Green deposits should now be settled. Sadly 21-30% was nowhere near as good as 0-20% :-(
considerably worse given that I only backed 0-20
Sorry to hear that. They certainly did a bit better than I thought - 3.8% as opposed to 3% - but the killer for the bet was that their vote share was not quite as concentrated as might have been expected.
0-20% was still a great bet at odds >6/4
I'd take that bet again. and again. and again.
I was on at 2/1 and will not lose a moment's sleep about such a great value bet losing. I missed the insane initial price but if i had got on that i would have covered 21 to 30 as well.
Yeah, that's what I did, backed the 2 bands initially and then kept rebacking 0-20 whenever the price shortened (which under Betfair's algorithm allowed me to have more on).
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Even if he wanted to, he should be politely told to eff off. He tried to help sink the party.
Tactically, robbing UKIP of a voice in the House of Commons - and therefore of any Short Money - might be a wise thing to do. It would make it all the more amusing as Farage stands at each and every by-election trying to get that one seat.
Carswell I would take back. The TPD? Not in a month of Sundays.
Carswell is in the wrong party. He seems a decent sort and disagrees with much that Farage says. He's wrong about the EU, but that goes for quite a few in the Tory party.
The Tory party certainly isn't the right one for him. Pro-EU, increasingly authoritarian and statist and lacking any any philosophical or political principles. Even if he were not in UKIP the Tory party today is completely unsuited to anyone with a Libertarian outlook.
The Conservative-led coalition has reduced the size of the state from more than half of GDP to just over 40% over the last five years. According to the OBR, we will reduce it to 35% of the economy by 2020.
Not true. According to the OBR Public spending as a % of GDP peaked at 45.47% in 2009. IN 2014 it was 41.20%. It is a drop but no where near what we should be seeing. At the end of the 90s it was 35% and that is still way too high.
Not read the comments but thus argument is nonsense. The Salisbury Convention still applies as does the Parliament Act. If anything the election shows why the proposed Lords Reform was ridiculous. We'd have supposedly elected Lords from 15 years ago even when their party has been obliterated claiming democratic legitimacy.
We currently have Lords from a lot longer than 15 years ago voting for or against legislation.
They don't claim democratic legitimacy though. So the Lords currently know their place and know they're for amending bills but the legitimate chamber is the Commons.
Have so-called elected Lords and they'll claim a democratic mandate. Claiming a democratic mandate from 15 years ago is ridiculous ... to put it into context we could currently be having people who were "elected" to their term before 9/11.
People elected by proportional representation 15 years ago would still reflect the public view far more accurately than people elected by first past the post last week.
That's absurd.
It's arguable, just dismissing as absurd is lazy. Assuming PR is 100% representative at the time of election and FPTP is say 35% representative now. Then it depends on how fast the electorates' view changes as to which reflects the public's view most accurately. One could argue that FPTP is actually worse than the percentage of the winning candidate because some of his support would have been to keep the other guy out. I'm not taking side, but would like to see reasoned argument.
Be hilarious if the news that Farage was begged to reconsider his resignation as Ukip Leader then leads Carswell to resort to begging the Conservatives to let him return on the back into the fold. Not that I would particularly happy to see him return!
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Make a public offer to bring him back - be inclusive and welcoming, but no special favours. Extend it to any UKIP voter who wants to rejoin the Tory party.
Just so they can all leave again when Cameron screws them over the EU vote? Probably better just to leave them in UKIP rather than suffer that embarrassment.
Nasty comment. What justification do you have for saying that Cameron will "screw them" over the EU vote. Your kind lost the election. Give the elected government an opportunity to show what it can do.
IMHO we're already seeing Labour in denial just a few days after the election with them refusing to acknowledge the fact that 51% in Britain voted either Tory or UKIP. In England the figure was 55%. Under PR those two parties would have formed a coalition without a doubt. Yes, a lot of UKIP voters were former Labour voters in the north of England and Wales. That doesn't make it any better for Labour in my view. That Tory/UKIP coalition would still have been formed.
>Just 3 of the Labour re-treads were successful: Joan Ryan, Rob Marris, Dawn Butler.
That would seem to indicate that the dodgy expenses history has now lost traction with voters, since all 3 of those had rather large questions raised re Expenses Farming.
But go to their town, ask them how the place is doing, or what they think 70 years of voting for the Labour party has done for where they live, or why they still vote for a certain party – and you start to hear recurring themes that have a ring of truth. Seeing and hearing how they answer is as important as what they say. And if you don’t have a script, your story will be led by what people tell you, and not vice versa.
"Travelling the country with John Harris for the Guardian’s Anywhere but Westminster series over the past 12 weeks, we only occasionally intersected with the campaign as seen on national TV, usually to satirise it. Going in to the final weeks, it increasingly felt like the Labour party were in trouble on the street – yet in the national narrative it was increasingly “too close to call”.
We went into our final video from Nuneaton, days before the campaign ended, dead on our feet and with very little idea as to what we would film. Our video was based on little more than speaking to as many people on the street as we could in a 48-hour period, and reflecting that truthfully in an edit. We found a fairly broad sense that this was not a “change moment”, and that people were genuinely gripped by the idea that an SNP-led Scotland would be holding the country to ransom under Labour."
"Our final film felt very gloomy about the prospects of the Labour party, and wasn’t necessarily what we wanted to report. It didn’t match what the numbers were saying, and it wasn’t a polished piece of work by TV standards. But it’s a good place to start if you want to understand why the Tories won."
Compelling but complete drivel if you consider vox pops as poorly conducted opinion polls or focus groups. Chancing across the right answer depends where you go and who you happen to meet when you get there.
Green deposits should now be settled. Sadly 21-30% was nowhere near as good as 0-20% :-(
considerably worse given that I only backed 0-20
Sorry to hear that. They certainly did a bit better than I thought - 3.8% as opposed to 3% - but the killer for the bet was that their vote share was not quite as concentrated as might have been expected.
