politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nigel Farage’s offer to support a minority Conservative Gov
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nigel Farage’s offer to support a minority Conservative Government is a 2015 referendum
The UK Independence Party leader says that he is willing to make a deal with the Tories on the condition that they hold an EU referendum before Christmas.
Comments
-
Its old news as this article from the 12th October 2014 in the Express demonstrates
EU vote NEXT YEAR in exchange for Ukip support, Farage tells Cameron
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/521754/Support-surges-to-25-percent-for-Farage-Ukip
With everything else that is going on around the election I doubt it will make any difference at all to how people vote.0 -
I know Farage is probably just trying to wind up the Tories, but I actually think he's wrong on this. If we are going to have a referendum I reckon the earliest it could happen is Autumn, 2016. And as others have mentioned, it would be quite funny to see Cameron try (and fail) to renegotiate are terms of membership. Anyway, it won't matter at this election.0
-
David Jones @DavidJo52951945 10m10 minutes ago
The truth will out-Cage leader who defended Jihadi John is a terrorist who trained him & attended Syrian terror camps http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995140/Did-Cage-director-train-Jihadi-John-MoS-uncovers-new-evidence-links-apologists-ISIS-butcher-desert-weapons-camp.html …0 -
Smart work by Nigel, let's see if Cowardy Cameron really wants a referendum. We know that Telegraph readers do, the tories must be horrified that the Telegraph is serialising Nigel's book weeks before the election.0
-
Two Kitchens Ed gets an uptick in YouGov too
Net well
Cameron: -6 (-)
Miliband: -42 (+6)
But he's still a fair way behind Cameron.....
Osborne's not doing too badly either: -4 (+2)0 -
SNP holds balance of power in hung Parliament - good thing (net)
England: -54
Scotland: +8
SNP Part of coalition government - good thing (net)
England: -54
Scotland: +12
Labour should do deal with SNP in hung parliament (net):
England: -36
Scotland: +15
0 -
How on earth could there be any meaningful, and successful, negotiations for “reform” of Britain’s EU membership by, in practice, a referendum by mid-December?
Unless there’s something about, for example, benefits, that we’re not being told!
And, as far as I know the vast majority of EU migrants have jobs and don’t use the British benefit sustem0 -
If the seats fall as Kellner and others predict then a second election in the autumn would be more likely than any EU referendum.
Mind you an autumn referendum would at least be short compared to the Indyrefs neverendum. It could possibly even be co.bined with another referendum on voting reform and home rule for England.0 -
Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :
50 hours0 -
@foxinsoxuk
I feel for you after the Leicester FC result yesterday. You must have been to hull and back.
Titter ....
The old ones are the best .... as Mrs JackW is oft to say.
0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...
0 -
I have been a Leicester City supporter long enough to get used to disappointment.JackW said:@foxinsoxuk
I feel for you after the Leicester FC result yesterday. You must have been to hull and back.
Titter ....
The old ones are the best .... as Mrs JackW is oft to say.
It has been on the cards for months. After the Man U match we did not have another win until 28th Dec.
More time to concentrate on getting my own ARSE into shape for May 7th!0 -
What would the timing be? Any legislation for a referendum probably would not be passed until early June (especially if coalition negotiations takes a while), and would we want a referendum in the dark, dismal months of November and December?
Worse, neither side would be able to pull together a proper campaign, and any decision would be made on emotion rather than fact.
If it is to be done, let it be done right, not quickly.
0 -
My ARSE welcomes all comers, even homage led impersonators.foxinsoxuk said:
I have been a Leicester City supporter long enough to get used to disappointment.JackW said:@foxinsoxuk
I feel for you after the Leicester FC result yesterday. You must have been to hull and back.
Titter ....
The old ones are the best .... as Mrs JackW is oft to say.
It has been on the cards for months. After the Man U match we did not have another win until 28th Dec.
More time to concentrate on getting my own ARSE into shape for May 7th!
However adherents should recognize that there is only one true, original and acclaimed worldwide electoral forecaster and it resides within the portals of the Auchenteenach Empire.
0 -
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?0
-
There could be an issue about the Electoral Register, too. What would be the position of EU migrants.JosiasJessop said:What would the timing be? Any legislation for a referendum probably would not be passed until early June (especially if coalition negotiations takes a while), and would we want a referendum in the dark, dismal months of November and December?
