It's because it remains massive - and Ofcom's view is that despite huge competition and 30yrs post privatisation, it can't be allowed to swap revenues between divisions or even product sets. Things may have changed a teeny bit in the last ten years - but the notion of bundling for a discount etc was a total no no.
For example, when we were first rolling out bband - we had to include the sunk costs of the copper into the pricing for it, as otherwise the home phone charge was x-subbing another service.
We used to spend hours and hours a week discussing how not to fall foul of Ofcom and still create products that would sell. Working in such a tightly regulated environment comes as a shock to newbies who simply can't see the logic in it.
Before I worked for BT, I was with Mercury Communications and that was so different = we just made things up as we went along.
Ofcom's rules on cross-sub for BT are very very tight. There's none going on with this. It's about investing to change your business model into content delivery rather than just lines and others making the money from the delivered items
I used to work with Regulatory Affairs for BT. If it's caught out = it's a 10% fine on its turnover... And I worked for BT's wholesale division that sells services to other network operators and ISPs
Absolute madness, on one level Sky must be laughing their socks off. £70m a year for the right to broadcast cricket in the middle of the night? Who is bankrolling this idiocy?
It is we BT phone and broadband customers who are bankrolling this.
Prepare for your bills to start going up soon then...
They already have.
That said, a few years ago I was paying £45 a month for 1 meg broadband,
Now for around £65 a month, I'm getting lots of sports channels and 60 meg broadband
Incidentally, not that i know anything about it, but isn't there a chance that they might start facing challenges about cross-subsidisation across their various platforms? Ultimately what BT sport shows should be paid for by BT sport viewers. There will be plenty of BT phone/broadband users who couldn't give a monkeys what is shown on the sports channel but are paying for it anyway.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Well as suspected the Tory majority has gone up to 36.
Jeremy Corbyn is still ready to give up Ulster to Ireland if he ever becomes Prime Minister, The Sun can reveal.
The leftwing MP – odds on to be crowned new Labour boss in 19 days time – confirmed in a recent TV interview that he still believes in a united Ireland.
Unionists labelled his views as “dangerous” at a time of new instability in Northern Irish politics as it gives Sinn Fein and IRA separatists’ legitimacy
I see the caption on the photo in that story describes 'former IRA bosses Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness'. Does not Adams still deny ever having been in the IRA and if so, do papers just ignore the denials now (it's not as though it will hurt or help him for such an allegation to be made)?
My view has always been it makes no real difference either way, given his elevated position (unlike rank and file SF members who can, possibly, conceivably and believably claim not to have been involved in IRA dealings), but some still insist on making the distinction.
He does, but people from the Irish PM downwards have accused him of being a member of the IRA/a member of the IRA council and he's never sued anyone who has accused him of making that allegation.
On the earlier debate about the issues that Cameron would campaign on in the referendum (ie. broad 'risks' of exit, rather than detail of negotiation etc). This is interpreted as meaning that either he doesn't expect to get anything meaningful from negotiation. When actually there are ultimately two different issues - the negotiation and the referendum. There is (obviously) no poliitcal consensus in the country about what would be considered achievements from renegotiation. Cameron may or may not have his own ideas, but ultimately it is irrelevant (unless of course he chose to advise "No", which isn't likely). He could get what the Conservative Party, or even the right of the Conservative party might consider an absolute stonkingly good deal, and it doesn't follow that such a deal would appeal to the wider country.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
There is much comment on the quality, or lack of it, of all of the candidates for Labour leader. I cannot recall anyone saying voters (even those who have paid for the privilege) are spoilt for choice in terms of quality. There is quality within PLP (not a lot I grant you) but none want to have a go this time and all have convenient non political reasons for their shyness. All politicians will tell you (some with fingers crossed) that they came into politics to change things. To change things you need power i.e. ambition. The ultimate in that game is to be PM and first you need to lead your party, ergo all of those "quality" Labour leadership contenders with any chance of making PM, see this election as a step away from rather than towards power, leaving the field open to the bunch of chancers now on view.
I assumed Umunna was waiting for next time, as the most likely attack he would have faced would have been youth and inexperience, which would be nullified by a few more year perhaps, although that wouldn't explain why he announced and then pulled out so I guess his reasons for pulling out this time were genuine
I think we can be pretty certain that he didn't pull out for the reasons he gave at the time.
The media pulled back from what they were going to throw at him after his withdrawal. They won't do that again
Not bad? Brown lost 91 seats and over 6% of the vote since 2005, he took Labour from its most electorally successful period in its history to its second lowest share of the vote since 1918. Post indyref even Brown would probably have lost Scotland, he was lucky he left office before it occurred
I said 'not bad' for a losing party!
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
On the earlier debate about the issues that Cameron would campaign on in the referendum (ie. broad 'risks' of exit, rather than detail of negotiation etc). This is interpreted as meaning that either he doesn't expect to get anything meaningful from negotiation. When actually there are ultimately two different issues - the negotiation and the referendum. There is (obviously) no poliitcal consensus in the country about what would be considered achievements from renegotiation. Cameron may or may not have his own ideas, but ultimately it is irrelevant (unless of course he chose to advise "No", which isn't likely). He could get what the Conservative Party, or even the right of the Conservative party might consider an absolute stonkingly good deal, and it doesn't follow that such a deal would appeal to the wider country.
There were a few interesting articles in the Sunday Times about the upcoming referendum, the one that caught the eye was the one that said OUT have signed up as Chief Executive Matthew Elliott, the Chief Exec of the No2AV campaign, so he knows how to win plebiscites.
The other interesting aspect is they are going to make the initial focus of the campaign about the economic benefits of leaving the EU.
They aren't going to keep on banging on about immigrations like Farage, as they know that and Farage will put off the voters they need to win the referendum.
Ofcom's rules on cross-sub for BT are very very tight. There's none going on with this. It's about investing to change your business model into content delivery rather than just lines and others making the money from the delivered items
I used to work with Regulatory Affairs for BT. If it's caught out = it's a 10% fine on its turnover... And I worked for BT's wholesale division that sells services to other network operators and ISPs
Absolute madness, on one level Sky must be laughing their socks off. £70m a year for the right to broadcast cricket in the middle of the night? Who is bankrolling this idiocy?
It is we BT phone and broadband customers who are bankrolling this.
Prepare for your bills to start going up soon then...
They already have.
That said, a few years ago I was paying £45 a month for 1 meg broadband,
Now for around £65 a month, I'm getting lots of sports channels and 60 meg broadband
Incidentally, not that i know anything about it, but isn't there a chance that they might start facing challenges about cross-subsidisation across their various platforms? Ultimately what BT sport shows should be paid for by BT sport viewers. There will be plenty of BT phone/broadband users who couldn't give a monkeys what is shown on the sports channel but are paying for it anyway.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because we only have one set of telephone wires going from the exchange (assuming we ignore cable). BT Openreach are responsible for maintaining and operating the infrastructure. They charge providers a fee for accessing these lines. All telecom providers are supposed to be treated equally. eg BT retail (a call centre in Bangalore and little else), talktalk, sky etc etc.
For BT, it would be great to keep upping this access charge, because none of the increases would impact on BT Retail as it would just be falling back into the same parent company. Hence it is strongly regulated.
There is no price regulation of the telecoms industry outside the access charges from openreach.
There is much comment on the quality, or lack of it, of all of the candidates for Labour leader. I cannot recall anyone saying voters (even those who have paid for the privilege) are spoilt for choice in terms of quality. There is quality within PLP (not a lot I grant you) but none want to have a go this time and all have convenient non political reasons for their shyness. All politicians will tell you (some with fingers crossed) that they came into politics to change things. To change things you need power i.e. ambition. The ultimate in that game is to be PM and first you need to lead your party, ergo all of those "quality" Labour leadership contenders with any chance of making PM, see this election as a step away from rather than towards power, leaving the field open to the bunch of chancers now on view.
