If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.
I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...
I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.
Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.
Yes, the intervention from Mrs Dave Spart was the best bit of the show. It went a bit dull after that Jeremy Kyle moment, but I guess Nigel will be happy enough with the results.
Hopefully Nick P will be along later to explain it. Meanwhile, it appears the 4/11 against him winning back his seat is too short. Perhaps some bold PBer will offer something a tad more generous.
You open for business, SquareRoot?
You've got the inside info haven't you.??
Nevertheless the point remains, Labour should have taken it and didn't.. I guess it must have been the heavy rain after all!
For them to have taken it, it would be a big swing (this is a safe Tory ward).
The shift in the vote shares is interesting though: a hardening of views possibly
"an old woman with dyed blue hair." I would have said youngish woman but I suppose it's all relative.
That reminds me, I'm in Liverpool for a pre-Christmas pub crawl this afternoon with fellow old gits. We'll put the world to rights and we don't have to look round to see if anyone takes offence. Because we're old gits and it's Liverpool. There are some benefits to both.
Once this feeds through to more general food prices then inflation could be sub 1% if not negative - who will be the first to call that out as a bad thing ?
Not just food. Anything that needs transportation. Airlines etc.
Are we getting close to the delicious position where Ed's fuel price freeze will actually make the energy companies richer...??
From this week we've learnt that if you want to become a UKIP candidate, it will help if you have either some knee pads or a rich donor sugar daddy.
Just wondering why this particular "Sugar Daddy" is so keen to see Hamiliton elected even to the point of imploding a party he is actually a major donor to?
Wheeler isn't a great judge of character (it's part of the reason why he was pushed out of IG Index).
But I wouldn't be surprised if the fact pattern is something like this (all assumptions):
- Farage spikes Hamilton's candidacy because he perceives him as a threat
- Wheeler says that Farage needs to stop behaving like that: not Hamilton specific, but generally he can't behave like he used to when UKIP was a small organisation (with a threat of stopping donations)
- Farage leaks a slightly inaccurate version of the story - that is close enough to the truth to get away with it - to damage Wheeler
Quite a few people who worked at IG thought Wheeler was treated disgracefully there
Once this feeds through to more general food prices then inflation could be sub 1% if not negative - who will be the first to call that out as a bad thing ?
Not just food. Anything that needs transportation. Airlines etc.
Are we getting close to the delicious position where Ed's fuel price freeze will actually make the energy companies richer...??
'I'm calling it the Miliband put....'
I think we passed that point a while ago. One suspects most took fright and locked in higher prices months ago, to the detriment of their customers.
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
ConHome article about swing-back. Encouraging for Con supporters.
The most encouraging thing for cons (and kippers for that matter) is that in real elections Labour tend to underperform their poll score. Sometimes dramatically.
The latest example is Browtowe locals overnight (usual caveats, I accept).
Once this feeds through to more general food prices then inflation could be sub 1% if not negative - who will be the first to call that out as a bad thing ?
Not just food. Anything that needs transportation. Airlines etc.
Are we getting close to the delicious position where Ed's fuel price freeze will actually make the energy companies richer...??
'I'm calling it the Miliband put....'
Energy companies will have already raised prices more than otherwise in anticipation of a Labour price freeze. Now, given the low oil price, it's likely prices will be frozen at an even higher level than they would otherwise have been.
Did Labour not learn from the distortions of the Prices and Incomes policy in the late 1970s?
Labour may think it's a great idea to force companies to subsidise consumers as government has 'no money left'. On the long term you get left with the inefficient companies and high unemployment.
If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.
I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...
I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.
Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.
Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.
If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.
I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...
I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.
Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.
Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.
Education or Welfare, I think.
Perhaps some overarching civil service role - plenty of scope for "cuts" - look at the DoE payroll - down substantially.
About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.
Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.
The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.
Ed Miliband today tried to head off pressure for “English votes for English laws” by unveiling plans for House of Commons committees with no Scottish MPs on them.
His plan would allow English MPs to demand changes to legislation at Westminster, but they would not have the power to veto laws. Labour claims that, in practice, the Commons would not ignore committee views on the few laws that apply only to England.
However, without an English veto, Labour could still in theory call on its powerful bloc of Scottish MPs to tip the balance when close votes go to the full House of Commons.
I simply do not understand why UKIP ever gave Neil Hamilton the time of day. Surely if one person became synonymous with the "Tory sleaze" media narrative of the late 90s it was he.
