If the EU referendum takes place on the same day as Holyrood 2016, there will no doubt be a relatively high turnout in Scotland. The Sunday Post published a poll a week ago - 54% would vote to stay in the EU - 25% would leave and - 21% don't know:
Lib Dem Chances of a Revival? "Lib Dem Runners-Up: Just How Bad Things Are" "while the party came fourth nationally, on a constituency level the results were even more sobering, with 54% of Lib Dem candidates coming fourth; and an even more galling 26.5% actually coming fifth; and more sixth places than first places. In numerous cases where the party came fourth or fifth, there were only four or five candidates standing, and so the Lib Dems came bottom of the poll. " http://www.socialliberal.net/lib_dem_runners_up_just_how_bad_things_are
183 seats where the LibDems were fifth or worse.
They were 7th in two.... Scrapping with Bus-Pass Elvis.
The Lib Dems' problem is not the seats where they finished fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh. Their big problem is that there are very few seats where they finished second within touching distance of the winner.
Unless the Lib Dems can quickly answer the question of what they are for, they should look to merge with another party.
Mr. Foxinsox, at least the Conservatives are keeping their promise on a referendum, unlike Labour's deceit over Lisbon.
Also, it's not really kicking them to give Cameron a third referendum triumph on the bounce.
Cameron is more popular than his party (at present). Kicking the party would be more popular than kicking him as an individual. Also Cameron has promised to be gone soon so the attention would be on the contenders to the succession.
Mr. Foxinsox, I think AV was kicked due to its daftness, rather than as a proxy for whacking Lib Dems [perhaps an added bonus for some].
Also, you're making two separate arguments: stating a referendum can be used to kick a mid-term government and then saying it could be used against BOO Conservatives and UKIP, whereas the 'official' Conservative position is near certain to be In. I agree some on the right [Farage] will put off many, but if people want to kick the Government/Cameron, they'll vote Out.
What's the possibility of the government's official position being neutral, or even out?
In the Out camp will be half the Tories and the near entirety of UKIP, plus the odd unrepresentative maverick in other parties.
The In camp will have a few Tories (though most either grudgingly or agnostic) and the near entirety of other parties in the country.
Combined with the fact that it was the Tories that wanted the referendum (why have it at all if truly a party of In?), the referendum will be an opportunity to kick the Tories where it hurts, perhaps bringing about a fatal split.
Suits me!
"why have it at all if truly a party of In?"
They want to give the people a choice. Labour do not. The EU has changed massively since the last referendum, and it makes sense to ask people if they like those changes. I see this as a positive thing.
I'm still not sure which way I'll vote, although I'm veering towards out because of the EU's jerky movement towards further integration. But a negative UKIP-led out campaign would probably make me vote in.
An 'in' campaign led by people with the attitude you state above ("kick the Tories where it hurts") would make me vote out.
Mr. Antifrank, the Liberal Greens? The United Kingdom Democrats? Plaid Libdemyru? The Liberal Liberal Democrats?
The Greens look like the best choice. They have complementary strengths. Both would need to compromise a lot though. Neither is ready to do it without exceptional leadership on both sides. Neither party has exceptional leadership.
Mr. Jessop, the problem of an officially Conservative In position is whether ministers will be able to campaign for Out without breaching collective responsibility.
Mr. Calum, doubt it'll take place then. Cameron's opponents within the party would see it as a trick to bolster In.
It could, perversely, help Out more. As I suggested below, if Scotland's seen as a bastion of In, bloody-minded Englishmen might prefer to vote Out.
As well as Holyrood it would also coincide with the London Mayor election, which would also boost up the YES vote. As you say the Eurosceptics and UKIP would try and block this blatant gerrymandering, that said Labour and the SNP would probably support Cameron should he go down this route.
Mr. Antifrank, the Liberal Greens? The United Kingdom Democrats? Plaid Libdemyru? The Liberal Liberal Democrats?
The Greens look like the best choice. They have complementary strengths. Both would need to compromise a lot though. Neither is ready to do it without exceptional leadership on both sides. Neither party has exceptional leadership.
Mad Nat Bennett would be an interesting choice as leader of the combined party.
Speaking from a country which had a recent referendum: The problem for the No side comes when they run out of figures who can skilfully use the media. If they do not recruit fairly senior Conservative or Labour communicators, they will simply be outclassed in public debate, and Yes will sway the apathetic voter.
Mr. Jessop, mildly surprised a UKIP campaign would alter your view. Surely if you think we're better off out, we're better off out?
My position is roughly as follows:
*) I'm mildly peeved with the EU as it is, but not enough to leave. Given the uncertainties of out, this is an argument to vote in.
*) However, the EU wants to move towards further integration, and I do not want this, especially as it would mean eventually joining the Euro. This means there are also uncertainties on the 'in' side, as we would not be voting on an EU that will remain in aspic. This is an argument to vote out, and is most persuasive to me at the moment.
Therefore I am undecided, and could vote either way. Therefore the campaigns are likely to persuade me one way or the other. However it is likely that a UKIP-led campaign would focus on things in a way I would find abhorrent. A such, it would make me less likely to vote out.
Mr. Foxinsox, I think AV was kicked due to its daftness, rather than as a proxy for whacking Lib Dems [perhaps an added bonus for some].
Also, you're making two separate arguments: stating a referendum can be used to kick a mid-term government and then saying it could be used against BOO Conservatives and UKIP, whereas the 'official' Conservative position is near certain to be In. I agree some on the right [Farage] will put off many, but if people want to kick the Government/Cameron, they'll vote Out.
What's the possibility of the government's official position being neutral, or even out?
In the Out camp will be half the Tories and the near entirety of UKIP, plus the odd unrepresentative maverick in other parties.
The In camp will have a few Tories (though most either grudgingly or agnostic) and the near entirety of other parties in the country.
Combined with the fact that it was the Tories that wanted the referendum (why have it at all if truly a party of In?), the referendum will be an opportunity to kick the Tories where it hurts, perhaps bringing about a fatal split.
Suits me!
"why have it at all if truly a party of In?"
