That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum.
I'm not taking evens but since you think they can be absolutely trusted and you're ready to go up to a grand, I'd be willing to put up a tenner at 100/1. It's a sure thing! A free tenner!
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Poppycock. I'm not backing down at all. My bet remains open.
You have offered a completely different bet, with an impossible condition. No one in their right mind thinks the package of changes will be implemented by the end of 2017. (You also changed the goalposts on whether the bet requires a majority).
You are just trying to distract from the key points - that Cameron will deliver a referendum certainly if he has a majority, and very probably even if he remains as PM without a majority, and that the Kippers are afraid of that because they know they will lose it.
"Fair enough, his targets have been blown off course" Richard - that has to be the underestimate of the year. If he had reduced immigration but fallen slightly short of his target that would be one thing, but when immigration is moving in the opposite direction that is another.
As for Cameron's promise let's imagine a domestic scenario for a moment:
Wife: I thought you were going to mow the lawn today Man: I'll do it tomorrow. I'm watching the football now Wife: You said that yesterday Man: I promise I'll mow the lawn tomorrow
Now you can analyse this two ways. You could conclude the man has promised to mow the lawn therefore the lawn will be mowed. Or you could conclude that the man really doesn't want to mow the lawn so when tomorrow comes he will try and find some way of weaseling out of it again.
Now David Cameron really doesn't want a referendum. What I expect he wanted was for people to shut up about Europe but instead he has been bounced into this referendum promise by his right wing and UKIP's growing strength. What I expect would suit him quite well is to have another coalition with the LDs and use that as an excuse to weasel out of a referendum.
He's said it would be a red line...and there were some hints a couple of months ago that the Lib Dems were positioning themselves to accept the concept
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Is it my new TV, or is Dave trying to grow a tasche?
Maybe it is Cameron's Movember attempt. After 28 days, that's a pretty good effort for him.
Wonderful to see Richard's carefully balanced, subtly nuanced analysis of Cameron. Reminds me of that episode of Alan Partridge with the fan with Alan's face tatooed on his belly.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Poppycock. I'm not backing down at all. My bet remains open.
You have offered a completely different bet, with an impossible condition. No one in their right mind thinks the package of changes will be implemented by the end of 2017. (You also changed the goalposts on whether the bet requires a majority).
You are just trying to distract from the key points - that Cameron will deliver a referendum certainly if he has a majority, and very probably even if he remains as PM wthout a majority, and that the Kippers are afraid of that because they know they will lose it.
Richard, I honestly don't know why you bother. But not for the first time you have made Socrates a laughing stock: it almost borders on cruelty.
I'm not taking evens but since you think they can be absolutely trusted and you're ready to go up to a grand, I'd be willing to put up a tenner at 100/1. It's a sure thing! A free tenner!
Those would be reasonable odds, but I'm not offering them! I was merely reacting to the oft-repeated Kipper mantra that Cameron can't be trusted. It is of course a vital part of their worldview, because without it their entire strategy, indeed raison d'etre, makes no sense at all.
I'm not taking evens but since you think they can be absolutely trusted and you're ready to go up to a grand, I'd be willing to put up a tenner at 100/1. It's a sure thing! A free tenner!
Those would be reasonable odds, but I'm not offering them! I was merely reacting to the oft-repeated Kipper mantra that Cameron can't be trusted. It is of course a vital part of their worldview, because without it their entire strategy, indeed raison d'etre, makes no sense at all.
Jesus, you drive a hard bargain. 80/1. Can't say fairer than that.
Cameron completely dodges the Times' question on what more he's going to do on non-EU migration. He just repeated what he's done so far and then said he'd "do more".
But the Kippers obsessed with race and immigration are putting me off.
Don't you start as well, which bit of what Farage said in the Independent today was unclear about race.
For the avoidance of doubt though: I want to see sensible levels of immigration, not no immigration. I want us to treat the world equally and fairly, not have a discriminatory attitude towards Europe and against places like India, Australia, Canada, Africa, and so on.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Poppycock. I'm not backing down at all. My bet remains open.
You have offered a completely different bet, with an impossible condition. No one in their right mind thinks the package of changes will be implemented by the end of 2017. (You also changed the goalposts on whether the bet requires a majority).
You are just trying to distract from the key points - that Cameron will deliver a referendum certainly if he has a majority, and very probably even if he remains as PM wthout a majority, and that the Kippers are afraid of that because they know they will lose it.
Richard, I honestly don't know why you bother. But not for the first time you have made Socrates a laughing stock: it almost borders on cruelty.
Richard, while a decent chap, is the one that is not willing to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. Would you rather take his place, or do you not trust Cameron on his word either?
Cameron completely dodges the Times' question on what more he's going to do on non-EU migration. He just repeated what he's done so far and then said he'd "do more".
But the Kippers obsessed with race and immigration are putting me off.
Don't you start as well, which bit of what Farage said in the Independent today was unclear about race.
For the avoidance of doubt though: I want to see sensible levels of immigration, not no immigration. I want us to treat the world equally and fairly, not have a discriminatory attitude towards Europe and against places like India, Australia, Canada, Africa, and so on.
I'm talking about the Kipper supporters.
As I've said, they are out of touch when it comes to matters of race and religion.
