Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The majority of the population aren't obsessed with banning cigarette packaging, or achieving gender and racial targets in the delivery, and use of, public services. They also cannot understand the reluctant reticence of their elected representatives to openly discuss issues of concern to them, such as child abuse, free speech, and controversial overseas conflicts.
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue.
In short, they feel their elected representatives see it as their duty to Lord it over them, and tell them what to do, in pursuing matters of personal interest to them, rather than represent their constituents and deal with matters of concern to them.
Brilliant. My favourite part is how it cuts it so it seems like George is so eager to provide his advice that he immediately interrupts Andrew Neil to interject it
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
A very old one. When the death penalty was in the news day in and day out in the 1950's the number of murders fell to its lowest rate of the 20th Century.
If somethings in the news it attracts attention and people respond accordingly. When it isn't they forget about it. Go figure
The thing is net immigration and EU integration are not going to go away anytime soon so however much politicians try and sweep it under the carpet it will always come back to bite them. Unless of course you are suggesting that politicians should wilfully and systematically deceive the public about such issues?
Isn't that how we got to this juncture in the first place?
They may not be going away, but they may not be particularly important either. They seem to be becoming less important to the public:
Yet immigration affects every single other issue negatively, as we all know, so are they really seperate. Anyway what was it Enoch Powell said about statesmanship?
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
That's because you don't like the wider public's more conservative views on Europe and immigration and hope that if the politicians stop talking about them, they'll go away.
Interesting that the government deficit is ranked at only 7% (well below immigration and not far above europe) despite the fact it will probably be the defining issue of the next parliament.
The Newstatesman claimed the other week that Lynton Crosby believed the inevitable incumbent Tory up-tick would start at end of Feb or early March. ICM may be an outlier, or it may be Labour's canary in a coal mine.
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
A very old one. When the death penalty was in the news day in and day out in the 1950's the number of murders fell to its lowest rate of the 20th Century.
If somethings in the news it attracts attention and people respond accordingly. When it isn't they forget about it. Go figure
The thing is net immigration and EU integration are not going to go away anytime soon so however much politicians try and sweep it under the carpet it will always come back to bite them. Unless of course you are suggesting that politicians should wilfully and systematically deceive the public about such issues?
Isn't that how we got to this juncture in the first place?
They may not be going away, but they may not be particularly important either. They seem to be becoming less important to the public:
Yet immigration affects every single other issue negatively, as we all know, so are they really seperate. Anyway what was it Enoch Powell said about statesmanship?
The question is what is the single most important issue. Those that think that immigration underpins every other woe of the nation, such as traffic jams, will presumably say immigration.
The other 85% presumably think that other things matter more.
The Newstatesman claimed the other week that Lynton Crosby believed the inevitable incumbent Tory up-tick would start at end of Feb or early March. ICM may be an outlier, or it may be Labour's canary in a coal mine.
The Scum Political Head Tweeted last month he was told it was January. Must be a competition who moves goalposts more Basil or Lynton Crosby.
The majority of the population aren't obsessed with banning cigarette packaging, or achieving gender and racial targets in the delivery, and use of, public services. They also cannot understand the reluctant reticence of their elected representatives to openly discuss issues of concern to them, such as child abuse, free speech, and controversial overseas conflicts.
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue..
You're just listing issues which are important to you. I can absolutely guarantee that free speech, for example, is of no importance at all to most voters - it's a complete non-issue. (I'm not saying it should be a non-issue, I'm talking about what motivates voters).
In any case your first sentence supports my point. I agree that the vast majority of the population aren't particularly fussed about those issues, either way. The Kippers and Tory/Kipper waverers seem to think everyone shares their views on these kinds of things. They don't.
The only issue of those you mention which does have salience is immigration. Unfortunately it's one where it's extremely difficult to do any more than has already been done (belatedly, by Labour at the fag-end of the last government, as it happens).
On the Today programme this morning there was an interview with a prominent Danish Jew and he was saying that they had got used to going out without anything which might identify them as Jewish i.e. no Star of David or kippah. And it was the phrase "they had got used to this" which really got to me. The idea that in a free country where there were no legal restrictions on what religion you can follow, in a country which - though occupied during the last war - behaved in the most wonderfully honourable and inspiring way to save its Jewish population, in 2015 Jews had got used to hiding their religious identity in public.
