in 1983 she had the falklands bounce, but 1987 was an election on her own domestic record and she won a landslide. Even today she is regarded as a success, loved by her party and respected by the opposition. Blair on the other hand is regarded as a failure, loathed by all corners of politics except a small dwindling circle around Dan Hodges and John Rentoul.
If you look at the facts the Tories steadily lost seats from 1983 onwards.
I think the native Americans were there first. Whilst some reservations are alcohol free, I don't think that is because they used to be muslim.
The native americans were just one bunch of migration. Im not sure if they can absolutely claim to be the first, just there before we got there.
The Tierra del Fuegans who live at the far southern end of Argentina/Chile were probably descendants of the first modern humans to live in the Americas.
From memory weren't there at least two distinct waves of immigration across what is now the Bering Straight?
Kennewick man was found to be Polynesian, so from the south.
I think the native Americans were there first. Whilst some reservations are alcohol free, I don't think that is because they used to be muslim.
The native americans were just one bunch of migration. Im not sure if they can absolutely claim to be the first, just there before we got there.
The Tierra del Fuegans who live at the far southern end of Argentina/Chile were probably descendants of the first modern humans to live in the Americas.
From memory weren't there at least two distinct waves of immigration across what is now the Bering Straight?
Kennewick man was found to be Polynesian, so from the south.
Other than a soundbite what is the Conservative Long Term Economic plan?
I also note that OGH seems to imply that Tolhurst has a good Twitter campaign, perhaps she has, but once again a politician decides that a nod to the local football team, however bad, is still worth the effort. Looks as if she has copied Labour, as well as UKIP.
Other than a soundbite what is the Conservative Long Term Economic plan?
I also note that OGH seems to imply that Tolhurst has a good Twitter campaign, perhaps she has, but once again a politician decides that a nod to the local football team, however bad, is still worth the effort. Looks as if she has copied Labour, as well as UKIP.
I think the Long Term Economic Plan is the old "blow a bubble in the hope that we get re-elected and if not the others get the blame when the bubble bursts" plan.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
Thatcher was becoming more successful, in 1983 she had the falklands bounce, but 1987 was an election on two unbelievable huge years of oil income and she won a landslide.
Adele Brown (daughter of former Bradford East MP Terry Rooney) Judith Cummins (Leeds Cllr, former Bradford Cllr, former agent for Chris Leslie) http://www.judithcummins.org.uk/ Susan Hinchcliffe (Bradford Cllr, from Windhill and Wrose waed in Shipley constituency) http://susanhinchcliffe.co.uk Michelle Swallow (Bradford Cllr, from Clayton and Fairweather Green in Bradford West constituency) http://michelleswallow.co.uk/
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
Thatcher was becoming more successful, in 1983 she had the falklands bounce, but 1987 was an election on two unbelievable huge years of oil income and she won a landslide.
Fixed.
I remember the 87 election well. I think that I voted Alliance in that one, with an SDP candidate.
Thatcher won, partly because a lot of Britain was enjoying an economic recovery. I was at med school in London at the time and it was an exciting time. Sloanes, Yuppies, Filofaxes...good times. Kinnock was rebuilding the Labour party, but not yet electable, and the Lib-SDP alliance split the non Tory vote.
The main thing was the size of the Tory majority of 150 odd to overturn, which is more than one elections worth. This was also Camerons problem in 2010. It is simply very difficult and unusual to gain more than 100 seats. In my lifetime that only really happened in 97.
The same sort of nonsense being spoken now by europhiles if Britain dares to leave the EU. But these people will lie and lie and distort the truth: they have no shame.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
I have no idea what UKIP party policy is, but my proposal to deal with him is if he wants his passport, give it to him -just cancel it before he gets back.
Tories out too, with 5 people, and so were UKIP, also with 5.
Who's the Herman Munster lookalike back left?
An impressive turnout Nick. One of the best moments of the referendum campaign for me was when the Yes door knockers in a very run down part of Dundee were seriously outnumbered by us. They were genuinely shocked. But we lost Dundee. Just saying.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
I have no idea what UKIP party policy is, but my proposal to deal with him is if he wants his passport, give it to him -just cancel it before he gets back.