Note, how none of the Kippers have linked to Peter Entwistle story this week.
I would imagine today or tomorrow is an optimum time for any new Tory defector pigdog.
The next defector won't be a pigdog.
They will be a duplicitous rat-snake
Just as long as they aren't a hairy great wobble bum.
Have you defected from Spurs?
Someone tweeted last night, Spurs have employed the Liverpool defence to do their stewarding.
Holding on... just. The MK Dons are however very alluring. I thought Liverpool had continued last season's impression of basketball but without the hall of fame centre.
< Why? Because if the Conservatives win a majority, they will probably offer the voters a referendum.
The question is whether voters who were promised much by the Party on immigration at the 2010 election and voted for it as a consequences should vote for it again. Should they forgive it for misleading it last time and accept that this time it means it? Or should they say 'no, you deceived us last time, so even if you do mean it now, we are not buying it'.
That's the problem. Tricky one.
Politics is indeed tricky, and not everything this government wanted to achieve has yet been achieved (not helped, in some respects, by having the LibDems in tow, of course).
I'll tell you one thing, though. If voters think they've been misled on this, just think what the reaction will be if we do leave the EU, and find (as we would find) that not much had actually changed in that scenario either.
Oh, I absolutely agree, Richard, especially with the second paragraph.
You'll forgive me a slight frisson of Schadenfreude though. Labour were vulnerable on immigration at the last GE and DC exploited this, as it is his job to do, by appearing to offer the electorate something closer to what it wanted than Labour could possibly offer. He has since had to live with that commitment and that has proved difficult, all the more so because his lines of retreat are effectively cut off by UKIP. They can not only take him to task on broken promises, but outbid him in much the same way that he outbid Labour during the last GE.
As you may know, I'm not exactly enamoured of the way any of the main Party leaders have handled immigration, but on this issue and on this occasion it is DC who is likely to suffer the greatest discomfiture.
Even his strongest critics acknowledge he is a good PR man, if nothing else. His PR skills will be tested to the limit on this one.
Richard, while a decent chap, is the one that is not willing to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. Would you rather take his place, or do you not trust Cameron on his word either?
I am prepared to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. I am for obvious reasons not prepared to qualify that by adding a spurious extra condition, that the renegotiation has to have been 'implemented'. That is impossible, since the implementation will of course follow the referendum.
I would imagine today or tomorrow is an optimum time for any new Tory defector pigdog.
The next defector won't be a pigdog.
They will be a duplicitous rat-snake
Just as long as they aren't a hairy great wobble bum.
Have you defected from Spurs?
Someone tweeted last night, Spurs have employed the Liverpool defence to do their stewarding.
Holding on... just. The MK Dons are however very alluring. I thought Liverpool had continued last season's impression of basketball but without the hall of fame centre.
I gave up this week on Liverpool
There was an article that compared Brendan Rodgers to Ed Miliband.
"When we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms"
@Peter_the_Punter - the funny thing is that Labour did, rather late in their period of government, actually get round to sorting out non-EU immigration. The points system which they eventually introduced is working quite well, and is pretty tough even if no doubt there is room for further refinement. Non-EU immigration was already falling fast before they left office. But they have been incapable of getting any political benefit from this because they wanted to portray the Tories as right-wing borderline racists. Even now they can't decide whether to criticise the government for being too tough or not tough enough. It's a funny old world!
Good morning. Another thread and UKIP is centre stage again, egged on by TSE at his most obnoxious.
To all Lab/Lib/Con Pbers- please calm down. UKIP is here to stay as a major player in British politics. Get used to it.
Like the SDP is still here? The SDP had higher poll shares and more defectors than UKIP and where are they now?
UKIP is to now what the SDP were in the 80's.
Wanna bet?
OK a tenner at evens says that at the next election a decade from now (ie 2025 if we stick to fixed terms) UKIP either won't exist as an independent party (ie won't have merged with another like the SDP did with Liberals) or will be so minor as to win 10 or less MP's. Deal?
It's a long term bet but I'm happy to exchange details with Peter the Punter if that's still done here. Bet with him before.
Richard, while a decent chap, is the one that is not willing to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. Would you rather take his place, or do you not trust Cameron on his word either?
I am prepared to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. I am for obvious reasons not prepared to qualify that by adding a spurious extra condition, that the renegotiation has to have been 'implemented'. That is impossible, since the implementation will of course follow the referendum.
I can understand your concerns here. So I am happy to bet on the basis of the "new settlement" being agreed by everyone that needs to agree: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the member states. i.e. the renegotiation has been completed, and there isn't more negotiation to come.
Cameron completely dodges the Times' question on what more he's going to do on non-EU migration. He just repeated what he's done so far and then said he'd "do more".
Not too much more, it's on the way up again
In fairness to the Tories, since the numbers we're looking at are changes from year to year, and a lot of the people who move to a country later leave it, you expect to see an increase a few years after you do something to reduce immigration.
For instance, one of the things the government did was to stop issuing visas for low-level (sub-university-level) study longer than three months. (In the Con/UKIP world these are considered intrinsically bogus.) If you stop somebody entering the country for a two-year course in Year 1 you'll get a drop in Year 1 compared to what you'd have had otherwise, but you'll then get a corresponding increase in Year 3 when the person who you didn't let in fails to leave, since you can't leave somewhere you never entered in the first place.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
"When we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms"
Cameron's words, not mine.