There has been much discussion about the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa and yet no-one seems bothered by the fact that in some countries Jews are unwilling to wear a Star of David because of the fear of violence or abuse, probably from the same group of people who want women to be in burqas.
70 or more years ago Jews were forced to wear identifying signs in public. Now some of them feel forced not to wear any identifying signs in order to feel safe.
Murray is right to draw our attention to what is happening.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
Very mixed blessings for the LD's from ICM .On the positive side they are back in third place ahead of UKIP and the Greens. On the negative side 10% is the equal lowest ICM rating of the Parliament.On a UNS they would have only 13 English seats plus two Scottish and one Welsh.(Using the Populus figures would push the total up to 21. The message seems to be that at present the Tories are winning the air war.The Lib dems need to up their own air war.The fortress strategy may be right but you need enough voters left to defend the fort.
The majority of the population aren't obsessed with banning cigarette packaging, or achieving gender and racial targets in the delivery, and use of, public services. They also cannot understand the reluctant reticence of their elected representatives to openly discuss issues of concern to them, such as child abuse, free speech, and controversial overseas conflicts.
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue..
You're just listing issues which are important to you. I can absolutely guarantee that free speech, for example, is of no importance at all to most voters - it's a complete non-issue. (I'm not saying it should be a non-issue, I'm talking about what motivates voters).
In any case your first sentence supports my point. I agree that the vast majority of the population aren't particularly fussed about those issues, either way. The Kippers and Tory/Kipper waverers seem to think everyone shares their views on these kinds of things. They don't.
The only issue of those you mention which does have salience is immigration. Unfortunately it's one where it's extremely difficult to do any more than has already been done (belatedly, by Labour at the fag-end of the last government, as it happens).
But, surely the logical thing for CR and myself, and others who are concerned about these things is to vote for a party that shares our views on these things, rather than a party that is just content to go with the left-wing flow.
For the cricket fans, a strong nomination for fud of the day (or week possibly).
Min Alan Kelly TD @alankellylabour 7h7 hours ago Huge congratulations to the the Irish Cricket Team on their four point victory over the West Indies. A massive achievement.
Or put another way Libdems hit rock bottom. The Libdems have not polled lower than 10% in any ICM poll since 2010 (according to UKPR)
But don't worry, because we are continually assured that every sacred LibDem vote is strategically placed, such that they will get no votes at all in 610 seats - but they will still win 40 seats.
All with a majority of one.
Or something like that. Of course, if the runes are just ever so slightly wrong, they will lose 50 seats.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
Ed Miliband, or even worse Ed Miliband at the beck and call of Nicola Sturgeon, certainly won't give you any of those.
Or put another way Libdems hit rock bottom. The Libdems have not polled lower than 10% in any ICM poll since 2010 (according to UKPR)
But don't worry, because we are continually assured that every sacred LibDem vote is strategically placed, such that they will get no votes at all in 610 seats - but they will still win 40 seats.
All with a majority of one.
Or something like that. Of course, if the runes are just ever so slightly wrong, they will lose 50 seats.
All by one vote.
No no, get it right: they'll get exactly as many votes as they need to avoid losing their deposit in 610 seats, then win with a plurality of one in the remaining 40 seats.
On the Today programme this morning there was an interview with a prominent Danish Jew and he was saying that they had got used to going out without anything which might identify them as Jewish i.e. no Star of David or kippah. And it was the phrase "they had got used to this" which really got to me.
Yes, that is horrendous. Quite how Denmark, of all countries, got to that state is hard to comprehend.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
All of which you will get with Ed Miliband as Prime Minister and the Conservatives and UKIP fighting for a decade like ferrets in a sack.
Hang on, that can't be right... Let me get back to you on that.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
I'm not a regular poster and being an OAP not a keen gambler either... but I have lived through the Wilson/Callaghan era as an adult so I can confidently say a Labour Government would be rather like Ed's leadership - a shambles.
Welcome back mad ....... iirc you were once an ever-present on PB.com.
But, surely the logical thing for CR and myself, and others who are concerned about these things is to vote for a party that shares our views on these things, rather than a party that is just content to go with the left-wing flow.
