ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
SNP MPs are no more (or less) qualified to vote on English only matters than any other parties Scottish MP's. Indeed the SNP MPs are more likely to abstain than other parties.
An SNP coalition would be electoral suicide for Labour both sides of the border.
They don't have to join a coalition - the misunderstanding on this is as bad as debt/deficit confusion.
Supply and Confidence is not much better for either SLAB or EWLAB. Why switch back if you are former SLAB? And why let the celtic (non-Lab) tail wag the English dog?
Better a Lab minority, and agree an EVFEL deal with the Tories.
A Labour minority with Conservative support O_O ?!
Support only for a cross party EVFEL bill. Probably would get LD and UKIP support too if well drafted.
Indeed all Constitutional reform should be agreed between parties.
Senior Liberal Democrats declared that pre-election TV debates would take place “over their dead body” after Britain’s four main broadcasters yesterday announced the order in which they would screen three proposed debates.
The party refused to rule out the possibility of legal action as it emerged that the key head-to-head debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, which excludes Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, will take place a week before the general election.
This means that the chances of the debates going ahead is receding further, with both coalition partners expressing strong objections to the proposed format.
The time for change/Ed Miliband pair of questions looks pretty good for the Conservatives. 34% saying 'we need to stay the course' sound reasonably solid. If one in ten, or even one in 20, of the 60% saying 'it's time for a change' can be persuaded that the alternatives actually on offer are a change for the worse, then that could be enough.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
SNP MPs are no more (or less) qualified to vote on English only matters than any other parties Scottish MP's. Indeed the SNP MPs are more likely to abstain than other parties.
An SNP coalition would be electoral suicide for Labour both sides of the border.
They don't have to join a coalition - the misunderstanding on this is as bad as debt/deficit confusion.
Supply and Confidence is not much better for either SLAB or EWLAB. Why switch back if you are former SLAB? And why let the celtic (non-Lab) tail wag the English dog?
Better a Lab minority, and agree an EVFEL deal with the Tories.
A Labour minority with Conservative support O_O ?!
Support only for a cross party EVFEL bill. Probably would get LD and UKIP support too if well drafted.
Indeed all Constitutional reform should be agreed between parties.
Whatever happened to democracy? There needs to be competition between ideas. If you have consensus, you are in danger of having stitch-up.
The financial deterioration of the FT sector continues to worsen, with stress concentrated in the acute sector, where 60 trusts – 73 per cent of all acute FTs – are now in deficit.
This compares to zero in 2010 in deficit and 21 trusts in 2013
Is this what weaponising the NHS looks like? Take a look at the NHS budget. Then take a look at the massive government deficit left by Labour in 2010. Then take a look at Labour's promise to make £20 billion of eficiency savings in the NHS in their 2010 manifesto - after saying NHS spending was high enough.
There will be no 2nd GE this year if no party wins a majority. Fixed Term Parliament Act.
That's a cast iron guarantee, just like "2010 Lib Dems are Labour's impregnable firewall"...
They still are.
Still plenty for Labour to fall when the 2010 Lib's go back to The Dead Dove or more likely, stay at home on the day?
Labour to poll lower under Ed The Younger than El Gord?
Isn't going to happen. However crap Ed is, Labour client base is large enough and bizarrely their brand still seems to be far less tarnished than the Tories, meaning they will still get 30%+
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
SNP MPs are no more (or less) qualified to vote on English only matters than any other parties Scottish MP's. Indeed the SNP MPs are more likely to abstain than other parties.
An SNP coalition would be electoral suicide for Labour both sides of the border.
They don't have to join a coalition - the misunderstanding on this is as bad as debt/deficit confusion.
Supply and Confidence is not much better for either SLAB or EWLAB. Why switch back if you are former SLAB? And why let the celtic (non-Lab) tail wag the English dog?
Better a Lab minority, and agree an EVFEL deal with the Tories.
A Labour minority with Conservative support O_O ?!
Support only for a cross party EVFEL bill. Probably would get LD and UKIP support too if well drafted.
Indeed all Constitutional reform should be agreed between parties.
Ok - that's fair enough, but the big one... the budget is emphatically not an English law.
@OliverCooper: UKIP are now polling their lowest since April in a ComRes poll, their lowest since September in YouGov, and their lowest ever in Ashcroft.
I guess the outlier would be last weeks record high with populus, although that would have passed many by as no one on here mentioned it!
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
Have English MPs been deciding on non-English laws recently ?
They're not allowed to, only the Scots get to do that.
You don't wield power without controlling the budget. Currently English MPs decide how much of Scotland's own money Scotland gets back. Hence, no such thing as English or Scottish only matters in very nearly every instance.
A Scottish MP made the budgets between 1997-2007 and these were voted upon by Scottish MPs.
Hardly to the benefit of Scotland with a net loss of around £35bn** over that ten year period, removed from Scotland and spent on London.
**topline GERS the reality was likely to have been much, much higher.
I am shocked at how selfish and introspective Scotland has become.
Within the Union there is no such thing as Scotlands money.
It is one of the things about a Union you pool resources for the benefit of all. You support the weakest, not stamp your grubby feet shouting 'it's our money. Give it back you big bully!'
For a nation that claims to be altruistic it is very sad to see.
Not wanting to subsidise England is not being selfish. It is merely seeking fairness. If England hadn't spent Scotland's money on such ridiculous largesse for London (continuing with another £15bn choo choo currently featured on BBC2) then Scotland would not be ready to dump the Union.
That doesn't even consider the utter disbelief Scotland has that there is no recognition from England at just how large the subsidy they have received is, not only is it unrecognised but the general opinion in England appears to be that it is subsidising Scotland!
Utterly ridiculous.
I've been meaning to ask you something about the export surplus of Scotland you were speaking of yesterday. I tried to look it up, but couldn't find the information. Is your contention that Scotland is a benefactor based on international exports, or 'exports' to the rest of the UK?
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7%
So The Scores On The Board are:
Populus - Tie
The Good Lord - Lab Lead
ComRes - Con Lead
YouGov - Tie
#megpollingmonday
And the winner is????
Those that will benefit from a second GE in a year? The losers are all those that pump money into political parties as they fund a second campaign.
There will be no 2nd GE this year if no party wins a majority. Fixed Term Parliament Act.
This can be put in bold all anyone likes, it is simply not true.
FTPA provides for elections if a motion of no confidence in a Govt. is passed, and not superseded within 14 days.
a) likely presence of two mainstream GB parties, two minor GB parties and numerous nationalist parties + b) the experience of minor coalition parties across Europe in the past decades = c) parties are unlikely to lend support if there is any future electoral capital to be made from not doing so.
I should think it entirely likely that if a no-confidence motion succeeds, it would lead to a dissolution of parliament.
