In the 16th April debate while the nats and Greens will be anti austerity and populist, Farage will be pro austerity and for spending cuts, just populist in ending ringfencing of overseas aid etc
Of course the Tories would have elected IDS had there been debates, Labour elected Ed Miliband after the 2010 debates after all, indeed IDS was seen to have had the better of Clarke in the one newsnight debate they had.
Flightpath The most charismatic candidate does not always win every debate, for example David Davis won the Tory leadership debates, and Mitt Romney beat Obama in the first 2012 debate, as Kerry beat Bush in the first 2004 debate
That's a monster "if" - in general when people are accused of something by the Daily Mail the working assumption shouldn't be that it's true.
Only exception being if it's a smear on UKIP, eh!
No - I'm not a fan of the Tories, but the Mail is not a reliable information source. From time to time they write things that are true, but that's not a good working assumption.
So which of the daily UK press do you trust as a reliable information source - surely not the Guardian?
stodge - I'm simply amazed that a party that fought the last election to the left of new Labour could be happy with the last 5 years of coalition government. As for the Lib Dems having no choice, well they could have played their hand better. They could have struck a better deal on the coalition, rather than not running a singe major department and having less than 20% of the cabinet ministers in spite of nearly 40% of the coalition's votes. Secondly Clegg should have laid down the law as soon as the likes on Lansley started revealing their radical plans - you the Tories accept that you didn't win the election, that the coalition will be a centrist mush or we are out of here. But Clegg wold never do that would he? By making it clear that he would never pull out of the coalition a party that hadn't won an election for nearly two decades suddenly had the confidence to be bold.
No doubt Clegg thinks he's restrained the Tories and kept them on a tight leash. I prefer the Portillo analysis - the coalition has liberated the Tories to do things they'd have been afraid of doing under the Tory banner. But I doubt Clegg cares. I doubt he's much bothered with the country heading in a centre-right direction, just so long as he looks like the shrewd negotiator who's doing smart deals.
To pick just one example - foreign policy. Philip Stephens wrote a good piece in the FT the other day. Essentially that this has been the most parochial government in modern times with a PM who regards the rest of the world as somewhere to go on holiday. If the Lib Dems had been in opposition they'd surely have been slating Cameron day after day with their sincere internationalism. But inside the tent they conveniently look the other way.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
Would be a good Saturday thread for sure David
Thanks. I may still do it dependent on events. It's unlikely to appear before May 7 now as there should be too much happening week by week to respond to and I did a Scotland piece yesterday so don't want to become overly focussed on that particular post-election 'what if' when there so much else going on.
If, however, the 'what if' becomes an 'is now', then it'll be a question well worth looking at (and history revisiting).
Be better after election , see how that actually pans out and the likely implications etc if as expected the SNP win a large amount of seats. I expect you will have lots of good material for Saturdays from the election result.
So it was Cameron who knifed Clegg re: the April 16th debate. But Stodge and the Liberals would , no doubt, say it shows the "importance" of the Lib Dems that they are being excluded.
That's a monster "if" - in general when people are accused of something by the Daily Mail the working assumption shouldn't be that it's true.
Only exception being if it's a smear on UKIP, eh!
No - I'm not a fan of the Tories, but the Mail is not a reliable information source. From time to time they write things that are true, but that's not a good working assumption.
So which of the daily UK press do you trust as a reliable information source - surely not the Guardian?
They all need to be read critically, but the Guardian is certainly less unreliable than the Mail.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
stodge - I'm simply amazed that a party that fought the last election to the left of new Labour could be happy with the last 5 years of coalition government. As for the Lib Dems having no choice, well they could have played their hand better. They could have struck a better deal on the coalition, rather than not running a singe major department and having less than 20% of the cabinet ministers in spite of nearly 40% of the coalition's votes. Secondly Clegg should have laid down the law as soon as the likes on Lansley started revealing their radical plans - you the Tories accept that you didn't win the election, that the coalition will be a centrist mush or we are out of here. But Clegg wold never do that would he? By making it clear that he would never pull out of the coalition a party that hadn't won an election for nearly two decades suddenly had the confidence to be bold.
No doubt Clegg thinks he's restrained the Tories and kept them on a tight leash. I prefer the Portillo analysis - the coalition has liberated the Tories to do things they'd have been afraid of doing under the Tory banner. But I doubt Clegg cares. I doubt he's much bothered with the country heading in a centre-right direction, just so long as he looks like the shrewd negotiator who's doing smart deals.
To pick just one example - foreign policy. Philip Stephens wrote a good piece in the FT the other day. Essentially that this has been the most parochial government in modern times with a PM who regards the rest of the world as somewhere to go on holiday. If the Lib Dems had been in opposition they'd surely have been slating Cameron day after day with their sincere internationalism. But inside the tent they conveniently look the other way.
The Lib Dems were poor negotiators. They forgot one simple rule: Nothing could be passed without their agreement. In that sense they were equal partners.
They might argue, but the Tories would have gone alone ! Really ? If they could they would not have asked the Lib Dems to form a coalition.
I do not think Clegg could negotiate out of a paper bag. As for Alexander, he 's only a Lib Dem because he stood in Inverness. After a massive defeat, whatever Easterross says, he will be a Tory party member in a few months time - down South.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Is there a detailed breakdown of Cameron's supposed women problem? The only detailed polling data I've looked at is a south coast LD CON marginal (Ashcroft), where Cameron was streets ahead amongst women.
Wonder if Ed is in fact piling up (sic) female support exactly where he doesn't need it, and weaker in marginals where there is greater understanding that not voting Tory will lead to Ed moving into no. 10.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
But why would that stop you telling the truth to a nice young lady on the phone?
I've argued on here before that Charles Kennedy had huge good fortune in his time as leader since he faced a weak and ineffective Conservative Party but in Iraq found an issue around which he could draw many who were not naturally sympathetic to the LDs.
It's no secret that policy development atrophied in his time as leader so that when Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, the LDs simply had no response to his new approach.
In many ways, that inability to respond to Cameron has framed British politics since. Once Kennedy was deemed expendable, the party responded by choosing gravitas in the shape of Sir Menzies Campbell and that wasn't a bad idea. An older leader to appeal to an ageing electorate was probably the most sensible move but unfortunately excellent though Sir Menzies was in the Court room, he didn't shine in the modern televisual world.