0-20% was still a great bet at odds >6/4
I'd take that bet again. and again. and again.
I was on at 2/1 and will not lose a moment's sleep about such a great value bet losing. I missed the insane initial price but if i had got on that i would have covered 21 to 30 as well.
Yeah, that's what I did, backed the 2 bands initially and then kept rebacking 0-20 whenever the price shortened (which under Betfair's algorithm allowed me to have more on).
IMHO we're already seeing Labour in denial just a few days after the election with them refusing to acknowledge the fact that 51% in Britain voted either Tory or UKIP. In England the figure was 55%. Under PR those two parties would have formed a coalition without a doubt. Yes, a lot of UKIP voters were former Labour voters in the north of England and Wales. That doesn't make it any better for Labour in my view. That Tory/UKIP coalition would still have been formed.
Having tried 1992 & 1983 already, maybe the best parallel is 2001?
Be hilarious if the news that Farage was begged to reconsider his resignation as Ukip Leader then leads Carswell to resort to begging the Conservatives to let him return on the back into the fold. Not that I would particularly happy to see him return!
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Make a public offer to bring him back - be inclusive and welcoming, but no special favours. Extend it to any UKIP voter who wants to rejoin the Tory party.
Just so they can all leave again when Cameron screws them over the EU vote? Probably better just to leave them in UKIP rather than suffer that embarrassment.
Nasty comment. What justification do you have for saying that Cameron will "screw them" over the EU vote. Your kind lost the election. Give the elected government an opportunity to show what it can do.
Because what Cameron promises he cannot deliver and he has already said he will never countenance the UK leaving the EU. What I have said is not nasty at all. It is indeed exactly the opposite, wishing people to avoids the inevitable disappointment.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Even if he wanted to, he should be politely told to eff off. He tried to help sink the party.
Tactically, robbing UKIP of a voice in the House of Commons - and therefore of any Short Money - might be a wise thing to do. It would make it all the more amusing as Farage stands at each and every by-election trying to get that one seat.
Carswell I would take back. The TPD? Not in a month of Sundays.
Carswell is in the wrong party. He seems a decent sort and disagrees with much that Farage says. He's wrong about the EU, but that goes for quite a few in the Tory party.
The Tory party certainly isn't the right one for him. Pro-EU, increasingly authoritarian and statist and lacking any any philosophical or political principles. Even if he were not in UKIP the Tory party today is completely unsuited to anyone with a Libertarian outlook.
The Conservative-led coalition has reduced the size of the state from more than half of GDP to just over 40% over the last five years. According to the OBR, we will reduce it to 35% of the economy by 2020.
Not true. According to the OBR Public spending as a % of GDP peaked at 45.47% in 2009. IN 2014 it was 41.20%. It is a drop but no where near what we should be seeing. At the end of the 90s it was 35% and that is still way too high.
35% is lower than almost every developed country in the world, short of some of the more recently developed Asian ones, who have much younger populations. How much further would you like to cut? There reaches a point where you go beyond waste and unnecessary spending, and have to start removing basic services. Even if you support doing that, you have to accept you're a pretty far out libertarian and that more moderate libertarians won't be willing to go so far.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Green deposits should now be settled. Sadly 21-30% was nowhere near as good as 0-20% :-(
considerably worse given that I only backed 0-20
Sorry to hear that. They certainly did a bit better than I thought - 3.8% as opposed to 3% - but the killer for the bet was that their vote share was not quite as concentrated as might have been expected.
0-20% was still a great bet at odds >6/4
I'd take that bet again. and again. and again.
I was on at 2/1 and will not lose a moment's sleep about such a great value bet losing. I missed the insane initial price but if i had got on that i would have covered 21 to 30 as well.
Yeah, that's what I did, backed the 2 bands initially and then kept rebacking 0-20 whenever the price shortened (which under Betfair's algorithm allowed me to have more on).
I can't quite believe the tories beat the LD's by pretty much 2 votes to 1 in Solihull - and that was with UKIP polling 11%. Even locally popular, non-frontbench LD incumbents got eaten alive.
IMHO we're already seeing Labour in denial just a few days after the election with them refusing to acknowledge the fact that 51% in Britain voted either Tory or UKIP. In England the figure was 55%. Under PR those two parties would have formed a coalition without a doubt. Yes, a lot of UKIP voters were former Labour voters in the north of England and Wales. That doesn't make it any better for Labour in my view. That Tory/UKIP coalition would still have been formed.
Having tried 1992 & 1983 already, maybe the best parallel is 2001?
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
IMHO we're already seeing Labour in denial just a few days after the election with them refusing to acknowledge the fact that 51% in Britain voted either Tory or UKIP. In England the figure was 55%. Under PR those two parties would have formed a coalition without a doubt. Yes, a lot of UKIP voters were former Labour voters in the north of England and Wales. That doesn't make it any better for Labour in my view. That Tory/UKIP coalition would still have been formed.
Having tried 1992 & 1983 already, maybe the best parallel is 2001?
There's never just one parallel, of course.
1874.
Pathetically the Home Rule League only gained 60/80 from a standing start. The SNP must be laughing in their faces.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
You're quite right there, Richard. I am a moderate eurosceptic and have a lot of issues with the EU. Currently, I'm planning to vote to stay in, but my ultimate vote will depend on the strength of the deal David Cameron negotiates and the arguments that both sides make. The extreme hostility many UKIP individuals seem to have to insulting everyone making a different argument is not exactly persuasive.
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Even if he wanted to, he should be politely told to eff off. He tried to help sink the party.
Tactically, robbing UKIP of a voice in the House of Commons - and therefore of any Short Money - might be a wise thing to do. It would make it all the more amusing as Farage stands at each and every by-election trying to get that one seat.
Carswell I would take back. The TPD? Not in a month of Sundays.
Carswell is in the wrong party. He seems a decent sort and disagrees with much that Farage says. He's wrong about the EU, but that goes for quite a few in the Tory party.
