I do get it: I work in a business where trust is paramount.
I'd encourage you to reread Mr Dancer's post at 9:07 though. It sums up the situation very well.
A post-ratifiction referendum on Lisbon would not only have been irrelevant, but it would have been actively damaging for the Eurosceptic cause. You are only going to get one shot at this and it's critical to get it right (witness the problems for electoral reform that the AV vote has caused).
That may take patience, it may mean holding your noise and voting for a politician you despise. But the reality is that if the Tories do not win the next election there will not be a referendum on Europe in the foreseeable future.
To paraphrase General Giap, that is true, but it is also irrelevant. It's true that we won't get a referendum if the Conservatives lose, and it's irrelevant because so many people (and certainly most of those flirting with UKIP I suspect) believe we won't get one if the Conservatives win either - and certainly not under Cameron. This is because the so called "referendum lock" is nothing of the sort, it's only a promise of a referendum if ministers think the changes agreed at the time are big enough to justify it. Do you seriously think you can promise, with absolute conviction, that Cameron will not do what pretty much every other British PM has done in the past and simply portray any future treaty as simply a minor tidying up exercise, evidence that Europe is moving in Britain's direction, etc. and therefore does not trigger the lock? Because this is exactly what many sceptics think will happen.
One further peace of evidence that the referendum lock is worthless BTW - Ed Miliband, who has said he will never allow a referendum, sees no problem with keeping it -
Of course Cameron could go back on his promise. Most politicians are shameless opportunists.
My belief - and it is only an opinion - is that *if* he tried to the conservative party would become so ungovernable that his career as PM would become extremely limited.
Hence it's in his personal interest to keep his promise. I fully expect him to campaign to stay in though, regardless of the concessions we get.
Personally, I'm going to support the option that is most likely to result in a referendum and then make up my own mind on which way to jump. Very much on the fence - don't like the way Europe is going, but could be convinced to stay in provided that there are meaningful concessions.
Also immigration & asylum is very much linked to Europe, since we are part of the EU thus EU citizens can live and work here - also laws around immigration and asylum, the European Courts have the over-riding say on these matters as to who we can and can't keep here.
Wise Heads - Five ex-Ministers Miliband could put in the Shadow Cabinet. (www.labourlist.org)
"Last week I highlighted 5 women from the 2010 intake who Ed Miliband could add to his Shadow Cabinet in the coming months. Today I’ve taken a look at five of the wise heads on the backbenches with experience of government who could add something to Miliband’s front bench team in opposition:" (The 5 women were: Stella Creasy, Kate Green, Lisa Nandy, Chi Onwurah and Alison McGovern).
Recommended are Alistair Darling, Margaret Becket, Alan Johnson, Margaret Hodge and Pat McFadden.
Unfortunately the article does not say who should be sacked!!
Of course Cameron could go back on his promise. Most politicians are shameless opportunists.
My belief - and it is only an opinion - is that *if* he tried to the conservative party would become so ungovernable that his career as PM would become extremely limited.
Hence it's in his personal interest to keep his promise. I fully expect him to campaign to stay in though, regardless of the concessions we get.
Personally, I'm going to support the option that is most likely to result in a referendum and then make up my own mind on which way to jump. Very much on the fence - don't like the way Europe is going, but could be convinced to stay in provided that there are meaningful concessions.
Sorry, but I think you're missing my point. Cameron doesn't need to break his promise to deny us a referendum, any more than he broke his promise for a referendum on Lisbon, and for exactly the same reason - because he left enough wriggle room in his promise to give him a way out if he wants to. The reason why people aren't prepared to trust him on this is because we suspect that the reason why he put wriggle room in there is because he intends to wriggle. After all, we saw him do it on Lisbon.
And yes, I agree the Conservative Party would likely revolt in such circumstances. However that will be in 2017, and this policy is all about getting through the next general election. If a week is a long time in politics, then who's going to care about four years?
Saying Europe isn't an issue when Immigration & asylum is second on the list is willful ignorance in my opinion.
How many people that view immigration as an important issue are thinking immigration = unrestricted EU immigration? If it is a significant amount, it is wrong to say Europe isn't a salient issue.
It's like Liverpool fans saying maintaining standards of conduct & discipline are very important and the board then denying the behaviour of Luis Suarez is an issue
@iainmartin1: Wonder if "reckless mismanagement" law will apply to Chancellors who launch blow up the housing market Help to Buy schemes. Thought not...
Iain Martin read my tweet!
House prices rise at the shocking rate of 0.4% per annum ? Stock up on guns and bottled water lads - this sucker is going down.
Given that Subprime George's programmes have either not started yet or are only just kicking in would you like a bet on house price rises over the next two years compared to wages?
Claiming that there's been no effect from a programme that hasn't begun yet just makes you look silly.
How about a bet at evens that house prices in the year before the election are going up at double the annual wage rise.
And another bet on rents rising at twice the wage rise in the same period.
House prices going up at twice wages would be a good thing as the current value is 5x wages, so the multiple would be come down (albeit slowly)
Lets take an example
Wage £20k Ave House Price 5*wages = £100k
Wage £20k goes up 5% = 21k House Price goes up 10% = £110k
New Multiple = 5.24 which is larger than 5
You can put a second rate mind in a first rate school, but it doesn't prove much, just gives them the confidence to think they have a first rate mind.
You're not factoring in the impact of tax - although I should have made clearer than it is take-home pay that matters
Factoring in the impact of tax would just amplify the effect.
"Personally I think the "fault" lies with all the mainstream parties by pretending to agree with stuff that we don't."
You're put your finger exactly on why UKIP has taken votes from Labour too.
As a union rep, I used to get all sorts of complaints from members about wasting time and money on "irrelevant" issues; supporting people who were setting up unions for flower-sellers in Costa Rica, for instance (we only sent fraternal greetings - those and £2.50 will buy you a good pint of beer in Liverpool).
My Auntie spent all her life as a union activist and Labour party stalwart. She was supposedly on speaking terms with John Prescot. I suspect they kept off the subject of immigration as she was somewhere to the right of Nick Griffin.
And don't bring up the subject of capital punishment for child-killers.
The Tories could never hoover them up because they were seen to represent the bosses. So they voted Labour despite the strong suspicion they were voting for people with a BBC mindset (and they're really not so bad are they?).
The golf club types are the section tim caricatures, but they only represent some of the new UKIP - the ones that despair of David Cameron.
UKIP could progress but they need to retain the NOTA label somehow.
Of course Cameron could go back on his promise. Most politicians are shameless opportunists.
My belief - and it is only an opinion - is that *if* he tried to the conservative party would become so ungovernable that his career as PM would become extremely limited.
Hence it's in his personal interest to keep his promise. I fully expect him to campaign to stay in though, regardless of the concessions we get.
Personally, I'm going to support the option that is most likely to result in a referendum and then make up my own mind on which way to jump. Very much on the fence - don't like the way Europe is going, but could be convinced to stay in provided that there are meaningful concessions.
Sorry, but I think you're missing my point. Cameron doesn't need to break his promise to deny us a referendum, any more than he broke his promise for a referendum on Lisbon, and for exactly the same reason - because he left enough wriggle room in his promise to give him a way out if he wants to. The reason why people aren't prepared to trust him on this is because we suspect that the reason why he put wriggle room in there is because he intends to wriggle. After all, we saw him do it on Lisbon.
And yes, I agree the Conservative Party would likely revolt in such circumstances. However that will be in 2017, and this policy is all about getting through the next general election. If a week is a long time in politics, then who's going to care about four years?
Fundamentally it doesn't matter about wiggle room - no Parliament can bind its successors, so no promise made by a PM for an event after an election has any value in theory. People don't trust Cameron - but I think it's largely those who had already made up their mind campaigning about the issue rather than actually being a fact based assessment. In reality he did what he said he would do.
The choice in 2015 is pretty simple: elect a conservative government who will probably grant a referendum or elect a non-conservative government who won't. The reality is that UKIP will not form the next government, so the decision for UKIP voters resolves as follows:
(1) I don't care about the practical implications for a EU referendum, I just hate Cameron/all politicians are the same: vote UKIP (2) I want a referendum: vote Conservative, but with a greater or lesser amount of reluctance.
@iainmartin1: Wonder if "reckless mismanagement" law will apply to Chancellors who launch blow up the housing market Help to Buy schemes. Thought not...
Iain Martin read my tweet!
House prices rise at the shocking rate of 0.4% per annum ? Stock up on guns and bottled water lads - this sucker is going down.