I assumed Umunna was waiting for next time, as the most likely attack he would have faced would have been youth and inexperience, which would be nullified by a few more year perhaps, although that wouldn't explain why he announced and then pulled out so I guess his reasons for pulling out this time were genuine
I was ready to vote for style over substance as a route to winning in 2020. When Chukka chucked it in that option was no longer available so I have decided it is therefore time for the Labour party to give Socialism a try.
Actually, for a losing party 258 seat share isn't that bad. Brown also left Labour with Scotland - which meant, given that Cameron's Tories didn't actually have a majority, Labour were in a far better position to bounce back than the Tories in 1997. That Miliband actually made Labour's position much, much worse - makes him far worse than Brown IMHO.
Naught but PB Tory Propaganda from Miss Apocalypse!
Ed's vote share went UP to 30.4% versus only 29.0% for Gordon!
But he lost the votes:seats ratio advantage.
Bourgeois Hearsay from Monkeys!
We will all have to learn how to spell bourgeois soon. But the proletariat will also have to learn about the differences between facts and hearsay.
Well as suspected the Tory majority has gone up to 36.
Jeremy Corbyn is still ready to give up Ulster to Ireland if he ever becomes Prime Minister, The Sun can reveal.
The leftwing MP – odds on to be crowned new Labour boss in 19 days time – confirmed in a recent TV interview that he still believes in a united Ireland.
Unionists labelled his views as “dangerous” at a time of new instability in Northern Irish politics as it gives Sinn Fein and IRA separatists’ legitimacy
The fantastic thing about Corbyn is that not only is radically left wing, but he believes even his most absurd beliefs are "principled" so he is happy to reveal them to the nation.
Right now he believes in fully giving into the IRA, sharing the Falklands with Argentina, considering Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, defending a vicious anti-Semite as "an honoured citizen", and removing barriers on immigration.
UKIP should have a field day with the white working class.
Well as suspected the Tory majority has gone up to 36.
Jeremy Corbyn is still ready to give up Ulster to Ireland if he ever becomes Prime Minister, The Sun can reveal.
The leftwing MP – odds on to be crowned new Labour boss in 19 days time – confirmed in a recent TV interview that he still believes in a united Ireland.
Unionists labelled his views as “dangerous” at a time of new instability in Northern Irish politics as it gives Sinn Fein and IRA separatists’ legitimacy
The fantastic thing about Corbyn is that not only is radically left wing, but he believes even his most absurd beliefs are "principled" so he is happy to reveal them to the nation.
Right now he believes in fully giving into the IRA, sharing the Falklands with Argentina, considering Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, defending a vicious anti-Semite as "an honoured citizen", and removing barriers on immigration.
UKIP should have a field day with the white working class.
"fully giving into the IRA"? This is really backward rhetoric, as if you are either Unionist or IRA.
Ofcom's rules on cross-sub for BT are very very tight. There's none going on with this. It's about investing to change your business model into content delivery rather than just lines and others making the money from the delivered items
I used to work with Regulatory Affairs for BT. If it's caught out = it's a 10% fine on its turnover... And I worked for BT's wholesale division that sells services to other network operators and ISPs
Absolute madness, on one level Sky must be laughing their socks off. £70m a year for the right to broadcast cricket in the middle of the night? Who is bankrolling this idiocy?
It is we BT phone and broadband customers who are bankrolling this.
Prepare for your bills to start going up soon then...
They already have.
That said, a few years ago I was paying £45 a month for 1 meg broadband,
Now for around £65 a month, I'm getting lots of sports channels and 60 meg broadband
Incidentally, not that i know anything about it, but isn't there a chance that they might start facing challenges about cross-subsidisation across their various platforms? Ultimately what BT sport shows should be paid for by BT sport viewers. There will be plenty of BT phone/broadband users who couldn't give a monkeys what is shown on the sports channel but are paying for it anyway.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because we only have one set of telephone wires going from the exchange (assuming we ignore cable). BT Openreach are responsible for maintaining and operating the infrastructure. They charge providers a fee for accessing these lines. All telecom providers are supposed to be treated equally. eg BT retail (a call centre in Bangalore and little else), talktalk, sky etc etc.
For BT, it would be great to keep upping this access charge, because none of the increases would impact on BT Retail as it would just be falling back into the same parent company. Hence it is strongly regulated.
There is no price regulation of the telecoms industry outside the access charges from openreach.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Well at the end of the day you can only judge a party leader on their election record, Foot may have been a great orator but he also led Labour to its worst result since 1918 and the defection of prominent figures to the SDP. Brown led the move away from Blairism which led Labour to its present difficulties and did even worse in 2010 than Miliband did in 2015.
I never said anything about Callaghan, although he was defeated in 1979 he still led Labour to a respectable 36% of the vote
I don't agree - Kinnock for example never won a GE, but he was a great Labour leader in the sense that he saved the party from the hard left. He also paved the way for New Labour to exist in the first place. Brown despite losing in 2010, lost with 258 seats in a system where seat share matters far more than vote share - it was Miliband who saw make practically no progress on 2010. It doesn't really matter if he improved Labour's vote share by a measley 1% or 2% if it isn't in the right places in order to increase seat share. Brown may have led the move away from Blairism but Labour's biggest issue today is not that they aren't Blairite enough - after all the main Blairite candidate Kendall, is well a bit rubbish tbqf. Brown did also bring back Campbell and Mandelson, and at least knew the importance of having a strong team, and a successful party machine - Miliband brought in Lucy Powell FFS.
@Omnium Well I agree: Ed Miliband should have an academic rather than a politician.
Ok, he's useless. Let's give him a job teaching our kids.
That is unkind to pupils and increases the chances that the perception of the teaching profession sinks.
Well I am a university student, tbf.
I think Miliband is useless at politics - that doesn't mean he's useless at everything!
A mature one if I may say so.
Nah. Ms Apocalypse is quite young. Anyone old enough to remember Kinnock rather than read about him would not make a case for him as a successful leader. Even me and I voted Labour in 92!
I had thought this was a blog but I can now see it's a confessional.
There is much comment on the quality, or lack of it, of all of the candidates for Labour leader. I cannot recall anyone saying voters (even those who have paid for the privilege) are spoilt for choice in terms of quality. There is quality within PLP (not a lot I grant you) but none want to have a go this time and all have convenient non political reasons for their shyness. All politicians will tell you (some with fingers crossed) that they came into politics to change things. To change things you need power i.e. ambition. The ultimate in that game is to be PM and first you need to lead your party, ergo all of those "quality" Labour leadership contenders with any chance of making PM, see this election as a step away from rather than towards power, leaving the field open to the bunch of chancers now on view.
I assumed Umunna was waiting for next time, as the most likely attack he would have faced would have been youth and inexperience, which would be nullified by a few more year perhaps, although that wouldn't explain why he announced and then pulled out so I guess his reasons for pulling out this time were genuine
I was ready to vote for style over substance as a route to winning in 2020. When Chukka chucked it in that option was no longer available so I have decided it is therefore time for the Labour party to give Socialism a try.
Why not give capitalism a try. There is just as much logic in that.
I wonder if the Republic of Ireland are particularly enamoured with the prospect of the LOTO advocating a United Ireland? Not exactly a potential problem they really want to have to deal with.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because BT was gifted the broadband network which was built using taxpayer money. It may have evolved since then but it is basically still the same PSTN copper network with bits of fibre bolted on in differing thicknesses. Whatever one says about Sky, their main money maker (TV) was built ground up by their own ingenuity and a merger with another private company.
BT are raising their prices on non-sporting customers to pay for their sports rights and TV venture. Personally I think it is time for Openreach to be spun off, protected by law from a foreign takeover and allow it to invest its profits back into the national broadband network. The way BT have prioritised TV/Sports over fibre is pretty poor, the decision should be taken out of their hands. BT can reinvest their paltry consumer division profits into their TV venture but wholesale and network profits should be pumped back into the network. I don't see why I, as a Sky customer, am forced to pay for BT's sports rights because Sky are forced to rent their BB lines from Openreach. The telecoms industry is not a level playing field in this country and the faster the likes of Hyperoptic and the new Sky/TalkTalk lone ventures take off the better. BT has rested on its laurels for far too long and neither the regulator or the government have done enough to force it to invest.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
Hmm, this isn't even asking "what would you do" but "what do you think other people will do".