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
So Carswell's a sound Cameroon, as everyone used to think before he went all peculiar.
If I didn't know better, Carswell is trying to troll the Kippers
Powell was wrong.....Immigration has not been without its challenges. Yet it has been, overwhelmingly, a story of success. Britain today is more at ease with the multi-ethnic society that we have become than once seemed imaginable — and not just to Enoch Powell. Like many before and since, Powell underestimated the ability of a free society to adapt.
Powell talked of Britain “heaping up its own funeral pyre”. Yet our country has more than survived. We have, in all kinds of ways, thrived.
Equally wrong, too, has been the “multiculti groupthink” of much of the past few decades.
That, too, underestimates the strength of social cohesion to create and renew common identity. Social cohesion has happened precisely because people have been defined by what they share, not by difference.
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
So Carswell's a sound Cameroon, as everyone used to think before he went all peculiar.
Carswell is absolutely right about multi-ethnic. Which is very different from multi-cultural. But he certainly isn't a Cameroon. He is not a Europhile for a start.
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
So Carswell's a sound Cameroon, as everyone used to think before he went all peculiar.
I'm wondering whether Carswell "went rogue" to infiltrate UKIP, take it over and facilitate and eventual Con/UKIP merger?
To be honest I think the truth is actually much simpler: he's really not a party man, he has very much his own take on things. In many ways he is closer to the Cameroons than to either UKIP or the traditional Conservative party, but he doesn't really fit any label too well.
Tories Most votes, most seats, Dave out the job I reckon if this is the score.
A tory lead & over 10 wks campaigning to bung in the mixer = ok for tories. Suppose you said 'if' but do you reckon these polls will stagnate from here on in?
The official election campaign which begins at the end of March has favoured the Opposition in 10 of the last 14 general election capaigns - 3 favoured the Government -1 being neutral. However, of the 3 which saw the Government strengthen during the campaign ,1979 and 1997 were cases of the incumbent lagging by 12 - 20% and making up some ground before polling day. Neither of those examples fits what we are looking at today. But that still leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
The financial deterioration of the FT sector continues to worsen, with stress concentrated in the acute sector, where 60 trusts – 73 per cent of all acute FTs – are now in deficit.
This compares to zero in 2010 in deficit and 21 trusts in 2013
Is this what weaponising the NHS looks like? Take a look at the NHS budget. Then take a look at the massive government deficit left by Labour in 2010. Then take a look at Labour's promise to make £20 billion of eficiency savings in the NHS in their 2010 manifesto - after saying NHS spending was high enough.
"Efficiency savings" are a nonsense. I know because I am responsible for a fairly large NHS budget. The NHS tariffs were originally set at the average rate across hospitals for costs. These get topsliced by 4% each year as "Efficiency savings" until we reach the point that Trusts cannot break even with these then either close money losing services or run a deficit.
I do not think that the NHS deficit will be that big an issue. We have been given a nod and a wink not to worry about it this financial year, just have plans to meet it next year. It may well be a much bigger issue after the election.
ComRes for @DailyMailUK: majority (55%) think that if SNP joins coalition govt they shouldn't be allowed to decide on non-Scots laws
Have English MPs been deciding on non-English laws recently ?
They're not allowed to, only the Scots get to do that.
You don't wield power without controlling the budget. Currently English MPs decide how much of Scotland's own money Scotland gets back. Hence, no such thing as English or Scottish only matters in very nearly every instance.
Stop talking such utter and complete self serving dictatorial bilge. The entire nations parliament votes on the budget for the entire nation. Under devolution how does that give the right for Scottish MPs to vote on the English NHS?
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
So Carswell's a sound Cameroon, as everyone used to think before he went all peculiar.
If I didn't know better, Carswell is trying to troll the Kippers
Powell was wrong.....Immigration has not been without its challenges. Yet it has been, overwhelmingly, a story of success. Britain today is more at ease with the multi-ethnic society that we have become than once seemed imaginable — and not just to Enoch Powell. Like many before and since, Powell underestimated the ability of a free society to adapt.
Powell talked of Britain “heaping up its own funeral pyre”. Yet our country has more than survived. We have, in all kinds of ways, thrived.
Equally wrong, too, has been the “multiculti groupthink” of much of the past few decades.
That, too, underestimates the strength of social cohesion to create and renew common identity. Social cohesion has happened precisely because people have been defined by what they share, not by difference.
Because I can't copy and paste more of the article without News International's Lawyers sending Mike threatening letters, I do recommend buying the Times just for Carswell's article.
It is a very nuanced, thoughtful article by him, there's stuff Kippers will agree with.
But if we're going to have a proper debate on immigration in this country, we need the likes of Douglas Carswell at the forefront of it.
Whiplash, Grand Budapest Hotel and Night Crawler were my three favorites in last year.
I hated Boyhood
Agree with you about Nightcrawler but not GBH (just realised) - disliking it seems to earn the wrath of a lot of people though. Surprised anyone wouldn't like Boyhood which I wanted to win best pic - better than Birdman which was a little too fancy for its own good.
And the scores from the board for the ComRes Scottish sub sample SNP 43, LAB 24, Tory 20, LIb 10 Green 2 and UKIP a big fat round 0. Yep 0 in the sub sample. Yes I know it is only a cross break but don't you just love saying it UKIP 0%!
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour and Tories tied: CON 33%, LAB 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 7%
So The Scores On The Board are:
Populus - Tie
The Good Lord - Lab Lead
ComRes - Con Lead
YouGov - Tie
#megpollingmonday
And the winner is????
Those that will benefit from a second GE in a year? The losers are all those that pump money into political parties as they fund a second campaign.
There will be no 2nd GE this year if no party wins a majority. Fixed Term Parliament Act.
This can be put in bold all anyone likes, it is simply not true.
FTPA provides for elections if a motion of no confidence in a Govt. is passed, and not superseded within 14 days.
a) likely presence of two mainstream GB parties, two minor GB parties and numerous nationalist parties + b) the experience of minor coalition parties across Europe in the past decades = c) parties are unlikely to lend support if there is any future electoral capital to be made from not doing so.
I should think it entirely likely that if a no-confidence motion succeeds, it would lead to a dissolution of parliament.
I agree. 2 elections looks quite likely to me. Plenty of betting opportunities too!
I've been meaning to ask you something about the export surplus of Scotland you were speaking of yesterday. I tried to look it up, but couldn't find the information. Is your contention that Scotland is a benefactor based on international exports, or 'exports' to the rest of the UK?
While not perfect due to the huge "unknown" totals which include Hydrocarbons, Electricity and would therefore make the Scottish position far better, the figures here : -
Show Scotland exporting £14.6bn and importing £11bn the trade surplus Scotland holds is even more impressive as a percentage. Remember Scotland is 8.3% of the UK total.
