So in 1984/85, before the drop, government revenues from North Sea oil and gas were £12 billion. Nominal GDP for that year was £381 billion. I can't find revenue data from before 1984/85, but let's be generous and assume the amount doubled, so high oil prices brought in an extra £6 billion over the end of Callaghan's reign (something that seems unlikely since 1985 and 1978 had about the same oil price). So the windfall behind Thatcher's economic miracle accounted for 1.6% of GDP. ....
In the light of this post from Socrates. Alistair please do the decent thing and promise not to post in future your nonsense about Thatcher's economic miracle being largely dependent upon oil. Thank you.
People like you are why the Conservative Party may well lose to a complete joke like Ed Milliband.
You alienate your natural supporters and then wonder why they won't vote for you.
Kippers do the same, though. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of lying simply because I point to some snags in the UKIP fantasies, and it is an article of faith amongst the Kippers that Cameron is a liar. They even go to the trouble of inventing a pledge he never made, to hold a referendum after the ratification of Lisbon. This is certainly not the way to win over moderate Conservatives to the Out camp.
I'm glad this woman and various other bigots have upped and left the tory party, because times have moved on. If there are any left then they can shove off too for me; I hope there are not any. .
While I'd agree in this case and other similar ones, the Tories have lost a lot of solid, sensible people in the process.
Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But the political class which you wish us to keep voting for is so much worse.
Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith raped boys. Chris Huhne was jailed for perverting the course of justice. Lords Taylor and Hanningfield were jailed for fiddling their expenses, along with four Labour MP's. Lord Watson set fire to a hotel, when drunk. Mike Hancock sexually harassed a mentally handicapped constituent. Councillors in Rotherham ignored child rape. The list of scandals in the "mainstream" is ever-lengthening.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
You mean Farage who has spent 20 years trying to be an MP and for the last fifteen years has been an MEP isn't a professional politician.
Yeah right.
Surely if we are going to have reasonably informed debates on here, rather than just become a site of endless trolling/point scoring, comments like that will have to stop? You know full well what is meant by a "professional political background"... someone who has no experience of the working world outside of politics.
I am sure you can find UKIP politicians who fit the bill, but Farage is obviously not one of them. He is now a professional politician, as are all politicians, but that isn't what was meant
What does it add to deliberately misunderstand in situations like this?
I simply do not understand this obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch. He looks weird and is not in the least bit handsome and his acting - what I have seen of it - is mannered.
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But the political class which you wish us to keep voting for is so much worse.
Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith raped boys. Chris Huhne was jailed for perverting the course of justice. Lords Taylor and Hanningfield were jailed for fiddling their expenses, along with four Labour MP's. Lord Watson set fire to a hotel, when drunk. Mike Hancock sexually harassed a mentally handicapped constituent. Councillors in Rotherham ignored child rape. The list of scandals in the "mainstream" is ever-lengthening.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
There are awful people in UKIP, too. I just think that our current leaders have forfeited any right to enjoy the continued confidence of the voters, and UKIP are the only people (South of the Border) who can shake up the system. And I agree with them over the EU and mass immigration.
SeanF. If UKIPs main people were "clean skins" AND UKIP had a set of solid principles that they had been sticking to for the past 5+ years then your view would be a strong one. However, at and near the top of UKIP are a bunch of politicians with 10+ years of supping on the public teet and UKIP has the most incoherent and u-turning set of policies of any major party.
But which party has quadrupled support in a year, and which party is flatlining? If this is UKIP "alienating their natural supporters", I'd hate to see how successful they might be when they learn to build their core vote.
They won't though. If they were serious they'd be seriously trying to build the case for leaving the EU. They are in the process of throwing away the golden opportunity.
Mr. Flightpath, such terms have been used to control debate and demonise opponents for so long the vocabulary of accusations of bigotry has largely lost its bite (the boy who cried wolf, if you will).
We had it when claims of Asian rape gangs in Rotherham were first made, we had it when the UKIP was accused of 'euracism' and we had it whenever the Conservatives tried to point out endless immigration might not be a good thing.
It's been overused and diluted to the point where such accusations are, I would suggest, likelier to piss people off with the accuser than the accused.
Who is crying wolf? The BBC say ''Rozanne Duncan is understood to have used highly racially offensive language during filming for a BBC documentary to be broadcast in February.'' I'm pleased that UKIP have expelled her. But really what they would have preferred was she had kept her opinions to herself. This is what they have told their candidates. Buit she is the sort of person UKIP is attracting and UKIP and Farage have gone out of their way to talk their language. I'm glad this woman and various other bigots have upped and left the tory party, because times have moved on. If there are any left then they can shove off too for me; I hope there are not any. The problems of immigration can do without a racist solution. Sadly Farage weasels every way to stick up for the likes of Kerry Smith. He toils to make racism respectable. It stinks.
