From Cleggasm to "one of the minor parties" in four and a half years. Politics can be so cruel.
As he is being so nice to Ms Bennett, is David Cameron the new Mr Darcy?
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Prime Minister losing support to UKIP is in need of the Green Party to even things up a bit"
I am unconvinced that the Greens will be as damaging as all that to Labour, I mean yes, EdM isn't the worlds best debater, the Bennett is a boring as a wet weekend in Wigan, and might end up telling people some of her parties policies
Host: Ms Bennett so how do you see the future of the country in Europe
Bennett: To achieve the Green vision, Europe will need very different structures from those currently in existence. Europe should be made up of overlapping, co-operative, democratic, decentralised groupings of nations and regions. (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/eu.html#EU110)
One the public has stopped laughing... Cameron can't even change our rebate and the Green Party think they can't change the whole structure of Europe!)
It really depends on how she answers the question though. I imagine she'd probably focus on the Green party's support for the people having a say on EU membership in a referendum and the Labour party's opposition to that.
Yes I know, but through an hour long debate there is going to be so much room for putting a foot wrong somewhere.
Host: Ms Bennett, what is your policy for getting Britain back to work ?
Bennett The scale of industrial production worldwide must reduce if we are to live in the UK and globally within environmental limits. However, we do not support de-industrialisation as a result of globalisation, which is in effect just offshoring existing industries to lower wage and often lower environmental standards elsewhere.
Ah, so you are going to get people back to work by closing factories and lowering our industrial output, and putting quotas on our imports otherwise people will just buy the stuff we dont make from factories abroad.
So what you're saying is that some people will be attracted by the Green party and others will not. Thank you. I'm going to rest in a dark room while I try to process the implications of this revelation.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
Be sympathetic to him.
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
Hain has also worked to hand over a share in Gibraltar to a foreign country against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
When Farage was talking about 5th columnists in the UK, perhaps he was talking about people like Hain.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
Hain has also worked to hand over a share in Gibraltar to a foreign country against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Very impressive stint as Northern Ireland secretary though. Swings and roundabouts.
Latest Populus was National Poll (Populus) 09 - 11 Jan: LAB - 37% (+3) CON - 32% (-1) UKIP - 13% (-1) LDEM - 10% (+2) GRN - 4% (-2) and we should be due an ICM soon? Last was 19th Dec.
Yes, I know. Peak Kipper was in November too :-) Soon they will be polling less than the Greens.
T.
But what about all those Shy UKIP voters we weren't seeing because UKIP wasn't prompted in the first round?
UKIP support (like the Lib Dems') spikes after a by-election win, or a good performance in the Euros, but in general, I think it's wishful thinking to say it's on a downward trend. A simple average of this week's polls gives UKIP 15.6%, which is a high figure.
D.
?
e
ICM hopefully next week.
Why I said Populus, despite Monday's poll being a clear outlier, was in recent months they've had the highest Con + Lab Shares combined figure.
Now if you believe come election day, the other parties are going to get squeezed like a male stripper's bum on a hen's night in Blackpool, then Populus could be the most accurate.
I'm trying to square that analogy in my head with opening a can of electoral whoop-ass.
It's generating some fairly unpleasant images.
I once drafted a thread comparing UKIP to a bad case of the clap.
one is a nasty irritation caught from closeness with dangerous people incurable with anti-biotics and the other is a veneral disease?
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
Be sympathetic to him.
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
Acquitted of bank robbery too. You can't say that about many politicians.
This really is a bit of a gift for Labour. I'm sure as we speak some ad agency will have their whole creative department working on project 'chicken in empty chair' . Nothing gets them up in the morning like a quick turn around poster that guarantees mass exposure.
From Cleggasm to "one of the minor parties" in four and a half years. Politics can be so cruel.
As he is being so nice to Ms Bennett, is David Cameron the new Mr Darcy?
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Prime Minister losing support to UKIP is in need of the Green Party to even things up a bit"
I am unconvinced that the Greens will be as damaging as all that to Labour, I mean yes, EdM isn't the worlds best debater, the Bennett is a boring as a wet weekend in Wigan, and might end up telling people some of her parties policies
Host: Ms Bennett so how do you see the future of the country in Europe
Bennett: To achieve the Green vision, Europe will need very different structures from those currently in existence. Europe should be made up of overlapping, co-operative, democratic, decentralised groupings of nations and regions. (http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/eu.html#EU110)
One the public has stopped laughing... Cameron can't even change our rebate and the Green Party think they can't change the whole structure of Europe!)
It really depends on how she answers the question though. I imagine she'd probably focus on the Green party's support for the people having a say on EU membership in a referendum and the Labour party's opposition to that.
Yes I know, but through an hour long debate there is going to be so much room for putting a foot wrong somewhere.