The Tory party certainly isn't the right one for him. Pro-EU, increasingly authoritarian and statist and lacking any any philosophical or political principles. Even if he were not in UKIP the Tory party today is completely unsuited to anyone with a Libertarian outlook.
On both the social and economic axis the Tory party is more Libertarian than the modern Labour party.
Yes its not perfect, but we operate in a two party system. Plus if Libertarians abandon the party then authoritarians will be all that are left.
Well I reject the basis of your argument because I do not believe that simply because we have two statist and increasingly authoritarian parties we should simply choose the lesser of two evils. I reject both of them. The alternative is to perpetuate the ever increasing infringement of the state into our lives.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Like most Libertarians I accept that pure Libertarianism is an ideology which encounters a minefield of paradoxes as soon as one even considers practical implemention.
We're not going to see the state reduced to absolute zero overnight (and beyond our priapic introspective fantasies, we probably wouldn't want that in truth) so a pragmatic approach is the only sensible course.
It ain't perfect, but the Tory party is our home, and indeed the only home to any significant number of Libertarians.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
I wasn't aware it was even considered a serious argument anymore. The author of the original report which is so often quoted described it as nonsense.
Every report produced showing the financial benefits of leaving will be offset by a report showing there will be a loss through leaving. The real case needs to be based on the EU's democratic deficit and lack of acceptable governance. Both of which have lead to it being considered an economic failure.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
I gave up at 'unbiased'. That is one thing you have never been.
Besides I can spend all day pointing out the factual inaccuracies made by Tories on here regarding the EU including quoting the directives and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the PB Tories. We still get the moronic statements like that by RichardDodd about Cameron only having one vote.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
- Who did I vote for - Had I considered another party in last 3 months - Am I a party member - Priority of top party preferences - A load of questions that seemed linked to various manifestos - How often I talked about politics - Which papers I read online and in print - How interested I was in politics - Did I have a job - What party did I tend to identify with
And as for Osborne being leader; I don't see it as a apparently many within the Conservative party resent his influence. But, if he was elected then Labour have to climb a mountain a bit shorter than they did the one before....
Like him or loathe him a campaign organiser who can focus on delivering 23 more seats and then come up with 24 whilst in government having got the economy in peak form for the election has the kudos in the party to do what he likes. I am not sure that Osborne sees himself as the front man but if he wants it, its his.
If Labour wants to stay in the game at all they need a new Mandy, sharpish.
Being a great behind the scenes guy doesn't necessarily translate into being an electable leader, though ( If anything, I'd say it's otherwise) - which makes Labour's task somewhat easier. Now duds like Tom Baldwin have gone, I'd also expect Powell to not be involved next time. Thankfully, Dougie Alexander is no longer in the picture either. If Osborne is leader I wonder who'll organise 2020? (Unless he's attempting to do both jobs....)
Either way I'm not quite sure why on this site there is such a clamour for Osborne for 2020. I don't see him being elected as PM at all, tbh.
Fair point - I got a sense (and I've seen him touted by some in the last couple of days in a rather keen/non-critical manner) that some think he'd be great leader.
I for one would suggest that he (Osborrn) is a good likelihood as as winning candidate because he will be well regarded by the party and the population alike. This is based on his perceived success as a minister. As well has chancellor he is promoting investment in the regions. I'm not his cheerleader. At this stage I see no other possible winner that has defined and proven themselves. Someone might, Javid seems to be one, but whoever is a possibility, he/she has to perform first.
I gave up at 'unbiased'. That is one thing you have never been.
Exactly, you make my point perfectly. This is why the Out side are not only going to lose, but are going to be trounced.
This is so obvious, it beggars belief that those who seriously want us to leave the EU (rather than just moan about it) don't see what is going to hit them. It is staggering, absolutely staggering, that they haven't already started organising the campaign, and in such a way that they can attract moderate Conservatives, such as myself, who might be persuadable.
My long-term forecast used to be that the In side would win 60:40, but, given the way things are developing, 70:30 is more likely, I think.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
This seems to be a well made point. And the scare-mongering will be something to behold.
The EU re-negotiations that Cameron is undertaking remind me of telling the car salesman that he is going to buy the car. And then asking:what is the best deal you can do for me? Answer: very little. But any canny car-buyer will recognise that he does best when he goes to walk out of the showroom.
We should give two-years' notice to quit the EU asap. During those two years, commercial deals will be done that will leave everybody in front. It will actually be good for rest of Europe as well. The corruption would be laid bare, and there would also be understanding that 'you don't have to put-up with it---Britain does not'.
I gave up at 'unbiased'. That is one thing you have never been.
Exactly, you make my point perfectly. This is why the Out side are not only going to lose, but are going to be trounced.
This is so obvious, it beggars belief that those who seriously want us to leave the EU (rather than just moan about it) don't see what is going to hit them. It is staggering, absolutely staggering, that they haven't already started organising the campaign, and in such a way that they can attract moderate Conservatives, such as myself, who might be persuadable.
My long-term forecast used to be that the In side would win 60:40, but, given the way things are developing, 70:30 is more likely, I think.
66:33 is my long-standing prediction.
The problem is that Out seem to be going for a core vote strategy which doesn't work when you're needing half the country to go with you.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
The EU re-negotiations that Cameron is undertaking remind me of telling the car salesman that he is going to buy the car. And then asking:what is the best deal you can do for me? Answer: very little. But any canny car-buyer will recognise that he does best when he goes to walk out of the showroom.
Ok, the (biggest) problem with your analogy is that Cameron is not the one buying the car, we are.
Cameron asks for deal and offers it to us, and we can can say no thanks
IMHO we're already seeing Labour in denial just a few days after the election with them refusing to acknowledge the fact that 51% in Britain voted either Tory or UKIP.
Yes, fabulous isn't it?
Labour will now choose and stick with the wrong leader, because essentially the demos appears to be trade union activists and a few London luvvies.