What happened in Rotherham is infinitely worse, as a political scandal, than three thousand UKIP councillors screaming the N word Live on Sky News, should such a thing occur.
Yet the political establishment would have us focus on the UKIP eccentrics, rather than the racialised gang rape of 1400 white children.
That says more about the Establishment, and people like you, than it well ever say about UKIP.
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But the political class which you wish us to keep voting for is so much worse.
Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith raped boys. Chris Huhne was jailed for perverting the course of justice. Lords Taylor and Hanningfield were jailed for fiddling their expenses, along with four Labour MP's. Lord Watson set fire to a hotel, when drunk. Mike Hancock sexually harassed a mentally handicapped constituent. Councillors in Rotherham ignored child rape. The list of scandals in the "mainstream" is ever-lengthening.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
You mean Farage who has spent 20 years trying to be an MP and for the last fifteen years has been an MEP isn't a professional politician.
Yeah right.
Quite. The pretense UKIP are not at the least run by professional politicians, and as inclined to spin and manufactured outrage and other political behaviours, is one that is still struggled to be maintained, but it is a losing battle. Be outside the establishment (that is, the political consensus at any rate), represent views and ideas that have been denied a voice for too long, that's all good, I want UKIP to do well for that as well other reasons, but they can do that and be honest that, shocking, they are politicians too. Maybe they are the best of the bunch, they can argue, that, but arguing they are not professionals, that normal political behaviours do not apply to them is just silly. At best it is stupid, at worst it is deliberate falsehood.
They can be the best option out there by a mile, that might be true, and even if not I think their rise is important and a good thing for us all, but they are not somehow immune to the costs of doing politics.
I simply do not understand this obsession with Benedict Cumberbatch. He looks weird and is not in the least bit handsome and his acting - what I have seen of it - is mannered.
He has all the sex appeal of a pint of milk.
Benedict is so wooden an actor he should really be called "Lumberbatch"
More cheery still is the news for Ukip. Five months before the general election, more than half (57%) of those polled believe it is very or fairly likely that the party will win 10 or more seats at the general election...
....Labour may be alarmed that almost three quarters, or 73%, think it likely the party will poll fewer votes than the SNP in Scotland at the general election. Unhappily for the ambitions of Boris Johnson, two thirds of the country (65%) think it is fairly or very unlikely that he will become leader of the Conservative party in the coming year.
If you think that it's more likely than not that the SNP will get more seats than Labour next year, there are a whole host of Labour-held constituencies where the SNP are odds-against, and only three where they're odds-on.
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But the political class which you wish us to keep voting for is so much worse.
Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith raped boys. Chris Huhne was jailed for perverting the course of justice. Lords Taylor and Hanningfield were jailed for fiddling their expenses, along with four Labour MP's. Lord Watson set fire to a hotel, when drunk. Mike Hancock sexually harassed a mentally handicapped constituent. Councillors in Rotherham ignored child rape. The list of scandals in the "mainstream" is ever-lengthening.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
Both Kipper MPs are ex Tory MPs; The deputy Chairman is Neil Hamilton a notorious exMP. Farage, Nuttall, Helmer, Bours are all MEPs. The party is led by professional politicians who have done little else for years and even decades.
The grass roots kippers are a bit different, hence some of the recent selection rows stemming from disputes between central party office and local control.
There are pretty repulsive people in all parties, and each also has its idealists. UKIP's problem is that it very much wants to shake the established order, but does not agree what to replace it with.
It was said of the Gordon rioters that they were against Popery, though uncertain whether it was a man or a horse. Kipperism seems to be a rebirth of the same spirit.
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
You mean Farage who has spent 20 years trying to be an MP and for the last fifteen years has been an MEP isn't a professional politician.
Yeah right.
Quite. The pretense UKIP are not at the least run by professional politicians, and as inclined to spin and manufactured outrage and other political behaviours, is one that is still struggled to be maintained, but it is a losing battle. Be outside the establishment (that is, the political consensus at any rate), represent views and ideas that have been denied a voice for too long, that's all good, I want UKIP to do well for that as well other reasons, but they can do that and be honest that, shocking, they are politicians too. Maybe they are the best of the bunch, they can argue, that, but arguing they are not professionals, that normal political behaviours do not apply to them is just silly. At best it is stupid, at worst it is deliberate falsehood.
They can be the best option out there by a mile, that might be true, and even if not I think their rise is important and a good thing for us all, but they are not somehow immune to the costs of doing politics.
How many senior UKIP leaders have done a Miliband or a Cameron or a Clegg or a Balls, i.e,. gone straight from Oxbridge PPE, to being a spad or eurospad, to being an MP, to being a Cabinet Minister - with barely a real job in between, if any?
Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
But the political class which you wish us to keep voting for is so much worse.
Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith raped boys. Chris Huhne was jailed for perverting the course of justice. Lords Taylor and Hanningfield were jailed for fiddling their expenses, along with four Labour MP's. Lord Watson set fire to a hotel, when drunk. Mike Hancock sexually harassed a mentally handicapped constituent. Councillors in Rotherham ignored child rape. The list of scandals in the "mainstream" is ever-lengthening.
But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
Both Kipper MPs are ex Tory MPs; The deputy Chairman is Neil Hamilton a notorious exMP. Farage, Nuttall, Helmer, Bours are all MEPs. The party is led by professional politicians who have done little else for years and even decades.
The grass roots kippers are a bit different, hence some of the recent selection rows stemming from disputes between central party office and local control.
There are pretty repulsive people in all parties, and each also has its idealists. UKIP's problem is that it very much wants to shake the established order, but does not agree what to replace it with.
It was said of the Gordon rioters that they were against Popery, though uncertain whether it was a man or a horse. Kipperism seems to be a rebirth of the same spirit.
Similar, I guess, to the way at least two regular commenters on here who like to be offended at stuff like Kerry Smith saying "chinky" and "pooftah" regularly call French people "frogs"
The overpowering stench of hypocrisy... isn't it awful?
@Isam Will the people I meet be put off by some thinking them, "misogynist, homophobic, racists"? I doubt it very much. They are more likely to see the people who are doing the labelling as belonging to the the class that pissed them off in the first place.
As we see regularly its the people you will be voting for, crass ignorant and bigoted, that attract the attention. Its not invented - its reporting the facts. When you think there is nothing that could top it along comes something else thats 'jaw dropping'.
.............................. But, you think referring to "ting tong" is so much worse.
It's almost as if you've forgotten UKIP MEPs being inprisoned or one UKIP constituency chairman being jailed for grooming kids.
UKIP are in the same class
No, they're not. UKIP are not from professional political backgrounds, by definition.
UKIP have more oddball candidates for that reason, but they are not elitist pols like most mainstream LibLabCon leaders.
You mean Farage who has spent 20 years trying to be an MP and for the last fifteen years has been an MEP isn't a professional politician.
Yeah right.
.................................. I am sure you can find UKIP politicians who fit the bill, but Farage is obviously not one of them. He is now a professional politician, as are all politicians, but that isn't what was meant
What does it add to deliberately misunderstand in situations like this?
Absolutely right. It is truly bizarre how commenters, of left and right, seem to lose about 30 IQ points when the subject of UKIP comes up. This is true outside of pb, as well. Many Labourites and Tories fear and loathe Farage and Co so much they detach from rationality when confronted with the problem.
SeanF - It is trying to push the line that UKIP's main people are unencumbered with the problems that the other 3 main parties have. Presenting UKIP as clean skins invites people pointing out each flaw that they have.
There is also a problem with many of the people that UKIP have attracted as its "leaders" and activists. Unrepentant anti-PC individualists. They have typically resigned from another party (usually the Conservatives) on the basis that they were unwilling to compromise their views for the sake of the party. My way or the highway.
Now inside UKIP they carry on in the same manner and UKIP are having to ask them to leave..... for the sake of the new party. (Here's the highway sir)
Mr. Flightpath, such terms have been used to control debate and demonise opponents for so long the vocabulary of accusations of bigotry has largely lost its bite (the boy who cried wolf, if you will).
We had it when claims of Asian rape gangs in Rotherham were first made, we had it when the UKIP was accused of 'euracism' and we had it whenever the Conservatives tried to point out endless immigration might not be a good thing.
It's been overused and diluted to the point where such accusations are, I would suggest, likelier to piss people off with the accuser than the accused.
Who is crying wolf? The BBC say ''Rozanne Duncan is understood to have used highly racially offensive language during filming for a BBC documentary to be broadcast in February.'' I'm pleased that UKIP have expelled her. But really what they would have preferred was she had kept her opinions to herself. This is what they have told their candidates. Buit she is the sort of person UKIP is attracting and UKIP and Farage have gone out of their way to talk their language. I'm glad this woman and various other bigots have upped and left the tory party, because times have moved on. If there are any left then they can shove off too for me; I hope there are not any. The problems of immigration can do without a racist solution. Sadly Farage weasels every way to stick up for the likes of Kerry Smith. He toils to make racism respectable. It stinks.
What happened in Rotherham is infinitely worse, as a political scandal, than three thousand UKIP councillors screaming the N word Live on Sky News, should such a thing occur.
Yet the political establishment would have us focus on the UKIP eccentrics, rather than the racialised gang rape of 1400 white children.
That says more about the Establishment, and people like you, than it well ever say about UKIP.
Very much a case of "Oh look. A squirrel."
How about "Oh look, Aidan Burley"? Whose antics surely outweigh about ten million uses of the expression "Bongo Bongo land" (which was in any case pioneered by the notorious non-kipper Alan Clark).