Host: Ms Bennett, what is your policy for getting Britain back to work ?
Bennett The scale of industrial production worldwide must reduce if we are to live in the UK and globally within environmental limits. However, we do not support de-industrialisation as a result of globalisation, which is in effect just offshoring existing industries to lower wage and often lower environmental standards elsewhere.
Ah, so you are going to get people back to work by closing factories and lowering our industrial output, and putting quotas on our imports otherwise people will just buy the stuff we dont make from factories abroad.
So what you're saying is that some people will be attracted by the Green party and others will not. Thank you. I'm going to rest in a dark room while I try to process the implications of this revelation.
LOL, no I am trying to say that a lot of people currently attracted to the Green Party because of its "Save the Whale" image and right-on credentials might not realise its more left wing that it looks, and might have serious impacts on their lifestyle if it gets any influence, not just putting rubbish in the right bins and starting a compost heap.
We need to be careful with this assumption that Bennett / the Greens will fail in a debate. For more than one reason: 1. Watermelonism is a religion not a rational scientific philosophy. That protecting Gaia necessitates the destruction of your job or your living standard is about as important to them as a heretic's right not to get burned during the Spanish Inquisition. Like all cults this one has ALOT of fanatics. She's playing to this gallery. 2. Coming across as a dangerous ideologue may indeed put people off voting Green - and if she does this then including the Greens in the debate is a fail for Dave. Dave wants the Greens to participate and suck as much juice out of Labour as possible. There is no way to predict in advance how she'll do. She fail Dave utterly and restore some Labour votes.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
Be sympathetic to him.
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
Acquitted of bank robbery too. You can't say that about many politicians.
I am sure OGH will write a thread about it now he has backed it, and he knows the UKIP runner but in my humble opinion, now that an apparently good candidate has been chosen, there should be no difference in UKIP's price in South Basildon & East Thurrock and their price in Thurrock
SB&ET 10/3 Thurrock 8/13
So either Labour or Tories are massive value in Thurrock or UKIP massive value in SB&ET
Takes your pick
(Or I guess you could wait for a poll to come out, check oddschecker then "tip" it to everyone then)
Having seen Natalie Bennett interviewer, it's not the sensibility of policies that will do her in, but the fact that she comes over as incredibly grating.
Having seen Natalie Bennett interviewer, it's not the sensibility of policies that will do her in, but the fact that she comes over as incredibly grating.
That's the reason Cameron wants her in.
He admitted to an aide he thinks she will make the whole thing so boring that the Farage effect will be diluted... whether that will be the case or not who knows?
On the debates: According to the Beeb, the proposal from the broadcasters is this:
Mr Cameron would take on Labour leader Mr Miliband head-to-head in one debate, another would feature Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg, and a third would also include UKIP's Mr Farage.
The suggested schedule is for debates on 2 April, 16 April and 30 April, ahead of the general election on 7 May
I'm struggling to see much downside to Cameron declining to appear in the 4-way one, on the grounds that the Greens should have been included, but appearing in the other two. What he really wants is the one-to-one debate with Miliband; leaving Clegg, Miliband and Farage to argue amongst themselves as opposition parties doesn't look too bad, and the Green excuse is not a bad one (on democratic grounds, I think they should be included).
No10 making clear Cameron now sees two formats for debates, one multi party, one Lab-Con. Ie no room for 3-way with Clegg
Which I would interpret as a sign that they are winning [behind the scenes] the underlying argument over a 5-way, and are cheekily pushing for even more.
And Clegg v Farage as a compensatory debate for the other major parties?
Having seen Natalie Bennett interviewer, it's not the sensibility of policies that will do her in, but the fact that she comes over as incredibly grating.
That's the reason Cameron wants her in.
He admitted to an aide he thinks she will make the whole thing so boring that the Farage effect will be diluted... whether that will be the case or not who knows?
Cameron is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's. His preferences are thus to avoid debating with him, but, if he has to, he wants as few people seeing the carnage as possible.
To give him credit, at least he's aware of his own ineptitude.
Why do the Broadcasters not want the Leader of the Greens on for an hour under the hot studio lights? Anything to do with the rumour about being allergic to soap?
Having seen Natalie Bennett interviewer, it's not the sensibility of policies that will do her in, but the fact that she comes over as incredibly grating.
That's the reason Cameron wants her in.
He admitted to an aide he thinks she will make the whole thing so boring that the Farage effect will be diluted... whether that will be the case or not who knows?
Cameron is obviously aware that his policies and arguments aren't as good as Farage's. His preferences are thus to avoid debating with him, but, if he has to, he wants as few people seeing the carnage as possible.
To give him credit, at least he's aware of his own ineptitude.