One thing Campbell did begin was to re-formulate policy and sharpen the differences with Labour but the election of Nick Clegg was a conscious effort to out-Cameron the Conservatives in terms of youth and televisual appeal.
Kennedy had an excess of good fortune and the root of the Lib Dems' future problems lie mainly with him. He talked about replacing the Tories as one of the two main parties but simultaneously tried to occupy the left-wing ground Blair had vacated. The two strategies were never compatible.
If he really wanted to replace the Tories, he should have adopted an Orange Book approach and made a bid for the liberal centre (which isn't at all incompatible with opposition to Iraq); if he wanted to occupy the Old Labour ground, he could do that too, playing a longer term game to wait for Labour to fail in government and aim to pick up their losses. What he couldn't do was both, as it implied making implicit promises that couldn't be kept.
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The truth is no one but yourselves think you are the party of government. Everyone knows it the Tories who are in power and you helped them stay there.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
The party lies in ruins in no small part because of the lazy and opportunistic path taken by Ashdown and Kennedy, first cosying up to New Labour and then trying to outflank them on the left while nominally attacking the Tories who, at the time, were the weaker of the two main parties. That strategy was always bound to end in disaster because it had no coherence and was not based on ideological principle; they sold their party's soul for a few election gains.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
So those two Tories, Clegg & Alexander are off the hook then ?
They are off the hook for the cards they've been dealt, though not for how they've played them.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Is there a detailed breakdown of Cameron's supposed women problem? The only detailed polling data I've looked at is a south coast LD CON marginal (Ashcroft), where Cameron was streets ahead amongst women.
Wonder if Ed is in fact piling up (sic) female support exactly where he doesn't need it, and weaker in marginals where there is greater understanding that not voting Tory will lead to Ed moving into no. 10.
"The ICM Wisdom Index, which questioned 2,000 people online, suggested that last week’s Budget had made no difference to the overall standing of the parties.
However, for only the second time in the three-year history of the Wisdom Index, Labour and the Tories are neck-and-neck among women voters, who predict that both parties will receive 31 per cent on Polling Day. Labour has traditionally held a lead over the Conservatives among women, while men are more likely to back the Tories.
Martin Boon, head of research at ICM Unlimited, said: “The Conservatives are slowly edging away from Labour. Women are now backing the Tories in exactly the same numbers as Labour, which is something only witnessed once before. The stars might be aligning for a moderate Tory electoral surge.”
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Is there a detailed breakdown of Cameron's supposed women problem? The only detailed polling data I've looked at is a south coast LD CON marginal (Ashcroft), where Cameron was streets ahead amongst women.
Wonder if Ed is in fact piling up (sic) female support exactly where he doesn't need it, and weaker in marginals where there is greater understanding that not voting Tory will lead to Ed moving into no. 10.
The Ashcroft data suggests that Labour's doing better in the marginals. The big question is whether that will be sustained through the election campaign.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
So if you have done so good, how come your party is being demolished in front of our very eyes ! If you say that is the price of being in government, I don't see the same happening to the Tories.
The deficit reduction plan of 2010: The government is "off" about £60bn from that. Remember we would have been in surplus this year. The Tuition fees would have cost an extra billion.
But, of course, we couldn't afford that ! But we can be £60bn adrift. The world has not caved in as a result.
The party built by Steel, Ashdown , Kennedy now lies in ruins. My local MP, Davey, could not even bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" on Israel's inhuman attack on Gaza. These are the cowards you have in your party !
The party lies in ruins in no small part because of the lazy and opportunistic path taken by Ashdown and Kennedy, first cosying up to New Labour and then trying to outflank them on the left while nominally attacking the Tories who, at the time, were the weaker of the two main parties. That strategy was always bound to end in disaster because it had no coherence and was not based on ideological principle; they sold their party's soul for a few election gains.
Ultimately, the chickens were always going to come home to roost. Those MPs gained meant it was likely that at some point they'd end up holding the balance of power, and then what? All the contradictions in policy and local electoral stance would be exposed and undo all the effort of the previous 15-20 years. Furthermore, anyone with any foresight (and patience) would have foreseen that it was highly likely that it would be a Conservative government they'd be supporting: in part because of their stance on fair votes and in part because of the electoral momentum. With 80+ non-Con/Lab MPs, the first election that Labour lost was always likely to be hung and the option would be to prop up a tired-out Labour Party which had just lost a load of seats, or a Conservative Party which had gained them.
But such foresight raised to many difficult questions which could be ignored until they were asked directly and in the meantime there'd be the golden glow of by-election successes - and Ashdown and Kennedy were distracted by the shiny things in front of them sufficiently to ignore the cliff edge they were driving towards.
So those two Tories, Clegg & Alexander are off the hook then ?
They are off the hook for the cards they've been dealt, though not for how they've played them.
Congratulations that is an apt and succinct way to put it.
I've argued on here before that Charles Kennedy had huge good fortune in his time as leader since he faced a weak and ineffective Conservative Party but in Iraq found an issue around which he could draw many who were not naturally sympathetic to the LDs.
It's no secret that policy development atrophied in his time as leader so that when Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, the LDs simply had no response to his new approach.
In many ways, that inability to respond to Cameron has framed British politics since. Once Kennedy was deemed expendable, the party responded by choosing gravitas in the shape of Sir Menzies Campbell and that wasn't a bad idea. An older leader to appeal to an ageing electorate was probably the most sensible move but unfortunately excellent though Sir Menzies was in the Court room, he didn't shine in the modern televisual world.
One thing Campbell did begin was to re-formulate policy and sharpen the differences with Labour but the election of Nick Clegg was a conscious effort to out-Cameron the Conservatives in terms of youth and televisual appeal.
Kennedy had an excess of good fortune and the root of the Lib Dems' future problems lie mainly with him. He talked about replacing the Tories as one of the two main parties but simultaneously tried to occupy the left-wing ground Blair had vacated. The two strategies were never compatible.
If he really wanted to replace the Tories, he should have adopted an Orange Book approach and made a bid for the liberal centre (which isn't at all incompatible with opposition to Iraq); if he wanted to occupy the Old Labour ground, he could do that too, playing a longer term game to wait for Labour to fail in government and aim to pick up their losses. What he couldn't do was both, as it implied making implicit promises that couldn't be kept.
The SNP has successfully outflanked Labour and still not lost the "Scottish" vote whether they be Tartan Tories, Liberals or otherwise.