Given that Subprime George's programmes have either not started yet or are only just kicking in would you like a bet on house price rises over the next two years compared to wages?
Claiming that there's been no effect from a programme that hasn't begun yet just makes you look silly.
How about a bet at evens that house prices in the year before the election are going up at double the annual wage rise.
And another bet on rents rising at twice the wage rise in the same period.
House prices going up at twice wages would be a good thing as the current value is 5x wages, so the multiple would be come down (albeit slowly)
Lets take an example
Wage £20k Ave House Price 5*wages = £100k
Wage £20k goes up 5% = 21k House Price goes up 10% = £110k
New Multiple = 5.24 which is larger than 5
You can put a second rate mind in a first rate school, but it doesn't prove much, just gives them the confidence to think they have a first rate mind.
You're not factoring in the impact of tax - although I should have made clearer than it is take-home pay that matters
Factoring in the impact of tax would just amplify the effect.
No, because the increase in the personal allowance increases the take home pay of the average worker. (But I'm not going to defend the original post - I was doing something else at the same time and made an arithmetical mistake)
Really, Ed should not be allowed on the cricket pitch.
He's not having the best of days - someone in No10 was on the ball - Cameron had the 'Hunt/Miliband teaching' story to start off with....
Every time Cameron blames the last government for the economy, Miliband should just quote Cameron's 2008 "free marketer" speech. How can he defend that?
If the Tories, or anyone else, appeared to be remotely serious about leaving the EU, I think that many UKIP voters would sit up and pay attention. The underlying problem for the Tories and to some extent all main parties with respect to UKIP voters is a lack of trust and identification - the UKIP voters are alienated from all of us, and we can put forward Bills proposing universal happiness and they'll still think we're just kidding them around. In the case of the referendum bill, they are of course precisely right.
Indeed.
For someone who has lost trust making ever more promises doesn't win back support it simply makes those lost supporters even angrier.
Cameron needs to DO things not promise to do things.
But Cameron is so in love with his own self-perceived cleverness he cannot see this.
Whereas he's seen as a "at the correct juncture, in the fullness of time, no you failed to understand the exactititude of my commitment" phony.
Just as Clegg's broken promises on tuition fees permanently damaged his credibility even though few people were directly affected Cameron's broken promises on the EU permanently damaged his credibility even though few people few people were interested in the issue itself.
It's ironic, though. Cameron was undermined by a promise that he never made over a vote that would have been pointless. (Once Lisbon was ratified that pass was sold, and you needed to fall back to another position).
Clegg just broke his word. And, as we see with pensioner benefits, Cameron wants to keep explicit promises. [cue tim posting endlessly about "no more pointless NHS reorganisations" without realising that Cameron clearly doesn't think this reorganisation is pointless]. Similarly, on Europe - as RichardN has posted - there is no way he can back track on the referendum pledge in 2017 without being defenestrated, while his other pledge on Europe was the formation of a new group in the EU parliament. This he has delivered. [can we have some Latvian homophobe posts for old times sake, tim]
Charles, voters don't bring their lawyers with them to listen to what politicians say. Whether you like it or not he made a referendum promise and voters interpreted it as such and weaseling out of it cost him votes. If nothing else it gave the opposition a stick to beat him with and was just pure crap politics.
He explicitly said a vote on the Lisbon Treaty assuming it hadn't been ratified.
It's harder to get any clearer than that, and you don't need a lawyer. If people only hear what they want to hear then it's difficult to communicate with them.
I agree it's given his opponents a stick. I just wish they would beat him up some something he did (and there's plenty to complain about) rather than something he didn't do
He could have made it a lot clearer. I remember being on this site trying to talk down excitable people who had read the press coverage and thought they were going to get a referendum, just as I have been with his current non-promise. He really didn't give me much to work with.
He could very easily have called up the papers and said, "No, that's what I mean, you need to parse my words more carefully". If they hadn't wanted to run it he could have written letters to the editors - they'd have published them - or made clarification in other media. He knew what people thought he meant, and he deliberately let them go on thinking it. And the ambiguity helped him, too. If he'd clarified that there would be no referendum, Gordon Brown would probably have looked in better shape and called an early election, and Cameron probably wouldn't have got to be Prime Minister.
Matthew d'Ancona replaces Dan Hodges as Cameron's number 1 fan:
"Matthew d'Ancona: Tory idealism will no longer influence our pragmatic PM The G8 summit confirmed that Cameron is a mature operator who now grasps the politics of the possible."
1229: Green MP Caroline Lucas calls for a ban on The Sun on the Parliamentary Estate until Page Three is scrapped. Mr Cameron rejects the idea, saying MPs should be free to read all newspapers.
"OT Just watching BattleStar Galactica and after a slow start......"
You'll go blind watching that kind of crap all day!
It's better than the original series, and not bad sci-fi. It suffered from the frequently-seen will-there-be-a-fifth-series problem, and I just wanted Gaius killed off. Not because he was a badly-written characer - I just disliked him.
So hardly cr*p. Unlike the poor sod who opened for the Pet Shop Boys at the O2 last night...
Edit: oh, and Cameron knocked Miliband for six at PMQs. What's happened to the Miliband of three months ago?
The government is unlikely to meet its "tens of thousands" pledge, although it will probably be down about half on previous years. Ergo, the PM's going to need a favourable package of things so that the headline will be seen positively. That's where Europe comes in - if the government didn't have a UKIP-friendly position, it would amplify UKIP concerns on Europe. Similar sort of thing on welfare.
"OT Just watching BattleStar Galactica and after a slow start......"
You'll go blind watching that kind of crap all day!
It's better than the original series, and not bad sci-fi. It suffered from the frequently-seen will-there-be-a-fifth-series problem, and I just wanted Gaius killed off. Not because he was a badly-written characer - I just disliked him.
So hardly cr*p. Unlike the poor sod who opened for the Pet Shop Boys at the O2 last night...
Edit: oh, and Cameron knocked Miliband for six at PMQs. What's happened to the Miliband of three months ago?
I found Gaius quite good at the vey beginning and then he just became more annoying. And the religion thingy got way out of control/I was rolling my eyes by mid-point S2. I gather it was written by a chappy very keen on Mormonism, this may explain it - he clearly also read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy too given the number of ideas that were lifted.
Why anyone raves about this series is beyond me - if I'd never seen it, I'd have missed nothing. I didn't give a toss if any of the characters were killed off and Mary McThingy as the President was just dreadfully wooden.
(1) I don't care about the practical implications for a EU referendum, I just hate Cameron/all politicians are the same: vote UKIP (2) I want a referendum: vote Conservative, but with a greater or lesser amount of reluctance.
You forget 3) I want a referendum held on the EU but I do not want it instigated and manipulated by a europhilic idiot like Cameron.
Anyone such as I who thinks we should be out of the EU (and no I am not a kipper nor have I ever voted for them and I believe those that support gay marriage are bigots before anyone brings that up as well) wants a referendum to be held when we do not have the entirety of the establishment in the pro eu camp.
Assuming the tories get in 2015 and actually have the referendum we would have all 3 main party leaders, the bbc, and most of the national press spouting the eu propaganda. That is very hard to counter. Better to hold a referendum at the right time than force it early and lose it in my mind.
On PMQ's,miliband Questions on banking,must have bored the majority of the population,a draw between the 2 leaders but overall PMQ's,thought Cameron was good again.
I'm pretty sure that deficit funded welfarism is going to be dead soon enough - something that can't go on won't. I'm also pretty sure that the EZ cannot survive without huge reform (superstate or split).
On PMQ's,miliband Questions on banking,must have bored the majority of the population,a draw between the 2 leaders but overall PMQ's,thought Cameron was good again.
The Guardian's chief political correspondent disagreed:
"Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt 19m Another clear @david_cameron #PMQs win. Banking exchanges show @ed_miliband will struggle for hearing until Lab has full reckoning on past"
It's quite something when you see a Tory prime minister boasting about how they've regulated an industry (banking in this case).
Doesn't fit in with your prejudices does it? All tories to you are wealthy, greedy, exploitative mill owners.
To you its inconceivable that the tories could reform banking, expose labour failure on the NHS, get the wealthy to pay more in tax or act firmly and multilaterally to shut down tax havens. The government you support failed utterly on all the above, and indeed may have been responsible for some of these abuses.
You are like a dalek....'does not compute!!! does not compute!!!!