Scotland is 8.8% of Exports and 4.3% of Imports.
Internally I don't have the figures to hand but remember England imports Basics such as Electricity and foodstuffs in huge quantities from Scotland making the balance of negotiations for any necessary trade agreements heavily biased in Scotland's favour.
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
So Carswell's a sound Cameroon, as everyone used to think before he went all peculiar.
If I didn't know better, Carswell is trying to troll the Kippers
Powell was wrong.....Immigration has not been without its challenges. Yet it has been, overwhelmingly, a story of success. Britain today is more at ease with the multi-ethnic society that we have become than once seemed imaginable — and not just to Enoch Powell. Like many before and since, Powell underestimated the ability of a free society to adapt.
Powell talked of Britain “heaping up its own funeral pyre”. Yet our country has more than survived. We have, in all kinds of ways, thrived.
Equally wrong, too, has been the “multiculti groupthink” of much of the past few decades.
That, too, underestimates the strength of social cohesion to create and renew common identity. Social cohesion has happened precisely because people have been defined by what they share, not by difference.
Yet when asked what you thought needed to change in Britain after the Charlie Hebdo attacks you said we needed to stop the de facto segregation of different communities.. That is a direct effect of mass immigration and the overwhelming reason powell was so set against it
Yet when asked what you thought needed to change in Britain after the Charlie Hebdo attacks you said we needed to stop the de facto segregation of different communities.. That is a direct effect of mass immigration and the overwhelming reason powell was so set against it
So look like you agree w powell not Carswell
No I don't.
I said it was one of the things that contribute, but not the only thing, I think it has a lot more to do with social/economic class.
Enoch Powell said someone like me couldn't possibly be English/British. I think I've rather disproved that.
He was also responsible for some stupid predictions, a war between the UK and US was another one.
These were the key proposals from the Carswell/Hannan book of 2008:
Scrapping all MPs' expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency Selecting candidates through open primaries Local and national referendums "People's Bills", to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act Placing social security, too, under local authorities Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial allocation that would have been spent on their child Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord Requiring all foreign treaties to be ratified by Parliament Scrapping the Human Rights Act withdrawing from the ECHR and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism A "Great Repeal Bill" to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws
Mike is right about a fast second election. People arguing from Continental experience don't understand how MPs think. "I've been elected for 5 years. I can make the best of the situation, or I can put my career instantly at risk, duh." Most will think it a no-brainer, especially as a couple of parties will probably be preoccupied with leadership elections.
Last time I heard Douglas Carswell talk about Enoch Powell was a few years ago.
He pointed out that Powell made the Rivers of Blood speech in April 1968. A few months later the D'Oliveria affair happened, which brought race/racism into the public eye.
Here was an immigrant to this country who was a fine addition to this country, being treated like a second class citizen by both South Africa and the England selectors.
It offended the British sense of fair play and decency and by a quirk of fate, Powell was lumped into the same category as those who supported and practised apartheid.
Mike is right about a fast second election. People arguing from Continental experience don't understand how MPs think. "I've been elected for 5 years. I can make the best of the situation, or I can put my career instantly at risk, duh." Most will think it a no-brainer, especially as a couple of parties will probably be preoccupied with leadership elections.
Yes, and for a second election to happen, more than 50% of MPs have to agree that 'now is the best time'. Since all the parties will be jostling for position, trying to choose the best time for their own interests, and trying to shaft each other, even if they're not preoccupied with electing a new leader, it could be some time before there's a majority willing, able and ready to pull the plug.
Yet when asked what you thought needed to change in Britain after the Charlie Hebdo attacks you said we needed to stop the de facto segregation of different communities.. That is a direct effect of mass immigration and the overwhelming reason powell was so set against it
So look like you agree w powell not Carswell
No I don't.
I said it was one of the things that contribute, but not the only thing, I think it has a lot more to do with social/economic class.
Enoch Powell said someone like me couldn't possibly be English/British. I think I've rather disproved that.
He was also responsible for some stupid predictions, a war between the UK and US was another one.
You can't help who you end up agreeing with unwittingly or not, don't tie yourself in knots trying to undo it
Mike is right about a fast second election. People arguing from Continental experience don't understand how MPs think. "I've been elected for 5 years. I can make the best of the situation, or I can put my career instantly at risk, duh." Most will think it a no-brainer, especially as a couple of parties will probably be preoccupied with leadership elections.
Yes, and for a second election to happen, more than 50% of MPs have to agree that 'now is the best time'. Since all the parties will be jostling for position, trying to choose the best time for their own interests, and trying to shaft each other, even if they're not preoccupied with electing a new leader, it could be some time before there's a majority willing, able and ready to pull the plug.
Most MPs are in safe seats so have little to lose in a second election. NickP is an exception in this.
These were the key proposals from the Carswell/Hannan book of 2008:
Scrapping all MPs' expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency Selecting candidates through open primaries Local and national referendums "People's Bills", to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act Placing social security, too, under local authorities Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial allocation that would have been spent on their child Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord Requiring all foreign treaties to be ratified by Parliament Scrapping the Human Rights Act withdrawing from the ECHR and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism A "Great Repeal Bill" to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws
Mike is right about a fast second election. People arguing from Continental experience don't understand how MPs think. "I've been elected for 5 years. I can make the best of the situation, or I can put my career instantly at risk, duh." Most will think it a no-brainer, especially as a couple of parties will probably be preoccupied with leadership elections.
I can see your point Nick - though I think it does ignore the likely pressures exerted by numerous parties whipping operations, and the court of public opinion.
However, if MPs are that wont to prefer continual constitutional gridlock out of fear, it is yet another reason why the FTPA should be repealed as the last act of this Govt.
May is too far into the year for a second election to be likely. More probable is another election 12 - 18 months later - similar to 1964 - 66 or 1950 - 51.
Mike is right about a fast second election. People arguing from Continental experience don't understand how MPs think. "I've been elected for 5 years. I can make the best of the situation, or I can put my career instantly at risk, duh." Most will think it a no-brainer, especially as a couple of parties will probably be preoccupied with leadership elections.
But most MPs aren't in marginals! However there must be quite a few relative non-entity SNP activists (hope that's not too offensive, I'm presuming the A team will stay in Edinburgh) who could soon find themselves in parliament.
I honestly can't work out what we're heading towards. I guess some kind of minority government that may change hands at some point. Rory Bremner joked about having a new PM every week. I trust that is over the top.
The financial deterioration of the FT sector continues to worsen, with stress concentrated in the acute sector, where 60 trusts – 73 per cent of all acute FTs – are now in deficit.