Worse, neither side would be able to pull together a proper campaign, and any decision would be made on emotion rather than fact.
If it is to be done, let it be done right, not quickly.0 -
PMB..Most of them would also need a top up to their very small pensions anyway.0
-
It's possible to be right and quick.JosiasJessop said:What would the timing be? Any legislation for a referendum probably would not be passed until early June (especially if coalition negotiations takes a while), and would we want a referendum in the dark, dismal months of November and December?
Worse, neither side would be able to pull together a proper campaign, and any decision would be made on emotion rather than fact.
If it is to be done, let it be done right, not quickly.
Indeed I would say that the issue needs to be lanced very quickly because of the huge economic uncertainty the issue would engender - I'd opt for a summer campaign and a vote in the early autumn around September.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
F1: caught most of the race (saw the start but missed the earliest laps after that). Due to that, and sleepiness, I'll put up the post-race piece later today [may well be in the evening].
On-topic: a bloody silly offer. It's not made seriously but to as a tactical point-scoring exercise. Longer is needed for campaigning, not to mention the fact Cameron will [also disingenuously] claim he needs time to renegotiate.0 -
I think it's a good play by Farage because:
1. It turns the debate to Europe, which is UKIP's strongest card. Europe is also a dreadful card for Cameron, Labour and everyone else. There's also a fair chance they'll be bad news from Europe during the campaign, simply because there usually is.
2. Farage has named his red-line issue (which we knew anyway) but it still sounds like a reveal, and gives the appearance of being upfront about things.
3. The other parties have yet to reveal which of their manifesto pledges are red-line issues; they will come under great pressure to do so during the campaign as journalists and voters try work out what they fundamentally stand for.0 -
Lot of sense there, as to be expected. Worryingly, though momentum would be with OUT if UKIP do well in May.JackW said:
It's possible to be right and quick.JosiasJessop said:What would the timing be? Any legislation for a referendum probably would not be passed until early June (especially if coalition negotiations takes a while), and would we want a referendum in the dark, dismal months of November and December?
Worse, neither side would be able to pull together a proper campaign, and any decision would be made on emotion rather than fact.
If it is to be done, let it be done right, not quickly.
Indeed I would say that the issue needs to be lanced very quickly because of the huge economic uncertainty the issue would engender - I'd opt for a summer campaign and a vote in the early autumn around September.0 -
Agreed.Paul_Mid_Beds said:If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
0 -
I hope and expect Farage to offer to support a minority Labour govt, in exchange for a 2015 referendum.
This is actually the only way to switch the probability of winning an 'out' vote to over 50%.0 -
Yesterday I watched Andrew Neil Alan Johnson and Michael Portillo take apart Mail journalist Sarah Vine for an article she'd written comparing Mrs Milliband to an Alian and Mr Spock. She cut as unattractive a figure as I remember seeing in a television studio. So much so it was circulated around the net.
For the last several days we've seen wall to wall Jeremy Clarkson. He's certainly popular with his followers as can be seen by Guido's petition but for the vast majority who can't bear that sort of blokishness he cuts a pretty unattractive figure.
What these two people have in common is that they're everyone's idea of the archetypal Tory. And they're friends of Dave. One from the 'louche Chipping Norton set' the other married to his friend and advisor Michael Gove.
I don't believe it's just chance that Miliband's stock is starting to rise as Dave's is starting to fall. For a lot of people the 'nasty party' never really went away. But for others old memories are just starting to resurface.
And Ed? I thought he was a clumsy joke but now I'm starting to think perhaps he is just a 'straight sort of guy'
0 -
Ed floating mandatory profit sharing schemes for companies with more than fifty employees.
I actually think it's a bad move and should be something that is encouraged rather than enforced. It also has potential to scare the horses close to the election0 -
Will Cameron rule out a deal with UKIP? Clearly he should if he holds himself to his own standards.0
-
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.JackW said:
Agreed.Paul_Mid_Beds said:If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
0 -
Roger, agree entirely. I posted elsewhere a while back that although Ed doesn't appeal as a great statesman, I do believe he is a decent person. Cameron, and the people he surrounds himself with, really are despicable people. Floating voters will find it very difficult to vote tory for that reason alone.0
-
Morning all and on thread, if Farage is offering to support a Cameron minority government, why bother voting UKIP?