It is a bit strange because it's not as if Farage is ridiculously popular nationwide.. lots of people on here link to polls saying he isn't as popular as he was etc, and to be fair to Cameron, I am sure plenty of people prefer his smooth talking, Lord of the Manor style to Farages outspokeman man in the pub image...
Personally don't see that Cameron has that much to lose.. he doesn't have a majority now, so cant lose that, he isn't clear in the polls so cant lose that either, and obv fancies himself to beat Miliband
I think he is over estimating both Farage and the damage having him in a debate will do, especially as its not a head to head
On the debates: According to the Beeb, the proposal from the broadcasters is this:
Mr Cameron would take on Labour leader Mr Miliband head-to-head in one debate, another would feature Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg, and a third would also include UKIP's Mr Farage.
The suggested schedule is for debates on 2 April, 16 April and 30 April, ahead of the general election on 7 May
I'm struggling to see much downside to Cameron declining to appear in the 4-way one, on the grounds that the Greens should have been included, but appearing in the other two. What he really wants is the one-to-one debate with Miliband; leaving Clegg, Miliband and Farage to argue amongst themselves as opposition parties doesn't look too bad, and the Green excuse is not a bad one (on democratic grounds, I think they should be included).
No10 making clear Cameron now sees two formats for debates, one multi party, one Lab-Con. Ie no room for 3-way with Clegg
Which I would interpret as a sign that they are winning [behind the scenes] the underlying argument over a 5-way, and are cheekily pushing for even more.
And Clegg v Farage as a compensatory debate for the other major parties?
That's just to finish Clegg off. Oh deep joy.
Where does Russell Brand fit into these debates?
That is in the seperate debate for charlatans on CBBC.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
Be sympathetic to him.
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
Acquitted of bank robbery too. You can't say that about many politicians.
Frustrated to see that Bell has secured his place for England's brief sojourn at the World Cup. Hales, Ali and Taylor were an opening 3 with a real chance of scoring at an appropriate rate. Oh well, the bowlers are not good enough anyway.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I'd be pleased if you were the face of the Tory campaign
Who'da thought that making a price fixing policy in a very low margin business might be a howler? Labour simply don't seem capable of understanding risk and reward in business. They're furiously backtracking now, saying 'no it's a cap not a freeze' as if this was any better.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
SandyRentool said: re Spitting Image - From memory:
' Thatcher "I'll have steak, rare" Waiter "What about the vegetables?" Thatcher "They'll have the same" '
That was a good joke, possibly even good satire, a barb well aimed. It does not matter if the point was true or not - it reinforced the derogatory point that they wanted to make. A dominant PM. Of course no matter what PM we have - dominant or pressurised - the satirists would still make a derogatory point. Major was portrayed as a grey figure.
To me then I must question the point of satire as valid criticism where what anybody does, whatever their character is, can be ridiculed ( supposedly 'satirised'). On HIGNFY what the protagonists might defend as satire actually deserves satirising in itself. It has just descended into crass mickey taking where looks and appearance are made fun off (as bawdily as possible) as much as anything and outside of any kind of context.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'.
Actually it's even worse than that. By threatening a freeze they'll have caused the companies to protect themselves by hedging their forward fuel bills more than they otherwise would - meaning they'll be paying more than they otherwise would in the event that prices fall.
It is Miliband, not Labour generally, that we should blame for this. None of the old crew - Blair, Mandelson, even Brown - were as ignorant, careless, and business-hostile as Miliband. And I don't believe that Balls, left to his own devices, would have been so stupid either.
I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely.
SandyRentool said: re Spitting Image - From memory:
' Thatcher "I'll have steak, rare" Waiter "What about the vegetables?" Thatcher "They'll have the same" '
That was a good joke, possibly even good satire, a barb well aimed. It does not matter if the point was true or not - it reinforced the derogatory point that they wanted to make. A dominant PM. Of course no matter what PM we have - dominant or pressurised - the satirists would still make a derogatory point. Major was portrayed as a grey figure.
To me then I must question the point of satire as valid criticism where what anybody does, whatever their character is, can be ridiculed ( supposedly 'satirised'). On HIGNFY what the protagonists might defend as satire actually deserves satirising in itself. It has just descended into crass mickey taking where looks and appearance are made fun off (as bawdily as possible) as much as anything and outside of any kind of context.
Yes you are right, although I doubt you will agree that it is a similar point made by the comedian who Farage supported
Who'da thought that making a price fixing policy in a very low margin business might be a howler? Labour simply don't seem capable of understanding risk and reward in business. They're furiously backtracking now, saying 'no it's a cap not a freeze' as if this was any better.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
No-one saw the current drop in oil prices coming that far off. If there had been another round of energy price increases last autumn then, politically, the policy would have been a winner.
Miliband's a politician who concentrated on the politics, rather than the economics, and is being caught out by events - not unlike many of his ilk. The danger comes from those politicians who are lucky at first, and begin to believe that they are good at the economics too. You might remember one. Name sounded a bit like "Lord on Drown"...