This compares to zero in 2010 in deficit and 21 trusts in 2013
Is this what weaponising the NHS looks like? Take a look at the NHS budget. Then take a look at the massive government deficit left by Labour in 2010. Then take a look at Labour's promise to make £20 billion of eficiency savings in the NHS in their 2010 manifesto - after saying NHS spending was high enough.
"Efficiency savings" are a nonsense. I know because I am responsible for a fairly large NHS budget. The NHS tariffs were originally set at the average rate across hospitals for costs. These get topsliced by 4% each year as "Efficiency savings" until we reach the point that Trusts cannot break even with these then either close money losing services or run a deficit.
I do not think that the NHS deficit will be that big an issue. We have been given a nod and a wink not to worry about it this financial year, just have plans to meet it next year. It may well be a much bigger issue after the election.
Or you make efficiency savings. The NHS budget has not been cut by 4% a year. In 2010 the NHS budget was £117 bn. In 2015 it is £133 bn. (I know the problem of health care inflation)
I am happy with the NHS. I do not want to see it a political football. The NAO said in 2010ish that over the past ten years NHS expenditure had increased in real terms by 71 per cent. Labour commissioned a report by McKinsey - and Brown may have told them what he wanted to hear, who knows - but their report said in 2009 that savings could deliver up to £15 billion to the NHS even with no further funding growth.
My point is I grow tired of Labour's weaponising of the NHS when they wasted the money they spent and they determined to make the savings they are complaining about now.
Most MPs are in safe seats so have little to lose in a second election. NickP is an exception in this.
True, but don't underestimate the hassle factor. I enjoy elections, win or lose, but I'm rare in that. Most MPs dislike them intensely - the campaign eats your whole life for a few months (apart from posting on PB, of course), you're constantly at risk of saying something unfortunate and getting instantly axed to avoid embarrassment to the party, and when you've finished you may find yourself exactly where you were before, a humble backbencher.
Suppose your Trust proposed that everyone reapply for their jobs next month. Even if you were really confident that you'd be reappointed, wouldn't you feel it was a hassle you could do without? And if they said, "Now let's do it again"?
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
Farage won't like that. Is the UKIP leadership contest already under way?
Carswell is nailed on to win his seat, Farage less so.
I also think after that woman on meet the Kippers, Carswell is trying to show the party isn't full of loons, racists and fruitcakes, mostly.
But it is. Carswell, Ratner-like, has just rubbished UKIP's USP. If the main thing for him is a referendum on the EU then why is he where he is? I think I, who would rather like a referendum on the EU, am entitled to be rather annoyed with him.
Think the last couple of days have seen a bit of shift.
Ashcroft polls have been volatile previously and could just as easy give a 5% Tory lead next week.
YouGov have been moving in a very narrow range in the last few months but seem to have closed the small lead Labour gained last week again.
Of more relevance is the Com Res, Opinium and Populus polls which are all showing two things - the lowest UKIP shares and the best Tory results for quite some considerable time.
Labour probably just ahead on seats still at the moment but 4 things will shape the next 10 weeks.
1) Can Labour gain back any ground in Scotland (I'm thinking not much and see SNP winning perhaps close to 40 seats)
2) Will the Lib Dem vote increase and if so will it badly hurt Labour (I can see the Lib Dems gaining, but I think a lot of the gain will be back from other NOTA parties)
3) Will UKIP continue to fall and if so, who will benefit the most (Yes I think UKIP will keep getting squeezed and this is the will be the crux of the election - perhaps a lot of the wwc vote is soft and might go back to Labour, or maybe those on the right might be spooked into running back to the tories by the prospect of Ed or Ed and Nicola)
4) The campaign - as the campaign starts to dominate the media narrative more and more, can Labour keep it's brand to the forefront and Ed in the background and will the Tories be able to make it a more presidential campaign and use Dave, who, whatever you think about them, is still their best weapon.
The answers to the above could still mean a difference of 5% or so either way to the reds or blues, so overall majority cannot be ruled out categorically for either. On balance, taking account of the above, I think there is slightly more upside for the Tories. I think they will probably run a decent campaign. Their brand, whilst despicable to tribal voters from other parts of the political spectrum is, when taking into account the economic data of late, probably not too tainted for floaters and switchers.
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
The financial deterioration of the FT sector continues to worsen, with stress concentrated in the acute sector, where 60 trusts – 73 per cent of all acute FTs – are now in deficit.
This compares to zero in 2010 in deficit and 21 trusts in 2013
Is this what weaponising the NHS looks like? Take a look at the NHS budget. Then take a look at the massive government deficit left by Labour in 2010. Then take a look at Labour's promise to make £20 billion of eficiency savings in the NHS in their 2010 manifesto - after saying NHS spending was high enough.
"Efficiency savings" are a nonsense. I know because I am responsible for a fairly large NHS budget. The NHS tariffs were originally set at the average rate across hospitals for costs. These get topsliced by 4% each year as "Efficiency savings" until we reach the point that Trusts cannot break even with these then either close money losing services or run a deficit.
I do not think that the NHS deficit will be that big an issue. We have been given a nod and a wink not to worry about it this financial year, just have plans to meet it next year. It may well be a much bigger issue after the election.
Or you make efficiency savings. The NHS budget has not been cut by 4% a year. In 2010 the NHS budget was £117 bn. In 2015 it is £133 bn. (I know the problem of health care inflation)
I am happy with the NHS. I do not want to see it a political football. The NAO said in 2010ish that over the past ten years NHS expenditure had increased in real terms by 71 per cent. Labour commissioned a report by McKinsey - and Brown may have told them what he wanted to hear, who knows - but their report said in 2009 that savings could deliver up to £15 billion to the NHS even with no further funding growth.
My point is I grow tired of Labour's weaponising of the NHS when they wasted the money they spent and they determined to make the savings they are complaining about now.
We make "efficiency savings" then get business case approval for a new person to do the same job! Happens most years.
There are efficiencies to be made, I have never claimed otherwise, but these savings "CIP cost improvement plans" are largely fictitious.
Most of our real efficiencies are technologically driven, initiated by doctors and held back by managers and nurses.
Nearly a third (32%) of Labour voters think Ed would be a bad Prime Minister - and barely over half (53%) who voted Labour in 2010 think he would be good.
The 'don't knows' on this question are also quite low - the highest among Lib Dems (16%), but Con (4%), Lab (6%), UKIP (7%) Green (5%) and SNP (10%) suggest people have pretty much made up their minds......
Interesting question on 'fairness' - in the event of a coalition involving the SNP, should Scots MPs be allowed to vote on laws that don't impact Scotland:
Yes and the ComnRes sub sample has the SNP 20 points ahead and heading for a landslide. The lead story on the news tonight was the fall of ex Scottish Secretary and NO man Malcolm Rifikind which will hardly assist the beleaguered Tory interest.