Which is being proposed by the Coalition; as I recall...
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
Ooh "as a matter of interest" rears it's ugly head!
That means he thinks its checkmate
The issue of British citizens who become pro-Jihadi is an interesting one. Anjem Choudhury is careful to not break the law.
What British way of dealing with him is there?
Or would it be un-British to deal with him?
The British way is to be tolerant. And to be intolerant of those who are not. Which makes it tricky quite a lot of the time. But that's the way we like it.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
I have no idea what UKIP party policy is, but my proposal to deal with him is if he wants his passport, give it to him -just cancel it before he gets back.
Which is being proposed by the Coalition; as I recall...
Good for them. I'm the first to praise any genuinely good act from Cameron and Co., it's just that all we usually see is meaningless gesture politics, backdoor legislation to increase the creeping power of the state, or unaffordable spending commitments.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
Ooh "as a matter of interest" rears it's ugly head!
That means he thinks its checkmate
The issue of British citizens who become pro-Jihadi is an interesting one. Anjem Choudhury is careful to not break the law.
What British way of dealing with him is there?
Or would it be un-British to deal with him?
The British way is to be tolerant. And to be intolerant of those who are not. Which makes it tricky quite a lot of the time. But that's the way we like it.
Balls, the British have over the centuries been world-leaders in all forms of brutal intolerance. Tolerance is a very very very good thing but to claim it as particularly British when we only passed the RRA in 1977 and the Sexual Offences Act in 1967 is just jingoistic nonsense.
Not only that, David Cameron said the same thing on the eve of his departure to the G20.
It's quite a line from the man that's handing over the ancient British right of habeas corpus to the mercy of foreign nations, and hangs on the German Chancellor's words to see whether Britain can control its borders.
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
Ooh "as a matter of interest" rears it's ugly head!
That means he thinks its checkmate
The issue of British citizens who become pro-Jihadi is an interesting one. Anjem Choudhury is careful to not break the law.
What British way of dealing with him is there?
Or would it be un-British to deal with him?
The British way is to be tolerant. And to be intolerant of those who are not. Which makes it tricky quite a lot of the time. But that's the way we like it.
Balls, the British have over the centuries been world-leaders in all forms of brutal intolerance. Tolerance is a very very very good thing but to claim it as particularly British when we only passed the RRA in 1977 and the Sexual Offences Act in 1967 is just jingoistic nonsense.
Absurd. By any stretch of history Britain has been a leader in tolerance and pushing away the prejudices of the past.
"Balls, the British have over the centuries been world-leaders in all forms of brutal intolerance. Tolerance is a very very very good thing but to claim it as particularly British when we only passed the RRA in 1977 and the Sexual Offences Act in 1967 is just jingoistic nonsense."
On the nail Ishmael. It's odd how the British have these ideas of their moral superiority particularly of their tolerance and reasonableness. It's delusional
I was listening to the FA saying that the judge in FIFA's tribuneral was completely wrong in his criticism of them and it was simply to deflect attention from FIFA's own wrongdoing.
When he was then asked about the £15,000 watch that was given to Greg Dyke he waved the question away with the answer that he'd never even worn it. He just put it in a drawer.
The same sort of nonsense being spoken now by europhiles if Britain dares to leave the EU. But these people will lie and lie and distort the truth: they have no shame.
No one knows. The point is that the only party being attacked by UKIP is the Tory Party, the one thats offering a referendum. Labour are safe and if UKIP have anything to do with it we will have a Europhile Labour Party keeping us in the EU. The truth is it matters very little if we are in or out of the EU. There will be little difference, we will have to deal with the EU and adopt its rules in order to trade with them and take advantage of inward investment.
Far and away the biggest danger to Britain is gifting its government to the Labour Party not least when we would have a referendum on the EU with the Tories. The excuses kippers twist themselves into for avoiding a referendum are pathetic.