French President Francois Hollande did not want Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attend Sunday’s historic march in Paris, believing the Israeli leader’s presence at the rally would be “divisive”
LOL, no I am trying to say that a lot of people currently attracted to the Green Party because of its "Save the Whale" image and right-on credentials might not realise its more left wing that it looks, and might have serious impacts on their lifestyle if it gets any influence, not just putting rubbish in the right bins and starting a compost heap.
So you're saying the Greens wont be all that damaging to Labour once people realise they are left wing. Well, it's a view.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I won't answer for the Kippers, but as a defector, I will admit: I think an in/out referendum would be lost in 2017, by an Indy Ref margin, pretty much whatever renegotiation "concessions" happen.
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
Actually it's even worse than that. By threatening a freeze they'll have caused the companies to protect themselves by hedging their forward fuel bills more than they otherwise would - meaning they'll be paying more than they otherwise would in the event that prices fall.
It is Miliband, not Labour generally, that we should blame for this. None of the old crew - Blair, Mandelson, even Brown - were as ignorant, careless, and business-hostile as Miliband. And I don't believe that Balls, left to his own devices, would have been so stupid either.
...and there is a clear analogy with the banks - but worse:
People are rightly hugely pissed off with the banking industry because we see privatised profits but nationalised losses. If both were nationalised that'd be defendable (shite, but defendable). If both were privatised that'd be great - and would force bank directors to manage risk properly. It's the disconnect between risk and reward that is fundamentally unfair. But...at least the banks are happy to play on this basis, however much it rankles.
Not so for energy. Energy companies are being offered a 'banking in reverse' by Miliband - public gains but private losses. And so they'll simply not play. Or only play with a starting position that is grossly unfair to you and me so as to protect against the risk of Ed. And so the consumer loses anyway. It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
Er, no. Farage says he wants an EU referendum this year - which he knows he can't get under any circumstances, so it's a safe thing to pretend to want. Meanwhile he's working to prevent one at the earliest opportunity which realistically is available.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I won't answer for the Kippers, but as a defector, I will admit: I think an in/out referendum would be lost in 2017, by an Indy Ref margin, pretty much whatever renegotiation "concessions" happen.
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
He is calling him "frit" for not telling people (like you?) who want to vote UKIP, to vote Conservative instead
Who'da thought that making a price fixing policy in a very low margin business might be a howler? Labour simply don't seem capable of understanding risk and reward in business. They're furiously backtracking now, saying 'no it's a cap not a freeze' as if this was any better.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
No-one saw the current drop in oil prices coming that far off. If there had been another round of energy price increases last autumn then, politically, the policy would have been a winner.
Miliband's a politician who concentrated on the politics, rather than the economics, and is being caught out by events - not unlike many of his ilk. The danger comes from those politicians who are lucky at first, and begin to believe that they are good at the economics too. You might remember one. Name sounded a bit like "Lord on Drown"...
The trouble was that Miliband felt he had to introduce a policy - which could always be a hostage to fortune - so far out from the election, because his own personal polling was so dire.
I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely.
They probably haven't. But no doubt media lawyers are awaiting the cheques if they do.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
Actually it's even worse than that. By threatening a freeze they'll have caused the companies to protect themselves by hedging their forward fuel bills more than they otherwise would - meaning they'll be paying more than they otherwise would in the event that prices fall.
It is Miliband, not Labour generally, that we should blame for this. None of the old crew - Blair, Mandelson, even Brown - were as ignorant, careless, and business-hostile as Miliband. And I don't believe that Balls, left to his own devices, would have been so stupid either.
...and there is a clear analogy with the banks - but worse:
People are rightly hugely pissed off with the banking industry because we see privatised profits but nationalised losses. If both were nationalised that'd be defendable (shite, but defendable). If both were privatised that'd be great - and would force bank directors to manage risk properly. It's the disconnect between risk and reward that is fundamentally unfair. But...at least the banks are happy to play on this basis, however much it rankles.
Not so for energy. Energy companies are being offered a 'banking in reverse' by Miliband - public gains but private losses. And so they'll simply not play. Or only play with a starting position that is grossly unfair to you and me so as to protect against the risk of Ed. And so the consumer loses anyway. It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
Miliband is a one man cost of living crisis.
Add the £80 odd pounds that decisions he made at DECC cost us, to the fall in prices that hasn't been passed on as the energy co's are hedging against future risk, and he must bear responsibility for at a guess £200-300 pa of every households bill?
It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
The trouble is that only a tiny proportion of voters would know enough about pricing, hedging, investment, risk, and business generally, to understand the stupidity, so it's a tricky one for the Tories to play hard on.
"I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely."