Other than Tuesday's ARSE, we are in for an exciting week
ICM
YouGovs
Populus
Ashcroft Monday
Ashcroft revisited marginal
Will we be any clearer by this time next week on the polling evidence, I doubt it.0 -
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.0 -
Will Miliband demand that Cameron rules out any coalition with UKIP? Could cause fun and games in both the Tories and UKIP support.
But, and I really don't follow Kipper internal politics as they are irrelevant up here, didn't Farage say that he would only support the Conservatives if DC and GO were not in charge?0 -
A 2015 referendum is actually quite dangerous for UKIP, I would have thought. Because it gives Cameron the chance to campaign on "back me to negotiate for Britain a great deal with the EU." Essentially, it allows him to get the "post negotiations relationship" vote without having to do the actual negotiations.
There will, therefore, be no disappointment (yet) that the renegotiation doesn't live up to expectations. And Farage will be fighting against a chimera: he'll be campaigning against something he doesn't know exists. It's also hard for Tory MPs, who have said "I'd vote for out if we didn't get the concessions we ask for" to campaign for "Out".0 -
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.0 -
Roger.. we all know what the last "Straight sort of guy" turned out to be..a total tosser.. one in a lifetime is enough0
-
Good morning all.
Nivedita @ExSecular 20h20 hours ago
Good news for Britain - it may become Islamic nation within 20 years @RichardDawkins @TRobinsonNewEra
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.204/britain-may-be-an-islamic-nation-within-20-years.html …0 -
The liberalisation of the pensions market is long overdue and Steve Webb deserves huge credit for his work in this area. For far too long the stranglehold of the annuity trap has ensured the retired have been very poorly served.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.JackW said:
Agreed.Paul_Mid_Beds said:If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
To my mind the essential criteria here is that the dead hand of the state should not determine how your money is spent.
0 -
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.JackW said:
Agreed.Paul_Mid_Beds said:If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).0 -
You are right. The demand for an early referendum is madness from the UKIP perspective. It virtually guarantees an IN vote.rcs1000 said:A 2015 referendum is actually quite dangerous for UKIP, I would have thought. Because it gives Cameron the chance to campaign on "back me to negotiate for Britain a great deal with the EU." Essentially, it allows him to get the "post negotiations relationship" vote without having to do the actual negotiations.
There will, therefore, be no disappointment (yet) that the renegotiation doesn't live up to expectations. And Farage will be fighting against a chimera: he'll be campaigning against something he doesn't know exists. It's also hard for Tory MPs, who have said "I'd vote for out if we didn't get the concessions we ask for" to campaign for "Out".
To succeed OUT would need to build significant business support, singularly lacking at present, and to be able to present a scenario in which a serious effort at renegotiation had failed. The Tories could become badly split by an early referendum though, and perhaps that is what Farage is after.0 -
One other point, but won't there be another GE in the autumn?0
-
By t
Even on those forecasts, Muslims are expected to make up less than 15% of the population in 20 years time, with atheists being by far the fastest growing group.MikeK said:Good morning all.
Nivedita @ExSecular 20h20 hours ago
Good news for Britain - it may become Islamic nation within 20 years @RichardDawkins @TRobinsonNewEra
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.204/britain-may-be-an-islamic-nation-within-20-years.html …
But I guess "Britain increasingly godless country" doesn't fit the narrative.0 -
Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris. 0 -
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
0 -
Mr. K, up to you, but may be worth amending that as many will not have gotten up early and will be waiting for hightlights.0
-
To whom do you refer, DC or GO?richardDodd said:Roger.. we all know what the last "Straight sort of guy" turned out to be..a total tosser.. one in a lifetime is enough
0 -
ER The one who called himself "A straight sort of guy" T Blair0
-
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.0 -
Old devil eyes himself.Edin_Rokz said:
To whom do you refer, DC or GO?richardDodd said:Roger.. we all know what the last "Straight sort of guy" turned out to be..a total tosser.. one in a lifetime is enough
Ed Miliband a straight sort of guy? After how he grew up in Browns office then gained leadership?
Colour me a bit sceptical.0 -
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
Farage would clearly love his portrait on the stairs of number 10. Wonder if he's seriously contemplating it as an achievable goal.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
0 -
RCS,
I, too, have a theory.
