politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Richard Tyndall on “Laying the groundwork for an ‘Out’ vote”
It has been generally accepted that the ‘Out’ side currently face an uphill fight to try and win the referendum which will be held at some point over the next two or so years.
Sensible enough stuff from Richard T, but it all falls down at the end.
If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab.
If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in, but with less say? No thanks.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
I'm generally in favour of free movement, and a lot of the reflexive opposition that I see to leaving the EU within my limited social circle on facebook is based on the principle of free movement. So a clear commitment to remain within the EEA, with free movement of labour retained, would go a long way to neutralising that as an issue.
I could see myself voting for IN on the basis of keeping free movement of Labour, but I don't think I'd vote for IN to preserve our membership of the Common Agricultural Policy...
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
Farage, is a busted flush. He is repellent to a huge swathe of the electorate that is not already confirmed BOO. He would be well advised to stand back and leave the Carswell's of the world get on with it.
Anyway, nice article. I applaud how clearly you've separated the issues of immigration and EU membership. UKIP has failed to adequately do this, probably as deliberate policy.
Choosing a leader who will be inclusive enough will be very, very hard. UKIP are way too toxic, the Tories are probably too toxic, and Labour politicians just aren't sufficiently zealous on the issue. And I don't think an industry figure could win the - possible decisive - Battle of the Rhetoric. Tricky, tricky, tricky.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
Farage, is a busted flush. He is repellent to a huge swathe of the electorate that is not already confirmed BOO. He would be well advised to stand back and leave the Carswell's of the world get on with it.
Farage would best serve his cause by keeping his head down. Those who evangelise him will vote Out anyway. For the rest the negatives hugely outweigh the positives.
The AV campaign tried to do politics without politicians and that didn't go well for them. Maybe there's ambitious Tory minister who could take a run at it?
If we get a 50% turnout for the EU referendum I would be surprised. This is not an issue that stirs the blood. It is certainly nothing like the Sindy vote. The number of people who feel passionately about leaving vastly outnumber those who feel passionately about staying, so in certainty to vote the No side should have a significant advantage. It is going to be very close.
I don't think that Hooey and Field are remotely well known enough - or personally engaging enough - to lead a campaign; while I doubt Hannan's NHS views will have much relevance, so he should definitely play a central role. I agree that Farage would be a liability - though it's worth remembering that unlike in the GE he will have a lot of the popular press fully on his side. I also wonder how someone not used to close interrogation - Dyson or Bamford - would stand up to the scrutiny that the campaign would bring. The No side's best bet might be a non-political TV regular - a presenter of some kind who knows how to stay calm under the lights and can be fluent under pressure.
Sensible enough stuff from Richard T, but it all falls down at the end.
If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab.
If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in? No thanks.
As I said in the article I think the idea that there is little or no difference between the EU and the EEA is a myth. Whilst it wouldn't deal with the issue of immigration there are huge differences in terms of the amount of legislation that is imposed on EU members compared to EFTA 'affiliates'.
This short piece from one of the Norwegian ministers clarifies that nicely:
As she points out the UK has very limited influence on world trade talks as part of the EU whilst Norway has full participation.
And you are ignoring the fact that whilst we could be outvoted whilst we are inside the EU, if we were part of EFTA we would, ultimately, have a veto on legislation that we thought was fundamentally at odds with our interests.
No is in trouble, if Hoey is a frontrunner and also a crypto-inner. Has to be Hannan as far as I can see, unless someone like Flouncer Davis wants the gig.
The AV campaign tried to do politics without politicians and that didn't go well for them. Maybe there's ambitious Tory minister who could take a run at it?
If you are an ambitious Tory minister and a committed Eurosceptic, resigning from the government to lead the OUT campaign would be a gutsy move. If you win the referendum you pretty much become PM, don't you?
The only problem is that, in order not to show disloyalty and bad faith, you probably can't resign from the government until the renegotiation is complete. And that might be a bit too late.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
Salmond had a massive positive net approval rating in Scotland, Farage does not.
It's worth reading from start to finish, but the following passages need to be read over and over:
"Educated progressives and liberals tend to welcome change, are comfortable with mobility (their own and other people’s), and not especially bothered about belonging, indeed are suspicious of most group allegiances. Yet most voters are more likely to see change as loss and – without being sentimental for the often oppressive communities of 1950s Britain – want to live in relatively stable places with a high level of trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness. And most people place the interests of fellow members of the local or national club before outsiders. This is the spectrum which finds most voters in a very different place from today’s Labour party.
