I am rather puzzled (although not very surprised) by Douglas Carswell's position on the 'short money'. I have been berating UKIP and the Out side generally for doing absolutely zilch in terms of serious preparation for the referendum, and here is a great opportunity to set up and finance a serious research and policy-development operation for the Out campaign. That is exactly the kind of purpose the Short money is intended for. Even if you believe, as Carswell does, in a small state, in these particular circumstances it seems to be agood opportunity to counter a little of the enormous resource advantage that the In side will have.
Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.
Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.
I remember how bullish you were 5 weeks ago. How dismissive of those saying you would get smashed. Why should we listen to a thing you say?
Because we have a corrupt system where 72 milion pounds can buy you Tories your way back into office. It will be very interesting to see what the final figures for expenditure turn out to be.
I bet the Tories spent less than £72m
How about a bet: 1pt = a full £1m below £72m for Tory spent in the GE (official figures). I'll be any amount you want up to £5 per point
Does include the value of volunteers time? I understand that the Charity Commission wants that allowed for in Charitides accounts
The £72m figure he is referencing was the Tories *total* fundrasing over the last 5 years. They had debts from the previous election, operating expenses, a warchest for a second election and the general election spending to come out of thar
It bodes well for the future, for the tories, that there are lefties who really think they lost the election because £72m, and for no other reason at all.
Correct. PClipp's comments is absurdly stupid. Also the other excuse I am reading is that the Tories ran a 'superb' targeted campaign. I clearly remember people moaning or rejoicing on here at the time that the tories campaign was rubbish. What were Labour targeting whilst all this was going on?
The local BBC were in Swindon following Umuna. They were asking people what a new labour leader needed to do. One cloth capped pensioner said there was too much welfare.
Because Axelrod wasn't a data guy? In any case, even if you are right about Crosby, it does not affect the argument that David Cameron owes his position as Prime Minister to a technically better campaign rather than to any great popular enthusiasm for his manifesto.
The campaign advantage will likely be nullified next time, and the second point leaves plenty of scope for buyer's remorse.
He's in the denial stage, the 'our policies were right, our man was right, we just didn't sell it/campaign it properly' stage
Stage 2: It was all the tory media's fault.
Lol - I'm not sure he's got over 'it's all right for lefties to cry' stage yet. Wonder how many of his FB friends heave been unfriended on the advice of the [sic] Oxford Professor.
Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].
I'm not so sure. Grexit is going to see a rise in nationalism Europe wide we haven't seen since '45
Even the most partisan Tory would admit they won because people were horrified at the thought of the SNP propping up a labour govt... The Tory canvassers on here regularly said it came up unprompted as the key concern from voters
The SNP didn't want that either so both parties got their wish.
I hope it means the break up of the union. It is inevitable and would be good news for English people
Not a key concern, not by a long shot, however, a big concern for those who were switching at the last minute. I had a conversation with a father and son, the father in his seventies, son in his forties. Both had voted labour all their lives. Neither impressed with the local labour candidate (they knew her), both (when prompted by me) thought the sitting mp was doing a good job. The conversation began with the son telling me that if Labour knocked on his door and told him they would do a deal with the SNP he would never vote Labour again.
I made the point that the SNP have categorically ruled out working with the Conservatives. He was extremely concerned about the SNP having the balance of power in westminster.
Remember, this is a city that shares a twenty mile border with Scotland. It wasnt anti scottish. I twas anti SNP.
Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].
Simply from my own curiosity, I find it a shame that Farage came back, because it means more of the same from UKIP, and I was genuinely interested to see where the party would go next. There is a strong element of flirting with libertarianism amongst UKIP activists, without necessarily understanding what that entails. Seeing whether they could head in that direction and how they would cope with the massive cognitive dissonances that would drop out of that - libertarian immigration policy, anyone? - was going to be great fun.
Also, whether they would be able to moderate their rhetoric whilst maintaining their populist outsider appeal. The first is needed to hold down a substantial anyone-but-UKIP vote, the second to keep up the core UKIP vote, and without striking this very fine balance I feel their 2020 strategy is already rather holed in the water. I really don't think Nigel Farage does 'fine balancing act'.
The removal of the blue advert surround is good. But the up front nesting of comments is a pain. Please Plato put your comments after the quotes link not before them... Better still revert to the previous system. Or even abolish the quotes altogether.
Mr. Woolie, idealists don't let trivialities like facts and reality obscure the light of their ideology. (cf global warming enthusiasts on the IPCC getting their predictions [95% chance of being right] wrong, and then increasing their confidence in their next set of prophecies to 99%).
Their answer to the monetary union's troubles has been to emphasise the need for greater banking, and ultimately fiscal, union.
I don't Cameron's an EU-phile ideologue, but the continent seems to have its fair share of true believers. The closest UK equivalent, the Lib Dems, have not fared well in Parliament lately, though that's unrelated to their love of the EU.
Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].
I agree. There was even a suggestion that EU-ref could be held on the same day as the Holyrood and London mayoral elections. An outrageous non-starter IMO.