Burnham also led with yougov, Mori and ORB, it has been consistent
"Led" by a tiny amount, perhaps. "None of the above" beats all of them.
Yes, but 'none of the above' is not a candidate is it. As I said Alan Johnson or David Miliband poll better than all of them but neither of them are running so Labour has to go with what it has
The point is that the differences between the candidates are too small to be a reliable test of what will happen in 5 years time and thus certainly too small to be worth using as a reason to vote for one candidate over another.
I've got lots of things I will consider before I vote in a couple of weeks. Polling ain't going to be one of them.
The 'differences between the candidates are too small'?? There is a Pacific Ocean sized difference between Kendall on one side and Corbyn on the other. If Labour refuse to listen to polling of the public as they did in 2010 when they ignored the polling showing David Miliband preferred to Ed then do not be surprised if the voters refuse to listen back!
There is a tiny difference between them in the polling.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
The YES campaign are very sensible to liaise with the EU on how to present their case, just as the NO campaign should liaise on what the terms of Brexit should be. Otherwise both sides are selling a pig in a poke.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
Ofcom's rules on cross-sub for BT are very very tight. There's none going on with this. It's about investing to change your business model into content delivery rather than just lines and others making the money from the delivered items
I used to work with Regulatory Affairs for BT. If it's caught out = it's a 10% fine on its turnover... And I worked for BT's wholesale division that sells services to other network operators and ISPs
Absolute madness, on one level Sky must be laughing their socks off. £70m a year for the right to broadcast cricket in the middle of the night? Who is bankrolling this idiocy?
It is we BT phone and broadband customers who are bankrolling this.
Prepare for your bills to start going up soon then...
They already have.
That said, a few years ago I was paying £45 a month for 1 meg broadband,
Now for around £65 a month, I'm getting lots of sports channels and 60 meg broadband
ewers. There will be plenty of BT phone/broadband users who couldn't give a monkeys what is shown on the sports channel but are paying for it anyway.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
ky etc etc.
For BT, it would be great to keep upping this access charge, because none of the increases would impact on BT Retail as it would just be falling back into the same parent company. Hence it is strongly regulated.
There is no price regulation of the telecoms industry outside the access charges from openreach.
Im not sure what they do. BT retail is an appalling company, its customer support is dreadful to non existent and the products it offers are poor value for money. The company would have died and shrivelled away ten years ago if it wasnt for its brand recognition. There are so many great communications providers out there, why on earth would anyone choose BT? Plusnet (ironically owned by BT), great price, great reliability great customer service. The same could be said for Sky.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
The YES campaign are very sensible to liaise with the EU on how to present their case, just as the NO campaign should liaise on what the terms of Brexit should be. Otherwise both sides are selling a pig in a poke.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
The debate about the UK's future in the EU should be a debate for the British public. Former government ministers should not be coddling up with a foreign entity, which has a vested interest in our staying, in how to best spin PR to manipulate British public opinion.
I guess now we know why the In side wanted to eliminate purdah: it's so the whole might of the European Commission, and all the taxpayer money behind them, can be used to back one side.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because BT was gifted the broadband network which was built using taxpayer money. It may have evolved since then but it is basically still the same PSTN copper network with bits of fibre bolted on in differing thicknesses. Whatever one says about Sky, their main money maker (TV) was built ground up by their own ingenuity and a merger with another private company.
BT are raising their prices on non-sporting customers to pay for their sports rights and TV venture. Personally I think it is time for Openreach to be spun off, protected by law from a foreign takeover and allow it to invest its profits back into the national broadband network. The way BT have prioritised TV/Sports over fibre is pretty poor, the decision should be taken out of their hands. BT can reinvest their paltry consumer division profits into their TV venture but wholesale and network profits should be pumped back into the network. I don't see why I, as a Sky customer, am forced to pay for BT's sports rights because Sky are forced to rent their BB lines from Openreach. The telecoms industry is not a level playing field in this country and the faster the likes of Hyperoptic and the new Sky/TalkTalk lone ventures take off the better. BT has rested on its laurels for far too long and neither the regulator or the government have done enough to force it to invest.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Not bad? Brown lost 91 seats and over 6% of the vote since 2005, he took Labour from its most electorally successful period in its history to its second lowest share of the vote since 1918. Post indyref even Brown would probably have lost Scotland, he was lucky he left office before it occurred
I said 'not bad' for a losing party!
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
Well as suspected the Tory majority has gone up to 36.
Jeremy Corbyn is still ready to give up Ulster to Ireland if he ever becomes Prime Minister, The Sun can reveal.
The leftwing MP – odds on to be crowned new Labour boss in 19 days time – confirmed in a recent TV interview that he still believes in a united Ireland.
Unionists labelled his views as “dangerous” at a time of new instability in Northern Irish politics as it gives Sinn Fein and IRA separatists’ legitimacy
The fantastic thing about Corbyn is that not only is radically left wing, but he believes even his most absurd beliefs are "principled" so he is happy to reveal them to the nation.
Right now he believes in fully giving into the IRA, sharing the Falklands with Argentina, considering Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, defending a vicious anti-Semite as "an honoured citizen", and removing barriers on immigration.
UKIP should have a field day with the white working class.
"fully giving into the IRA"? This is really backward rhetoric, as if you are either Unionist or IRA.
No, it isn't. There are a variety of positions between full unionism and fully giving away Northern Ireland. Corbyn is at one extreme of that: the IRA's position, in fact.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
The YES campaign are very sensible to liaise with the EU on how to present their case, just as the NO campaign should liaise on what the terms of Brexit should be. Otherwise both sides are selling a pig in a poke.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
The debate about the UK's future in the EU should be a debate for the British public. Former government ministers should not be coddling up with a foreign entity, which has a vested interest in our staying, in how to best spin PR to manipulate British public opinion.
I guess now we know why the In side wanted to eliminate purdah: it's so the whole might of the European Commission, and all the taxpayer money behind them, can be used to back one side.
The case is the same as the Sindy ref. rUK politicians had a right to express their views (such as denying the possibility of a Sterling Union) but the vote was for Scots. The EU ref is the same.
Since I spent a decade there and 4yrs before with MCL - I feel I can comment with some knowledge.
BT Retail includes consumers, businesses, mobile, internet services, op services, billing, customer service, sales, compliance, marketing... Then there's BT Global Services, and Wholesale and Openreach. And then BT Corp does the HQ stuff
BT was at it's low point after the dotcom bubble burst. Sounds like you've had a poor experience, I went back to them after poor service from others. I'm going to Sky at the end of this month as Plusnet are hiking my charges. BT is more expensive for what I want to buy.
Ofcom's rules on cross-sub for BT are very very tight. There's none going on with this. It's about investing to change your business model into content delivery rather than just lines and others making the money from the delivered items
I used to work with Regulatory Affairs for BT. If it's caught out = it's a 10% fine on its turnover... And I worked for BT's wholesale division that sells services to other network operators and ISPs
Absolute madness, on one level Sky must be laughing their socks off. £70m a year for the right to broadcast cricket in the middle of the night? Who is bankrolling this idiocy?
It is we BT phone and broadband customers who are bankrolling this.
Prepare for your bills to start going up soon then...
They already have.
That said, a few years ago I was paying £45 a month for 1 meg broadband,
Now for around £65 a month, I'm getting lots of sports channels and 60 meg broadband
ewers. There will be plenty of BT phone/broadband users who couldn't give a monkeys what is shown on the sports channel but are paying for it anyway.
snip
snip
Im not sure what they do. BT retail is an appalling company, its customer support is dreadful to non existent and the products it offers are poor value for money. The company would have died and shrivelled away ten years ago if it wasnt for its brand recognition. There are so many great communications providers out there, why on earth would anyone choose BT? Plusnet (ironically owned by BT), great price, great reliability great customer service. The same could be said for Sky.