Having failed to take the time to absorb the lessons, many are still in denial. There will be quite a few who insist they lost because they weren't left-wing enough. Consequently there is a good chance that a key success factor, the leader, will be addressed in a half-cocked way and they'll be saddled with the wrong choice all the way through to 2020.
Anyone like to have a tenner with me that the next Labour PM of the UK is not yet in Parliament?
Apparently, Labour has acquired 23,000 new members since the election (I know of half a dozen locally), and there's a large surge in LibDem membership as well, perhaps people who resigned when they were in coalition with the Tories but now feel it's safe to go back.The "ground war" argument shows the limitations of just having a lot of people on the ground, but there was a similar surge in 1992 in similar circumstances: thinking your preferred party will win and seeing them hammered can either turn people right off or make them feel they'd better get involved.
- Who did I vote for - Had I considered another party in last 3 months - Am I a party member - Priority of top party preferences - A load of questions that seemed linked to various manifestos - How often I talked about politics - Which papers I read online and in print - How interested I was in politics - Did I have a job - What party did I tend to identify with
And as for Osborne being leader; I don't see it as a apparently many within the Conservative party resent his influence. But, if he was elected then Labour have to climb a mountain a bit shorter than they did the one before....
Like him or loathe him a campaign organiser who can focus on delivering 23 more seats and then come up with 24 whilst in government having got the economy in peak form for the election has the kudos in the party to do what he likes. I am not sure that Osborne sees himself as the front man but if he wants it, its his.
If Labour wants to stay in the game at all they need a new Mandy, sharpish.
Being a great behind the scenes guy doesn't necessarily translate into being an electable leader, though ( If anything, I'd say it's otherwise) - which makes Labour's task somewhat easier. Now duds like Tom Baldwin have gone, I'd also expect Powell to not be involved next time. Thankfully, Dougie Alexander is no longer in the picture either. If Osborne is leader I wonder who'll organise 2020? (Unless he's attempting to do both jobs....)
Either way I'm not quite sure why on this site there is such a clamour for Osborne for 2020. I don't see him being elected as PM at all, tbh.
Fair point - I got a sense (and I've seen him touted by some in the last couple of days in a rather keen/non-critical manner) that some think he'd be great leader.
I for one would suggest that he (Osborrn) is a good likelihood as as winning candidate because he will be well regarded by the party and the population alike. This is based on his perceived success as a minister. As well has chancellor he is promoting investment in the regions. I'm not his cheerleader. At this stage I see no other possible winner that has defined and proven themselves. Someone might, Javid seems to be one, but whoever is a possibility, he/she has to perform first.
Gordon Brown was considered a great chancellor before he became PM in 2007.
I'm not so sure Osborne is actually that well-regarded amongst the population. He's simply seen as a more competent than Ed Balls. Even Cameron's ratings are often minus something. It's very rare that politicians these days are genuinely popular - they are just often the 'least worst option'.
For all of the perceived talent on the Tory ranks, I don't see anybody who can really succeed Cameron in 2020 (or before that, most likely 2017).
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
And the fact that this penny hasn't yet dropped for most just shows that the last election is nowhere near the peak vote that Cameron can aim for. There's still scope to win ground as the legacy of the New Labour era toxification of the Tories fades into history.
@smashmorePH: One betting firm emails me to say @DouglasCarswell is now 2/1 to re-join the Conservative party by the end of the year.
Even if he wanted to, he should be politely told to eff off. He tried to help sink the party.
Tactically, robbing UKIP of a voice in the House of Commons - and therefore of any Short Money - might be a wise thing to do. It would make it all the more amusing as Farage stands at each and every by-election trying to get that one seat.
Carswell I would take back. The TPD? Not in a month of Sundays.
Carswell is in the wrong party. He seems a decent sort and disagrees with much that Farage says. He's wrong about the EU, but that goes for quite a few in the Tory party.
The Tory party certainly isn't the right one for him. Pro-EU, increasingly authoritarian and statist and lacking any any philosophical or political principles. Even if he were not in UKIP the Tory party today is completely unsuited to anyone with a Libertarian outlook.
On both the social and economic axis the Tory party is more Libertarian than the modern Labour party.
Yes its not perfect, but we operate in a two party system. Plus if Libertarians abandon the party then authoritarians will be all that are left.
Well I reject the basis of your argument because I do not believe that simply because we have two statist and increasingly authoritarian parties we should simply choose the lesser of two evils. I reject both of them. The alternative is to perpetuate the ever increasing infringement of the state into our lives.
It depends if you want to make a protest vote to make a point, or try and get the best option available and then build from there.
There is a perpetually very small Libertarian party in the US too but the reality is that they may as well abstain as vote Libertarian. Whereas choosing the lesser of two evils and then joining the less evil party and adapting it from the inside provides the greatest chance of change. The US Republican Party has changed in the last decade because the TEA Party joined up and flexed muscles from inside the party. Protesting on the outside doesn't do anything. I'm a Libertarian too and while the Conservatives are less than perfect, if all Libertarians joined the Conservatives and tried to change things from the outside we'd have more success.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I think you are wrong to imagine the public will vote on the nuances you are expert on.
It will come down to job security, immigration and wages
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Ummmm...
You can hardly use that against her. It's only 25 years since the very first commercial dial-up service launched in the US.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
You're quite right there, Richard. I am a moderate eurosceptic and have a lot of issues with the EU. Currently, I'm planning to vote to stay in, but my ultimate vote will depend on the strength of the deal David Cameron negotiates and the arguments that both sides make. The extreme hostility many UKIP individuals seem to have to insulting everyone making a different argument is not exactly persuasive.
I'm in roughly the same place but tempted to vote No, so that Cameron / someone else can then go back with a big bloody stick and say It looks like we're leaving. If we go and do well, who stays, really? So this deal better improve and then we vote again.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
And the fact that this penny hasn't yet dropped for most just shows that the last election is nowhere near the peak vote that Cameron can aim for. There's still scope to win ground as the legacy of the New Labour era toxification of the Tories fades into history.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
And the fact that this penny hasn't yet dropped for most just shows that the last election is nowhere near the peak vote that Cameron can aim for. There's still scope to win ground as the legacy of the New Labour era toxification of the Tories fades into history.