Not if, as is the case, the net result is the opposite of what you want.
If we had a PR system then it might be different, but we don't.
Mr. Zims, Defence was one of the few departments not splurged on by Labour during their misrule. It's been stretched too thin for too long, and we must retain sufficient resources to protect or, if necessary, reclaim British territory overseas.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
I've always found betting on the first ball great
Laying AC and KP to get 50, when they were in the 20s or 30s paid off quite a bit in the past 5 years....
Similarly, IIRC, backing England to win Test series after dismal performances in match 1 often worked as a trading bet for me.
The majority of the population aren't obsessed with banning cigarette packaging, or achieving gender and racial targets in the delivery, and use of, public services. They also cannot understand the reluctant reticence of their elected representatives to openly discuss issues of concern to them, such as child abuse, free speech, and controversial overseas conflicts.
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue..
You're just listing issues which are important to you. I can absolutely guarantee that free speech, for example, is of no importance at all to most voters - it's a complete non-issue. (I'm not saying it should be a non-issue, I'm talking about what motivates voters).
In any case your first sentence supports my point. I agree that the vast majority of the population aren't particularly fussed about those issues, either way. The Kippers and Tory/Kipper waverers seem to think everyone shares their views on these kinds of things. They don't.
The only issue of those you mention which does have salience is immigration. Unfortunately it's one where it's extremely difficult to do any more than has already been done (belatedly, by Labour at the fag-end of the last government, as it happens).
You're just denying issues that are of importance to voters but the current government cannot demonstrate progress on. In my everyday life, I constantly meet people who feel they cannot say, or write, what they think for fear of falling foul of the law or losing their jobs. Free speech or expression is something they feel is muffled in the existing public sphere.
You forget that it's the Tory/Kipper waverers who will decide who will win this election, so I'd expect you to pay more attention to them. Particularly if you want to win.
The average Joe's attitude is 'live and let live' they don't share this government's remarkable desire to ban and restrict things. You show you're out of touch yourself by denying this.
Your last point, the public don't accept that everything's been done that can be done on immigration by this government. They see a broken promise to get it down to the 'tens of thousands' and a failure of the UK government to enact the necessary measures despite heavily trailing EU migrant caps and further non-EU migrant reform.
We have a big clue that Lord Ashcroft's poll is not going to show the same picture as ICM:
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 37s38 seconds ago Guardian/ICM poll CON 36% LAB 32% UKIP 9% LDEM 10% GRNS 7% appears to be an outlier.
"appears" to be an outlier. Could be a hint that it looks like an outlier...But it isn't?
Best guess? Tories ahead by 2 with his Lordship. Seeing no major movement.
Still, whatever he says, it will be fun to have those who treated ICM as the gold standard for years having to diss it in favour of his Lordships Random Number Generator.....
Mr. Roger, I care. Whilst not enamoured with Cameron, Miliband could be a disaster in an impressive number of ways. 1) Trident surrendering to the SNP 2) Constitutional crisis 3) Shafting the English by either having no devolution or, worse, carving the country up into shitty party political fiefdoms 4) Economic woe 5) Being even worse than the Coalition on regulating the press when we need stronger freedom of speech/the press than ever
And, on a less serious but indefensible and repugnant nevertheless: 6) Having a candidate for mayor (Sadiq Khan) who wants anti-white quotas
Roger - I care. Not principally over tax rates and the like since I expect taxes to go up, whoever wins.
But for me I dislike Labour's approach on the following:-
1. Civil liberties: I disliked intensely what Blair did and tried to do on this. Nowhere have I seen Milliband distance himself from what New Labour did. So I fear a similarly authoritarian approach - ID cards and the rest. 2. Free speech - not just the stupid Leveson proposals but more of the religious hatred bollocks. 3. I don't think that Labour are sound on the Islamist threat i.e. I don't trust them to take the action that's needed to root out the ideology in our schools and elsewhere. Or to challenge those of their voters who are unwilling to take any criticism at all. 4. Their whole identity-politics approach to policy.
There are other issues but these to me - at the moment - are the top, and have been for some time.
On the Today programme this morning there was an interview with a prominent Danish Jew and he was saying that they had got used to going out without anything which might identify them as Jewish i.e. no Star of David or kippah. And it was the phrase "they had got used to this" which really got to me.
