What is it about Ed Miliband and envelopes? Remember the Labour leadership election, and what the union printed on the outside of the ballot papers.
In my marginal constituency the Tories did something similar with their campaign on the mansion tax sending something out which made it look like a council tax demand. All parties do it.
Unfortunately the chances of a Conservative majority without some amazing black swan are pretty much zero as well.
Not according to the betting markets.
The more interesting conundrum is whether the referendum would go ahead if there's a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament. The answer is probably that it would, but obviously that couldn't be guaranteed if the other parties gang up to torpedo it. That's a question for them, though.
They have made it a red line in negotiations, though, and you've got to imagine it would be a Coalition-buster in the event that, say, the LibDems deviously went back on their promises.
Not that you can remotely conceive of that happening, of course
More likely the LDs would want it to be a government negotiation with other member states, meaning that they got to take part and set the red lines.
Unlikely that they will get that in Coalition negotiations.
They will definitely get the ability to campaign on whatever side of the vote they want, and will probably get Quad input into negotiating strategy, but there is no way that you can have two parties/individuals with different views leading the negotiations themselves. Presumably it would be Cameron as PM and Hammond/Osborne(?) as Foreign Secretary
So, essentially, all the LibDems would be signing up to would be to vote in Parliament for a referendum.
The quid pro quo would likely be PR for local government elections.
So long as it's not pure party list, I think that's a pretty good idea. A lot of local government should be about service delivery not politicking and when you get effective one-party states, councilors get lazy
STV surely, to harmonize with Scotland and NI, which already have it.
Keeping the existing three seaters, a party would need 12.5% to be in with a chance.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
Plato..Re Bishops in the HOL..They were never voted in by anyone..they vote on sometimes critical bills..they therefore have a sphere of influence.This is from men who believe in the big fella in the sky. Do they also pick up the generous tax payer supplied expenses. Not a bad number ..a Palace..rent free..a chauffeur driven limo..some nice frocks..and a wodge from the hardpressed taxpayer..All they seem to do is give a mumbled sermon an a Sunday and look pious..job done. .
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I suspect if he gets nowt of use he will reluctantly not campaign for In, while not endorsing Out with enthusiasm.
Unfortunately the chances of a Conservative majority without some amazing black swan are pretty much zero as well.
Not according to the betting markets.
The more interesting conundrum is whether the referendum would go ahead if there's a Conservative-led government in a hung parliament. The answer is probably that it would, but obviously that couldn't be guaranteed if the other parties gang up to torpedo it. That's a question for them, though.
They have made it a red line in negotiations, though, and you've got to imagine it would be a Coalition-buster in the event that, say, the LibDems deviously went back on their promises.
Not that you can remotely conceive of that happening, of course
More likely the LDs would want it to be a government negotiation with other member states, meaning that they got to take part and set the red lines.
Unlikely that they will get that in Coalition negotiations.
They will definitely get the ability to campaign on whatever side of the vote they want, and will probably get Quad input into negotiating strategy, but there is no way that you can have two parties/individuals with different views leading the negotiations themselves. Presumably it would be Cameron as PM and Hammond/Osborne(?) as Foreign Secretary
So, essentially, all the LibDems would be signing up to would be to vote in Parliament for a referendum.
The quid pro quo would likely be PR for local government elections.
So long as it's not pure party list, I think that's a pretty good idea. A lot of local government should be about service delivery not politicking and when you get effective one-party states, councilors get lazy
STV surely, to harmonize with Scotland and NI, which already have it.
Keeping the existing three seaters, a party would need 12.5% to be in with a chance.
A party with >10% council wide probably does deserve to have some representation, so that seems pretty fair.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Car crash at the top of French government given the current sensitivities
France's socialists were at the centre of a bitter anti-semitism row last night as a party grandee accused the Prime Minister of being 'under Jewish influence'.
Roland Dumas, the 92-year-old former foreign minister, said Prime Minister Manuel Valls was pushing a Jewish agenda because of family ties, especially when using terms such as 'Islamo-fascism.'
Amazing how the old tropes are regularly wheeled out.
Well before the growth of the Muslim community, France has had a troubling record of its own on anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism is like Japanese knotweed: leave a tiny amount and it will spread, superficially attractive to some people but destructive and hard to eradicate.