I think last time they invited all the leaders for a separate interview with Paxman which Cameron refused. The others were interviewed on the basis that Cameron refused the invitation. So there is a precedent.
I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely.
They probably haven't. But no doubt media lawyers are awaiting the cheques if they do.
It would be amazing if they hadn't thought this through. I'm still struggling to see how they can give the Lib Dems and UKIP equal coverage when they're showing a debate where only Ed Miliband and David Cameron are participating - never mind the SNP.
But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
Er, no. Farage says he wants an EU referendum this year - which he knows he can't get under any circumstances, so it's a safe thing to pretend to want. Meanwhile he's working to prevent one at the earliest opportunity which realistically is available.
Frit. And dishonest too.
Professional politicians, eh?
Er, yes. Sorry Richard, you're just wrong. I understand why politically you want to paint Farage like that, but you're being disingenuous yourself.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
"I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely."
I think last time they invited all the leaders for a separate interview with Paxman which Cameron refused. The others were interviewed on the basis that Cameron refused the invitation. So there is a precedent.
Oh I can see there's no legal problem with empty-chairing (though it seems like a remote possibility to me - far too confrontational for any media company to entertain).
Er, yes. Sorry Richard, you're just wrong. I understand why politically you want to paint Farage like that, but you're being disingenuous yourself.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
OK, if you say so, but in that case why is he trying to prevent one in 2017?
It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
The trouble is that only a tiny proportion of voters would know enough about pricing, hedging, investment, risk, and business generally, to understand the stupidity, so it's a tricky one for the Tories to play hard on.
Not really. 'Ed Miliband wants to freeze your energy bills just as prices start falling'. OK it's not entirely true as the backpedalling of today demonstrates - but it's good enough! Or how about: 'Ed Miliband wants to bankrupt every energy company that supplies in your area - wrap up warm!'.
It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
The trouble is that only a tiny proportion of voters would know enough about pricing, hedging, investment, risk, and business generally, to understand the stupidity, so it's a tricky one for the Tories to play hard on.
Quite. It was a very popular policy at the time. Several media outlets were saying: "This doesn't make much economic sense, but it's really popular. How can the Tories respond?"
Not really. 'Ed Miliband wants to freeze your energy bills just as prices start falling'. OK it's not entirely true as the backpedalling of today demonstrates - but it's good enough! Or how about: 'Ed Miliband wants to bankrupt every energy company that supplies in your area - wrap up warm!'.
Yes, the first one is good. The second would be twisted into 'Dave wanting to help his fat cat friends in the energy companies'.
"I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely."
I think last time they invited all the leaders for a separate interview with Paxman which Cameron refused. The others were interviewed on the basis that Cameron refused the invitation. So there is a precedent.
Oh I can see there's no legal problem with empty-chairing (though it seems like a remote possibility to me - far too confrontational for any media company to entertain).
There will be no empty chair.
If Cam doesn't appear then Ed won't risk it with Farage. That much was obvious from the start.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I won't answer for the Kippers, but as a defector, I will admit: I think an in/out referendum would be lost in 2017, by an Indy Ref margin, pretty much whatever renegotiation "concessions" happen.
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
He is calling him "frit" for not telling people (like you?) who want to vote UKIP, to vote Conservative instead
There is a lot of that. TSE is very frustrated (and angry) about the rise of UKIP.
At the risk of upsetting everybody, I see myself now as neither Conservative nor UKIP.
I have left the Conservatives, but haven't joined UKIP. I now intend to vote UKIP in my Tory safe seat, but might not if I was living in crucial marginal, depending on whether the Tory candidate there was a BOO'er or not.
That probably rules me out of playing an active role in either party one day in the future. But so be it.
Basically, I'm royally pissed with David Cameron and his lies and failure to deliver on immigration, and Europe, his failure to support defence and to make any attempt to change the left-liberal public sector social-cultural consensus in this country. He apologies for being a Conservative, rather than leading as one, and patronises and denigrates his own natural supporters.
I also think the rise of UKIP is healthy for democracy, times have changed, and the only way the electorate will get what they want in the future is through far-reaching political reform, including voting reform.
Er, yes. Sorry Richard, you're just wrong. I understand why politically you want to paint Farage like that, but you're being disingenuous yourself.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
OK, if you say so, but in that case why is he trying to prevent one in 2017?
I'm not sure he is. He just wants it in 2015, rather than 2017.
No-one saw the current drop in oil prices coming that far off. If there had been another round of energy price increases last autumn then, politically, the policy would have been a winner.
Miliband's a politician who concentrated on the politics, rather than the economics, and is being caught out by events - not unlike many of his ilk. The danger comes from those politicians who are lucky at first, and begin to believe that they are good at the economics too. You might remember one. Name sounded a bit like "Lord on Drown"...
