A lot of Iain Dale's predictions don't make sense. For example predicting an SNP gain in Edinburgh West but not Kilmarnock or Glenrothes, and forecasting Tory gains in Sutton & Cheam and Carshalton & Wallington.
Iain Dale is currently predicting 18 Tory gains (all from LibDems except Rochester and Strood) and 47 losses, (3 of them to UKIP the rest to Labour). He is also predicting a modest 9 Labour losses to the SNP. He has already revised Loughborough to Con hold and Cambridge to LibDem hold.
One of SLAB's best performers Cathy Jamieson is in Kilmarnock and she will fight hard to hold. Edinburgh West is potentially like Argyll a 4-way marginal. Glenrothes has a 40% Labour majority. No realistic prospect of a 20% swing to the SNP unless an incredibly low turnout. Iain Dale will personally know both Ed Davey and Tom Brake so presumably an informed guess.
Personally I think the SNP's best chances in Labour seats are: Ayrshire North and Arran Falkirk Ochil Edinburgh E Edinburgh N Edinburgh W Glasgow E Glasgow C Glasgow N Dundee W (which they regularly just miss) Dunbartonshire W Stirling
Less chance in: Kilmarnock East Lothian Livingston Glasgow S Glasgow SW Aberdeen N Aberdeen S Cumbernauld Inverclyde
A great deal in each seat will be determined by turnout. SNP voters tend to be more dedicated than SLAB ones. Some SLAB MPs have a high profile which can work in their favour. Equally the profile of some could lead to the loss of a seat e.g. Falkirk where Joyce is still seen by many as the Labour MP even though he has resigned/been chucked out the party
A lot of Iain Dale's predictions don't make sense. For example predicting an SNP gain in Edinburgh West but not Kilmarnock or Glenrothes, and forecasting Tory gains in Sutton & Cheam and Carshalton & Wallington.
Iain Dale is currently predicting 18 Tory gains (all from LibDems except Rochester and Strood) and 47 losses, (3 of them to UKIP the rest to Labour). He is also predicting a modest 9 Labour losses to the SNP. He has already revised Loughborough to Con hold and Cambridge to LibDem hold.
You'd have thought that Mr Dale would have looked at the polling before getting into the prediction business. He's also been obsessed with the LDs since his total humiliation in North Norfolk in 2005 when the LDs majority went up from a few thundered o 10k+ and he was CON candidate. It is like a Man U supporter trying to write objectively about Man City
I don't blame anyone but the Conservative leadership for my reluctant defection.
However, Conservative members and supporters act as advocates for their party. They presumably wish others to vote for it, particularly with a general election approaching. How they behave is entirely up to them, but what I'm trying to point out is that, if they wish to win back defectors through reasoned argument, they are going about in an entirely counter-productive way.
I'd rapidly approaching the conclusion that actually they don't, and aren't interested in winning defectors back. That'd be fine, if I wasn't equally convinced they would shout betrayal and act in utter bafflement as to why they lost following an election defeat in May.
I'm trying to be helpful and point it out now.
But it works both ways, Casino. The Kippers spend their entire time insulting the Conservatives, and especially Cameron, calling him a liar and other such nonsense, inventing fictitious pledges he's supposed not to have kept, ignoring the realities of coalition politics, and giving no credit for the achievements. They also claim, ludicrously, that he is not a 'true Conservative'.
Now, that is up to them, of course, and I don't expect one political party to be nice about another one. But - and it's a big but - the entire UKIP strategy (if that's not too strong a word) is based on a fantasy whereby there is a Labour government, Cameron gets ditched in favour of someone else, and then we all get back together and defeat Labour next time round.
It is, frankly, bonkers. Even if you ignore the fact that it requires everything to fall in place in a neat pattern which ignores the messy realities, it also ignores the fact that the two parties will have been squabbling and tearing chunks out of each other. The chance of playing happy families again is negligible.
Labour will be laughing all the way to the ballot box, and for several elections in a row.
You seem to be under the impression that every UKIP supporter is an ex-Tory when nothing could be further from the truth.
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
I don't blame anyone but the Conservative leadership for my reluctant defection.
However, Conservative members and supporters act as advocates for their party. They presumably wish others to vote for it, particularly with a general election approaching. How they behave is entirely up to them, but what I'm trying to point out is that, if they wish to win back defectors through reasoned argument, they are going about in an entirely counter-productive way.
I'd rapidly approaching the conclusion that actually they don't, and aren't interested in winning defectors back. That'd be fine, if I wasn't equally convinced they would shout betrayal and act in utter bafflement as to why they lost following an election defeat in May.
I'm trying to be helpful and point it out now.
But it works both ways, Casino. The Kippers spend their entire time insulting the Conservatives, and especially Cameron, calling him a liar and other such nonsense, inventing fictitious pledges he's supposed not to have kept, ignoring the realities of coalition politics, and giving no credit for the achievements. They also claim, ludicrously, that he is not a 'true Conservative'.
Now, that is up to them, of course, and I don't expect one political party to be nice about another one. But - and it's a big but - the entire UKIP strategy (if that's not too strong a word) is based on a fantasy whereby there is a Labour government, Cameron gets ditched in favour of someone else, and then we all get back together and defeat Labour next time round.
It is, frankly, bonkers. Even if you ignore the fact that it requires everything to fall in place in a neat pattern which ignores the messy realities, it also ignores the fact that the two parties will have been squabbling and tearing chunks out of each other. The chance of playing happy families again is negligible.
Labour will be laughing all the way to the ballot box, and for several elections in a row.
You ignore the fact that many ex conservative voters like myself think that a further Cameron government would be a disaster and only further entrench the idiocy of social democracy within this country.
We want a conservative party that believes in a smaller state not merely one that believes in an ever so slightly smaller state
We want a conservative party that believes in civil liberties not one that makes announcements about reading everyone's damn emails and waffles on about banning encryption or building backdoors in it.
The current conservative party is frankly a disgrace to the name.
Funny enough, I didn't welcome the defection of either Carswell or Reckless (though good riddance to Hamilton and Helmer). I'd rather they stayed and there's room in the Tory coalition for both. But I would not give any ground to have them back.
Oh, I think we should offer them something, and something substantial - an EU referendum by the end of 2017, for example.
You often put this case Richard, so let me answer it. You at least engage with us "defectors" as if we're people, rather than something you scrape off your shoe, and I respect you for that.
Indeed, that is one of the reasons I might vote Conservative in a marginal, depending on whether the candidate was a BOO'er or not.
To explain my logic: If Cameron had achieved substantial reforms and EU concessions, I would not have defected. I would also care much less (if it all) if my Conservative candidate was a BOO'er. Either an "in" or "out" result would broadly satisfy me either way.
Without any substantial concessions, the current situation, I have to weigh up which side of the referendum my potential MP would be on in an in/out vote, and cast my vote accordingly. That might lead me to pick UKIP over a Conservative candidate fighting a Labour candidate in a marginal, in a situation where both were pro-EU europhiles.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons - over which I'd have had no real choice in its make-up on that issue - leading an "in" campaign, and winning it on the back of a false prospectus, thereby closing the issue down for 20 years.
'What has been seen in Belgium today is a fraction of what is going on in terms of suppression and interdiction activities by Western European agencies in the last 48 hours and will continue. In reality for Belgium its about time something direct has been done like this, the country has, in scale terms, a Jihadi issue as near as substantive and near as long standing as we do.