Cameron won't be there in 2020, that's the problem though....
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as the Out campaign can argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
Apparently, Labour has acquired 23,000 new members since the election (I know of half a dozen locally), and there's a large surge in LibDem membership as well, perhaps people who resigned when they were in coalition with the Tories but now feel it's safe to go back.The "ground war" argument shows the limitations of just having a lot of people on the ground, but there was a similar surge in 1992 in similar circumstances: thinking your preferred party will win and seeing them hammered can either turn people right off or make them feel they'd better get involved.
Do you know if this is because the affiliated unions are asking their members to join as individuals?
Unfortunately, it didn’t have the desired effect. The video, which appeared to have been shot on an iPhone, made Umunna look a bit like a student embarking on a media studies project. In fact, as the good people of Swindon circled obliviously around him – he looked a bit like a documentary maker producing a film about an obscure Amazonian tribe: “Chuka's World”. The overall effect was that by attempting to rebut a negative he merely ended up focusing attention on that negative.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I think you are wrong to imagine the public will vote on the nuances you are expert on.
It will come down to job security, immigration and wages
The electorate will not feel very confident about job security, immigration and wages unless there is a clear plan to protect them in the case of the Out vote. The general public won't understand all the nuances, but they will be savvy enough to be able to understand if there is a credible plan or one that is full of holes.
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as the Out campaign can argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
And then in that case we return to the problem that a treaty change requires the agreement of all 28 countries. That is not going to happen by 2017 and certainly not by 2016 if Cameron's latest ruse is to be believed.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
And the fact that this penny hasn't yet dropped for most just shows that the last election is nowhere near the peak vote that Cameron can aim for. There's still scope to win ground as the legacy of the New Labour era toxification of the Tories fades into history.
Cameron won't be there in 2020, that's the problem though....
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as the Out campaign can argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
And then in that case we return to the problem that a treaty change requires the agreement of all 28 countries. That is not going to happen by 2017 and certainly not by 2016 if Cameron's latest ruse is to be believed.
Any treaty change would have to be after a vote. Votes always come before the changes - we make a deal, the deal goes on to a vote and if accepted it gets implemented.
As Ukip’s only MP, Mr Carswell has an advantage in the latest row. Were he to become so furious with his new party that he chose to become an independent or defect to another party, Ukip would no longer be eligible for the money.
Unless the party wins another by-election, or secures another defector, he is effectively able to hold them to ransom to the tune of £650,000 a year.
If anyone can locate the policy stone, I'd be quite interested in acquiring a unique election curio.
Make a nice kitchen table, I reckon
But wouldn't the blood stain limestone?
So much the better!
Not sure I'd want a permanent reminder of Burnham...
Sent you a PM #Charles.
Haven't been home since the post, but will check. You sent message on public part of my profile, fyi (obviously nothing sensitive, but thought you might like to know in case you send any more flirty messages to @isam)
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as the Out campaign can argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
And then in that case we return to the problem that a treaty change requires the agreement of all 28 countries. That is not going to happen by 2017 and certainly not by 2016 if Cameron's latest ruse is to be believed.
Any treaty change does not need to fully go through. You just need agreement on the treaty change. Realistically, this means agreement between the UK, France and Germany, and everyone else falling in line.
If we vote to stay in and the treaty does not go through for some reason, it will be a huge boost for UKIP and they will be very entitled to immediately campaign for a second referendum, rather than waiting ten years.
Advice to BOOers: free, unbiased, and obviously true:
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
Interesting talking to utterly bereft leftie work colleagues at a drinks event on Friday that they are all now in fear of "Cameron taking us out of Europe" and the UK being broken up because the Scots would want to stay in whilst England left.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
And the fact that this penny hasn't yet dropped for most just shows that the last election is nowhere near the peak vote that Cameron can aim for. There's still scope to win ground as the legacy of the New Labour era toxification of the Tories fades into history.
Cameron won't be there in 2020, that's the problem though....
And as for Osborne being leader; I don't see it as a apparently many within the Conservative party resent his influence. But, if he was elected then Labour have to climb a mountain a bit shorter than they did the one before....
...
...
Fair point - I got a sense (and I've seen him touted by some in the last couple of days in a rather keen/non-critical manner) that some think he'd be great leader.
I for one would suggest that he (Osborrn) is a good likelihood as as winning candidate because he will be well regarded by the party and the population alike. This is based on his perceived success as a minister. As well has chancellor he is promoting investment in the regions. I'm not his cheerleader. At this stage I see no other possible winner that has defined and proven themselves. Someone might, Javid seems to be one, but whoever is a possibility, he/she has to perform first.
Gordon Brown was considered a great chancellor before he became PM in 2007.
I'm not so sure Osborne is actually that well-regarded amongst the population. He's simply seen as a more competent than Ed Balls. Even Cameron's ratings are often minus something. It's very rare that politicians these days are genuinely popular - they are just often the 'least worst option'.
For all of the perceived talent on the Tory ranks, I don't see anybody who can really succeed Cameron in 2020 (or before that, most likely 2017).
I am looking to 2020. If Osborne were not broadly well regarded by the electorate the Tories would have lost. He has work to do. Of course it could all come undone, but he is proven. Others are not yet. It gives him a start. I think its a formidable one. I'm not cheerleading for him, its just the way it looks at the moment. There are others, lets wait and see because as of now they have done nothing. What is not clear is if Osborne will stay as Chancellor. Foreign Secretary possibly (?) but even the IMF or similar is a possibility.
Lets not get confused by Brown as Chancellor. He bullied his way to the top job anyway. My opinion is that the qualities a good leader needs are not immediately obvious. Its not some TV manner - thats about elections perhaps - its about insight and clarity and focus. And imperturbability under pressure. And 'leadership' obviously...