Yes, that is horrendous. Quite how Denmark, of all countries, got to that state is hard to comprehend.
I also know Americans who when travelling prefer to call themselves Canadians to avoid any unpleasantness. People's tendency to scapegoat is a very sad side of human nature.
Miss Cyclefree, identity politics is utter nonsense and a vile way of looking at the world, defining people by the colour of their skin or contents of their trousers.
Although I don't much like the rather gloomy Jewish outfits favored by the Hasidic and Ashkenazy Jews around Golders Green and Stamford Hill, it would be shocking to think they might eschew them for fear of persecution.
I feel much the same about Burkas and the like. Don't care for them, but wouldn't ban them.
And of course some 'ethnic' styles are wonderful. London wouldn't be the same without them.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
All of which you will get with Ed Miliband as Prime Minister and the Conservatives and UKIP fighting for a decade like ferrets in a sack.
Hang on, that can't be right... Let me get back to you on that.
It really isn't motivating for me to vote Conservative when I'm told they'll be just a bit less shit than Labour.
Neither main party looks fit for majority government. Unfortunately, none of the minor parties looks fit for coalition either. So I guess we'll just have to put up with a fairly low octane minority government of one hue or another for a while.
You forget that it's the Tory/Kipper waverers who will decide who will win this election, so I'd expect you to pay more attention to them. Particularly if you want to win.
Con-Lab switchers are twice as important, even if there's fewer of them.
On the Today programme this morning there was an interview with a prominent Danish Jew and he was saying that they had got used to going out without anything which might identify them as Jewish i.e. no Star of David or kippah. And it was the phrase "they had got used to this" which really got to me.
Yes, that is horrendous. Quite how Denmark, of all countries, got to that state is hard to comprehend.
Denmark has a massive problem with right-on PC leftists. They have created an environment where it is impossible to criticise Muslims. Unsurprisingly it has led to a rise in anti-Semitism. The same is true in the UK as well which is why many Jewish people feel under siege in London. Anecdotally I know a few Jewish people in London who feel like Israel is becoming a serious option for them because the government and police refuse to stand up to Muslim anti-Semitism.
Mr. Zims, Defence was one of the few departments not splurged on by Labour during their misrule. It's been stretched too thin for too long, and we must retain sufficient resources to protect or, if necessary, reclaim British territory overseas.
We should slash Aid, not Defence.
I agree, so why not ditch Trident and spend the money on conventional forces?
We already spend more than most nations, are members of NATO with our own independent nuclear capability.
What's the problem with making some cuts?
Does the military really need so many senior officers or to own 15 golf courses?
Defence has already been cut to the bone (and beyond) and we face going further in an atmosphere of increased global instability and regional conflict.
I agree the MoD and upper echelons of the military hierarchy can be rationalised. I don't agree we should strip entire defence capabilities from our armed forces, as will happen with further cuts. It will be reckless and dangerous.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 35s35 seconds ago Ashcroft National Poll, 13-15 Feb: CON 30%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
Mr. 1983, Pakistan already has nukes. Iran wants them. North Korea has them, although no missiles capable of delivering them. Unilateralism now would be very foolish.
You forget that it's the Tory/Kipper waverers who will decide who will win this election, so I'd expect you to pay more attention to them. Particularly if you want to win.
Con-Lab switchers are twice as important, even if there's fewer of them.
I acceptance that the premise of the moderniser movement is to tack to the Left to try and win over as many centre-left voters as possible, and shed the more Right wing ones. However, core Labour voters have a far lower propensity to switch to Conservative than do UKIP defectors.
The parties and most leaders have fallen in most voters’ estimation since I last asked people to rate them last November. The biggest falls were for UKIP and Nigel Farage, and the Lib Dems were the only party to record a small increase.
One possible explanation is that, as I have found in my qualitative research, people are beginning to look at the parties in terms of the general election and the choice of a government, and are asking what UKIP have to offer beyond their well-known positions on Europe and immigration. It was also notable that men gave substantially lower marks than women for all parties and leaders except UKIP (whose scores were similar) and Farage (who received a more negative rating from women than from men).