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
It's interesting that whenever I report that Ed Miliband's unfitness to be Prime Minister is a huge issue on the doorsteps, no-one from Labour ever refutes it....
Dont think many Lefties deny EIC is a drag on LAB.
With a better leader GE 2015 would be in the bag for LAB.
I happen to think the desire of voters to remove the Tories will still mean they vote LAB in sufficient numbers anyway to allow EICIPM on 8/5/15
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Is there a detailed breakdown of Cameron's supposed women problem? The only detailed polling data I've looked at is a south coast LD CON marginal (Ashcroft), where Cameron was streets ahead amongst women.
Wonder if Ed is in fact piling up (sic) female support exactly where he doesn't need it, and weaker in marginals where there is greater understanding that not voting Tory will lead to Ed moving into no. 10.
The Ashcroft data suggests that Labour's doing better in the marginals. The big question is whether that will be sustained through the election campaign.
IIRC, the (admittedly very specific) data I saw showed women voters preferring Cameron than Miliband more than Tory vs Labour, meaning that if the race is tight and people are more concerned about who is PM than who is their local MP, the Tories could sneak far more marginals than wider data (I.e. Party based VI and national polls).
Wishful thinking perhaps, but for those who have studied the separate marginal polls rather than the trend: Is this a common theme in Ashcroft marginal data? Could be yet another indicator of a perfect storm out of which Ed cannot escape....
stodge - I'm simply amazed that a party that fought the last election to the left of new Labour could be happy with the last 5 years of coalition government. As for the Lib Dems having no choice, well they could have played their hand better. They could have struck a better deal on the coalition, rather than not running a singe major department and having less than 20% of the cabinet ministers in spite of nearly 40% of the coalition's votes. Secondly Clegg should have laid down the law as soon as the likes on Lansley started revealing their radical plans - you the Tories accept that you didn't win the election, that the coalition will be a centrist mush or we are out of here. But Clegg wold never do that would he? By making it clear that he would never pull out of the coalition a party that hadn't won an election for nearly two decades suddenly had the confidence to be bold. Essentially that this has been the most parochial government in modern times with a PM who regards the rest of the world as somewhere to go on holiday. If the Lib Dems had been in opposition they'd surely have been slating Cameron day after day with their sincere internationalism. But inside the tent they conveniently look the other way.
The Lib Dems were poor negotiators. They forgot one simple rule: Nothing could be passed without their agreement. In that sense they were equal partners.
They might argue, but the Tories would have gone alone ! Really ? If they could they would not have asked the Lib Dems to form a coalition.
I do not think Clegg could negotiate out of a paper bag. As for Alexander, he 's only a Lib Dem because he stood in Inverness. After a massive defeat, whatever Easterross says, he will be a Tory party member in a few months time - down South.
That's a good point about equal partners. However I think it's unlikely Alexander will join the Tories. An old documentary I saw recently helped to explain the Lib Dems and the coalition to me. It was on the Tories during the Europe wars in the 90s. Ken Clarke made the point that he could see the party was moving away from him as young people who would have been Tories were joining the Lib Dems over the Europe issue, hence the Tories becoming overall very Euroscpetic. So the Lib Dems became filled with pro-European Tories. Naturally with the onset of new Labour and the vacating of the left, that was the space the Lib Dems could naturally fill. But clearly many of them didn't believe in that. Which is fine, except if you fight 3 elections to the left of Labour you can't suddenly embrace a coalition with Thatcher's children and think because you're restraining them a bit, that will somehow be good enough.
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
But why would that stop you telling the truth to a nice young lady on the phone?
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
In the 16th April debate while the nats and Greens will be anti austerity and populist, Farage will be pro austerity and for spending cuts, just populist in ending ringfencing of overseas aid etc
Of course the Tories would have elected IDS had there been debates, Labour elected Ed Miliband after the 2010 debates after all, indeed IDS was seen to have had the better of Clarke in the one newsnight debate they had.
Flightpath The most charismatic candidate does not always win every debate, for example David Davis won the Tory leadership debates, and Mitt Romney beat Obama in the first 2012 debate, as Kerry beat Bush in the first 2004 debate
Did he? Cameron was streets ahead of Davis. I went to one of the hustings. It wasnt that close.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Someone also suggested Lamb or Farron as a possible leader! Come the Lib Dem revolution Lamb will be third Infront of the firing squad only marginally behind Clegg and Alexander
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
But why would that stop you telling the truth to a nice young lady on the phone?
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this.
Everyone I know has a view on UKIP. Some positive, some negative, But no-one denies that their views are perfectly sensible ones to hold, even if they disagree with them.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
If Labour wins Warwick and Leamington by 4 votes say they'll be around 310 seats I think.
ICM Wisdom Index: Tories hold slim lead over Labour
Ed Miliband's Labour party loses its lead among women as David Cameron prepares to visit the Queen before launching the formal General Election campaign
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
If Labour wins Warwick and Leamington by 4 votes say they'll be around 310 seats I think.
As I said, unlikely. But I'll do my bit. That said, I am not very keen on a Labour government either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32007767 Despite what he local police are saying: first they come for the Jews. Six men have been arrested after they forced their way into a synagogue in north London.
ICM Wisdom Index: Tories hold slim lead over Labour
Ed Miliband's Labour party loses its lead among women as David Cameron prepares to visit the Queen before launching the formal General Election campaign
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
I'd vote LibDem again if it was the best way to defeat a Tory candidate. It just so happens that Labour is best placed in my constituency. Not that it will make much difference. If Labour wins in Warwick then it will win close to a majority. And I don't see that happening.
If Labour wins Warwick and Leamington by 4 votes say they'll be around 310 seats I think.
310 seats or 310 - 30 [ for Scotland ] ?
My MP, the charlatan Ed Davey has sent round a leaflet saying he is best placed to stop the Tories.
No Ed, in 2010 the Tories were stopped from gaining a majority. You sold your soul to put them in power.
Once bitten, twice shy !
Ed Davey could not bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" during the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, let alone condemn it. The son of a b**ch now wants my support !!
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
SO I was on the selection panel which picked Chris White for the 2005 election after the 2001 defeat in Warwick, I also did some campaigning for him in Hall Green in 2001, he is an effective local campaigner and will not be easy to beat, especially as former MP James Plaskitt is no longer the Labour candidate
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
But why would that stop you telling the truth to a nice young lady on the phone?
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this.