You can't win this argument, and even if you win you lose because your ideas of victory is to piss off and enrage kippers, where a slightly more intelligent approach might be to try to woo them back onto your own side.
Mr. Flightpath, such terms have been used to control debate and demonise opponents for so long the vocabulary of accusations of bigotry has largely lost its bite (the boy who cried wolf, if you will).
We had it when claims of Asian rape gangs in Rotherham were first made, we had it when the UKIP was accused of 'euracism' and we had it whenever the Conservatives tried to point out endless immigration might not be a good thing.
It's been overused and diluted to the point where such accusations are, I would suggest, likelier to piss people off with the accuser than the accused.
Who is crying wolf? The BBC say ''Rozanne Duncan is understood to have used highly racially offensive language during filming for a BBC documentary to be broadcast in February.'' I'm pleased that UKIP have expelled her. But really what they would have preferred was she had kept her opinions to herself. This is what they have told their candidates. Buit she is the sort of person UKIP is attracting and UKIP and Farage have gone out of their way to talk their language. I'm glad this woman and various other bigots have upped and left the tory party, because times have moved on. If there are any left then they can shove off too for me; I hope there are not any. The problems of immigration can do without a racist solution. Sadly Farage weasels every way to stick up for the likes of Kerry Smith. He toils to make racism respectable. It stinks.
What happened in Rotherham is infinitely worse, as a political scandal, than three thousand UKIP councillors screaming the N word Live on Sky News, should such a thing occur.
Yet the political establishment would have us focus on the UKIP eccentrics, rather than the racialised gang rape of 1400 white children.
That says more about the Establishment, and people like you, than it well ever say about UKIP.
Very much a case of "Oh look. A squirrel."
How about "Oh look, Aidan Burley"? Whose antics surely outweigh about ten million uses of the expression "Bongo Bongo land" (which was in any case pioneered by the notorious non-kipper Alan Clark).
You can't win this argument, and even if you win you lose because your ideas of victory is to piss off and enrage kippers, where a slightly more intelligent approach might be to try to woo them back onto your own side.
There is the rascism of Labour's first Leader Keir Hardy to mention.
So in 1984/85, before the drop, government revenues from North Sea oil and gas were £12 billion. Nominal GDP for that year was £381 billion. I can't find revenue data from before 1984/85, but let's be generous and assume the amount doubled, so high oil prices brought in an extra £6 billion over the end of Callaghan's reign (something that seems unlikely since 1985 and 1978 had about the same oil price). So the windfall behind Thatcher's economic miracle accounted for 1.6% of GDP. ....
In the light of this post from Socrates. Alistair please do the decent thing and promise not to post in future your nonsense about Thatcher's economic miracle being largely dependent upon oil. Thank you.
The problem is that the post conflates tax receipts and GDP (more sensinble to compare to total government tax receipts no?) and also makes completely unfounded assumption about tax revenue pre 1985 that are not backed up by either reality or the official figures
In 1977-78 total Continental Shelf tax revenue was £238million, so far from Socrates's "generous" doubling of revenue (he assumed it was £6 billion in revenue in 1978) it was actually a 50 times increase in tax revenue. Even if you want to take 78-79 as the comparison point that's still a 21 times increase in tax revenue from oil.
Being a lawyer and a banker is having a “proper" job? Especially for someone whoi read PPE?
Er, yeah, lawyering and banking are definitely proper jobs. I don't think MPs have to be coal miners or publicans or check out girls before entering parliament (though it would be nice if some did); I just want them, in the main, to have experienced a decade of making a living, like everyone else - in a job which isn't "inside" politics or PR.
To be fair to Reckless he did fight his constituency (or more or less his) twice before being elected, and was a member of the Kent Police Authority for some years.
I suspect that the Ukip candidates include a good proportion of fruitcakes and loons. In fact, anyone thinking they have a right to be elected and tell other people what to think is most definitely a loon.
But I suppose we have to elect someone. I'm in a safe Labour seat so I can indulge myself.
Instead of wasting my vote on the LDs as usual, I shall waste it on the local Ukip loon this May. They won't form a government, but I feel sorry when a group is picked upon for being different - it smacks of bullying, even if they think they're being clever.
Anyone opposed by the BBC, the chattering classes, the EU bureaucrats and both main parties can't be all bad.
Being a lawyer and a banker is having a “proper" job? Especially for someone whoi read PPE?
Er, yeah, lawyering and banking are definitely proper jobs. I don't think MPs have to be coal miners or publicans or check out girls before entering parliament (though it would be nice if some did); I just want them, in the main, to have experienced a decade of making a living, like everyone else - in a job which isn't "inside" politics or PR.
I'm sure that lots of MPs check out girls before entering parliament. Some have even been known to do it after being elected...
Being a lawyer and a banker is having a “proper" job? Especially for someone whoi read PPE?