There does seem to be a race against time situation on. One country though seems to have escaped the Jihadist actions... Germany. It has plenty of them, has awful issues monitoring them. It is due trouble.'
Its notable that overnight that about a dozen locations were raided by the German authorities with several arrests of suspected Jihadists.
There hasn't been this much Pan European overt activity in recent history when you combine continuing searches and arrests in France, the Germans overnight and the Belgians at work yesterday.
The question is why now? Has there been a recent breakthrough in knowledge & information on plots and people (and the sharing of that) or is this a more shotgun interdiction approach of sweeping known suspects up in the hope of disrupting something that intelligence jigsaw makers say is coming but hasn't been fully defined?
Its the former. Hopefully more on what that is in a later post.
The current conservative party is frankly a disgrace to the name.
You make my point for me, thank you.
No I don't because I am not a ukip supporter. I am merely a voter who has watched Cameron renege on every reason I voted for him in 2010 and now with his latest idiocy has actually pushed me into the situation where I would vote labour to keep this dangerous idiot from power.
Funny enough, I didn't welcome the defection of either Carswell or Reckless (though good riddance to Hamilton and Helmer). I'd rather they stayed and there's room in the Tory coalition for both. But I would not give any ground to have them back.
Oh, I think we should offer them something, and something substantial - an EU referendum by the end of 2017, for example.
You often put this case Richard, so let me answer it. You at least engage with us "defectors" as if we're people, rather than something you scrape off your shoe, and I respect you for that.
Indeed, that is one of the reasons I might vote Conservative in a marginal, depending on whether the candidate was a BOO'er or not.
To explain my logic: If Cameron had achieved substantial reforms and EU concessions, I would not have defected. I would also care much less (if it all) if my Conservative candidate was a BOO'er. Either an "in" or "out" result would broadly satisfy me either way.
Without any substantial concessions, the current situation, I have to weigh up which side of the referendum my potential MP would be on in an in/out vote, and cast my vote accordingly. That might lead me to pick UKIP over a Conservative candidate fighting a Labour candidate in a marginal, in a situation where both were pro-EU europhiles.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons - over which I'd have had no real choice in its make-up on that issue - leading an "in" campaign, and winning it on the back of a false prospectus, thereby closing the issue down for 20 years.
Does anyone actually believe that there is the chance to achieve a substantial renegotiation package? All of the noise coming from various EU member states indicates otherwise. It is quite telling DC keeps changing what he is aiming for in terms of EU immigration, one minute its a cap, the next minutes its an emergency brake, the next nothing.
The current conservative party is frankly a disgrace to the name.
You make my point for me, thank you.
No I don't because I am not a ukip supporter. I am merely a voter who has watched Cameron renege on every reason I voted for him in 2010 and now with his latest idiocy has actually pushed me into the situation where I would vote labour to keep this dangerous idiot from power.
Hmm.... Dangerous idiot's appear to repel you and yet..... you want Eds x2 in power.
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
Do as Danny Baker says in his excellent book, knock the stuff out.
The current conservative party is frankly a disgrace to the name.
You make my point for me, thank you.
No I don't because I am not a ukip supporter. I am merely a voter who has watched Cameron renege on every reason I voted for him in 2010 and now with his latest idiocy has actually pushed me into the situation where I would vote labour to keep this dangerous idiot from power.
Hmm.... Dangerous idiot's appear to repel you and yet..... you want Eds x2 in power.
Logic Jim, but not as we know it.
Cameron has said he will introduce that encryption bill in 2016 if reelected. It would do more damage to this country and the people within it than 30 years solid of labour governments. Labour will only make us bankrupt. Camerons bill would put everyone of us at risk by every malcontent on the planet with access to a computer and malicious intent.
Driving home last night, I mistakenly put on 5 Live after Question Time.... some genius phoned up to say when you have a household budget deficit you either get more income in or you start budgeting, his view was - obviously you just get more income in.
but the problem was all the big parties want to get the deficit down by taxing just those on benefits (??) and who have no money and what we really needed to do was tax the billionaires, multi millionaires. bankers and even some of the footballers.
I don't think it was Chris Leslie or even Harry Enfield.
Funny enough, I didn't welcome the defection of either Carswell or Reckless (though good riddance to Hamilton and Helmer). I'd rather they stayed and there's room in the Tory coalition for both. But I would not give any ground to have them back.
Oh, I think we should offer them something, and something substantial - an EU referendum by the end of 2017, for example.
You often put this case Richard, so let me answer it. You at least engage with us "defectors" as if we're people, rather than something you scrape off your shoe, and I respect you for that.
Indeed, that is one of the reasons I might vote Conservative in a marginal, depending on whether the candidate was a BOO'er or not.
To explain my logic: If Cameron had achieved substantial reforms and EU concessions, I would not have defected. I would also care much less (if it all) if my Conservative candidate was a BOO'er. Either an "in" or "out" result would broadly satisfy me either way.
Without any substantial concessions, the current situation, I have to weigh up which side of the referendum my potential MP would be on in an in/out vote, and cast my vote accordingly. That might lead me to pick UKIP over a Conservative candidate fighting a Labour candidate in a marginal, in a situation where both were pro-EU europhiles.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons - over which I'd have had no real choice in its make-up on that issue - leading an "in" campaign, and winning it on the back of a false prospectus, thereby closing the issue down for 20 years.
Does anyone actually believe that there is the chance to achieve a substantial renegotiation package? All of the noise coming from various EU member states indicates otherwise. It is quite telling DC keeps changing what he is aiming for in terms of EU immigration, one minute its a cap, the next minutes its an emergency brake, the next nothing.
The diehard Tories on here seem to, anyone else with a semblance of a brain cell doesn't.
Berlin: The German authorities overnight raids against Jihadist cell were in relation to specific plots to hit public transport locations in two cities.
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
Do as Danny Baker says in his excellent book, knock the stuff out.
I'm far too much of a sensible chapel going Victorian to spend all my money every month. I was thinking Switzerland.
I don't blame anyone but the Conservative leadership for my reluctant defection.
Labour will be laughing all the way to the ballot box, and for several elections in a row.
Richard, thanks for responding respectfully. Again, you set the bar.
I have been very critical of David Cameron's leadership. That is because I feel so sorely disappointed in his record and achievements. I feel particularly let down as not only did I vote for him in 2005, I also argued round a couple of Tory PPCs who were David Davis supporters, who in turn (told me) they convinced two sitting Tory MPs. So I feel an acute sense of betrayal.
I don't believe his pledges on immigration or Europe are fictitious. Indeed, they are in black and white. I quote from the 2010 Conservative manifesto:
Europe: "The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK."
Immigration: "We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by British citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands"
I understand the Conservatives did not win an outright majority. However, both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are Conservatives (and have been throughout their entire term of office) so I do hold them accountable for their failings on this. They got almost all of that into the coalition agreement anyway. I also hold the Conservative leadership accountable for failing to win a majority last time, in almost ideal electoral conditions, thus leading to this problem in the first place.
I posted the other day where I did give Conservatives credit (education, tax, pensions, science, jobs and transport, to name a few) but not on immigration, Europe, or civil liberties. Or leading a change in the country's prevailing social culture towards the Conservative cause. Unfortunately, these issues mean a huge amount to me, because they relate to the fundamental sort of Britain in which I want to live.