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
Ed Miliband today tried to head off pressure for “English votes for English laws” by unveiling plans for House of Commons committees with no Scottish MPs on them.
His plan would allow English MPs to demand changes to legislation at Westminster, but they would not have the power to veto laws. Labour claims that, in practice, the Commons would not ignore committee views on the few laws that apply only to England.
However, without an English veto, Labour could still in theory call on its powerful bloc of Scottish MPs to tip the balance when close votes go to the full House of Commons.
If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.
I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...
I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.
Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.
Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.
Education or Welfare, I think.
Perhaps some overarching civil service role - plenty of scope for "cuts" - look at the DoE payroll - down substantially.
About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.
Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.
The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.
Although Maude does a reasonable job at that & I think Gove would be wasted there
I've just seen the clip of QT where the woman in the audience rants and shouts racist at the man defending Farage. It reminded me of a bad Jeremy Kyle show, where shouting and screaming abuse wins you the argument. Hmm .. it makes you feel better but that's a different thing.
This would be Bunny La Roche, a Socialist Worker's Party organiser and a Stand Up To UKIP member, I wonder how she got to be in a randomly selected QT audience on just that day that Farage was on the show.
The nail-biting rollercoaster that is STV Scottish council by-elections.
The Moray Council @TheMorayCouncil 40 mins40 minutes ago First round votes Cooper(ind)472 Forrest(green) 77 Graham(lab)287 Griffiths(con)273 Reid(snp)728 Urquhart(ukip)81 Forest eliminated
Edit: that was quick, no rollercoaster today.
The Moray Council @TheMorayCouncil 9 mins9 minutes ago snp Kirsty Reid wins Elgin North by election with 850 votes.
Miliband's attempt to placate the English is as convincing as a man who claims he'll be the first Jewish PM one day, then eats a bacon sarnie the next.
But neither Bolter nor Hamilton were selected, so the system worked.
Other Parties have not always been successful in stopping unsuitable types from becoming candidates, despite greater experience and resources. You can probably think of as many unfortunate examples as me.
In alphetical order, we can start with Archer and Aitken. How many do you think we'll have by the time we get to Z?
Great answer
It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what
Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal
Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate? PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"
Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.
You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,
I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable
You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton. Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.
It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.
I do find it hilarious that UKIP can bellyache all the time about how awful the other parties are and then hire Hamilton, the epitome of sleaze. The detachment from reality is almost total.
I simply do not understand why UKIP ever gave Neil Hamilton the time of day. Surely if one person became synonymous with the "Tory sleaze" media narrative of the late 90s it was he.
Can anyone explain it?
Voluntary organisations are always short of people willing to commit their time to (unpaid) positions of responsibility. Perhaps the Hamiltons just put in the effort?
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
Doc, is anyone arguing that there was such a need? I don't think so. The proposition is that if Cameron had been in place at that time then those are the sort of policies that he would have been pursuing.
I've just seen the clip of QT where the woman in the audience rants and shouts racist at the man defending Farage. It reminded me of a bad Jeremy Kyle show, where shouting and screaming abuse wins you the argument. Hmm .. it makes you feel better but that's a different thing.
This would be Bunny La Roche, a Socialist Worker's Party organiser and a Stand Up To UKIP member, I wonder how she got to be in a randomly selected QT audience on just that day that Farage was on the show.
If he and 10 of his mates all applied for tickets, they'd be pretty much guaranteed to get one. It's not that over-subscribed.
But neither Bolter nor Hamilton were selected, so the system worked.
Other Parties have not always been successful in stopping unsuitable types from becoming candidates, despite greater experience and resources. You can probably think of as many unfortunate examples as me.
In alphetical order, we can start with Archer and Aitken. How many do you think we'll have by the time we get to Z?
Great answer
It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what
Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal
Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate? PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"
Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.
You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,
I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable
You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton. Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.
It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.
Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter
I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you
I've just seen the clip of QT where the woman in the audience rants and shouts racist at the man defending Farage. It reminded me of a bad Jeremy Kyle show, where shouting and screaming abuse wins you the argument. Hmm .. it makes you feel better but that's a different thing.
This would be Bunny La Roche, a Socialist Worker's Party organiser and a Stand Up To UKIP member, I wonder how she got to be in a randomly selected QT audience on just that day that Farage was on the show.
It did not need la Roche, or anybody with pink hair, to tell us about the bald bloke shouting his support of Farage.