Er, yeah, lawyering and banking are definitely proper jobs. I don't think MPs have to be coal miners or publicans or check out girls before entering parliament (though it would be nice if some did); I just want them, in the main, to have experienced a decade of making a living, like everyone else - in a job which isn't "inside" politics or PR.
I'm sure that lots of MPs check out girls before entering parliament. Some have even been known to do it after being elected...
TBH Mr Charles, nothing wrong with that, providing the MP’s, if male, aren’t married,
Being a lawyer and a banker is having a “proper" job? Especially for someone whoi read PPE?
Er, yeah, lawyering and banking are definitely proper jobs. I don't think MPs have to be coal miners or publicans or check out girls before entering parliament (though it would be nice if some did); I just want them, in the main, to have experienced a decade of making a living, like everyone else - in a job which isn't "inside" politics or PR.
I'm sure that lots of MPs check out girls before entering parliament. Some have even been known to do it after being elected...
TBH Mr Charles, nothing wrong with that, providing the MP’s, if male, aren’t married,
I know. I was just gently pointing out our resident author's bad grammar
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
Most of these guys will be left-voting non-integrating Muslims. The French government is already appeasing such people. It will only be a matter of time before such things happen here, unless the Right grows some balls.
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
The leader the Tories should have chosen nine years ago was Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
Most of these guys will be left-voting non-integrating Muslims. The French government is already appeasing such people. It will only be a matter of time before such things happen here, unless the Right grows some balls.
France is a vision of what the Western world will become - Modern Christianity v Barbaric Islam
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
I agree that given the choice between the two Cameron was the better option and he has done better than Davies ever could.
However, in your own words , "Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves" and Cameron has proved himself very adept at pissing off those very voters.
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
So you're saying Cameron was an opportunistic little shit?
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
How many women are attacked or killed by men living in their homes? Perhaps men are a bigger problem than Muslims? There are far more of them, and they seem more lethal.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Well I only mentioned it because muslim terrorists have been killing people.. again. Its not as if I just interrupted a conversation about Christmas decorations
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Of course a random Muslim does not represent all other Muslims. But when he, allegedly, shouts the central tenet of the Muslim faith at the moment he commits a crime - and when this is done by a number of random Muslims in various countries over a short period of time -then it is reasonable for others to notice this, comment on it and perhaps wonder whether there is a link and whether that link is the faith these people share (however much they may have misinterpreted it - or not - as the case may be).
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
The leader the Tories should have chosen nine years ago was Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
So you're saying Cameron was an opportunistic little shit?
No. Just that the Tories were sensible enough not to select a selfish monomaniac
"A judge who sentenced a paedophile police officer to 14-and-a-half years in jail questioned how he had kept his job despite previously being caught taking photographs of children.
I question the judges sanity if he doesn't know the reason.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Well I only mentioned it because muslim terrorists have been killing people.. again. Its not as if I just interrupted a conversation about Christmas decorations
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
You mean, male terrorists have been killing people. But nobody wants to talk about this obvious link (which is much more common than Islam across these bad sorts).
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Well I only mentioned it because muslim terrorists have been killing people.. again. Its not as if I just interrupted a conversation about Christmas decorations
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
You mean, male terrorists have been killing people. But nobody wants to talk about this obvious link (which is much more common than Islam across these bad sorts).
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Well I only mentioned it because muslim terrorists have been killing people.. again. Its not as if I just interrupted a conversation about Christmas decorations
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
You mean, male terrorists have been killing people. But nobody wants to talk about this obvious link (which is much more common than Islam across these bad sorts).
Somebody may have said this already, but I believe the reason No won was in the main down to previously non-voting people turning out. The Yes got their usual vote - 40% or so of the total electorate. The result was decided by the turnout. Won't these No voting non-voters go back into their burrows leaving the field for the Nats?
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Of course a random Muslim does not represent all other Muslims. But when he, allegedly, shouts the central tenet of the Muslim faith at the moment he commits a crime - and when this is done by a number of random Muslims in various countries over a short period of time -then it is reasonable for others to notice this, comment on it and perhaps wonder whether there is a link and whether that link is the faith these people share (however much they may have misinterpreted it - or not - as the case may be).
Somebody may have said this already, but I believe the reason No won was in the main down to previously non-voting people turning out. The Yes got their usual vote - 40% or so of the total electorate. The result was decided by the turnout. Won't these No voting non-voters go back into their burrows leaving the field for the Nats?
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
An interesting thought. The impression I had was if anything slightly the reverse. The No voters tended to be older, richer, more Tory voting - all more likely to vote anyway. The Yes results in Labour heartlands in Glasgow seemed to be the result of the SNP and RIV bringing out disaffected Labour voters. But I could be wrong. I suspect it's a bit of both anyway.
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
Cameron is the result of a loss of confidence the Tories suffered in the 1990s.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
So you're saying Cameron was an opportunistic little shit?