That doesn't change the basic premise Patrick. Fight when you have a chance, don't mount a light brigade style charge when the europhiles have the cannons of the establishment and media all firmly on their side. Better to play a slower game and erode the eu support until such a time as we have a few of our own cannons
I'm pretty sure that deficit funded welfarism is going to be dead soon enough - something that can't go on won't. I'm also pretty sure that the EZ cannot survive without huge reform (superstate or split).
That doesn't change the basic premise Patrick. Fight when you have a chance, don't mount a light brigade style charge when the europhiles have the cannons of the establishment and media all firmly on their side. Better to play a slower game and erode the eu support until such a time as we have a few of our own cannons
I'm pretty sure that deficit funded welfarism is going to be dead soon enough - something that can't go on won't. I'm also pretty sure that the EZ cannot survive without huge reform (superstate or split).
We are cursed to live 'in interesting times'.
At least 90% of the stuff on that website is tinfoil level stuff [the Eurozone was about to fall over tomorrow for the last 3 years at least]. is this part of the 10%?
" Revealingly, in a response to a question about lobbying, Cameron declared that he had only hired Lynton Crosby to destroy the Labour party’s credibility."
If the Tories, or anyone else, appeared to be remotely serious about leaving the EU, I think that many UKIP voters would sit up and pay attention. The underlying problem for the Tories and to some extent all main parties with respect to UKIP voters is a lack of trust and identification - the UKIP voters are alienated from all of us, and we can put forward Bills proposing universal happiness and they'll still think we're just kidding them around. In the case of the referendum bill, they are of course precisely right.
NP's post is, quite properly, the most quoted on the thread. UKIP activists do feel a lack of trust and identification and...alienated: this is accurate. However, it is expressed in terms that make it sound as though it is UKIP members 'fault' that they feel unrepresented, ignored and impotent. On bad days, this frustration at being deliberately marginalised, and being sneeringly dismissed, boils over into anger. This is very unattractive and off-putting, and I wish it didn't happen. But I can understand why it does.
Thinking members of UKIP do not believe that Cameron is the man to take Britain out of the EU. And nor do members of the tory party, inside or outside Westminster.
No slur was intended, David - I meant simply to state it as fact without attributing blame!
Personally I think the "fault" lies with all the mainstream parties by pretending to agree with stuff that we don't. I support EU membership and think the idea of Britain successfully going it alone is seriously flawed; I think migration both ways is a natural and welcome trend in the modern world, with reasonable limits that are no stricter than now; I don't feel we have a uniquely wonderful yet fragile British culture which is really at risk; I try to be tactful about minorities in a way that could be called political correctness. Now here's the thing: in all these matters, if you talk to them privately, MPs in the mainstream parties largely agree. They feel it's the real world and Britain is best served by working with the grain. But the parties put on worried frowns, say we're concerned about the EU, worried about immigration, disturbed about cultural trends, etc. when actually we don't intend to do anything significant because we don't actually think we should.
UKIP-leaning voters, by and large, disagree on these points, and are totally fed up with us pretending that we think the same way. In my experience they prefer it, and will sometimes even vote for us despite everything, if we're frank and explain why we think the way we do.
Why should voters make allowances for politicians who continually and deliberately lie to them? Sounds honest to me. It is the implicit insult---'you're too stupid to know is best for you', that particularly grates.
I want a referendum held on the EU but I do not want it instigated and manipulated by a europhilic idiot like Cameron.
Anyone such as I who thinks we should be out of the EU (and no I am not a kipper nor have I ever voted for them and I believe those that support gay marriage are bigots before anyone brings that up as well) wants a referendum to be held when we do not have the entirety of the establishment in the pro eu camp.
Assuming the tories get in 2015 and actually have the referendum we would have all 3 main party leaders, the bbc, and most of the national press spouting the eu propaganda. That is very hard to counter. Better to hold a referendum at the right time than force it early and lose it in my mind.
I wonder if it isn't time for the BOO guys to stop advocating a referendum altogether and just advocate leaving. If you're constitutionally conservative there's no particular reason why you should like referendums; They're quite unusual in the British tradition.
Usually you campaign for a referendum when your cause is otherwise hopeless and the whole establishment is against you, because it's the only way to move the ball down the pitch, but that's not the case any more. They've got UKIP in the high teens, most of the Tory base, a chunk of the parliamentary Conservative Party, and in future potentially even some business establishment types on their side.
Wouldn't it make sense just to drop the roundabout referendum route and just advocate for leaving the EU? Coalition with the Tories, let the Kenneth Clarke tendency jump, win an election under FPTP, job done.
The CQC was just doing its job. It was only ever cosmetic.
Having thrown so much money and political capital at the NHS, the last thing the labour government wanted the CQC to do was uncover failures.
The labour government wanted the CQC to report that everything in the garden was rosy whether it was or not. That was why it was there, and the civil servants clearly knew it.
So far the tories have singularly failed to pin these dreadful failures directly on labour. And the polls show labour very much remain the party of the NHS.
But what if the journey to our becoming an influence free administrative region of the EUSSR is on a shorter timeline than the journey to achieving those cannons?
Again a lefty attacks Hodges not his argument. NPXMP was at it yesterday too.
Why is Hodges wrong ? Is rEd running a great campaign ? Is he a good leader ?
As Hodges himself has noted, the people who claim to disagree with him have given up any pretence of defending Ed. They know Ed is crap, but still attack Dan for saying it.
If the Tories, or anyone else, appeared to be remotely serious about leaving the EU, I think that many UKIP voters would sit up and pay attention. The underlying problem for the Tories and to some extent all main parties with respect to UKIP voters is a lack of trust and identification - the UKIP voters are alienated from all of us, and we can put forward Bills proposing universal happiness and they'll still think we're just kidding them around. In the case of the referendum bill, they are of course precisely right.
Indeed.
For someone who has lost trust making ever more promises doesn't win back support it simply makes those lost supporters even angrier.
Cameron needs to DO things not promise to do things.
But Cameron is so in love with his own self-perceived cleverness he cannot see this.
Whereas he's seen as a "at the correct juncture, in the fullness of time, no you failed to understand the exactititude of my commitment" phony.
Just as Clegg's broken promises on tuition fees permanently damaged his credibility even though few people were directly affected Cameron's broken promises on the EU permanently damaged his credibility even though few people few people were interested in the issue itself.
It's ironic, though. Cameron was undermined by a promise that he never made over a vote that would have been pointless. (Once Lisbon was ratified that pass was sold, and you needed to fall back to another position).
Clegg just broke his word. And, as we see with pensioner benefits, Cameron wants to keep explicit promises. [cue tim posting endlessly about "no more pointless NHS reorganisations" without realising that Cameron clearly doesn't think this reorganisation is pointless]. Similarly, on Europe - as RichardN has posted - there is no way he can back track on the referendum pledge in 2017 without being defenestrated, while his other pledge on Europe was the formation of a new group in the EU parliament. This he has delivered. [can we have some Latvian homophobe posts for old times sake, tim]
Sorry Charles but you don't seem to get it.
Once trust has been lost you can never get it back either with promises or with 2017 what-ifs.
Cameron lost my trust on the EU in 2009 when he tried to replace his 'cast-iron' promise with a meaningless drivel of new promises consisting only of weasel words and legalese.
Nothing I've seen since, in particular his midnight flounce followed by craven surrender, has encouraged me to change my mind.
In fact I now KNOW that Cameron is a blatant liar - his "we're paying down Britain's debts" lie proved that.
I do suspect that voters are particularly disgusted with politicians who lie to their own supporters. That politicians are widely regarded as a bunch of liars is one thing but a politician who lies to his own supporters is also a betrayer and who ever wants to trust a betrayer.
This is why Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees and Cameron's betrayal on the EU are so damaging. not because of the salience of the issues but because of what they reveal of the man involved.
I do get it: I work in a business where trust is paramount.
I'd encourage you to reread Mr Dancer's post at 9:07 though. It sums up the situation very well.
A post-ratifiction referendum on Lisbon would not only have been irrelevant, but it would have been actively damaging for the Eurosceptic cause. You are only going to get one shot at this and it's critical to get it right (witness the problems for electoral reform that the AV vote has caused).
That may take patience, it may mean holding your noise and voting for a politician you despise. But the reality is that if the Tories do not win the next election there will not be a referendum on Europe in the foreseeable future.
Clearly you don't get it Charles.
Cameron is a proven liar so the trust has gone.
Further more I've now seen Cameron in government and understood more of his personality.