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
All of which you will get with Ed Miliband as Prime Minister and the Conservatives and UKIP fighting for a decade like ferrets in a sack.
Hang on, that can't be right... Let me get back to you on that.
It really isn't motivating for me to vote Conservative when I'm told they'll be just a bit less shit than Labour.
They will be far better than Labour. Compare 2005-2010 under Blair-Brown-Darling to 2010-2015 under Cameron-Osborne-Clegg. Under one of those Govts you might have been tempted to bury all your earthly possessions in the garden for fear of economic meltdown. Under one of those Governments, it wasn't embarrasing to admit where in the world you came from. Under one of those, civil liberties were not regularly treated with contempt.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
I want immigration down to the tens of thousands, a proper renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, protection of defence spending, and a Conservative Prime Minister who will act as an advocate for Conservatism rather than apologising for them, and taking his/her own supporter and activist base for granted.
All very sensible and laudable. Thing is, politics is not about getting the best possible outcome it is about getting the best outcome possible.
I want manageable immigration, a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU and free fifty-pound notes to be distributed outside Aldi on Saturday afternoons.
But I realise that not everything I want will happen.
It is in many respects laudable that the Kippers should be so rigorously idealistic by not countenancing a compromise to their well-formed political ideals. But it is something that most people realise they can't be and is therefore also a tad naive.
(Edit: yes yes I know you are playing the long game and by 2035 you should have just the right political make-up of the Cons if you start engineering now.)
Mr. Zims, Defence was one of the few departments not splurged on by Labour during their misrule. It's been stretched too thin for too long, and we must retain sufficient resources to protect or, if necessary, reclaim British territory overseas.
We should slash Aid, not Defence.
I agree, so why not ditch Trident and spend the money on conventional forces?
I wouldn't want to ditch Trident whilst Russia is playing the aggressive expansionist in eastern Europe atm, nor until we know the strategic position China adopts once it overtakes the USA in global economic clout.
The average Joe's attitude is 'live and let live' they don't share this government's remarkable desire to ban and restrict things. You show you're out of touch yourself by denying this.
Sorry, but that is just silly. What 'remarkable desire to ban and restrict things'? There's a debate about some really very minor measures - could any issue on this earth be more unimportant than cigarette packaging? - but I'm old enough to remember countless such debates, most of them far more controversial at the time: 70 mph speed limits, compulsory wearing of seatbelts, banning smoking on the Tube, etc etc. There will always be such debates, whether the PM is Ed Miliband, David Cameron, or Nigel Farage. That is because governments, quite rightly, look to reduce deaths in road accidents or from cigarette smoking. There was never any 'golden age' when governments didn't ban and restrict things, and there never will be. This government's record has been, by any standard, very well balanced.
What's more, the average Joe's attitude is inconsistent. He hates speed limits when he's driving, and campaigns for 20mph speed limits along roads where his kids walk to school.
But what really gets me is the complete blindness to all the really good things the government has done in social issues. Take, for example, one of the great unsung measures, the criminalisation of squatting. That righted something which has been a blot on English justice for many years, which even Maggie didn't get round to fixing. Any balanced view of Cameron, and this government, should look at the whole picture - which is excellent, better than any other government, bar Maggie, of the last 50 years at least.
I think I've found the inspiration for Lord Ashcroft's latest hypothetical:
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · Jan 26 @LordAshcroft Which actor would you choose to play each of them in a biopic?
"It being Oscars week, we need to know who the nation thinks should play the part of each leader in the movie of his life. Our participants struggled somewhat with Mr Clegg, though I doubt he will be too dismayed with the suggestion of Tom Cruise or Kevin Bacon. There was a wide consensus that Hugh Grant or Colin Firth should be cast as David Cameron, though whether either would be happy to play him is another question. There was even wider agreement – and I must emphasise that all these suggestions are unprompted – that Mr Miliband would be best portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, in character as Mr Bean. As so often, a division over the image of Mr Farage: for some, he is Ray Winstone; for others, Sid James."
Not buying that if a GE today, Tories and Labour would only get ~30%...but can well believe that is basically neck and neck / small 1% Labour lead.
I think the real question is, can the Tories actually shift significant support their way, either via the budget or the campaign itself..or will Ed "35%"...scratch that "33%"...scratch that "31%" strategy get him over the line?