On social mobility too, Labour’s graduate professionals seem to be saying: climb those ladders as we did. Of course, Labour should be on the side of ladder climbers, but it has been insufficiently sensitive to the shadow they cast over those who cannot or do not want to climb with them. Just as London can make the rest of the country feel inconsequential, so those who get to university and into the top part of the labour market can make those millions of decent, responsible people doing ordinary jobs feel like failures."
"A country with a large group of strivers, but also decent pay and status for those who stay put and do basic jobs, is something that is becoming harder to achieve – both financially and psychologically – as the labour market and the education system increasingly divide into insiders (mobile professionals/graduates) and outsiders (immobile people without A-levels doing often basic jobs). This is a problem for all advanced countriesand for all political parties, but Labour should have made this aspect of inequality central to its story instead of fixating on the super-rich."
"The election was a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism – against mass immigration, further European integration, and the high-churn society that discomforts so many people. It was also a vote against London – the city that most represents those things. United against it were not just SNP and Ukip voters but many Tory and Labour ones. Yet London is Labour’s new heartland."
The AV campaign tried to do politics without politicians and that didn't go well for them. Maybe there's ambitious Tory minister who could take a run at it?
If you are an ambitious Tory minister and a committed Eurosceptic, resigning from the government to lead the OUT campaign would be a gutsy move. If you win the referendum you pretty much become PM, don't you?
The only problem is that, in order not to show disloyalty and bad faith, you probably can't resign from the government until the renegotiation is complete. And that might be a bit too late.
How about Robert Kilroy-Silk? A universally admired man-of-the-people, and a sure-fire hit with ladies of a certain age. David Icke as deputy.
Sensible enough stuff from Richard T, but it all falls down at the end.
If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab.
If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in? No thanks.
As I said in the article I think the idea that there is little or no difference between the EU and the EEA is a myth. Whilst it wouldn't deal with the issue of immigration there are huge differences in terms of the amount of legislation that is imposed on EU members compared to EFTA 'affiliates'.
This short piece from one of the Norwegian ministers clarifies that nicely:
As she points out the UK has very limited influence on world trade talks as part of the EU whilst Norway has full participation.
And you are ignoring the fact that whilst we could be outvoted whilst we are inside the EU, if we were part of EFTA we would, ultimately, have a veto on legislation that we thought was fundamentally at odds with our interests.
I actually agree with Richard_T that whilst immigration is a key driver of an anti-EU sentiment, even if EFTA would mean no change, ten years of EU complacency towards the UK will have cemented their desire to leave.
The problem with the immigration point is that, although it might not be a negative, BOO would like it to be able to campaign on it. The EU undermines wages, puts Britons out of work, attracts criminals etc. etc. BOO will find it harder to campaign without it on the table.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
Salmond had a massive positive net approval rating in Scotland, Farage does not.
Agreed. If it had been a UK wide campaign that Salmond had been running I think he would have been the same sort of liability as Farage would turn out to be.
For all that I wanted UKIP to do well at the GE we have to recognise the limitations of a marmite politician in a referendum where there can be no second place prize. That is not to say Farage couldn't be involved at all in the campaign but he shoudlcertatinly not be seen as the leader.
If they could get her, Theresa May would be the prize for the Out camp. Given how the tectonic plates are shifting in the Conservative party, if she is ambitious to lead the party it may be her best shot too.
It's worth reading from start to finish, but the following passages need to be read over and over:
"Educated progressives and liberals tend to welcome change, are comfortable with mobility (their own and other people’s), and not especially bothered about belonging, indeed are suspicious of most group allegiances. Yet most voters are more likely to see change as loss and – without being sentimental for the often oppressive communities of 1950s Britain – want to live in relatively stable places with a high level of trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness. And most people place the interests of fellow members of the local or national club before outsiders. This is the spectrum which finds most voters in a very different place from today’s Labour party.
On social mobility too, Labour’s graduate professionals seem to be saying: climb those ladders as we did. Of course, Labour should be on the side of ladder climbers, but it has been insufficiently sensitive to the shadow they cast over those who cannot or do not want to climb with them. Just as London can make the rest of the country feel inconsequential, so those who get to university and into the top part of the labour market can make those millions of decent, responsible people doing ordinary jobs feel like failures."