Everyone I know has a view on UKIP. Some positive, some negative, But no-one denies that their views are perfectly sensible ones to hold, even if they disagree with them.
They are not the PIE.
In the eyes of people like social services they seem to be worse than PIE
"Lynton Crosby’s polling elves, backed up by what Tory MPs are finding on the doorstep, believe that support for Labour among the C2 skilled working class is “soft”, a phrase you also hear from some Labour MPs."
This is kind of what i was inferring the other day. But you dont seem to be picking it up. We are picking up our vote as been solid and not budging, but getting indecision from traditional Labour voters.
It's interesting that whenever I report that Ed Miliband's unfitness to be Prime Minister is a huge issue on the doorsteps, no-one from Labour ever refutes it....
Dont think many Lefties deny EIC is a drag on LAB.
With a better leader GE 2015 would be in the bag for LAB.
I happen to think the desire of voters to remove the Tories will still mean they vote LAB in sufficient numbers anyway to allow EICIPM on 8/5/15
The problem is if E turns out to be more C than expected in government, he is going to bury Labour for a generation. So many ways to intensely piss off floating voters, too much euromania, too much political correctness, too many judge led enquiries into things no one cares about, too much bowing and scraping to the unions, too little done about jobs/housing, too little done about Chilcot, too little done about Rotherham and way way too much pissing money up the wall and crashing the economy into the ground.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
The LDs were well prepared for the coalition negotiations and the coalition agreement has been favourable to Lib Dem policies, particularly considering their fewer MPs.
Where the Lib Dems went wrong was the tuition fee pledge. This was promoted by the left wing of the party and Clegg was reluctant to sign up to it, only doing so when a majority of his candidates had already done so. Vince Cable was supposed to veto any over costly spending promises but tuition fees seem to have slipped through the net.
Clearly Nick Clegg and other party leaders should have recognised that in the event of a coalition the tuition fee pledge could not be honoured and stopped it being a main feature of their campaign. Instead they took the easy way out and let it stand.
Sometimes honesty really is the best policy and telling supporters and voters something is not affordable can be in the interests of the party too. Labour and Conservatives might heed the lesson.
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
Sorry Jack but I think you're highlighting where the Lib Dems have gone wrong. You make it sound like they are equal partners. I simply can't believe they are equal when one party has 80%+ of the ministers. Do you really think the Tory backbenchers would stand for they thought it was 50-50? Of course not.
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
Roger- I can never see the fascination with cars. I love it most when my car is knackered, grizzled, old and bumpy; when you can leave the doors open and really do not care.
I am about to go out for an Italian lunch on the hills of Florence- I think the price of the lunch will considerably exceed the value of the car transporting us. I could probably just about swop the bottle of wine for the car.
SO I was on the selection panel which picked Chris White for the 2005 election after the 2001 defeat in Warwick, I also did some campaigning for him in Hall Green in 2001, he is an effective local campaigner and will not be easy to beat, especially as former MP James Plaskitt is no longer the Labour candidate
Just keep him away from certain restaurants :-). I agree, though, that White is likely to win. The one unknown is whether the students will turn out to vote. There are a fair few in the constuency amd if they coalesce around Labour that may change things. Many of them weren't around or voted LD last time.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
Because heads of childrens services, who are willing to overlook the mass raping of young girls by muslim taxi drivers, think that voting UKIP is such a disgusting and vile thing to do that you are unfit to look after children.
But why would that stop you telling the truth to a nice young lady on the phone?
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this.
Everyone I know has a view on UKIP. Some positive, some negative, But no-one denies that their views are perfectly sensible ones to hold, even if they disagree with them.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
Having a really annoying mind blank. What was Kitty's surname?
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I don't think that's really true. I move in circles who mostly say urghhh! to the idea of voting UKIP, but they don't feel about them as they generally do about the BNP - the difference is between thinking of them as having weird views and thinking that they're a bunch of thugs. I know people who think that the BNP should be denied a platform (not my view), but they've never suggested it for UKIP.
I also know a few Kippers, who don't seem to feel persecuted. On the doorstep, you sometimes meet a 2010 non-voter who says evasively that they "might be voting this time, but I'd rather not say for whom", and I put them down as probably UKIP, but it's unusual.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Dave certainly cultivates an image. Clarkson doesn't. That's who he is: someone who Paul Staines and Harry Cole would drive a tank down Regents Street for.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
The LDs were well prepared for the coalition negotiations and the coalition agreement has been favourable to Lib Dem policies, particularly considering their fewer MPs.
Where the Lib Dems went wrong was the tuition fee pledge. This was promoted by the left wing of the party and Clegg was reluctant to sign up to it, only doing so when a majority of his candidates had already done so. Vince Cable was supposed to veto any over costly spending promises but tuition fees seem to have slipped through the net.
Clearly Nick Clegg and other party leaders should have recognised that in the event of a coalition the tuition fee pledge could not be honoured and stopped it being a main feature of their campaign. Instead they took the easy way out and let it stand.
Sometimes honesty really is the best policy and telling supporters and voters something is not affordable can be in the interests of the party too. Labour and Conservatives might heed the lesson.
The uni fees were affordable if the coalition had dropped the unpopular DFID pledge. It's a matter of choices.
A little voice in the back of your head. Members of the BNP (and i dont make an equivalence between the two, but others do) were hounded out of jobs. From bus drivers to teachers. They essentially became unemployable. In polite society stating you vote UKIP is the moral equivalence of BNP.
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
I don't think that's really true. I move in circles who mostly say urghhh! to the idea of voting UKIP, but they don't feel about them as they generally do about the BNP - the difference is between thinking of them as having weird views and thinking that they're a bunch of thugs. I know people who think that the BNP should be denied a platform (not my view), but they've never suggested it for UKIP.
I also know a few Kippers, who don't seem to feel persecuted. On the doorstep, you sometimes meet a 2010 non-voter who says evasively that they "might be voting this time, but I'd rather not say for whom", and I put them down as probably UKIP, but it's unusual.
I volunteered for Labour and yet to be contacted.Something seems not connected.Can you pass it up the chain please?