Just for fun - ages ago we used to have PB surveys using SurveyMonkey.
I'd love to see one re the EU In or Out.
If Mr Cameron gets the right balance of concessions, I'll vote In - if not, I'm a BOOer.
Likewise. For me it is quite finely balanced. What will probably swing me to In is the lack of a coherent, well thought out alternative that addresses some of the uncertainties that would arise. Which rather makes Richard's point.
Carswell is used to being a maverick back bencher. He has a different role now and he needs to grow up. But he won't.
As ever, an interesting article by Mary Riddell in Telegraph on Labour defeat. She raises a very good question: what was the point of Crudas doing all the policy work if most of it was totally ignored?
A point which the PB Tories made several times well before the election.
Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].
Yes but the point is Grexit will change everything - it will collapse the euroconomy and change the proposition at hand. Freedom of movement will become an even more urgent issue and nationalism will rise in the North as money flows South to prop up Italy and Spain.
Simply from my own curiosity, I find it a shame that Farage came back, because it means more of the same from UKIP, and I was genuinely interested to see where the party would go next. There is a strong element of flirting with libertarianism amongst UKIP activists, without necessarily understanding what that entails. Seeing whether they could head in that direction and how they would cope with the massive cognitive dissonances that would drop out of that - libertarian immigration policy, anyone? - was going to be great fun.
Also, whether they would be able to moderate their rhetoric whilst maintaining their populist outsider appeal. The first is needed to hold down a substantial anyone-but-UKIP vote, the second to keep up the core UKIP vote, and without striking this very fine balance I feel their 2020 strategy is already rather holed in the water. I really don't think Nigel Farage does 'fine balancing act'.
Poor Nigel - its so tough being a party leader he has to take the summer off. From which vantage point he will no doubt be endlessly criticising the Prime Minister. His joke non resignation is a bit like not being able to stand the heat but demanding a second kitchen.
The biggest joke is that kippers cannot see that they are being taken for a ride.
What exactly are the drinking limits in Scotland..
" England and Wales: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, 35 μg per 100ml of breath or 107 mg per 100ml of urine.[56] Scotland: 50 mg alcohol/100ml blood or 22mcg alcohol/100ml breath (legislation became effective from 5 December 2014)[57] Northern Ireland: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. As of November 2014 results of a public consultation regarding reduction of this limit were being considered,[58] with a reduction to 50 being thought likely[59]"
E&W are the most liberal limits in W Europe. Scotland is now in line with most of W Europe. When I lived in Sweden, everyone used a taxi for a night out.
If there is no leader in place by September’s party conference, tensions will boil over. Those things that have been left unsaid will be shouted from one end of Brighton’s Grand Hotel bar to the other. The damage will be permanent.
And then Labour will be out of power for a generation.
Mr. Woolie, it's highly unlikely, even in that scenario. A quicker referendum, though, with Cameron reluctantly going to Out, *could* happen [I think it'd take a hell of a lot for him to shift that way, though].
Yes but the point is Grexit will change everything - it will collapse the euroconomy and change the proposition at hand. Freedom of movement will become an even more urgent issue and nationalism will rise in the North as money flows South to prop up Italy and Spain.
Maybe five years ago. The EU has spent the last five years knowing full well that Greece is failing and has been preparing fire doors to prevent its collapse causing too much damage. Its more of a controlled collapse of Greece alone now than it would have been.
Mr. Woolie, incidentally, I do agree nationalism would rise, but think there'll be a strong defence and perhaps even greater rise in EU-philia.
We've had Greece lumbering towards an exit for years now, and its economy has been catastrophic for the best part of a decade. It's very much the boy who cried wolf [remembering that the wolf did eventually turn up].
I think that here in Italy the drink driving laws seem to e totally disregarded..I know of no one who has ever been stopped or breathalysed..even after a bump.
Is it not somewhat ironic that the leaders of both the SNP and UKIP are not MPs and technically have no power over the short money or on how their party MPs vote in the HoC.
Sturgeon may huff and puff and make all sort of pronouncements, but in reality she is powerless. Will Salmond make a show of his independence in Parliament?
There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.
That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.
Carswell isn't greedy, hence his MPs expenses record (praised by Martin Bell in his book) and his attitude to the Short money. Farge is greedy, see his MEP's expenses and his attitude to the Short money. It's our money and the electorate aren't particularly forgiving over such things.
Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.
As ever, an interesting article by Mary Riddell in Telegraph on Labour defeat. She raises a very good question: what was the point of Crudas doing all the policy work if most of it was totally ignored?
A point which the PB Tories made several times well before the election.
I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.
I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.
Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!
I am rather puzzled (although not very surprised) by Douglas Carswell's position on the 'short money'. I have been berating UKIP and the Out side generally for doing absolutely zilch in terms of serious preparation for the referendum, and here is a great opportunity to set up and finance a serious research and policy-development operation for the Out campaign. That is exactly the kind of purpose the Short money is intended for. Even if you believe, as Carswell does, in a small state, in these particular circumstances it seems to be agood opportunity to counter a little of the enormous resource advantage that the In side will have.
Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.
Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.
I kinda agree with you there - in 2 years, ukip will have their big moment. This is their raison d'etre. They have to focus on the prize, anticipate all the stuff that will be thrown at them, bring in some swiss and norwegian constitutional experts, develop a positive, coherent vision for a forward looking *independent* UK. There are so many potential issues that will come up during the campaign - they can't just brush the problems under the carpet - as the Nats found out with the currency debacle.
Although I'm almost certainly going to vote to stay in, I think it's really important the *out* case is made properly - and this is their chance.
Dougie would do well to grab the mantle. Take the cash, set up a proper referendum office and let nigel do whatever nigel does, sans the short money.
Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.
Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.
Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.
Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?
Benefits mentality. Most of our youngsters do work - lets not fall into the trap of saying they don't; but there is a hardcore of people who come from families were work is considered optional - or even worse, strange. If your parents never work and your grandparents never work and your friends don't work, why would you.
On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.
If Ed stands down in Doncaster North I wouldn't bet against Farage being the UKIP candidate. And he might have a good chance of winning.
I think, even on the low turnout, you could take the South Yorkshire PCC by-election last year as a good starting point from which to judge UKIP's chances.
BBC bias: immigration being discussed on Victoria Derbyshire's BBC2 show, and both of the guests are in favour of Britain allowing more migrants crossing from northern Africa into the country. Having 2 out of 2 in favour doesn't reflect public opinion I'm afraid.
Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.
Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.
Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?
Benefits mentality. Most of our youngsters do work - lets not fall into the trap of saying they don't; but there is a hardcore of people who come from families were work is considered optional - or even worse, strange. If your parents never work and your grandparents never work and your friends don't work, why would you.
On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.
On the Labour leadership contest, I think the unions will have more say, not less say, in the result than they did in 2010. In that contest union members were limited to one third of the electoral college, and of course one third was allocated to the restraining influence of MPs. This time it's one person one vote, but the unions will make damned sure they get a large chunk of their members on to the registered affliliates list. I'd be surprised if they account for as little as one third as they did last time.
BBC bias: immigration being discussed on Victoria Derbyshire's BBC2 show, and both of the guests are in favour of Britain allowing more migrants crossing from northern Africa into the country. Having 2 out of 2 in favour doesn't reflect public opinion I'm afraid.
They would agree probably only as long as the immigrants do not live anywhere near them.
Contrary to popular belief, 20 percent of worker ants are not particularly hardworking, researchers said Saturday.
The discovery is the result of observations of three separate 30-strong colonies of black Japanese ants (Myrmecina nipponica), according to Eisuke Hasegawa, an assistant researcher in evolutionary biology at Hokkaido University’s graduate school of agriculture, and his research team.
The team transferred three colonies of ants to a man-made nest and marked them for observation. Hasegawa and his team said they observed the ants three hours a day for about five months from May last year.
Hasegawa said they discovered that about 80 percent of the ants engage in some sort of work, such as cleaning the nest or gathering food, but that the rest are mostly idle.
The situation remained the same when the researchers removed six busy ants from one colony; the busy ants that remained had to work even harder while the lazy ants continued to do little or no work.
Benefits mentality. Most of our youngsters do work - lets not fall into the trap of saying they don't; but there is a hardcore of people who come from families were work is considered optional - or even worse, strange. If your parents never work and your grandparents never work and your friends don't work, why would you.
On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.
Mr. JS, not so sure about that. Miliband got over 50% of the vote, and they don't call it the People's Republic of South Yorkshire for nothing. The only sizeable vote to squeeze [for UKIP] would be the Conservatives.
Usually a leader fighting their seat for the first time since being elected gets a big bonus, more than 5%. For example Charles Kennedy's vote was up 15% in Ross, Skye & Inverness West in 2001.
I am rather puzzled (although not very surprised) by Douglas Carswell's position on the 'short money'. I have been berating UKIP and the Out side generally for doing absolutely zilch in terms of serious preparation for the referendum, and here is a great opportunity to set up and finance a serious research and policy-development operation for the Out campaign. That is exactly the kind of purpose the Short money is intended for. Even if you believe, as Carswell does, in a small state, in these particular circumstances it seems to be agood opportunity to counter a little of the enormous resource advantage that the In side will have.
Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.
Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.
I kinda agree with you there - in 2 years, ukip will have their big moment. This is their raison d'etre. -snip- Although I'm almost certainly going to vote to stay in, I think it's really important the *out* case is made properly - and this is their chance.
Dougie would do well to grab the mantle. Take the cash, set up a proper referendum office and let nigel do whatever nigel does, sans the short money.
The EU has long since ceased to be any kipper 'raison d'etre'. If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.
I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.
Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!
Yes but what was the chicken and what was the egg in that scenario? I really hope that any new leader does not make the same mistakes. Labour have to go on a journey and find out what they are for in an age of austerity, how they prioritise and, most importantly, how they are going to allow the money to be made to pay for their dreams.