I think Ukip know that Cameron is very Pro-Europe and won't accept their offer anyway. He could have arranged to begin negotiating two or three years ago and we'd have voted by now if he'd wanted. It was always a political fudge.
They're calling his bluff knowing he will fold.
Or the offer is aimed at Cameron's successor.
My anecdotal reading of the voters is that they think ... common market - good, political union - not so good. So Cameron may come back with a "no more political union in our lifetime, I have a piece of paper signed by Herr Juncker."
It might be enough.0 -
I think if UKIP was really serious about "Out" they would say: we want to minimise the disruption to business, to massively lower our payments to the EU, to remove the requirement to implement 1,000s of pages of EU law, and to stop allowing "just anyone" in. However, we realise that going fully "out" at this time introduces too much uncertainty, and we therefore suggest going becoming an EFTA member like Norway. This would enable us to prevent migrants from taking benefits, or coming here without a job, and enable us to ensure those who come here pay for their health benefits - but it would not create issues for those businesses that work closely with our neighbours. Once we are EFTA members, it would be UKIP policy to push for an even looser relationship with the EU - however, we realise not everybody will want to go along with that at this time.PeterC said:
You are right. The demand for an early referendum is madness from the UKIP perspective. It virtually guarantees an IN vote.rcs1000 said:A 2015 referendum is actually quite dangerous for UKIP, I would have thought. Because it gives Cameron the chance to campaign on "back me to negotiate for Britain a great deal with the EU." Essentially, it allows him to get the "post negotiations relationship" vote without having to do the actual negotiations.
There will, therefore, be no disappointment (yet) that the renegotiation doesn't live up to expectations. And Farage will be fighting against a chimera: he'll be campaigning against something he doesn't know exists. It's also hard for Tory MPs, who have said "I'd vote for out if we didn't get the concessions we ask for" to campaign for "Out".
To succeed OUT would need to build significant business support, singularly lacking at present, and to be able to present a scenario in which a serious effort at renegotiation had failed. The Tories could become badly split by an early referendum though, and perhaps that is what Farage is after.0 -
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
I was wondering, couldn't see the coalition being anything straighter than corkscrews.foxinsoxuk said:
Old devil eyes himself.Edin_Rokz said:
To whom do you refer, DC or GO?richardDodd said:Roger.. we all know what the last "Straight sort of guy" turned out to be..a total tosser.. one in a lifetime is enough
Ed Miliband a straight sort of guy? After how he grew up in Browns office then gained leadership?
Colour me a bit sceptical.0 -
What Juncker says is irrelevant. Juncker is a functionary. He has no power.CD13 said:RCS,
I, too, have a theory.
I think Ukip know that Cameron is very Pro-Europe and won't accept their offer anyway. He could have arranged to begin negotiating two or three years ago and we'd have voted by now if he'd wanted. It was always a political fudge.
They're calling his bluff knowing he will fold.
Or the offer is aimed at Cameron's successor.
My anecdotal reading of the voters is that they think ... common market - good, political union - not so good. So Cameron may come back with a "no more political union in our lifetime, I have a piece of paper signed by Herr Juncker."
It might be enough.
What is realistically achievable is a memorendum of understanding between the biggest five EU countries on changes (that many of them also want, by the way) on benefits tourism and the like. Plus we might get a specific opt-out on the ECHR and certain parts of the CAP. The latter part could take effect immediately, and it would be agreed to "ignore" the existing EU treaty on the benefits issue until the next one includes them in 2022.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11472417/No-votes-in-defence-The-Tories-should-be-ashamed.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM5775&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_2015_03_15&utm_campaign=DM5775
What is the point of the Conservative Party if it is not much interested in the defence of the realm? That this should be a valid question, only eight weeks from a general election, illustrates that the Tory high command has got itself into a terrible mess of its own making.
Iain Martin castigates Cammo and Co. Blimey, thats a turn up for the book!0 -
rcs
"A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister."
I don't think even British Leyland in their heyday produced that number of white vans0 -
Purple and Orange isn't the greatest colour scheme.0
-
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
Party with 2 MPs wants to call the shots ? Delusions of importance.0
-
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that?JackW said:
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?MikeK said:Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
0 -
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
RCS,
"Herr Merkel" doesn't fit the quote.0 -
Two kitchens? I reckon there's a third one for the nanny on the top floor.CarlottaVance said:Two Kitchens Ed gets an uptick in YouGov too
Net well
Cameron: -6 (-)
Miliband: -42 (+6)
But he's still a fair way behind Cameron.....