"A country with a large group of strivers, but also decent pay and status for those who stay put and do basic jobs, is something that is becoming harder to achieve – both financially and psychologically – as the labour market and the education system increasingly divide into insiders (mobile professionals/graduates) and outsiders (immobile people without A-levels doing often basic jobs). This is a problem for all advanced countriesand for all political parties, but Labour should have made this aspect of inequality central to its story instead of fixating on the super-rich."
"The election was a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism – against mass immigration, further European integration, and the high-churn society that discomforts so many people. It was also a vote against London – the city that most represents those things. United against it were not just SNP and Ukip voters but many Tory and Labour ones. Yet London is Labour’s new heartland."
Ed firmly ditched Maurice Glasman though and there is no way I can see Labour ever adopting Blue Labour principles.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
Salmond had a massive positive net approval rating in Scotland, Farage does not.
And Salmond didn't lead the independence campaign for Scotland.
If we get a 50% turnout for the EU referendum I would be surprised. This is not an issue that stirs the blood. It is certainly nothing like the Sindy vote. The number of people who feel passionately about leaving vastly outnumber those who feel passionately about staying, so in certainty to vote the No side should have a significant advantage. It is going to be very close.
We know that UKIP and Conservative voters are much more Eurosceptic than Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. So, if your contention is correct, we should expect a higher vote share for these two parties in the European Parliament elections, which have a much lower turnout, than in the general election (here I use UK figures from Wikipedia for the sake of ease of access).
European Parliament election (2014) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.65%
General election (2015) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.4%
I'm really very surprised at how close those two figures are.
Personally, I think the only way for No to win is for Dave to make a complete hash of the renegotiations. If the Yes campaign try to convince voters that they've got a lot of concessions when in reality they haven't, they might not look particularly credible.
The president of the Dominican Football Federation recently compared Blatter to Moses, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Jesus and Nelson Mandela
Assuming the three major parties, and the LibDems, are supporting IN, then what the OUT need to do is demonstrate not speculate what a better future would be of we voted OUT. Just how do they do that? EFTA is a nonentity. You have not mentioned or barely touched upon the real possible motive for formally leaving the EU and moving get towards a Norwegian solution ... Namely we cannot get sufficient safeguards to protect our interests from the ever closer union of the eurozone.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
If Farage leads No then the referendum is already over - he is a humungous turnoff.
My memory of the 1975 In campaign was it had the benefit of a happier and more positive leadership, the Out campaign was dreary, pessimistic and with Peter Shore, Eric Heffer, Eric Varley, Powell, Benn and Foot leading the Outs wasn't an attractive (in both meanings of the word) group to garner support outside of the already committed. Many of the prominent Out campaigners today are reminiscent of that unprepossessing bunch of 1975, middle or post middle aged and grumpy. They need to present an attractive and positive, smiling and keen face certainly not the Sepp Blatter of British politics Mr Farage.
Farage has the charisma, connects with ordinary people and knows his brief. It's like saying Salmond shouldn't have led the independence campaign for Scotland.
If Farage leads No then the referendum is already over - he is a humungous turnoff.
If we get a 50% turnout for the EU referendum I would be surprised. This is not an issue that stirs the blood. It is certainly nothing like the Sindy vote. The number of people who feel passionately about leaving vastly outnumber those who feel passionately about staying, so in certainty to vote the No side should have a significant advantage. It is going to be very close.
We know that UKIP and Conservative voters are much more Eurosceptic than Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. So, if your contention is correct, we should expect a higher vote share for these two parties in the European Parliament elections, which have a much lower turnout, than in the general election (here I use UK figures from Wikipedia for the sake of ease of access).
European Parliament election (2014) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.65%
General election (2015) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.4%
I'm really very surprised at how close those two figures are.
I make 2015 UKIP + Con = 50.5 Sorry that inc. NI Unionists
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
If we get a 50% turnout for the EU referendum I would be surprised. This is not an issue that stirs the blood. It is certainly nothing like the Sindy vote. The number of people who feel passionately about leaving vastly outnumber those who feel passionately about staying, so in certainty to vote the No side should have a significant advantage. It is going to be very close.
The AV campaign tried to do politics without politicians and that didn't go well for them. Maybe there's ambitious Tory minister who could take a run at it?