OK, if you are happy to let Peter the Punter adjudicate on whether that has been met, by the end of 2017, we're on. £50 at Evens I think you said. Bet void if there is not a Conservative majority (no matter how small) immediately after the GE.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Cameron never said implemented. Implementation always takes time a disproportionate that argument can be made during the referendum.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Sorry, Socco, that doesn't pass muster.
The terms are too loose. We could be arguing about it for years.
once again the state broadcaster failed to even mention [in the part I saw] the English Parliament, the most rational and popular option. It's a disgraceful omission that speaks of political interest, not objective reporting.
If the LibDems support EVFEL then the coalition can vote it through next month and defy Labour to oppose it (knowing they'll lose anyway). I agree this will do much to help the yellows in England.
More importantly, EVFEL leads to an English PArliament sooner rather than later. EVFEL is only a blocking mechanism. It would stop eg Labour passing lefty laws that don't command an English MP majority. Fair dinkum. But it offers no active ability to govern England. So it would put a (probably Labour) UK PM in an impossible position. Potentially unable to legislate on health/education/policing/etc. With a devomax Scotland as a given, that means the only route out of impasse is an English Parliament within a fully federal UK. Which we should all welcome with open arms.
Patrick, there is no devomax for Scotland not even devo mini, only power moved is control of roadsigns, rest is just flim flam and gives no powers whatsoever.
What devomax powers do YOU want then that aren't being offered (out of interest)?
Real fiscal powers , not pocket money and some kid on that we can alter income tax in a unitary state. There is no change whatsoever , all they do is say your budget is the same as before but we now say it is made up of 10% of VAT and income tax and deduct that from the existing numbers. It is not a transfer of any powers, other than the roads signs. It should be full fiscal autonomy other than defence and FO
@Peter_the_Punter - the funny thing is that Labour did, rather late in their period of government, actually get round to sorting out non-EU immigration. The points system which they eventually introduced is working quite well, and is pretty tough even if no doubt there is room for further refinement. Non-EU immigration was already falling fast before they left office. But they have been incapable of getting any political benefit from this because they wanted to portray the Tories as right-wing borderline racists. Even now they can't decide whether to criticise the government for being too tough or not tough enough. It's a funny old world!
Non eu immigration is also on the increase, I suppose that's labours fault
Any way the main thrust of Cameron's speech was that Britain wanted control of who came here and we will be no better off in that regard if the whole of his speech is implemented
The SNP are ultra left pro- private enterprise communists looking to undermine the welfare state by giving a big government cut in corporation tax rates.
Richard, while a decent chap, is the one that is not willing to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. Would you rather take his place, or do you not trust Cameron on his word either?
I am prepared to have a bet on what Cameron pledged: a renegotiation and then a referendum. I am for obvious reasons not prepared to qualify that by adding a spurious extra condition, that the renegotiation has to have been 'implemented'. That is impossible, since the implementation will of course follow the referendum.
I am interested in what happens if (when) the implementation fails ratification, do we go back to 2017 and start again ? Or does Farage stand on a "negotiation doesn't work, declare UDI from the EU" platform in 2020.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Sorry, Socco, that doesn't pass muster.
The terms are too loose. We could be arguing about it for years.
I've specified them in more detail. The referendum is held after the negotiation has been completed, with final agreement from the EC, the EP and all the member states. That's seems pretty tight.
Cameron now claiming capping benefits will be more effective than an emergency brake! You couldn't make it up!
Because he can cap benefits. He can't legally apply an "emergency brake". Whatever that means.
He can only cap benefits for EU migrants if he does so for the British. That's not on the table either so it's all nonsense.
Poles etc are not the problem. They come here to work. They integrate well.
The immigration we should be curbing is from those groups which do not integrate well, have low levels of employment and/or skills and who have brought us problems we could do without.
All this faffing about EU immigration is pointless noise and distraction because while we are in the EU free movement is part of the deal and, from my perspective, rather a good part of the deal.
Another very disappointing poll for the Tories. With little more than five months to go before the GE, now was supposed to be crossover time, were it indeed ever to happen. I fear the sands of time are fast running out for the Blues. Now then, let's have a look at those Sporting seats spread prices.
Non eu immigration is also on the increase, I suppose that's labours fault
It's increased in the latest year (there is often some year-to-year variation), but the overall trend of non-EU immigration over the past few years is firmly downwards, from 266,000 in 2004 to 168,000 in the latest figures (143,000 in the previous year). That's mainly due to Labour's change of policy, for which I give them credit (although it would have been much better if they hadn't let it get out of control in the first place).
Cameron now claiming capping benefits will be more effective than an emergency brake! You couldn't make it up!
Because he can cap benefits. He can't legally apply an "emergency brake". Whatever that means.
He can only cap benefits for EU migrants if he does so for the British. That's not on the table either so it's all nonsense.
Poles etc are not the problem. They come here to work. They integrate well.
The immigration we should be curbing is from those groups which do not integrate well, have low levels of employment and/or skills and who have brought us problems we could do without.