They want to give the people a choice. Labour do not. The EU has changed massively since the last referendum, and it makes sense to ask people if they like those changes. I see this as a positive thing.
I'm still not sure which way I'll vote, although I'm veering towards out because of the EU's jerky movement towards further integration. But a negative UKIP-led out campaign would probably make me vote in.
An 'in' campaign led by people with the attitude you state above ("kick the Tories where it hurts") would make me vote out.
It will be a motivator for some. Referenda are decided by many factors, sometimes even the issue in question, but the attitude of the Tories to Europe is ambivalent at best. They will be seen as the party of Out, whatever mealy mouthed formula they come up with.
It would have been a very different Sindyref if Gordon Brown was PM. These things matter more than they ought to.
Mr. Jessop, Out requires the EU to effectively have the other 27 heads of government defecate in a bucket and have it delivered to Number Ten.
I can't believe they'd do that. If they persuaded Cameron to vote Out, they'd also persuade millions of Britons.
Neutral's more possible. If Cameron allows ministers to campaign for Out then neutral might be the position [but as the Prime Minister and probably most of the Cabinet will be for In then In will still be seen to have the Government's stamp of approval, I think].
Cameron is negotiating in his official capacity as Prime Minister - ie, the head of the UK government. If he recommends a Yes vote, then that has to be the government position, doesn't it? Thus, those that want to campaign for a No will have to leave the government. If he does not recommend a Yes, he surely has to recommend a No. He can't spend two years negotiating and then say he doesn't know.
STEPHEN POLLARD: Why I, a Labour writer, believe that after 115 years...THE PARTY'S OVER.
"One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it.
They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7....
Just over three weeks ago, all the leadership contenders were signed up to a programme for government that promised to keep spending money we didn't have and would reverse the Coalition's welfare reforms.
Now, they'd have us believe they are more careful with taxpayers' money and tougher on welfare than the Tories have ever been. It's not just shameless – it takes the rest of us for fools.....
Let's assume that they really do mean what they say, and that a Labour Party led by Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall really would be pro-business, radical on welfare and take an axe to public spending. In which case, one has to ask: What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?....
The real problem is that the three candidates simply have no serious alternative but to do just that: To ditch the existing policies.....
Because now we know that a Left-wing party, with Left-wing policies, just can't work – and the latest version has been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, just as it was when Labour took a Left-wing swerve in 1983 and in 1987.
That, by definition, leaves only the centre ground as an option for Labour. But with the Tories now bang square in the middle of the centre ground, where on earth can Labour go?"
So TSE is relying on the polls again. LOL RITALOL!
I would expect polling on a simple two-choice question to be more accurate than on a general election where most people had a minimum of four choices to vote for.
But that's an interesting question: how accurate were the polls before the AV vote?
STEPHEN POLLARD: Why I, a Labour writer, believe that after 115 years...THE PARTY'S OVER.
"One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it.
They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7....
Just over three weeks ago, all the leadership contenders were signed up to a programme for government that promised to keep spending money we didn't have and would reverse the Coalition's welfare reforms.
Now, they'd have us believe they are more careful with taxpayers' money and tougher on welfare than the Tories have ever been. It's not just shameless – it takes the rest of us for fools.....
Let's assume that they really do mean what they say, and that a Labour Party led by Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall really would be pro-business, radical on welfare and take an axe to public spending. In which case, one has to ask: What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?....
The real problem is that the three candidates simply have no serious alternative but to do just that: To ditch the existing policies.....
Because now we know that a Left-wing party, with Left-wing policies, just can't work – and the latest version has been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, just as it was when Labour took a Left-wing swerve in 1983 and in 1987.
That, by definition, leaves only the centre ground as an option for Labour. But with the Tories now bang square in the middle of the centre ground, where on earth can Labour go?
STEPHEN POLLARD: Why I, a Labour writer, believe that after 115 years...THE PARTY'S OVER.
A glass half empty chap, isn't he? The centre ground will shift, or the Tories away from the centre ground, or some other event that begins to eke away at the Tories current advantage, at some point.
Though I did like this
If a Conservative Party led by an Old Etonian is more instinctively in tune with what working people want than the Labour Party, then that label has become something of a sad joke.
STEPHEN POLLARD: Why I, a Labour writer, believe that after 115 years...THE PARTY'S OVER.
"One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it.
They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7....
Just over three weeks ago, all the leadership contenders were signed up to a programme for government that promised to keep spending money we didn't have and would reverse the Coalition's welfare reforms.
Now, they'd have us believe they are more careful with taxpayers' money and tougher on welfare than the Tories have ever been. It's not just shameless – it takes the rest of us for fools.....
Let's assume that they really do mean what they say, and that a Labour Party led by Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall really would be pro-business, radical on welfare and take an axe to public spending. In which case, one has to ask: What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?....
The real problem is that the three candidates simply have no serious alternative but to do just that: To ditch the existing policies.....
Because now we know that a Left-wing party, with Left-wing policies, just can't work – and the latest version has been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, just as it was when Labour took a Left-wing swerve in 1983 and in 1987.
That, by definition, leaves only the centre ground as an option for Labour. But with the Tories now bang square in the middle of the centre ground, where on earth can Labour go?"
Some interesting ideas, but the idea that Stephen Pollard is in any way a "Labour writer" is a little far-fetched, to say the least - unless, that is, by "Labour writer" he means someone who dislikes the Labour party and has been writing negative articles about it for many years.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
So TSE is relying on the polls again. LOL RITALOL!
The UK just doesn't feel like it's going to leave the EU.
Welcome to the new era where gut feeling beats polls!
You'd have thought a Yes/No would be relatively easy to poll, though turnout will have to be factored in.
They said yesterday that the question was changed due to so many people not knowing we are currently in the EU. Shows that many people don't care at all about almost everything other than their own very narrow sphere.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
We have a referendum, 40 years after the last one. We have no way of knowing when another would come. We do know the EU wants more and more integration. This may be the only shot in our lifetime to leave.
Mr. Observer, I'd rather like that
"After two years hard negotiating, I can finally reveal that I'm not sure whether we should be in or not. Over to you."