If you are an ambitious Tory minister and a committed Eurosceptic, resigning from the government to lead the OUT campaign would be a gutsy move. If you win the referendum you pretty much become PM, don't you?
The only problem is that, in order not to show disloyalty and bad faith, you probably can't resign from the government until the renegotiation is complete. And that might be a bit too late.
How about Robert Kilroy-Silk? A universally admired man-of-the-people, and a sure-fire hit with ladies of a certain age. David Icke as deputy.
That's 8% on crises around the world. 20% on medical aid, which that tweet seems to think is automatically wasted. The linked article is right to say however that:
When the government defines achievement purely in terms of money spent, waste is inevitable. If David Cameron had set a target, say, for reducing HIV infection in Botswana by 2020 or reducing child poverty in Namibia by 20 per cent by 2018, and had then set a maximum budget by which this might be achieved, DfiD would have meaning-ful targets. Instead, DfiD crows about spending money as if it were a good in itself.
But to say the money should be spent differently is not reason to want a cut of 50% or more in the foreign aid budget, else NHS overspending would be a reason for slashing that, too. DFID should be asked to do more with the same, not less with less.
Assuming the three major parties, and the LibDems, are supporting IN, then what the OUT need to do is demonstrate not speculate what a better future would be of we voted OUT. Just how do they do that? EFTA is a nonentity. You have not mentioned or barely touched upon the real possible motive for formally leaving the EU and moving get towards a Norwegian solution ... Namely we cannot get sufficient safeguards to protect our interests from the ever closer union of the eurozone.
EFTA is by no means a non entity. It allows free trade with the countries of the EU whilst securing better and more numerous trade deals with the rest of the world than the EU has achieved. It is involved in every stage of the decision making process for new single market legislation up until the final vote and if it doesn't like the result then it has a veto.
EFTA membership would give the UK far more influence over its trade arrangements whilst removing us from any of the political issues that have soured the relationship with the EU.
No is in trouble, if Hoey is a frontrunner and also a crypto-inner. Has to be Hannan as far as I can see, unless someone like Flouncer Davis wants the gig.
appoint someone with a proven track record of pointlessly walking out of something on a totally bogus prospectus? Anyway, the whole speculation is pointless until we see the final situation.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Lerwick to Bergen: 222.23 miles Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
My memory of the 1975 In campaign was it had the benefit of a happier and more positive leadership, the Out campaign was dreary, pessimistic and with Peter Shore, Eric Heffer, Eric Varley, Powell, Benn and Foot leading the Outs wasn't an attractive (in both meanings of the word) group to garner support outside of the already committed. Many of the prominent Out campaigners today are reminiscent of that unprepossessing bunch of 1975, middle or post middle aged and grumpy. They need to present an attractive and positive, smiling and keen face certainly not the Sepp Blatter of British politics Mr Farage.
Yes . Agree.
Hannan? Clever. Common touch ? Nope. Farage? A gift to to IN campaign.
Dyson has been suggested.. As all his production is overseas... a hostage to fortune.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Lerwick to Bergen: 222.23 miles Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
I think that the best hope for the "IN" campaign is to focus on fear of change - better the devil you know etc.
The best approach for the "OUT" campaign is to remind voters that the choice is not about keeping the status quo, but about choosing a fork in the road. The EU will not stand still. There will be more integration "towards ever closer union". By voting "IN", you accept that. (Long term making this crystal clear will be helpful in settling the matter, IMHO)
Interestingly, I wonder what the "red lines" are for supporters. What would make an OUTER vote to stay IN, and what would make an INNER vote out.
My own red line would be if the EU insisted that the UK would have to privatise the NHS.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Lerwick to Bergen: 222.23 miles Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
Lerwick to Bergen: 222.23 miles Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
We were talking about Oslo. If you now want to talk about Bergen, Aberdeen station is closer to Lerwick than Bergen station is. So still epically wrong.
The principle isn't unarguable. I don't think anyone is advocating that seats should all be exactly the same size, so the question to argue is whether the variation should be 1% or 5% or 10% or 20% or what. A very tight range means lots of boundary changes which will probably annoy sitting MPs, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories loosened it a bit.
And what do the Grand Minds of PB think the variance should be? [I mean variance from the ideal, not variance from high-point to low-point.] +/-5% for me. Gut feel, not science. 10% too lax given the (approx) 20% difference from high to low point.