(I'm not trying to be flippant here. It is something which troubles me greatly.)
Well, Bibi told the world where the Jews belong.
He would no doubt find agreement from some unwelcome quarters.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
The most likely scenario for withdrawal from the EU is for a PM to reluctantly recommend withdrawal after a failed attempt at renegotiation.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I suspect if he gets nowt of use he will reluctantly not campaign for In, while not endorsing Out with enthusiasm.
But as Prime Minister he would be expected to make a recommendation. In or Out, The media would not let him off the hook over it and it would be a very difficult position for him (granted self inflicted) but its not one he can be extracted from. He will be expected to lead the country in deciding the most important issue of the last 40 years. Could it become a resigning issue in itself? He failed to get a worthy deal so he steps down? If he did then what? As I said I cannot see that the slim chance of an upside is worth all the potential pitfalls in such a strategy.
Plato..Re Bishops in the HOL..They were never voted in by anyone..they vote on sometimes critical bills..they therefore have a sphere of influence.This is from men who believe in the big fella in the sky. Do they also pick up the generous tax payer supplied expenses. Not a bad number ..a Palace..rent free..a chauffeur driven limo..some nice frocks..and a wodge from the hardpressed taxpayer..All they seem to do is give a mumbled sermon an a Sunday and look pious..job done. .
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Perhaps but my impression is there would be a lot more 'big beasts' lining up in the pro-Europe queue (Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Howe, Howard, Major, Lamont, Patten, Hague etc etc) than in the Eurosceptic queue (Lawson, Tebbit, who else?)
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I suspect if he gets nowt of use he will reluctantly not campaign for In, while not endorsing Out with enthusiasm.
But as Prime Minister he would be expected to make a recommendation. In or Out, The media would not let him off the hook over it and it would be a very difficult position for him (granted self inflicted) but its not one he can be extracted from. He will be expected to lead the country in deciding the most important issue of the last 40 years. Could it become a resigning issue in itself? He failed to get a worthy deal so he steps down? If he did then what? As I said I cannot see that the slim chance of an upside is worth all the potential pitfalls in such a strategy.
He's a careerist politician.
If he can't credibly recommend an "in" he will be a sorrowful "we tried our best but it's time to leave".
As I said I cannot see that the slim chance of an upside is worth all the potential pitfalls in such a strategy.
The referendum promise has been vital for Cameron to hold his party together over Europe during this Parliament. Although it creates problems for the future - if Cameron remains PM - it would have created problems right now not to have such a declared policy.
It's not as though kicking the can down the road in the hope that time will sort everything out is a strategy novel to politicians.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
That sounds right. What's more interesting is the potential divide between a Eurosceptic Tory party and mainstream corporate Britain being pro-EU. Tories to become increasingly reliant on hedge funds that don't like Brussels?
Labour are a "f****** waste of time", Noel Gallagher has said.
Game on Ed, game on
Noel's a bit of a NOTA chap.
Farage: “He doesn’t look like he could be mentally capable of running a corner shop, far less a ****ing country.”
Cameron: “… the Conservatives are just… I mean, what the ****? David Cameron, he’s trying to be your mate. ‘Oh I really like the Jam.’”
Miliband: “Utterly uninspiring and dull.”
Thatcher: “Thatcher was just like, ‘I’m ****ing you in the arse, **** what you say”. You can kind of respect that."
Osborne: “I have no doubt that George Osborne would’ve practised his weeping the night before Thatcher’s funeral. He might be the most slappable man in England, the kind of man that would watch Coronation Street or EastEnders to get a perspective on the working class.”
Balls: “Ed Balls can frankly lick mine on his way to and from obscurity”
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I suspect if he gets nowt of use he will reluctantly not campaign for In, while not endorsing Out with enthusiasm.
But as Prime Minister he would be expected to make a recommendation. In or Out, The media would not let him off the hook over it and it would be a very difficult position for him (granted self inflicted) but its not one he can be extracted from. He will be expected to lead the country in deciding the most important issue of the last 40 years. Could it become a resigning issue in itself? He failed to get a worthy deal so he steps down? If he did then what? As I said I cannot see that the slim chance of an upside is worth all the potential pitfalls in such a strategy.
He's a careerist politician.
If he can't credibly recommend an "in" he will be a sorrowful "we tried our best but it's time to leave".