STEPHEN POLLARD: Why I, a Labour writer, believe that after 115 years...THE PARTY'S OVER.
"One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it.
They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7....
Just over three weeks ago, all the leadership contenders were signed up to a programme for government that promised to keep spending money we didn't have and would reverse the Coalition's welfare reforms.
Now, they'd have us believe they are more careful with taxpayers' money and tougher on welfare than the Tories have ever been. It's not just shameless – it takes the rest of us for fools.....
Let's assume that they really do mean what they say, and that a Labour Party led by Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall really would be pro-business, radical on welfare and take an axe to public spending. In which case, one has to ask: What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?....
The real problem is that the three candidates simply have no serious alternative but to do just that: To ditch the existing policies.....
Because now we know that a Left-wing party, with Left-wing policies, just can't work – and the latest version has been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, just as it was when Labour took a Left-wing swerve in 1983 and in 1987.
That, by definition, leaves only the centre ground as an option for Labour. But with the Tories now bang square in the middle of the centre ground, where on earth can Labour go?
Rubbish. The centrist Tony Blair beat the pants off the centrist John Major even with the centrist Paddy Ashdown around.
The centreground is where elections are won.
Agreed. There will always be a centre ground. On a scale of 0 - 10, this is somewhere between 4.5 - 5.5. People through circumstances moves within it. If you imagine a bell curve, it's the narrow vertical slice in the middle but 80% of the population resides there - always.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
:STFU:
LOL, fluffy 180 degrees out as ever
He calls himself fluffy for nothing !
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have used the Hodrick-Prescott filter to decompose real GDP for the G7 countries into cyclical and trend components. The resulting series of cyclical components were then examined for static relationships, using correlations and graphs, long-run relationships using ADL models, and short-run relationships, using error-correction models. The main results are that evidence has been found that since 1960 the patterns of cyclical behaviour have changed. There was low variability in the 1960s but the oil shocks in the 1970s increased cyclical fluctuations. However, since 1980 cyclical fluctuations have declined as a result of a decline in synchronisation of the cycles in these countries, and two separate cycles seem to be developing since 1990. One is for Germany, Italy and France, whilst the other is for the US, UK and Canada. Within each of these groups there are both long-run and short-run relationships between the cyclical components of GDP. Whether these two cycles are a short-run statistical artefact will become apparent in the next few years.
So TSE is relying on the polls again. LOL RITALOL!
I would expect polling on a simple two-choice question to be more accurate than on a general election where most people had a minimum of four choices to vote for.
But that's an interesting question: how accurate were the polls before the AV vote?
Morning all,
I'd say polling on EU ref now is pointless and tells us little or nothing. Most people have not even remotely got involved with the issue. The DK on these figures look way to low to me.
What I want to know from the BOO team: can they guarantee my (Portuguese passport wielding) Mother-in-Law will have to leave the country in the event of a "No" win?
What I want to know from the BOO team: can they guarantee my (Portuguese passport wielding) Mother-in-Law will have to leave the country in the event of a "No" win?
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
So TSE is relying on the polls again. LOL RITALOL!
I would expect polling on a simple two-choice question to be more accurate than on a general election where most people had a minimum of four choices to vote for.
But that's an interesting question: how accurate were the polls before the AV vote?
Morning all,
I'd say polling on EU ref now is pointless and tells us little or nothing. Most people have not even remotely got involved with the issue. The DK on these figures look way to low to me.
Good morning!
We've had decades of moaning and whining about the EU, and it did more than anything else to bring down the Conservatives in 1997. The arguments are pretty well rehearsed.
True, it's a long way out and it'll become a hot(ter) topic. But I genuinely wonder how many people don't have a view on the EU, even if that view is instinctive and based on b/s.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
:STFU:
LOL, fluffy 180 degrees out as ever
How? What was wrong.
Is he wrong that its seven years since the recession? Because that's a fact. It is seven years since we last entered recession, and six year since we left it, which is why its so risk that we still have a major deficit - another recession could be around the corner.
Or do you think he's wrong that Gormless Brown is a countryman of yours? Or that he was responsible for our economy previously, as both are again facts.
The low point on turnout is probably the AV referendum, which had 42% on what was seen as a technical matter. The highpoint is probably the GE, at 65%. Both sides will have difficulties in GOTV: Out is strongest among the elderly (very high) and the lowest income groups (very low).
The joker for referendums in Britain is that they are rare enough that people are tempted to use them to bash the Government of the day, which will help Out. But the structural weight of nearly every major politician that people have heard of recommending In makes it hard to see how Out can win: people will have Cameron+Lab leader+LibDem leader+SNP leader+Plaid leader+the CBI+the TUC vs... Farage... some Tory dissidents and ... the head of JCB diggers. In 1975, people thought it would be close and Out assembled an array of non-politicians to back up Benn and Powell, but it wasn't remotely enough.
One of the many bad aspects of referenda is that they are used to kick mid term governments. The AV referendum was used to kick the LibDems for example.
The Conservatives will have a lot of BOOers amongst their MPs and often rather unappealing ones. The other parties will be pretty solid for In. The temptation to kick Tory Europhobes and Nigel Farage will be hard to resist.
I think this factor points to In not Out.
What is wrong with using the term eurosceptic? Europhobe implies an irrational fear of the EU. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical of the direction the EU is going in. Very few people are in favour of further integration.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
Any number? Name eighteen then.
And don't think you can claim that Churchill was portrayed 'favourably' in a documentary in which the starring hero's contribution consisted mostly of lying in a box.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
Any number? Name eighteen then.
And don't think you can claim that Churchill was portrayed 'favourably' in a documentary in which the starring hero's contribution consisted mostly of lying in a box.
There was a week of programs on the BBC commemorating his death (I recorded them all), and they were invariably positive towards him. It probably was not far off a dozen, especially as retreads of previous histories of him were shown and there were several live broadcasts. And very interesting they were too.
I didn't see the program in question, so might be well out of order. But Churchill was a great man who made many mistakes, and we should not whitewash over them.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
Any number? Name eighteen then.