I understand your frustrations over our schism, and share it. However, I fear the only way to resolve it now on the centre-right is through a change in the voting system. Too many Conservatives demonstrate here they feel entitlement to my vote, and with that attitude, whilst we have FPTP, means I think they'll never win again with it after 2015.
Berlin: The German authorities overnight raids against Jihadist cell were in relation to specific plots to hit public transport locations in two cities.
Very particular information.
Y0kel, are you aware of 'Operation Gladio', and if so what are your thoughts?
"The Tories have been accused of attempting split Labour's vote after an MP urged a constituent to back the Green Party.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
Funny enough, I didn't welcome the defection of either Carswell or Reckless (though good riddance to Hamilton and Helmer). I'd rather they stayed and there's room in the Tory coalition for both. But I would not give any ground to have them back.
Oh, I think we should offer them something, and something substantial - an EU referendum by the end of 2017, for example.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons - over which I'd have had no real choice in its make-up on that issue - leading an "in" campaign, and winning it on the back of a false prospectus, thereby closing the issue down for 20 years.
Does anyone actually believe that there is the chance to achieve a substantial renegotiation package? All of the noise coming from various EU member states indicates otherwise. It is quite telling DC keeps changing what he is aiming for in terms of EU immigration, one minute its a cap, the next minutes its an emergency brake, the next nothing.
Well, quite. That's the problem, and it's why I have such trouble trusting and respecting him.
If there isn't any hope, he should say so. He should say he had some red-lines, but they've been crossed, and the EU isn't serious about renegotiating the UK's membership. He would then have a choice of abandoning the negotiations, and saying he'd now recommend an "Out" vote, or he could come clean and state that believes our future lies in the EU *even if* it remains largely unreformed, because he believes its in our national interest. He could put his leadership to the vote on either basis. Or he could resign.
I'd respect him for any of those. What isn't acceptable is trying to convince us that the ever diminishing set of concessions he's banking is what he's been angling for all along.
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
Do as Danny Baker says in his excellent book, knock the stuff out.
I'm far too much of a sensible chapel going Victorian to spend all my money every month. I was thinking Switzerland.
Bet you wish you'd acted on that thought last week.
I don't see that Swiss cybermoney is safer than any other kind. The ultimate tinfoil fear is that the NSA broke public key cryptography yonks ago and have now decided to stop pretending otherwise. (Hence the spate of new intelligence on terrorism - see how it all fits together?) So the internet is basically entirely unencrypted for all practical purposes.
Not sure if you can still get paper share certificates, so physical commodities may be your only option. Gold is handiest, Brent crude a good contrarian play but presents storage problems.
The Belgian terror raid took place just 11.5 miles from the German border. Whether this will encourage larger numbers of people to join the marches in Germany will be interesting.
"The Tories have been accused of attempting split Labour's vote after an MP urged a constituent to back the Green Party.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
Do as Danny Baker says in his excellent book, knock the stuff out.
I'm far too much of a sensible chapel going Victorian to spend all my money every month. I was thinking Switzerland.
Bet you wish you'd acted on that thought last week.
I don't see that Swiss cybermoney is safer than any other kind. The ultimate tinfoil fear is that the NSA broke public key cryptography yonks ago and have now decided to stop pretending otherwise. (Hence the spate of new intelligence on terrorism - see how it all fits together?) So the internet is basically entirely unencrypted for all practical purposes.
Not sure if you can still get paper share certificates, so physical commodities may be your only option. Gold is handiest, Brent crude a good contrarian play but presents storage problems.
Tesco still issue paper share certs. (Not that they're such a great thing to own these days)
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons -
Er, you do realise a Labour majority IS a largely pro-EU House of Commons, right?
Carnyx That Panelbase poll also astonishingly shows a narrow majority of SNP voters back an EU exit, Out ahead by 4%, along with Scottish Tories, out ahead by 22%, and presumably UKIP. Scottish Labour voters want to stay in the EU by 15%, Scottish LDs by 49% http://wingsoverscotland.com/dividing-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-1951349
It is interesting - and very unusual (especially when compared with previous polling from the same source). I'd like to see another poll, as this is so against several polls I the past.
An hour or 2 ago I wrote on here about the problem for Labour from the Unite-PCS merger. Now we have a new article from inside Labour. http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/01/16/unite-pcs-merger-back-on-unite-exit-from-labour-draws-nearer/#more-19210 "The ground is already being prepared within Unite by SP operatives for disaffiliation." one pb poster questioned why i thought they might switch to the SNP. "union insiders briefing the Scottish Daily Mail on the prospect of the union backing some SNP candidates at the Holyrood elections in 2016." "In terms of Labour’s long term future, the Unite-PCS merger, rather than the general election, could be the most consequential act of 2015." After all. Its only Labour's biggest donor.
Carnyx That Panelbase poll also astonishingly shows a narrow majority of SNP voters back an EU exit, Out ahead by 4%, along with Scottish Tories, out ahead by 22%, and presumably UKIP. Scottish Labour voters want to stay in the EU by 15%, Scottish LDs by 49% http://wingsoverscotland.com/dividing-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-1951349
It is interesting - and very unusual (especially when compared with previous polling from the same source). I'd like to see another poll, as this is so against several polls I the past.
PS>Sorry I wasn't thinking. The previous polls were for the population as a whole AFAIK - or at least that is the bit I remember.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons -
Er, you do realise a Labour majority IS a largely pro-EU House of Commons, right?
Vote Kipper for Ed...
You obviously don't understand my post: it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
Or perhaps you do understand it, but you just want an excuse to parrot the Tory line on the 'consequences' of voting UKIP.
There have been rumours in the tinfoil hat world for some time that we were being softened up for basically a huge cyber swindle by the US, by a steady feed of 'cyber attack' scares blamed on the boogeyman of the day -2011/12 there was lots about Irans 'cyber army', there are now reports of hacking danger from Russia and China (and of course North Korea!) It will surprise you to learn that I dismiss the vast majority of what I read as fanciful -in this case not because I think for a minute that the US wouldn't want to ingest my humble savings, but more because I can't see how they could ever have the balls to do it and brazen it out.
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
Do as Danny Baker says in his excellent book, knock the stuff out.
I'm far too much of a sensible chapel going Victorian to spend all my money every month. I was thinking Switzerland.
Bet you wish you'd acted on that thought last week.
I don't see that Swiss cybermoney is safer than any other kind. The ultimate tinfoil fear is that the NSA broke public key cryptography yonks ago and have now decided to stop pretending otherwise. (Hence the spate of new intelligence on terrorism - see how it all fits together?) So the internet is basically entirely unencrypted for all practical purposes.
Not sure if you can still get paper share certificates, so physical commodities may be your only option. Gold is handiest, Brent crude a good contrarian play but presents storage problems.
Talking of tinfoil hats, John Stingemore was found dead recently just before a trial that may have exposed paedophilia among the elite. This poxy iPad won't let me post a link but Google it, coincidence or more sinister?
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
"The Tories have been accused of attempting split Labour's vote after an MP urged a constituent to back the Green Party.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
It isn't just front pages of largely unfunny magazines that the mainstream media are censoring...
"The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.
There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out."