Well I 'll take your assessment under advisement. I'm not convinced if he got himself in such a spot he would either want or be allowed to do that.
Car crash at the top of French government given the current sensitivities
France's socialists were at the centre of a bitter anti-semitism row last night as a party grandee accused the Prime Minister of being 'under Jewish influence'.
Roland Dumas, the 92-year-old former foreign minister, said Prime Minister Manuel Valls was pushing a Jewish agenda because of family ties, especially when using terms such as 'Islamo-fascism.'
Amazing how the old tropes are regularly wheeled out.
Well before the growth of the Muslim community, France has had a troubling record of its own on anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism is like Japanese knotweed: leave a tiny amount and it will spread, superficially attractive to some people but destructive and hard to eradicate.
(I'm not trying to be flippant here. It is something which troubles me greatly.)
Well, Bibi told the world where the Jews belong.
He would no doubt find agreement from some unwelcome quarters.
It was a stupid remark by him because it simply reinforced the feeling that some have that Jews are the "other" and not proper Frenchmen, Danes, whatever. And it didn't need saying either because it's not as if the existence of Israel is some secret.
And, tbh, if I didn't feel safe in France I'm not sure I'd feel a whole lot safer in Israel, given who it's surrounded by.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Perhaps but my impression is there would be a lot more 'big beasts' lining up in the pro-Europe queue (Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Howe, Howard, Major, Lamont, Patten, Hague etc etc) than in the Eurosceptic queue (Lawson, Tebbit, who else?)
Doesn't matter. Of your list, Major, Howard, Hague and Lawson are significant. They are all moderate sceptics who would be in the 'well we tried' camp rather than either BOO or in at all costs. That's why they would be the swing voters.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
That sounds right. What's more interesting is the potential divide between a Eurosceptic Tory party and mainstream corporate Britain being pro-EU. Tories to become increasingly reliant on hedge funds that don't like Brussels?
It's always a debate on what "mainstream corporate Britain" is.
The IoD, FSB or BfB have very different views to the CBI. The CBI tends to represent the multi-nationals, while the others focus on SMEs. SMEs are more important for employment, although get a lot less airtime with the media and politicians.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Perhaps but my impression is there would be a lot more 'big beasts' lining up in the pro-Europe queue (Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Howe, Howard, Major, Lamont, Patten, Hague etc etc) than in the Eurosceptic queue (Lawson, Tebbit, who else?)
Doesn't matter. Of your list, Major, Howard, Hague and Lawson are significant. They are all moderate sceptics who would be in the 'well we tried' camp rather than either BOO or in at all costs. That's why they would be the swing voters.
Well that's interesting but I don't think I would believe until it happened. Sadly I believe its all moot because I cannot see the Tories building a government strong enough to even get to the referendum
Plato..Re Bishops in the HOL..They were never voted in by anyone..they vote on sometimes critical bills..they therefore have a sphere of influence.This is from men who believe in the big fella in the sky. Do they also pick up the generous tax payer supplied expenses. Not a bad number ..a Palace..rent free..a chauffeur driven limo..some nice frocks..and a wodge from the hardpressed taxpayer..All they seem to do is give a mumbled sermon an a Sunday and look pious..job done. .
Which is no less a probable or valid belief than the belief that there isn't anyone in the sky.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Perhaps but my impression is there would be a lot more 'big beasts' lining up in the pro-Europe queue (Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Howe, Howard, Major, Lamont, Patten, Hague etc etc) than in the Eurosceptic queue (Lawson, Tebbit, who else?)
Doesn't matter. Of your list, Major, Howard, Hague and Lawson are significant. They are all moderate sceptics who would be in the 'well we tried' camp rather than either BOO or in at all costs. That's why they would be the swing voters.
Well that's interesting but I don't think I would believe until it happened. Sadly I believe its all moot because I cannot see the Tories building a government strong enough to even get to the referendum
BTW, they are also all close to Cameron personally...
@iainjwatson: Labour to unveil their full and final election pledge card - which they have so far launched pledge by pledge - in Birmingham on March 14th
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
Perhaps but my impression is there would be a lot more 'big beasts' lining up in the pro-Europe queue (Heseltine, Clarke, Hurd, Howe, Howard, Major, Lamont, Patten, Hague etc etc) than in the Eurosceptic queue (Lawson, Tebbit, who else?)
