Mr. Me, indeed, but it's still pretty interesting.
Morris Dancer - scion of kings!
Will it gain you entrance to Buckingham Palace, though?
"Hello. I'm related to her indoors through our common great-great-great-great-...-great-grandfather, Edward III of England. I'm just popping round for tea and biscuits..."
Everyone who posts on here, whatever Party you support, should read Lord Ashcroft's commentary today - in particular all the stuff towards the bottom of his article re focus groups. Includes, eg:
"None of our participants had seen the rival posters launched by Labour and the Conservatives last week"
It's hard for people on here to digest just how little notice most people take of all the political goings on discussed on here.
Take a moment and fully digest that statement - NOBODY, not one single person in either focus group, had seen any of the posters (even on TV).
The error there, IMO, is that he has succeeded a government that changed a lot of things in a radical and unpatriotic way, and has decided not to change much back.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
I half-agree with him. I think he is right that Cameron is part of the mainstream Macmillan-style Conservative tradition of pragmatism (and indeed a certain patrician style of pragmatism), rather than ideological fervour. Basically it's about governing well in the real world, not trying to implement some political theory. However, in this case the net results have been quite radical, mainly because they had to be given the mess the country had got into.
And I am sure the Barber surgeons hacked people's legs off very well in the real world until Lister invented antiseptic surgery. Even accepting your point that Cameron is a safe pair of hands (which I don't), the economy is a housing bubble, national debt is off the scale, our defence is a shell, we are trapped within a restrictive moribund customs union with dangerous ambitions for statehood, we're joining the US in every adventure despite having only a fig leaf of an army, and the world looks like its circling the plughole to another world war. We needed an *exceptional* leader. We got a self-satisfied lardbucket.
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome. Immigration has to be a part of that - they've done a lot of the possible tightening on non-EU immigration, but - if they want to address it seriously - need to look at it at a European level. Even then - unless we exit - it's most likely to be welfare reform rather than direct restrictions.
But you're not "having a go". Out of the 14 big reforms suggested by the Fresh Start group, only 3 are being pushed by the Tories. And two of those three have only had partial reforms suggested. From the start, the government hasn't even mentioned the CAP - once a primary aim of British change in the EU - because it doesn't want the fight. Fisheries? Also not mentioned. The Common External Tariff, which puts us a long way behind Norway and Switzerland in our ability to reach out to the wider world, has also gone unmentioned.
And then there's immigration. A few months ago No 10 suggested we could push for a points system for EU immigration, or at the least, an emergency brake. The points system then stopped being mentioned, and the emergency brake was pushed. People were wondering whether it would be a weak measure, given that it could easily be set very high. But then the emergency brake was dropped too. Cameron retreated to just pushing for non-working migrants to be stopped, on the basis that that was still consistent with free movement of labour. But now that's been dropped too, and so absolutely no-one from the EU will be stopped from coming here if they so wish.
This is "having a go"? You can't claim that honestly.
The error there, IMO, is that he has succeeded a government that changed a lot of things in a radical and unpatriotic way, and has decided not to change much back.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
I half-agree with him. I think he is right that Cameron is part of the mainstream Macmillan-style Conservative tradition of pragmatism (and indeed a certain patrician style of pragmatism), rather than ideological fervour. Basically it's about governing well in the real world, not trying to implement some political theory. However, in this case the net results have been quite radical, mainly because they had to be given the mess the country had got into.
And I am sure the Barber surgeons hacked people's legs off very well in the real world until Lister invented antiseptic surgery. Even accepting your point that Cameron is a safe pair of hands (which I don't), the economy is a housing bubble, national debt is off the scale, our defence is a shell, we are trapped within a restrictive moribund customs union with dangerous ambitions for statehood, we're joining the US in every adventure despite having only a fig leaf of an army, and the world looks like its circling the plughole to another world war. We needed an *exceptional* leader. We got a self-satisfied lardbucket.
Don't worry, be happy. Points 1 and 2 are for the Chancellor, no one's going to invade us and the less of an army we have the less our involvement in US foreign ventures will become, we can't do much about the upcoming world war and I think we've gone over the customs union stuff enough today but no one could be exceptional enough to unite the tory party on that issue. I'd rather a lardbucket than a messianic numpty.