And don't think you can claim that Churchill was portrayed 'favourably' in a documentary in which the starring hero's contribution consisted mostly of lying in a box.
You either did not see it, then, or did not understand it.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
:STFU:
LOL, fluffy 180 degrees out as ever
How? What was wrong.
Is he wrong that its seven years since the recession? Because that's a fact. It is seven years since we last entered recession, and six year since we left it, which is why its so risk that we still have a major deficit - another recession could be around the corner.
Or do you think he's wrong that Gormless Brown is a countryman of yours? Or that he was responsible for our economy previously, as both are again facts.
It is the turnip's fixation that Brown was Scottish , bit like yourself a dribbling Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
Come now, that's amateur political wonk talk. Though in fairness it does feel like it's been fought for several years already.
England ending up about 30 runs behind NZ, or if the final wicket can get a few, maybe close to the same score. Weird game. Not much of an excuse from the middle order after being given such a solid platform.
The only certainty about Labour's future is that it will never form another UK government before 2020. Probably.
You need 7 by-election wins. This could be the only way Lib Dems could make an impact.
Firstly you need 7 by-elections.
This is a good point actually. One reason why Major struggled to hang on to his majority was the sheer age of his parliamentary party. In 1997 I am told, although I don't have the source to hand, that the average Conservative MP was (a) male and (b) 64. Given that men die younger than women, that was obviously asking for a series of by-elections. I think part of the problem was middle-aged men elected in the 1970s hanging on to seats they thought were safe and not making way for someone younger, but at that time politics was also generally not thought of as something you did when younger, or at least, not in the Tory party. I suspect now that even allowing for a few old warhorses like Clarke or Redwood or Davies the average age would be an awful lot lower - that seems likely to have an impact on the number of possible by-elections.
It should be noted that the number of by-elections per parliament has dropped steadily anyway over the last 100 years. Between 1910 and 1914 20 seats changed hands (mostly Lib to Unionist), not counting a substantial number of holds/returned unopposed etc. From 1992 to 1997 there were 10 (eight from the Conservatives, not counting five defections to other parties and several temporary suspensions over Maastricht). In the 2010-2015 parliament I think I am right in saying the equivalent was four - Bradford West, Corby, Clacton and Rochester - plus a couple of Labour holds and one Liberal Democrat hold. If that were to be repeated this time, Cameron would still have a working majority in 2020.
Besides, to form a government before 2020, Labour need an awful lot more than 7 by-election wins. Adding in the DUP and UUP and deleting SF, I make it something like 30 by-election wins as a more plausible number - which hasn't happened (if memory serves) since the 1880s (not forgetting that series of by-elections in Northern Ireland in 1986, which skewed the figures somewhat).
Come now, that's amateur political wonk talk. Though in fairness it does feel like it's been fought for several years already.
England ending up about 30 runs behind NZ, or if the final wicket can get a few, maybe close to the same score. Weird game. Not much of an excuse from the middle order after being given such a solid platform.
Complete opposite of Lord's.
25 runs is not enough to change anyone's game plan.
Is he wrong that its seven years since the recession? Because that's a fact. It is seven years since we last entered recession, and six year since we left it, which is why its so risk that we still have a major deficit - another recession could be around the corner.
Or do you think he's wrong that Gormless Brown is a countryman of yours? Or that he was responsible for our economy previously, as both are again facts.
Mr PhilipThompson:
One rule that I think should be mandatory on this site is: "Please do not intervene in other posters' bitch fights". If posters wish to exemplify their ignorance than we should allow them to do so. My response - posted above - should be more than sufficient to put them back on their potties...!
As per the "comments" by the clowns-and-jokers I care not: They may shod themselves with slip-ons only because their 'guardians' are not available to tie their laces. I know or care nuffinck.
On another point: Nick, what is it about Labour and JCB? Roger hates Bamford with a passion (seemingly for the cardinal sin of being a Conservative donor), and you seemed to dismiss him rather lightly below. Which is odd, as he's done more for the country than either of you have or ever will.
We should listen to Bamford because he runs exactly the sort of company we need more of in this country, and which, according to the EU feshishists, should be in support of the EU. The fact he is not is important.
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
It is the turnip's fixation that Brown was Scottish , bit like yourself a dribbling Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
It's only fair to point out Malcolm that although there have been an awful lot of truly awesomely useless PMs, Brown has always been placed at or near the top of that particular pile by both the public and experts. His only possible rivals for the slot would be Goderich (1827-28) and Rosebery (1894-95) perhaps with the Duke of Portland or Lord Shelburne hanging around in the offing.
But that had nothing to do with his nationality and everything to do with his personality defects - arrogance, rudeness, intellectual dishonesty etc.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
Any number? Name eighteen then.
And don't think you can claim that Churchill was portrayed 'favourably' in a documentary in which the starring hero's contribution consisted mostly of lying in a box.
There was a week of programs on the BBC commemorating his death (I recorded them all), and they were invariably positive towards him. It probably was not far off a dozen, especially as retreads of previous histories of him were shown and there were several live broadcasts. And very interesting they were too.
I didn't see the program in question, so might be well out of order. But Churchill was a great man who made many mistakes, and we should not whitewash over them.
SouthamObserver was referencing Churchill: The Nation's Farewell which is described in the blurb as "...Jeremy Paxman tells the story of the send-off which Britain gave..." so there was a great deal of stiffness about Churchill's involvement in that documentary.
You didn't miss anything at all by not watching it. A bit of pub trivia about the crane dipping on the Thames and trade union representation at the funeral being sparse are the only bits I remember. The Telegraph review described it as "bland" and even the family only bothered to call Paxman an "egotist" for his presentation style ... which is pretty much like calling water 'wet'.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
The BBC carried a programme that mostly had nothing to do with Churchill losing the 1945 General election,like Churchill supposed to be a racist,drunk,crap at the first world war and his war speeches were done after the war on tape.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
From what I know of him (and one of his main factories is nearby) a lot of the success of the company is down to him - and he's also got the respect of his workforce. But I agree with your second point. He's the sort of person the Out campaign should have on their literature as a heavyweight business endorsement, but not somebody they could send on to Question Time or Newsnight.