So I wont be voting for a metropolitan bigot who despises people from a different background and who leads a frankly mediocre government.
I don't mind if EdM become PM, the ensuing comedy will be good for a laugh and the clear out of the chumocracy might allow the Conservatives to rebuild on better foundations.
In any case the Conservatives aren't going to win a majority in 2015 so there's no chance of an EU referendum.
Not that I'm particularly bothered about one in any case.
'''With both the failed FSA and the failed CQC, one can only conclude that Labour are really bad at creating functioning regulators.'''
Depends how you look at it. The regulators reported what labour wanted them to report, that everything was wonderful - making it difficult for opponents to attack labour.
The regulators were great for keeping labour in power. They were terrible for the country, but who cares about that??
I am not constitutionally conservative having voted labour as often in my life as often as conservative. Nor am I a tribal voter however I am a voter with no where left to go now that all major parties are frankly different wings of the social democracy group think party.
Social democracy I oppose vehemently it is the worst of all worlds, it is the shabby compromise in the middle peddled by the metrosexual guardian reading elite so they can sneer down their noses at the concerns of the proles in the street. The proles that labour day and night trying to keep a roof over their heads while the social democrats witter on about the environment and how we must increase green taxes, and isn't it terrible that india only just started a space program we better send them some aid. Our concerns meanwhile are met with condescension and smearing by the likes of people of all three main parties.
Again a lefty attacks Hodges not his argument. NPXMP was at it yesterday too.
Why is Hodges wrong ? Is rEd running a great campaign ? Is he a good leader ?
As Hodges himself has noted, the people who claim to disagree with him have given up any pretence of defending Ed. They know Ed is crap, but still attack Dan for saying it.
But what if the journey to our becoming an influence free administrative region of the EUSSR is on a shorter timeline than the journey to achieving those cannons?
It won't happen in my view, if politico's tried to move us there I think they may just find there is only so much the country would take
"We have carefully considered whether evidence exists to corroborate the assertion that there was an instruction to delete this report. We conclude that such corroborative evidence exists in the form of a contemporaneous note of the meeting and the lack of action taken on the information included in the report, most notably at the next meeting of the REC. We were also surprised that the fact that such a review took place was not shared with us during briefings we held with the senior member of management, who allegedly gave the instruction to delete the report, ahead of the commencement of our work. We have given careful consideration to whether the alleged instruction to delete this report could in effect constitute a deliberate "cover-up" and if so what would be the reason for doing so? We have concluded on balance the evidence (discussed further below), suggests it might well have constituted a deliberate "cover up"."
We have concluded on balance the evidence (discussed further below), suggests it might well have constituted a deliberate "cover up"."
Will somebody tell this guy?
@politicshome Labour Health minister @jreedmp tells @adamboultonSKY "Once we understand the facts of this case then we can take it further" on CQC.
He's a bit slow Chuka Umuna was tweeting in support of all 517 pages of the banking report at 8 am this morning - I call that speed reading! This one is only 320 pages long....
Cameron pointing out the obvious catastrophic consequence of leaving the EU on our influence over world events (when saying that the UK would not be part of an EU / US trade deal if out of Europe) has really blown the europhobe argument out of the water.
It started as a joke between friends, but Morris the cat's bid to become mayor of the Mexican city of Jalapa, the capital of the state of Veracruz, has now turned into a social media phenomenon with a serious message about political disenchantment.
"Morris has become an expression of how fed up people are with all the parties and a political system that does not represent us," said Sergio Chamorro, the owner of the furry black-and-white candidate whose first campaign slogan was: "Tired of voting for rats? Vote for a cat."
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.
He has purchased a site in Nine Elms where he plans to build Europe's tallest residential tower, a 205 metre and 62 storey high hotel and apartment complex.
See here for a computer generated image of how the tower will look from the across the Thames: http://bloom.bg/12aYY1o
Using change out of the billion set aside for UK investment he has also bought the UK luxury yacht builders, Sunseeker, who are based in Poole.
An interesting comment from the estate agent Savills underlines how attractive London is as a destination for inbound property investment:
“Investments in London despite being perceived as much safer than Shanghai, still carry higher yields,” said James Macdonald, head of China research at Savills in Shanghai.
The house-building led UK economic recovery is being powered forward on the back of international investment.
If the Tories, or anyone else, appeared to be remotely serious about leaving the EU, I think that many UKIP voters would sit up and pay attention. The underlying problem for the Tories and to some extent all main parties with respect to UKIP voters is a lack of trust and identification - the UKIP voters are alienated from all of us, and we can put forward Bills proposing universal happiness and they'll still think we're just kidding them around. In the case of the referendum bill, they are of course precisely right.
Indeed.
For someone who has lost trust making ever more promises doesn't win back support it simply makes those lost supporters even angrier.
Cameron needs to DO things not promise to do things.
But Cameron is so in love with his own self-perceived cleverness he cannot see this.
Whereas he's seen as a "at the correct juncture, in the fullness of time, no you failed to understand the exactititude of my commitment" phony.
Just as Clegg's broken promises on tuition fees permanently damaged his credibility even though few people were directly affected Cameron's broken promises on the EU permanently damaged his credibility even though few people few people were interested in the issue itself.
It's ironic, though. Cameron was undermined by a promise that he never made over a vote that would have been pointless. (Once Lisbon was ratified that pass was sold, and you needed to fall back to another position).
Clegg just broke his word. And, as we see with pensioner benefits, Cameron wants to keep explicit promises. [cue tim posting endlessly about "no more pointless NHS reorganisations" without realising that Cameron clearly doesn't think this reorganisation is pointless]. Similarly, on Europe - as RichardN has posted - there is no way he can back track on the referendum pledge in 2017 without being defenestrated, while his other pledge on Europe was the formation of a new group in the EU parliament. This he has delivered. [can we have some Latvian homophobe posts for old times sake, tim]
Sorry Charles but you don't seem to get it.
Once trust has been lost you can never get it back either with promises or with 2017 what-ifs.
Cameron lost my trust on the EU in 2009 when he tried to replace his 'cast-iron' promise with a meaningless drivel of new promises consisting only of weasel words and legalese.
Nothing I've seen since, in particular his midnight flounce followed by craven surrender, has encouraged me to change my mind.
In fact I now KNOW that Cameron is a blatant liar - his "we're paying down Britain's debts" lie proved that.
I do suspect that voters are particularly disgusted with politicians who lie to their own supporters. That politicians are widely regarded as a bunch of liars is one thing but a politician who lies to his own supporters is also a betrayer and who ever wants to trust a betrayer.
This is why Clegg's betrayal on tuition fees and Cameron's betrayal on the EU are so damaging. not because of the salience of the issues but because of what they reveal of the man involved.
I do get it: I work in a business where trust is paramount.
I'd encourage you to reread Mr Dancer's post at 9:07 though. It sums up the situation very well.
A post-ratifiction referendum on Lisbon would not only have been irrelevant, but it would have been actively damaging for the Eurosceptic cause. You are only going to get one shot at this and it's critical to get it right (witness the problems for electoral reform that the AV vote has caused).
That may take patience, it may mean holding your noise and voting for a politician you despise. But the reality is that if the Tories do not win the next election there will not be a referendum on Europe in the foreseeable future.
Clearly you don't get it Charles.
Cameron is a proven liar so the trust has gone.
Further more I've now seen Cameron in government and understood more of his personality.
So I wont be voting for a metropolitan bigot who despises people from a different background and who leads a frankly mediocre government.
I don't mind if EdM become PM, the ensuing comedy will be good for a laugh and the clear out of the chumocracy might allow the Conservatives to rebuild on better foundations.
In any case the Conservatives aren't going to win a majority in 2015 so there's no chance of an EU referendum.
Not that I'm particularly bothered about one in any case.
Another Richard is a very bitter man with a ukip tendency not to want to trade arguments only insults.
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
Cameron pointing out the obvious catastrophic consequence of leaving the EU on our influence over world events (when saying that the UK would not be part of an EU / US trade deal if out of Europe) has really blown the europhobe argument out of the water.
The credibility of the eurosceptic cause is in tatters.
Lol of course it has ben, remind us all how long EFTA has had a free trade agreement with the us? Seems like the EU has held us back in my opinion.