SO I was on the selection panel which picked Chris White for the 2005 election after the 2001 defeat in Warwick, I also did some campaigning for him in Hall Green in 2001, he is an effective local campaigner and will not be easy to beat, especially as former MP James Plaskitt is no longer the Labour candidate
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
SO I was on the selection panel which picked Chris White for the 2005 election after the 2001 defeat in Warwick, I also did some campaigning for him in Hall Green in 2001, he is an effective local campaigner and will not be easy to beat, especially as former MP James Plaskitt is no longer the Labour candidate
Just keep him away from certain restaurants :-). I agree, though, that White is likely to win. The one unknown is whether the students will turn out to vote. There are a fair few in the constuency amd if they coalesce around Labour that may change things. Many of them weren't around or voted LD last time.
Virtually all the students who voted in 2010 are no longer students now whether they voted then or whoever they voted for .
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
Roger- I can never see the fascination with cars. I love it most when my car is knackered, grizzled, old and bumpy; when you can leave the doors open and really do not care.
I am about to go out for an Italian lunch on the hills of Florence- I think the price of the lunch will considerably exceed the value of the car transporting us. I could probably just about swop the bottle of wine for the car.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Cameron is just an empty suit actually.He is good at reciting jokes written by someone else but lacks the ability to think on his feet or make intelligent remarks.I expect it all to come out after 2015 just how much like George W Bush he really is.
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
Sorry Jack but I think you're highlighting where the Lib Dems have gone wrong. You make it sound like they are equal partners. I simply can't believe they are equal when one party has 80%+ of the ministers. Do you really think the Tory backbenchers would stand for they thought it was 50-50? Of course not.
I never said or implied they were equal partners, clearly they are not. However either party has an effective veto on contentious policy despite the disparity in numbers in favour of the Tories.
The realpolitik of the Coalition is that it's a partnership based on an agreed programme just as it would be if Labour had 306 MP's in 2010 rather than the Conservatives.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
The SNP are showing exactly what to do, when holding the balance of power. Extract the most without taking any of the responsibilities.
Noticeably, the biggest defenders of the Lib Dems part in the coalition are Tories. Not surprising, since the Lib Dems were the greatest arse-lickers of the Tories.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
If you need another parallel, I'd recommend the assertion in '1066 and all that' to the effect that “Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question”.
More than a whiff of the same frustration can be seen in Londometropolitan commentators and Westminster politicians today ...
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Cameron is just an empty suit actually.He is good at reciting jokes written by someone else but lacks the ability to think on his feet or make intelligent remarks.I expect it all to come out after 2015 just how much like George W Bush he really is.
Cobblers.
I don't have a lot of time for Cameron, but his "Cameron Direct" approach at the last election was very well received by the voters, and showed quite clearly that he was able to speak off the cuff and answer questions from all sorts of people.
I had been thinking of doing a piece on whether Salmond will prove to be a Charles Parnell for the 21st century but decided it would get sidetracked to easily and in any case, the answer's obvious.
He's having an affair, getting divorced & setting back the cause of independence by 20 years?
That aspect of it was another reason why it didn't get written. In fact, the first line was going to be something like "no historical parallel is perfect ..."
Even so, if Politics Was Ireland for Gladstone, in no small way has it been - and will it be - Scotland for his successors today.
Having a really annoying mind blank. What was Kitty's surname?
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Cameron is just an empty suit actually.He is good at reciting jokes written by someone else but lacks the ability to think on his feet or make intelligent remarks.I expect it all to come out after 2015 just how much like George W Bush he really is.
I agree that Cameron is similar to Bush although probably more intelligent. The spoilt privilege, the petulance, the snide bullying and the lack of curiousity.
I've always thought the reason the Tories are generally disliked has far more to do with their supporters than their policies. Which is why I believe stories like the Clarkson affair resonate more than the budget.
Roger- I think you are onto something there. Seeing Staines (guido) yesterday on the news with his tank stunt; he just comes across as an unpleasant man. The Tories are struggling with the female vote, so what does Cameron do? He publicly backs Clarkson. How ill advised is that? I doubt very much that Lynton Crosby, a product of the macho fuelled politics of Australia understands how the Tories can connect with females.
Can you post what Cameron actually said?
My impression was that Cameron had simply said something like "Jeremy is a friend of mine, so I'm not going to condemn him without knowing what happened."
I actually find it admirable and refreshing that we have a PM who stands by his friends regardless of the political implications (not that they are high in this case IMHO).
What's that old saying (Yes Minister?) "A politician is a man who will lay down the lives of his friends for himself"
Looking at Election forecast I think they are overly bearish on Labour's chances in some seats - Thurrock for instance surely Labour have more than a 16% chance, same with Elmet and Rothwell at 12%, and Rossendale and Darwen must be over 19%.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
Clearly this portion of my original post was a bit too much for you to understand:
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated
I am struggling to think how I could have been any clearer though.
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
By "the essential dynamics of a coalition " you mean the job of a junior partner is to support the Tories. The Lib Dems did not realise until the boundary changes [ where suddenly their own survival was at stake ] vote, that they could veto Tory policies and the Tories could have done nothing about it !
SO I was on the selection panel which picked Chris White for the 2005 election after the 2001 defeat in Warwick, I also did some campaigning for him in Hall Green in 2001, he is an effective local campaigner and will not be easy to beat, especially as former MP James Plaskitt is no longer the Labour candidate
Just keep him away from certain restaurants :-). I agree, though, that White is likely to win. The one unknown is whether the students will turn out to vote. There are a fair few in the constuency amd if they coalesce around Labour that may change things. Many of them weren't around or voted LD last time.
Virtually all the students who voted in 2010 are no longer students now whether they voted then or whoever they voted for .
So most of them have gone. If their equivalents this year coalesce around Labour it may make it harder for the Tories to hold the seat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32007767 Despite what he local police are saying: first they come for the Jews. Six men have been arrested after they forced their way into a synagogue in north London.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
SO doesn't really mind that he is a boor, he minds that he is a right-wing bore. Nothing lefties hate more than a successful Tory. If he ate quinoa and drove a Prius and presented some art show and voted Green, he could have punched all the people he wanted and we wouldn't have heard a peep.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
There are many successful saloon bar boors. Richard Littlejohn is another one. You have a go every now and agin too, but don't quite carry it off as your heart is not in it.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
SO doesn't really mind that he is a boor, he minds that he is a right-wing bore. Nothing lefties hate more than a successful Tory. If he ate quinoa and drove a Prius and presented some art show and voted Green, he could have punched all the people he wanted and we wouldn't have heard a peep.