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
From what I know of him (and one of his main factories is nearby) a lot of the success of the company is down to him - and he's also got the respect of his workforce. But I agree with your second point. He's the sort of person the Out campaign should have on their literature as a heavyweight business endorsement, but not somebody they could send on to Question Time or Newsnight.
I was at university with Nick Bamford, and he was a super nice guy. Haven't seen him since, mind.
< The BBC carried a programme that mostly had nothing to do with Churchill losing the 1945 General election,like Churchill supposed to be a racist,drunk,crap at the first world war and his war speeches were done after the war on tape.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
I didn't watch the programme but I am puzzled as to why this person was invited on at all:
He has no expertise in the area that I can judge, no qualifications in history, his work appears to be almost entirely self-published and he's clearly completely mad. It would be the equivalent of asking David Irving for his views on Churchill (before you ask, Irving hates Churchill almost as much as he does the Jews).
If they wanted a hostile interpretation of Churchill, David Cannadine could have obliged - and it would have borne some kind of legitimate imprimatur rather than just been a dose of sub-Marxist pseudo-intellectualism.
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
rcs1000 was right the other day - nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote as they have little stake in the matter.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
rcs1000 was right the other day - nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote as they have little stake in the matter.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
Surely people's votes should be weighted by how much tax they contribute.
What was the age differential on turnout in the AV referendum? I'm too lazy to look myself, but plenty of posters on here seem to have endless free time and good understanding of where to get these things
< The BBC carried a programme that mostly had nothing to do with Churchill losing the 1945 General election,like Churchill supposed to be a racist,drunk,crap at the first world war and his war speeches were done after the war on tape.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
I didn't watch the programme but I am puzzled as to why this person was invited on at all:
He has no expertise in the area that I can judge, no qualifications in history, his work appears to be almost entirely self-published and he's clearly completely mad. It would be the equivalent of asking David Irving for his views on Churchill (before you ask, Irving hates Churchill almost as much as he does the Jews).
If they wanted a hostile interpretation of Churchill, David Cannadine could have obliged - and it would have borne some kind of legitimate imprimatur rather than just been a dose of sub-Marxist pseudo-intellectualism.
If you're Cameron, honestly, you should get the quiet agreement to back your renegotiation (and thus "in") from your top team. Perhaps an abstention from IDS to stay out the limelight.
Then you can safely remove collective cabinet responsibility. The party's not going to collapse because Whittingdale wants out, after all.
On another point: Nick, what is it about Labour and JCB? Roger hates Bamford with a passion (seemingly for the cardinal sin of being a Conservative donor), and you seemed to dismiss him rather lightly below. Which is odd, as he's done more for the country than either of you have or ever will.
We should listen to Bamford because he runs exactly the sort of company we need more of in this country, and which, according to the EU feshishists, should be in support of the EU. The fact he is not is important.
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
I presume you have the same opinion of all of the pro-EU businessmen/women - that they do not have any kind of authority on the national economic position? Or is it just eurosceptic business leaders who that applies to?
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
rcs1000 was right the other day - nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote as they have little stake in the matter.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
Surely people's votes should be weighted by how much tax they contribute.
Not sure about that because it could get very complicated. For example, VAT is an EU tax so in theory paying more of that should get you a higher vote-weighting. Likewise the carbon stuff. On the other hand the telly tax wouldn't count towards your vote as that pays for BBC pro-EU propaganda anyway and you're effectively paying a campaign contribution.
Actually, that's a point. Are there going to be declarable campaign contributions? My UK property is held as a company so I reckon my telly tax becomes a valid tax deduction for the campaign.
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
rcs1000 was right the other day - nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote as they have little stake in the matter.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
Surely people's votes should be weighted by how much tax they contribute.
Just go back to the 1832 Reform Act: No more Labour.
I still think FPTP - 125K+1 - electoral constituencies will be best. Lewisham - despite being a Labour slum-hole - has 2.5 seats for a population approaching 285,000. No doubt the Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns* will believe that this population deserves to be under represented....
Cut Westminster down: Cull the ungratefuls. Once complete: Then allocate seats on a per-head-of-population basis. Members at Westminster should represent all their constituents!
We need to allocate resources with confidence and efficiency: Selling our future potential to Labour -safe-seats within the Jockanese-Parish - may give Labour a glimmer of hope but will not salve English voters (c.f. 2015GE). PR within tight-containers is not the answer either: We need MPs to reflect the population within HM Kingdom. Time for England to stand-up and say 'Nae-muir!".
It is the turnip's fixation that Brown was Scottish , bit like yourself a dribbling Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
It's only fair to point out Malcolm that although there have been an awful lot of truly awesomely useless PMs, Brown has always been placed at or near the top of that particular pile by both the public and experts. His only possible rivals for the slot would be Goderich (1827-28) and Rosebery (1894-95) perhaps with the Duke of Portland or Lord Shelburne hanging around in the offing.
But that had nothing to do with his nationality and everything to do with his personality defects - arrogance, rudeness, intellectual dishonesty etc.
ydoethur, I do agree that he was entirely useless, as you say his nationality has nothing to add to the debate , but was being used to promote anti-Scottish sentiments only.
Does worry me that younger people are not voting as much and those older are making the decision, which would affect the country longer after they have departed. Those who want out of the EU may be more motivated to vote, than those who want to remain in. Cameron is taking a dangerous step in trying to heal the Tory party split on the EU. His problems may be worse after the referendum result.
rcs1000 was right the other day - nobody over 70 should be allowed to vote as they have little stake in the matter.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
Surely people's votes should be weighted by how much tax they contribute.
points for tax paid , and property owned should be mandatory, converted to number of votes and system would be far superior.
The BBC did not brand him anything. The BBC carried a programme in which Churchill was portrayed unfavourably; just as the BBC has also run any number of documentaries and dramas in which he is portrayed very favourably. The one Jeremy Paxman did earlier this year on Churchill's funeral was an outstanding example of this.