Not sure why you are in favour anyway, I thought you didn't like NHS privatisation which an eu/us free trade deal is likely to lock in place with american firms entering the market place to bid on nhs provision
Which is why one of your fellow NHS apologists is arguing it must be exempted here
Good luck with that and all the other exemptions being demanded by other member states it will not be so much a free trade agreement as a "sometimes on a product here and there we wont charge a tariff" agreement
Cameron pointing out the obvious catastrophic consequence of leaving the EU on our influence over world events (when saying that the UK would not be part of an EU / US trade deal if out of Europe) has really blown the europhobe argument out of the water.
The credibility of the eurosceptic cause is in tatters.
Businesses need no more than the absence of govt 'help'. Free trade areas are useful, but never vital. Whatever obstructions are put in the way of traders, they cope. Even when trade is banned, stuff gets through.
You can claim that this 'proves' that the EU is, on balance, of benefit to the UK if you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I've no idea what you do for a living but one thing is for sure----you do not work in export sales.
@iainmartin1: Wonder if "reckless mismanagement" law will apply to Chancellors who launch blow up the housing market Help to Buy schemes. Thought not...
Iain Martin read my tweet!
House prices rise at the shocking rate of 0.4% per annum ? Stock up on guns and bottled water lads - this sucker is going down.
Given that Subprime George's programmes have either not started yet or are only just kicking in would you like a bet on house price rises over the next two years compared to wages?
Claiming that there's been no effect from a programme that hasn't begun yet just makes you look silly.
How about a bet at evens that house prices in the year before the election are going up at double the annual wage rise.
And another bet on rents rising at twice the wage rise in the same period.
House prices going up at twice wages would be a good thing as the current value is 5x wages, so the multiple would be come down (albeit slowly)
Lets take an example
Wage £20k Ave House Price 5*wages = £100k
Wage £20k goes up 5% = 21k House Price goes up 10% = £110k
New Multiple = 5.24 which is larger than 5
You can put a second rate mind in a first rate school, but it doesn't prove much, just gives them the confidence to think they have a first rate mind.
You're not factoring in the impact of tax - although I should have made clearer than it is take-home pay that matters
Factoring in the impact of tax would just amplify the effect.
No, because the increase in the personal allowance increases the take home pay of the average worker. (But I'm not going to defend the original post - I was doing something else at the same time and made an arithmetical mistake)
Taxes have risen under this govt, using solely income tax stats at particular pay brackets to defend a ridiculous position on housing is absurd, and you know it.
Not when you are looking at valuation as a multiple of net take-home pay. But, as I said, I wasn't paying attention originally.
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
Well I am not sure the tower replaces anything precious or displaces anything more local than a box of rotting vegetables, OL.
Nine Elms must be amongst the most unattractive and unpopulated areas of London.
But I believe we can solve the problem of another richard's political disenchantment with this new build.
I have had a word with Wang Jianlin and reserved the river facing apartment on the 62nd floor for the exclusive use of our Lincolnshire misanthrope. From his bedroom balcony he will be able to look down on both Notting Hill and No 10 Downing Street.
I confidently predict that once ensconced, another richard will become as good humoured as Morris Dancer and somewhat of the same voting disposition.
(1) I don't care about the practical implications for a EU referendum, I just hate Cameron/all politicians are the same: vote UKIP (2) I want a referendum: vote Conservative, but with a greater or lesser amount of reluctance.
You forget 3) I want a referendum held on the EU but I do not want it instigated and manipulated by a europhilic idiot like Cameron.
Anyone such as I who thinks we should be out of the EU (and no I am not a kipper nor have I ever voted for them and I believe those that support gay marriage are bigots before anyone brings that up as well) wants a referendum to be held when we do not have the entirety of the establishment in the pro eu camp.
Assuming the tories get in 2015 and actually have the referendum we would have all 3 main party leaders, the bbc, and most of the national press spouting the eu propaganda. That is very hard to counter. Better to hold a referendum at the right time than force it early and lose it in my mind.
I have a very nice unicorn you might want to buy? Going cheap, too - very good value.
As the EU referendum bill is published new YouGov polling raises questions about the salience of Europe as an issue
[YAWN]
If one was to take these figures at face value as Mike Smithson seems to have done one has to ask what point the three senior Libdem Ministers are doing wasting the tax payers money? Business, Energy & Climate Change and meddling with constitutional reform. None of these issues concern even the Libdems. I don't recall seeing an article on Pb.com asking why the Libdems perpetually bang on about issues that nobody cares about?
Of course for those who tend not to be so simplistic its quite obvious that issues that immediately and directly effect one's prosperity and welfare will take priority over those that are relatively indirect (and obscured for the large part) are obvious to all but the naive. I note that also absent is defence and national security. Perhaps government should abandon the defence of the nation as well based on Mr Smithson's underlying logic?
That said one third of UKIP support and one fifth of Conservative support equates to something between 10 and 12 per cent vote share. A rough and ready calculation suggests to me that the potential difference is between the Tories getting around 24% or potentially polling close to their 2010 levels at 36%. With that sort of vote share at stake its understandable that the Tories might attempt to maximise its potential. That it won't is another story.......
"Tory members trust David Cameron on the EU. Here's the poll that proves it If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU, writes Tim Bale."
"I am sure your speech was the result of a well-thought-through reflection on schools policy and all of the above questions were considered, and fully addressed, in preparation for your announcement andso you will be able to reply promptly and put to rest the idea, which more and more people areregrettably succumbing to, that Labour schools policy is a confusing, uncertain and incoherentassemblage of sops to the trades unions and local authorities which reflects poorly on the intellectualrigour and moral courage of the current Labour frontbench in comparison with all previousOppositions, confirms the risible weakness of the Labour leadership in the face of vested interests,and risks undermining the hard work of all those great teachers who are driving up standards inschools today"
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.
He has purchased a site in Nine Elms where he plans to build Europe's tallest residential tower, a 205 metre and 62 storey high hotel and apartment complex.
See here for a computer generated image of how the tower will look from the across the Thames: http://bloom.bg/12aYY1o
Using change out of the billion set aside for UK investment he has also bought the UK luxury yacht builders, Sunseeker, who are based in Poole.
An interesting comment from the estate agent Savills underlines how attractive London is as a destination for inbound property investment:
“Investments in London despite being perceived as much safer than Shanghai, still carry higher yields,” said James Macdonald, head of China research at Savills in Shanghai.
The house-building led UK economic recovery is being powered forward on the back of international investment.
Well done George.
I wonder how the Americans will view having a Chinese owned skyscraper overlooking their Embassy?
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
I have a very nice unicorn you might want to buy? Going cheap, too - very good value.
As I expected typical sneer from those at the top of the pile.
You probably won't see it Charles from your lofty tower, but down here at the coal face where the waiters, toilet scrubbers, shelf stackers....you know the bulk of the majority live and work there is a growing disdain for the so called political elite. It will take time to grow but the seeds have been planted .
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
"I am sure your speech was the result of a well-thought-through reflection on schools policy and all of the above questions were considered, and fully addressed, in preparation for your announcement andso you will be able to reply promptly and put to rest the idea, which more and more people areregrettably succumbing to, that Labour schools policy is a confusing, uncertain and incoherentassemblage of sops to the trades unions and local authorities which reflects poorly on the intellectualrigour and moral courage of the current Labour frontbench in comparison with all previousOppositions, confirms the risible weakness of the Labour leadership in the face of vested interests,and risks undermining the hard work of all those great teachers who are driving up standards inschools today"
I have a very nice unicorn you might want to buy? Going cheap, too - very good value.
As I expected typical sneer from those at the top of the pile.
You probably won't see it Charles from your lofty tower, but down here at the coal face where the waiters, toilet scrubbers, shelf stackers....you know the bulk of the majority live and work there is a growing disdain for the so called political elite. It will take time to grow but the seeds have been planted .
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
I was poking fun at your assumption that (3) was a viable alternative.
In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.
But you seem to have taken personal offence at something which was not meant to be personally offensive.
"I am sure your speech was the result of a well-thought-through reflection on schools policy and all of the above questions were considered, and fully addressed, in preparation for your announcement andso you will be able to reply promptly and put to rest the idea, which more and more people areregrettably succumbing to, that Labour schools policy is a confusing, uncertain and incoherentassemblage of sops to the trades unions and local authorities which reflects poorly on the intellectualrigour and moral courage of the current Labour frontbench in comparison with all previousOppositions, confirms the risible weakness of the Labour leadership in the face of vested interests,and risks undermining the hard work of all those great teachers who are driving up standards inschools today"
Swoon
That is a terribly long sentence
That sentence is a complete abomination. Bottom of the class, Michael.
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
Wrong sort of house building now ?