Actually first crisis (assuming no immediate coup attempt in the PLP) for Corbyn will probably be an interesting one considering the upcoming Mayoral contest (and Labour nomination announced on same day as Labour leadership i think). If Corbyn is announced as leader on Sept 12th, then the RMT will probably re-affiliate on Sept 13th. No doubt there will be a tube strike shortly afterwards...
Not bad? Brown lost 91 seats and over 6% of the vote since 2005, he took Labour from its most electorally successful period in its history to its second lowest share of the vote since 1918. Post indyref even Brown would probably have lost Scotland, he was lucky he left office before it occurred
I said 'not bad' for a losing party!
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband. That Ed Miliband managed to do worse than a bad ex-Chancellor who ruled under a depression says everything. And as for the Tories, they should have won that GE, prior to that they had crazy 20-point leads and destroyed Labour in the 2009 council elections.
There is much comment on the quality, or lack of it, of all of the candidates for Labour leader. I cannot recall anyone saying voters (even those who have paid for the privilege) are spoilt for choice in terms of quality. There is quality within PLP (not a lot I grant you) but none want to have a go this time and all have convenient non political reasons for their shyness. All politicians will tell you (some with fingers crossed) that they came into politics to change things. To change things you need power i.e. ambition. The ultimate in that game is to be PM and first you need to lead your party, ergo all of those "quality" Labour leadership contenders with any chance of making PM, see this election as a step away from rather than towards power, leaving the field open to the bunch of chancers now on view.
I assumed Umunna was waiting for next time, as the most likely attack he would have faced would have been youth and inexperience, which would be nullified by a few more year perhaps, although that wouldn't explain why he announced and then pulled out so I guess his reasons for pulling out this time were genuine
I was ready to vote for style over substance as a route to winning in 2020. When Chukka chucked it in that option was no longer available so I have decided it is therefore time for the Labour party to give Socialism a try.
How will that happen? Corbyn bypasses socialism (I'm not a believer so lower case will do) on the way to marxism (same rationale) and to who knows where.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
The YES campaign are very sensible to liaise with the EU on how to present their case, just as the NO campaign should liaise on what the terms of Brexit should be. Otherwise both sides are selling a pig in a poke.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
The debate about the UK's future in the EU should be a debate for the British public. Former government ministers should not be coddling up with a foreign entity, which has a vested interest in our staying, in how to best spin PR to manipulate British public opinion.
I guess now we know why the In side wanted to eliminate purdah: it's so the whole might of the European Commission, and all the taxpayer money behind them, can be used to back one side.
The case is the same as the Sindy ref. rUK politicians had a right to express their views (such as denying the possibility of a Sterling Union) but the vote was for Scots. The EU ref is the same.
We had purdah limiting how much the UK government could do during the Scottish referendum. This referendum will not be a fair one unless that is restored.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
UKIP are currently invisible at a national level. I wouldn't be surprised if this is deliberate because of the polarising (and negative) effect they were having on prospective referendum outcomes. This is obviously having a knock-on effect in local elections.
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because BT was gifted the broadband network which was built using taxpayer money. It may have evolved since then but it is basically still the same PSTN copper network with bits of fibre bolted on in differing thicknesses. Whatever one says about Sky, their main money maker (TV) was built ground up by their own ingenuity and a merger with another private company.
BT are raising their prices on non-sporting customers to pay for their sports rights and TV venture. Personally I think it is time for Openreach to be spun off, protected by law from a foreign takeover and allow it to invest its profits back into the national broadband network. The way BT have prioritised TV/Sports over fibre is pretty poor, the decision should be taken out of their hands. BT can reinvest their paltry consumer division profits into their TV venture but wholesale and network profits should be pumped back into the network. I don't see why I, as a Sky customer, am forced to pay for BT's sports rights because Sky are forced to rent their BB lines from Openreach. The telecoms industry is not a level playing field in this country and the faster the likes of Hyperoptic and the new Sky/TalkTalk lone ventures take off the better. BT has rested on its laurels for far too long and neither the regulator or the government have done enough to force it to invest.
Maybe Corbyn's right on this one
What? And hand over sports rights to SKY? Because without money to bid against SKY they would be able to do what they want. All this copper network stuff is rubbish. Taxpayers expense? Don't make me laugh. Does exposure to corbynite really addle the brain? Or is it really a fact that Corbyn is leading an invasion of the body-snatchers. Is everyone now who they seem?
Not bad? Brown lost 91 seats and over 6% of the vote since 2005, he took Labour from its most electorally successful period in its history to its second lowest share of the vote since 1918. Post indyref even Brown would probably have lost Scotland, he was lucky he left office before it occurred
I said 'not bad' for a losing party!
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband. That Ed Miliband managed to do worse than a bad ex-Chancellor who ruled under a depression says everything. And as for the Tories, they should have won that GE, prior to that they had crazy 20-point leads and destroyed Labour in the 2009 council elections.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
I'm not really a football fan any more, my heart was broken in 2014.
What happens if the final round is Burnham v Corbyn, which still just about looks most likely if Corbyn does not win in round 1? You have not used your final 2 votes so will have no say
Up until last week I was going to put Burnham as 3. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any better than Corbyn (who will of course be an utter disaster).
Well you may not think so, but polls have Burnham the highest rated amongst the public of the 4, anyway that is up to you
He may well have once upon a time but do we have any such survey from after Burnham started jumping on that day's bandwagon....
Hmm, this isn't even asking "what would you do" but "what do you think other people will do".
Burnham also led with yougov, Mori and ORB, it has been consistent
"Led" by a tiny amount, perhaps. "None of the above" beats all of them.
Yes, but 'none of the above' is not a candidate is it. As I said Alan Johnson or David Miliband poll better than all of them but neither of them are running so Labour has to go with what it has
I've got lots of things I will consider before I vote in a couple of weeks. Polling ain't going to be one of them.
The 'differences between the candidates are too small'?? There is a Pacific Ocean sized difference between Kendall on one side and Corbyn on the other. If Labour refuse to listen to polling of the public as they did in 2010 when they ignored the polling showing David Miliband preferred to Ed then do not be surprised if the voters refuse to listen back!
There is a tiny difference between them in the polling.
There is a bigger difference with Burnham, none of them are perfect but there are clear distinctions between their poll ratings
One hundred German nationals have died fighting for ISIS in Syria and Iraq since 2012
German interior minister Thomas de Maziere suggested 100 Germans dead As many as 700 German jihadis have joined the fight in Syria and Iraq Two German brothers appeared in ISIS's propaganda magazine 'Dabiq' after carrying out a deadly suicide bomb attack
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
UKIP are currently invisible at a national level. I wouldn't be surprised if this is deliberate because of the polarising (and negative) effect they were having on prospective referendum outcomes. This is obviously having a knock-on effect in local elections.
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
I don't see the relevance of UKIP being out of the news right now. They are still a pretty-well known party, with a very high-profile leader. Given that the current Calais crisis is more than up their street in terms of the immigration narrative/EU - and isn't exactly making the government look great (a government which isn't really popular) it's striking that UKIP aren't benefiting. Labour's problem with immigration has been around since the mid-2000s. Gordon Brown was recorded on live national TV calling a woman a 'bigot' for having concerns about immigration and yet the white working classes weren't flocking to UKIP.
Not bad? Brown lost 91 seats and over 6% of the vote since 2005, he took Labour from its most electorally successful period in its history to its second lowest share of the vote since 1918. Post indyref even Brown would probably have lost Scotland, he was lucky he left office before it occurred
I said 'not bad' for a losing party!
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
Miliband only lost seats because of the post indyref environment, Brown would have lost seats in Scotland in 2015 too. Brown's losing seats was in the context of a huge deficit and recession he contributed to and with a 60 seat majority left to him by Blair. Miliband was fighting with a party on a 29% voteshare bequethed him by Brown. All referendums are cross party and as I said Miliband did not campaign directly with the Tories
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
I'm not really a football fan any more, my heart was broken in 2014.