The BBC carried a programme that mostly had nothing to do with Churchill losing the 1945 General election,like Churchill supposed to be a racist,drunk,crap at the first world war and his war speeches were done after the war on tape.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
Fact that he was a complete arse helps them though.
< The BBC carried a programme that mostly had nothing to do with Churchill losing the 1945 General election,like Churchill supposed to be a racist,drunk,crap at the first world war and his war speeches were done after the war on tape.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
I didn't watch the programme but I am puzzled as to why this person was invited on at all:
He has no expertise in the area that I can judge, no qualifications in history, his work appears to be almost entirely self-published and he's clearly completely mad. It would be the equivalent of asking David Irving for his views on Churchill (before you ask, Irving hates Churchill almost as much as he does the Jews).
If they wanted a hostile interpretation of Churchill, David Cannadine could have obliged - and it would have borne some kind of legitimate imprimatur rather than just been a dose of sub-Marxist pseudo-intellectualism.
It's hard to play the ball not the man when you begin by saying IDNWTP.
def: Someone from England that comments upon Scots and their politics (irrelevant of knowledge); c.f. the postings of our knuckle-dragging Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns.
def: A member of said Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns (knowlege not required).
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
I presume you have the same opinion of all of the pro-EU businessmen/women - that they do not have any kind of authority on the national economic position? Or is it just eurosceptic business leaders who that applies to?
Yes, I doubt if any individual business chief has a particular authority on the national economic position. And certainly I don't want the head of British Airways or someone like that running the Yes campaign. As Ydo says, it makes sense to quote senior businesspeople as being pro or anti, but as supporting evidence rather than in lead roles, simply because they're not personally well known.
The No problem is that they only have one really well-known spokesman and it's Farage. Everyone else - even, say, Hannan or Hoey - is second division by comparison in terms of public recognition. Do they go for Farage, or for the second division?
On another point: Nick, what is it about Labour and JCB? Roger hates Bamford with a passion (seemingly for the cardinal sin of being a Conservative donor), and you seemed to dismiss him rather lightly below. Which is odd, as he's done more for the country than either of you have or ever will.
We should listen to Bamford because he runs exactly the sort of company we need more of in this country, and which, according to the EU feshishists, should be in support of the EU. The fact he is not is important.
He's an individual who runs an important company. Whether their performance is down to him personally is something that I don't know, but it doesn't make him any kind of authority on the national economic position. My point, though, was that he'd be ineffective as the spearhead of a No campaign, simply because most people have never heard of him. It's not his fault or JCB's, just a fact.
I probably know more about JCB and the Bamfords than most (when I was a kid I used to go to their product launches and displays - pure rock 'n roll) (*), but I think you rather underestimate their brand strength. I was just in Morrisons, where they had a toy JCB by the checkouts for kids to play on. They also sell branded builder's equipment and clothing. JCB is a not insignificant brand.
People may not know Anthony Bamford, but they sure as heck are aware of the JCB brand, and I'd reckon it equates with success.
It is also a highly successful British business with massive exports. They were totally family-owned (still are?), and Anthony has been running it for forty years, and he has changed it from a small player in the UK to a massive worldwide company. You'd be a fool not to listen to what he says about UK business.
I suggest you rethink your post.
(*) As an aside, I went to school right about the JCB factory in Rocester, which led to a few funny occurrences when my dad asked me to fetch some spares during school hours.
def: Someone from England that comments upon Scots and their politics (irrelevant of knowledge); c.f. the postings of our knuckle-dragging Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns.
def: A member of said Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns (knowlege not required).
def: Someone from England that comments upon Scots and their politics (irrelevant of knowledge); c.f. the postings of our knuckle-dragging Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns.
def: A member of said Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns (knowlege not required).
:grow-a-pair-scotland:
Dearie me,
I cannae play C20: So a simple song from the past.
Mr Jessop, re JCB. Don't you rather think you are overstating your case a bit? Mr Bamford is perfectly entitled to any view he likes and we can listen to his points, but would you accept the view of the chief of say Nissan or BMW or JLR or Honda who have invested huge sums onto the UK and who export a lot of output.
Mr Jessop, re JCB. Don't you rather think you are overstating your case a bit? Mr Bamford is perfectly entitled to any view he likes and we can listen to his points, but would you accept the view of the chief of say Nissan or BMW or JLR or Honda who have invested huge sums onto the UK and who export a lot of output.
I was mainly commenting on Nick's comments about Bamford not being an authority on the country's economic position, or his part in the company's success.
The main advantage Bamford's support gives out is that it is a respectable counter view too one of in's memes - that out would be terrible for business.
It is the turnip's fixation that Brown was Scottish , bit like yourself a dribbling Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
It's only fair to point out Malcolm that although there have been an awful lot of truly awesomely useless PMs, Brown has always been placed at or near the top of that particular pile by both the public and experts. His only possible rivals for the slot would be Goderich (1827-28) and Rosebery (1894-95) perhaps with the Duke of Portland or Lord Shelburne hanging around in the offing.
But that had nothing to do with his nationality and everything to do with his personality defects - arrogance, rudeness, intellectual dishonesty etc.
ydoethur, I do agree that he was entirely useless, as you say his nationality has nothing to add to the debate , but was being used to promote anti-Scottish sentiments only.
Scottish people have had every opportunity to rise to the top of all spheres of life in the UK. In doing so they have more than played their part in enriching all of us. Inevitably a fair share of them have been totally useless. Left wing politics has unfortunately for the whole country not been a very successful example of Scottish influence.
@ydoethur I misread David Cannadine with David Carradine. Though from what I've read on here - walking the world as a monk called Kwai Chang Caine seems like a better option for him.
... If the economy is rattling along at the time of the referendum I suspect the Ins will be arguing don't ruin it. Also if the EZ picks up (with or without Greece) the argument that we are stuck with a millstone will have some effect. At the moment, and subject to revisions, the EZ growth in Q1 exceeded ours. The argument that we are stuck in a declining trading group as the world marches ahead was quite a good one and could lose some force if the EZ picks up.