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment).
or
I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha.
Thanks to all you well wishers. I'm going to take it easy for a couple of weeks and then hope to be fighting fit for the all the excitement of the election battle. It will be an arduous 4 months for all of us, no matter which party is supported.
If the kippers do well, i,e, more than 20 seats. Then its a round of drinks on me at the next DD or wherever we may gather.
Best wishes to you and your wallet .... I'm certain you both will not require further surgery.
3/4 seats = a shared packet of pork scratchings ??
Oops, so not a teacher from Westminster College either then.
But a thorough search of the college's database failed to uncover any evidence Ms Bolter had completed a course at either institution, a university spokesman said. He added: “We have no record of her having graduated. The records don’t show that she received an award from Westminster College.”
If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.
I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...
I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.
Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.
Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.
Education or Welfare, I think.
Perhaps some overarching civil service role - plenty of scope for "cuts" - look at the DoE payroll - down substantially.
About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.
Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.
The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.
Although Maude does a reasonable job at that & I think Gove would be wasted there
Mr. Charles, Nooooo!
Giving Maude a department of state to run would be a terrible thing, especially for the Conservative Party. Firstly, because he would feck it up - he couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall. Secondly, because any such job would bring him into daily contact with the media and thus expose his unpleasant personality to the public.
I expect some likes Maude, maybe his wife or his dog, but I have yet to meet anyone who has a good word to say for him.
I still think one of the best Paxman interviews was when he asked if Blair as a religious chap was ok with getting the support of the publisher of mature melons, bald and barely legal etc.
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
Doc, is anyone arguing that there was such a need? I don't think so. The proposition is that if Cameron had been in place at that time then those are the sort of policies that he would have been pursuing.
The counterfactual is meaningless because Cameron was in short pants in the Seventies! All politicians are moulded by the politics of their time. What was seen as radical in the seventies (equal treatment of homosexuality, privatisation of the health service is no longer radical) what was seen as commonplace then (wage and price controls, government ownership of manufacturing industry) seems radical now.
Unilateralism did not have full support of the Labour party and was junked after 83. The idea that Cameron would have supported it then is nonsense.
Though scraping Trident now is a different matter. It is now a weapons system to meet a challenge of the 1960's and obsolete now. We need investment in conventional forces not a Submarine that is obselete before it has left the slipway!
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment).
or
I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha.
As I said earlier, my Dad called this morning to say that in the staff room at his school they are all talking about her, because she was a teachers assistant there for a short while.
At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...
Plenty more too, which fit the description of an unhinged fantasist
The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.
On topic: Reading the comments, it seems to me that many PBers, including some of our most distinguished ones, are slightly missing the point regarding the various shenanigans with which UKIP have been entertaining us over the past couple of weeks.
Yes, it is true that voters won't care a fig about Ms Bolter or alleged 'dirty tricks' in candidate selection, if they even notice at all. And yes, it is true that a hostile 'media narrative' is not going to damage UKIP. And yes, it is true that no-one cares a fig what their policies are, since no-one is considering voting for them on the basis of policy.
However, that doesn't mean that what has been going on in UKIP doesn't matter, and doesn't affect its electoral chances and longer-term future. The key point about the glimpses we have been given into chaos, splits and tantrums within UKIP is that they relate to two huge structural weaknesses in the party. The first is that the party has attracted, and includes at the highest level, a range of opportunists and chancers, some of them really quite disreputable, as well as a range of principled mavericks, who are not necessarily team players. Some of those are retreads from previous failed political careers. The result is likely to be a continuing circus of splits, tantrums, flounce-outs and scandals; these may not directly deter people from voting UKIP, but they will disrupt the party's work and ultimately make electoral success harder.
The second point, and an even more significant one in the medium term, is that the internal tensions we are seeing are not just about personalities, scandals and candidate quality; they are tensions which relate to the huge internal contradictions of UKIP. Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon, but they want to drive the bandwagon in lots of different directions. This is not unusual in a minor protest party - the LibDems managed to point in a range of contradictory directions very successfully until 2010 - but in the case of UKIP it seems to be particularly acute. This is probably because UKIP doesn't have the comprehensive if cumbersome party democratic structures which the LibDems developed over a period of years, but instead is run as a Farage fiefdom.
All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale.
On topic: Reading the comments, it seems to me that many PBers, including some of our most distinguished ones, are slightly missing the point regarding the various shenanigans with which UKIP have been entertaining us over the past couple of weeks.