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Sorry, I can't help you if you lack the intelligence to understand my posts.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Tell me oh wise one, who should I vote for? A leader that will impose a three line whip on his Ministers to stop them campaigning for out, despite the fact the whole of Europe knows he can't get any concessions from negotiation, or a party that genuinely wants us out?
Tell me oh wise one, who should I vote for? A leader that will impose a three line whip on his Ministers to stop them campaigning for out, despite the fact the whole of Europe knows he can't get any concessions from negotiation, or a party that genuinely wants us out?
You are going to get a leader who doesn't need to impose a 3 line whip because he won't have a vote, he will sign anything put in front of him.
The kippers faith in Miliband just baffles me.
He is the most Europhile candidate on the ballot. There is no practical limit to the amount of Europe he can sign us up to, without a vote.
And all the while the Kippers will froth and fume about the mess they inflicted.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
This Parliament we have had: Eastleigh -Tory party splits the 'right wing' vote allowing Lib Dems to retain their seat. Claction -Tory party splits the right wing vote again, failing to prevent the Carswell retaining his seat. Rochester -Tory party once again splits the right wing vote, running a grotty little campaign against Mark Reckless (kitchen sink et al).
Vote Tory get Labour or Lib Dem. Never a hint of tactical voting in favour of the UKIP candidate -perish the thought. Yet UKIP supporters are expected to down sticks and vote for Cameron of all people. You can only laugh.
"The Tories have been accused of attempting split Labour's vote after an MP urged a constituent to back the Green Party.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
Why do you presume it would be a free vote? If it is in the manifesto, I'd have though it would be a three line whip. If he isn't "cast iron" Cam now, he would be if the vote failed because it was a free vote.
A very grumpy Kevin Maguire on Sky Review suggesting that Cameron is a lucky PM. The comment and his demeanour makes me think he thinks Labour will lose in May.
Tell me oh wise one, who should I vote for? A leader that will impose a three line whip on his Ministers to stop them campaigning for out, despite the fact the whole of Europe knows he can't get any concessions from negotiation, or a party that genuinely wants us out?
You are going to get a leader who doesn't need to impose a 3 line whip because he won't have a vote, he will sign anything put in front of him.
The kippers faith in Miliband just baffles me.
He is the most Europhile candidate on the ballot. There is no practical limit to the amount of Europe he can sign us up to, without a vote.
And all the while the Kippers will froth and fume about the mess they inflicted.
Cameron signs everything they put in front of him, in case it passed you by we have just lost another case in the EU, this time over paying benefits to Turkish migrants.
Cameron or Miliband makes no difference to me, neither have any intention of taking us out of Europe, only gullible Tories think otherwise.
And if Miliband does get in it will destroy Socialism for a generation, so at least there is an upside.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
A very grumpy Kevin Maguire on Sky Review suggesting that Cameron is a lucky PM. The comment and his demeanour makes me think he thinks Labour will lose in May.
Despite his attempts to be a "fun guy", Kev gets grumpy at a lot of things, but his outlet is of course the poshos Cameron and Osborne...before heading back to his own posh life and knobbing about with equally posh types.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
That's your choice. However much you hate Cameron...
Who will do what? Swell the deficit? Destroy our armed services? Kowtow to Europe? Throw pointless arbitrary billions at overseas aid? Let all and sundry into our rainy haven? Pour money into the NHS without meaningful reform?
Short of embarrassing gurning on State occasions, I can't see how much will change.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
Why do you presume it would be a free vote? If it is in the manifesto, I'd have though it would be a three line whip. If he isn't "cast iron" Cam now, he would be if the vote failed because it was a free vote.
You may be right. However, the following seems to suggest that it would be a free vote in parliament:
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
3+ of the curent LD MPs are eurosceptic. 10+ Labour MPs are eurosceptic. Add in 5+ from the NI MPs and then the few europhile MPs "brave" enough to vote against a referendum and get automatic deselection..... Not a problem.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
Why do you presume it would be a free vote? If it is in the manifesto, I'd have though it would be a three line whip. If he isn't "cast iron" Cam now, he would be if the vote failed because it was a free vote.
You may be right. However, the following seems to suggest that it would be a free vote in parliament:
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
That article is a little confusing. It says that it'll be a "free vote in Parliament", but it reads as though he is talking about the referendum vote itself.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
This is of course where the Conservatives' real problems will begin. Just as Wilson tried to in 1975, Cameron will have to preside over the sight of seeing Tories arguing against each other publicly and all that will do is create the impression (accurately) that the Conservative Party is split from stem to stern.
The 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to schism in Labour as you had the likes of Roy Jenkins and Peter Shore on opposing sides of the argument. Wilson tried benevolent neutrality but had the knowledge he wasn't going to be around to see the consequences at least in terms of being Prime Minister.
The legacy of a 2017 Referendum (whatever the result) is going to bedevil the remainder of the Cameron administration and ensure a divided Tory Party goes down to defeat in 2020. Major saw the consequences of Conservative division - Cameron, in his attempt to hold the Party together in the face of the rise of UKIP, has simply bought himself some time.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
Why do you presume it would be a free vote? If it is in the manifesto, I'd have though it would be a three line whip. If he isn't "cast iron" Cam now, he would be if the vote failed because it was a free vote.
You may be right. However, the following seems to suggest that it would be a free vote in parliament:
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
I don't understand that. "This morning, [Osborne] told the BBC's Today programme that a vote on Britain’s EU membership would be a “free vote” in parliament. He conceded that Tory MPs who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union would be free to do so, and to vote Out." The vote on EU membership will be by secret ballot in a referendum, not a vote in parliament. There's no doubt, though, that the commitment to have a referendum will be whipped government policy.
"The Tories have been accused of attempting split Labour's vote after an MP urged a constituent to back the Green Party.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
Not sure why that merits an "accusation". Sounds fair enough to me.
Quite. Shows some self awareness to not both to try to convince such a person that they should vote Tory. And surely parties are always attempting to split their opponent's vote - even a change in how they attempt that would not be news.
. Even if you ignore the fact that it requires everything to fall in place in a neat pattern which ignores the messy realities, it also ignores the fact that the two parties will have been squabbling and tearing chunks out of each other. The chance of playing happy families again is negligible.
Labour will be laughing all the way to the ballot box, and for several elections in a row.
While increasing numbers of UKIP are not former Tories who would want to play happy families with them again at some point, it has been the case in the past, though it seems like, even now, the people deluding themselves that the two will come together and work together so well are on the Tory side, as it still seems like too many Tories dislike Cameron so much that they want him and his ilk to lose and lose big, so the party can unite with UKIP and the country will suddenly line up behind them. That UKIP in particular show no sign of wanting such an arrangement anymore, and their strategies seem designed to prevent it in future, doesn't seem to have occurred.
it would also be so if I returned a Tory candidate, who was not a BOO'er, in circumstances where I knew a Tory victory would lead to an EU referendum on an almost entirely unreformed EU.
So given the opportunity of a vote on the existing EU, which you and all other kippers hate, which is so self evidently the root of all evil, you choose the option of tighter integration and no vote.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
Would the Conservatives even be capable of getting an EU referendum through parliament? It would presumably be a free vote and if several dozen Tory MPs vote against it then with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP you can be sure it will fail. They would need a significant majority to be sure of getting the referendum through parliament, something which they have not achieved for 20 years.