Ok,
You are both Scottish and a lawyer: Do not emphasise your ignorance. The UK has - historically - been linked to the US economic-cycle and not that of the EU. We enter earlier and recover sooner: 2015 should be a slow-down (if you follow a seven-year cycle). The fact that we are doing quite well is due to the idoicy of your fellow country; one Gormless McBruin; over-inflating things prior to 2008.
:STFU:
LOL, fluffy 180 degrees out as ever
How? What was wrong.
Is he wrong that its seven years since the recession? Because that's a fact. It is seven years since we last entered recession, and six year since we left it, which is why its so risk that we still have a major deficit - another recession could be around the corner.
Or do you think he's wrong that Gormless Brown is a countryman of yours? Or that he was responsible for our economy previously, as both are again facts.
It is the turnip's fixation that Brown was Scottish , bit like yourself a dribbling Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
It isn't EDL to refer to the fact that Brown was Scottish, it is totally factual. What is the problem there, is it simply that you are embarrassed to be associated with the most recent Scottish Prime Minister?
I'm sure nobody from Scotland has ever named Thatcher or Cameron as being English have they?
While its totally ironic for a nationalist who wants a Little Scotland to be independent to be denigrating others as Little Englanders. That's surely what you want so how is that an insult coming from you?
Comments
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-there-is-a-referendum-on-britains-membership-of-the-european-union-how-will#table
Unless the Lib Dems can quickly answer the question of what they are for, they should look to merge with another party.
It could, perversely, help Out more. As I suggested below, if Scotland's seen as a bastion of In, bloody-minded Englishmen might prefer to vote Out.
They want to give the people a choice. Labour do not. The EU has changed massively since the last referendum, and it makes sense to ask people if they like those changes. I see this as a positive thing.
I'm still not sure which way I'll vote, although I'm veering towards out because of the EU's jerky movement towards further integration. But a negative UKIP-led out campaign would probably make me vote in.
An 'in' campaign led by people with the attitude you state above ("kick the Tories where it hurts") would make me vote out.
Edited extra bit: good point, Mr. Calum.
Welcome to the new era where gut feeling beats polls!
*) I'm mildly peeved with the EU as it is, but not enough to leave. Given the uncertainties of out, this is an argument to vote in.
*) However, the EU wants to move towards further integration, and I do not want this, especially as it would mean eventually joining the Euro. This means there are also uncertainties on the 'in' side, as we would not be voting on an EU that will remain in aspic. This is an argument to vote out, and is most persuasive to me at the moment.
Therefore I am undecided, and could vote either way. Therefore the campaigns are likely to persuade me one way or the other. However it is likely that a UKIP-led campaign would focus on things in a way I would find abhorrent. A such, it would make me less likely to vote out.
It would have been a very different Sindyref if Gordon Brown was PM. These things matter more than they ought to.
"One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it.
They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7....
Just over three weeks ago, all the leadership contenders were signed up to a programme for government that promised to keep spending money we didn't have and would reverse the Coalition's welfare reforms.
Now, they'd have us believe they are more careful with taxpayers' money and tougher on welfare than the Tories have ever been. It's not just shameless – it takes the rest of us for fools.....
Let's assume that they really do mean what they say, and that a Labour Party led by Burnham, Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall really would be pro-business, radical on welfare and take an axe to public spending. In which case, one has to ask: What exactly is the point of the Labour Party now?....
The real problem is that the three candidates simply have no serious alternative but to do just that: To ditch the existing policies.....
Because now we know that a Left-wing party, with Left-wing policies, just can't work – and the latest version has been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, just as it was when Labour took a Left-wing swerve in 1983 and in 1987.
That, by definition, leaves only the centre ground as an option for Labour. But with the Tories now bang square in the middle of the centre ground, where on earth can Labour go?"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3104147/STEPHEN-POLLARD-Labour-writer-believe-115-years-PARTY-S-OVER.html
But that's an interesting question: how accurate were the polls before the AV vote?
The centreground is where elections are won.
Though I did like this
If a Conservative Party led by an Old Etonian is more instinctively in tune with what working people want than the Labour Party, then that label has become something of a sad joke.
We have a referendum, 40 years after the last one. We have no way of knowing when another would come. We do know the EU wants more and more integration. This may be the only shot in our lifetime to leave.
Mr. Observer, I'd rather like that
"After two years hard negotiating, I can finally reveal that I'm not sure whether we should be in or not. Over to you."
:clowns-to-the-left-of-me-jokers-to-the-right:
I'd say polling on EU ref now is pointless and tells us little or nothing. Most people have not even remotely got involved with the issue. The DK on these figures look way to low to me.
Family's fury as BBC brands Churchill 'an enemy of the people': New documentary depicts former Prime Minister as a deeply hated drunk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3104159/Family-s-fury-BBC-brands-Churchill-enemy-people-New-documentary-depicts-former-Prime-Minister-deeply-hated-drunk.html
http://eureferendum.com/documents/Leaving the EU.pdf
More likely for the Tories to call and lose an early election despite the FTPA.
We've had decades of moaning and whining about the EU, and it did more than anything else to bring down the Conservatives in 1997. The arguments are pretty well rehearsed.
True, it's a long way out and it'll become a hot(ter) topic. But I genuinely wonder how many people don't have a view on the EU, even if that view is instinctive and based on b/s.
Is he wrong that its seven years since the recession? Because that's a fact. It is seven years since we last entered recession, and six year since we left it, which is why its so risk that we still have a major deficit - another recession could be around the corner.
Or do you think he's wrong that Gormless Brown is a countryman of yours? Or that he was responsible for our economy previously, as both are again facts.
And don't think you can claim that Churchill was portrayed 'favourably' in a documentary in which the starring hero's contribution consisted mostly of lying in a box.
The following are typical:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31041370
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/churchills-state-funeral
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b050qztn
I didn't see the program in question, so might be well out of order. But Churchill was a great man who made many mistakes, and we should not whitewash over them.
Little Englander. Plenty of useless PM@s of other nationalities to give comparisons to , but no just the usual EDL crap.