The poll actually shows strong majorities in favour of the SNP being in a UK coalition, most noticeably among SNP and Labour voters. In terms of what they vote on then the case they have made is that there are next to no issues that don't affect Scotland and certainly income tax is not one of them. Most people in Scotland (Yes or No) are rather looking forward to the idea of Scotland being in poll position for a change.
Most people in Scotland (Yes or No) are rather looking forward to the idea of Scotland being in poll position for a change.
That going to be a spin of the dice. If either major party get a majority, or a CON+LD coalition is formed, no one will care what the SNP thinks for the next five years. If its LAB+SNP then the SNP will be in the driving seat for the next five years, and it probably swings on a couple of thousand votes across a handful of marginals... what fun
Another random thought re restriction of MPs' incomes (seeing as I got a response to my half-joke, half-serious suggestion that MPs should be debarred from owning any real estate so that none have a financial interest in policies that push up house prices) ... what happens to people who receive a long-run cash flow for work done long ago? It's not uncommon for MPs to have, or have had, a literary career which would generate royalties years after their book is written. The same could happen to an artist or musician, though that has been historically rather less of an issue.
Do we ban all successful novelists from entering parliament, unless they rescind their copyrights? Are MPs banned from writing a new historical biography, or simply banned from publishing it while in office?
I'd love to know what proponents of a "15% rule" or some variant thereof would actually make of such cases.
Think the last couple of days have seen a bit of shift.
Ashcroft polls have been volatile previously and could just as easy give a 5% Tory lead next week.
YouGov have been moving in a very narrow range in the last few months but seem to have closed the small lead Labour gained last week again.
Of more relevance is the Com Res, Opinium and Populus polls which are all showing two things - the lowest UKIP shares and the best Tory results for quite some considerable time.
Labour probably just ahead on seats still at the moment but 4 things will shape the next 10 weeks.
1) Can Labour gain back any ground in Scotland (I'm thinking not much and see SNP winning perhaps close to 40 seats)
2) Will the Lib Dem vote increase and if so will it badly hurt Labour (I can see the Lib Dems gaining, but I think a lot of the gain will be back from other NOTA parties)
3) Will UKIP continue to fall and if so, who will benefit the most (Yes I think UKIP will keep getting squeezed and this is the will be the crux of the election - perhaps a lot of the wwc vote is soft and might go back to Labour, or maybe those on the right might be spooked into running back to the tories by the prospect of Ed or Ed and Nicola)
4) The campaign - as the campaign starts to dominate the media narrative more and more, can Labour keep it's brand to the forefront and Ed in the background and will the Tories be able to make it a more presidential campaign and use Dave, who, whatever you think about them, is still their best weapon.
The answers to the above could still mean a difference of 5% or so either way to the reds or blues, so overall majority cannot be ruled out categorically for either. On balance, taking account of the above, I think there is slightly more upside for the Tories. I think they will probably run a decent campaign. Their brand, whilst despicable to tribal voters from other parts of the political spectrum is, when taking into account the economic data of late, probably not too tainted for floaters and switchers.
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
On point 2), my understanding is that a small lib dem recovery would (seat-wise) hurt the cons a lot more than lab.
On 3), historically there seems to have been a rise in UKIP votes when they've had more media attention, and a drop when they've had less. Given they're a "major party" according to broadcasters, they will be getting more attention in the short campaign than they are now, plus Farage will be in two of the debates (assuming they go ahead). So it's quite possible that their downward trajectory will stop or even reverse.
Yes and the ComnRes sub sample has the SNP 20 points ahead and heading for a landslide. The lead story on the news tonight was the fall of ex Scottish Secretary and NO man Malcolm Rifikind which will hardly assist the beleaguered Tory interest.
The poll actually shows strong majorities in favour of the SNP being in a UK coalition, most noticeably among SNP and Labour voters. In terms of what they vote on then the case they have made is that there are next to no issues that don't affect Scotland and certainly income tax is not one of them. Most people in Scotland (Yes or No) are rather looking forward to the idea of Scotland being in poll position for a change.
No it doesn't. What is says is a majority believe you should not be excluded from a coalition. That's a very different thing to actively welcoming your involvement. As to what you should or should not involve yourselves in (and the poll refers to 'laws' not 'issues'). It doesn't matter what you think if the English media and public don't like what your up to then Labour will suffer and suffer greatly in the popularity stakes.
Ironically many of us down south are also looking forward to you lot getting involved but perhaps for different reasons......
Think the last couple of days have seen a bit of shift.
Ashcroft polls have been volatile previously and could just as easy give a 5% Tory lead next week.
YouGov have been moving in a very narrow range in the last few months but seem to have closed the small lead Labour gained last week again.
Of more relevance is the Com Res, Opinium and Populus polls which are all showing two things - the lowest UKIP shares and the best Tory results for quite some considerable time.
Labour probably just ahead on seats still at the moment but 4 things will shape the next 10 weeks.
1) Can Labour gain back any ground in Scotland (I'm thinking not much and see SNP winning perhaps close to 40 seats)
2) Will the Lib Dem vote increase and if so will it badly hurt Labour (I can see the Lib Dems gaining, but I think a lot of the gain will be back from other NOTA parties)
3) Will UKIP continue to fall and if so, who will benefit the most (Yes I think UKIP will keep getting squeezed and this is the will be the crux of the election - perhaps a lot of the wwc vote is soft and might go back to Labour, or maybe those on the right might be spooked into running back to the tories by the prospect of Ed or Ed and Nicola)
4) The campaign - as the campaign starts to dominate the media narrative more and more, can Labour keep it's brand to the forefront and Ed in the background and will the Tories be able to make it a more presidential campaign and use Dave, who, whatever you think about them, is still their best weapon.
The answers to the above could still mean a difference of 5% or so either way to the reds or blues, so overall majority cannot be ruled out categorically for either. On balance, taking account of the above, I think there is slightly more upside for the Tories. I think they will probably run a decent campaign. Their brand, whilst despicable to tribal voters from other parts of the political spectrum is, when taking into account the economic data of late, probably not too tainted for floaters and switchers.
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
On point 2), my understanding is that a small lib dem recovery would (seat-wise) hurt the cons a lot more than lab.
On 3), historically there seems to have been a rise in UKIP votes when they've had more media attention, and a drop when they've had less. Given they're a "major party" according to broadcasters, they will be getting more attention in the short campaign than they are now, plus Farage will be in two of the debates (assuming they go ahead). So it's quite possible that their downward trajectory will stop or even reverse.
I'm dunno, they've had a lot of media attention recently and it hasn't done them that well!
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
On point 2), my understanding is that a small lib dem recovery would (seat-wise) hurt the cons a lot more than lab.
I'm dunno, they've had a lot of media attention recently and it hasn't done them that well!