The average Joe's attitude is 'live and let live' they don't share this government's remarkable desire to ban and restrict things. You show you're out of touch yourself by denying this.
Sorry, but that is just silly. What 'remarkable desire to ban and restrict things'? There's a debate about some really very minor measures - could any issue on this earth be more unimportant than cigarette packaging? - but I'm old enough to remember countless such debates, most of them far more controversial at the time: 70 mph speed limits, compulsory wearing of seatbelts, banning smoking on the Tube, etc etc. There will always be such debates, whether the PM is Ed Miliband, David Cameron, or Nigel Farage. That is because governments, quite rightly, look to reduce deaths in road accidents or from cigarette smoking. There was never any 'golden age' when governments didn't ban and restrict things, and there never will be. This government's record has been, by any standard, very well balanced.
What's more, the average Joe's attitude is inconsistent. He hates speed limits when he's driving, and campaigns for 20mph speed limits along roads where his kids walk to school.
But what really gets me is the complete blindness to all the really good things the government has done in social issues. Take, for example, one of the great unsung measures, the criminalisation of squatting. That righted something which has been a blot on English justice for many years, which even Maggie didn't get round to fixing. Any balanced view of Cameron, and this government, should look at the whole picture - which is excellent, better than any other government, bar Maggie, of the last 50 years at least.
Translation: you're angry that the public aren't willing to vote Conservative in overwhelming numbers, and think it's their problem. Not the fault of the Conservatives.
You forget that it's the Tory/Kipper waverers who will decide who will win this election, so I'd expect you to pay more attention to them. Particularly if you want to win.
Con-Lab switchers are twice as important, even if there's fewer of them.
I acceptance that the premise of the moderniser movement is to tack to the Left to try and win over as many centre-left voters as possible, and shed the more Right wing ones. However, core Labour voters have a far lower propensity to switch to Conservative than do UKIP defectors.
They don't want to shed the right wing ones, but inevitably they will. Same as Labour shedding votes to their left. The ironic thing is that the demise of the LDs has meant more clear water between Con & Lab than in previous years.
The majority of the population aren't obsessed with banning cigarette packaging, or achieving gender and racial targets in the delivery, and use of, public services. They also cannot understand the reluctant reticence of their elected representatives to openly discuss issues of concern to them, such as child abuse, free speech, and controversial overseas conflicts.
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue..
You're just listing issues which are important to you. I can absolutely guarantee that free speech, for example, is of no importance at all to most voters - it's a complete non-issue. (I'm not saying it should be a non-issue, I'm talking about what motivates voters).
In any case your first sentence supports my point. I agree that the vast majority of the population aren't particularly fussed about those issues, either way. The Kippers and Tory/Kipper waverers seem to think everyone shares their views on these kinds of things. They don't.
The only issue of those you mention which does have salience is immigration. Unfortunately it's one where it's extremely difficult to do any more than has already been done (belatedly, by Labour at the fag-end of the last government, as it happens).
But, surely the logical thing for CR and myself, and others who are concerned about these things is to vote for a party that shares our views on these things, rather than a party that is just content to go with the left-wing flow.
It depends upon your priorities I suppose.
If making a potential point on these issues matter more than the actual (marginal) differences on these issues and the (much bigger) differences on the economy etc Labour getting back into power then yes.
If you care more about the practical differences a government makes then no.
I love Lord Ashcroft's focus groups, they're the true highlight of the polling week.
Certainly they will no longer be able to rely on the votes of people like the lady who quite literally said: “I didn’t know what to do last time, I was very confused, so I voted Liberal Democrat”.
Well, I can't see him taking too many votes off the Lefties there, Antifrank - or indeed off anybody else.
Labour hold.
Still nice to see that the Hampstead Lefties wont have it all there own way. My granddaughter says she might vote Labour, but then she's coming off a Lib/Dem binge.
Comments
On the other hand, they do want immigration reduced and can't understand why the UK government can't or won't address this issue.
In short, they feel their elected representatives see it as their duty to Lord it over them, and tell them what to do, in pursuing matters of personal interest to them, rather than represent their constituents and deal with matters of concern to them.
I think they're right.