Yes, it is true that voters won't care a fig about Ms Bolter or alleged 'dirty tricks' in candidate selection, if they even notice at all. And yes, it is true that a hostile 'media narrative' is not going to damage UKIP. And yes, it is true that no-one cares a fig what their policies are, since no-one is considering voting for them on the basis of policy.
However, that doesn't mean that what has been going on in UKIP doesn't matter, and doesn't affect its electoral chances and longer-term future. The key point about the glimpses we have been given into chaos, splits and tantrums within UKIP is that they relate to two huge structural weaknesses in the party. The first is that the party has attracted, and includes at the highest level, a range of opportunists and chancers, some of them really quite disreputable, as well as a range of principled mavericks, who are not necessarily team players. Some of those are retreads from previous failed political careers. The result is likely to be a continuing circus of splits, tantrums, flounce-outs and scandals; these may not directly deter people from voting UKIP, but they will disrupt the party's work and ultimately make electoral success harder.
The second point, and an even more significant one in the medium term, is that the internal tensions we are seeing are not just about personalities, scandals and candidate quality; they are tensions which relate to the huge internal contradictions of UKIP. Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon, but they want to drive the bandwagon in lots of different directions. This is not unusual in a minor protest party - the LibDems managed to point in a range of contradictory directions very successfully until 2010 - but in the case of UKIP it seems to be particularly acute; this is probably because UKIP doesn't have the comprehensive if cumbersome party democratic structures which the LibDems developed over a period of years, but instead is run as a Farage fiefdom.
All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale.
I am sure you put a lot of thought into that Richard, and it will be as lavishly praised as your thoughtful piece on why the Tories would win Rochester by anywhere from 3-12%
I think I've seen everything now: Cameron being attacked for a hypothetical position he allegedly might have taken 40 years ago, had he not been 8 years old at the time.
On topic: Reading the comments, it seems to me that many PBers, including some of our most distinguished ones, are slightly missing the point regarding the various shenanigans with which UKIP have been entertaining us over the past couple of weeks.
Yes, it is true that voters won't care a fig about Ms Bolter or alleged 'dirty tricks' in candidate selection, if they even notice at all. And yes, it is true that a hostile 'media narrative' is not going to damage UKIP. And yes, it is true that no-one cares a fig what their policies are, since no-one is considering voting for them on the basis of policy.
However, that doesn't mean that what has been going on in UKIP doesn't matter, and doesn't affect its electoral chances and longer-term future. The key point about the glimpses we have been given into chaos, splits and tantrums within UKIP is that they relate to two huge structural weaknesses in the party. The first is that the party has attracted, and includes at the highest level, a range of opportunists and chancers, some of them really quite disreputable, as well as a range of principled mavericks, who are not necessarily team players. Some of those are retreads from previous failed political careers. The result is likely to be a continuing circus of splits, tantrums, flounce-outs and scandals; these may not directly deter people from voting UKIP, but they will disrupt the party's work and ultimately make electoral success harder.
The second point, and an even more significant one in the medium term, is that the internal tensions we are seeing are not just about personalities, scandals and candidate quality; they are tensions which relate to the huge internal contradictions of UKIP. Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon, but they want to drive the bandwagon in lots of different directions. This is not unusual in a minor protest party - the LibDems managed to point in a range of contradictory directions very successfully until 2010 - but in the case of UKIP it seems to be particularly acute. This is probably because UKIP doesn't have the comprehensive if cumbersome party democratic structures which the LibDems developed over a period of years, but instead is run as a Farage fiefdom.
All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale.
Do you see any of this having any impact before May? I don't.
At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...
Didnt Labour say she was only a member for a matter of months?
I think so.. she didn't last long at the school either..
It was obvious from her twitter account that she wasn't all the ticket. "My source" said she was "mad as a march hare"
Can't be denied that her getting anywhere near candidacy is poor show from UKIP, but it seems to be individual error rather than anything else, and at least it was spotted before any damage (to my betting portfolio) was done
The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.
Hopefully the last post for a while on the VAT nonsense (from a personal perspective, there may well be political fallout): Suspended sales of e-books from Smashwords and stores to which it distributes. I think Smashwords is sound but because it involves multiple stores and only one of them would need to play silly buggers (and my sales are, frankly, low with them) decided better safe than sorry.