Clarkson's character or supposed politics is a bit of a red herring here. His attraction lies in his pleasure in saying things that are now forbidden. Comedians used to enjoy doing that, although the advent of more left wing ones has stifled that a bit.
Al Murray is another one who's made a living out of it - even though he may be a bit of a po-faced lefty at heart.
I'm always surprised when people judge others on their political views. I've met obnoxious people from all over the political spectrum and pleasant ones too.
But Top Gear is a comedy show and it works well. But it makes enemies because it's funny in the wrong way for some. Incidentally, the 'Big Bang Theory' tends to be politically incorrect and is wildly popular. If the PC brigade got to it it, the ratings would plummet.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I didn't suggest Cameron lacked intelligence but then neither do I think Clarkson does. I just think beneath the image they each cultivate, they are similar characters.
Cameron is just an empty suit actually.He is good at reciting jokes written by someone else but lacks the ability to think on his feet or make intelligent remarks.I expect it all to come out after 2015 just how much like George W Bush he really is.
I agree that Cameron is similar to Bush although probably more intelligent. The spoilt privilege, the petulance, the snide bullying and the lack of curiousity.
I disagree actually.Atleast George W debated and by all accounts did rather well in the 3 debates.
surbiton - as I've said the Lib Dems could have played their cards more strongly, in particular the strongest card they had which was the threat to pull out of the coalition. But that ignores a bigger point. The reality has dawned on me that although they fought three elections to the left of the Labour party, the Lib Dem leadership don't disagree very much with the children of Thatcher leading the Tories. The fact that the biggest defendrs of Clegg and Alexander in the media are soft Tories is rather apt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32007767 Despite what he local police are saying: first they come for the Jews. Six men have been arrested after they forced their way into a synagogue in north London.
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
Clearly this portion of my original post was a bit too much for you to understand:
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated
I am struggling to think how I could have been any clearer though.
No, I understood it very well, thanks. Just because I have the temerity to disagree with you does not imply a lack of understanding. ;-)
The LDs were poor negotiators and made the mistake at the outset of the Coaliton to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories not just on policy but also in attacks on Labour. This sent a very strong message to voters on the centre left and one that will no doubt cost the LDs very dear in May. However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
The LDs were well prepared for the coalition negotiations and the coalition agreement has been favourable to Lib Dem policies, particularly considering their fewer MPs.
Where the Lib Dems went wrong was the tuition fee pledge. This was promoted by the left wing of the party and Clegg was reluctant to sign up to it, only doing so when a majority of his candidates had already done so. Vince Cable was supposed to veto any over costly spending promises but tuition fees seem to have slipped through the net.
Clearly Nick Clegg and other party leaders should have recognised that in the event of a coalition the tuition fee pledge could not be honoured and stopped it being a main feature of their campaign. Instead they took the easy way out and let it stand.
Sometimes honesty really is the best policy and telling supporters and voters something is not affordable can be in the interests of the party too. Labour and Conservatives might heed the lesson.
"Clearly Nick Clegg and other party leaders should have recognised that in the event of a coalition the tuition fee pledge could not be honoured ..."
Why could it not have been honoured ? It would have cost only £1bn. Osborne is adrift over £60bn from his deficit reduction plan set out in 2010. The world has not caved in.
In fact, what is the big deal of having no deficit at all ? How many countries other than oil gushing ones actually run a surplus ?
The whole idea behind the deficit reduction plan is entirely different. It is to bring state spending as part of the GDP down - back to the 1930's levels.
Basically, small government. Exactly the opposite of Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
There are many successful saloon bar boors. Richard Littlejohn is another one. You have a go every now and agin too, but don't quite carry it off as your heart is not in it.
Amusing this morning to note some seasoned PB contributors simply don't understand the essential dynamics of a coalition that has lasted five years, namely :
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
By "the essential dynamics of a coalition " you mean the job of a junior partner is to support the Tories. The Lib Dems did not realise until the boundary changes [ where suddenly their own survival was at stake ] vote, that they could veto Tory policies and the Tories could have done nothing about it !
I get you don't like the LibDems in coalition with the Conservatives although I have this outrageous perception that had the situation arisen you might have been more impartial and forgiving had the yellow peril flashed its bloomers at the Labour party.
Bit weird saying the Clarkson is JUST a tedious saloon bar boor.
If read you anything about how and why Top Gear has become so successful (and why Clarkson has become so rich off the back of it), he isn't just the presenter. The format was his idea, the regular features are his concepts, he writes the show, he is involved direction and editing. Hence why the BBC are in a bad spot, it isn't simply replacing a presenter say with HIGNFY, where all the gags and content are written by a team for the presenter.
That isn't excusing what he may or may not have done, just stating that it isn't just oh get another presenter and nobody will notice. If he has smacked the guy, he has to go.
And I don't for a moment believe is on screen "character" is what he is like in real life. You think that people would invest huge amount of money in somebody who acts that way around the clock.
Chris Evans is another good example. His on screen persona, especially back in the day, was being a loud mouthed oik*. While off screen, he made mega bucks out of convincing people to invest a lot of money with him to buy Virgin Radio (and got out at the right time) and also assembling a huge property portfolio.
* he was for a period of time away from the cameras. But underneath is super sharp.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
There are many successful saloon bar boors. Richard Littlejohn is another one. You have a go every now and agin too, but don't quite carry it off as your heart is not in it.
roger - I think Cameron and Clarkson are much more naural bedfellows than people realise. I really think Cameron is an extremely uncultivated individual but his class background tends to hide it. Hence the Philip Stephens article and the senior official saying Cameron thinks the rest of the world is somewhere to go on holiday. But with the extreme privilege as the son of an old school stock broker and a magistrate, people don't buy it.
I disagree. Clarkson is just a tedious saloon bar boor. Cameron is clearly highly intelligent. My guess is that as a consummate PR man Dave is very good at making friends with folk who in private he finds rather distasteful, but who he feels are useful to him in public. If you are a politician and you have the chance to play buddies with newspaper editors and widely read/watched journalists then you do so. Whether, ultimately, that is wise or not is another question entirely.
This tedious saloon bar boor you talk about, Jeremy Clarkson, is that the same Jeremy Clarkson who has 350 million worldwide TV viewers, earns the BBC roughly £150 million a year, and is probably the most popular and successful TV presenter in the history of British broadcasting?
That one?
Poor old Jeremy Clarkson. He might actually have achieved something if he wasn't, in the opinion of "Southam Observer", simply a tedious boor.