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The point of that trail though was if you were a Tory voter in a seat that was going to be won by either Labour or UKIP next May (Thurrock/Grimsby). Mike seems to think Tories would vote Labour to keep UKIP out, not minding that they are helping kick Cameron out of No10
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
It has persuaded me to vote Lib Dem next May.
you can't.
we've been told tory voters are too tribal and/or thick to vote tactically. can't quite place who it was who used to bang on about that.
Finally, the world might get a proper dose of reflation which the stingy right wing politicians have been denying them.
For UK it is a double edged sword. Big increase in personal disposable income. Huge reduction in the PRT and VAT at the forecourts. Therefore higher deficits.
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The point of that trail though was if you were a Tory voter in a seat that was going to be won by either Labour or UKIP next May (Thurrock/Grimsby). Mike seems to think Tories would vote Labour to keep UKIP out, not minding that they are helping kick Cameron out of No10
Looking at the odds in each of those 2 -and if I lived there - in Thurrock, I'd stick with the Tories, in Gt Grimsby I'd vote Labour with no little despair.
@journodave 41s41 seconds ago Not again. @AFP: #BREAKING Driver ploughs into French Christmas market, several injured, police say
They're just copying each other. Each one will be a loner who wants to go out with a bang.
The ridiculous thing is that the French authorities are desperately trying to claim these attacks are "not terrorist attacks". Well, they may not be personally organised by Jihadi John but the attackers are posting ISIS flags on their Facebook pages, before going out and mowing people down as they scream Allahu Akhbar, and their murders are in turn being praised by ISIS fighters in Syria.
So, not, not terrorist attacks. Non, monsieur. Just oddballs having a bad day. Perhaps they are all UKIP members?
The contrast between the luvvie reaction to Muslims killing people (not representative of Islam) and UKIP councillors saying stupid things (completely representative of the party) is probably the clearest sign of their utter wallyness
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
You must be joking. Ukip councillors represent both their party and their voters. That is representative democracy 101! A random Muslim chap on the street no more represents some other Muslim, per se, than he represents me as a fellow chap on the same terms. It is nice that you have such nice musings from Enoch on your mind over Christmas!
Well I only mentioned it because muslim terrorists have been killing people.. again. Its not as if I just interrupted a conversation about Christmas decorations
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
You mean, male terrorists have been killing people. But nobody wants to talk about this obvious link (which is much more common than Islam across these bad sorts).
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Typical attempt to shut down reasonable comment, discussion, and speculation. (Afraid I don't have any corroborating "strong rumours on Twitter" at hand, m'lud!) Next, you'll tell me male terrorists don't represent all men...
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The point of that trail though was if you were a Tory voter in a seat that was going to be won by either Labour or UKIP next May (Thurrock/Grimsby). Mike seems to think Tories would vote Labour to keep UKIP out, not minding that they are helping kick Cameron out of No10
Looking at the odds in each of those 2 -and if I lived there - in Thurrock, I'd stick with the Tories, in Gt Grimsby I'd vote Labour with no little despair.
Really? Why? You'd be just helping Labour into government at your party's expense... and in Gt Grimsby the UKIP candidate was the Tory candidate last time
If Clegg and Alexander lose their seats I'm not sure who would be in charge of Lib Dem negotiations. Their deputy leader is Malcolm Bruce who is standing down at the election. You'd have to say the Lib Dems in the most senior positions are Vince Cable and Ed Davey.
Somebody may have said this already, but I believe the reason No won was in the main down to previously non-voting people turning out. The Yes got their usual vote - 40% or so of the total electorate. The result was decided by the turnout. Won't these No voting non-voters go back into their burrows leaving the field for the Nats?
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
An interesting thought. The impression I had was if anything slightly the reverse. The No voters tended to be older, richer, more Tory voting - all more likely to vote anyway. The Yes results in Labour heartlands in Glasgow seemed to be the result of the SNP and RIV bringing out disaffected Labour voters. But I could be wrong. I suspect it's a bit of both anyway.
Sorry I can't find the article, but iirc it was quite authoritative.
In all the 4 referenda we have had dating back to 1978, the Yes vote has been around 40% of the total electorate and the outcome determined by turn out. It is decided by whether that 40% who do vote constitute a majority. It also means that Salmond should really have run the quietest imaginable campaign. As the fever rose turn out rose, his chances diminished. That favourable poll just before the election was a disaster for him.
I'm sure better informed people than me like TSE who are on here will have seen the article.
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun final voting intention poll of the year tonight has Lab 4 ahead. LAB 36%, CON 32%, UKIP 16%, LDEM 6%, GRN 5%. Merry Xmas to all.
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Could Clegg hold his head high if he only got in thanks to Tory voters?