On the earlier debate about the issues that Cameron would campaign on in the referendum (ie. broad 'risks' of exit, rather than detail of negotiation etc). This is interpreted as meaning that either he doesn't expect to get anything meaningful from negotiation. When actually there are ultimately two different issues - the negotiation and the referendum. There is (obviously) no poliitcal consensus in the country about what would be considered achievements from renegotiation. Cameron may or may not have his own ideas, but ultimately it is irrelevant (unless of course he chose to advise "No", which isn't likely). He could get what the Conservative Party, or even the right of the Conservative party might consider an absolute stonkingly good deal, and it doesn't follow that such a deal would appeal to the wider country.
There were a few interesting articles in the Sunday Times about the upcoming referendum, the one that caught the eye was the one that said OUT have signed up as Chief Executive Matthew Elliott, the Chief Exec of the No2AV campaign, so he knows how to win plebiscites.
The other interesting aspect is they are going to make the initial focus of the campaign about the economic benefits of leaving the EU.
They aren't going to keep on banging on about immigrations like Farage, as they know that and Farage will put off the voters they need to win the referendum.
I think Alex is taking a realistic point here and on your point ,the Time's story is broadly hokum. Although what it points out is that no negotiation result will suit some people and thus Alex's point about the negotiation and the referendum tactics being 2 different things is quite valid.
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband. That Ed Miliband managed to do worse than a bad ex-Chancellor who ruled under a depression says everything. And as for the Tories, they should have won that GE, prior to that they had crazy 20-point leads and destroyed Labour in the 2009 council elections.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
Vote share is meaningless under FPTP. It's all about targeting. Targeting your message and resources to the voters that matter. Of course his vote share went up. He had to pick up some of the LibDem collapse. However because of the level of previous tactical voting, LibDem to Labour switches were almost useless. And saying "outside of Scotland he gained seats" is of no consequence when Scottish seats count every bit as much as non-scottish ones.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
I'm not really a football fan any more, my heart was broken in 2014.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
Have you managed to find phone number for SKY where you actually get through to a human being? Would like to cancel, but can never get through to anyone
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Am always skeptical that the good rates are only for the first year, and then they rack up the prices.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
Have you managed to find phone number for SKY where you actually get through to a human being? Would like to cancel, but can never get through to anyone
Yes Scottish accent through in 5 mins rang 03332 022 135. If you are not tied in or are within 31 days of contract end you will get 12 months half price if you are insistent enough guaranteed.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
Have you managed to find phone number for SKY where you actually get through to a human being? Would like to cancel, but can never get through to anyone
Yes Scottish accent through in 5 mins rang 03332 022 135. If you are not tied in or are within 31 days of contract end you will get 12 months half price if you are insistent enough guaranteed.
Miliband only lost seats because of the post indyref environment, Brown would have lost seats in Scotland in 2015 too. Brown's losing seats was in the context of a huge deficit and recession he contributed to and with a 60 seat majority left to him by Blair. Miliband was fighting with a party on a 29% voteshare bequethed him by Brown. All referendums are cross party and as I said Miliband did not campaign directly with the Tories
Miliband lost seats in England such as Southampton Itchen and Gower in Wales, so he would have still lost seats even despite Indy Ref. On IndyRef, Miliband must take some responsibility for the mishandling of the Scotland saga; he was hardly powerless to do anything. He just didn't take the possibility of losing Scotland seriously - something which Brown most likely would have. Brown did contribute to his own situation, but after more than 10 years in government it's still generally accepted that a government will start to lose seats. On vote-share; again, vote-share in FPTP is meaningless. It's all about seat-share. Major, for example actually got more than Brown in terms of vote share (30%) yet the Tories were down to 165 seats! Miliband by comparison got a far better platform in 258 seats.
To Scottish voters many saw Miliband/Labour as associated with the Tories!
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Am always skeptical that the good rates are only for the first year, and then they rack up the prices.
Most have 28 day cancellation and maximum £30 per fuel penalty and can usually save hundreds. It is my hobby since I retired.
My Gas and Electric has been moved twice in 2 years saved £250 when moved from British Gas and a further £120 when moved to first utility. U Switch is brilliant site.
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
Have you managed to find phone number for SKY where you actually get through to a human being? Would like to cancel, but can never get through to anyone
Yes Scottish accent through in 5 mins rang 03332 022 135. If you are not tied in or are within 31 days of contract end you will get 12 months half price if you are insistent enough guaranteed.
I actually dont have a problem with BT business. Massively uncompetitive pricing, but first rate customer service (which in a time sensitive environment is very necessary). You ring them up and the first person who picks the phone up is a cliche from the IT crowd. Grumpy but incredibly able. Again with other aspects of BT, i think their openreach operation is very well run. The engineers are first rate (cant say the same about the subbies they use for occasional FTTC connections though), and usually pretty fast on the ground. They do a first rate job of keeping the infrastructure up and running and the fibre roll out has really ratcheted up over the last four years.
All the other stuff, as a customer, why should i care? There are loads of internet/telephone providers out there who have nothing like the kind of setup you are referring to. BT Retail just buys a product off someone else, it doesnt even use its own backbone, it uses BT Wholesale (unlike Sky and talktalk, who i understand now are largely dependent on their own backbone past the exchange).
They are practically virtual providers who buy in products off someone else and then bill you for it.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
UKIP are currently invisible at a national level. I wouldn't be surprised if this is deliberate because of the polarising (and negative) effect they were having on prospective referendum outcomes. This is obviously having a knock-on effect in local elections.
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
I don't see the relevance of UKIP being out of the news right now. They are still a pretty-well known party, with a very high-profile leader. Given that the current Calais crisis is more than up their street in terms of the immigration narrative/EU - and isn't exactly making the government look great (a government which isn't really popular) it's striking that UKIP aren't benefiting. Labour's problem with immigration has been around since the mid-2000s. Gordon Brown was recorded on live national TV calling a woman a 'bigot' for having concerns about immigration and yet the white working classes weren't flocking to UKIP.
Populist parties are rising in the polls in many European countries at the moment, especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands and France in response to rising immigration. I think it's a bit early to say the same thing won't happen in this country, although whether UKIP will be the vehicle for that sentiment is difficult to say.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
As a lawyer, I must say I'm intrigued. Why do we stop BT from cross-subsidising? Is it because we give it state support of one description or another in the telecoms field?
Because BT was gifted the broadband network which was built using taxpayer money. It may have evolved since then but it is basically still the same PSTN copper network with bits of fibre bolted on in differing thicknesses. Whatever one says about Sky, their main money maker (TV) was built ground up by their own ingenuity and a merger with another private company.
BT are raising their prices on non-sporting customers to pay for their sports rights and TV venture. Personally I think it is time for Openreach to be spun off, protected by law from a foreign takeover and allow it to invest its profits back into the national broadband network. The way BT have prioritised TV/Sports over fibre is pretty poor, the decision should be taken out of their hands. BT can reinvest their paltry consumer division profits into their TV venture but wholesale and network profits should be pumped back into the network. I don't see why I, as a Sky customer, am forced to pay for BT's sports rights because Sky are forced to rent their BB lines from Openreach. The telecoms industry is not a level playing field in this country and the faster the likes of Hyperoptic and the new Sky/TalkTalk lone ventures take off the better. BT has rested on its laurels for far too long and neither the regulator or the government have done enough to force it to invest.
But, as Plato has said there isnt a cross subsidy from openreach to BT Retail, so there should be no price impact from the purchase of the rights for non bt retail customers.
On Monday I saved my mate over a thousand quid a year £760 on gas and electric (British Gas to Sainsburys via USwitch) and £240 Sky although he still pays £40 a month for exactly the same package I pay £23.50 for.
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Yes. Some prices are so out of whack with the competitive prices. They exist to feed off lazy consumers, for those that default to BT for phone, BG for Gas and their local (old) regional energy generator for electricity.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Am always skeptical that the good rates are only for the first year, and then they rack up the prices.
You have to be on your toes, the older companies rely on people falling back to their standard tariffs. But the newer ones arent like that. OVO are superb.
The oldest trick in the book is defaulting onto the standard rate with change of ownership and new tenancies. You get move to paying quarterly by bill until you tell them otherwise.