Blair and Brown did that and had a fairly coherent set of answers by 1997. Not as good economically as the tories' answers but plenty good enough to derisk electing a Labour government.
Ed never got close. It was by far the most important failure of his leadership, much more important than stupid predator/producer speeches, daft photos and bizarre slabs of rock. Getting ready for government is hard. It means you move away from the idealism to the practical and the doable. Our democracy will be stronger if next time we have a genuine choice.
If Ed stands down in Doncaster North I wouldn't bet against Farage being the UKIP candidate. And he might have a good chance of winning.
I think, even on the low turnout, you could take the South Yorkshire PCC by-election last year as a good starting point from which to judge UKIP's chances.
Wasn't that mainly down to an overwhelming Labour vote in Sheffield?
I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.
Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!
I must admit I am rather getting fed up of offering Labour advice. However I do hope that the total and thankful failure of the nasty PPB by Coogan will mark the end of the 'Tories will scrap the NHS' attacks. First, 'weaponising' the NHS harms the NHS. Second, its wrong. Third, its insulting.
On the Labour leadership contest, I think the unions will have more say, not less say, in the result than they did in 2010. In that contest union members were limited to one third of the electoral college, and of course one third was allocated to the restraining influence of MPs. This time it's one person one vote, but the unions will make damned sure they get a large chunk of their members on to the registered affliliates list. I'd be surprised if they account for as little as one third as they did last time.
Agreed entirely. If the union's play it right they can swamp the election results - while the MPs say has been watered down dramatically.
Hardly a surprise though. Miliband was tarnished as having lost the member's vote, lost the MPs and MEPs vote - but winning the union one. He's not created a system that removes the unions control, he's created a system that he would have won but not been tarnished as the union's man since all votes were together.
Ed was indeed crap and the British people rejected him.
Surely that is enough? Leave him alone.
Quite. Criticising EdM for wanting to have a few days away with his wife - just the two of them - is bizarre. Anyone who has a young family will know how difficult it can be for the parents to have some time together as a couple. The children are in school and will not be harmed.
Whether he should have done a Michael Howard and allowed time for others to put forward their case is another matter. On balance I think not: Howard was always a caretaker leader whereas it is easier for Labour to have the debate about what sort of party they are with EdM off the scene. Whether they will have is another matter.
I am rather puzzled (although not very surprised) by Douglas Carswell's position on the 'short money'. I have been berating UKIP and the Out side generally for doing absolutely zilch in terms of serious preparation for the referendum, and here is a great opportunity to set up and finance a serious research and policy-development operation for the Out campaign. That is exactly the kind of purpose the Short money is intended for. Even if you believe, as Carswell does, in a small state, in these particular circumstances it seems to be agood opportunity to counter a little of the enormous resource advantage that the In side will have.
Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.
Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.
I kinda agree with you there - in 2 years, ukip will have their big moment. This is their raison d'etre. -snip- Although I'm almost certainly going to vote to stay in, I think it's really important the *out* case is made properly - and this is their chance.
Dougie would do well to grab the mantle. Take the cash, set up a proper referendum office and let nigel do whatever nigel does, sans the short money.
The EU has long since ceased to be any kipper 'raison d'etre'. If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.
Still peddling your myths and lies you sad little man.
Many of us have always said immigration is a good thing precisely because of this.
Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.
Why do you think the immigrants have this work ethic that our youngsters don't?
That's easy to answer: the minimum wage in this country is an enormous sum of money compared to what they'd earn in their homeland. If you offered the equivalent mark-up to the British unemployed the unemployment rate would probably go down to zero.
I love the snark at the end: "[the expenses regime] is perceived by MPs to be much tougher than its predecessor" (my italics).
But really, why don't they just introduce a centralised purchasing organisation, at least for laptops and IT equipment. Bolt it on to the Cabinet office or somewhere & you can probably handle it would any additional overhead, so the cost savings would flow straight through (say 1500 laptops @ £1,000 each, 30% saving - close to £0.5m saving straight away & then none of the temptation to abuse it).
More to the point why doesn't parliament function more like a company for this. When you join you are issued a company laptop/ipad. When you leave you hand it back and it is scrubbed for the next person. I see no reason why mp's should need to buy their own laptops for parliamentary business and get to keep them afterwards. This would probably also simplify things for connecting to a parliament wide lan. (I assume there is such a thing)
There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.
That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.
Becoming leader again 3 days after quitting looks a tad messianic. Did he then appear before "five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep" - 1 Corinthians 15:6
I am sorry but antics like this simply feed the meme that Farage is something of a "fun" figure and not to be taken seriously. To me, he seems to have taken on the mantle of Screaming Lord Sutch, but made the role all his own
There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.
That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.
Carswell isn't greedy, hence his MPs expenses record (praised by Martin Bell in his book) and his attitude to the Short money. Farge is greedy, see his MEP's expenses and his attitude to the Short money. It's our money and the electorate aren't particularly forgiving over such things.