Trickle down effect aint it - banker moves to supertower, junior banker moves in to banker's old pad, key worker moves into junior bankers shared house.
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
Sure you are correct that vote share for the big three parties has dropped over the past few elections but the shift has hardly been seismic - so the combined vote share for the tories, labour and libdems for the past 4 elections (1997 first) has been 90.7%, 90.7%, 89.6%, 88.1%. So a shift of just 2.6% to smaller parties.
No neither you nor I know what will happen in 2015 - perhaps that will be the seismic shift, but remember how everyone was talking about loss of trust in all major parties before the 2010 election due in part to expenses scandal etc, yet their combined vote share only dropped from 89.6% in 2005 to 88.1% in 2010.
So, until or unless there is evidence to the contrary it does appear the vast majority of those that vote continue to meekly line up and vote for one of the big three.
"I am sure your speech was the result of a well-thought-through reflection on schools policy and all of the above questions were considered, and fully addressed, in preparation for your announcement andso you will be able to reply promptly and put to rest the idea, which more and more people areregrettably succumbing to, that Labour schools policy is a confusing, uncertain and incoherentassemblage of sops to the trades unions and local authorities which reflects poorly on the intellectualrigour and moral courage of the current Labour frontbench in comparison with all previousOppositions, confirms the risible weakness of the Labour leadership in the face of vested interests,and risks undermining the hard work of all those great teachers who are driving up standards inschools today"
Swoon
That is a terribly long sentence
125 words.
I was taught in letters to try to stay to no more than 10 words/sentence.
On the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score it rates -61. Most scores are positive - 0-30 is for University Graduates.....
The letter as a whole scores 48, the Harvard Law Review is generally 30.
I was poking fun at your assumption that (3) was a viable alternative.
In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.
But you seem to have taken personal offence at something which was not meant to be personally offensive.
Do you believe holding a referendum when the bbc, most mainstream media and all 3 main parties are led by europhiles is a good proposition for those of use that think we should be out of the EU? Option3 may well be a way off but at least it provides a chance to end this.
As to democratically leaving in 20 years time, yes I believe that option will be still open, I do not think the british public would stand for us being locked into the EU with no way of getting out unless there is a huge shift in public opinion towards the EU. Do you really see that happening?
As a note I wasn't taking it personally but if you do not wish to come across as sneering in an admittedly context lacking medium such as a forum perhaps pick a more neutral way of saying it. Especially when it is a subject that is commonly a target for sneers and condescension by the minority europhile group
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
Sure you are correct that vote share for the big three parties has dropped over the past few elections but the shift has hardly been seismic - so the combined vote share for the tories, labour and libdems for the past 4 elections (1997 first) has been 90.7%, 90.7%, 89.6%, 88.1%. So a shift of just 2.6% to smaller parties.
No neither you nor I know what will happen in 2015 - perhaps that will be the seismic shift, but remember how everyone was talking about loss of trust in all major parties before the 2010 election due in part to expenses scandal etc, yet their combined vote share only dropped from 89.6% in 2005 to 88.1% in 2010.
So, until or unless there is evidence to the contrary it does appear the vast majority of those that vote continue to meekly line up and vote for one of the big three.
I assume that he is picking up on the fall in % support for the big 2 (mainly to the LibDems - possibly in 2015 to UKIP). Either that or the fall in absolute number of votes cast for the big 3.
@AveryLP When I first moved to London, I used to go to a bar there on a Sunday afternoon which got round the prohibition on afternoon opening by offering a "meal" for £2.
I was a lot younger then, so my recollection of the area is rather hazy.
Well I am not sure the tower replaces anything precious or displaces anything more local than a box of rotting vegetables, OL.
Nine Elms must be amongst the most unattractive and unpopulated areas of London.
But I believe we can solve the problem of another richard's political disenchantment with this new build.
I have had a word with Wang Jianlin and reserved the river facing apartment on the 62nd floor for the exclusive use of our Lincolnshire misanthrope. From his bedroom balcony he will be able to look down on both Notting Hill and No 10 Downing Street.
I confidently predict that once ensconced, another richard will become as good humoured as Morris Dancer and somewhat of the same voting disposition.
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.
He has purchased a site in Nine Elms where he plans to build Europe's tallest residential tower, a 205 metre and 62 storey high hotel and apartment complex.
See here for a computer generated image of how the tower will look from the across the Thames: http://bloom.bg/12aYY1o
Using change out of the billion set aside for UK investment he has also bought the UK luxury yacht builders, Sunseeker, who are based in Poole.
An interesting comment from the estate agent Savills underlines how attractive London is as a destination for inbound property investment:
“Investments in London despite being perceived as much safer than Shanghai, still carry higher yields,” said James Macdonald, head of China research at Savills in Shanghai.
The house-building led UK economic recovery is being powered forward on the back of international investment.
Well done George.
I wonder how the Americans will view having a Chinese owned skyscraper overlooking their Embassy?
On referenda regarding the EU. I think we should adopt precisely the same position as Norway, and have a vote every 22 years or so. It is not something that should be decided one way or the other for eternity by one generation or another, the question should be reasked.
If the British public vote to stay in we will stay in, if we vote out then we should step out. The question can then be asked again in 20-40 years time.
I was poking fun at your assumption that (3) was a viable alternative.
In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.
But you seem to have taken personal offence at something which was not meant to be personally offensive.
Do you believe holding a referendum when the bbc, most mainstream media and all 3 main parties are led by europhiles is a good proposition for those of use that think we should be out of the EU? Option3 may well be a way off but at least it provides a chance to end this.
As to democratically leaving in 20 years time, yes I believe that option will be still open, I do not think the british public would stand for us being locked into the EU with no way of getting out unless there is a huge shift in public opinion towards the EU. Do you really see that happening?
As a note I wasn't taking it personally but if you do not wish to come across as sneering in an admittedly context lacking medium such as a forum perhaps pick a more neutral way of saying it. Especially when it is a subject that is commonly a target for sneers and condescension by the minority europhile group
I think things are very finely balanced right now - many of the people I know who used to be ardent Europhiles have now moved to the fence, while a percentage of sceptics have hardened their position to BOO. The reality, which perhaps people ignored in the past, is that the EU is a dynamic organisation, but the direction of change is towards a more unified state. I don't personally believe there is a European polity, so I don't see a unified state being anything but a disaster waiting to happen.
Fundamentally, though, to have a vote you need (1) an opportunity [e.g. a Treaty] and (2) a leader - in power - prepared to execute on that opportunity. 2017 may be the only time, for a very long time, that those two factors intersect. The BBC won't change its views; the media is increasinly irrelevant; and we've already covered leaders.
On democratic departure - by the time you have a unified currency and a unified council of ministers making decisions about many things it becomes harder and harder to leave. And increasingly people will become used to the status quo: I've lived my entire life with the UK as a member of the EU - Maastricht was the first time I was old enough to focus on a political issue of substance.
The Chinese Dalian Wanda Group, controlled by the billionaire Wang Jianlin, is to invest £1 billion in the construction of residential property in Central London.....
Wrong sort of house building now ?
Trickle down effect aint it - banker moves to supertower, junior banker moves in to banker's old pad, key worker moves into junior bankers shared house.
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
Sure you are correct that vote share for the big three parties has dropped over the past few elections but the shift has hardly been seismic - so the combined vote share for the tories, labour and libdems for the past 4 elections (1997 first) has been 90.7%, 90.7%, 89.6%, 88.1%. So a shift of just 2.6% to smaller parties.
No neither you nor I know what will happen in 2015 - perhaps that will be the seismic shift, but remember how everyone was talking about loss of trust in all major parties before the 2010 election due in part to expenses scandal etc, yet their combined vote share only dropped from 89.6% in 2005 to 88.1% in 2010.
So, until or unless there is evidence to the contrary it does appear the vast majority of those that vote continue to meekly line up and vote for one of the big three.
Sorry that is incorrect as you know full well, you quote a percentage of those that voted, as a percentage of those eligible to vote the drop has been greater by far
The turnout was about 65% in 2010 so the three main parties got 57.2% of total votes
picking 1979 for instance turnout was 76% total top 3 vote was 94.6% Therefore top 3 vote share was 71.90% of total votes
That is a drop of 14% in support from the voting population over 30 years
However you keep telling yourself the drop is minimal but sooner or later those people who have stopped voting due to the general crapness of our political classes are going to get fed up and find a voice again and it won't be voting for your lib lab or con
Comments
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/how-to-write-a-dan-hodges-column-a-step-by-step-guide/
My belief - and it is only an opinion - is that *if* he tried to the conservative party would become so ungovernable that his career as PM would become extremely limited.