All this faffing about EU immigration is pointless noise and distraction because while we are in the EU free movement is part of the deal and, from my perspective, rather a good part of the deal.
Yes good point on the capping welfare rules. Thanks for the correction.
@Peter_the_Punter - the funny thing is that Labour did, rather late in their period of government, actually get round to sorting out non-EU immigration. The points system which they eventually introduced is working quite well, and is pretty tough even if no doubt there is room for further refinement. Non-EU immigration was already falling fast before they left office. But they have been incapable of getting any political benefit from this because they wanted to portray the Tories as right-wing borderline racists. Even now they can't decide whether to criticise the government for being too tough or not tough enough. It's a funny old world!
I'm not sure they had a good political message there anyhow. It may be true but it's not very truthy - the media prefer a simpler story where policy changes correspond to changes of government. (A similar example is Obama foreign policy, which began two years before Obama took office.)
The other problem with it is that even if the voters believe it, it's not a very attractive story to anybody. "We did X for 11 years, then we turned around and did Anti-X for the last two years before the election." Obviously the people who liked X aren't going to like you, but it's not wildly impressive to the people who like Anti-X either.
I guess this is one of the reasons why governments tend to have a limited shelf life. When a policy becomes an electoral liability, there's just no good way to reverse it without taking damage.
You can tell when Richard_Nabavi knows he's making a bad argument because he gets aggressive.
The measures taken so far to reduce non-EU immigration have been moderately successful? Please, even if there was no EU immigration whatsoever, non-EU immigration is 70% above Cameron's target AND INCREASING.
Plus we can't trust Cameron to give us a referendum. On the bailouts, on significant transfers of powers, on the EU shakedown, on capping the EU budget, on being tough on EU migration, Cameron has made a big stand and then backed down, again and again. He'll do the same on this. We think he's made a big stand, but if "no ifs, no buts" on getting immigration down becomes a "comment", then of course we can't trust any commitment he makes.
The frit ones are the Tories. They could propose a referendum in this parliament if they wanted. But the won't, because that doesn't give them enough time to weasel their way out of it.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
OK here's the thing - let's suppose you are playing the long game - a 2020/25 UKIP govt. That's the plan, right? You/the Kippers have said it many times. The only people, blah, blah...
Excellent.
Well here's an amazing modification:
1. Vote Cam in next year. 2. Vote OUT in the referendum. 3. Proceed with "long game" plan and vote in Nige as PM in 2020.
Good morning. Another thread and UKIP is centre stage again, egged on by TSE at his most obnoxious.
To all Lab/Lib/Con Pbers- please calm down. UKIP is here to stay as a major player in British politics. Get used to it.
Like the SDP is still here? The SDP had higher poll shares and more defectors than UKIP and where are they now?
UKIP is to now what the SDP were in the 80's.
Wanna bet?
OK a tenner at evens says that at the next election a decade from now (ie 2025 if we stick to fixed terms) UKIP either won't exist as an independent party (ie won't have merged with another like the SDP did with Liberals) or will be so minor as to win 10 or less MP's. Deal?
It's a long term bet but I'm happy to exchange details with Peter the Punter if that's still done here. Bet with him before.
Don't be silly. I'm 80 years old, in 2025 I'll be 91 or more probably, dead. You'll have to come up with something pertaining to the 2015 GE.
Non eu immigration is also on the increase, I suppose that's labours fault
It's increased in the latest year (there is often some year-to-year variation), but the overall trend of non-EU immigration over the past few years is firmly downwards, from 266,000 in 2004 to 168,000 and 143,000 in the latest figures. That's mainly due to Labour's change of policy, for which I give them credit (although it would have been much better if they hadn't let it get out of control in the first place).
If non-EU immigration was going to reduce proportionally to overall immigration to meet the 100,000 target, that would mean a reduction to about 55,000. So they're 205% above target. Cameron can blame the Eurozone crisis all he wants, but it's nonsense. He's just screwed up here.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Sorry, Socco, that doesn't pass muster.
The terms are too loose. We could be arguing about it for years.
I've specified them in more detail. The referendum is held after the negotiation has been completed, with final agreement from the EC, the EP and all the member states. That's seems pretty tight.
Well, it's tighter, but also extremely unlikely that the conditions will be fully met.
There's bound to be some procrastination and deferment, so bearing in mind we don't even get to the tricky bit until the Tories win a Majority (5/1 against) we're wasting effort here on an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. Let's try something a little more realistic.
Another very disappointing poll for the Tories. With little more than five months to go before the GE, now was supposed to be crossover time, were it indeed ever to happen. I fear the sands of time are fast running out for the Blues. Now then, let's have a look at those Sporting seats spread prices.
Keep calm.
Populus seem to be an outlier from the other pollsters with their high Labour score.
But look at the polls in general, apart from ComRes and Survation giving similar leads, most of the other pollsters have it as a tie or the Tories ahead.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
Note, how none of the Kippers have linked to Peter Entwistle story this week.
I imagine Tories are quite shy about linking stories about their black sheep as well, no big surprise there
But we keep on getting told that the Kippers like to highlight ALL stories about grooming/child abuse
The issue that isn't being addressed is street grooming. There's a pretty effective national government response to online grooming, including us sending police to Thailand to target Brits based there.