Osborne's not doing too badly either: -4 (+2)0 -
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.0
-
Come along chaps, let's not argue about who killed who.
Anyway, mostly done the post-race piece, but as I'm rather tired and will be doing things during the day it'll probably be up this evening.0 -
I agree with all of that but I wonder if Farage'as motive isn't simpler. He needs to avoid media attention fading, so he has to say moderately unexpected stuff - not so OTT that it puts people off, but reportable all the same. He is perfectly capable of saying something contradictory later if he feels like it, as we've seen many times. His voters have priced that tendency in.PeterC said:
You are right. The demand for an early referendum is madness from the UKIP perspective. It virtually guarantees an IN vote.rcs1000 said:A 2015 referendum is actually quite dangerous for UKIP, I would have thought. Because it gives Cameron the chance to campaign on "back me to negotiate for Britain a great deal with the EU." Essentially, it allows him to get the "post negotiations relationship" vote without having to do the actual negotiations.
There will, therefore, be no disappointment (yet) that the renegotiation doesn't live up to expectations. And Farage will be fighting against a chimera: he'll be campaigning against something he doesn't know exists. It's also hard for Tory MPs, who have said "I'd vote for out if we didn't get the concessions we ask for" to campaign for "Out".
To succeed OUT would need to build significant business support, singularly lacking at present, and to be able to present a scenario in which a serious effort at renegotiation had failed. The Tories could become badly split by an early referendum though, and perhaps that is what Farage is after.
0 -
1) The DUP and UKIP are likely to be the fifth largest bloc, even if they work together. Their votes are most unlikely to be crucial.
2) The DUP are going to be much keener on cash to avoid having to make cuts in Northern Ireland, everyone knows that and so if a cheque is wafted under the DUP's nose, they're likely to shaft UKIP.
Apart from that, it's a plan.0 -
But losing the referendum has killed electoral reform for the forsee-able.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
So would losing a EU referendum.
UKIP agree on little else, veering eratically between libertarianism and welfare statism, depending which side of the bed Nigel has got out of.0 -
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.Jonathan said:
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
Oh do lighten up. Sound more like you got out of the wrong side of the bed not I.MikeK said:
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that?JackW said:
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?MikeK said:Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
Mind you I suppose it's a bit crowded in the Ukip bed this morning what with Nigel wanting to jump in the sack with the Conservatives and DUP if Cameron flashes his referendum stockings at Farage.
0 -
SR
"Purple and Orange isn't the greatest colour scheme."
What's happened to psychedelia??
https://images1.pixlis.com/background-image-plaid-checkered-seamless-tileable-psychedelic-purple-orange-peel-235ju3.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKXfqpg-Q-k0 -
Really?Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?0 -
They wouldn't have to, if CON + UKIP is a minority government, then by definition the other parties outnumber them. Plus Clark/Heseltine and a few other grandees would at the very least abstain.rcs1000 said:
Really?Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?0 -
I must remind everyone that Farage is not a one man band, as he himself admits. He is constrained by others in the executive as well as the mass membership of the party. And the fact is that his comments on a UKIP/Tory pact was taken from a book, (The Purple Revolution), written some time ago. I think we can disregard it as immediate UKIP policy.Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
0 -
They would have had to have had a confidence vote in their favour, and passed a queens speech by that point.Indigo said:
They wouldn't have to, if CON + UKIP is a minority government, then by definition the other parties outnumber them.rcs1000 said:
Really?Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?
Which is unlikely if they are substantially in the minority0 -
Yes, you are right and I apologise to you, but the words Morris Minor made be go quite cold. Must be my age.JackW said:
Oh do lighten up. Sound more like you got out of the wrong side of the bed not I.MikeK said:
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that?JackW said:
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?MikeK said:Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
Mind you I suppose it's a bit crowded in the Ukip bed this morning what with Nigel wanting to jump in the sack with the Conservatives and DUP if Cameron flashes his referendum stockings at Farage.