Doesn't matter. Of your list, Major, Howard, Hague and Lawson are significant. They are all moderate sceptics who would be in the 'well we tried' camp rather than either BOO or in at all costs. That's why they would be the swing voters.
Well that's interesting but I don't think I would believe until it happened. Sadly I believe its all moot because I cannot see the Tories building a government strong enough to even get to the referendum
I think its moot because there are five big fat potential black swans before the end of 2017.
* Greece and the high chance that the "who blinks first" game goes wrong and GrExit * Spain elections and Podemos win, especially if Greece get any extra considerations * French national elections and FN get the presidency * Possibility of upset in French Assembly elections in mid-2017 with a strong FN showing * Possibility of upset in the German Federal elections late-2017 with a strong AfD showing
Any of which could change the game out of all recognition
There is also the Italian election in 2018 where Beppe Grillo's fruitcakes might get in, again especially if Syriza manage to get any concessions.
It's not impossible that there isn't much of a EU to leave before we get to the decision.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".[Matthew 22:21]
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
But surely the Church will have a view on Good and Evil and might reasonably suggest that certain parties are advocating policies which are incompatible with its principles -eg the Nazis - BNP - National Front etc.
"If we did wake up to Prime Minister Farage on 8 May, the pound would indeed go into freefall and pandemonium would indeed descend on the stock market. That’s not supposition, it’s fact."
If the pound did fall it would surely help our exports.....
Lucky Guy..Bishops peddle something about which they have absolutely no knowledge..my cat knows as much about the afterlife as they do..absolutely zilch...yet they seem to be given some sort of respect for dressing up like a thirties drag queen,carrying the crooked stick and spouting bullshine.
UKIP's leadership need to learn to brush this sort of criticism off, laugh at it and not take themselves too seriously. However, it's not true to say they're a secretly racist party. UKIP's constitution makes clear it is a multi-ethnic party, they welcome all ethnicities into Britain and has never said they want an all-White Britain, or repatriation of non-White immigrants, like the BNP have/did.
It suits it's opponents to try and paint it as such, though, because they can then lump it in the same category rather than engage with it's arguments on controlled borders and ending open-door migration.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".[Matthew 22:21]
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
But surely the Church will have a view on Good and Evil and might reasonably suggest that certain parties are advocating policies which are incompatible with its principles -eg the Nazis - BNP - National Front etc.
Their position seems to be:
a) Russell Brand is wrong; and b) Russell Brand is right
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".[Matthew 22:21]
Surely the Church of England should adhere to Biblical guidance - sorry many of them today just ignore that.
But surely the Church will have a view on Good and Evil and might reasonably suggest that certain parties are advocating policies which are incompatible with its principles -eg the Nazis - BNP - National Front etc.
I think the first part of that is proper, the second is incompatible with their charitable status. The clergy are quite entitled to suggest the principles that people should live by, and its not a stretch to suggest the principles the country might be run by. It should be up to the voter to decide which of those principles are important to them personally, and which party best embodies them.
Organisations claiming charitable status should not be involved in party politics.
Well when their hero managed to lose the only election he ever fought and got himself crucified for his efforts you would hardly expect them to show good political judgement now would you?
Mind you that said the resurrection was probably the greatest spin exercise ever embarked upon.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
I think uncontrolled mass immigration has been a disaster for this country and would like controlled immigration to take its place.
However I would be totally against any notion of sending home those that are already here, including illegal immigrants.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
People are forgetting Dan Hodges lost an eye when standing up to racists, who were abusing a couple of black guys in a pub.
Whilst I'm no fan of his journalistic style, there's one subject that really riles him is racism.
The one thing I have a problem with regarding the Tories and the EU referendum (and I assume that Cameron would try and finesse whatever deal he got from Brussels through even if it was a dogs breakfast) surely there would be a significant ideological Eurosceptic core (50 plus MPs) that would reject it unless it truly did provide an acceptable deal and if so if it was a dogs breakfast surely then the risks of the party splitting publicly would once again be high and be visible for all to see and potentially the risk of defections (to UKIP) over the issue during and after the referendum campaign surely would be pretty high?
Its for that reason more than any other that I calculated that the referendum offer was not genuine and Cameron did not believe he would be in a position to offer a referendum post May.