I'd planned to stop Amazon sales through EU sites (except the UK, of course), but there's no easily apparent way to do that. I'm more confident, because it's a single store and I've read more about Amazon/VAT than other firms, that this should be ok. Hopefully.
Anyway, if there aren't any horror stories I'll put everything back up on Smashwords et al. and Amazon's EU (but non-UK) sites [if I've taken them off there] later on in 2015. This doesn't affect planned releases next year for Sir Edric's Temple [second edition], maybe Sir Edric's Treasure, and Kingdom Asunder [except that the latter *may* be Amazon only].
Oh, and the EU's apparently going to increase the scope of the VAT law in 2016 so it applies to physical goods sold online. If true, that'll really help the economy...
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
Correct and unlike me you are very polite to label it merely 'nonesense'. There are no limits to kipper fantasy. The examples quoted are quite illuminating. Its also pretty pathetic to blame somebody for wanting to take excersise by cycling. The likes of Boris or Mitchell never took to their bike of course. Some might remember Cameron briefly having his bike stolen and might even remember the comments about it being olds and battered with over use. Sadly - its becoming the great benefit of PB is to demonstrate that stupidity and ignorance abound.
Richard_Nabavi on UKIP "All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale." True, but it is probably after the GE, unless there is a really major event.
I am sure you put a lot of thought into that Richard, and it will be as lavishly praised as your thoughtful piece on why the Tories would win Rochester by anywhere from 3-12%
A low blow, isam!
Still, remind me, how far out were you in the final prediction? And how far out was I?
I am sure you put a lot of thought into that Richard, and it will be as lavishly praised as your thoughtful piece on why the Tories would win Rochester by anywhere from 3-12%
A low blow, isam!
Still, remind me, how far out were you in the final prediction? And how far out was I?
Sorry Richard, it wasn't really a dig at you, everyone can call something wrong. I thought under 50% turnout was a certainty, and was wrong.... rather the fact that people seem to lap up any prediction of UKIP doom, it doesn't seem to matter when it is wildly inaccurate.
I explained my reasons for saying UKIP were a great bet to win Rochester, and just got loads of stick.. and I was right!
I think I said 9% in the competition. I don't know how far out you were... if you remember both our predictions (and I guess you must to mention it) I think it would be cooler to pretend you didn't!! #toonerdyevenforPB
I trust that HMRC is following up on the IHT payable on chargeable life time transfers to those political parties which do not meet the relevant exemption test in the IHT legislation.
It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what
Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal
Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate? PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"
Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.
You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,
I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable
You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton. Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.
It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.
Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter
I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...
Didnt Labour say she was only a member for a matter of months?
..... Can't be denied that her getting anywhere near candidacy is poor show from UKIP, but it seems to be individual error rather than anything else, and at least it was spotted before any damage (to my betting portfolio) was done
If it was a once off failure in UKIP's PPC vetting, it could be written off as unfortunate. But the whole sale mistakes in UKIPs vetting a smaller group of people to be its MEPs, unfortunately (for you) shows that UKIPs top people and structure are incapable of learning from such mistakes. The UKIP MEP jailbirds, 50% rate of defections and resignations in a dozen or so MEPs etc etc.
At this stage in the electoral cycle none of the 3 major parties has an HQ that is removing locally selected candidates with its own shortlist of one HQ sponsored candidate. Of course after January the rules for selection change for Conservatives and Labour. But UKIP Leader Farage is rding rough shod over local choice with a bunch of tainted reptiles that he is forcing them to take unless they can dig up the dirt on the folk to keep them out. It is a recipe for factions and very dirty in-fighting. Which opponents can just sit back and enjoy.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.
Ordinary teachers (My wife is one) defined as the blob?
Really - is that what rightwing commentary has come to?
No wonder they won't vote for you.
If she shares your views, I'd plonk her firmly in the Blob.
If the Blob is defeating the gragantuanly wasteful free schools policy, I'm all for it.
The blob seems to actively work against the interests of a lot of special needs children.
It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what
Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal
Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.
You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,
I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable
You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton. Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.
It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.
Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter
I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
Erm, I'm not sure.. I thought about putting it a different way, but that is how I talk. I'll think about it some more, thanks for the advice
Miliband's attempt to placate the English is as convincing as a man who claims he'll be the first Jewish PM one day, then eats a bacon sarnie the next.
Point of order, Morris. Wasn't Disraeli the first Jewish PM?