Only joking. Of course he couldn't give a stuff. What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Fair enough.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
The point of that trail though was if you were a Tory voter in a seat that was going to be won by either Labour or UKIP next May (Thurrock/Grimsby). Mike seems to think Tories would vote Labour to keep UKIP out, not minding that they are helping kick Cameron out of No10
Looking at the odds in each of those 2 -and if I lived there - in Thurrock, I'd stick with the Tories, in Gt Grimsby I'd vote Labour with no little despair.
Really? Why? You'd be just helping Labour into government at your party's expense... and in Gt Grimsby the UKIP candidate was the Tory candidate last time
yup absolutely.
If you are pro-European Clarkite who approves of the overseas aid commitments the big parties sign up to, yes Labour are miles behind my Tory-LibDem preferences but Labour at least have those redeeming features even though they are aways economically useless - they'd also be left to carry the can for further deficit reduction and likely have long-term damage by actually being let in to No. 10.
Despite Richard T's previous vouching for the 'grass roots', I would never touch UKIP as I can't think of any of their policies, all 3 of them, that I agree with so that's a pretty good reason to have them last.
"But, of course, Labour regards the mounting woes of the health service as a political opportunity. Ed Miliband wants to fight the election with scaremongering over health as the centrepiece of his strategy because he has nothing else. Is it too much to expect that Labour might address the real problems of the NHS, instead of using it as a football?"
I think we all know the answer to that one..............
The Times have an editorial telling Sheffield Hallam Tories to vote Lib Dem.
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Could Clegg hold his head high if he only got in thanks to Tory voters?
Only joking. Of course he couldn't give a stuff. What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
Selling another coalition, or even confidence and supply, to the LDs assuming they are even in a position to grant that, seems like a tall order. They will have suffered big losses - 1/2 to 3/4 depending on how well they hold up I'd guess - and even if most of the MPs left are more likely to be ideologically more comfortable with the Tories than Labour, they will probably be disinclined to jump back into government with even less influence than this time. Add to that there is less urgency on the national interest arguments for coalition like last time, the fear of an indecisive outcome and another election shortly after will be far less.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-candidate-gay-donkey-tried-to-rape-my-horse-9940230.html
Completely normal.
Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time
Lots of variations of that. But generally attributed to F E Smith (aka Lord Birkenhead)who once replied to a judge along these lines:-
Judge:" I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none the wiser."
Smith: "None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed."
I am sure you can find UKIP politicians who fit the bill, but Farage is obviously not one of them. He is now a professional politician, as are all politicians, but that isn't what was meant
What does it add to deliberately misunderstand in situations like this?
They can be the best option out there by a mile, that might be true, and even if not I think their rise is important and a good thing for us all, but they are not somehow immune to the costs of doing politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5U0ActHX2k
The grass roots kippers are a bit different, hence some of the recent selection rows stemming from disputes between central party office and local control.
There are pretty repulsive people in all parties, and each also has its idealists. UKIP's problem is that it very much wants to shake the established order, but does not agree what to replace it with.
It was said of the Gordon rioters that they were against Popery, though uncertain whether it was a man or a horse. Kipperism seems to be a rebirth of the same spirit.
The overpowering stench of hypocrisy... isn't it awful?
The 't' is silent as in Harlot.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/22/downton-abbey-truth-about-britain
It must be hard work finding something to be indignant about day after day.
There is also a problem with many of the people that UKIP have attracted as its "leaders" and activists. Unrepentant anti-PC individualists. They have typically resigned from another party (usually the Conservatives) on the basis that they were unwilling to compromise their views for the sake of the party. My way or the highway.
Now inside UKIP they carry on in the same manner and UKIP are having to ask them to leave..... for the sake of the new party.
(Here's the highway sir)
You can't win this argument, and even if you win you lose because your ideas of victory is to piss off and enrage kippers, where a slightly more intelligent approach might be to try to woo them back onto your own side.
A) the United States manipulates the oil price
And
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323371/140620_UK_oil_and_gas_tables_for_publication_in_June_2014.pdf
In 1977-78 total Continental Shelf tax revenue was £238million, so far from Socrates's "generous" doubling of revenue (he assumed it was £6 billion in revenue in 1978) it was actually a 50 times increase in tax revenue. Even if you want to take 78-79 as the comparison point that's still a 21 times increase in tax revenue from oil.
So to get back to comparing tax take with tax take in 1984-85 UK tax receipts were £126.4 billion ( according to http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963 ) which means oil revenue that year was 9.5% of total UK tax receipts.
If you want to pretend that that is a chicken feed number then go right ahead.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11308952/Opec-Oil-plummets-after-Saudis-says-20-crude-is-possible.html
I suspect that the Ukip candidates include a good proportion of fruitcakes and loons. In fact, anyone thinking they have a right to be elected and tell other people what to think is most definitely a loon.
But I suppose we have to elect someone. I'm in a safe Labour seat so I can indulge myself.
Instead of wasting my vote on the LDs as usual, I shall waste it on the local Ukip loon this May. They won't form a government, but I feel sorry when a group is picked upon for being different - it smacks of bullying, even if they think they're being clever.