I don't think "several dozen" would vote against, but some would. Look, it's not what the party leadership want. If they can get off the hook they will.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
In truth I'm staggered at your hyper-sensitivity and the rapidity and extent with which you take personal affront. If your voting choice is going to be determined by a hardly robust expression of disagreement on an internet forum, well, what can I say?
And you HAVE defected. I dislike UKIP and most of what it stands for. It is not somehow my centre-right cousin and can we all be friends again someday. It may be to some, but not to me. I am a creature of the slightly pinkish centre right. Always have in 40 years of Tory activism, always will be. Naturally, I would like to win back many of its current supporters who are currently using it as a NOTA protest vehicle but the idea of winning back the likes of Fararge or Neil Hamilton or the dominant Monday Club tendency is one I personally will have no truck.
I have only voted Tory in one GE, in 2010, in large part because of David Cameron's enlightened social policies. At least on me the detox worked.
Losing Hamilton, Helmer, Reckless etc has improved the party further as far as I am concerned.
But, not so far as the voters are concerned. The Conservatives still have the third or so of the voters they've had since 1993. Fortunately, Labour have fallen back over the period, too.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
So in 2005 you (like me and the party as a whole) learned the lessons of 2001 and 2005. The difference between us is that you seemed to have forgotten them all over again. Or, more likely, over the last ten years you have gravitated steadily and remorselessly to the right as is evident in your postings. That is entirely your prerogative and now you feel rather more at home in UKIP (whose leadership is ideologically essentially the Monday Club of yore).
Of course I'd rather you stayed and argued your case within: we remain a broad coalition. But you have made your choice to leave and hence don't ask or expect the rest of us (yes, TSE, Scrapheap, Richard N, Fitalass and several others on this Board to abandon mainstream Conservativism and join you on the fringe.
William Hill have now put up prices for quite a lot of Scottish constituencies.
I've put up quite enough posts on Scotland recently and don't intend putting up another in the near future, but I thought others might find this useful.
I think that there are still some bargains here. The SNP are second favourites in the bulk of these seats, in stark contrast to what you would expect from their current poll ratings.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
The LDs apparently made the same demand last time of Labour, however seriously, as it was widely reported; I merely meant that that being the case, it would be sound and reasonable for Labour to make a similar demand this time. They might well not agree - and in any case I don't believe the situation will arise - but with the LDs definitely losing many seats regardless, Clegg will be forced out soon enough as it is, and however falsely could easily claim in his forcing out that it was to allow a new leader to lead the new era, or some other pablum, and that new leader (interim) could cut a deal with Labour.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
The LDs apparently made the same demand last time of Labour, however seriously, as it was widely reported; I merely meant that that being the case, it would be sound and reasonable for Labour to make a similar demand this time. They might well not agree - and in any case I don't believe the situation will arise - but with the LDs definitely losing many seats regardless, Clegg will be forced out soon enough as it is, and however falsely could easily claim in his forcing out that it was to allow a new leader to lead the new era, or some other pablum, and that new leader (interim) could cut a deal with Labour.
The two are not symmetrical.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
The SNP are second favourites in the bulk of these seats, in stark contrast to what you would expect from their current poll ratings.
Even when poll ratings increase so massively as to make it seem at times highly probable they will seize many dozens of seats, it is surely such an unusual situation, particularly with our voting system, that many will hedge their beds and assume such a massive shift surely cannot happen, akin to a revolution even.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
The LDs adeal with Labour.
The two are not symmetrical.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
I shouldn't think too many in the LD leadership would shed much of a tear at the demand, they are professional enough. Even assuming the do not in anyway dislike Clegg or his politics, even if they support them wholeheartedly, Clegg surely cannot take the party any further at this point and they know that. His going at some stage is inevitable surely, and if the leadership felt it was in the best interests of the party (and that the party could be made to agree with that assessment) to cut a deal with Labour and Clegg was the stumbling block? Convincing him to 'stand aside' for the sake of the party, after which a deal of some sort could be forged I can conceive of happening. The LDs know the political game too, sp even if they aren't yearning to ditch Clegg, and would be affronted at the demand, if the gain were enough they'd consider it I am sure.
Now, I don't think they would want to enter into such a deal, and I think it unlikely Labour could offer something suitable enough for them to acquiesce to the demand, but the fundamentals of a doing a deal mean it is possible at least, and thus sending out feelers that Clegg's head would be the price is not unreasonable as a contingency plan.
As it is, I think Labour should get their majority, dependent on performance in Scotland naturally, so the LDs will dispose of Clegg under their own terms I suspect.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
I shouldn't think too many in the LD leadership would shed much of a tear at the demand, they are professional enough. Even assuming the do not in anyway dislike Clegg or his politics, even if they support them wholeheartedly, Clegg surely cannot take the party any further at this point and they know that. His going at some stage is inevitable surely, and if the leadership felt it was in the best interests of the party (and that the party could be made to agree with that assessment) to cut a deal with Labour and Clegg was the stumbling block? Convincing him to 'stand aside' for the sake of the party, after which a deal of some sort could be forged I can conceive of happening. The LDs know the political game too, sp even if they aren't yearning to ditch Clegg, and would be affronted at the demand, if the gain were enough they'd consider it I am sure.
Now, I don't think they would want to enter into such a deal, and I think it unlikely Labour could offer something suitable enough for them to acquiesce to the demand, but the fundamentals of a doing a deal mean it is possible at least, and thus sending out feelers that Clegg's head would be the price is not unreasonable as a contingency plan.
As it is, I think Labour should get their majority, dependent on performance in Scotland naturally, so the LDs will dispose of Clegg under their own terms I suspect.
The Lib Dems may indeed use it as an excuse to get rid of Nick Clegg. But if they wanted to stand firm on the point, they could. What's Labour going to do if the Lib Dems refuse to ditch him? Pout?
The argument about reforming the NHS is interesting, but like all things, once you start working through the details it becomes questionable if it is possible, or even if anyone would want it to happen.
The NHS is a general mixture for many reasons, the main one being that if there was a major emergency, then no matter what or where it was, the system would be able to cope after a fashion. Won't be absolutely perfect but it will work.
People want facilities close to where they live, unfortunately, no one can predict what will happen in the future to themselves, family members or the community.
Let me suggest a possible reform as an example, a cross channel ferry collides with a cruise ship off Dover. All the trained SAR and medical facilities are in Aberdeen. I think anyone would believe that it was a bloody stupid decision but logically having all the facilities close to the oil fields, where history and danger to the economy to the UK of a major accident, made sense at one time. Won't help the people in the ships or if sod's law occurs and there is an explosion on a rig at the same time, won't help them. The medic/SAR team would be on it's way south.
On the other hand, having trained people available in Dover and facilities in Kent, while having similar in Aberdeen, Hull, Newcastle, Portsmouth etc, etc, etc. means that you are more than duplicating your costs and facilities, but, who, in their right minds is going to suggest cutting down.
And these people are cross trained in many other areas so that while they wait for the problem that they hope will never happen, they work their backsides off keeping patients alive.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Are you seriously of the opinion that the British people should not be allowed a referendum?
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Had a second call today from British Gas wishing to install a new smart meter. I don't want one in the house and told them so. They then on the call explicitly stated that from next year they are mandatory due to a change in the law and although they will remove me from the appointments list "for now" they will be " back next year when you have to have one" very threatening. That is an outright lie they are not compulsory and common advice from trusted sources is not to have one.