And bacon sandwiches are munched happily by many of the chosen people. Much more important is who can pass the schmeckle test?
The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.
Why are you assuming the FT article was correct?
Then give us the correct detail if its wrong. But until then....
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Voters and people doing selections should be aware that if you can't find something rude or offensive in somebody's online presence, that's a sign the person is either sociopathically politically ambitious to the point of dangerous mental illness or is doing all their online stuff under a meticulously compartmentalized pseudonym, which they probably only need because they write really nasty shit about Jews.
I simply do not understand why UKIP ever gave Neil Hamilton the time of day. Surely if one person became synonymous with the "Tory sleaze" media narrative of the late 90s it was he.
Mr. Punter, indeed (I did know that, but pointing it out would've slowed down the one-liner).
The schmeckle test sounds like a todger inspection.
Speaking of which, Timothy Stanley, a Telegraph writer, is bleating on Twitter about civilisation ending because some people are protesting against state puritanism and new restrictions on whacking material.
I simply do not understand why UKIP ever gave Neil Hamilton the time of day. Surely if one person became synonymous with the "Tory sleaze" media narrative of the late 90s it was he. Can anyone explain it?
I thought it was just political stupidity, but according to the media the finger is being pointed at the influence of Stuart Wheeler the major UKIP donor. A bit like Unite influencing candidate selection within the Labour party.
Mr. Punter, indeed (I did know that, but pointing it out would've slowed down the one-liner).
The schmeckle test sounds like a todger inspection.
Speaking of which, Timothy Stanley, a Telegraph writer, is bleating on Twitter about civilisation ending because some people are protesting against state puritanism and new restrictions on whacking material.
Lol! OK, case dismissed.
Yes, you pass today's Yiddish test. Tomorrow's question involves the correct way to eat a bagel.
I don't know said Telegraph journo, but my advice is whack away, Stanley, whack away.
Thanks to all you well wishers. I'm going to take it easy for a couple of weeks and then hope to be fighting fit for the all the excitement of the election battle. It will be an arduous 4 months for all of us, no matter which party is supported.
If the kippers do well, i,e, more than 20 seats. Then its a round of drinks on me at the next DD or wherever we may gather.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Voters and people doing selections should be aware that if you can't find something rude or offensive in somebody's online presence, that's a sign the person is either sociopathically politically ambitious to the point of dangerous mental illness or is doing all their online stuff under a meticulously compartmentalized pseudonym, which they probably only need because they write really nasty shit about Jews.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Voters and people doing selections should be aware that if you can't find something rude or offensive in somebody's online presence, that's a sign the person is either sociopathically politically ambitious to the point of dangerous mental illness or is doing all their online stuff under a meticulously compartmentalized pseudonym, which they probably only need because they write really nasty shit about Jews.
I think the fear is that the people doing selections don't fully 'get' the internet yet, and certainly aren't likely to extend their efforts beyond a cursory Google search. You'd assume the central offices are a bit more urbane.
So what's more likely to happen is that one or two quotes (whether in context or not) are liable to be presented to them as evidence of your "real" beliefs...
Well isn't this handy. It's a weekly tracker of A&E performance, just in time for the cold snap. Must remember to consult it before I make a visit, because that'll be the first thing on my mind when I'm trying to remove a fork from my eye.
Edit: Also, a lot of the local data presented in patient numbers, which is massively misleading given the variance in hospital size, and population served.
Well isn't this handy. It's a weekly tracker of A&E performance, just in time for the cold snap. Must remember to consult it before I make a visit, because that'll be the first thing on my mind when I'm trying to remove a fork from my eye.
Well isn't this handy. It's a weekly tracker of A&E performance, just in time for the cold snap. Must remember to consult it before I make a visit, because that'll be the first thing on my mind when I'm trying to remove a fork from my eye.
Edit: Also, a lot of the local data presented in patient numbers, which is massively misleading given the variance in hostpital size, and population served.
BBC are being helpful towards Labour, err the general public.
Why haven't they done this before? So useful, just before a GE.
Comments
Yes, the intervention from Mrs Dave Spart was the best bit of the show. It went a bit dull after that Jeremy Kyle moment, but I guess Nigel will be happy enough with the results.
The shift in the vote shares is interesting though: a hardening of views possibly
"an old woman with dyed blue hair." I would have said youngish woman but I suppose it's all relative.