In comparison to Labour and the Tories they have had very little coverage and what they have had hasn't generally been helpful. Its not largely been from the party's leadership or about the party's campaign per se but about petty side issues such as the Channel 4 smearfest, the BBC2 stitch up, dodgy professional politicians defecting and Students Unions effectively ending free speech
Furthermore, most of the dialogue about policies has purely involved Labour and the Tories up until now with both the Libdems and UKIP shut out by the media. Come the last six weeks UKIP and the Libdems will be given the opportunity to comment on just about everything in much greater detail and set their own policies against those of the other parties.
So I think its evens whether they continue to stagnate or pick up again. A big test will be the Spring Conference this weekend which is the effective kick off of the UKIP campaign. It'll be interesting to see what sort of coverage UKIP receive afterwards and how the party go forward once they have fired the starting gun for their campaign.
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
On point 2), my understanding is that a small lib dem recovery would (seat-wise) hurt the cons a lot more than lab.
I'm dunno, they've had a lot of media attention recently and it hasn't done them that well!
In comparison to Labour and the Tories they have had very little coverage and what they have had hasn't generally been helpful. Its not largely been from the party's leadership or about the party's campaign per se but about petty side issues such as the Channel 4 smearfest, the BBC2 stitch up, dodgy professional politicians defecting and Students Unions effectively ending free speech
There is also the question of whether the adverse coverage from Ch4 and BBC2 have changed anything at all, or if they have just made the UKIP vote "more shy".
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
If anyone not a political obsessive (so 99% of voters) remembers either by next week I will be quite surprised, the accusations are very weak sauce and are not going to hold the front pages very long with all the other political and international excitement going on
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
If anyone not a political obsessive (so 99% of voters) remembers either by next week I will be quite surprised, the accusations are very weak sauce and are not going to hold the front pages very long with all the other political and international excitement going on
True..but Rifkinds story could rumble on and on as he appears set to try and continue his career as though unblemished and every time he appears on TV unapologetic and arrogant it will be a least a minor irritation to swing voters more worried about their own living standards on far less than 67k and with far less "time on their hands" and take up airtime the Tories would rather be filled with their Mps banging on about their fantasy Long Term Economic Plan
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
I'm sure it will get 'Outraged of Islington' and 'Disgusted of Primrose Hill' frothing over their smoked tofu but I suspect for most it will be. 'Yep more greed from the Westminster rabble or somesuch'. I don't think a lot of voters differentiate anymore. It's just more of the same old corruption
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
I'm sure it will get 'Outraged of Islington' and 'Disgusted of Primrose Hill' frothing over their smoked tofu but I suspect for most it will be. 'Yep more greed from the Westminster rabble or somesuch'. I don't think a lot of voters differentiate anymore. It's just more of the same old corruption
I suppose so...as Totally Unshocked of Sheffield it merely confirmed my opinion.of both men already..but the Rifkind part has the slight chance of becoming a Neil Hamilton Tatton 97 election story if he continues in his current vein
Where are you Mr Bell? Put that white suit on one more time?
Rifkind is surely dead meat as its hard to see even Cameron who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc) retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
I'm sure it will get 'Outraged of Islington' and 'Disgusted of Primrose Hill' frothing over their smoked tofu but I suspect for most it will be. 'Yep more greed from the Westminster rabble or somesuch'. I don't think a lot of voters differentiate anymore. It's just more of the same old corruption
I suppose so...as Totally Unshocked of Sheffield it merely confirmed my opinion.of both men already..but the Rifkind part has the slight chance of becoming a Neil Hamilton Tatton 97 election story if he continues in his current vein
Where are you Mr Bell? Put that white suit on one more time?
nah I don't think so he represents Kensington & Chelsea. There probably isn't a more sympathetic constituency for him in the country although if this drags on it will be intriguing to see who will be the Tory standing there if he can't get 'unsuspended' in time.
Meanwhile of course in the wake of Rotherham, Greater Manchester, Saville, Clifford et al Miliband decides to bring back the 'chivalrous and gallant' John Prescott to the front line. Its all getting rather surreal really.....
The financial deterioration of the FT sector continues to worsen, with stress concentrated in the acute sector, where 60 trusts – 73 per cent of all acute FTs – are now in deficit.
This compares to zero in 2010 in deficit and 21 trusts in 2013
Is this what weaponising the NHS looks like? n.
Or you make efficiency savings. The NHS budget has not been cut by 4% a year. In 2010 the NHS budget was £117 bn. In 2015 it is £133 bn. (I know the problem of health care inflation)
I am happy with the NHS. I do not want to see it a political football. The NAO said in 2010ish that over the past ten years NHS expenditure had increased in real terms by 71 per cent. Labour commissioned a report by McKinsey - and Brown may have told them what he wanted to hear, who knows - but their report said in 2009 that savings could deliver up to £15 billion to the NHS even with no further funding growth.
My point is I grow tired of Labour's weaponising of the NHS when they wasted the money they spent and they determined to make the savings they are complaining about now.
Trying to get efficiency savings is laudable .. but the real problem i demand and especially demand by the elderly. Living longer, more of them and more ways of keeping them alive longer.
I am an OAP and fortunately healthy (so far) but help neighbours in their 80s...by taking them to hospital etc. I am struck by the percentage of elderly patients in Outpatients waiting for a doctor: they must account for well over 60% of all attendees.
In my view a lot more could be done to organise the fitter OAPs to help those less able.. and encourage those a decade away from retirement to exercise more. I am shocked how seriously unfit many 50 year old people are.
Nothing complex: just walking more and doing simple exercises would make many enjoy far better health and live more enjoyable lives: let alone save the NHS a great deal of time and money.
I see no evidence of any Party nor any medical staff addressing this issue. Prevention is far cheaper and better than cure.
With the the forecast boom in OAPs post 2029, it will become impossible to fund the rise in OAPs as the NHS stands. We are talking "10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050. " http://tinyurl.com/c5vepm3
Senior Liberal Democrats declared that pre-election TV debates would take place “over their dead body” after Britain’s four main broadcasters yesterday announced the order in which they would screen three proposed debates.
The party refused to rule out the possibility of legal action as it emerged that the key head-to-head debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, which excludes Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, will take place a week before the general election.
This means that the chances of the debates going ahead is receding further, with both coalition partners expressing strong objections to the proposed format.
I don't think that the LDs can do anything - there's no contract between them and the media- and being empty chaired in the two other debates won't look good.
" However there must be quite a few relative non-entity SNP activists (hope that's not too offensive, I'm presuming the A team will stay in Edinburgh) who could soon find themselves in parliament."
Not as many as you might think. In fact I would say the SNP now have the strongest slate of candidates they have ever had for Westminster, at least since the creation of Holyrood.