I have now placed notices on my external meters warning them off and I will be changing suppliers at earliest opportunity. I am also complaining to BG and the ombudsman about the threatening phone call.
Do your own research but these meters have known health issues, the requirements not resolved as yet and most certainly analogue are still useable. They will come out with many dirty tricks to get you to change but just be aware they monitor a wide range of energy uses while being hugely expensive and the costs passed onto the consumer.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Yeah, but this Labour party has repudiated the New Labour agenda, and listens to the unions much more.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
You do of course make a good point. It would in effect be a case of demanding that you 'become' us rather than 'support'. An agreement based on giving up before you even start would certainly be the end of the LDs.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
We could be looking forward to a decade of him from May 2015, whilst squabbling Tories knock each other about with baseball bats, and an irrelevant handful of Kipper MP's squeak like mice for a referendum, and are ignored.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
No
There is a difference between not wanting the referendum in 2017 and getting Miliband.
I don't like my shoes so I will chop my legs off...
I was trying to explain, not endorse, the rational kipper's outlook. I agree that from a domestic point of view (and hence, overall) Miliband will be a disaster. But if you focus purely on our relations with the EU, I wouldn't expect him to do anything in the next five years as disastrous, from the ukip pov, as getting an in result in an in/out referendum
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
Risible
The nurse will be along in a moment to change your bedpan, and give you a nice cup of tea.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
I shouldn't think too many in the LD leadership would shed much of a tear at the demand, they are professional enough. Even assuming the do not in anyway dislike Clegg or his politics, even if they support them wholeheartedly, Clegg surely cannot take the party any further at this point and they know that. His going at some stage is inevitable surely, and if the leadership felt it was in the best interests of the party (and that the party could be made to agree with that assessment) to cut a deal with Labour and Clegg was the stumbling block? Convincing him to 'stand aside' for the sake of the party, after which a deal of some sort could be forged I can conceive of happening. The LDs know the political game too, sp even if they aren't yearning to ditch Clegg, and would be affronted at the demand, if the gain were enough they'd consider it I am sure.
Now, I don't think they would want to enter into such a deal, and I think it unlikely Labour could offer something suitable enough for them to acquiesce to the demand, but the fundamentals of a doing a deal mean it is possible at least, and thus sending out feelers that Clegg's head would be the price is not unreasonable as a contingency plan.
As it is, I think Labour should get their majority, dependent on performance in Scotland naturally, so the LDs will dispose of Clegg under their own terms I suspect.
The Lib Dems may indeed use it as an excuse to get rid of Nick Clegg. But if they wanted to stand firm on the point, they could. What's Labour going to do if the Lib Dems refuse to ditch him? Pout?
A fair point. They would have to be desperate to need a LD alliance anyway, at which point making demands would be harder
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
The rise of the right in Europe would suggest otherwise.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Less Xenophobia,don't make me laugh,labour brought they political baby to the fore = BNP
Rolling back NHS privatisation,you saying none happened under labour,plus when labour cut the NHS budget,don't come on here complaining.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Yeah, but this Labour party has repudiated the New Labour agenda, and listens to the unions much more.
What was it that was in Room 101 that persuaded you to this eminently sensible view. :-)
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Labour privatised 5% of the NHs - the Coalition 1%. Maybe you should reconsider.
Yeah, but this Labour party has repudiated the New Labour agenda, and listens to the unions much more.
That's a good thing? And the people at the forefront of Labour now are the same as when they were in power, minus Brown but including the first politician to privatize the NHS, and he is the shadow Health Minister.
The BBC news tonight highlighted the failings in A & E in Wales which is run by labour and is much worse than England then went on to highlight Nick Robinson reporting on the Presidents warm words on his friendship with David Cameron and his complimentary comments on the way the UK economy was performing. Maybe this will surprise many on this forum.
Crick on C4 news wondering how Labour could form a coalition with LDs, if Clegg went. Could be possible but would there be too much bad blood over the decapitation strategy?
When in 2010 the coalition was being negotiated it was widely said that a requirement from the LDs to any deal with Labour was Brown standing down as Lab Leader. So Lab removing Clegg evens things out.
Seems sound. Even though I personally think in the unlikely situation that the LDs could be critical to propping up a Labour administration they would not want to do so - too busy licking their wounds and attempting to discover themselves again - Labour demanding Clegg's head seems like a fair demand in the circumstances.
It's silly. "We make it a condition of you supporting us that you get rid of your leader"? Run that one by me again?
The LDs apparently made the same demand last time of Labour, however seriously, as it was widely reported; I merely meant that that being the case, it would be sound and reasonable for Labour to make a similar demand this time. They might well not agree - and in any case I don't believe the situation will arise - but with the LDs definitely losing many seats regardless, Clegg will be forced out soon enough as it is, and however falsely could easily claim in his forcing out that it was to allow a new leader to lead the new era, or some other pablum, and that new leader (interim) could cut a deal with Labour.
The two are not symmetrical.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
There's also the difference that the LDs are not providing the PM. Arguably, the reported stance last time was that the LDs could not serve under Brown as PM (cf Labour in WWII and Chamberlain). His role as Labour leader would have been coincidental (albeit rather heavily related, of course); the important issue was the PM role as leader of the Government of which they'd be part.
It seems to me the problem is this: an in/out referendum in 2017 is bound to fail (from the Ukip perspective). This is first because of inertia and the tendency of referendums to support the status quo. Secondly, the renegotiation we will be voting on will have as its sole purpose making things nicer for the UK -it has no other reason to exist. Conversely if we wait for a referendum on the next proper EU wide treaty proposed by the EU itself (the next Lisbon) inertia will consist of saying "let's not sign up to the new treaty" and the terms will not be sugar-coated for the UK but will include all sorts of horrors about ever-closer union, and a refusal to sign up and consequent brexit is a genuine possibility. Therefore it is rational for Ukip not to want the 2017 referendum (and I'm not sure why they can't admit this).
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
I am increasingly inclined to a Miliband government myself.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
Less Xenophobia,don't make me laugh,labour brought they political baby to the fore = BNP
Rolling back NHS privatisation,you saying none happened under labour,plus when labour cut the NHS budget,don't come on here complaining.
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
Added to that he seems increasingly absorbed with trying to hold together his fractious party, to the extent that for some though they may like Cameron, they cannot be sure what policy or decision he will be forced into next when his MPs start riling up. If he cannot control them now, what chance would he have of doing so in a second term in a minority or another coalition government? (the chances of a Conservative majority I put so low as to discount the possibility, though the market disagrees).
Perhaps that is an unfair impression of his interactions with his own party, but it's the impression I get - that he does many things he has no real interest in, because he has no choice to keep the party on his side, in a more unpredictable fashion (beyond some obvious trigger areas) than his opponents. He seems to have more of his own MPs who viscerally oppose him than Miliband does, although it will be interesting to see if that dynamic changes once Miliband becomes PM.
I agree that from a domestic point of view (and hence, overall) Miliband will be a disaster. But if you focus purely on our relations with the EU, I wouldn't expect him to do anything in the next five years as disastrous, from the ukip pov, as getting an in result in an in/out referendum
That's the bit I don't get. I think there will be a new treaty in the next 5 years. Spain are already agitating for one. Greece may precipitate one next week.
Miliband would sign it, with bells on.
In what Universe is that not as bad as a free vote?