More than that, it needs to be a positive case. Though storing up some genuine exposes on EU corruption (rather than talking about it in generic terms) would also be a very good idea.
Most of all it needs to address the jobs issue, which is going to be the absolute killer for the Out side.
One of the big weaknesses of the Out side is the lack of clarity on what they'd replace European Union membership with. They really need to say precisely what terms of agreement they would be seeking from the EU, what other countries they think we would sign trade treaties with, and how many jobs they would produce. As we can see from Ed Miliband's campaign, a constant list of grievances does not win elections. People want to see a plan. Otherwise they stay with the status quo.
Actually that is a perfect example of how Farage has damaged the Out campaign. Every other group I have seen campaigning for Out has basically agreed that EFTA membership shoudl be the aim of the Out campaign. It is really only UKIP's domination of the debate and Farage's domination of UKIP that is causing the confusion. Were the Out campaign to formally adopt EFTA membership as the preferred option it would give a clear understanding of the economic situation after an Out vote.
I quite like the idea of EFTA membership, but realistically the Out campaign's biggest argument with the general public will be on immigration. In fact, as long as the Out campaign can argue that leaving the EU is the only way to prevent "open borders", I think they will win. That would be entirely neutralised if EFTA was the proposed alternative position. It's also why it's paramount for Cameron to get treaty changes around immigration if he wants to win the debate.
And then in that case we return to the problem that a treaty change requires the agreement of all 28 countries. That is not going to happen by 2017 and certainly not by 2016 if Cameron's latest ruse is to be believed.
Any treaty change would have to be after a vote. Votes always come before the changes - we make a deal, the deal goes on to a vote and if accepted it gets implemented.
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
I gave up at 'unbiased'. That is one thing you have never been.
Exactly, you make my point perfectly. This is why the Out side are not only going to lose, but are going to be trounced.
This is so obvious, it beggars belief that those who seriously want us to leave the EU (rather than just moan about it) don't see what is going to hit them. It is staggering, absolutely staggering, that they haven't already started organising the campaign, and in such a way that they can attract moderate Conservatives, such as myself, who might be persuadable.
My long-term forecast used to be that the In side would win 60:40, but, given the way things are developing, 70:30 is more likely, I think.
If Messina is correct - or was it Crosby - that ideas and slogans need to be planted at least 12 months before an election, then you are right in the Referendum is in 2016.
Given that Germany and France have elections in 2017, an early Referendum looks a certainty.
Farage is far too divisive to lead an OUT campaign and far too dictatorial not to, I can see splits within six months.. After all, Carswell and he are arguing over money now and the GE is just 5 days old!
Apparently, Labour has acquired 23,000 new members since the election (I know of half a dozen locally), and there's a large surge in LibDem membership as well, perhaps people who resigned when they were in coalition with the Tories but now feel it's safe to go back.The "ground war" argument shows the limitations of just having a lot of people on the ground, but there was a similar surge in 1992 in similar circumstances: thinking your preferred party will win and seeing them hammered can either turn people right off or make them feel they'd better get involved.
The trouble is, Nick, that these are all diehard leftie nutters who are livid with the public for voting Cameron back in, and to get their revenge, will duly vote for the biggest fuckwit possible, in a very crowded field, as leader.
This probably means Butcher wins - and Labour therefore loses, shatteringly, in 2020.
You wouldn't want to get in very soon anyway, Nick. Labour's biggest gripe in the campaign was that the Tories hadn't cleared your mess up for you fast enough. In fact, the mess will take at least another two terms to fix. So the earliest there is any point winning will be 2025, by when there will be loads of other people's money for you to help yourself to and piss away. Until then, the economy just won't be worth plundering and wrecking again.
The analogy here is with Rome versus Parthia. Trajan trashed Ctesiphon in 116AD and Rome then gave Parthia 50 years to recover before they bothered sacking the Parthian capital again in 165AD. They then gave it another 30 years to regenerate more stuff worth nicking before sacking Ctesiphon again in 195AD.
Labour sacked the UK economy as recently as 1997 and 2010. There's really no point doing so again just yet because as Liam Byrne reminded us, "there is no money".
As you will no doubt recall, after the final sacking of Ctesiphon it was the Sassanids, not the Romans, who came back and took over Parthia. One to think about.
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Ummmm...
You can hardly use that against her. It's only 25 years since the very first commercial dial-up service launched in the US.
I first used the internet during my first year undergrad in 1994-95.
I caught a glimpse of Stella on DP pitching for deputy leader. Amongst the usual "progressive" bullshit, she claimed the Internet didn't exist 25 years ago.
Ummmm...
You can hardly use that against her. It's only 25 years since the very first commercial dial-up service launched in the US.
I first used the internet during my first year undergrad in 1994-95.
I am looking to 2020. If Osborne were not broadly well regarded by the electorate the Tories would have lost. He has work to do. Of course it could all come undone, but he is proven. Others are not yet. It gives him a start. I think its a formidable one. I'm not cheerleading for him, its just the way it looks at the moment. There are others, lets wait and see because as of now they have done nothing. What is not clear is if Osborne will stay as Chancellor. Foreign Secretary possibly (?) but even the IMF or similar is a possibility.
Lets not get confused by Brown as Chancellor. He bullied his way to the top job anyway. My opinion is that the qualities a good leader needs are not immediately obvious. Its not some TV manner - thats about elections perhaps - its about insight and clarity and focus. And imperturbability under pressure. And 'leadership' obviously...
My point on Brown, was that being a well-regarded Chancellor by the public doesn't always translate to being a well-regarded leader. Jim Callaghan was Chancellor, Home Secretary, and was more popular than Thatcher, but even that didn't stop him from losing in 1979. Osborne, in any case has hugely benefited from the immense power Cameron has given him - it's hardly like he worked up the party to be everyone's friend. I think it'll only now, or at least for now when much of the resentment towards him will subside and he'll be given the benefit of the doubt.
I also think how you come across is hugely important - Ed Miliband's leadership has pretty much proven as such.