The unimplemented review in the last Parliament was based around 5%, with a handful of specific exceptions for geographical reasons. Any less than that is very difficult without cutting wards in half.
I wonder if the Scottish exemptions (islands / large constituencies) might be revisited now that the LDs have no say. I can't see why there shouldn't be just one MP for the Western Isles, Orkney & Shetland [combined electorate still only 56k].
There is a serious practical issue, in that there are no direct travel links btween the groups as far as I recall - you'd need to fly via Edinburgh or Glasgow, and there is a very long drive between the ferry ports for the various groups even ignoring Barra and Uist. (Even Shetland to Orkney isn;t straightforward.) It would make more sense to merge O&S with Caithness etc, and so on.
The nearest rail station to Shetland is Oslo.
FPT Lerwick is closer to Scarborough (Yorks.) than it is to Oslo. 97% of railway scientists agree that there is a railway station at Scarborough, and several hundred more between it and Lerwick. You may mean Bergen, but you're still wrong.
I will add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Farage should not lead the 'out' campaign. He'll turn off too many people who might be persuadable.
Oh and many thanks to Mike for publishing my first attempt at a thread header. It really does feel like quite a red letter day for me. :-)
I do it want to knock you on this... it is a serious effort. The nub of the issue however is ever closer union and the eurozone. That could force us out. Quite easily. Neither is for us. The EEA would then be our destination. This as it stands would mean very little real difference to us regarding the single market. Until we see the results of Cameron's efforts we cannot judge if operating alongside the eurozone will be a better proposition. Cameron clearly understands the issue of the eurozone and indeed the leverage window it gives us.
We must hope dearly that the ejection of Farages minimees will remove the crass nativism from the EU agenda. As it is, 'to do a Farage' has already entered the lexicon and I am not sure that for some kippers kipperism has it become a purpose all of itself.
Apparently the Electoral Commission has recommended that there should be a minimum 9 month gap between the final passing of the EU referendum Act and the actual vote. This would imply that there is no way the vote could be held to coincide with the Scottish and Welsh votes next May. For that to happen the Referendum act would have to have passed all its stages and received Royal Assent by early August of this year.
Does the 'out' campaign really need a single leader? It would be more powerful to have a collegiate collection of figures presenting the case from different perspectives - constitutional, business, economic, socialist, libertarian, etc.
Sensible enough stuff from Richard T, but it all falls down at the end. If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab. If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in, but with less say? No thanks.
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
It would appear not, unless the Bill is amended in Parliament. The European Union Referendum Bill provides for a referendum to be held throughout the United Kingdom, so the provisions of Part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 apply to that referendum (see section 101(1)(a) of the 2000 Act and clause 3 of the Bill). Section 128(6) of the 2000 Act simply requires the Chief Counting Officer to certify the total number of votes cast, and the total number of votes cast in favour of "Yes" and "No".
On the same subject, it should be noted that there is a very significant provision in the Bill, which is clause 4(2). It provides that:
The Minister may by regulations make provision for and in connection with the combination of the poll for the referendum with any one or more of the following—
(a) the poll for any election specified in the regulations; (b) the poll for any other referendum specified in the regulations.
Regulations under this subsection may amend or modify this Act or any other enactment (but may not alter the date of the poll for any such election or other referendum).
In English, the Bill envisages that the government will have the power to hold the referendum on the same day as another election or referendum, but not to modify the date on which the latter is set to occur.
All the tinpot nations and banana republics will see Blatter home though.
Given the way he defies the supposed big boys, I'm sure these nations think Blatter is great.
I think you're wrong.
They're all going down in a big way.
When you say 'these nations' you clearly don't mean anyone actually resident in any of them. People and nations that think Blatter is great is almost the definition of an empty set.
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
But that is precisely why we should stay In. If we leave the EU, and rely on the EEA or some similar trade agreement, we've completely lost all protection against Eurozone hegemony. That's one reason why the renegotiation is so important: it gives us the chance to strengthen that protection.
It will be very difficult to persuade the disinterested to vote Out.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
Imo, a lot of the Labour vote is up for grabs for the OUT side, so someone who sounds Labourish (Paul Nuttall?) would be a good frontman.