There are many successful saloon bar boors. Richard Littlejohn is another one. You have a go every now and agin too, but don't quite carry it off as your heart is not in it.
Yes, or Russell Brand.
Stephen Fry and David Mitchell have to be in the running for boringly smuggest gits ever.
SO I was Tory chairman at Warwick Uni in 2003 and stood in Brunswick in the council elections that year, I would imagine if students do bother to vote many will vote Green, there is a reasonable Green presence in W and L, and Labour may win most of the rest but not enough to make the difference, areas like Manor, Milverton, Warwick West and Bishops' Tachbrook are the key swing areas, they will probably stick with the Tories and Cameron, having gone Labour under Blair at the general election. What is the restaurant reference?
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated. Were they to get to rework the way they agreed the deal, undoubtedly they would take a very different approach. But they were learning and they made errors. Who doesn't?
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
Clearly this portion of my original post was a bit too much for you to understand:
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated
I am struggling to think how I could have been any clearer though.
No, I understood it very well, thanks. Just because I have the temerity to disagree with you does not imply a lack of understanding. ;-)
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then
SO I was Tory chairman at Warwick Uni in 2003 and stood in Brunswick in the council elections that year, I would imagine if students do bother to vote many will vote Green, there is a reasonable Green presence in W and L, and Labour may win most of the rest but not enough to make the difference, areas like Manor, Milverton, Warwick West and Bishops' Tachbrook are the key swing areas, they will probably stick with the Tories and Cameron, having gone Labour under Blair at the general election. What is the restaurant reference?
You could be right about the Greens. Milverton will vote LD, I'd imagine - they always seem to win the council seats (that's where I live). As I say, I reckon it's a Tory hold.
Comments
Of course the Tories would have elected IDS had there been debates, Labour elected Ed Miliband after the 2010 debates after all, indeed IDS was seen to have had the better of Clarke in the one newsnight debate they had.
Flightpath The most charismatic candidate does not always win every debate, for example David Davis won the Tory leadership debates, and Mitt Romney beat Obama in the first 2012 debate, as Kerry beat Bush in the first 2004 debate
No doubt Clegg thinks he's restrained the Tories and kept them on a tight leash. I prefer the Portillo analysis - the coalition has liberated the Tories to do things they'd have been afraid of doing under the Tory banner. But I doubt Clegg cares. I doubt he's much bothered with the country heading in a centre-right direction, just so long as he looks like the shrewd negotiator who's doing smart deals.
To pick just one example - foreign policy. Philip Stephens wrote a good piece in the FT the other day. Essentially that this has been the most parochial government in modern times with a PM who regards the rest of the world as somewhere to go on holiday. If the Lib Dems had been in opposition they'd surely have been slating Cameron day after day with their sincere internationalism. But inside the tent they conveniently look the other way.
Re 'shy' UKIP supporters.
I had dinner the other night and one of the guests was a very senior civil servant. She was a UKIP supporter. Now, she might be shy about boasting about it at work - but she wasn't shy admitting it to us. And I'm sure she wouldn't be shy admitting it to a pollster. Why should she?
They might argue, but the Tories would have gone alone ! Really ? If they could they would not have asked the Lib Dems to form a coalition.
I do not think Clegg could negotiate out of a paper bag. As for Alexander, he 's only a Lib Dem because he stood in Inverness. After a massive defeat, whatever Easterross says, he will be a Tory party member in a few months time - down South.
Wonder if Ed is in fact piling up (sic) female support exactly where he doesn't need it, and weaker in marginals where there is greater understanding that not voting Tory will lead to Ed moving into no. 10.
If he really wanted to replace the Tories, he should have adopted an Orange Book approach and made a bid for the liberal centre (which isn't at all incompatible with opposition to Iraq); if he wanted to occupy the Old Labour ground, he could do that too, playing a longer term game to wait for Labour to fail in government and aim to pick up their losses. What he couldn't do was both, as it implied making implicit promises that couldn't be kept.
http://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/Tube2050/London Infrastucture Plan 2050 Transport v6.svg
Sitting on the fence again Mr Neil.
However, for only the second time in the three-year history of the Wisdom Index, Labour and the Tories are neck-and-neck among women voters, who predict that both parties will receive 31 per cent on Polling Day. Labour has traditionally held a lead over the Conservatives among women, while men are more likely to back the Tories.
Martin Boon, head of research at ICM Unlimited, said: “The Conservatives are slowly edging away from Labour. Women are now backing the Tories in exactly the same numbers as Labour, which is something only witnessed once before. The stars might be aligning for a moderate Tory electoral surge.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11488052/ICM-Wisdom-Index-Tories-hold-slim-lead-over-Labour.html
With a better leader GE 2015 would be in the bag for LAB.
I happen to think the desire of voters to remove the Tories will still mean they vote LAB in sufficient numbers anyway to allow EICIPM on 8/5/15
Wishful thinking perhaps, but for those who have studied the separate marginal polls rather than the trend: Is this a common theme in Ashcroft marginal data? Could be yet another indicator of a perfect storm out of which Ed cannot escape....
The connection between Clarkson and Cameron go deeper than Cameron's solidarity with his mucker over punching his hapless underling. There was all the publicity surrounding the Brooks Coulson Clarkson Cameron 'Chipping Norton set' described so eloquently by Peter Oborne. What's more I doubt it's just women who aren't fans of macho petrol heads. What about the 'green' ex Lib Dems?
If you are sensitive to being judged by others, and most of us are, then this can be a factor.
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
Very good post on the mistakes of the Lib Dems.
Someone also suggested Lamb or Farron as a possible leader! Come the Lib Dem revolution Lamb will be third Infront of the firing squad only marginally behind Clegg and Alexander
Both parties gets some, but clearly not all, of their programme and have to compromise unless the policy is a red line deal breaker.
Once an agreement is reached all government business belongs to the Coalition and not just one party. Everything is political flim flam and posturing.
Everyone I know has a view on UKIP. Some positive, some negative, But no-one denies that their views are perfectly sensible ones to hold, even if they disagree with them.
They are not the PIE.
I would imagine Miliband and Farage ganging up on Cameron in the first debate and accusing him of being a coward.
Despite what he local police are saying: first they come for the Jews.
Six men have been arrested after they forced their way into a synagogue in north London.