That reminds me, I'm in Liverpool for a pre-Christmas pub crawl this afternoon with fellow old gits. We'll put the world to rights and we don't have to look round to see if anyone takes offence. Because we're old gits and it's Liverpool. There are some benefits to both.
And the political median is probably LD!
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/12/lewis-baston-six-months-out-what-does-the-past-tell-us-about-how-much-change-to-expect-before-polling-day.html
Not just food. Anything that needs transportation. Airlines etc.
Are we getting close to the delicious position where Ed's fuel price freeze will actually make the energy companies richer...??
'I'm calling it the Miliband put....'
OK - I'm going to PAY OUT EARLY on my "oil bet".
Need the paypal link to donate (For the site)
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.
However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.
As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).
And if they have, could they kindly publish them.
The most encouraging thing for cons (and kippers for that matter) is that in real elections Labour tend to underperform their poll score. Sometimes dramatically.
The latest example is Browtowe locals overnight (usual caveats, I accept).
Did Labour not learn from the distortions of the Prices and Incomes policy in the late 1970s?
Labour may think it's a great idea to force companies to subsidise consumers as government has 'no money left'. On the long term you get left with the inefficient companies and high unemployment.
Education or Welfare, I think.
If so then Clegg is a lucky deputy general.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20324346
About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.
Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.
The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.
His plan would allow English MPs to demand changes to legislation at Westminster, but they would not have the power to veto laws. Labour claims that, in practice, the Commons would not ignore committee views on the few laws that apply only to England.
However, without an English veto, Labour could still in theory call on its powerful bloc of Scottish MPs to tip the balance when close votes go to the full House of Commons.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-tries-to-dilute-prime-ministers-english-votes-plan-9920328.html
Can anyone explain it?
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
The Moray Council @TheMorayCouncil 40 mins40 minutes ago
First round votes Cooper(ind)472 Forrest(green) 77 Graham(lab)287 Griffiths(con)273 Reid(snp)728 Urquhart(ukip)81 Forest eliminated
Edit: that was quick, no rollercoaster today.
The Moray Council @TheMorayCouncil 9 mins9 minutes ago
snp Kirsty Reid wins Elgin North by election with 850 votes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30394940
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.
It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.
I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you
No doubt he would be similarly upset if someone attempted the same about the right.
Define right!
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
3/4 seats = a shared packet of pork scratchings ??
Giving Maude a department of state to run would be a terrible thing, especially for the Conservative Party. Firstly, because he would feck it up - he couldn't run the proverbial whelk stall. Secondly, because any such job would bring him into daily contact with the media and thus expose his unpleasant personality to the public.
I expect some likes Maude, maybe his wife or his dog, but I have yet to meet anyone who has a good word to say for him.
Unilateralism did not have full support of the Labour party and was junked after 83. The idea that Cameron would have supported it then is nonsense.
Though scraping Trident now is a different matter. It is now a weapons system to meet a challenge of the 1960's and obsolete now. We need investment in conventional forces not a Submarine that is obselete before it has left the slipway!
As I said earlier, my Dad called this morning to say that in the staff room at his school they are all talking about her, because she was a teachers assistant there for a short while.
At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...
Plenty more too, which fit the description of an unhinged fantasist
Kipper views on immigration must rest rather uneasily with Desmond's friends in the Jewish community though.
Yes, it is true that voters won't care a fig about Ms Bolter or alleged 'dirty tricks' in candidate selection, if they even notice at all. And yes, it is true that a hostile 'media narrative' is not going to damage UKIP. And yes, it is true that no-one cares a fig what their policies are, since no-one is considering voting for them on the basis of policy.
However, that doesn't mean that what has been going on in UKIP doesn't matter, and doesn't affect its electoral chances and longer-term future. The key point about the glimpses we have been given into chaos, splits and tantrums within UKIP is that they relate to two huge structural weaknesses in the party. The first is that the party has attracted, and includes at the highest level, a range of opportunists and chancers, some of them really quite disreputable, as well as a range of principled mavericks, who are not necessarily team players. Some of those are retreads from previous failed political careers. The result is likely to be a continuing circus of splits, tantrums, flounce-outs and scandals; these may not directly deter people from voting UKIP, but they will disrupt the party's work and ultimately make electoral success harder.