I'd say Osborne is proven as a political strategist, organiser and campaigner - while those are good qualities, they are not necessarily the same as leadership qualities. I think Osborne will most likely to Chancellor until Cameron goes. I'd be shocked if he went to the IMF - I think Osborne would have to have a truly remarkable five years for that to happen.
And as for Osborne not being broadly well regarded by the electorate = Tories would have lost, I don't think that's true. Much of the public is not enthused by politics, and are often picking the least worst option. As I said before, I think Ed Balls was considered a far worse option that Osborne, as was Ed Miliband to David Cameron - and that is why the electorate opted for the Tories.
Any treaty change would have to be after a vote. Votes always come before the changes - we make a deal, the deal goes on to a vote and if accepted it gets implemented.
And when Cyprus or Latvia reject the deal and refuse to ratify either because it fails a referendum or a vote in Parliament? Of course that won't be until after we have voted to stay in. What then? Do we start the whole process again? I am afraid it is completely impractical.
Why is that impractical? It's what happens every time.
France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. The changes were then started again and wrapped up in the Lisbon treaty which was able to be ratified.
If someone rejected our deal then we'd look to either get it through or if it was blocked for good we'd have to have a new referendum I assume. We'd cross that bridge when we get to it - but I'm not sure why you'd expect a treaty change before a vote, that's never been how its worked.
Mr. PB, fair enough. Except that the two terms are in different languages. And Cameron isn't saying it to Jews he forced into Auschwitz as part of a systematic programme of genocide.
Why is that impractical? It's what happens every time.
France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. The changes were then started again and wrapped up in the Lisbon treaty which was able to be ratified.
If someone rejected our deal then we'd look to either get it through or if it was blocked for good we'd have to have a new referendum I assume. We'd cross that bridge when we get to it - but I'm not sure why you'd expect a treaty change before a vote, that's never been how its worked.
And, even more to the point, the converse is much more the case. If we vote Out, it will be on the basis that the Out side say we can negotiate a favourable trade treaty with our EU friends. However, we won't have the faintest clue, not even the vaguest heads of terms, of what might be in such a treaty. Presumably those on the Out side aren't trying to claim that, if the trade treaty doesn't turn out as they promise, we should cancel leaving the EU (if that were even possible).
That's life. Voters will just have to make their minds up on the information they have.
Comments
Assuming PR is 100% representative at the time of election and FPTP is say 35% representative now. Then it depends on how fast the electorates' view changes as to which reflects the public's view most accurately.
One could argue that FPTP is actually worse than the percentage of the winning candidate because some of his support would have been to keep the other guy out.
I'm not taking side, but would like to see reasoned argument.
That would seem to indicate that the dodgy expenses history has now lost traction with voters, since all 3 of those had rather large questions raised re Expenses Farming.
http://www1.skysports.com/racing/results/video/656718/haydock-park/17-01-2015/stanjames-com-champion-hurdle-trial?token=ce3dad52a318da62
There's never just one parallel, of course.
If you really want the UK to leave the EU then there is only one chance and it's coming up within the next two and a half years, and possibly sooner. So, to maximise the (admittedly very slim) chance of success, you need to focus on making the Out case, instead of fighting amongst yourselves, calling Cameron a liar, worrying about being 'screwed', obsessing about EU 'dishonesty', obsessing about internal Tory politics, regarding everything as some kind of trap, and generally looking like conspiracy nutters.
(They won't listen, of course).
I can't quite believe the tories beat the LD's by pretty much 2 votes to 1 in Solihull - and that was with UKIP polling 11%. Even locally popular, non-frontbench LD incumbents got eaten alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solihull_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Astonishing.
@GuidoFawkes: So how did Lord Oakshott's £600,000 donation spending spree go? http://t.co/PTpPl8m3gv http://t.co/TtTUTpm34L
Spoiler: not very well.
Didn't he also have Clegg losing and Vince winning in his polling? Heh.
http://order-order.com/2015/05/12/so-how-did-lord-oakeshott-do/#_@/zRFEeMY_S4r1CA
We're not going to see the state reduced to absolute zero overnight (and beyond our priapic introspective fantasies, we probably wouldn't want that in truth) so a pragmatic approach is the only sensible course.
It ain't perfect, but the Tory party is our home, and indeed the only home to any significant number of Libertarians.
Lord Oakeshott = Ed Miliband.
Every report produced showing the financial benefits of leaving will be offset by a report showing there will be a loss through leaving. The real case needs to be based on the EU's democratic deficit and lack of acceptable governance. Both of which have lead to it being considered an economic failure.
I'm a likely Out voter, but I'll wait and see if there are any concessions [I expect few].
Besides I can spend all day pointing out the factual inaccuracies made by Tories on here regarding the EU including quoting the directives and it won't make a blind bit of difference to the PB Tories. We still get the moronic statements like that by RichardDodd about Cameron only having one vote.
I explained that they (and Labour & the LDs) just don't get it - he wants to keep us IN!
And he wants to go down in history as the PM who renegotiated our relations with the EU sufficiently that the public in their first vote on the issue since 1975 actually voted to stay in, and be good Europeans. As the polls broadly suggest the UK electorate want.
It seemed to cheer the mood a bit anyway as the penny dropped....
Asked about
- Who did I vote for
- Had I considered another party in last 3 months
- Am I a party member
- Priority of top party preferences
- A load of questions that seemed linked to various manifestos
- How often I talked about politics
- Which papers I read online and in print
- How interested I was in politics
- Did I have a job
- What party did I tend to identify with
and a bunch of other similar questions.
I'm not his cheerleader. At this stage I see no other possible winner that has defined and proven themselves. Someone might, Javid seems to be one, but whoever is a possibility, he/she has to perform first.
This is so obvious, it beggars belief that those who seriously want us to leave the EU (rather than just moan about it) don't see what is going to hit them. It is staggering, absolutely staggering, that they haven't already started organising the campaign, and in such a way that they can attract moderate Conservatives, such as myself, who might be persuadable.