Interesting: I absolutely agree with the first paragraph, and hence reached the complete opposite conclusion.
The risk of splits (I reckon that Cameron needs to convinced two-thirds of his MPs) is the best guarantee that he will not try to polish a turd.
Then what does he do if all he's got is a turd (and chances are that's all he will have)? He can't recommend withdrawal because the 'great and the good' within the party would likely string him up for even contemplating such an action and as we discussed he risks splitting Parliamentary party if he doesn't in such circumstances.The whole venture seems high risk with only a slim likelihood of coming out with a positive outcome
I think you don't really know the great & the good of the Tory party.
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
That sounds right. What's more interesting is the potential divide between a Eurosceptic Tory party and mainstream corporate Britain being pro-EU. Tories to become increasingly reliant on hedge funds that don't like Brussels?
It's always a debate on what "mainstream corporate Britain" is.
The IoD, FSB or BfB have very different views to the CBI. The CBI tends to represent the multi-nationals, while the others focus on SMEs. SMEs are more important for employment, although get a lot less airtime with the media and politicians.
I think the best way forward is to seek out whatever Roland Rudd advises and do the complete opposite.
Since Mrs Thatcher came to power the Tories have embraced an I'm alright Jack individualism. Isn't it fairly obvious that would set it on a collision course with the Church?
I have heard many people refer to Thatcher as 'The AntiChrist'.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
I think uncontrolled mass immigration has been a disaster for this country and would like controlled immigration to take its place.
However I would be totally against any notion of sending home those that are already here, including illegal immigrants.
Does that make me a racist or a realist?
The current policy is racist. It's much harder to gain entry irrespective of qualifications, utility to the country, family connections, if you have a brown skin aren't a European.
I was WTF - Am I Dreaming??!?! And then he apologised on air. An epic bit of radio.
I stopped bothering with R5 18 months ago, and haven't tuned into BBCradio or TV progs live either. I feel I've lost nothing. The license fee is a meaningless tax that I refuse to pay for a service I don't even access.
However, it's not true to say they're a secretly racist party. UKIP's constitution makes clear it is a multi-ethnic party, they welcome all ethnicities into Britain and has never said they want an all-White Britain, or repatriation of non-White immigrants, like the BNP have/did.
It's very amusing to see that UKIP embrace the modern best-practice approach of writing platitudes in a statement and claiming that that is the end of the matter, as Enron did in their Code of Ethics:
We are dedicated to conducting business according to all applicable local and international laws and regulations, including but not limited to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and with the highest professional and ethical standards. ... No bribes, bonuses, kickbacks, lavish entertainment or gifts will be given or received in exchange for special position, price or privilege.
Relations with the Company's many publics - customers, stockholders, governments, employees, suppliers, press and bankers - will be conducted in honesty, candor, and fairness.
@Luckyguy1983 Having read the article linked, what exactly do you find disgusting?
1. That it happened - The Church should be above party politics 2. That any GCSE english student could tell that this is a thinly veiled attack on UKIP, something that indicates to me the utterly compromised nature of the current Church of England, which has allowed itself to become a mere mouthpeice for an oppressive left liberal consensus which is draining the life blood of this country.
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
It doesn't mean they are if they put a but after the statement. The thing is for decades a certain cadre on the left of politics have sat in their ivory towers in self-appointed sanctimonious judgement on the rest of society callng pretty much anyone who they feel threatens their worldview racist. Gordon Brown is a perfect example. The very mention of immigration and according to Gordon you are a racist. Benedict Cumberpatch was dragged over the coals and has probably lost an Oscar for using the 'wrong word' when standing up for ethnic minorities purely because he was not up to date with the latest political correct race jargon. Hence the actual definition of what is or isn't racist has become exceedingly confused but also rather worrying for the voter on the street whose does not mix in the right circles. They are not racist but they do know that there are those who would intimidate and humiliate them as being racist for simply saying the wrong word.
So say when someone says 'I'm not racist but I am concerned with immigration' that is not a dog whistle that they are in fact racist (although a certain class of urban liberal with distinct and overt bigoted tendencies of their own loves to think so). what it means is they are concerned about the implications of immigration. It does not go to say one way or another what their views on race are. Although they will probably give that away in what they subsequently say about immigration
However, it's not true to say they're a secretly racist party. UKIP's constitution makes clear it is a multi-ethnic party, they welcome all ethnicities into Britain and has never said they want an all-White Britain, or repatriation of non-White immigrants, like the BNP have/did.