On immigration, yes it is disappointing that the progress has been less rapid than expected (although there is progress, albeit partially reversed in the most recent figures).
No, there hasn't been progress. Net immigration is currently higher than when Cameron came into office. That's regress, not progress. I don't know who you're trying to fool.
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome. Immigration has to be a part of that - they've done a lot of the possible tightening on non-EU immigration, but - if they want to address it seriously - need to look at it at a European level. Even then - unless we exit - it's most likely to be welfare reform rather than direct restrictions.
But you're not "having a go". Out of the 14 big reforms suggested by the Fresh Start group, only 3 are being pushed by the Tories. And two of those three have only had partial reforms suggested. From the start, the government hasn't even mentioned the CAP - once a primary aim of British change in the EU - because it doesn't want the fight. Fisheries? Also not mentioned. The Common External Tariff, which puts us a long way behind Norway and Switzerland in our ability to reach out to the wider world, has also gone unmentioned.
And then there's immigration. A few months ago No 10 suggested we could push for a points system for EU immigration, or at the least, an emergency brake. The points system then stopped being mentioned, and the emergency brake was pushed. People were wondering whether it would be a weak measure, given that it could easily be set very high. But then the emergency brake was dropped too. Cameron retreated to just pushing for non-working migrants to be stopped, on the basis that that was still consistent with free movement of labour. But now that's been dropped too, and so absolutely no-one from the EU will be stopped from coming here if they so wish.
This is "having a go"? You can't claim that honestly.
I don't think Charles himself is remotely convinced by his own endorsement -it's the most lukewarm thing I've ever read.
As a layperson (as opposed to a serving MP or councillor) if you are a BOO Atlantacist Tory (and I'm not), you are more influential on the Tory party, outside the Tory party. By denying it your vote, and giving it to UKIP, you push the Tory party nearer to UKIP's position, and you undermine the current europhile leadership. You do neither of those things as a Tory voter.
It appears that the voting intention question was not asked first, and followed a question about oil price. This may well have depressed the SNP voting intention figure:
The error there, IMO, is that he has succeeded a government that changed a lot of things in a radical and unpatriotic way, and has decided not to change much back.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
I half-agree with him. I think he is right that Cameron is part of the mainstream Macmillan-style Conservative tradition of pragmatism (and indeed a certain patrician style of pragmatism), rather than ideological fervour. Basically it's about governing well in the real world, not trying to implement some political theory. However, in this case the net results have been quite radical, mainly because they had to be given the mess the country had got into.
And I am sure the Barber surgeons hacked people's legs off very well in the real world until Lister invented antiseptic surgery. Even accepting your point that Cameron is a safe pair of hands (which I don't), the economy is a housing bubble, national debt is off the scale, our defence is a shell, we are trapped within a restrictive moribund customs union with dangerous ambitions for statehood, we're joining the US in every adventure despite having only a fig leaf of an army, and the world looks like its circling the plughole to another world war. We needed an *exceptional* leader. We got a self-satisfied lardbucket.
Don't worry, be happy. Points 1 and 2 are for the Chancellor, no one's going to invade us and the less of an army we have the less our involvement in US foreign ventures will become, we can't do much about the upcoming world war and I think we've gone over the customs union stuff enough today but no one could be exceptional enough to unite the tory party on that issue. I'd rather a lardbucket than a messianic numpty.
You shouldn't mistake lack of charisma for efficiency. A time-serving leader is always bad news, but in times like this it is catastrophic. It's been 5 more years of accelerating decline.
The Greens haven't stood here in the last couple of elections, but I would've thought they might this time as there's a fracking proposal here which is not going down well at all.
The Greens have already selected 336 candidates, compared to a final total of 335 in 2010.
Locally we've four candidates; a Tory (sitting MP), UKIP, Lab, & Green but no LD. And this in a seat where the LD's were second last time! Admittedly a long way behind.
Net immigration, YE Q4 2010: 256,000 Net immigration, YE Q2 2014: 260,000
Overall immigration has gone up 4,000 since the year Cameron came to power. And increasing. This is "progress".