Anyone opposed by the BBC, the chattering classes, the EU bureaucrats and both main parties can't be all bad.
Even a stopped clock, etc, etc, but you can't dismiss everything he says on the grounds that he's a nutcase
But he basically repeats verbatim the claims of Vladimir Putin, even when they are utterly absurd.
And then otherwise intelligent people parrot them...
"Three female RAF recruits are to be paid compensation for injuries reportedly suffered while marching alongside male colleagues.
They claimed parading alongside taller male recruits caused them to over-stride and develop spinal and pelvic injuries, the Mail on Sunday reported.
It is understood they will receive £100,000 from the MoD."
Bloody Ukip again, marching too fast because they didn't like having women alongside them.
But it does seem a bit odd.
"Fundamentally, the Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves. Last time it took them from the 1840s to the 1860s to figure this out. They need to be quicker about it this time"
Shame nobody told Cameron. Actually that is unfair. Cameron was told he just didn't seem to want to listen to such people, and still doesn't for all I can make out.
A generation was defenestrated, and the new crew too inexperienced. But in 2005, faced by a choice between Cameron and Davies, the party membership made the right decision.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/26/6067123/isis-poll
Most of these guys will be left-voting non-integrating Muslims. The French government is already appeasing such people. It will only be a matter of time before such things happen here, unless the Right grows some balls.
"I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you..."
However, in your own words , "Conservatives only win when they are the party of the aspirational, the small businessman, the skilled worker who wants to improve themselves" and Cameron has proved himself very adept at pissing off those very voters.
Normal people just feel like they are being treated like idiots who cant work things out for themselves
Enoch Powell's speech "The Road To National Suicide" outlines this.. a minority of immigrants resort to terrorism, a minority of the existing population react.. and in the middle fanning the flames are establishment figures pretending nothing is happening
and the point made in the Powell speech is bang on.. as usual
The leader the Tories should have chosen nine years ago was Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
My friend, Nuala, always used to say that, Mike. Still does.
"A judge who sentenced a paedophile police officer to 14-and-a-half years in jail questioned how he had kept his job despite previously being caught taking photographs of children.
I question the judges sanity if he doesn't know the reason.
Farthest distance so far, 926
Anyone beat that?
Doubtful
These voters saw the referendum as an existential issue, whereas this time they will know both parties will have similar agendas for public spending, no matter what they say. So why bother to vote
Because if I read the piece correctly Labour are planning to decapitate Clegg as that reduces the chance of a Con/LD coalition next May and a Cleggless Lib Dem party is more likely to go in to coalition with Ed.
Earlier there was a whole trail on why Tories would vote UKIP rather than vote Labour - I've previously voted yellow peril in some previous GE's and i would do so again if it was in a suitable seat to try and keep out a kipper or the reds where I lived..
No such problems in Bercow land of course... we just sit and watch the rest of the nation!
we've been told tory voters are too tribal and/or thick to vote tactically. can't quite place who it was who used to bang on about that.
For UK it is a double edged sword. Big increase in personal disposable income. Huge reduction in the PRT and VAT at the forecourts. Therefore higher deficits.
But, on balance, better for the economy.
His lordship : well sir I have been listening to you all day and I am none the wiser.
Exasperated barrister : Indeed not my Lord but you are better informed.
In all the 4 referenda we have had dating back to 1978, the Yes vote has been around 40% of the total electorate and the outcome determined by turn out. It is decided by whether that 40% who do vote constitute a majority. It also means that Salmond should really have run the quietest imaginable campaign. As the fever rose turn out rose, his chances diminished. That favourable poll just before the election was a disaster for him.
I'm sure better informed people than me like TSE who are on here will have seen the article.
Only joking. Of course he couldn't give a stuff. What's bizarre is how everyone seems to think that because Clegg would be happy to have another coalition with the Tories, that makes it an inevitability. He has to get it past his party - which everyone is forgetting. There's no guarantee they'll accept it even if there was another hung parliament akin to 2010. And the Tory party looks very different now to how it was then.
If you are pro-European Clarkite who approves of the overseas aid commitments the big parties sign up to, yes Labour are miles behind my Tory-LibDem preferences but Labour at least have those redeeming features even though they are aways economically useless - they'd also be left to carry the can for further deficit reduction and likely have long-term damage by actually being let in to No. 10.
Despite Richard T's previous vouching for the 'grass roots', I would never touch UKIP as I can't think of any of their policies, all 3 of them, that I agree with so that's a pretty good reason to have them last.
"But, of course, Labour regards the mounting woes of the health service as a political opportunity. Ed Miliband wants to fight the election with scaremongering over health as the centrepiece of his strategy because he has nothing else. Is it too much to expect that Labour might address the real problems of the NHS, instead of using it as a football?"
I think we all know the answer to that one..............