On the "liked" and "disliked" figures - what do they actually mean in reality? There can be a big difference between "I dislike Labour" and "I'm willing, knowledgeable and strongly enough motivated to tactically vote against Labour," for example. Is there any literature showing a correlation between like/dislike and support or tactical voting levels?
Thatcher and Bliar Blair were hated by millions, but still won three Elections each.
Before we mix those two together, I will point out that there are two quality differences between them.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
No, Speedy. Thatcher improved her seats (but not her vote) at her second election, thereafter both fell. It's often forgotten that the total Tory vote in 1983 was lower than in 1979.
Blair wasn't "loathed" by any significant part of his party, AFAIR, until after the Iraq invasion.
Thatcher was becoming more successful, in 1983 she had the falklands bounce, but 1987 was an election on her own domestic record and she won a landslide. Even today she is regarded as a success, loved by her party and respected by the opposition. Blair on the other hand is regarded as a failure, loathed by all corners of politics except a small dwindling circle around Dan Hodges and John Rentoul.
I like Mrs T - but how is losing 21 seats and the opposition gaining 20, a landslide?
BTW, despite the conservative BJP winning 51% of seats on 31% of the vote at the Indian Election back in May, Sunil on Sunday analysis reveals that 46% of India's votes were actually for Left-wing parties and only 39% for the Right.
Lesson for us all there.
Vikings first discovered America didn't they? Leif Ericson - and I don't mean the owner of the High Chaperall.
True or not the claim by the Turkish PM is not quite as stupid as it sounds. The arabs and asians of the period were well educated, knowledgable and curious and open minded, that is their modern tragedy. http://www.historytoday.com/s-frederick-starr/so-who-did-discover-america Whoever came and went to the Americas, its the eventual ability to colonise it that is important, not who blundered into it first
I had the joy of bumping into a couple of dozen Britain First loons in Rochester (and a battalion of local and British Transport plod) yesterday afternoon.
I didn't fancy their chances against the 4-500 locals and anti fascist protesters lined up at the station end of the High street who were determined not to let them down it on one of their "marches".
The thing that most riled me - and my non political mates who I'd met there for a pre match drink - was the fact they had the gall to purloin the Union flag as their symbol despite the fact it represents everything those goons are against.
That's the flag under which we colonised India, imposed the hut tax in Africa, invented the concentration camp and conducted the Atlantic slave trade, while back home we kept catholics out of parliament and the universities and women out of the vote, and put up "no dogs, blacks or Irish" signs in our windows, and imprisoned gays for being gay. What is your point?
A pathetic view of history. We abolished and faught against the slave trade. The boer war 'concentration camp' was in no way analagous to nazi death camps. It was an answer to terrorist raids by boer irregulars. We were not the first to use internment camps in this way. People died in those camps due to disease and unsanitary conditions. british soldiers were dying of disease in large numbers at the same time. Parliament - thats the democracy that lives below the union flag - severely censured their operation and brought in healthy conditions. Thats why its shameful for thick bigots to wave the union flag.
"With an election looming, Government ministers like to boast of Britain’s superior economic performance, yet the reality is one of increasingly unsustainable policy in a desperate counter to Europe’s contractionary madness. Britain has again joined America as Europe’s consumer of last resort."
"The European Union is failing. Whether we are in or out scarcely seems to matter any more. In imagining it does, many of our leading businesses and politicians are woefully behind the curve. Something will eventually emerge from the wreckage. But whatever it is, it won’t be the status quo."
As I've been saying on here for years and years, the basic question to be asking is whether we want to prefer 90% access to a low growth, medium productivity bloc over 80% access to that bloc and 80% access to a whole bunch of markets that are either high growth or high productivity.
(The 90% is EU membership without Eurozone membership. The 80% access is what we'd get with a Canadian style FTA.)
For this is such an obvious no-brainer, I find it shocking that the "serious commentators" get so het up about leaving. I think it's just a combination of people that aren't examining the details of the alternatives on offer and going with the received wisdom, and also a massive status quo bias.