Its the equivalent of driving your car with a drill hole in the petrol tank.
Peter Mandelson advising EU on stopping British exit Exclusive: The former Labour minister is advising Jean-Claude Juncker and his team on their communications strategy
It's one thing to advise the UK government on how to stop a Brexit. It's quite another to advise a foreign entity with a vested interest on how to manipulate the UK.
The YES campaign are very sensible to liaise with the EU on how to present their case, just as the NO campaign should liaise on what the terms of Brexit should be. Otherwise both sides are selling a pig in a poke.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
The debate about the UK's future in the EU should be a debate for the British public. Former government ministers should not be coddling up with a foreign entity, which has a vested interest in our staying, in how to best spin PR to manipulate British public opinion.
I guess now we know why the In side wanted to eliminate purdah: it's so the whole might of the European Commission, and all the taxpayer money behind them, can be used to back one side.
The case is the same as the Sindy ref. rUK politicians had a right to express their views (such as denying the possibility of a Sterling Union) but the vote was for Scots. The EU ref is the same.
We had purdah limiting how much the UK government could do during the Scottish referendum. This referendum will not be a fair one unless that is restored.
? What purdah was that? This kind of purdah - ''Mark Carney: ‘Currency union is incompatible’ with Scottish independence The Bank of England's governor warns that an independent Scotland could not enter a formal currency union to use the pound'' (Telegraph)
Would it be in order for the BoE to reveal how it would plan to prop up the pound from collapse in the event of a NO? Should the BoE have no view? Should it ignore the view it does have in the name of purdah? Then we had ''Obama's Scottish independence intervention gets a cautious reaction ... the United States government was they would prefer a no vote''
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
You're conflating two different issues - UKIP being successful themselves (in GE seat terms) and "UKIP" causing immense damage to Labour. And i'm using "UKIP" here as code for "traditional WWC voters deserting Labour". They might not actually vote UKIP, they might not vote, or even go to the Conservatives. But can you really see them voting for a Corbynite party actually announcing a complete open door policy (even if you characterise the Blair govt as implementing such a policy, they didn't go out of their way to broadcast the fact).
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
You're conflating two different issues - UKIP being successful themselves (in GE seat terms) and "UKIP" causing immense damage to Labour. And i'm using "UKIP" here as code for "traditional WWC voters deserting Labour". They might not actually vote UKIP, they might not vote, or even go to the Conservatives. But can you really see them voting for a Corbynite party actually announcing a complete open door policy (even if you characterise the Blair govt as implementing such a policy, they didn't go out of their way to broadcast the fact).
Some of those white working-class voters would probably approve of Corbyn's 1970s economic policies but as you say his immigration policy would lose the support of most of them.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
UKIP are currently invisible at a national level. I wouldn't be surprised if this is deliberate because of the polarising (and negative) effect they were having on prospective referendum outcomes. This is obviously having a knock-on effect in local elections.
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
I don't see the relevance of UKIP being out of the news right now. They are still a pretty-well known party, with a very high-profile leader. Given that the current Calais crisis is more than up their street in terms of the immigration narrative/EU - and isn't exactly making the government look great (a government which isn't really popular) it's striking that UKIP aren't benefiting. Labour's problem with immigration has been around since the mid-2000s. Gordon Brown was recorded on live national TV calling a woman a 'bigot' for having concerns about immigration and yet the white working classes weren't flocking to UKIP.
Government isn't popular? They just went from being part of a coalition to winning a majority... What kind of measure do you use to make that 'not really popular'
The same one that sees a party quadruple their vote to an all time high as not really making an impact?
I say this as a 16 yr old who just got her GCSE results
Populist parties are rising in the polls in many European countries at the moment, especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands and France in response to rising immigration. I think it's a bit early to say the same thing won't happen in this country, although whether UKIP will be the vehicle for that sentiment is difficult to say.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
In a lot of those countries though, a form of PR exists which encourages smaller parties to grow and thrive - which is the difference. UKIP in this country have been nowhere near first place in an actual GE because not enough people take them seriously as a prospective government, even if they have sympathy with the immigration issue.
FPTP hinders hugely the growth of smaller parties, and ultimately it leads to many either not voting or voting for one the big two as a 'lesser evil option'. Voters in other European countries don't have that problem. People will mention the SNP, but in their Holyrood elections they don't even use FPTP but a part PR system (additional member system). This was how the SNP proved their were competent to govern, and produced credible figures to the Scottish electorate. It was their ability to emerge as an alternative through this system that allowed the demise of the Westminster establishment parties and their success in 2015 under FPTP. UKIP don't have their option. While they could try and build a local government base like the LDs did that will only get you so far. In UKIP's case, their divisiveness will limit them from having widespread appeal.
The issue of rising immigration has been around for a long time, it's a product of the more negative affects of globalisation such as an increase in job insecurity. But if another anti-establishment platform is going to appear in the UK, it's difficult to see where it's going to come from.
Populist parties are rising in the polls in many European countries at the moment, especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands and France in response to rising immigration. I think it's a bit early to say the same thing won't happen in this country, although whether UKIP will be the vehicle for that sentiment is difficult to say.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
In a lot of those countries though, a form of PR exists which encourages smaller parties to grow and thrive - which is the difference. UKIP in this country have been nowhere near first place in an actual GE because not enough people take them seriously as a prospective government, even if they have sympathy with the immigration issue.
FPTP hinders hugely the growth of smaller parties, and ultimately it leads to many either not voting or voting for one the big two as a 'lesser evil option'. Voters in other European countries don't have that problem. People will mention the SNP, but in their Holyrood elections they don't even use FPTP but a part PR system (additional member system). This was how the SNP proved their were competent to govern, and produced credible figures to the Scottish electorate. It was their ability to emerge as an alternative through this system that allowed the demise of the Westminster establishment parties and their success in 2015 under FPTP. UKIP don't have their option. While they could try and build a local government base like the LDs did that will only get you so far. In UKIP's case, their divisiveness will limit them from having widespread appeal.
The issue of rising immigration has been around for a long time, it's a product of the more negative affects of globalisation such as an increase in job insecurity. But if another anti-establishment platform is going to appear in the UK, it's difficult to see where it's going to come from.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband.
Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
Vote share is meaningless under FPTP. It's all about targeting. Targeting your message and resources to the voters that matter. Of course his vote share went up. He had to pick up some of the LibDem collapse. However because of the level of previous tactical voting, LibDem to Labour switches were almost useless. And saying "outside of Scotland he gained seats" is of no consequence when Scottish seats count every bit as much as non-scottish ones.
Yes and Brown lost 90 seats around 70 more than Miliband. I never said Miliband did well, just that he did better than Brown
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
UKIP are currently invisible at a national level. I wouldn't be surprised if this is deliberate because of the polarising (and negative) effect they were having on prospective referendum outcomes. This is obviously having a knock-on effect in local elections.
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
I don't see the relevance of UKIP being out of the news right now. They are still a pretty-well known party, with a very high-profile leader. Given that the current Calais crisis is more than up their street in terms of the immigration narrative/EU - and isn't exactly making the government look great (a government which isn't really popular) it's striking that UKIP aren't benefiting. Labour's problem with immigration has been around since the mid-2000s. Gordon Brown was recorded on live national TV calling a woman a 'bigot' for having concerns about immigration and yet the white working classes weren't flocking to UKIP.
Government isn't popular? They just went from being part of a coalition to winning a majority... What kind of measure do you use to make that 'not really popular'
The same one that sees a party quadruple their vote to an all time high as not really making an impact?
I say this as a 16 yr old who just got her GCSE results
A winning an election doesn't necessarily make a government popular, especially in FPTP - the government is simply viewed as the least worst option most of the time. A lot of the government's majority was really correlated to great strategizing in targeting LD seats and the SNP scare, not widing a crest of popularity.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
No he did better than Brown in voteshare across the UK and in seats in England and Wales, he only lost seats in Scotland because of post indyref which would have also hit Brown too. Brown was leading Labour with a comfortable 60 seat majority and a financial crisis he helped cause. Miliband was leading a party with a 29% voteshare left to him by Brown
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband.
Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
Vote share is meaningless under FPTP. It's all about targeting. Targeting your message and resources to the voters that matter. Of course his vote share went up. He had to pick up some of the LibDem collapse. However because of the level of previous tactical voting, LibDem to Labour switches were almost useless. And saying "outside of Scotland he gained seats" is of no consequence when Scottish seats count every bit as much as non-scottish ones.
Yes and Brown lost 90 seats around 70 more than Miliband. I never said Miliband did well, just that he did better than Brown
I suppose it depends if you define "better" as a relative or an absolute term?
Who did "better" - Major in 1992 or Howard in 2005?
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
You're conflating two different issues - UKIP being successful themselves (in GE seat terms) and "UKIP" causing immense damage to Labour. And i'm using "UKIP" here as code for "traditional WWC voters deserting Labour". They might not actually vote UKIP, they might not vote, or even go to the Conservatives. But can you really see them voting for a Corbynite party actually announcing a complete open door policy (even if you characterise the Blair govt as implementing such a policy, they didn't go out of their way to broadcast the fact).
Well, after Gillian Duffy still voting for Labour after bigot-gate, and after the party not coming close to being credible on the issue - with most Labour supporters concerned about immigration - yes, I do still see some still voting Labour. The rest will either not vote, and some will move to the Tories, a few to UKIP - but not enough to make a difference to their electoral hopes.
And while the Blair government didn't broadcast it, Brown did in a very public fashion with bigot-gate in 2010.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
You're conflating two different issues - UKIP being successful themselves (in GE seat terms) and "UKIP" causing immense damage to Labour. And i'm using "UKIP" here as code for "traditional WWC voters deserting Labour". They might not actually vote UKIP, they might not vote, or even go to the Conservatives. But can you really see them voting for a Corbynite party actually announcing a complete open door policy (even if you characterise the Blair govt as implementing such a policy, they didn't go out of their way to broadcast the fact).
Well, after Gillian Duffy still voting for Labour after bigot-gate, and after the party not coming close to being credible on the issue - with most Labour supporters concerned about immigration - yes, I do still see some still voting Labour. The rest will either not vote, and some will move to the Tories, a few to UKIP - but not enough to make a difference to their electoral hopes.
And while the Blair government didn't broadcast it, Brown did in a very public fashion with bigot-gate in 2010.
. All referendums are cross party and as I said Miliband did not campaign directly with the Tories
Miliband lost seats in England such as Southampton Itchen and Gower in Wales, so he would have still lost seats even despite Indy Ref. On IndyRef, Miliband must take some responsibility for the mishandling of the Scotland saga; he was hardly powerless to do anything. He just didn't take the possibility of losing Scotland seriously - something which Brown most likely would have. Brown did contribute to his own situation, but after more than 10 years in government it's still generally accepted that a government will start to lose seats. On vote-share; again, vote-share in FPTP is meaningless. It's all about seat-share. Major, for example actually got more than Brown in terms of vote share (30%) yet the Tories were down to 165 seats! Miliband by comparison got a far better platform in 258 seats.
To Scottish voters many saw Miliband/Labour as associated with the Tories!
In England Miliband gained 15 seats overall. Blair lost seats in government, he still left office as PM with a majority of over 60.
@HYUFD Euro elections don't mean anything since an equivalent/similar result to it wasn't seen in the GE, and that most voters don't take the Euros seriously anyway. It's more viewed as an GE to kick the governing party/establishment than anything else.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
UKIP have established themselves as the main challenger in a not insignificant number of seats. Unless they fall away completely, that puts them in a position to seriously compete for seats next time around.
. All referendums are cross party and as I said Miliband did not campaign directly with the Tories
Miliband lost seats in England such as Southampton Itchen and Gower in Wales, so he would have still lost seats even despite Indy Ref. On IndyRef, Miliband must take some responsibility for the mishandling of the Scotland saga; he was hardly powerless to do anything. He just didn't take the possibility of losing Scotland seriously - something which Brown most likely would have. Brown did contribute to his own situation, but after more than 10 years in government it's still generally accepted that a government will start to lose seats. On vote-share; again, vote-share in FPTP is meaningless. It's all about seat-share. Major, for example actually got more than Brown in terms of vote share (30%) yet the Tories were down to 165 seats! Miliband by comparison got a far better platform in 258 seats.
To Scottish voters many saw Miliband/Labour as associated with the Tories!
In England Miliband gained 15 seats overall. Blair lost seats in government, he still left office as PM with a majority of over 60.
Yes, but Miliband still lost seats in England.
Blair lost seats in 2005, that was less than ten years in government - usually after 10 years people become sick of governments, and therefore after that it become more likely they'll lose seats and lose office.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
You're conflating two different issues - UKIP being successful themselves (in GE seat terms) and "UKIP" causing immense damage to Labour. And i'm using "UKIP" here as code for "traditional WWC voters deserting Labour". They might not actually vote UKIP, they might not vote, or even go to the Conservatives. But can you really see them voting for a Corbynite party actually announcing a complete open door policy (even if you characterise the Blair govt as implementing such a policy, they didn't go out of their way to broadcast the fact).
Well, after Gillian Duffy still voting for Labour after bigot-gate, and after the party not coming close to being credible on the issue - with most Labour supporters concerned about immigration - yes, I do still see some still voting Labour. The rest will either not vote, and some will move to the Tories, a few to UKIP - but not enough to make a difference to their electoral hopes.
And while the Blair government didn't broadcast it, Brown did in a very public fashion with bigot-gate in 2010.
I know you're fighting off allcomers, but you didn't actually read my post properly. The issue is about damage to labour, not whether UKIP gain as a result.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
You're talking absolute rubbish because you can't admit you're wrong. No one mentioned seats, you said wwc were not going to UKIP.
It is conceivable that the entire wwc could vote for a party and they get very few seats, that wouldn't mean they hadn't voted for them
God you just don't know how it feels to be an orphaned, transgender 19 year old
Populist parties are rising in the polls in many European countries at the moment, especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands and France in response to rising immigration. I think it's a bit early to say the same thing won't happen in this country, although whether UKIP will be the vehicle for that sentiment is difficult to say.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
I have just negotiated a further 12 months paying Sky less than half price £23.50 per month for Sky Sports. Have now had 3 yrs at this rate.
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Yup, my Sky TV package should cost me £110 a month, I've got it down to £60 a month
Demand more they are in a very weak position having lost champions league although I understand they have agreed a deal with BT to allow sky sports customers to view some of early rounds.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
I'm not really a football fan any more, my heart was broken in 2014.
UKIP aren't even winning council elections right now, let alone having a field day with the white working class. Look at Calais crisis, in which no one in Westminster appears to have any answers to, yet white working class people are hardly flocking to UKIP.
Corbyn isn't leader yet.
Doesn't matter. If UKIP were going to make en mass in roads with the white working classes it would have happened by now - as I mentioned with the Calais crisis, yet even after that they're actually losing elections. Corbyn's views are also starting to come to prominence.
It did happen three months ago. It's why Ukip went from 3% to 12.5%
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
Vote-share in FPTP doesn't mean much when all that totals to is 1MP though, and that's in a former Conservative Seat, not even a former Labour seat. Given the hype after the Euro elections in 2014 - that UKIP were expected to get anything from 5 MPs to MPs in double figures - actually losing seats in a GE (Reckless) and your leader failing to win a seat is hardly getting there. Second doesn't mean anything in FPTP.
So what? You said wwc hadn't gone to UKIP nothing to do with seats won but votes cast
I see the WWC going to UKIP as significant in terms of seats - after all, that's the product of electoral success. If it's not in seats why else would it matter?
UKIP have established themselves as the main challenger in a not insignificant number of seats. Unless they fall away completely, that puts them in a position to seriously compete for seats next time around.
The SDP got 25% in 1983 as well, it mean that they became/established themselves as challengers to Labour after that. Given their lack of ability to take advantage of the Calais crisis now, them losing elections already, the EU ref shooting their fox tbh I can see them failing to make any more real inroads.