Catholics built a lot of very beautiful cathedrals in this country: Canterbury, Durham, York, for instance.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
I think of it more as a demerger.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
You may think that. I'm not sure we do. A bit of a prodigal church, if so. We await your return!
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
Well, we still have the Apostolic Succession and the same Creeds and Sacraments. We just don't recognise the authority of the Pope. So it's really just down to governance.
This thread reminds us why Kippers are so chicken of Dave's referendum.
As with the Indyref, in the AV referendum Dave smashed his opponents.
The Kippers know Dave will defeat them and make it a hat trick, so that's why the Kippers are so keen to put Ed into Downing Street and thus no in/out referendum.
Wow! Governments win referenda.
Any more piercing insights, TSE?
BTW, since Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was turned from a church into a mosque, I'd shut up about Westminster Cathedral if I were you.
I have lots of piercing insights but they'd go over your head.
No I'll keep on talking about Westminster Cathedral, clearly it is a sore point, and rather depressing that Kippers don't know their country so well that they don't know about the magnificent construction that is that Cathedral.
Just to be clear, TSE, it is horrible and garish.
It's up there with Keble and Katz on my list.
I thought you were a cultured man Charles, but now this and the fact you read the Metro, I'm not so sure.
1. Vote Cam in next year. 2. Vote OUT in the referendum. 3. Proceed with "long game" plan and vote in Nige as PM in 2020.
If UKIP don't have their 5-10 MPs this year, I think going for 326 in 2020 might be a bit of a stretch even if Dave completely fails to achieve anything. Even if UKIP are playing the long game, that has to start now, they need to build media presence and critical mass.
Cameron now claiming capping benefits will be more effective than an emergency brake! You couldn't make it up!
Because he can cap benefits. He can't legally apply an "emergency brake". Whatever that means.
He can only cap benefits for EU migrants if he does so for the British. That's not on the table either so it's all nonsense.
Poles etc are not the problem. They come here to work. They integrate well.
The immigration we should be curbing is from those groups which do not integrate well, have low levels of employment and/or skills and who have brought us problems we could do without.
All this faffing about EU immigration is pointless noise and distraction because while we are in the EU free movement is part of the deal and, from my perspective, rather a good part of the deal.
Cameron was asked outright by the Times about non-EU immigration rising to 168,000 and what else he'd do, and he couldn't name a single new policy.
That the vote is on a package of changes that have been agreed and implemented, not on some "agreement on principle" that can later be watered down, or on the basis of "we're still negotiating".
No dice. My bet is about the referendum. I say he (or indeed any Conservative PM) can be absolutely trusted to deliver it by the end of 2017 if there is a Conservative majority, and it will be an In/Out referendum. You claimed Cameron couldn't be trusted to deliver such a referendum. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by moving the goalposts.
Haha, so you're backing down on Cameron's pledge. He claimed he would renegotiate a package of reforms and then hold a referendum. That's all I'm offering a bet on. Someone's called your bluff and you've had to back down.
Socco
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
I'm prepared to let you arbitrate on the terms I offered and on the terms Cameron pledged: Cameron holds a referendum by the end of 2017, based on a renegotiation actually agreed and implemented, as he pledged, not on a set of renegotiations still to come.
Sorry, Socco, that doesn't pass muster.
The terms are too loose. We could be arguing about it for years.
I've specified them in more detail. The referendum is held after the negotiation has been completed, with final agreement from the EC, the EP and all the member states. That's seems pretty tight.
Well, it's tighter, but also extremely unlikely that the conditions will be fully met.
There's bound to be some procrastination and deferment, so bearing in mind we don't even get to the tricky bit until the Tories win a Majority (5/1 against) we're wasting effort here on an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. Let's try something a little more realistic.
Catholics built a lot of very beautiful cathedrals in this country: Canterbury, Durham, York, for instance.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
I think of it more as a demerger.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
You may think that. I'm not sure we do. A bit of a prodigal church, if so. We await your return!
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
Well, we still have the Apostolic Succession and the same Creeds and Sacraments. We just don't recognise the authority of the Pope. So it's really just down to governance.
Of course, the Catholic Church was a split from the Orthodox Catholic Church of the Roman Empire anyway.
What does everyone here think of the proposal to have a Qu'ran passage present at the next coronation ?
Since the coronation is an explicitly Anglican ceremony at which the monarch is annointed by God (whether you believe this or not) it strikes me as daft.
Either have the ceremony properly or not at all but not some happy clappy ecumenical rubbish which is neither use nor ornament.
I am rapidly coming to the view that Charles will be a rubbish king, particularly if he keeps to his promise of speaking out. He will destroy the monarchy if he does that.
Monarchs - in this day and age - should be seen and not heard.
1. Vote Cam in next year. 2. Vote OUT in the referendum. 3. Proceed with "long game" plan and vote in Nige as PM in 2020.
If UKIP don't have their 5-10 MPs this year, I think going for 326 in 2020 might be a bit of a stretch even if Dave completely fails to achieve anything. Even if UKIP are playing the long game, that has to start now, they need to build media presence and critical mass.
Yes but what a nice filip in the meantime to have voted the UK out of the EU. That's one to put on the 2025 (2030? I mean how long is long?) leaflets.