Your argument is one against getting hysterical about staying in. We would need to negotiate with the EU and obey its rules to gain access to the single market. The truth is in or out makes little difference. We have to deal with the EU. Canada is a contenental wide country 3000 miles away. Its agreement is not 'free trade' its a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. It's not simply tariff removal - the canadian govt say it will bring, ''improved access to EU markets for goods and services; greater certainty, transparency and protection for investments; and new opportunities in EU procurement markets. Other benefits include mechanisms for enhanced cooperation with the EU in areas of mutual interest, such as regulatory development and labour mobility.''
Labour mobility. The agreement makes for more and more free movement of labour. Canada has a significant net immigration figure. Canada is clearly happy that its access to 500 million EU consumers will benefit it more than the EU access to its own markets. Likewise we would have more to lose than the EU if forced into a similar state.
Being 'like Canada' is no defence for kippers, otherwise known as the United Kingdom's Intolerance Peddlers.
Comments
On the off-chance I just checked his MEPs website and its still alive (grahamwatsonmep.org) which is a rather bad show. I hope the supply of free money from the EUs 'communications allowance' has been turned off and I'm not still paying for this.
Reminds me of NPxMP leaving conments on here afterhe lost his seat under his "MP" account. Some people just can't let go.
One is that Thatcher build an ideology from the ground up and she was more successful in each election that passed, Blair on the other hand took an ideology and drove it to the ground becoming less successful with each election (in the last one he relied upon Brown to deliver victory).
The other is that Thatcher was loved by her party base and loathed by the opposition while Blair was loathed by his party base and loved by the opposition. In the end Blair was reduced to seeking support from the Tory party to pass major legislation.
And that's on both Rochester and Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/30074849
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2lGKd5CMAEgCrw.jpg:large
Tories out too, with 5 people, and so were UKIP, also with 5.
Blair wasn't "loathed" by any significant part of his party, AFAIR, until after the Iraq invasion.
So presumably we are now in for a period of 'will Dave quit' to alternate with 'will Ed quit'?
Meanwhile, Rochester heads to its inevitable conclusion and it's all about expectations management. Seems I didn't miss a lot.
The one second in from the right looks like she might scrub up acceptably though.
Have her washed and brought to my tent.
Even today she is regarded as a success, loved by her party and respected by the opposition.
Blair on the other hand is regarded as a failure, loathed by all corners of politics except a small dwindling circle around Dan Hodges and John Rentoul.
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/scotland-snp-at-all-time-high.html
William Hill betting http://goo.gl/jBN1WA : 2+ MPs to defect to UKIP between Rochester and GE15. Odds move from 6/4 to evens.
There is a 50/50 chance of a no confidence vote on Cameron, if there is a vote I expect no further defections as the rebels will have a chance to get rid of Dave from inside the party, if there is no vote then it's game on for defections to UKIP.
Already polls in Rochester were more in favour of the argument that a by-election so close to the GE is a waste of money than in Clacton, so I expect that the public will not support a by-election just 4 months from the GE.
Perhaps UKIP can hold an unofficial poll, for the public to say if there is a need for a by-election, as an escape route.
Bah. I dislike that line.
I also note that OGH seems to imply that Tolhurst has a good Twitter campaign, perhaps she has, but once again a politician decides that a nod to the local football team, however bad, is still worth the effort. Looks as if she has copied Labour, as well as UKIP.
ISIS are "Not Muslims" says Cameron
UKIP are "Not British" says Major
Seems a very old fashioned and authoritarian approach for a party that like to think of themselves as modernisers
What next? "Unperson"?
Adele Brown (daughter of former Bradford East MP Terry Rooney)
Judith Cummins (Leeds Cllr, former Bradford Cllr, former agent for Chris Leslie) http://www.judithcummins.org.uk/
Susan Hinchcliffe (Bradford Cllr, from Windhill and Wrose waed in Shipley constituency)
http://susanhinchcliffe.co.uk
Michelle Swallow (Bradford Cllr, from Clayton and Fairweather Green in Bradford West constituency) http://michelleswallow.co.uk/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/16/john-major-attacks-ukip-calls-britain-remain-eu
It seems that JM said that UKIPs attitudes were un-British. Of course both Kipper and Anjem Choudhary are British in law.