Comments
Personally I think the SNP's best chances in Labour seats are:
Ayrshire North and Arran
Falkirk
Ochil
Edinburgh E
Edinburgh N
Edinburgh W
Glasgow E
Glasgow C
Glasgow N
Dundee W (which they regularly just miss)
Dunbartonshire W
Stirling
Less chance in:
Kilmarnock
East Lothian
Livingston
Glasgow S
Glasgow SW
Aberdeen N
Aberdeen S
Cumbernauld
Inverclyde
A great deal in each seat will be determined by turnout. SNP voters tend to be more dedicated than SLAB ones. Some SLAB MPs have a high profile which can work in their favour. Equally the profile of some could lead to the loss of a seat e.g. Falkirk where Joyce is still seen by many as the Labour MP even though he has resigned/been chucked out the party
So fast forward to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912526/PM-Obama-s-cyber-squad-tackle-hackers-Britain-set-joint-unit-protect-banks-aircraft-nuclear-plants-threat-online-attack.html#comments
Reading between the lines, the CIA being given access to everything for a practise 'hack'. Are they doing this with everyone? Aparently not -we're the first, as we're such close allies and all. This is the country that eviscerated BP and Standard Chartered with no mercy.
In conclusion, it would appear we must face up to the fact that whether a future attack is likely to come from North Korea (presumably they've been saving their Tesco computers for schools vouchers) or from the US itself, money being in the bank one minute and not there the next is now officially 'a thing'.
So where does a paranoid pber keep their money? Suggestions welcome.
We want a conservative party that believes in a smaller state not merely one that believes in an ever so slightly smaller state
We want a conservative party that believes in civil liberties not one that makes announcements about reading everyone's damn emails and waffles on about banning encryption or building backdoors in it.
The current conservative party is frankly a disgrace to the name.
Indeed, that is one of the reasons I might vote Conservative in a marginal, depending on whether the candidate was a BOO'er or not.
To explain my logic: If Cameron had achieved substantial reforms and EU concessions, I would not have defected. I would also care much less (if it all) if my Conservative candidate was a BOO'er. Either an "in" or "out" result would broadly satisfy me either way.
Without any substantial concessions, the current situation, I have to weigh up which side of the referendum my potential MP would be on in an in/out vote, and cast my vote accordingly. That might lead me to pick UKIP over a Conservative candidate fighting a Labour candidate in a marginal, in a situation where both were pro-EU europhiles.
Even if that led to a Labour victory in that marginal seat, and nationally, and no EU referendum, I would count that as a less bad outcome than a largely pro-EU House of Commons - over which I'd have had no real choice in its make-up on that issue - leading an "in" campaign, and winning it on the back of a false prospectus, thereby closing the issue down for 20 years.
'What has been seen in Belgium today is a fraction of what is going on in terms of suppression and interdiction activities by Western European agencies in the last 48 hours and will continue. In reality for Belgium its about time something direct has been done like this, the country has, in scale terms, a Jihadi issue as near as substantive and near as long standing as we do.
There does seem to be a race against time situation on. One country though seems to have escaped the Jihadist actions... Germany. It has plenty of them, has awful issues monitoring them. It is due trouble.'
Its notable that overnight that about a dozen locations were raided by the German authorities with several arrests of suspected Jihadists.
There hasn't been this much Pan European overt activity in recent history when you combine continuing searches and arrests in France, the Germans overnight and the Belgians at work yesterday.
The question is why now? Has there been a recent breakthrough in knowledge & information on plots and people (and the sharing of that) or is this a more shotgun interdiction approach of sweeping known suspects up in the hope of disrupting something that intelligence jigsaw makers say is coming but hasn't been fully defined?
Its the former. Hopefully more on what that is in a later post.
Logic Jim, but not as we know it.
http://may2015.com/featured/ukippers-are-likely-to-have-voted-tory-in-2010-but-labour-in-the-1990s/
Ukip voters are more likely to have voted Tory than Labour in 2010 – but more than half of them voted Labour in 1997.
but the problem was all the big parties want to get the deficit down by taxing just those on benefits (??) and who have no money and what we really needed to do was tax the billionaires, multi millionaires. bankers and even some of the footballers.
I don't think it was Chris Leslie or even Harry Enfield.
Very particular information.
I have been very critical of David Cameron's leadership. That is because I feel so sorely disappointed in his record and achievements. I feel particularly let down as not only did I vote for him in 2005, I also argued round a couple of Tory PPCs who were David Davis supporters, who in turn (told me) they convinced two sitting Tory MPs. So I feel an acute sense of betrayal.
I don't believe his pledges on immigration or Europe are fictitious. Indeed, they are in black and white. I quote from the 2010 Conservative manifesto:
Europe: "The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe
should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK."
Immigration: "We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by British citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands"
I understand the Conservatives did not win an outright majority. However, both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are Conservatives (and have been throughout their entire term of office) so I do hold them accountable for their failings on this. They got almost all of that into the coalition agreement anyway. I also hold the Conservative leadership accountable for failing to win a majority last time, in almost ideal electoral conditions, thus leading to this problem in the first place.
I posted the other day where I did give Conservatives credit (education, tax, pensions, science, jobs and transport, to name a few) but not on immigration, Europe, or civil liberties. Or leading a change in the country's prevailing social culture towards the Conservative cause. Unfortunately, these issues mean a huge amount to me, because they relate to the fundamental sort of Britain in which I want to live.
I understand your frustrations over our schism, and share it. However, I fear the only way to resolve it now on the centre-right is through a change in the voting system. Too many Conservatives demonstrate here they feel entitlement to my vote, and with that attitude, whilst we have FPTP, means I think they'll never win again with it after 2015.
Ed Miliband’s team fear an email from Jason McCartney, the Tory MP for Colne Valley, to a voter opposed to austerity, telling her the Green candidate who is the “only candidate who matches what you believe”, is evidence of a broader attempt to divide left-wing voters."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11349877/Is-this-evidence-of-a-Tory-plot-to-split-Labours-vote-MP-tells-voter-to-back-the-Greens.html
If there isn't any hope, he should say so. He should say he had some red-lines, but they've been crossed, and the EU isn't serious about renegotiating the UK's membership. He would then have a choice of abandoning the negotiations, and saying he'd now recommend an "Out" vote, or he could come clean and state that believes our future lies in the EU *even if* it remains largely unreformed, because he believes its in our national interest. He could put his leadership to the vote on either basis. Or he could resign.
I'd respect him for any of those. What isn't acceptable is trying to convince us that the ever diminishing set of concessions he's banking is what he's been angling for all along.
It's taking us for fools.
http://thepublandlord.com/tickets
Not much room for campaigning/promoting his act. Shame WH have cut the odds of his deposit being lost before I could get on board.
I don't see that Swiss cybermoney is safer than any other kind. The ultimate tinfoil fear is that the NSA broke public key cryptography yonks ago and have now decided to stop pretending otherwise. (Hence the spate of new intelligence on terrorism - see how it all fits together?) So the internet is basically entirely unencrypted for all practical purposes.
Not sure if you can still get paper share certificates, so physical commodities may be your only option. Gold is handiest, Brent crude a good contrarian play but presents storage problems.
Vote Kipper for Ed...