And of course it also happens to be UKIP's sole reason for existing...
Catholics built a lot of very beautiful cathedrals in this country: Canterbury, Durham, York, for instance.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
I think of it more as a demerger.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
You may think that. I'm not sure we do. A bit of a prodigal church, if so. We await your return!
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
Well, we still have the Apostolic Succession and the same Creeds and Sacraments. We just don't recognise the authority of the Pope. So it's really just down to governance.
Well, there's the small matter of Transubstantiation, of course.
But governance - as any good banker will know - is very very important!!
Good morning. Another thread and UKIP is centre stage again, egged on by TSE at his most obnoxious.
To all Lab/Lib/Con Pbers- please calm down. UKIP is here to stay as a major player in British politics. Get used to it.
Like the SDP is still here? The SDP had higher poll shares and more defectors than UKIP and where are they now?
UKIP is to now what the SDP were in the 80's.
Wanna bet?
OK a tenner at evens says that at the next election a decade from now (ie 2025 if we stick to fixed terms) UKIP either won't exist as an independent party (ie won't have merged with another like the SDP did with Liberals) or will be so minor as to win 10 or less MP's. Deal?
It's a long term bet but I'm happy to exchange details with Peter the Punter if that's still done here. Bet with him before.
Don't be silly. I'm 80 years old, in 2025 I'll be 91 or more probably, dead. You'll have to come up with something pertaining to the 2015 GE.
True. I've just checked some actuarial tables, you can expect to live to 90 whereas I can only expect to live to 87.
Note, how none of the Kippers have linked to Peter Entwistle story this week.
I imagine Tories are quite shy about linking stories about their black sheep as well, no big surprise there
But we keep on getting told that the Kippers like to highlight ALL stories about grooming/child abuse
Do we?
It's never been in doubt that child abusers can be on any creed of colour, I certainly have never said different. The point being made in the cases of Muslim child abusers, celebrity child abusers and 70/80s MPs who are accused is that it was covered up because of who they were
Another very disappointing poll for the Tories. With little more than five months to go before the GE, now was supposed to be crossover time, were it indeed ever to happen. I fear the sands of time are fast running out for the Blues. Now then, let's have a look at those Sporting seats spread prices.
Populus seem to be out on a limb with their Labour ratings, not sure anyone seriously believes they are 8 points up on 2010.
What is under-reported behind all this and which will have some bearing on the contest for the next Leader of the Conservatives is the following:- 1. Osborne's Treasury are leaking that they have toned down this immigration speech to be more pro-Business. We heard earlier on R4 that the arch europhile Roland Rudd was friendly towards the speech before it was made. Osborne is now in the wet camp of the Conservatives. 2. The minister on the spot over immigration is Mrs May. Hampered by the LDs and the deals done by the gang of 4 (inc Osborne), as a rival to Osborne she has been undermined in tackling immigration through extra resources a few years ago etc and the deals Osborne has done through the gang of 4.
As yea reap so yea sow.
Net result is that Osborne's standing amongst Conservative MPs will drop further. Count him out of getting past the 1st round.
PS Looks to be a wasted PR opportunity by Cameron with the pre-speech briefings removing any impact.... Did Coulson/Osborne win against Crosby?
Catholics built a lot of very beautiful cathedrals in this country: Canterbury, Durham, York, for instance.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
I think of it more as a demerger.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
You may think that. I'm not sure we do. A bit of a prodigal church, if so. We await your return!
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
Well, we still have the Apostolic Succession and the same Creeds and Sacraments. We just don't recognise the authority of the Pope. So it's really just down to governance.
Of course, the Catholic Church was a split from the Orthodox Catholic Church of the Roman Empire anyway.
There something maybe you churchgoers can help me with. Why is it that Jesus was born on the same day every year (Dec 25th), but seems to die on a different day every year (apparently related to the first Sunday following the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox).
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
Miss Cyclefree, spot on. The Christian stuff is acceptable because the King (or Queen) is head of the Anglican Church. Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or any other religious stuff has no place in the coronation whatsoever.
Can I ask a daft question about polling methodology.
I know that some companies use internet, others phones and/or in person. But do they use new randomised samples each time or a panel?
Is there any evidence which is the most effective?
I'm not sure anyone does in-person polling any more. Generally speaking the phone pollsters dial random numbers, while the internet pollsters use a panel.
IIUC phone pollsters have tended to have a better record in Britain, although it may get tougher as fewer and fewer people answer phone calls from unknown numbers, and the ones who do become increasingly untypical.
Miss Cyclefree, spot on. The Christian stuff is acceptable because the King (or Queen) is head of the Anglican Church. Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or any other religious stuff has no place in the coronation whatsoever.
We should have a separation of church and state anyway. If we have to have a monarch, they should represent us all, whether we are Anglican or not.
Also, atheists and agnostic deserve input in the coronation before Muslims do, if we're looking at the share of the British population.
Catholics built a lot of very beautiful cathedrals in this country: Canterbury, Durham, York, for instance.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
I think of it more as a demerger.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
You may think that. I'm not sure we do. A bit of a prodigal church, if so. We await your return!
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
Well, we still have the Apostolic Succession and the same Creeds and Sacraments. We just don't recognise the authority of the Pope. So it's really just down to governance.