0 -
So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995106/Astonishing-remarks-Gear-affair-senior-BBC-boss-claims-Clarkson-like-Savile.html0 -
Only if Labour want an immediate election. I suspect they wont, for cash reasons, and because the 50-100 seats in which UKIP just ran them close in the north which they don't want to risk losing straight away. So they support an anodyne queens speech and unadventurous budget "for the good of the nation" for 6-12 months while they regroup and raise some funds.rcs1000 said:
They would have had to have had a confidence vote in their favour, and passed a queens speech by that point.Indigo said:
They wouldn't have to, if CON + UKIP is a minority government, then by definition the other parties outnumber them.rcs1000 said:
Really?Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?
Which is unlikely if they are substantially in the minority0 -
Thankfully, those on the Right with one ball who want to wield power over the UK don't have a great track record....rcs1000 said:edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
UKIP want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
0 -
I'd heard that....JackW said:
My ARSE welcomes all comers....foxinsoxuk said:
I have been a Leicester City supporter long enough to get used to disappointment.JackW said:@foxinsoxuk
I feel for you after the Leicester FC result yesterday. You must have been to hull and back.
Titter ....
The old ones are the best .... as Mrs JackW is oft to say.
It has been on the cards for months. After the Man U match we did not have another win until 28th Dec.
More time to concentrate on getting my own ARSE into shape for May 7th!
0 -
Willingly accepted.MikeK said:
Yes, you are right and I apologise to you, but the words Morris Minor made be go quite cold. must be my age.JackW said:
Oh do lighten up. Sound more like you got out of the wrong side of the bed not I.MikeK said:
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that?JackW said:
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?MikeK said:Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
Mind you I suppose it's a bit crowded in the Ukip bed this morning what with Nigel wanting to jump in the sack with the Conservatives and DUP if Cameron flashes his referendum stockings at Farage.
You'll have to advise us of your youthful indiscretions in the back of a Morris Minor after the PB watershed - it is Sunday after all.
0 -
Labour would prefer a swift second election to voting through a Tory budget and an EU referendum.Indigo said:
Only if Labour want an immediate election. I suspect they wont, for cash reasons, and because the 50-100 seats in which UKIP just ran them close in the north which they don't want to risk losing straight away. So they support an anodyne queens speech and unadventurous budget "for the good of the nation" for 6-12 months while they regroup and raise some funds.rcs1000 said:
They would have had to have had a confidence vote in their favour, and passed a queens speech by that point.Indigo said:
They wouldn't have to, if CON + UKIP is a minority government, then by definition the other parties outnumber them.rcs1000 said:
Really?Indigo said:Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?
Which is unlikely if they are substantially in the minority
It would be suicide to copy the LDs!0 -
Not to mention that they have repeatedly said they don't want to be PMMarqueeMark said:
Thankfully, those on the Right with one ball who want to wield power over the UK don't have a great track record....rcs1000 said:edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
UKIP want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/nigel-farage-not-want-prime-48173910 -
What are you smoking ?rcs1000 said:
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.Jonathan said:
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
They had a choice not to enter a formal coalition.
Just like they had a choice over tuition fees.
I hope you are not an historian.0 -
interval:
SoftBunty @BuntyBagshawe 3m3 minutes ago
Really? Nobody dislikes ice-cream do they? Maybe it offends them?
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2015/03/burning-israeli-ice-cream-in-ramallah.html …0 -
I have to ask, why the hurry? Cameron set 2017 because he wanted to go EU and ask them if they are willing to make some concessions on certain issues. Then put that to a referendum.
It might be unrealistic of Cameron to expect EU institutions to be so quick. But the reality is they wont want the UK to leave the EU. But for Cameron to and come back with nothing is a big two fingers, and might end up with the PM himself campaigning to leave (though unlikely).
People who have wanted a referendum have waited an awful long time, would UKIP really block the opportunity for a 2017 referendum, because he insists on a 2015 one, and therefore allow Labour in with no referendum?0 -
Roger @ 7:40 and blackburn63 @ 7:47:
I entirely agree. On the other hand I could see Cameron best suited to running a shell game in a circus. That's just my opinion of course.0 -
I have it on good authority that a mattress fits snugly in the back of a Moris Minor Traveller with the back seat down.JackW said:
Willingly accepted.MikeK said:
Yes, you are right and I apologise to you, but the words Morris Minor made be go quite cold. must be my age.JackW said:
Oh do lighten up. Sound more like you got out of the wrong side of the bed not I.MikeK said:
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that?JackW said:
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?MikeK said:Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
Mind you I suppose it's a bit crowded in the Ukip bed this morning what with Nigel wanting to jump in the sack with the Conservatives and DUP if Cameron flashes his referendum stockings at Farage.