Now we have a new article from inside Labour.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/01/16/unite-pcs-merger-back-on-unite-exit-from-labour-draws-nearer/#more-19210
"The ground is already being prepared within Unite by SP operatives for disaffiliation."
one pb poster questioned why i thought they might switch to the SNP.
"union insiders briefing the Scottish Daily Mail on the prospect of the union backing some SNP candidates at the Holyrood elections in 2016."
"In terms of Labour’s long term future, the Unite-PCS merger, rather than the general election, could be the most consequential act of 2015."
After all. Its only Labour's biggest donor.
Or perhaps you do understand it, but you just want an excuse to parrot the Tory line on the 'consequences' of voting UKIP.
Vote kipper for the Euro...
It's a wonder how they think they'll win over anyone extra at all to vote for them who's not already declaring an intention to do so.
Perhaps they won't.
"The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.
There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9416542/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/
The whole piece is worth reading, as this is an example Murray uses of a important wider point.
The kippers faith in Miliband just baffles me.
He is the most Europhile candidate on the ballot. There is no practical limit to the amount of Europe he can sign us up to, without a vote.
And all the while the Kippers will froth and fume about the mess they inflicted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-30859552
Vote Tory get Labour or Lib Dem. Never a hint of tactical voting in favour of the UKIP candidate -perish the thought. Yet UKIP supporters are expected to down sticks and vote for Cameron of all people. You can only laugh.
That's your choice. However much you hate Cameron...
Cameron or Miliband makes no difference to me, neither have any intention of taking us out of Europe, only gullible Tories think otherwise.
And if Miliband does get in it will destroy Socialism for a generation, so at least there is an upside.
Short of embarrassing gurning on State occasions, I can't see how much will change.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/george-osborne-eu-referendum-would-be-free-vote-tory-backbenchers
Although it does seem to later suggest that MPs would be free to campaign for either an in/out vote which is not the same as a free vote in parliament.
10+ Labour MPs are eurosceptic.
Add in 5+ from the NI MPs and then the few europhile MPs "brave" enough to vote against a referendum and get automatic deselection.....
Not a problem.
The 1975 Referendum was a big step on the road to schism in Labour as you had the likes of Roy Jenkins and Peter Shore on opposing sides of the argument. Wilson tried benevolent neutrality but had the knowledge he wasn't going to be around to see the consequences at least in terms of being Prime Minister.
The legacy of a 2017 Referendum (whatever the result) is going to bedevil the remainder of the Cameron administration and ensure a divided Tory Party goes down to defeat in 2020. Major saw the consequences of Conservative division - Cameron, in his attempt to hold the Party together in the face of the rise of UKIP, has simply bought himself some time.
The only winners will indeed be Labour.
BBC News (UK) @BBCNews 8s9 seconds ago
Saturday's Daily Mail: "Labour's private hospital stitch-up" (via @suttonnick) #TomorrowsPapersToday #BBCPapers
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bygi8eZw-4q1Q1JhT0dtUEVRckk/view?usp=sharing
William Hill have now put up prices for quite a lot of Scottish constituencies.
I've put up quite enough posts on Scotland recently and don't intend putting up another in the near future, but I thought others might find this useful.
I think that there are still some bargains here. The SNP are second favourites in the bulk of these seats, in stark contrast to what you would expect from their current poll ratings.
"We demand X's head as a condition of supporting you" is a sensible demand.
"We demand Y's head as a condition of you supporting us" is silly.
Now, I don't think they would want to enter into such a deal, and I think it unlikely Labour could offer something suitable enough for them to acquiesce to the demand, but the fundamentals of a doing a deal mean it is possible at least, and thus sending out feelers that Clegg's head would be the price is not unreasonable as a contingency plan.
As it is, I think Labour should get their majority, dependent on performance in Scotland naturally, so the LDs will dispose of Clegg under their own terms I suspect.
The NHS is a general mixture for many reasons, the main one being that if there was a major emergency, then no matter what or where it was, the system would be able to cope after a fashion. Won't be absolutely perfect but it will work.
People want facilities close to where they live, unfortunately, no one can predict what will happen in the future to themselves, family members or the community.
Let me suggest a possible reform as an example, a cross channel ferry collides with a cruise ship off Dover. All the trained SAR and medical facilities are in Aberdeen. I think anyone would believe that it was a bloody stupid decision but logically having all the facilities close to the oil fields, where history and danger to the economy to the UK of a major accident, made sense at one time. Won't help the people in the ships or if sod's law occurs and there is an explosion on a rig at the same time, won't help them. The medic/SAR team would be on it's way south.
On the other hand, having trained people available in Dover and facilities in Kent, while having similar in Aberdeen, Hull, Newcastle, Portsmouth etc, etc, etc. means that you are more than duplicating your costs and facilities, but, who, in their right minds is going to suggest cutting down.
And these people are cross trained in many other areas so that while they wait for the problem that they hope will never happen, they work their backsides off keeping patients alive.
On top of that Cameron is genuinely untrustworthy, not in the sense that he is a slimy rat but that he doesn't think things through (hence no explicit qualification of the "cast-iron guarantee"), he panics and goes overboard (hence "the Vow" in the indyref).
That makes all this stuff about letting miliband in irrelevant. It is simply entirely rational for Ukip to desire that result.
Less Xenophobia, rolling back the NHS privatisation and no EU referendum. Not too bad at all.
There is a difference between not wanting the referendum in 2017 and getting Miliband.
I don't like my shoes so I will chop my legs off...
Had a second call today from British Gas wishing to install a new smart meter. I don't want one in the house and told them so. They then on the call explicitly stated that from next year they are mandatory due to a change in the law and although they will remove me from the appointments list "for now" they will be " back next year when you have to have one" very threatening. That is an outright lie they are not compulsory and common advice from trusted sources is not to have one.
I have now placed notices on my external meters warning them off and I will be changing suppliers at earliest opportunity. I am also complaining to BG and the ombudsman about the threatening phone call.
Do your own research but these meters have known health issues, the requirements not resolved as yet and most certainly analogue are still useable. They will come out with many dirty tricks to get you to change but just be aware they monitor a wide range of energy uses while being hugely expensive and the costs passed onto the consumer.
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/do-i-have-to-accept-a-smart-meter
http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/latest-british-gas-tactics-you-will-have-a-smart-meter/
http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/leaflets-please-circulate/
Just want people to be aware as I know a number of people I have spoken too since have no idea the can say no.
The political landscape in 2025 will certainly be interesting.
Rolling back NHS privatisation,you saying none happened under labour,plus when labour cut the NHS budget,don't come on here complaining.
No EU referendum,call yourself a liberal ?
Not forgetting Wales of course.
Arguably, the reported stance last time was that the LDs could not serve under Brown as PM (cf Labour in WWII and Chamberlain). His role as Labour leader would have been coincidental (albeit rather heavily related, of course); the important issue was the PM role as leader of the Government of which they'd be part.
Perhaps that is an unfair impression of his interactions with his own party, but it's the impression I get - that he does many things he has no real interest in, because he has no choice to keep the party on his side, in a more unpredictable fashion (beyond some obvious trigger areas) than his opponents. He seems to have more of his own MPs who viscerally oppose him than Miliband does, although it will be interesting to see if that dynamic changes once Miliband becomes PM.
They can only win " by a whisker"
Sorry no, Labour are going down to a catastrophic defeat. They just are.
Miliband would sign it, with bells on.
In what Universe is that not as bad as a free vote?