It's very amusing to see that UKIP embrace the modern best-practice approach of writing platitudes in a statement and claiming that that is the end of the matter, as Enron did in their Code of Ethics:
We are dedicated to conducting business according to all applicable local and international laws and regulations, including but not limited to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and with the highest professional and ethical standards. ... No bribes, bonuses, kickbacks, lavish entertainment or gifts will be given or received in exchange for special position, price or privilege.
Relations with the Company's many publics - customers, stockholders, governments, employees, suppliers, press and bankers - will be conducted in honesty, candor, and fairness.
You appear to be making the claim that UKIP's efforts to stamp out racism in their party are derisory - complacently inadequate. I trust you have some information to back this claim up -especially in relation to the other parties and what they do. After all, facts are so important.
But Mike, how do we get tactical voting if people don't know they are in a marginal or what that means? Or is tactical voting limited to the 25%?
That's is clearly enough in true marginals to make a difference and the proportion might be higher in the voting population than in the electorate at large. But if it is limited to such a minority of the electorate, does that affect prediction models in the not-so marginal seats?
Bravo, Hodges. Too obviously a troll for most people, but let's see how much foam it generates...
Perhaps because these people do not consider themselves racist and do not like being called such by jumped up sanctimonious little urban liberal muppets whose only real claim to fame is that they were sprogged by someone famous. Hodges is such a parody.
You often hear people start sentences with the words:
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
I think uncontrolled mass immigration has been a disaster for this country and would like controlled immigration to take its place.
However I would be totally against any notion of sending home those that are already here, including illegal immigrants.
Comments
Keeping the existing three seaters, a party would need 12.5% to be in with a chance.
Swansea West is an interesting seat. Big lib dem vote to go somewhere, and UKIP and Plaid might grab some votes too.
Do they also pick up the generous tax payer supplied expenses.
Not a bad number ..a Palace..rent free..a chauffeur driven limo..some nice frocks..and a wodge from the hardpressed taxpayer..All they seem to do is give a mumbled sermon an a Sunday and look pious..job done. .
Perhaps they should rename the site 'political sweating...'
There's been a massive generational shift: Heseltine and Clarke are yesterday's men. The new generation pays more attention to people like Lawson when they want guidance from former big beasts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11417345/Noel-Gallagher-Boris-Johnson-will-be-next-PM-and-Labour-are-a-waste-of-time.html
Labour are a "f****** waste of time", Noel Gallagher has said.
Game on Ed, game on
Well before the growth of the Muslim community, France has had a troubling record of its own on anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism is like Japanese knotweed: leave a tiny amount and it will spread, superficially attractive to some people but destructive and hard to eradicate.
(I'm not trying to be flippant here. It is something which troubles me greatly.)
Well, Bibi told the world where the Jews belong.
He would no doubt find agreement from some unwelcome quarters.
Mi5 had less.
I felt like I was visiting a SuperMax with knobs on designed by Henry Knox EDIT as in Fort Knox for the perplexed reader.
If he can't credibly recommend an "in" he will be a sorrowful "we tried our best but it's time to leave".
http://order-order.com/2015/02/17/unite-labour-candidate-dragged-into-smear-scandal/
It's not as though kicking the can down the road in the hope that time will sort everything out is a strategy novel to politicians.
Farage: “He doesn’t look like he could be mentally capable of running a corner shop, far less a ****ing country.”
Cameron: “… the Conservatives are just… I mean, what the ****? David Cameron, he’s trying to be your mate. ‘Oh I really like the Jam.’”
Miliband: “Utterly uninspiring and dull.”
Thatcher: “Thatcher was just like, ‘I’m ****ing you in the arse, **** what you say”. You can kind of respect that."
Osborne: “I have no doubt that George Osborne would’ve practised his weeping the night before Thatcher’s funeral. He might be the most slappable man in England, the kind of man that would watch Coronation Street or EastEnders to get a perspective on the working class.”