The trouble was that Miliband felt he had to introduce a policy - which could always be a hostage to fortune - so far out from the election, because his own personal polling was so dire.
But think of it from his perspective, poor man, here he is languishing in the personal polling, desperate for a policy:
Can't promise to splash around a bit chunk of money on all his favourite causes, because there isn't any, and people are likely to point out the reason there isn't any is because of the last Labour government which he was part of.
Can't announce a proper tax rise because it will scare the horses at the very least, and might well get respectable economists going on TV and accusing him of putting the recovery at risk, or wrecking the economy.
Can't play the prudence and responsibility card, because if he starts to look like he is even thinking about the merest possibility of supporting even some of the cuts his left wing will peel off to the Greens. Everyone knows he is going to have to make lots of cuts, but he can't say it or Mr MccLuskey will take away his pocket money.
Can't try and gee up the wavering WWC voters with a bit of law and order (especially after France) and a bit of flag waving, because his Guardianistas will have a fit and join either the LDs or the Greens
All he has left is making promises to batter unpopular businesses with much less profitability than the public believe over the head, and promise to make them be "fair", by which he means make a loss. Whilst trying to put a figleaf over the budget deficit by wittering about mansion taxes and gun license which won't pay the interest on the deficit for a fortnight.
Er, yes. Sorry Richard, you're just wrong. I understand why politically you want to paint Farage like that, but you're being disingenuous yourself.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
OK, if you say so, but in that case why is he trying to prevent one in 2017?
I'm not sure he is. He just wants it in 2015, rather than 2017.
He's going to get it in neither at this rate, and not in the foreseeable future after that either.
Sorry, UKIP's position makes no sense whatsoever. If they want a referendum, and the opportunity to leave the EU, they can have it. Instead they are trying to prevent it.
It really isn't complicated.
Of course, I do agree with you that a referendum in 2017 is unlikely to be won by the Out side. However, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the date, or the renegotiation, or Cameron. I have been arguing here to last six years that a referendum is unwinnable for Out (and indeed I have a bet with Richard Tyndall on the subject, from around 2009). It's going to be equally unwinnable whenever it is held.
I wouldn't mind if the Kippers were honest about this. Instead they make up ludicrous claims about Cameron pledging a post-ratification referendum, or blame him for not calling a referendum in this parliament (ignoring the minor detail of the parliamentary arithmetic, and ignoring the near-unanimous Tory support for the Wharton bill), or - most absurdly of all - claim that the 2017 referendum is some kind of fraud or wouldn't happen.
There is no getting away from the logic. If they are not frit, what are they?
Er, yes. Sorry Richard, you're just wrong. I understand why politically you want to paint Farage like that, but you're being disingenuous yourself.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
OK, if you say so, but in that case why is he trying to prevent one in 2017?
I'm not sure he is. He just wants it in 2015, rather than 2017.
He's going to get it in neither at this rate, and not in the foreseeable future after that either.
Sorry, UKIP's position makes no sense whatsoever. If they want a referendum, and the opportunity to leave the EU, they can have it. Instead they are trying to prevent it.
It really isn't complicated.
Of course, I do agree with you that a referendum in 2017 is unlikely to be won by the Out side. However, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the date, or the renegotiation, or Cameron. I have been arguing here to last six years that a referendum is unwinnable for Out (and indeed I have a bet with Richard Tyndall on the subject, from around 2009). It's going to be equally unwinnable whenever it is held.
I wouldn't mind if the Kippers were honest about this. Instead they make up ludicrous claims about Cameron pledging a post-ratification referendum, or blame him for not calling a referendum in this parliament (ignoring the minor detail of the parliamentary arithmetic, and ignoring the near-unanimous Tory support for the Wharton bill), or - most absurdly of all - claim that the 2017 referendum is some kind of fraud or wouldn't happen.
There is no getting away from the logic. If they are not frit, what are they?
There are two analyses that UKIP must have done, at least in their heads, and that I'd like to see. One is "what are the risks that arise from our splitting the anti-Labour vote?" and the other is "where do we go when we lose the referendum, which we know perfectly well we will?"
PoliticsHome@politicshome·5 mins5 minutes ago Labour's Peter Hain says need to stand against far-right and "the vile prejudices of far too many members of Ukip" after Paris attacks.
He's someone who's fought against far right racists of Apartheid South Africa so he knows what he's talking about.
He's still a tosser, though.
Be sympathetic to him.
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
Acquitted of bank robbery too. You can't say that about many politicians.
Did he also not rearrange the wicket at Lords with a shovel?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
And the real lemmings of British politics are those tories who hammer away at an internet charmlessness offensive against the Kippers, day after day, in order to minimise the probability of their returning to the tory fold between now and election day.