Brilliant. My favourite part is how it cuts it so it seems like George is so eager to provide his advice that he immediately interrupts Andrew Neil to interject it
CON 31.7 LAB 30.2 UKIP 15.7 GRN 8.2 LD 7.7
Interesting that the government deficit is ranked at only 7% (well below immigration and not far above europe) despite the fact it will probably be the defining issue of the next parliament.
The other 85% presumably think that other things matter more.
In any case your first sentence supports my point. I agree that the vast majority of the population aren't particularly fussed about those issues, either way. The Kippers and Tory/Kipper waverers seem to think everyone shares their views on these kinds of things. They don't.
The only issue of those you mention which does have salience is immigration. Unfortunately it's one where it's extremely difficult to do any more than has already been done (belatedly, by Labour at the fag-end of the last government, as it happens).
There has been much discussion about the rights of Muslim women to wear the burqa and yet no-one seems bothered by the fact that in some countries Jews are unwilling to wear a Star of David because of the fear of violence or abuse, probably from the same group of people who want women to be in burqas.
70 or more years ago Jews were forced to wear identifying signs in public. Now some of them feel forced not to wear any identifying signs in order to feel safe.
Murray is right to draw our attention to what is happening.
On the negative side 10% is the equal lowest ICM rating of the Parliament.On a UNS they would have only 13 English seats plus two Scottish and one Welsh.(Using the Populus figures would push the total up to 21.
The message seems to be that at present the Tories are winning the air war.The Lib dems need to up their own air war.The fortress strategy may be right but you need enough voters left to defend the fort.
Min Alan Kelly TD @alankellylabour 7h7 hours ago
Huge congratulations to the the Irish Cricket Team on their four point victory over the West Indies. A massive achievement.
All with a majority of one.
Or something like that. Of course, if the runes are just ever so slightly wrong, they will lose 50 seats.
All by one vote.
http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/isis-treats-wounded-israel-says-tehran/
A case of the BBC being given lemons and making lemonade it would appear.
Hang on, that can't be right... Let me get back to you on that.
I get bored with politics inter elections:-)
If we had a PR system then it might be different, but we don't.
'protection of defence spending'
We already spend more than most nations, are members of NATO with our own independent nuclear capability.
What's the problem with making some cuts?
Does the military really need so many senior officers or to own 15 golf courses?
We should slash Aid, not Defence.
4/9 Lab
4/1 Tie
4/1 Con
'The Scum Political Head Tweeted last month he was told it was January. Must be a competition who moves goalposts more Basil or Lynton Crosby.'
Really no need to get so upset over a single poll.
Similarly, IIRC, backing England to win Test series after dismal performances in match 1 often worked as a trading bet for me.
You forget that it's the Tory/Kipper waverers who will decide who will win this election, so I'd expect you to pay more attention to them. Particularly if you want to win.
The average Joe's attitude is 'live and let live' they don't share this government's remarkable desire to ban and restrict things. You show you're out of touch yourself by denying this.
Your last point, the public don't accept that everything's been done that can be done on immigration by this government. They see a broken promise to get it down to the 'tens of thousands' and a failure of the UK government to enact the necessary measures despite heavily trailing EU migrant caps and further non-EU migrant reform.
Still, whatever he says, it will be fun to have those who treated ICM as the gold standard for years having to diss it in favour of his Lordships Random Number Generator.....
But for me I dislike Labour's approach on the following:-
1. Civil liberties: I disliked intensely what Blair did and tried to do on this. Nowhere have I seen Milliband distance himself from what New Labour did. So I fear a similarly authoritarian approach - ID cards and the rest.
2. Free speech - not just the stupid Leveson proposals but more of the religious hatred bollocks.
3. I don't think that Labour are sound on the Islamist threat i.e. I don't trust them to take the action that's needed to root out the ideology in our schools and elsewhere. Or to challenge those of their voters who are unwilling to take any criticism at all.
4. Their whole identity-politics approach to policy.
There are other issues but these to me - at the moment - are the top, and have been for some time.
'We should slash Aid, not Defence.'
Agree we should cut aid,but defence has only become stretched because we've managed to join almost every conflict available for the past 18 years.
Although I don't much like the rather gloomy Jewish outfits favored by the Hasidic and Ashkenazy Jews around Golders Green and Stamford Hill, it would be shocking to think they might eschew them for fear of persecution.