My long-term forecast used to be that the In side would win 60:40, but, given the way things are developing, 70:30 is more likely, I think.
The EU re-negotiations that Cameron is undertaking remind me of telling the car salesman that he is going to buy the car. And then asking:what is the best deal you can do for me? Answer: very little. But any canny car-buyer will recognise that he does best when he goes to walk out of the showroom.
We should give two-years' notice to quit the EU asap. During those two years, commercial deals will be done that will leave everybody in front. It will actually be good for rest of Europe as well. The corruption would be laid bare, and there would also be understanding that 'you don't have to put-up with it---Britain does not'.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCEamUarOSI
The problem is that Out seem to be going for a core vote strategy which doesn't work when you're needing half the country to go with you.
Cameron asks for deal and offers it to us, and we can can say no thanks
Labour will now choose and stick with the wrong leader, because essentially the demos appears to be trade union activists and a few London luvvies.
Having failed to take the time to absorb the lessons, many are still in denial. There will be quite a few who insist they lost because they weren't left-wing enough. Consequently there is a good chance that a key success factor, the leader, will be addressed in a half-cocked way and they'll be saddled with the wrong choice all the way through to 2020.
Anyone like to have a tenner with me that the next Labour PM of the UK is not yet in Parliament?
I'm not so sure Osborne is actually that well-regarded amongst the population. He's simply seen as a more competent than Ed Balls. Even Cameron's ratings are often minus something. It's very rare that politicians these days are genuinely popular - they are just often the 'least worst option'.
For all of the perceived talent on the Tory ranks, I don't see anybody who can really succeed Cameron in 2020 (or before that, most likely 2017).
@georgeeaton: "Too many pointy-heads and too few street fighters". @MichaelDugher lets rip on Labour to @AnooshChakelian http://t.co/Pd6WipQ7yr
He won more seats for Labour than Foot did in 1983 or Kinnock did in 1987!!!
Ummmm...
There is a perpetually very small Libertarian party in the US too but the reality is that they may as well abstain as vote Libertarian. Whereas choosing the lesser of two evils and then joining the less evil party and adapting it from the inside provides the greatest chance of change. The US Republican Party has changed in the last decade because the TEA Party joined up and flexed muscles from inside the party. Protesting on the outside doesn't do anything. I'm a Libertarian too and while the Conservatives are less than perfect, if all Libertarians joined the Conservatives and tried to change things from the outside we'd have more success.
It will come down to job security, immigration and wages
I doubt if that will happen though.
"There comes a time when fresh leadership would be good."
"The third term is not something I'm contemplating."
If we vote to stay in and the treaty does not go through for some reason, it will be a huge boost for UKIP and they will be very entitled to immediately campaign for a second referendum, rather than waiting ten years.
''He added: "I've said I'll stand for a full second term, but I think after that it will be time for new leadership.''
That sounds pretty categorical, tbh.
What is not clear is if Osborne will stay as Chancellor. Foreign Secretary possibly (?) but even the IMF or similar is a possibility.
Lets not get confused by Brown as Chancellor. He bullied his way to the top job anyway. My opinion is that the qualities a good leader needs are not immediately obvious. Its not some TV manner - thats about elections perhaps - its about insight and clarity and focus. And imperturbability under pressure. And 'leadership' obviously...
8 May 2015.
Ed Balls Day.
RIP.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/former-lib-dem-lord-oakeshott-donates-300000-labour-candidates
Given that Germany and France have elections in 2017, an early Referendum looks a certainty.
Farage is far too divisive to lead an OUT campaign and far too dictatorial not to, I can see splits within six months.. After all, Carswell and he are arguing over money now and the GE is just 5 days old!
This probably means Butcher wins - and Labour therefore loses, shatteringly, in 2020.
You wouldn't want to get in very soon anyway, Nick. Labour's biggest gripe in the campaign was that the Tories hadn't cleared your mess up for you fast enough. In fact, the mess will take at least another two terms to fix. So the earliest there is any point winning will be 2025, by when there will be loads of other people's money for you to help yourself to and piss away. Until then, the economy just won't be worth plundering and wrecking again.
The analogy here is with Rome versus Parthia. Trajan trashed Ctesiphon in 116AD and Rome then gave Parthia 50 years to recover before they bothered sacking the Parthian capital again in 165AD. They then gave it another 30 years to regenerate more stuff worth nicking before sacking Ctesiphon again in 195AD.
Labour sacked the UK economy as recently as 1997 and 2010. There's really no point doing so again just yet because as Liam Byrne reminded us, "there is no money".
As you will no doubt recall, after the final sacking of Ctesiphon it was the Sassanids, not the Romans, who came back and took over Parthia. One to think about.
I also think how you come across is hugely important - Ed Miliband's leadership has pretty much proven as such.
I'd say Osborne is proven as a political strategist, organiser and campaigner - while those are good qualities, they are not necessarily the same as leadership qualities. I think Osborne will most likely to Chancellor until Cameron goes. I'd be shocked if he went to the IMF - I think Osborne would have to have a truly remarkable five years for that to happen.
And as for Osborne not being broadly well regarded by the electorate = Tories would have lost, I don't think that's true. Much of the public is not enthused by politics, and are often picking the least worst option. As I said before, I think Ed Balls was considered a far worse option that Osborne, as was Ed Miliband to David Cameron - and that is why the electorate opted for the Tories.
Well that's won my Godwin Award Of The Week.
France and the Netherlands rejected the Constitution. The changes were then started again and wrapped up in the Lisbon treaty which was able to be ratified.
If someone rejected our deal then we'd look to either get it through or if it was blocked for good we'd have to have a new referendum I assume. We'd cross that bridge when we get to it - but I'm not sure why you'd expect a treaty change before a vote, that's never been how its worked.
I know technically he could, but this would be the third vote in 12 months there. That'd be somewhat ludicrous.
That's life. Voters will just have to make their minds up on the information they have.