Not often I agree with you but in this case you are right ... to some extent anyway. There is the question of what Farage is doing with the money. In the past he got into trouble not for spending it on himself like the MPs troughers but for using it to fund the campaign against the EU. In the end both are wrong because the money is public money which has been assigned for a particular purpose and to use it for something else, however great the cause, is simply not on. To say that that is personal greed though is I think incorrect.
If Ed stands down in Doncaster North I wouldn't bet against Farage being the UKIP candidate. And he might have a good chance of winning.
I think, even on the low turnout, you could take the South Yorkshire PCC by-election last year as a good starting point from which to judge UKIP's chances.
Wasn't that mainly down to an overwhelming Labour vote in Sheffield?
Rotherham/Rother Valley were very close. Sheffield is Labour landslide territory, Donny is still strongly Labour somewhere between Sheffield and Rotherham.
The whole "I'm working with the Tories" probably didn't help UKIP up here at the GE.
Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?
On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest
There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.
That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.
Becoming leader again 3 days after quitting looks a tad messianic. Did he then appear before "five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep" - 1 Corinthians 15:6
I am sorry but antics like this simply feed the meme that Farage is something of a "fun" figure and not to be taken seriously. To me, he seems to have taken on the mantle of Screaming Lord Sutch, but made the role all his own
I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.
"I am angry and hurt but right now there is nothing I can do about it. Strauss will be judged on his results. Yet I have heard from two very good sources that results do not matter this summer anyway. The job description for the director of cricket job is focused on longer-term goals. But if Strauss has been told he does not have to win this summer then why should the players train and work hard? In essence, quite incredibly, they have all been given permission to lose the Ashes. I have never heard that before. It is not in my make-up and I know it is not in the make-up of the English public either. Especially for those who have paid a lot of money for tickets."
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
The EU has long since ceased to be any kipper 'raison d'etre'. If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.
Still peddling your myths and lies you sad little man.
Not true for all Kippers but it is for many.
In 2010 the BNP got half a million votes, where have they gone? They've gone to the Kippers.
Not all 4 million are voting Kip due to racism, but at least half a million are. To deny that any are is as silly as claiming all are.
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
Then prepare for civil war
The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Tad extreme. Most people's version of protest nowadays is pressing Like on a photoshopped image on Facebook with a made up quote. The really extreme will go as far as pressing Share for that image.
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
Standing up for values is one thing. I am all for challenging these hate preachers. But to say that we should use the power of the State against people who have not broken the law simply because we do not like what they are saying is utterly wrong. I find much of what is said by the extreme left to be offensive but I would not for a second say we should prevent them from advertising their idiocy.
...it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest
But that doesn't *matter* any more. There's a massive referendum coming up. You know, the one that has always been denied to you. It's no good sitting on your high horse, wearing a union jack and sneering at the *corrupt establishment* for the next two years - you've got to get moving!
You don't need to win another election ever again.
Standing up for values is one thing. I am all for challenging these hate preachers. But to say that we should use the power of the State against people who have not broken the law simply because we do not like what they are saying is utterly wrong. I find much of what is said by the extreme left to be offensive but I would not for a second say we should prevent them from advertising their idiocy.
Well said. We should confront them head on not push them underground.
Having a war on speech will be lucky to be about as successful as a war on drugs.
I pointed out (yesterday I think) that Mrs Thatchers success was policy driven, policy worked out in opposition and put forward in the election.
Yes, and Blair's and Cameron's too. In the lead-up to 1997 and to 2010, the opposition put in an enormous amount of work to ensure that they were ready for government, and that the electorate could see they were ready for government. I pointed out many times before the last election, as others did, that the shadow front bench simply didn't look as though they were remotely ready for government, they were acting like a bunch expecting to lose and to lose badly. If so they were right, of course!
Yes but what was the chicken and what was the egg in that scenario? I really hope that any new leader does not make the same mistakes. Labour have to go on a journey and find out what they are for in an age of austerity, how they prioritise and, most importantly, how they are going to allow the money to be made to pay for their dreams.
Blair and Brown did that and had a fairly coherent set of answers by 1997. Not as good economically as the tories' answers but plenty good enough to derisk electing a Labour government.
Ed never got close. It was by far the most important failure of his leadership, much more important than stupid predator/producer speeches, daft photos and bizarre slabs of rock. Getting ready for government is hard. It means you move away from the idealism to the practical and the doable. Our democracy will be stronger if next time we have a genuine choice.
I disagree that Blair and Brown had a coherent set of answers by 1997. They appeared to, certainly, but in reality their answers were (1) rely on money from the City - with all the bad effects that we have since seen; and (2) use PFI to pay for the rest - again with all the problems we are now seeing.
What they didn't do - and Labour now have to do - is work out what their priorities are and how to pay for them and explain to the electorate that if they agree with those priorities they are going to have to pay for them. For too long Labour have peddled a fiction to their voters: that they can have all the wonderful things they want and that it can all be paid for by someone else. And the truth is it can't. Labour need to be honest with the electorate. It's that fundamental dishonesty or refusal to face reality which is at the heart of Labour's economic incompetence and failure to make a case for the sort of state/public sector it wants.