Cameron's conduct over the Vow shows how far he can be trusted to act honourably and lawfully in what he perceives to be a crisis. Do you feel able to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not behave in a similar manner in 2017?
Comments
It can't be easy going through life having the same skin colour as newly painted fence.
Mr. Royale, or we could evict them via some sort of giant artillery gun.
In space, no one can hear your free owl policy.
1. Watermelonism is a religion not a rational scientific philosophy. That protecting Gaia necessitates the destruction of your job or your living standard is about as important to them as a heretic's right not to get burned during the Spanish Inquisition. Like all cults this one has ALOT of fanatics. She's playing to this gallery.
2. Coming across as a dangerous ideologue may indeed put people off voting Green - and if she does this then including the Greens in the debate is a fail for Dave. Dave wants the Greens to participate and suck as much juice out of Labour as possible. There is no way to predict in advance how she'll do. She fail Dave utterly and restore some Labour votes.
SB&ET 10/3
Thurrock 8/13
So either Labour or Tories are massive value in Thurrock or UKIP massive value in SB&ET
Takes your pick
(Or I guess you could wait for a poll to come out, check oddschecker then "tip" it to everyone then)
Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
http://order-order.com/2015/01/14/see-cartoons-inside-the-new-charlie-hebdo/#disqus_thread
He admitted to an aide he thinks she will make the whole thing so boring that the Farage effect will be diluted... whether that will be the case or not who knows?
To give him credit, at least he's aware of his own ineptitude.
Anything to do with the rumour about being allergic to soap?
Personally don't see that Cameron has that much to lose.. he doesn't have a majority now, so cant lose that, he isn't clear in the polls so cant lose that either, and obv fancies himself to beat Miliband
I think he is over estimating both Farage and the damage having him in a debate will do, especially as its not a head to head
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/340-mps-energy-bills-paid-2671053
Ed M and Caroline Flint were happy to claim for energy in 2013.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/14/the-political-march-in-paris-is-a-photo-staged-op/
Who'da thought that making a price fixing policy in a very low margin business might be a howler? Labour simply don't seem capable of understanding risk and reward in business. They're furiously backtracking now, saying 'no it's a cap not a freeze' as if this was any better.
They're effectively saying 'if things turn out worse than expected you will be protected and the companies must suffer - but if they turn out better than expected you'll also benefit and the companies won't be able to recover their losses'. What a truly stupid message to send to a key industry. Miliblob seems to think the government can mandate business into making loss making investment decisions. Giant hairy twunt who deserves all the grief he's getting for it.
re Spitting Image -
From memory:
' Thatcher "I'll have steak, rare"
Waiter "What about the vegetables?"
Thatcher "They'll have the same" '
That was a good joke, possibly even good satire, a barb well aimed. It does not matter if the point was true or not - it reinforced the derogatory point that they wanted to make. A dominant PM.
Of course no matter what PM we have - dominant or pressurised - the satirists would still make a derogatory point. Major was portrayed as a grey figure.
To me then I must question the point of satire as valid criticism where what anybody does, whatever their character is, can be ridiculed ( supposedly 'satirised'). On HIGNFY what the protagonists might defend as satire actually deserves satirising in itself. It has just descended into crass mickey taking where looks and appearance are made fun off (as bawdily as possible) as much as anything and outside of any kind of context.
The common denominator is that its the same people.
They must make the important decisions. And they must do the mourning when those decisions go awry.
And that is why they hate Farage with a vicious passion. Not because of his policies, but because he threatens to replace the elite.
Je Suis charlie?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908579/Orthodox-Israeli-newspaper-airbrushes-female-world-leaders-JeSuisCharlie-march-photographs.html
It is Miliband, not Labour generally, that we should blame for this. None of the old crew - Blair, Mandelson, even Brown - were as ignorant, careless, and business-hostile as Miliband. And I don't believe that Balls, left to his own devices, would have been so stupid either.
Miliband's a politician who concentrated on the politics, rather than the economics, and is being caught out by events - not unlike many of his ilk. The danger comes from those politicians who are lucky at first, and begin to believe that they are good at the economics too. You might remember one. Name sounded a bit like "Lord on Drown"...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-claims-france-didnt-want-netanyahu-at-paris-march/
"Netanyahu was initially situated in a second row of leaders, but shimmied his way into the front row..."
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
Who would have predicted that!
People are rightly hugely pissed off with the banking industry because we see privatised profits but nationalised losses. If both were nationalised that'd be defendable (shite, but defendable). If both were privatised that'd be great - and would force bank directors to manage risk properly. It's the disconnect between risk and reward that is fundamentally unfair. But...at least the banks are happy to play on this basis, however much it rankles.