Labour themselves could make it easier for them if they shoot themselves in the foot by spending the next 2 years lining up alongside the CBI to make the usual corporatist/scaremongering arguments.
I take your point and I know that I am repeating myself but the point about leaving would be to protect our interests from the eurozone block. The EEA would not be much different and much of the OUT hype is bogus, but the eurozone is a real issue.
But that is precisely why we should stay In. If we leave the EU, and rely on the EEA or some similar trade agreement, we've completely lost all protection against Eurozone hegemony. That's one reason why the renegotiation is so important: it gives us the chance to strengthen that protection.
Simply not true. No matter how many times you repeat this it still doesn't make it true. Most of the rules governing international trade including financial transactions are made at a level above the EU and at that table we only have a fraction of a seat. In EFTA/EEA we would have far more direct power and influence than we currently have with the added benefit of a direct veto.
Apparently the Electoral Commission has recommended that there should be a minimum 9 month gap between the final passing of the EU referendum Act and the actual vote. This would imply that there is no way the vote could be held to coincide with the Scottish and Welsh votes next May. For that to happen the Referendum act would have to have passed all its stages and received Royal Assent by early August of this year.
The Electoral Commission disgracefully tried to pull the same trick before the alternative vote referendum, when they insisted that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had to be passed by a certain day for the referendum to occur on the date chosen by Parliament. There is a simple way to shut the Commission up. Section 101(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the power, by order, to provide that Part VII of the 2000 Act will apply to any specified Bill which has been introduced into Parliament before the making of the order as if it were an Act, with such modifications as the Secretary of State may provide for. In other words, the government can oblige the Electoral Commission to start work before the European Union Referendum Bill has received Royal Assent.
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Out of Touch Post the Month? I mean (just for starters), is there another Bob Crow that I've never heard of?
I will add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Farage should not lead the 'out' campaign. He'll turn off too many people who might be persuadable.
I would like to vote for "Out" but I am not persuaded to do so. If it meant siding with Farage then it just gives me another reason to bite down hard and vote "Yes". When I see some of the policies UKIP and some of its candidates espoused then I do not want to be conferring any form of legitimacy on them.
It will be very difficult to persuade the disinterested to vote Out.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
The accounts of the UK have not been signed off by any firm of accountants either. Nor have those of the US, or France, or China, or India.
It will be very difficult to persuade the disinterested to vote Out.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
The accounts of the UK have not been signed off by any firm of accountants either. Nor have those of the US, or France, or China, or India.
But, unlike the EU, they aren't required to (unless I am mistaken).
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Out of Touch Post the Month? I mean (just for starters), is there another Bob Crow that I've never heard of?
In fairness to Bob Crow, when you kept him off politics and strictly to rail-related matters, he was really good. He was particularly good at safety stuff - when he took over, around 100 of his members died every year on average in accidents of one sort or another, by the time he died it was under two a year on average. That was very largely, as the rail companies acknowledged, thanks to both his persistence and to his technical knowledge.
Europe, on the other hand, is definitely political...and when he was on the politics, he could get very toxic very quickly.
As much as I respect Nigel I believe he has a part to play without it being the leading role. A cross party group incorporating him and Douglas, Field and Hoey plus several well known tories, led by a prominent businessman would be the ideal scenario. A trade union leader (the late Bob Crow would have been ideal) would be the icing on the cake.
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Out of Touch Post the Month? I mean (just for starters), is there another Bob Crow that I've never heard of?
I've no idea, I'm simply stating that Bob Crow who was anti EU would be ideal. Union leaders will understand that mass immigration compresses wages, if they're not anti EU they should be.
Interesting article from one of our most reasonable Eurosceptics. I wonder if he's right that people would vote for this nuanced position that doesn't limit free movement. I think they might end up like Labour in the GE - many people mildly sympathetic to the general idea but not enough to resist scare stories. And wouldn't it contradict the need for a unified movement? Would most "out" groups buy it?
My recollection of 1975 is that having non-politicians in the lead doesn't work. They tend to be obscure to most people (I'd never heard of Lord Bamford, for instance), and they often aren't especially skilled in handling the hurly-burly of debate.
I don't really think "Out" has much chance in 2016 (which is why Cameron wants it then), but probably their best shot is a simple, populist "Bash the Establishment, let's get out, sort out the details afterwards" line, which probably does mean Farage.