31 Labour 32 Tories sees Ed home in a very weak Gov't with Salmond propping him up.
My MP, the charlatan Ed Davey has sent round a leaflet saying he is best placed to stop the Tories.
No Ed, in 2010 the Tories were stopped from gaining a majority. You sold your soul to put them in power.
Once bitten, twice shy !
Ed Davey could not bring himself to use the word "disproportionate" during the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, let alone condemn it. The son of a b**ch now wants my support !!
Where the Lib Dems went wrong was the tuition fee pledge. This was promoted by the left wing of the party and Clegg was reluctant to sign up to it, only doing so when a majority of his candidates had already done so. Vince Cable was supposed to veto any over costly spending promises but tuition fees seem to have slipped through the net.
Clearly Nick Clegg and other party leaders should have recognised that in the event of a coalition the tuition fee pledge could not be honoured and stopped it being a main feature of their campaign. Instead they took the easy way out and let it stand.
Sometimes honesty really is the best policy and telling supporters and voters something is not affordable can be in the interests of the party too. Labour and Conservatives might heed the lesson.
BBCSunPolMidlands @sunpoliticsmids 27m27 minutes ago
Unconfirmed but the rumour is that @Afzal4Dudley has "flown to Dubai"
Wow, if true, sensational !!!!!!!
Roger- I can never see the fascination with cars. I love it most when my car is knackered, grizzled, old and bumpy; when you can leave the doors open and really do not care.
I am about to go out for an Italian lunch on the hills of Florence- I think the price of the lunch will considerably exceed the value of the car transporting us. I could probably just about swop the bottle of wine for the car.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11229168/School-governor-told-to-resign-because-he-had-joined-Ukip.html
I also know a few Kippers, who don't seem to feel persecuted. On the doorstep, you sometimes meet a 2010 non-voter who says evasively that they "might be voting this time, but I'd rather not say for whom", and I put them down as probably UKIP, but it's unusual.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
The realpolitik of the Coalition is that it's a partnership based on an agreed programme just as it would be if Labour had 306 MP's in 2010 rather than the Conservatives.
Noticeably, the biggest defenders of the Lib Dems part in the coalition are Tories. Not surprising, since the Lib Dems were the greatest arse-lickers of the Tories.
More than a whiff of the same frustration can be seen in Londometropolitan commentators and Westminster politicians today ...
I don't have a lot of time for Cameron, but his "Cameron Direct" approach at the last election was very well received by the voters, and showed quite clearly that he was able to speak off the cuff and answer questions from all sorts of people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/7499163/Cameron-Direct-The-Tory-leader-takes-it-on-the-chin.html
My impression was that Cameron had simply said something like "Jeremy is a friend of mine, so I'm not going to condemn him without knowing what happened."
I actually find it admirable and refreshing that we have a PM who stands by his friends regardless of the political implications (not that they are high in this case IMHO).
What's that old saying (Yes Minister?) "A politician is a man who will lay down the lives of his friends for himself"
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated
I am struggling to think how I could have been any clearer though.
Al Murray is another one who's made a living out of it - even though he may be a bit of a po-faced lefty at heart.
I'm always surprised when people judge others on their political views. I've met obnoxious people from all over the political spectrum and pleasant ones too.
But Top Gear is a comedy show and it works well. But it makes enemies because it's funny in the wrong way for some. Incidentally, the 'Big Bang Theory' tends to be politically incorrect and is wildly popular. If the PC brigade got to it it, the ratings would plummet.
Why could it not have been honoured ? It would have cost only £1bn. Osborne is adrift over £60bn from his deficit reduction plan set out in 2010. The world has not caved in.
In fact, what is the big deal of having no deficit at all ? How many countries other than oil gushing ones actually run a surplus ?
The whole idea behind the deficit reduction plan is entirely different. It is to bring state spending as part of the GDP down - back to the 1930's levels.
Basically, small government. Exactly the opposite of Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc.
Call my cynical ....
CYNICAL.
If read you anything about how and why Top Gear has become so successful (and why Clarkson has become so rich off the back of it), he isn't just the presenter. The format was his idea, the regular features are his concepts, he writes the show, he is involved direction and editing. Hence why the BBC are in a bad spot, it isn't simply replacing a presenter say with HIGNFY, where all the gags and content are written by a team for the presenter.
That isn't excusing what he may or may not have done, just stating that it isn't just oh get another presenter and nobody will notice. If he has smacked the guy, he has to go.
And I don't for a moment believe is on screen "character" is what he is like in real life. You think that people would invest huge amount of money in somebody who acts that way around the clock.
Chris Evans is another good example. His on screen persona, especially back in the day, was being a loud mouthed oik*. While off screen, he made mega bucks out of convincing people to invest a lot of money with him to buy Virgin Radio (and got out at the right time) and also assembling a huge property portfolio.
* he was for a period of time away from the cameras. But underneath is super sharp.
Yes, how dare the Lib Dems attack Labour. I mean, it wasn't as if Labour was attacking the Lib Dems, was it?
Ajnd you also seem to misunderstand coalition.
The LDs made the mistake of attacking Labour - which they had always done - standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. Whether you like that or not, it was something that centre left voters who had previously supported the LDs, or been sympathetic to them, noticed. And it will cost them in May. In the same way, Labour had always attacked the SNP in Scotland. But during the referendum they were seen to do it shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. And it will cost Labour hugely.
No, the Lib Dems did exactly what they had to do as a member of a coalition - defend the coalition's policies 'shoulder to shoulder' with their coalition partners.
If they had not done so, the coalition would not have been workable. The 'mistake' - if it was such - was entering the coalition in the first place. Which, given the Lib Dem's fondness for coalitions pre-2010, was an understandable move. But it is one that history may well judge more kindly than the 2015 electorate.
I can understand why a die-hard Labour supporter - even one who claimed he was not going to vote for the current Labour team before pathetically changing his mind - might want to think the Lib Dems bad for entering a coalition. At least with the 'wrong' people.
Clearly this portion of my original post was a bit too much for you to understand:
However, they have always believed in coalitions because they were the only way to get into power and it was perfectly reasonable for them to go into one with the Tories - especially as Labour had been roundly defeated
I am struggling to think how I could have been any clearer though.
No, I understood it very well, thanks. Just because I have the temerity to disagree with you does not imply a lack of understanding. ;-)
So you disagree that it was perfectly reasonable for the LDs to go into coalition with the Tories. Aren't you kind of arguing against yourself then