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
Are the indigenous White population expected to abide by those rules too? A lot of them don't.
Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?
On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest
But that doesn't *matter* any more. There's a massive referendum coming up. You know, the one that has always been denied to you. It's no good sitting on your high horse, wearing a union jack and sneering at the *establishment* for the next two years - you've got to get moving!
You don't need to win another election ever again.
Tad extreme. Most people's version of protest nowadays is pressing Like on a photoshopped image on Facebook with a made up quote. The really extreme will go as far as pressing Share for that image.
Or bomb the tube/shoot cartoonists/behead a soldier
I'm undecided on the government's moves on combating extremism.
Hmm.
I'm not usually undecided on such matters (my default setting is that free speech is paramount). But when the 2005 Danish cartoon protests called for Death To The West I thought that was utterly unacceptable.
The whole thing is worth reading, but these two consecutive paragraphs really caught my eye:
"For now, Messina’s sojourn in Westminster is over. He is back in DC and already advising the Democrats once again — in particular Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. ‘I am helping run her Super PAC and I’m very excited about that and we’re at work every day to make sure she wins this election.’
Could he seem himself returning to Conservative HQ in future? ‘I would love to, I really believe in Prime Minister Cameron and I adore his team, I think Andrew Feldman and Lynton, those guys are all some of the better people I have worked with so it would be an honour to work with them again.’ "
The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.
The EU has long since ceased to be any kipper 'raison d'etre'. If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.
Still peddling your myths and lies you sad little man.
Not true for all Kippers but it is for many.
In 2010 the BNP got half a million votes, where have they gone? They've gone to the Kippers.
Not all 4 million are voting Kip due to racism, but at least half a million are. To deny that any are is as silly as claiming all are.
Really? Last year the EDL were telling their supporters not to vote UKIP because the party are 'traitors'. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that in a lot of the northern constituencies the BNP vote went back to where it originally came from which is Labour.
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Free speech does not permit people to incite violence against others. We have seen people standing with banners outside Westminster Cathedral saying "Behead those who insult Islam". That's not free speech. That's incitement to violence. And nothing was done. And it's about time something is done about those who preach violence. Being some sort of cleric does not - and should not - give you a free pass to preach violence against others.
Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?
On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest
The function of Short money is " to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions." Carswell is correct, he doesn't need £650,000 each year to support one MP.
More information on the Lib Dem membership figures. The membership department have just issued a breakdown. 82% have never been members before and over half are under 35. The biggest rise are in Sheffield (145), Bristol (143), Twickenham and Richmond (129) and Cambridge (122). Rather an obvious link?
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I agree that freedom of speech is important. I find the increasing criminalisation of speech on the grounds that it is "offensive" troubling.
But what I understand the government to be doing is taking the argument to those extremists who use that right to undermine our values and attack those who do not fit into their world viewpoint.
Do you support the freedom to say that a particular person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed? To say that those who have left the Muslim faith should be killed? That British women should not be able to dress as they like or go where they like or speak to who they like, or marry who they like?
This is tricky territory but I think there is a lot the government can do without going too far.
Mr. P, interesting, given this from a BBC article: "An announcement of a new leader at the party's annual conference in September"
"He [BBC reporter] said the final option was the least likely as party officials did not want a repeat of 2010, when coverage of the conference was dominated by the fallout from the closely-fought contest."
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
One of these values is freedom of speech. That includes giving free speech to those who don't deserve it - otherwise who decides who does or doesn't deserve free speech.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Free speech does not permit people to incite violence against others. We have seen people standing with banners outside Westminster Cathedral saying "Behead those who insult Islam". That's not free speech. That's incitement to violence. And nothing was done. And it's about time something is done about those who preach violence. Being some sort of cleric does not - and should not - give you a free pass to preach violence against others.
If it is incitement to violence then it is illegal and should be dealt with within the law. To claim that we should now persecute people who are acting within the law is completely unacceptable.
Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?
"On the day of Ed Miliband’s resignation, I texted one of his closest aides to ask why he wouldn’t stay on as caretaker while a new leader was chosen. The reply came back fast: “He was just too tired and had taken on too much for his family. He’s a really good man, Sunny. The likes of which we just don’t see in politics.” "
So what if he had won? An overtired and out-of-his-depth PM on day 1?
If he'd won, he wouldn't have been depressed about losing. In fact, probably all PMs are tired on day one, because they've been campaigning for weeks and then stayed up all night watching the results.
But it's how you cope with tiredness and depression. Not, ideally, by ignoring your own party's best interests and sodding off to Ibiza because you can afford to.
If he has taken the kids out of school I hope he gets fined £60 a day like other people are.
No his children have been left at home - surely you would have thought that he would have wanted to spend time with them?
Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?
ruled out this year I believe. Maybe hoping he will quit anyway
Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
Then prepare for civil war
The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?
Another good question, you are on fire this morning.