Well, there's the small matter of Transubstantiation, of course.
But governance - as any good banker will know - is very very important!!
Of course. We believe that "do this in remembrance of me" means that you should eat bread/drink wine in remembrance of Jesus. Other people are at liberty to follow a diluted form of Mithradism if they wish.
Another very disappointing poll for the Tories. With little more than five months to go before the GE, now was supposed to be crossover time, were it indeed ever to happen. I fear the sands of time are fast running out for the Blues. Now then, let's have a look at those Sporting seats spread prices.
Keep calm.
Populus seem to be an outlier from the other pollsters with their high Labour score.
But look at the polls in general, apart from ComRes and Survation giving similar leads, most of the other pollsters have it as a tie or the Tories ahead.
Ah, so that's just the three pollsters showing Labour as having a big lead ..... that's alright then.
Personally we should abolish the churches and turn them into discos and nightclubs.
That's what half the Anglican clergy seem to think too.
Worse, a number of racecourses are following suit. :-(
Perhaps we could have the feasting and merger negotiations at a racecourse. Cheltenham, for instance. Plenty of Irish priests there to help matters along and they are usually (or those I knew) good racing tipsters as well. So all should go swimmingly!
Mr. Socrates, I have no issue with an established church. Giving a coronation place to minority faiths unrelated to the monarch's position is an utter nonsense.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?
Can I ask a daft question about polling methodology.
I know that some companies use internet, others phones and/or in person. But do they use new randomised samples each time or a panel?
Is there any evidence which is the most effective?
I'm not sure anyone does in-person polling any more. Generally speaking the phone pollsters dial random numbers, while the internet pollsters use a panel.
IIUC phone pollsters have tended to have a better record in Britain, although it may get tougher as fewer and fewer people answer phone calls from unknown numbers, and the ones who do become increasingly untypical.
Thanks, do you know if the three big leads for Labour are phone or internet pollsters?
Comments
Would you be prepared to let me arbitrate on this one?
I think the intent is clear enough. If there is no ref, you win; if there is, Richard does.
There are bound to be some negotiations, so can you let me judge if they materially alter the terms of the bet?
It's 5/1 against a Tory majority, so the bet probably lapses, but if it doesn't I think Richard and I can be trusted to observe it in the spirit offered.
Cameron has given you permission to set your inner kipper free. Say it loud and proud ...
"Ich bin ein pigdog."
All the previous statements were just a dream. He's come out of the shower and seen a new reality.
All it needs now is for Yvette to see his kipper and raise it.
You have offered a completely different bet, with an impossible condition. No one in their right mind thinks the package of changes will be implemented by the end of 2017. (You also changed the goalposts on whether the bet requires a majority).
You are just trying to distract from the key points - that Cameron will deliver a referendum certainly if he has a majority, and very probably even if he remains as PM without a majority, and that the Kippers are afraid of that because they know they will lose it.
Wonderful to see Richard's carefully balanced, subtly nuanced analysis of Cameron. Reminds me of that episode of Alan Partridge with the fan with Alan's face tatooed on his belly.
It'll be
"Ich bin ein schweinhund"
FYI - Whisper it quietly, I've been edging backing out since last week.
But the Kippers obsessed with race and immigration are putting me off.
Someone tweeted last night, Spurs have employed the Liverpool defence to do their stewarding.
I'm talking about the Kipper supporters.
As I've said, they are out of touch when it comes to matters of race and religion.
Note, how none of the Kippers have linked to Peter Entwistle story this week.
Mirth and laughter everywhere.
You'll forgive me a slight frisson of Schadenfreude though. Labour were vulnerable on immigration at the last GE and DC exploited this, as it is his job to do, by appearing to offer the electorate something closer to what it wanted than Labour could possibly offer. He has since had to live with that commitment and that has proved difficult, all the more so because his lines of retreat are effectively cut off by UKIP. They can not only take him to task on broken promises, but outbid him in much the same way that he outbid Labour during the last GE.
As you may know, I'm not exactly enamoured of the way any of the main Party leaders have handled immigration, but on this issue and on this occasion it is DC who is likely to suffer the greatest discomfiture.
Even his strongest critics acknowledge he is a good PR man, if nothing else. His PR skills will be tested to the limit on this one.
Lab 37 (+1) Con 32 (+1) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 14 (-1)
http://populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_28_11-2014_BPC.pdf
There was an article that compared Brendan Rodgers to Ed Miliband.
I wanted to cry.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/11/24/liverpool-must-back-rodgers-and-labour-must-back-miliband/
Cameron's words, not mine.
A horrendous week for the Tories.
It's a long term bet but I'm happy to exchange details with Peter the Punter if that's still done here. Bet with him before.
For instance, one of the things the government did was to stop issuing visas for low-level (sub-university-level) study longer than three months. (In the Con/UKIP world these are considered intrinsically bogus.) If you stop somebody entering the country for a two-year course in Year 1 you'll get a drop in Year 1 compared to what you'd have had otherwise, but you'll then get a corresponding increase in Year 3 when the person who you didn't let in fails to leave, since you can't leave somewhere you never entered in the first place.
Unfortunately, the Protestants seized them.