Balls: “Ed Balls can frankly lick mine on his way to and from obscurity”
http://tinyurl.com/ox486sg
Opening gambit: "Why do racists object so vehemently to being called racist? I genuinely don’t get it."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11417654/Nothing-scares-Ukip-and-Nigel-Farage-as-much-as-a-mirror.html
He would no doubt find agreement from some unwelcome quarters.
It was a stupid remark by him because it simply reinforced the feeling that some have that Jews are the "other" and not proper Frenchmen, Danes, whatever. And it didn't need saying either because it's not as if the existence of Israel is some secret.
And, tbh, if I didn't feel safe in France I'm not sure I'd feel a whole lot safer in Israel, given who it's surrounded by.
The IoD, FSB or BfB have very different views to the CBI. The CBI tends to represent the multi-nationals, while the others focus on SMEs. SMEs are more important for employment, although get a lot less airtime with the media and politicians.
@iainjwatson: Labour to unveil their full and final election pledge card - which they have so far launched pledge by pledge - in Birmingham on March 14th
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-02-17/church-of-england-takes-unprecedented-step-into-political-arena-advising-followers-how-to-vote/
Its quite easy, you just put a x.
* Greece and the high chance that the "who blinks first" game goes wrong and GrExit
* Spain elections and Podemos win, especially if Greece get any extra considerations
* French national elections and FN get the presidency
* Possibility of upset in French Assembly elections in mid-2017 with a strong FN showing
* Possibility of upset in the German Federal elections late-2017 with a strong AfD showing
Any of which could change the game out of all recognition
There is also the Italian election in 2018 where Beppe Grillo's fruitcakes might get in, again especially if Syriza manage to get any concessions.
It's not impossible that there isn't much of a EU to leave before we get to the decision.
Having read the article linked, what exactly do you find disgusting?
"I'm not a racist, but..."
I'm sure such people get very annoyed at being called racists. It doesn't mean that they aren't. In fact, those opening words are usually a giveaway.
"If we did wake up to Prime Minister Farage on 8 May, the pound would indeed go into freefall and pandemonium would indeed descend on the stock market. That’s not supposition, it’s fact."
If the pound did fall it would surely help our exports.....
@politicshome: Shadow Work and Pensions Sec @RachelReevesMP weighs into the Ed Balls receipt row: "It’s not always that easy to get a receipt" #wato
Can't help thinking the new intake are manoeuvring for the post Ed World
It suits it's opponents to try and paint it as such, though, because they can then lump it in the same category rather than engage with it's arguments on controlled borders and ending open-door migration.
a) Russell Brand is wrong; and
b) Russell Brand is right
Organisations claiming charitable status should not be involved in party politics.
Mind you that said the resurrection was probably the greatest spin exercise ever embarked upon.
However I would be totally against any notion of sending home those that are already here, including illegal immigrants.
Does that make me a racist or a realist?
Whilst I'm no fan of his journalistic style, there's one subject that really riles him is racism.
I was WTF - Am I Dreaming??!?! And then he apologised on air. An epic bit of radio.
I stopped bothering with R5 18 months ago, and haven't tuned into BBCradio or TV progs live either. I feel I've lost nothing. The license fee is a meaningless tax that I refuse to pay for a service I don't even access.
We are dedicated to conducting business according to all applicable local and international laws and regulations, including but not limited to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and with the highest professional and ethical standards.
...
No bribes, bonuses, kickbacks, lavish entertainment or gifts will be given or received in exchange for special position, price or privilege.
Relations with the Company's many publics - customers, stockholders, governments, employees, suppliers, press and bankers - will be conducted in honesty, candor, and fairness.
2. That any GCSE english student could tell that this is a thinly veiled attack on UKIP, something that indicates to me the utterly compromised nature of the current Church of England, which has allowed itself to become a mere mouthpeice for an oppressive left liberal consensus which is draining the life blood of this country.
So say when someone says 'I'm not racist but I am concerned with immigration' that is not a dog whistle that they are in fact racist (although a certain class of urban liberal with distinct and overt bigoted tendencies of their own loves to think so). what it means is they are concerned about the implications of immigration. It does not go to say one way or another what their views on race are. Although they will probably give that away in what they subsequently say about immigration
That's is clearly enough in true marginals to make a difference and the proportion might be higher in the voting population than in the electorate at large. But if it is limited to such a minority of the electorate, does that affect prediction models in the not-so marginal seats?