England ending up about 30 runs behind NZ, or if the final wicket can get a few, maybe close to the same score. Weird game. Not much of an excuse from the middle order after being given such a solid platform.
It should be noted that the number of by-elections per parliament has dropped steadily anyway over the last 100 years. Between 1910 and 1914 20 seats changed hands (mostly Lib to Unionist), not counting a substantial number of holds/returned unopposed etc. From 1992 to 1997 there were 10 (eight from the Conservatives, not counting five defections to other parties and several temporary suspensions over Maastricht). In the 2010-2015 parliament I think I am right in saying the equivalent was four - Bradford West, Corby, Clacton and Rochester - plus a couple of Labour holds and one Liberal Democrat hold. If that were to be repeated this time, Cameron would still have a working majority in 2020.
Besides, to form a government before 2020, Labour need an awful lot more than 7 by-election wins. Adding in the DUP and UUP and deleting SF, I make it something like 30 by-election wins as a more plausible number - which hasn't happened (if memory serves) since the 1880s (not forgetting that series of by-elections in Northern Ireland in 1986, which skewed the figures somewhat).
Not to be picky TSE, but that's not the implication of the figures...
25 runs is not enough to change anyone's game plan.
One rule that I think should be mandatory on this site is: "Please do not intervene in other posters' bitch fights". If posters wish to exemplify their ignorance than we should allow them to do so. My response - posted above - should be more than sufficient to put them back on their potties...!
As per the "comments" by the clowns-and-jokers I care not: They may shod themselves with slip-ons only because their 'guardians' are not available to tie their laces. I know or care nuffinck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIOjah-bnDc
Yours,
:cynical-as-ever:
But that had nothing to do with his nationality and everything to do with his personality defects - arrogance, rudeness, intellectual dishonesty etc.
You didn't miss anything at all by not watching it. A bit of pub trivia about the crane dipping on the Thames and trade union representation at the funeral being sparse are the only bits I remember. The Telegraph review described it as "bland" and even the family only bothered to call Paxman an "egotist" for his presentation style ... which is pretty much like calling water 'wet'.
The programme was just a far left reply to the other Churchill documentaries,a programme that made Churchill look a right bast**d.
A pathectic attempt by the bbc to equal things up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_John_Douglass
He has no expertise in the area that I can judge, no qualifications in history, his work appears to be almost entirely self-published and he's clearly completely mad. It would be the equivalent of asking David Irving for his views on Churchill (before you ask, Irving hates Churchill almost as much as he does the Jews).
If they wanted a hostile interpretation of Churchill, David Cannadine could have obliged - and it would have borne some kind of legitimate imprimatur rather than just been a dose of sub-Marxist pseudo-intellectualism.
We should probably go further and give two votes to pregnant women.
It would also help if we started to take children away from UKIP-supporting parents .... ah, scrub the last one ... that's already happened.
I'm too lazy to look myself, but plenty of posters on here seem to have endless free time and good understanding of where to get these things
Then you can safely remove collective cabinet responsibility. The party's not going to collapse because Whittingdale wants out, after all.
For example, VAT is an EU tax so in theory paying more of that should get you a higher vote-weighting. Likewise the carbon stuff. On the other hand the telly tax wouldn't count towards your vote as that pays for BBC pro-EU propaganda anyway and you're effectively paying a campaign contribution.
Actually, that's a point. Are there going to be declarable campaign contributions? My UK property is held as a company so I reckon my telly tax becomes a valid tax deduction for the campaign.
I still think FPTP - 125K+1 - electoral constituencies will be best. Lewisham - despite being a Labour slum-hole - has 2.5 seats for a population approaching 285,000. No doubt the Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns* will believe that this population deserves to be under represented....
Cut Westminster down: Cull the ungratefuls. Once complete: Then allocate seats on a per-head-of-population basis. Members at Westminster should represent all their constituents!
We need to allocate resources with confidence and efficiency: Selling our future potential to Labour -safe-seats within the Jockanese-Parish - may give Labour a glimmer of hope but will not salve English voters (c.f. 2015GE). PR within tight-containers is not the answer either: We need MPs to reflect the population within HM Kingdom. Time for England to stand-up and say 'Nae-muir!".
* With added David Herdson support.
def: Someone from England that comments upon Scots and their politics (irrelevant of knowledge); c.f. the postings of our knuckle-dragging Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns.
def: A member of said Jockanese-troupe-of-clowns (knowlege not required).
:grow-a-pair-scotland:
The No problem is that they only have one really well-known spokesman and it's Farage. Everyone else - even, say, Hannan or Hoey - is second division by comparison in terms of public recognition. Do they go for Farage, or for the second division?
For instance:
http://www.licensing.biz/news/read/jcb-reveals-fleet-of-new-licensing-deals/042066
People may not know Anthony Bamford, but they sure as heck are aware of the JCB brand, and I'd reckon it equates with success.
It is also a highly successful British business with massive exports. They were totally family-owned (still are?), and Anthony has been running it for forty years, and he has changed it from a small player in the UK to a massive worldwide company. You'd be a fool not to listen to what he says about UK business.
I suggest you rethink your post.
(*) As an aside, I went to school right about the JCB factory in Rocester, which led to a few funny occurrences when my dad asked me to fetch some spares during school hours.
http://www.vice.com/read/diggerland-is-a-paradise-for-the-ages-593
He will be assimilated. ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbT0DpMb7i0
See you in the
newcurrent milleniumn.[And for the knuckle-draggers; something from the past....]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq7JSic1DtM
Probably available on BetaMax. Recycle your own mistakes.
The main advantage Bamford's support gives out is that it is a respectable counter view too one of in's memes - that out would be terrible for business.
Which is probably why Nick wants to bash him.
Shame summer is over.
I wonder how long autumn will last?
I'm sure nobody from Scotland has ever named Thatcher or Cameron as being English have they?
While its totally ironic for a nationalist who wants a Little Scotland to be independent to be denigrating others as Little Englanders. That's surely what you want so how is that an insult coming from you?