The second point, and an even more significant one in the medium term, is that the internal tensions we are seeing are not just about personalities, scandals and candidate quality; they are tensions which relate to the huge internal contradictions of UKIP. Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon, but they want to drive the bandwagon in lots of different directions. This is not unusual in a minor protest party - the LibDems managed to point in a range of contradictory directions very successfully until 2010 - but in the case of UKIP it seems to be particularly acute. This is probably because UKIP doesn't have the comprehensive if cumbersome party democratic structures which the LibDems developed over a period of years, but instead is run as a Farage fiefdom.
All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale.
It was obvious from her twitter account that she wasn't all the ticket. "My source" said she was "mad as a march hare"
Can't be denied that her getting anywhere near candidacy is poor show from UKIP, but it seems to be individual error rather than anything else, and at least it was spotted before any damage (to my betting portfolio) was done
Suspended sales of e-books from Smashwords and stores to which it distributes. I think Smashwords is sound but because it involves multiple stores and only one of them would need to play silly buggers (and my sales are, frankly, low with them) decided better safe than sorry.
I'd planned to stop Amazon sales through EU sites (except the UK, of course), but there's no easily apparent way to do that. I'm more confident, because it's a single store and I've read more about Amazon/VAT than other firms, that this should be ok. Hopefully.
Anyway, if there aren't any horror stories I'll put everything back up on Smashwords et al. and Amazon's EU (but non-UK) sites [if I've taken them off there] later on in 2015. This doesn't affect planned releases next year for Sir Edric's Temple [second edition], maybe Sir Edric's Treasure, and Kingdom Asunder [except that the latter *may* be Amazon only].
Oh, and the EU's apparently going to increase the scope of the VAT law in 2016 so it applies to physical goods sold online. If true, that'll really help the economy...
Its also pretty pathetic to blame somebody for wanting to take excersise by cycling. The likes of Boris or Mitchell never took to their bike of course. Some might remember Cameron briefly having his bike stolen and might even remember the comments about it being olds and battered with over use.
Sadly - its becoming the great benefit of PB is to demonstrate that stupidity and ignorance abound.
True, but it is probably after the GE, unless there is a really major event.
Still, remind me, how far out were you in the final prediction? And how far out was I?
I explained my reasons for saying UKIP were a great bet to win Rochester, and just got loads of stick.. and I was right!
I think I said 9% in the competition. I don't know how far out you were... if you remember both our predictions (and I guess you must to mention it) I think it would be cooler to pretend you didn't!! #toonerdyevenforPB
(Should I add << innocent face>>?
Moray Elgin SNP gain from Lab
SNP 728 38.0% down 5.3%
Ind 472 24.6% plus 24.6%
Lab 287 15.0% down 14.9%
Con 273 14.2% down 3.3%
UKIP 81 4.2% plus 4.2%
Green 77 4.0% plus 4.0%
and an election which no one knew about until after it happened
West Lancs BC Skelmersdale North Lab hold
Lab 591 Con 81
1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere.
2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
At this stage in the electoral cycle none of the 3 major parties has an HQ that is removing locally selected candidates with its own shortlist of one HQ sponsored candidate. Of course after January the rules for selection change for Conservatives and Labour. But UKIP Leader Farage is rding rough shod over local choice with a bunch of tainted reptiles that he is forcing them to take unless they can dig up the dirt on the folk to keep them out. It is a recipe for factions and very dirty in-fighting. Which opponents can just sit back and enjoy.
You all for that too?
And bacon sandwiches are munched happily by many of the chosen people. Much more important is who can pass the schmeckle test?
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
http://www.theonion.com/video/report-every-potential-2040-president-already-unel,27963/
Voters and people doing selections should be aware that if you can't find something rude or offensive in somebody's online presence, that's a sign the person is either sociopathically politically ambitious to the point of dangerous mental illness or is doing all their online stuff under a meticulously compartmentalized pseudonym, which they probably only need because they write really nasty shit about Jews.
The schmeckle test sounds like a todger inspection.
Speaking of which, Timothy Stanley, a Telegraph writer, is bleating on Twitter about civilisation ending because some people are protesting against state puritanism and new restrictions on whacking material.
Yes, you pass today's Yiddish test. Tomorrow's question involves the correct way to eat a bagel.
I don't know said Telegraph journo, but my advice is whack away, Stanley, whack away.
So what's more likely to happen is that one or two quotes (whether in context or not) are liable to be presented to them as evidence of your "real" beliefs...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25055444
Edit: Also, a lot of the local data presented in patient numbers, which is massively misleading given the variance in hospital size, and population served.
Why haven't they done this before? So useful, just before a GE.