Comments
If all we are going to do is exchange the EU for the EEA, what is the point of leaving? On immigration - the principal driver of anti-EU sentiment - it's much the same as staying in. On most other issues of public concern it's much the same as staying in. On the other side of the coin, it would remove the one lever we do still have to protect the UK, and in particular our hugely important financial services industry, from a Eurozone land-grab.
If that's the alternative, I'm certainly voting to stay In. All that disruption, ending up with retaining all the main disadvantages of staying in, but with less say? No thanks.
I could see myself voting for IN on the basis of keeping free movement of Labour, but I don't think I'd vote for IN to preserve our membership of the Common Agricultural Policy...
Anyway, nice article. I applaud how clearly you've separated the issues of immigration and EU membership. UKIP has failed to adequately do this, probably as deliberate policy.
Choosing a leader who will be inclusive enough will be very, very hard. UKIP are way too toxic, the Tories are probably too toxic, and Labour politicians just aren't sufficiently zealous on the issue. And I don't think an industry figure could win the - possible decisive - Battle of the Rhetoric. Tricky, tricky, tricky.
I don't think that Hooey and Field are remotely well known enough - or personally engaging enough - to lead a campaign; while I doubt Hannan's NHS views will have much relevance, so he should definitely play a central role. I agree that Farage would be a liability - though it's worth remembering that unlike in the GE he will have a lot of the popular press fully on his side. I also wonder how someone not used to close interrogation - Dyson or Bamford - would stand up to the scrutiny that the campaign would bring. The No side's best bet might be a non-political TV regular - a presenter of some kind who knows how to stay calm under the lights and can be fluent under pressure.
This short piece from one of the Norwegian ministers clarifies that nicely:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8GpzDDurR8
As she points out the UK has very limited influence on world trade talks as part of the EU whilst Norway has full participation.
And you are ignoring the fact that whilst we could be outvoted whilst we are inside the EU, if we were part of EFTA we would, ultimately, have a veto on legislation that we thought was fundamentally at odds with our interests.
The only problem is that, in order not to show disloyalty and bad faith, you probably can't resign from the government until the renegotiation is complete. And that might be a bit too late.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/labour-party-equality
(ie I agree with it completely)
It's worth reading from start to finish, but the following passages need to be read over and over:
"Educated progressives and liberals tend to welcome change, are comfortable with mobility (their own and other people’s), and not especially bothered about belonging, indeed are suspicious of most group allegiances. Yet most voters are more likely to see change as loss and – without being sentimental for the often oppressive communities of 1950s Britain – want to live in relatively stable places with a high level of trust, low crime, and a degree of neighbourliness. And most people place the interests of fellow members of the local or national club before outsiders. This is the spectrum which finds most voters in a very different place from today’s Labour party.
On social mobility too, Labour’s graduate professionals seem to be saying: climb those ladders as we did. Of course, Labour should be on the side of ladder climbers, but it has been insufficiently sensitive to the shadow they cast over those who cannot or do not want to climb with them. Just as London can make the rest of the country feel inconsequential, so those who get to university and into the top part of the labour market can make those millions of decent, responsible people doing ordinary jobs feel like failures."
"A country with a large group of strivers, but also decent pay and status for those who stay put and do basic jobs, is something that is becoming harder to achieve – both financially and psychologically – as the labour market and the education system increasingly divide into insiders (mobile professionals/graduates) and outsiders (immobile people without A-levels doing often basic jobs). This is a problem for all advanced countriesand for all political parties, but Labour should have made this aspect of inequality central to its story instead of fixating on the super-rich."
"The election was a decisive vote against metropolitan liberalism – against mass immigration, further European integration, and the high-churn society that discomforts so many people. It was also a vote against London – the city that most represents those things. United against it were not just SNP and Ukip voters but many Tory and Labour ones. Yet London is Labour’s new heartland."
The problem with the immigration point is that, although it might not be a negative, BOO would like it to be able to campaign on it. The EU undermines wages, puts Britons out of work, attracts criminals etc. etc. BOO will find it harder to campaign without it on the table.
For all that I wanted UKIP to do well at the GE we have to recognise the limitations of a marmite politician in a referendum where there can be no second place prize. That is not to say Farage couldn't be involved at all in the campaign but he shoudlcertatinly not be seen as the leader.
Good article, by the way, Richard Tyndall.
I'm on for pocket change.