**Having lit light blue touch paper, retires to safe distance**
Sorry, Socco, that doesn't pass muster.
The terms are too loose. We could be arguing about it for years.
Any way the main thrust of Cameron's speech was that Britain wanted control of who came here and we will be no better off in that regard if the whole of his speech is implemented
How will Ed respond?
He has to keep the Mrs Duffys onside yet not totally annoy you and the Emily (Islington) Thornberrys.
Anyway, the Church of England is a Catholic Church.
Poles etc are not the problem. They come here to work. They integrate well.
The immigration we should be curbing is from those groups which do not integrate well, have low levels of employment and/or skills and who have brought us problems we could do without.
All this faffing about EU immigration is pointless noise and distraction because while we are in the EU free movement is part of the deal and, from my perspective, rather a good part of the deal.
What does everyone here think of the proposal to have a Qu'ran passage present at the next coronation ?
Now then, let's have a look at those Sporting seats spread prices.
The other problem with it is that even if the voters believe it, it's not a very attractive story to anybody. "We did X for 11 years, then we turned around and did Anti-X for the last two years before the election." Obviously the people who liked X aren't going to like you, but it's not wildly impressive to the people who like Anti-X either.
I guess this is one of the reasons why governments tend to have a limited shelf life. When a policy becomes an electoral liability, there's just no good way to reverse it without taking damage.
(With fatted calves and feasting, of course.)
OK here's the thing - let's suppose you are playing the long game - a 2020/25 UKIP govt. That's the plan, right? You/the Kippers have said it many times. The only people, blah, blah...
Excellent.
Well here's an amazing modification:
1. Vote Cam in next year.
2. Vote OUT in the referendum.
3. Proceed with "long game" plan and vote in Nige as PM in 2020.
You'll have to come up with something pertaining to the 2015 GE.
There's bound to be some procrastination and deferment, so bearing in mind we don't even get to the tricky bit until the Tories win a Majority (5/1 against) we're wasting effort here on an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. Let's try something a little more realistic.
What are your views on The Second Coming?
Populus seem to be an outlier from the other pollsters with their high Labour score.
But look at the polls in general, apart from ComRes and Survation giving similar leads, most of the other pollsters have it as a tie or the Tories ahead.
Personally we should abolish the churches and turn them into discos and nightclubs.
As for all the renegotiation bullshit, presumably he'll say it's bullshit.
Either have the ceremony properly or not at all but not some happy clappy ecumenical rubbish which is neither use nor ornament.
I am rapidly coming to the view that Charles will be a rubbish king, particularly if he keeps to his promise of speaking out. He will destroy the monarchy if he does that.
Monarchs - in this day and age - should be seen and not heard.
And of course it also happens to be UKIP's sole reason for existing...
But governance - as any good banker will know - is very very important!!
It's never been in doubt that child abusers can be on any creed of colour, I certainly have never said different. The point being made in the cases of Muslim child abusers, celebrity child abusers and 70/80s MPs who are accused is that it was covered up because of who they were
UKIP warns of the Schrodingers Cat immigrant who lazes around on benefits while simultaneously stealing your job.
http://newsthump.com/2014/11/28/ukip-warns-of-schrodingers-immigrant-who-lazes-around-on-benefits-whilst-simultaneously-stealing-your-job/
1. Osborne's Treasury are leaking that they have toned down this immigration speech to be more pro-Business. We heard earlier on R4 that the arch europhile Roland Rudd was friendly towards the speech before it was made. Osborne is now in the wet camp of the Conservatives.
2. The minister on the spot over immigration is Mrs May. Hampered by the LDs and the deals done by the gang of 4 (inc Osborne), as a rival to Osborne she has been undermined in tackling immigration through extra resources a few years ago etc and the deals Osborne has done through the gang of 4.
As yea reap so yea sow.
Net result is that Osborne's standing amongst Conservative MPs will drop further. Count him out of getting past the 1st round.
PS Looks to be a wasted PR opportunity by Cameron with the pre-speech briefings removing any impact.... Did Coulson/Osborne win against Crosby?
I know that some companies use internet, others phones and/or in person. But do they use new randomised samples each time or a panel?
Is there any evidence which is the most effective?
He's worthy of an ascension.
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/British-girls-fattest-Western-Europe/story-24551262-detail/story.html
I'm not one for a nanny state, but obesity is becoming a national crisis. It's not just the strain on the NHS (which is far more expensive than any saving on pensions), it's the lost productivity at work.
IIUC phone pollsters have tended to have a better record in Britain, although it may get tougher as fewer and fewer people answer phone calls from unknown numbers, and the ones who do become increasingly untypical.
Also, atheists and agnostic deserve input in the coronation before Muslims do, if we're looking at the share of the British population.
"As for all the renegotiation bullshit, presumably he'll say it's bullshit."
It probably is, but the aim is to encourage a few waverers to say .. "Maybe we'll give it a chance and see what happens."
If Ed rules out any re-negotiation, a few of his waverers may waver a little more.
Bullshit will be recognised for what it is by about 95% of the voters, but the gullible 5% might be important.
Position with Sporting now opened.
Also, is this an actual proposal, or is Mr. Pulpstar pulling our legs to see how credibly we take the idea of a Quran verse at the coronation?