They are indeed British. But they are a minority and the majority of Britons still get to determine what is important to us and what kind of society we want to live in. That is indeed, in the main, a passively tolerant society but it is one that has to accessible to all Brits not just some of us.
As DavidL has said, Ed Miliband has offered his service to the nation and it has been declined. While I did not vote for him, I have no doubt that he was sincerely trying to do his level best for the country and he deserves respect for his tireless efforts even if you completely disagree with what he advocated. Can we not give him a bit of time and space to lick his wounds?
It's great to have so many hard working Eastern Europeans in the UK, but we could at least stop the "lazy and/or feckless" ones from coming .
Being homeless at some point doesn't necessarily equate to "lazy and feckless". Starting with nothing is pretty much a key part of the classic American self-made pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps story. And note the "rags" in "rags-to-riches".
@PippaCrerar: Roll up, roll up. Nominations open for Labour mayoral race. Diane Abbott formally announces bid http://t.co/9qJXuGI674 Who next? #labour2016
Comments
Of course, if what UKIP want to do with the money is splurge it on trivia, then Carswell's position is more understandable.
Still, given that the half-life of senior UKIP figures other than Farage seems to be a year or two, I guess we should expect ructions.
Also the other excuse I am reading is that the Tories ran a 'superb' targeted campaign. I clearly remember people moaning or rejoicing on here at the time that the tories campaign was rubbish. What were Labour targeting whilst all this was going on?
The local BBC were in Swindon following Umuna. They were asking people what a new labour leader needed to do. One cloth capped pensioner said there was too much welfare.
I made the point that the SNP have categorically ruled out working with the Conservatives. He was extremely concerned about the SNP having the balance of power in westminster.
Remember, this is a city that shares a twenty mile border with Scotland. It wasnt anti scottish. I twas anti SNP.
A War Of Attrition with the EUcrats seems the best strategy - and scaring them with a Con Maj and 3.5m Kippers.
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598410882398433281
https://twitter.com/dannyshawbbc/status/598408767865298944
Also, whether they would be able to moderate their rhetoric whilst maintaining their populist outsider appeal. The first is needed to hold down a substantial anyone-but-UKIP vote, the second to keep up the core UKIP vote, and without striking this very fine balance I feel their 2020 strategy is already rather holed in the water. I really don't think Nigel Farage does 'fine balancing act'.
Better still revert to the previous system. Or even abolish the quotes altogether.
Their answer to the monetary union's troubles has been to emphasise the need for greater banking, and ultimately fiscal, union.
I don't Cameron's an EU-phile ideologue, but the continent seems to have its fair share of true believers. The closest UK equivalent, the Lib Dems, have not fared well in Parliament lately, though that's unrelated to their love of the EU.
Mr. Nabavi, I agree. Carswell is a silly sausage.
Carswell is used to being a maverick back bencher. He has a different role now and he needs to grow up. But he won't.
The biggest joke is that kippers cannot see that they are being taken for a ride.
Why would anyone who loves immigration claim its not happening? That's just denial.
" England and Wales: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, 35 μg per 100ml of breath or 107 mg per 100ml of urine.[56]
Scotland: 50 mg alcohol/100ml blood or 22mcg alcohol/100ml breath (legislation became effective from 5 December 2014)[57]
Northern Ireland: 80 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. As of November 2014 results of a public consultation regarding reduction of this limit were being considered,[58] with a reduction to 50 being thought likely[59]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_law_by_country (see maps)
E&W are the most liberal limits in W Europe. Scotland is now in line with most of W Europe.
When I lived in Sweden, everyone used a taxi for a night out.
We've had Greece lumbering towards an exit for years now, and its economy has been catastrophic for the best part of a decade. It's very much the boy who cried wolf [remembering that the wolf did eventually turn up].
Farge is greedy, see his MEP's expenses and his attitude to the Short money.
It's our money and the electorate aren't particularly forgiving over such things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Although I'm almost certainly going to vote to stay in, I think it's really important the *out* case is made properly - and this is their chance.
Dougie would do well to grab the mantle. Take the cash, set up a proper referendum office and let nigel do whatever nigel does, sans the short money.
Labour voters are very very lazy when it comes to by-elections.
It could come down to - do the Tories in the seat hate UKIP or Labour more. I honestly don't know.
It'd be interesting for sure.
On the other hand many migrants come from a culture where if you don't work, you don't eat.
Increase in Lab vote:
Don Valley (Flint): +8.2% to 46.2%
Doncaster Central (Winterton): +9.4% to 49.1%
Doncaster North (Miliband): +5.1% to 52.4%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000669
Usually a leader fighting their seat for the first time since being elected gets a big bonus, more than 5%. For example Charles Kennedy's vote was up 15% in Ross, Skye & Inverness West in 2001.
If we left the EU the kippers would be still peddling their racist line. As long as there is a moon, UKIP will howl at it.
'David Cameron will today order security services to ditch the approach that 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html
Blair and Brown did that and had a fairly coherent set of answers by 1997. Not as good economically as the tories' answers but plenty good enough to derisk electing a Labour government.