I feel much the same about Burkas and the like. Don't care for them, but wouldn't ban them.
And of course some 'ethnic' styles are wonderful. London wouldn't be the same without them.
Worse things happen at sea.
I agree the MoD and upper echelons of the military hierarchy can be rationalised. I don't agree we should strip entire defence capabilities from our armed forces, as will happen with further cuts. It will be reckless and dangerous.
Con 30 (-4) Lab 31 (nc) LD 9 (nc) UKIP 16 (+2) Greens 8 (+2)
Ashcroft National Poll, 13-15 Feb: CON 30%, LAB 31%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 16%, GRN 8%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
Who is the outlier now! ;D
Ashcroft loses "Gold Standard" status.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/politics/hampstead_and_kilburn_ukip_candidate_my_great_aim_is_to_licence_the_mosques_1_3956520
One possible explanation is that, as I have found in my qualitative research, people are beginning to look at the parties in terms of the general election and the choice of a government, and are asking what UKIP have to offer beyond their well-known positions on Europe and immigration. It was also notable that men gave substantially lower marks than women for all parties and leaders except UKIP (whose scores were similar) and Farage (who received a more negative rating from women than from men).
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/ashcroft-national-poll-con-30-lab-31-lib-dem-9-ukip-16-green-8/
I think it was rather arrogant of him to suggest ICM was an outlier given some of the recent 'issues' over his own poll.
I want manageable immigration, a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU and free fifty-pound notes to be distributed outside Aldi on Saturday afternoons.
But I realise that not everything I want will happen.
It is in many respects laudable that the Kippers should be so rigorously idealistic by not countenancing a compromise to their well-formed political ideals. But it is something that most people realise they can't be and is therefore also a tad naive.
(Edit: yes yes I know you are playing the long game and by 2035 you should have just the right political make-up of the Cons if you start engineering now.)
What's more, the average Joe's attitude is inconsistent. He hates speed limits when he's driving, and campaigns for 20mph speed limits along roads where his kids walk to school.
But what really gets me is the complete blindness to all the really good things the government has done in social issues. Take, for example, one of the great unsung measures, the criminalisation of squatting. That righted something which has been a blot on English justice for many years, which even Maggie didn't get round to fixing. Any balanced view of Cameron, and this government, should look at the whole picture - which is excellent, better than any other government, bar Maggie, of the last 50 years at least.
Alastair Meeks @AlastairMeeks · Jan 26
@LordAshcroft Which actor would you choose to play each of them in a biopic?
"It being Oscars week, we need to know who the nation thinks should play the part of each leader in the movie of his life. Our participants struggled somewhat with Mr Clegg, though I doubt he will be too dismayed with the suggestion of Tom Cruise or Kevin Bacon. There was a wide consensus that Hugh Grant or Colin Firth should be cast as David Cameron, though whether either would be happy to play him is another question. There was even wider agreement – and I must emphasise that all these suggestions are unprompted – that Mr Miliband would be best portrayed by Rowan Atkinson, in character as Mr Bean. As so often, a division over the image of Mr Farage: for some, he is Ray Winstone; for others, Sid James."
I think the real question is, can the Tories actually shift significant support their way, either via the budget or the campaign itself..or will Ed "35%"...scratch that "33%"...scratch that "31%" strategy get him over the line?
#megapollingmonday
Three polls today, one obvious outlier. Now we only have 6 hours or so to wait for our next fix.
Shouldn't we take up stamp collecting instead?
Interesting.
As Sir Bob used to tell me, watch the shares, not the lead.
Good luck with that.
The only phone pollster that has lab in mid 30s was Ipsos - and they were on 29 in each of the two pre-Xmas polls with them.
Labour hold.
If making a potential point on these issues matter more than the actual (marginal) differences on these issues and the (much bigger) differences on the economy etc Labour getting back into power then yes.
If you care more about the practical differences a government makes then no.
Certainly they will no longer be able to rely on the votes of people like the lady who quite literally said: “I didn’t know what to do last time, I was very confused, so I voted Liberal Democrat”.
Con/UKIP on c. 50% for England seems pretty consistent across the polls, but the make-up varies.