And you can't blame the failure to meet the "no ifs, no buts" target of 99,999 or less on EU immigration, since net immigration from outside the EU is 42% above target on it's own.
(1) I am pretty sure I know what evidence he's basing this on (2) I am continuing to investigate/assess (3) It's going to be a long night... Time for a coffee!
Net immigration, YE Q4 2010: 256,000 Net immigration, YE Q2 2014: 260,000
Overall immigration has gone up 4,000 since the year Cameron came to power. And increasing. This is "progress".
And you can't blame the failure to meet the "no ifs, no buts" target of 99,999 or less on EU immigration, since net immigration from outside the EU is 42% above target on it's own.
You are correct on this and I'm sure Cameron is annoyed he can't say net immigration has fallen.
But he has a bloody good excuse for all those people wanting to flock her from the EU.
They want to come here because our economy is performing so much better than all the others.
So I guess Cameron will be quite phlegmatic over a small rise.
It appears that the voting intention question was not asked first, and followed a question about oil price. This may well have depressed the SNP voting intention figure:
I'd love people to do, and release the results of, a VI poll which tested how much affect opening questions had. Like if Panelbase had asked a second full-sample poll with the VI question first to see the difference.
The Greens have already selected 336 candidates, compared to a final total of 335 in 2010.
Locally we've four candidates; a Tory (sitting MP), UKIP, Lab, & Green but no LD. And this in a seat where the LD's were second last time! Admittedly a long way behind.
You are correct on this and I'm sure Cameron is annoyed he can't say net immigration has fallen.
But he has a bloody good excuse for all those people wanting to flock her from the EU.
They want to come here because our economy is performing so much better than all the others.
So I guess Cameron will be quite phlegmatic over a small rise.
But his target was tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts. Non-EU immigration on its own was more than 40% above target. What was he expecting, vast net emigration to the EU to make up for this?
And it is currently increasing again, by 12% a year. And currently, there are absolutely no further plans to limit immigration further. Despite immigration being higher than it was at the last election, Cameron has dropped it from his election platform. The problem's got worse Dave, why are you planning to do less on it?
The Greens have already selected 336 candidates, compared to a final total of 335 in 2010.
Locally we've four candidates; a Tory (sitting MP), UKIP, Lab, & Green but no LD. And this in a seat where the LD's were second last time! Admittedly a long way behind.
... No LD in Broxtowe so far. Good for our regular PB posting ex-MP!
On defence, I think the problem is that people hadn't realised how much Labour had over-committed the budget....
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome ....
But there are definitely strong-defence/Atlanticist/BOOers in the Tory Party (Fox and Patterson, for example) so you should feel completely at home there. And ignore the Trolls.
Fox was Defence Sec and produced the Review. If he - a right winger - could have simply got on with the job and curbed his Atlanticism he would still be there. You are right about the miserable defence budget inheritance.The budget itself is surely still big enough - its where we spend it that is where the arguments are. The defence chiefs are hugely culpable in my view not just Labour. The Navy were bribed early on with the carriers and then these were delayed because there was no money for them and so costs rose (and this even before we consider the flawed design. When you are faced with a sh!tty mess you get sh!tty cleaning it up. A larger army does not add one jot to our security. Especially when it is led and constrained like the one we had in Basra. Against the modern threat we need drones, satellites, intelligence operations, command and control and the special forces to go with them. We do already I think pay for peacekeeping out of DfD - but your point is valid. But if we want to have a more peaceful world where our soldiers do not have to get killed then pushing for health wealth security and democracy abroad has to be a good thing. We will get a referendum if we have a Tory govt - not otherwise. But again expectations if we leave are massively high and over-hyped. Immigration is driven by economic growth and our own inept underclass. Thats why the Tory ambitions have foundered. This is a real issue of course and not to be ignored. However we ought to be able to discuss it without the hysteria of UKIP; using the issue as a basis for handing over power to pro EU Labour is plain daft.
Any undertaking any govt anywhere in the world embarks on will fail in one form or another because government by its very nature is impossible. (You can argue business is the same - look at Tesco - look at how M&S now regularly under performs) This govt is no different. Fortunately it is fundamentally a right wing govt so what it attempts is mostly the right idea.