Ed never got close. It was by far the most important failure of his leadership, much more important than stupid predator/producer speeches, daft photos and bizarre slabs of rock. Getting ready for government is hard. It means you move away from the idealism to the practical and the doable. Our democracy will be stronger if next time we have a genuine choice.
'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'
Prime Minister David Cameron
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html
First, 'weaponising' the NHS harms the NHS. Second, its wrong. Third, its insulting.
Hardly a surprise though. Miliband was tarnished as having lost the member's vote, lost the MPs and MEPs vote - but winning the union one. He's not created a system that removes the unions control, he's created a system that he would have won but not been tarnished as the union's man since all votes were together.
Whether he should have done a Michael Howard and allowed time for others to put forward their case is another matter. On balance I think not: Howard was always a caretaker leader whereas it is easier for Labour to have the debate about what sort of party they are with EdM off the scene. Whether they will have is another matter.
I am sorry but antics like this simply feed the meme that Farage is something of a "fun" figure and not to be taken seriously. To me, he seems to have taken on the mantle of Screaming Lord Sutch, but made the role all his own
The whole "I'm working with the Tories" probably didn't help UKIP up here at the GE.
On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest
"I am angry and hurt but right now there is nothing I can do about it. Strauss will be judged on his results. Yet I have heard from two very good sources that results do not matter this summer anyway. The job description for the director of cricket job is focused on longer-term goals.
But if Strauss has been told he does not have to win this summer then why should the players train and work hard? In essence, quite incredibly, they have all been given permission to lose the Ashes. I have never heard that before. It is not in my make-up and I know it is not in the make-up of the English public either. Especially for those who have paid a lot of money for tickets."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/kevinpietersen/11600580/Kevin-Pietersen-My-fury-at-England-deceit.html
We must become intolerant of intolerance.
We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.
We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.
We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
In 2010 the BNP got half a million votes, where have they gone? They've gone to the Kippers.
Not all 4 million are voting Kip due to racism, but at least half a million are. To deny that any are is as silly as claiming all are.
The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?
@BBCNormanS: Labours @RachelReevesMP confirms she won't be a candidate in Labour leadership contest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770533/Eastern-Europeans-sleeping-rough-one-Londons-exclusive-areas.html
It's great to have so many hard working Eastern Europeans in the UK, but we could at least stop the "lazy and/or feckless" ones from coming .
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You don't need to win another election ever again.
Having a war on speech will be lucky to be about as successful as a war on drugs.
What they didn't do - and Labour now have to do - is work out what their priorities are and how to pay for them and explain to the electorate that if they agree with those priorities they are going to have to pay for them. For too long Labour have peddled a fiction to their voters: that they can have all the wonderful things they want and that it can all be paid for by someone else. And the truth is it can't. Labour need to be honest with the electorate. It's that fundamental dishonesty or refusal to face reality which is at the heart of Labour's economic incompetence and failure to make a case for the sort of state/public sector it wants.
It's all about making their case, not talking LibLabCon or whataboutery.
Some Kippers will find the move from grievance to positive very hard.
Hmm.
I'm not usually undecided on such matters (my default setting is that free speech is paramount). But when the 2005 Danish cartoon protests called for Death To The West I thought that was utterly unacceptable.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/
The whole thing is worth reading, but these two consecutive paragraphs really caught my eye:
"For now, Messina’s sojourn in Westminster is over. He is back in DC and already advising the Democrats once again — in particular Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid. ‘I am helping run her Super PAC and I’m very excited about that and we’re at work every day to make sure she wins this election.’
Could he seem himself returning to Conservative HQ in future? ‘I would love to, I really believe in Prime Minister Cameron and I adore his team, I think Andrew Feldman and Lynton, those guys are all some of the better people I have worked with so it would be an honour to work with them again.’ "
The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.
Carswell is correct, he doesn't need £650,000 each year to support one MP.
But what I understand the government to be doing is taking the argument to those extremists who use that right to undermine our values and attack those who do not fit into their world viewpoint.
Do you support the freedom to say that a particular person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed? To say that those who have left the Muslim faith should be killed? That British women should not be able to dress as they like or go where they like or speak to who they like, or marry who they like?
This is tricky territory but I think there is a lot the government can do without going too far.
"An announcement of a new leader at the party's annual conference in September"
"He [BBC reporter] said the final option was the least likely as party officials did not want a repeat of 2010, when coverage of the conference was dominated by the fallout from the closely-fought contest."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714809
I'm a great believer in overrunning your opponents before they've put their trousers on - this looks like a gift to CCHQ.
They are indeed British. But they are a minority and the majority of Britons still get to determine what is important to us and what kind of society we want to live in. That is indeed, in the main, a passively tolerant society but it is one that has to accessible to all Brits not just some of us.
I wanted to answer your Daily Mail with Buzzfeed, but I couldn't find anything good so I had to settle for Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-and-famous-people-who-were-homeless-2014-8?op=1