European Parliament election (2014) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.65%
General election (2015) share of the vote UKIP + Conservatives = 49.4%
I'm really very surprised at how close those two figures are.
"A truly fantastic article by David Goodhart."
A surprisingly un-Guardian-like article and far too sensible.
EFTA is a nonentity. You have not mentioned or barely touched upon the real possible motive for formally leaving the EU and moving get towards a Norwegian solution ... Namely we cannot get sufficient safeguards to protect our interests from the ever closer union of the eurozone.
Only 8% of Britain's aid budget goes on humanitarian relief. http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9542002/theres-only-one-sane-way-david-cameron-can-meet-the-foreign-aid-target/ …
Yep!. Should have voted UKIP.
I make 2015 UKIP + Con = 50.5Sorry that inc. NI UnionistsEFTA membership would give the UK far more influence over its trade arrangements whilst removing us from any of the political issues that have soured the relationship with the EU.
He's talking in French.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
Anyway, the whole speculation is pointless until we see the final situation.
Lerwick to Scarborough: 405.72 miles
http://www.mapcrow.info/cgi-bin/cities_distance_airpt2.cgi?city3=-3577080,L&city4=-3584722,S
Cameron is floundering in Europe, I don't believe OUT is as unlikely as some suggest.
Hannan? Clever. Common touch ? Nope.
Farage? A gift to to IN campaign.
Dyson has been suggested.. As all his production is overseas... a hostage to fortune.
As usual,OAPs will dominate the voting..
OAPs don't do leaps in the dark.
The best approach for the "OUT" campaign is to remind voters that the choice is not about keeping the status quo, but about choosing a fork in the road. The EU will not stand still. There will be more integration "towards ever closer union". By voting "IN", you accept that. (Long term making this crystal clear will be helpful in settling the matter, IMHO)
Interestingly, I wonder what the "red lines" are for supporters. What would make an OUTER vote to stay IN, and what would make an INNER vote out.
My own red line would be if the EU insisted that the UK would have to privatise the NHS.
If you already know which way you'll vote then you should worry about yourself a little.
UEFA + USA + Canada + Australia + South America would equal a landslide if this was a shareholder meeting.
http://tinyurl.com/qcbznt7
We must hope dearly that the ejection of Farages minimees will remove the crass nativism from the EU agenda. As it is, 'to do a Farage' has already entered the lexicon and I am not sure that for some kippers kipperism has it become a purpose all of itself.
Given the way he defies the supposed big boys, I'm sure these nations think Blatter is great.
http://eureferendum.com/
Apparently the Electoral Commission has recommended that there should be a minimum 9 month gap between the final passing of the EU referendum Act and the actual vote. This would imply that there is no way the vote could be held to coincide with the Scottish and Welsh votes next May. For that to happen the Referendum act would have to have passed all its stages and received Royal Assent by early August of this year.
On the same subject, it should be noted that there is a very significant provision in the Bill, which is clause 4(2). It provides that: In English, the Bill envisages that the government will have the power to hold the referendum on the same day as another election or referendum, but not to modify the date on which the latter is set to occur.
They're all going down in a big way.
When you say 'these nations' you clearly don't mean anyone actually resident in any of them. People and nations that think Blatter is great is almost the definition of an empty set.
But that hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will.
Then how come he's probably going to win?
Decisions are made by those who vote, not those who do not turn up.
The accounts of the EU have not been signed off as satisfactory by any firm of auditors for 19 years. So what? To put that in perspective, both Enron and Fifa have had their accounts audited as 'true and fair'.
So the EU is a quantum leap more dishonest and crooked than those two outfits. Still want to stay in? Actually, yes.
I despair.
Labour themselves could make it easier for them if they shoot themselves in the foot by spending the next 2 years lining up alongside the CBI to make the usual corporatist/scaremongering arguments.
Europe, on the other hand, is definitely political...and when he was on the politics, he could get very toxic very quickly.
My recollection of 1975 is that having non-politicians in the lead doesn't work. They tend to be obscure to most people (I'd never heard of Lord Bamford, for instance), and they often aren't especially skilled in handling the hurly-burly of debate.
I don't really think "Out" has much chance in 2016 (which is why Cameron wants it then), but probably their best shot is a simple, populist "Bash the Establishment, let's get out, sort out the details afterwards" line, which probably does mean Farage.