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
Out of mischief it is worth pointing out that if Labour were on 260 and the SNP on 59, SNP are in Bloc with the Greens and Plaid which means the only possible government hitting 323 seats would be Labour + SNP Bloc (on Supply and Confidence basis of course).
Comments
"Hello. I'm related to her indoors through our common great-great-great-great-...-great-grandfather, Edward III of England. I'm just popping round for tea and biscuits..."
Ed will be more concerned about Chris Bryant and Chuka Umunna managing to put themselves in the public spotlight and looking prats with it.
And then there's immigration. A few months ago No 10 suggested we could push for a points system for EU immigration, or at the least, an emergency brake. The points system then stopped being mentioned, and the emergency brake was pushed. People were wondering whether it would be a weak measure, given that it could easily be set very high. But then the emergency brake was dropped too. Cameron retreated to just pushing for non-working migrants to be stopped, on the basis that that was still consistent with free movement of labour. But now that's been dropped too, and so absolutely no-one from the EU will be stopped from coming here if they so wish.
This is "having a go"? You can't claim that honestly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
https://twitter.com/drewhendrysnp
As a layperson (as opposed to a serving MP or councillor) if you are a BOO Atlantacist Tory (and I'm not), you are more influential on the Tory party, outside the Tory party. By denying it your vote, and giving it to UKIP, you push the Tory party nearer to UKIP's position, and you undermine the current europhile leadership. You do neither of those things as a Tory voter.
Even though I now like MP and have is signature in my Bradshaws still remember it well
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/and-ever-reliable-george-eaton-keeps.html
It appears that the voting intention question was not asked first, and followed a question about oil price. This may well have depressed the SNP voting intention figure:
http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/F6581st.pdf
Admittedly a long way behind.
Net immigration, YE Q2 2014: 260,000
Overall immigration has gone up 4,000 since the year Cameron came to power. And increasing. This is "progress".
And you can't blame the failure to meet the "no ifs, no buts" target of 99,999 or less on EU immigration, since net immigration from outside the EU is 42% above target on it's own.
(1) I am pretty sure I know what evidence he's basing this on
(2) I am continuing to investigate/assess
(3) It's going to be a long night... Time for a coffee!
But he has a bloody good excuse for all those people wanting to flock her from the EU.
They want to come here because our economy is performing so much better than all the others.
So I guess Cameron will be quite phlegmatic over a small rise.
Chelmsford, Isle of Wight, Aberdeen South, Colne Valley, Newcastle North.
All seats the LDs used to do well in.
And it is currently increasing again, by 12% a year. And currently, there are absolutely no further plans to limit immigration further. Despite immigration being higher than it was at the last election, Cameron has dropped it from his election platform. The problem's got worse Dave, why are you planning to do less on it?
You are right about the miserable defence budget inheritance.The budget itself is surely still big enough - its where we spend it that is where the arguments are.
The defence chiefs are hugely culpable in my view not just Labour. The Navy were bribed early on with the carriers and then these were delayed because there was no money for them and so costs rose (and this even before we consider the flawed design. When you are faced with a sh!tty mess you get sh!tty cleaning it up.
A larger army does not add one jot to our security. Especially when it is led and constrained like the one we had in Basra. Against the modern threat we need drones, satellites, intelligence operations, command and control and the special forces to go with them.
We do already I think pay for peacekeeping out of DfD - but your point is valid. But if we want to have a more peaceful world where our soldiers do not have to get killed then pushing for health wealth security and democracy abroad has to be a good thing.
We will get a referendum if we have a Tory govt - not otherwise. But again expectations if we leave are massively high and over-hyped. Immigration is driven by economic growth and our own inept underclass. Thats why the Tory ambitions have foundered. This is a real issue of course and not to be ignored. However we ought to be able to discuss it without the hysteria of UKIP; using the issue as a basis for handing over power to pro EU Labour is plain daft.
Any undertaking any govt anywhere in the world embarks on will fail in one form or another because government by its very nature is impossible. (You can argue business is the same - look at Tesco - look at how M&S now regularly under performs) This govt is no different. Fortunately it is fundamentally a right wing govt so what it attempts is mostly the right idea.