The reason for that must surely be the combination of the politicising effect of the referendum and the evidence that many more SNP candidates are likely to become MPs.
As an example, perhaps John Nicolson (ex-BBC) might not have been tempted to stand for the SNP in East Dunbartonshire were it not for the referendum and a belief that he could win.
I suggest that his campaign may well catch fire, resulting in a win in 2015 from 4th in GE2010-goodbye Jo Swinson if it happens.
Comments
Indeed all Constitutional reform should be agreed between parties.
I hated Boyhood
Senior Liberal Democrats declared that pre-election TV debates would take place “over their dead body” after Britain’s four main broadcasters yesterday announced the order in which they would screen three proposed debates.
The party refused to rule out the possibility of legal action as it emerged that the key head-to-head debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, which excludes Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, will take place a week before the general election.
This means that the chances of the debates going ahead is receding further, with both coalition partners expressing strong objections to the proposed format.
It's traditional 2010 Labour "core voters" who the party was taking for granted which have been Labour's undoing.
54 % will stay LD and 13% each to Lab and Tory, so best not count those Red LD chickens just yet.
Enoch Powell was wrong about immigration - The firebrand misjudged Britain’s ability to become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself
Labour to poll lower under Ed The Younger than El Gord?
The betting markets however "offer value" on that outcome
Take a look at the NHS budget. Then take a look at the massive government deficit left by Labour in 2010. Then take a look at Labour's promise to make £20 billion of eficiency savings in the NHS in their 2010 manifesto - after saying NHS spending was high enough.
Although you might win that accidentally if there are no debates I guess
I also think after that woman on meet the Kippers, Carswell is trying to show the party isn't full of loons, racists and fruitcakes, mostly.
FTPA provides for elections if a motion of no confidence in a Govt. is passed, and not superseded within 14 days.
a) likely presence of two mainstream GB parties, two minor GB parties and numerous nationalist parties
+
b) the experience of minor coalition parties across Europe in the past decades
=
c) parties are unlikely to lend support if there is any future electoral capital to be made from not doing so.
I should think it entirely likely that if a no-confidence motion succeeds, it would lead to a dissolution of parliament.
#ferretsinasack
Powell was wrong.....Immigration has not been without its challenges. Yet it has been, overwhelmingly, a story of success. Britain today is more at ease with the multi-ethnic society that we have become than once seemed imaginable — and not just to Enoch Powell. Like many before and since, Powell underestimated the ability of a free society to adapt.
Powell talked of Britain “heaping up its own funeral pyre”. Yet our country has more than survived. We have, in all kinds of ways, thrived.
Equally wrong, too, has been the “multiculti groupthink” of much of the past few decades.
That, too, underestimates the strength of social cohesion to create and renew common identity. Social cohesion has happened precisely because people have been defined by what they share, not by difference.
1) Enoch was wrong
2) Immigration is a success for the country
3) The country has thrived because of immigration
I do not think that the NHS deficit will be that big an issue. We have been given a nod and a wink not to worry about it this financial year, just have plans to meet it next year. It may well be a much bigger issue after the election.
It is a very nuanced, thoughtful article by him, there's stuff Kippers will agree with.
But if we're going to have a proper debate on immigration in this country, we need the likes of Douglas Carswell at the forefront of it.
The mind boggles...
Night x.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-regional-trade-statistics-third-quarter-2013
Show Scotland exporting £14.6bn and importing £11bn the trade surplus Scotland holds is even more impressive as a percentage. Remember Scotland is 8.3% of the UK total.
Scotland is 8.8% of Exports and 4.3% of Imports.
Internally I don't have the figures to hand but remember England imports Basics such as Electricity and foodstuffs in huge quantities from Scotland making the balance of negotiations for any necessary trade agreements heavily biased in Scotland's favour.
Douglas Carswell has faith in the country to always adapt for the better no matter what happens.
So look like you agree w powell not Carswell
I said it was one of the things that contribute, but not the only thing, I think it has a lot more to do with social/economic class.
Enoch Powell said someone like me couldn't possibly be English/British. I think I've rather disproved that.
He was also responsible for some stupid predictions, a war between the UK and US was another one.
Scrapping all MPs' expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency
Selecting candidates through open primaries
Local and national referendums
"People's Bills", to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures
Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines
Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage
Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act
Placing social security, too, under local authorities
Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax
Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component
Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial allocation that would have been spent on their child
Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord
Requiring all foreign treaties to be ratified by Parliament
Scrapping the Human Rights Act withdrawing from the ECHR and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism
A "Great Repeal Bill" to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/5329377/My_plan_to_rescue_Britain_in_just_12_months/
Interesting stuff.
He pointed out that Powell made the Rivers of Blood speech in April 1968. A few months later the D'Oliveria affair happened, which brought race/racism into the public eye.
Here was an immigrant to this country who was a fine addition to this country, being treated like a second class citizen by both South Africa and the England selectors.
It offended the British sense of fair play and decency and by a quirk of fate, Powell was lumped into the same category as those who supported and practised apartheid.
And on that note, goodnight everybody
However, if MPs are that wont to prefer continual constitutional gridlock out of fear, it is yet another reason why the FTPA should be repealed as the last act of this Govt.
I honestly can't work out what we're heading towards. I guess some kind of minority government that may change hands at some point. Rory Bremner joked about having a new PM every week. I trust that is over the top.
I am happy with the NHS. I do not want to see it a political football.
The NAO said in 2010ish that over the past ten years NHS expenditure had increased in real terms by 71 per cent.
Labour commissioned a report by McKinsey - and Brown may have told them what he wanted to hear, who knows - but their report said in 2009 that savings could deliver up to £15 billion to the NHS even with no further funding growth.
My point is I grow tired of Labour's weaponising of the NHS when they wasted the money they spent and they determined to make the savings they are complaining about now.
Suppose your Trust proposed that everyone reapply for their jobs next month. Even if you were really confident that you'd be reappointed, wouldn't you feel it was a hassle you could do without? And if they said, "Now let's do it again"?
Carswell, Ratner-like, has just rubbished UKIP's USP.
If the main thing for him is a referendum on the EU then why is he where he is? I think I, who would rather like a referendum on the EU, am entitled to be rather annoyed with him.
Ashcroft polls have been volatile previously and could just as easy give a 5% Tory lead next week.
YouGov have been moving in a very narrow range in the last few months but seem to have closed the small lead Labour gained last week again.
Of more relevance is the Com Res, Opinium and Populus polls which are all showing two things - the lowest UKIP shares and the best Tory results for quite some considerable time.
Labour probably just ahead on seats still at the moment but 4 things will shape the next 10 weeks.