You'll have to advise us of your youthful indiscretions in the back of a Morris Minor after the PB watershed - it is Sunday after all.
A little bit public though, and I am sure that both comfort and dignity are better preserved in a carriage and four with the curtains drawn.0 -
Apparently notTheWatcher said:Two kitchens? I reckon there's a third one for the nanny on the top floor.
No kitchen since the Borgias has ever produced anything so toxic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11472863/Ed-Miliband-doesnt-have-two-kitchens-one-is-for-the-live-in-nanny.html
And now the tale of Ed Miliband’s two kitchens has taken a new twist - with claims that one of them is reserved for his family’s live-in nanny.
ITV is due to begin filming at the house on Sunday for a prime-time half-hour documentary on the Labour leader, to be screened in the run-up to the election.
Mr Miliband has already agreed to give programme-makers access to his home and he will now have to decide in which kitchen to allow filming to take place.0 -
But they didn't have to prioritise AV over their position on, say, tuition fees.rcs1000 said:
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.Jonathan said:
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.0 -
Which makes it all the more interesting that he hasn't offered it to Miliband - perhaps because he knows there's a chance it would be accepted and that the prospect of UKIP propping up Labour might sit poorly with many of the ex-Con Purple switchers (who still make up the largest section of UKIP's support).edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are:
1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM.
2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party.
3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
Farage's best bet in winning a referendum is on an unreformed EU. Ideally from the BOO point of view, it would come after a failed renegotiation but coming after no renegotiation is second-best and would have the side-effect of splitting the Tory vote (and, to a lesser extent, the Labour vote if not the Labour Party).
But I rather suspect Nick has nailed this - it's more about Farage playing the media game than anything more complex. The details only matter down the line and he'll be gambling that if it does put off the odd Lab-UKIP switcher, it'll be compensated for by the rise in profile.0 -
Clarksons case will be more like Michael BarrymoresSquareRoot said:So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995106/Astonishing-remarks-Gear-affair-senior-BBC-boss-claims-Clarkson-like-Savile.html
Very popular once but as seen by the total lack of interest from
Sky and ITV in him no longer touchable by any major TV station
Bullying, racist petrolhead dinosaurs may get 800k muppets to support him
but for the rest of us 60 million Brits..hes not our kind of people
Dave is his only famous supporter and Dave will now be the only
channel you will see the fat bore on in the future0 -
Nonsense. As will be demonstrated at the Madjeski Stadium tomorrow.SandyRentool said:Purple and Orange isn't the greatest colour scheme.
0 -
Clearly you are not.Yorkcity said:
What are you smoking ?rcs1000 said:
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.Jonathan said:
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.rcs1000 said:
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?foxinsoxuk said:
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?rcs1000 said:
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.foxinsoxuk said:
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.rcs1000 said:
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.MikeK said:
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?rcs1000 said:
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.edmundintokyo said:The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
They had a choice not to enter a formal coalition.
Just like they had a choice over tuition fees.
I hope you are not an historian.
The only viable options in 2010 were a unstable minority Conservative government or the Con/LibDem Coalition - Some choice.
The "choice" over tuiton fees is also a false one. In government the Tories would not agree the LibDem policy and out of government the LibDems clearly couldn't implement the policy.
0 -
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago
UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”0 -
thanks tim.. still obsessing about|Dave and his kids on your twitter feed.. you need helpcoolagorna said:
Clarksons case will be more like Michael BarrymoresSquareRoot said:So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995106/Astonishing-remarks-Gear-affair-senior-BBC-boss-claims-Clarkson-like-Savile.html
Very popular once but as seen by the total lack of interest from
Sky and ITV in him no longer touchable by any major TV station
Bullying, racist petrolhead dinosaurs may get 800k muppets to support him
but for the rest of us 60 million Brits..hes not our kind of people
Dave is his only famous supporter and Dave will now be the only
channel you will see the fat bore on in the future0