Hence it's in his personal interest to keep his promise. I fully expect him to campaign to stay in though, regardless of the concessions we get.
Personally, I'm going to support the option that is most likely to result in a referendum and then make up my own mind on which way to jump. Very much on the fence - don't like the way Europe is going, but could be convinced to stay in provided that there are meaningful concessions.
The referendum bill is neccessary but not sufficient for CON contingent on them having most seats after 2015 GE.
That is issue #2 and very salient.
"Last week I highlighted 5 women from the 2010 intake who Ed Miliband could add to his Shadow Cabinet in the coming months. Today I’ve taken a look at five of the wise heads on the backbenches with experience of government who could add something to Miliband’s front bench team in opposition:"
(The 5 women were: Stella Creasy, Kate Green, Lisa Nandy, Chi Onwurah and Alison McGovern).
Recommended are Alistair Darling, Margaret Becket, Alan Johnson, Margaret Hodge and Pat McFadden.
Unfortunately the article does not say who should be sacked!!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/man-held-during-anti-farage-demo.21381439
And yes, I agree the Conservative Party would likely revolt in such circumstances. However that will be in 2017, and this policy is all about getting through the next general election. If a week is a long time in politics, then who's going to care about four years?
How many people that view immigration as an important issue are thinking immigration = unrestricted EU immigration? If it is a significant amount, it is wrong to say Europe isn't a salient issue.
It's like Liverpool fans saying maintaining standards of conduct & discipline are very important and the board then denying the behaviour of Luis Suarez is an issue
"Personally I think the "fault" lies with all the mainstream parties by pretending to agree with stuff that we don't."
You're put your finger exactly on why UKIP has taken votes from Labour too.
As a union rep, I used to get all sorts of complaints from members about wasting time and money on "irrelevant" issues; supporting people who were setting up unions for flower-sellers in Costa Rica, for instance (we only sent fraternal greetings - those and £2.50 will buy you a good pint of beer in Liverpool).
My Auntie spent all her life as a union activist and Labour party stalwart. She was supposedly on speaking terms with John Prescot. I suspect they kept off the subject of immigration as she was somewhere to the right of Nick Griffin.
And don't bring up the subject of capital punishment for child-killers.
The Tories could never hoover them up because they were seen to represent the bosses. So they voted Labour despite the strong suspicion they were voting for people with a BBC mindset (and they're really not so bad are they?).
The golf club types are the section tim caricatures, but they only represent some of the new UKIP - the ones that despair of David Cameron.
UKIP could progress but they need to retain the NOTA label somehow.
It is not the falling out that comes from hitting the ball too far, it is the flailing of bat and arms without connecting.
Not even Lord Denning could save him.
The choice in 2015 is pretty simple: elect a conservative government who will probably grant a referendum or elect a non-conservative government who won't. The reality is that UKIP will not form the next government, so the decision for UKIP voters resolves as follows:
(1) I don't care about the practical implications for a EU referendum, I just hate Cameron/all politicians are the same: vote UKIP
(2) I want a referendum: vote Conservative, but with a greater or lesser amount of reluctance.
"Left Foot Forward on 'How to write a Dan Hodges column':"
How long can he continue to pose as a "Blairite Cuckoo" now that everyone bar the kitchen sink has blown his cover?
Anyway a funny article
He could very easily have called up the papers and said, "No, that's what I mean, you need to parse my words more carefully". If they hadn't wanted to run it he could have written letters to the editors - they'd have published them - or made clarification in other media. He knew what people thought he meant, and he deliberately let them go on thinking it. And the ambiguity helped him, too. If he'd clarified that there would be no referendum, Gordon Brown would probably have looked in better shape and called an early election, and Cameron probably wouldn't have got to be Prime Minister.
"OT Just watching BattleStar Galactica and after a slow start......"
You'll go blind watching that kind of crap all day!
Dud is as duds do.
"Matthew d'Ancona: Tory idealism will no longer influence our pragmatic PM
The G8 summit confirmed that Cameron is a mature operator who now grasps the politics of the possible."
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-tory-idealism-will-no-longer-influence-our-pragmatic-pm-8664878.html
1229: Green MP Caroline Lucas calls for a ban on The Sun on the Parliamentary Estate until Page Three is scrapped. Mr Cameron rejects the idea, saying MPs should be free to read all newspapers.
Didn;t this happen in 2008? (ie under labour?). Looking forward to BenM's defence of the CQC's conduct.
Not that it will make any difference. When it comes to the NHS and the voters, labour are like Titanium...
So hardly cr*p. Unlike the poor sod who opened for the Pet Shop Boys at the O2 last night...
Edit: oh, and Cameron knocked Miliband for six at PMQs. What's happened to the Miliband of three months ago?
That's why they attack him not his argument.
Indeed humour is an excellent weapon, perhaps the best weapon, to prick the warmists' self regarding watermelony bubble. I like.
Why anyone raves about this series is beyond me - if I'd never seen it, I'd have missed nothing. I didn't give a toss if any of the characters were killed off and Mary McThingy as the President was just dreadfully wooden.
I want a referendum held on the EU but I do not want it instigated and manipulated by a europhilic idiot like Cameron.
Anyone such as I who thinks we should be out of the EU (and no I am not a kipper nor have I ever voted for them and I believe those that support gay marriage are bigots before anyone brings that up as well) wants a referendum to be held when we do not have the entirety of the establishment in the pro eu camp.
Assuming the tories get in 2015 and actually have the referendum we would have all 3 main party leaders, the bbc, and most of the national press spouting the eu propaganda. That is very hard to counter. Better to hold a referendum at the right time than force it early and lose it in my mind.
The EZ may not be there in quite the same shape in 18 months' time:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-18/kyle-bass-next-18-months-will-redefine-economic-orthodoxy-west
I'm pretty sure that deficit funded welfarism is going to be dead soon enough - something that can't go on won't. I'm also pretty sure that the EZ cannot survive without huge reform (superstate or split).
We are cursed to live 'in interesting times'.
"Nicholas Watt @nicholaswatt 19m
Another clear @david_cameron #PMQs win. Banking exchanges show @ed_miliband will struggle for hearing until Lab has full reckoning on past"
Doesn't fit in with your prejudices does it? All tories to you are wealthy, greedy, exploitative mill owners.
To you its inconceivable that the tories could reform banking, expose labour failure on the NHS, get the wealthy to pay more in tax or act firmly and multilaterally to shut down tax havens. The government you support failed utterly on all the above, and indeed may have been responsible for some of these abuses.
You are like a dalek....'does not compute!!! does not compute!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22949211
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/james-forsyth/2013/06/ed-milibands-negative-approach-at-pmqs-looks-set-to-become-the-norm/
Also
" Revealingly, in a response to a question about lobbying, Cameron declared that he had only hired Lynton Crosby to destroy the Labour party’s credibility."
Usually you campaign for a referendum when your cause is otherwise hopeless and the whole establishment is against you, because it's the only way to move the ball down the pitch, but that's not the case any more. They've got UKIP in the high teens, most of the Tory base, a chunk of the parliamentary Conservative Party, and in future potentially even some business establishment types on their side.
Wouldn't it make sense just to drop the roundabout referendum route and just advocate for leaving the EU? Coalition with the Tories, let the Kenneth Clarke tendency jump, win an election under FPTP, job done.
The CQC was just doing its job. It was only ever cosmetic.
Having thrown so much money and political capital at the NHS, the last thing the labour government wanted the CQC to do was uncover failures.
The labour government wanted the CQC to report that everything in the garden was rosy whether it was or not. That was why it was there, and the civil servants clearly knew it.
So far the tories have singularly failed to pin these dreadful failures directly on labour. And the polls show labour very much remain the party of the NHS.
Why is Hodges wrong ? Is rEd running a great campaign ? Is he a good leader ?
But what if the journey to our becoming an influence free administrative region of the EUSSR is on a shorter timeline than the journey to achieving those cannons?
With both the failed FSA and the failed CQC, one can only conclude that Labour are really bad at creating functioning regulators.
Cameron is a proven liar so the trust has gone.
Further more I've now seen Cameron in government and understood more of his personality.
So I wont be voting for a metropolitan bigot who despises people from a different background and who leads a frankly mediocre government.
I don't mind if EdM become PM, the ensuing comedy will be good for a laugh and the clear out of the chumocracy might allow the Conservatives to rebuild on better foundations.