Not so for energy. Energy companies are being offered a 'banking in reverse' by Miliband - public gains but private losses. And so they'll simply not play. Or only play with a starting position that is grossly unfair to you and me so as to protect against the risk of Ed. And so the consumer loses anyway. It is the stupidest of all Ed's stupid stunts and the Tories should keep smashing him with it from now until the GE. Crass, crass stupiditiy from one who aspires to govern us.
Frit. And dishonest too.
Professional politicians, eh?
Amazed the tories haven't made more of this, quite frankly
And the SNP don't. Would this harden the "Grr! Those Westminster types!" sentiment currently popular in Caledonia, or make no real difference?
Add the £80 odd pounds that decisions he made at DECC cost us, to the fall in prices that hasn't been passed on as the energy co's are hedging against future risk, and he must bear responsibility for at a guess £200-300 pa of every households bill?
The figure of Donald Tusk [former PM of Poland and President of the European Council] was pixellated out...
Not an enemy, presumably?
"I'm still interested to know how the TV companies think that they can comply with their legal obligations for balance during the election period if they exclude one or more of the major parties from one or more of the debates. But no doubt someone has looked at this very closely."
I think last time they invited all the leaders for a separate interview with Paxman which Cameron refused. The others were interviewed on the basis that Cameron refused the invitation. So there is a precedent.
But this isn't my area of law, thank goodness.
Farage genuinely does want a referendum this year, and thinks he can win it. If you want to attack him, attack him on that, because that shows real political naivety.
Or how about: 'Ed Miliband wants to bankrupt every energy company that supplies in your area - wrap up warm!'.
"They sound even worse than 'the client'.....and that's bad......."
As the old saying goes 'Get down on all fours and see it from the clients point of view"
Make too much of a fuss and they will just look absurd.
If Cam doesn't appear then Ed won't risk it with Farage. That much was obvious from the start.
At the risk of upsetting everybody, I see myself now as neither Conservative nor UKIP.
I have left the Conservatives, but haven't joined UKIP. I now intend to vote UKIP in my Tory safe seat, but might not if I was living in crucial marginal, depending on whether the Tory candidate there was a BOO'er or not.
That probably rules me out of playing an active role in either party one day in the future. But so be it.
Basically, I'm royally pissed with David Cameron and his lies and failure to deliver on immigration, and Europe, his failure to support defence and to make any attempt to change the left-liberal public sector social-cultural consensus in this country. He apologies for being a Conservative, rather than leading as one, and patronises and denigrates his own natural supporters.
I also think the rise of UKIP is healthy for democracy, times have changed, and the only way the electorate will get what they want in the future is through far-reaching political reform, including voting reform.
Things have changed a lot since 2011.
Can't promise to splash around a bit chunk of money on all his favourite causes, because there isn't any, and people are likely to point out the reason there isn't any is because of the last Labour government which he was part of.
Can't announce a proper tax rise because it will scare the horses at the very least, and might well get respectable economists going on TV and accusing him of putting the recovery at risk, or wrecking the economy.
Can't play the prudence and responsibility card, because if he starts to look like he is even thinking about the merest possibility of supporting even some of the cuts his left wing will peel off to the Greens. Everyone knows he is going to have to make lots of cuts, but he can't say it or Mr MccLuskey will take away his pocket money.
Can't try and gee up the wavering WWC voters with a bit of law and order (especially after France) and a bit of flag waving, because his Guardianistas will have a fit and join either the LDs or the Greens
All he has left is making promises to batter unpopular businesses with much less profitability than the public believe over the head, and promise to make them be "fair", by which he means make a loss. Whilst trying to put a figleaf over the budget deficit by wittering about mansion taxes and gun license which won't pay the interest on the deficit for a fortnight.
Sorry, UKIP's position makes no sense whatsoever. If they want a referendum, and the opportunity to leave the EU, they can have it. Instead they are trying to prevent it.
It really isn't complicated.
Of course, I do agree with you that a referendum in 2017 is unlikely to be won by the Out side. However, that has got absolutely nothing to do with the date, or the renegotiation, or Cameron. I have been arguing here to last six years that a referendum is unwinnable for Out (and indeed I have a bet with Richard Tyndall on the subject, from around 2009). It's going to be equally unwinnable whenever it is held.
I wouldn't mind if the Kippers were honest about this. Instead they make up ludicrous claims about Cameron pledging a post-ratification referendum, or blame him for not calling a referendum in this parliament (ignoring the minor detail of the parliamentary arithmetic, and ignoring the near-unanimous Tory support for the Wharton bill), or - most absurdly of all - claim that the 2017 referendum is some kind of fraud or wouldn't happen.
There is no getting away from the logic. If they are not frit, what are they?
Did he also not rearrange the wicket at Lords with a shovel?
Cameron's conduct over the Vow shows how far he can be trusted to act honourably and lawfully in what he perceives to be a crisis. Do you feel able to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not behave in a similar manner in 2017?