1) Can Labour gain back any ground in Scotland (I'm thinking not much and see SNP winning perhaps close to 40 seats)
2) Will the Lib Dem vote increase and if so will it badly hurt Labour (I can see the Lib Dems gaining, but I think a lot of the gain will be back from other NOTA parties)
3) Will UKIP continue to fall and if so, who will benefit the most (Yes I think UKIP will keep getting squeezed and this is the will be the crux of the election - perhaps a lot of the wwc vote is soft and might go back to Labour, or maybe those on the right might be spooked into
running back to the tories by the prospect of Ed or Ed and Nicola)
4) The campaign - as the campaign starts to dominate the media narrative more and more, can Labour keep it's brand to the forefront and Ed in the background and will the Tories be able to make it a more presidential campaign and use Dave, who, whatever you think about them, is still their best weapon.
The answers to the above could still mean a difference of 5% or so either way to the reds or blues, so overall majority cannot be ruled out categorically for either. On balance, taking account of the above, I think there is slightly more upside for the Tories. I think they will probably run a decent campaign. Their brand, whilst despicable to tribal voters from other parts of the political spectrum is, when taking into account the economic data of late, probably not too tainted for floaters and switchers.
Over Tories largest part on seats and votes - but probably falling short of 326 seats needed.
There are efficiencies to be made, I have never claimed otherwise, but these savings "CIP cost improvement plans" are largely fictitious.
Most of our real efficiencies are technologically driven, initiated by doctors and held back by managers and nurses.
The 'don't knows' on this question are also quite low - the highest among Lib Dems (16%), but Con (4%), Lab (6%), UKIP (7%) Green (5%) and SNP (10%) suggest people have pretty much made up their minds......
OA: -17
Con: -41
Lab: +10
LibD: -27
UKIP: -20
SNP: -8
Only Lab voters net in favour.....I wonder why?
The Climate Forecast System, which is a weather model that goes out to 9 months in the future, predicts the following for 7th May.
Rain and strong winds encroaching from the West to northern Britain, drier calmer conditions to the south and east
Interesting ComRes on 'would vote Labour no matter who the leader is'
England: 21
Scotland: 14
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31587953
Neglects to mention Minister responsible......
Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-cliff-richard-raid-police-5219056
Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11431072/Sir-Cliff-Richards-privacy-was-violated-by-police-deal-with-BBC-report-claims.html
And Mail, so far:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965969/EXCLUSIVE-Police-BBC-savaged-Sir-Cliff-raid-Singer-s-privacy-violated-secret-deal-film-swoop-house-sex-assault-allegations-says-report.html
Reporting the criticism of the BBC on the Cliff Richard raid
Meanwhile, on the BBC, the latest Cliff Richard story is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31053900
Yes and the ComnRes sub sample has the SNP 20 points ahead and heading for a landslide. The lead story on the news tonight was the fall of ex Scottish Secretary and NO man Malcolm Rifikind which will hardly assist the beleaguered Tory interest.
The poll actually shows strong majorities in favour of the SNP being in a UK coalition, most noticeably among SNP and Labour voters. In terms of what they vote on then the case they have made is that there are next to no issues that don't affect Scotland and certainly income tax is not one of them. Most people in Scotland (Yes or No) are rather looking forward to the idea of Scotland being in poll position for a change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-31597119
Do we ban all successful novelists from entering parliament, unless they rescind their copyrights? Are MPs banned from writing a new historical biography, or simply banned from publishing it while in office?
I'd love to know what proponents of a "15% rule" or some variant thereof would actually make of such cases.
On 3), historically there seems to have been a rise in UKIP votes when they've had more media attention, and a drop when they've had less. Given they're a "major party" according to broadcasters, they will be getting more attention in the short campaign than they are now, plus Farage will be in two of the debates (assuming they go ahead). So it's quite possible that their downward trajectory will stop or even reverse.
Check table 6.
Furthermore, most of the dialogue about policies has purely involved Labour and the Tories up until now with both the Libdems and UKIP shut out by the media. Come the last six weeks UKIP and the Libdems will be given the opportunity to comment on just about everything in much greater detail and set their own policies against those of the other parties.
So I think its evens whether they continue to stagnate or pick up again. A big test will be the Spring Conference this weekend which is the effective kick off of the UKIP campaign. It'll be interesting to see what sort of coverage UKIP receive afterwards and how the party go forward once they have fired the starting gun for their campaign.
who has a history of defending the indefensible (Miller, Coulson etc)
retaining a man as chair of an important committee who would
whore himself out to the extent he appears willing to
While not good for Labour as Straw was involved too the story
is still worse for the Tories especially with the quotes from
the Kensington Mp about "someone of my background cant
be expected to live on 67k" and "I have a lot of free time on.my
hands" and worst of all "I am self employed, no one pays me a
salary" being so memorable whereas Jacks were as dull as most
of his speeches
Plus Straw is quitting and was a Blairite not an Ed supporter whereas
Rifkind is the typical Cameroon Tory..warmongering, pro
Israel, greedy, arrogant and for hire to anyone with enough
money..A poster boy in fact for much of the modern Conservative Party
set to try and continue his career as though unblemished and
every time he appears on TV unapologetic and arrogant it will
be a least a minor irritation to swing voters more worried about their own
living standards on far less than 67k and with far less "time on
their hands" and take up airtime the Tories would rather be filled with
their Mps banging on about their fantasy Long Term Economic Plan
my opinion.of both men already..but the Rifkind part has the slight
chance of becoming a Neil Hamilton Tatton 97 election story
if he continues in his current vein
Where are you Mr Bell? Put that white suit on one more time?
Meanwhile of course in the wake of Rotherham, Greater Manchester, Saville, Clifford et al Miliband decides to bring back the 'chivalrous and gallant' John Prescott to the front line. Its all getting rather surreal really.....
I don't think that the LDs can do anything - there's no contract between them and the media- and being empty chaired in the two other debates won't look good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kpx6j
Clearly not selected on merit.
" However there must be quite a few relative non-entity SNP activists (hope that's not too offensive, I'm presuming the A team will stay in Edinburgh) who could soon find themselves in parliament."
Not as many as you might think. In fact I would say the SNP now have the strongest slate of candidates they have ever had for Westminster, at least since the creation of Holyrood.
The reason for that must surely be the combination of the politicising effect of the referendum and the evidence that many more SNP candidates are likely to become MPs.
As an example, perhaps John Nicolson (ex-BBC) might not have been tempted to stand for the SNP in East Dunbartonshire were it not for the referendum and a belief that he could win.
I suggest that his campaign may well catch fire, resulting in a win in 2015 from 4th in GE2010-goodbye Jo Swinson if it happens.
Bercow says MPs will cop it if they have broken rules. He went on to say......
"People should not be in Parliament to add to their personal fortune."
http://news.sky.com/story/1433564/bercow-cash-for-access-mps-may-cop-it