In any case the Conservatives aren't going to win a majority in 2015 so there's no chance of an EU referendum.
Not that I'm particularly bothered about one in any case.
Depends how you look at it. The regulators reported what labour wanted them to report, that everything was wonderful - making it difficult for opponents to attack labour.
The regulators were great for keeping labour in power. They were terrible for the country, but who cares about that??
Social democracy I oppose vehemently it is the worst of all worlds, it is the shabby compromise in the middle peddled by the metrosexual guardian reading elite so they can sneer down their noses at the concerns of the proles in the street. The proles that labour day and night trying to keep a roof over their heads while the social democrats witter on about the environment and how we must increase green taxes, and isn't it terrible that india only just started a space program we better send them some aid. Our concerns meanwhile are met with condescension and smearing by the likes of people of all three main parties.
Irony klaxon !
Does the left have anything apart from character assassination ?
http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/grant_thornton_uk_llp_morecambe_bay.pdf
@politicshome
Labour Health minister @jreedmp tells @adamboultonSKY "Once we understand the facts of this case then we can take it further" on CQC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/biggest-bilateral-trade-deal-in-history-david-cameron-launches-negotiations-for-us-and-eu-agreement-8662487.html
The credibility of the eurosceptic cause is in tatters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/cat-stands-election-mexican-city
"Morris has become an expression of how fed up people are with all the parties and a political system that does not represent us," said Sergio Chamorro, the owner of the furry black-and-white candidate whose first campaign slogan was: "Tired of voting for rats? Vote for a cat."
Morris! And I want the t-shirt! Yes We Cat http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/19/1371640757655/Morris-the-cat-T-shirt-009.jpg
He has purchased a site in Nine Elms where he plans to build Europe's tallest residential tower, a 205 metre and 62 storey high hotel and apartment complex.
See here for a computer generated image of how the tower will look from the across the Thames: http://bloom.bg/12aYY1o
Using change out of the billion set aside for UK investment he has also bought the UK luxury yacht builders, Sunseeker, who are based in Poole.
An interesting comment from the estate agent Savills underlines how attractive London is as a destination for inbound property investment:
“Investments in London despite being perceived as much safer than Shanghai, still carry higher yields,” said James Macdonald, head of China research at Savills in Shanghai.
The house-building led UK economic recovery is being powered forward on the back of international investment.
Well done George.
@SkyNewsBreak
Football Club Hearts has entered administration
Flee run to the hills - GO must resign !!! PANIC !
Daily Mail
Daily Telegraph
The Sun
Labour List:
http://labourlist.org/2013/06/sometimes-what-is-unsaid-at-pmqs-is-the-most-important-thing-of-all/
But he has spotted 'the dog that did not bark'......graduate fee repayment......
Not sure why you are in favour anyway, I thought you didn't like NHS privatisation which an eu/us free trade deal is likely to lock in place with american firms entering the market place to bid on nhs provision
Which is why one of your fellow NHS apologists is arguing it must be exempted here
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/alex-ashman/nhs-must-be-exempted-from-useu-free-trade-agreement
Good luck with that and all the other exemptions being demanded by other member states it will not be so much a free trade agreement as a "sometimes on a product here and there we wont charge a tariff" agreement
You can claim that this 'proves' that the EU is, on balance, of benefit to the UK if you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I've no idea what you do for a living but one thing is for sure----you do not work in export sales.
Nine Elms must be amongst the most unattractive and unpopulated areas of London.
But I believe we can solve the problem of another richard's political disenchantment with this new build.
I have had a word with Wang Jianlin and reserved the river facing apartment on the 62nd floor for the exclusive use of our Lincolnshire misanthrope. From his bedroom balcony he will be able to look down on both Notting Hill and No 10 Downing Street.
I confidently predict that once ensconced, another richard will become as good humoured as Morris Dancer and somewhat of the same voting disposition.
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/148741275?access_key=key-14co5yoflxa1kjvbds4w&allow_share=true
As the EU referendum bill is published new YouGov polling raises questions about the salience of Europe as an issue
[YAWN]
If one was to take these figures at face value as Mike Smithson seems to have done one has to ask what point the three senior Libdem Ministers are doing wasting the tax payers money? Business, Energy & Climate Change and meddling with constitutional reform. None of these issues concern even the Libdems. I don't recall seeing an article on Pb.com asking why the Libdems perpetually bang on about issues that nobody cares about?
Of course for those who tend not to be so simplistic its quite obvious that issues that immediately and directly effect one's prosperity and welfare will take priority over those that are relatively indirect (and obscured for the large part) are obvious to all but the naive. I note that also absent is defence and national security. Perhaps government should abandon the defence of the nation as well based on Mr Smithson's underlying logic?
That said one third of UKIP support and one fifth of Conservative support equates to something between 10 and 12 per cent vote share. A rough and ready calculation suggests to me that the potential difference is between the Tories getting around 24% or potentially polling close to their 2010 levels at 36%. With that sort of vote share at stake its understandable that the Tories might attempt to maximise its potential. That it won't is another story.......
If David Cameron says he has renegotiated a good settlement for Britain, Tory members would vote to stay in the EU, writes Tim Bale."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10129906/Tory-members-trust-David-Cameron-on-the-EU.-Heres-the-poll-that-proves-it.html
oh dear....never mind, the Turnip Taliban never lets 'facts' stand in their way.....they deal in 'truth'.....
Table:
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kkgf9pwnqb/YouGov-Bale&Webb-Survey-Results-David-Cameron-EU.pdf
Swoon
You probably won't see it Charles from your lofty tower, but down here at the coal face where the waiters, toilet scrubbers, shelf stackers....you know the bulk of the majority live and work there is a growing disdain for the so called political elite. It will take time to grow but the seeds have been planted .
The three parties can bury their heads and carry on assuming we will meekly line up and vote for them but their total vote share drops election after election.
In 20 years time I suspect the opportunity to leave by democratic means will no longer be there - these opportunities only come around infrequently, so you need to seize them when you can.
But you seem to have taken personal offence at something which was not meant to be personally offensive.
With lots of lovely stamp duty for the treasury.
No neither you nor I know what will happen in 2015 - perhaps that will be the seismic shift, but remember how everyone was talking about loss of trust in all major parties before the 2010 election due in part to expenses scandal etc, yet their combined vote share only dropped from 89.6% in 2005 to 88.1% in 2010.
So, until or unless there is evidence to the contrary it does appear the vast majority of those that vote continue to meekly line up and vote for one of the big three.
I was taught in letters to try to stay to no more than 10 words/sentence.
On the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score it rates -61. Most scores are positive - 0-30 is for University Graduates.....
The letter as a whole scores 48, the Harvard Law Review is generally 30.
As to democratically leaving in 20 years time, yes I believe that option will be still open, I do not think the british public would stand for us being locked into the EU with no way of getting out unless there is a huge shift in public opinion towards the EU. Do you really see that happening?
As a note I wasn't taking it personally but if you do not wish to come across as sneering in an admittedly context lacking medium such as a forum perhaps pick a more neutral way of saying it. Especially when it is a subject that is commonly a target for sneers and condescension by the minority europhile group
When I first moved to London, I used to go to a bar there on a Sunday afternoon which got round the prohibition on afternoon opening by offering a "meal" for £2.
I was a lot younger then, so my recollection of the area is rather hazy.
If the British public vote to stay in we will stay in, if we vote out then we should step out.
The question can then be asked again in 20-40 years time.
Fundamentally, though, to have a vote you need (1) an opportunity [e.g. a Treaty] and (2) a leader - in power - prepared to execute on that opportunity. 2017 may be the only time, for a very long time, that those two factors intersect. The BBC won't change its views; the media is increasinly irrelevant; and we've already covered leaders.
On democratic departure - by the time you have a unified currency and a unified council of ministers making decisions about many things it becomes harder and harder to leave. And increasingly people will become used to the status quo: I've lived my entire life with the UK as a member of the EU - Maastricht was the first time I was old enough to focus on a political issue of substance.
The turnout was about 65% in 2010 so the three main parties got 57.2% of total votes
picking 1979 for instance turnout was 76% total top 3 vote was 94.6%
Therefore top 3 vote share was 71.90% of total votes
That is a drop of 14% in support from the voting population over 30 years
However you keep telling yourself the drop is minimal but sooner or later those people who have stopped voting due to the general crapness of our political classes are going to get fed up and find a voice again and it won't be voting for your lib lab or con