As a matter of interest, how do kippers propose to deal with Anjem Choudhury and his supporters?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ukip-may-become-second-largest-political-party-in-welsh-assembly-after-2016-election-9860565.html
Thatcher won, partly because a lot of Britain was enjoying an economic recovery. I was at med school in London at the time and it was an exciting time. Sloanes, Yuppies, Filofaxes...good times. Kinnock was rebuilding the Labour party, but not yet electable, and the Lib-SDP alliance split the non Tory vote.
The main thing was the size of the Tory majority of 150 odd to overturn, which is more than one elections worth. This was also Camerons problem in 2010. It is simply very difficult and unusual to gain more than 100 seats. In my lifetime that only really happened in 97.
Interesting quotes from past on disaster awaiting us if we didn't join euro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv7UoK8oJY … Some will take some living down!
The same sort of nonsense being spoken now by europhiles if Britain dares to leave the EU. But these people will lie and lie and distort the truth: they have no shame.
Neither group look like they'd be much fun at a party.
One group might not bring any alcohol for starters.
That means he thinks its checkmate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29707323
Odd use of curtain rings, though the stats re handcuffs show not all incidents involved consenting adults.
Antifrank! At least the Kippers aren't holding placards calling for the extermination of their enemies!
An impressive turnout Nick. One of the best moments of the referendum campaign for me was when the Yes door knockers in a very run down part of Dundee were seriously outnumbered by us. They were genuinely shocked. But we lost Dundee. Just saying.
In the foreground of the UKIP group there seems to be Paul McCartney, Philip Larkin and Mikhail Gorbachev.
What British way of dealing with him is there?
Or would it be un-British to deal with him?
On the nail Ishmael. It's odd how the British have these ideas of their moral superiority particularly of their tolerance and reasonableness. It's delusional
I was listening to the FA saying that the judge in FIFA's tribuneral was completely wrong in his criticism of them and it was simply to deflect attention from FIFA's own wrongdoing.
When he was then asked about the £15,000 watch that was given to Greg Dyke he waved the question away with the answer that he'd never even worn it. He just put it in a drawer.
The point is that the only party being attacked by UKIP is the Tory Party, the one thats offering a referendum. Labour are safe and if UKIP have anything to do with it we will have a Europhile Labour Party keeping us in the EU.
The truth is it matters very little if we are in or out of the EU. There will be little difference, we will have to deal with the EU and adopt its rules in order to trade with them and take advantage of inward investment.
Far and away the biggest danger to Britain is gifting its government to the Labour Party not least when we would have a referendum on the EU with the Tories. The excuses kippers twist themselves into for avoiding a referendum are pathetic.
Vikings first discovered America didn't they? Leif Ericson - and I don't mean the owner of the High Chaperall.
True or not the claim by the Turkish PM is not quite as stupid as it sounds. The arabs and asians of the period were well educated, knowledgable and curious and open minded, that is their modern tragedy.
http://www.historytoday.com/s-frederick-starr/so-who-did-discover-america
Whoever came and went to the Americas, its the eventual ability to colonise it that is important, not who blundered into it first
We would need to negotiate with the EU and obey its rules to gain access to the single market.
The truth is in or out makes little difference. We have to deal with the EU. Canada is a contenental wide country 3000 miles away. Its agreement is not 'free trade' its a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. It's not simply tariff removal - the canadian govt say it will bring, ''improved access to EU markets for goods and services; greater certainty, transparency and protection for investments; and new opportunities in EU procurement markets. Other benefits include mechanisms for enhanced cooperation with the EU in areas of mutual interest, such as regulatory development and labour mobility.''
Labour mobility. The agreement makes for more and more free movement of labour. Canada has a significant net immigration figure.
Canada is clearly happy that its access to 500 million EU consumers will benefit it more than the EU access to its own markets. Likewise we would have more to lose than the EU if forced into a similar state.
Being 'like Canada' is no defence for kippers, otherwise known as the United Kingdom's Intolerance Peddlers.