Yet Ed Miliband did not do worse than Brown, across the UK his voteshare was higher than Brown won and outside of Scotland he gained seats, Brown lost over 90. Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
He did do worse than Brown - Labour have a lower seat share total than in 2010. If anything it's the pure incompetence of Ed Miliband and his team that Labour gained votes in places were it generally didn't matter anyway. Under Ed Miliband marginal seats with small majorities weren't even taken! On Brown as I said before: Brown was leading Labour after 13 years and a financial crisis. Ed Miliband was leading an opposition against a party that didn't even a majority last time, and wasn't even that popular.
No he did better than Brown in voteshare across the UK and in seats in England and Wales, he only lost seats in Scotland because of post indyref which would have also hit Brown too. Brown was leading Labour with a comfortable 60 seat majority and a financial crisis he helped cause. Miliband was leading a party with a 29% voteshare left to him by Brown
As I said before vote-share doesn't matter in FPTP.
Seats in Scotland matter just as much as seats in England and Wales, we can hardly take out Scotland to try and make Miliband look good in an GE of the UK. As said before, Miliband wasn't powerless on the Scotland issue - it was already there as a problem in 2011, he had more than three years to deal with issue and didn't. We can't assume therefore that Brown would have ignored the issue to such a degree that the post-indyref fallout occurred.
. All referendums are cross party and as I said Miliband did not campaign directly with the Tories
Miliband lost seats in England such as Southampton Itchen and Gower in Wales, so he would have still lost seats even despite Indy Ref. On IndyRef, Miliband must take some responsibility for the mishandling of the Scotland saga; he was hardly powerless to do anything. He just didn't take the possibility of losing Scotland seriously - something which Brown most likely would have. Brown did contribute to his own situation, but after more than 10 years in government it's still generally accepted that a government will start to lose seats. On vote-share; again, vote-share in FPTP is meaningless. It's all about seat-share. Major, for example actually got more than Brown in terms of vote share (30%) yet the Tories were down to 165 seats! Miliband by comparison got a far better platform in 258 seats.
To Scottish voters many saw Miliband/Labour as associated with the Tories!
In England Miliband gained 15 seats overall. Blair lost seats in government, he still left office as PM with a majority of over 60.
Yes, but Miliband still lost seats in England.
Blair lost seats in 2005, that was less than ten years in government - usually after 10 years people become sick of governments, and therefore after that it become more likely they'll lose seats and lose office.
On a net basis Miliband gained seats in England. Had Blair still been leading Labour in 2010 he may not have won outright but he certainly would have won more than the 29% Brown got and probably more than 258 seats too
On vote-share - as I said before vote share doesn't really matter; it's seat share which matters in FPTP. On losing Scotland - would Brown have been dumb enough to share a 'Better Together Platform' with the Tories? I think not.
@surbiton So Ed Miliband was a completely powerless leader? The fact is, is that the loss of Scotland happened under his leadership, and therefore he has to assume some responsibility for it.
Even on seat share Brown lost 91 seats, Miliband lost only 26 and actually gained seats in England.
Brown made major speeches for 'Better Together' and I never once saw Ed Miliband share a platform with the Tories either
Yes, but for a losing party he still kept 258 seats. Miliband shouldn't have been losing any seats. Brown losing seats was within the context of 13 years in power, and a financial crisis; Miliband losing seats was in the context of being in opposition for five years versus a party who couldn't even get a majority last time. Ed Miliband was so rubbish that the Tories outright won a GE against him - not even Brown had that honor.
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The tories gained nearly 100 seats. And you still want to defend Brown because he managed 258? His was the responsibility for 13 years of misrule and the financial crisis (ie massive depression).
I'm not defending Brown as good leader, but as better leader than Ed Miliband.
Polls normally swing to the government in the closing stages and the Tories still had a 7 point lead over Labour
Vote share is meaningless under FPTP.
Yes and Brown lost 90 seats around 70 more than Miliband. I never said Miliband did well, just that he did better than Brown
I suppose it depends if you define "better" as a relative or an absolute term?
Who did "better" - Major in 1992 or Howard in 2005?
Major won 41% to Howard's 32% and 336 seats to Howard's 198 so clearly Major in 1992, though Howard did make some gains. In 2015 Miliband won a higher voteshare than Brown even if he won fewer seats and more seats in England than Brown did, it was the special circumstances of post indyref which did for him in Scotland
Comments
For example, when we were first rolling out bband - we had to include the sunk costs of the copper into the pricing for it, as otherwise the home phone charge was x-subbing another service.
We used to spend hours and hours a week discussing how not to fall foul of Ofcom and still create products that would sell. Working in such a tightly regulated environment comes as a shock to newbies who simply can't see the logic in it.
Before I worked for BT, I was with Mercury Communications and that was so different = we just made things up as we went along.
The media pulled back from what they were going to throw at him after his withdrawal. They won't do that again
Brown may had made speeches for Better Together but would he have made the decision to campaign with the Tories?
The other interesting aspect is they are going to make the initial focus of the campaign about the economic benefits of leaving the EU.
They aren't going to keep on banging on about immigrations like Farage, as they know that and Farage will put off the voters they need to win the referendum.
For BT, it would be great to keep upping this access charge, because none of the increases would impact on BT Retail as it would just be falling back into the same parent company. Hence it is strongly regulated.
There is no price regulation of the telecoms industry outside the access charges from openreach.
Right now he believes in fully giving into the IRA, sharing the Falklands with Argentina, considering Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, defending a vicious anti-Semite as "an honoured citizen", and removing barriers on immigration.
UKIP should have a field day with the white working class.
BT are raising their prices on non-sporting customers to pay for their sports rights and TV venture. Personally I think it is time for Openreach to be spun off, protected by law from a foreign takeover and allow it to invest its profits back into the national broadband network. The way BT have prioritised TV/Sports over fibre is pretty poor, the decision should be taken out of their hands. BT can reinvest their paltry consumer division profits into their TV venture but wholesale and network profits should be pumped back into the network. I don't see why I, as a Sky customer, am forced to pay for BT's sports rights because Sky are forced to rent their BB lines from Openreach. The telecoms industry is not a level playing field in this country and the faster the likes of Hyperoptic and the new Sky/TalkTalk lone ventures take off the better. BT has rested on its laurels for far too long and neither the regulator or the government have done enough to force it to invest.
Mandleson is a very effective campaigner, and should not be underestimated.
I guess now we know why the In side wanted to eliminate purdah: it's so the whole might of the European Commission, and all the taxpayer money behind them, can be used to back one side.
BT Retail includes consumers, businesses, mobile, internet services, op services, billing, customer service, sales, compliance, marketing... Then there's BT Global Services, and Wholesale and Openreach. And then BT Corp does the HQ stuff
BT was at it's low point after the dotcom bubble burst. Sounds like you've had a poor experience, I went back to them after poor service from others. I'm going to Sky at the end of this month as Plusnet are hiking my charges. BT is more expensive for what I want to buy.
Your move...
Just keep threatening to cancel.
Sounded from the Sky operative they were deep discounting more than ever,
Anyone paying full rate should ring this week they are being mugged.
Not sure if they have announced it officially
If Corbyn comes in saying that he is going to have no limits (not even pretend ones) of immigration then they (or some equivalent) will definitely take votes off Labour in droves in national elections.
Does exposure to corbynite really addle the brain?
Or is it really a fact that Corbyn is leading an invasion of the body-snatchers. Is everyone now who they seem?
He bought me a pint generosity no bounds!!
Keely Donovan married someone else!!!
Although what it points out is that no negotiation result will suit some people and thus Alex's point about the negotiation and the referendum tactics being 2 different things is quite valid.
http://www.people.com/article/megan-fox-brian-austin-green-divorce
Time for bed said Zebedee.
Big Jezza surge on on Betfair.
You have to be smart and it isnt hard, the comparison sites do it all for you.
Still seems a lot though, but not quite so ridiculous.
To Scottish voters many saw Miliband/Labour as associated with the Tories!
I say this as a disabled bisexual 6th former
My Gas and Electric has been moved twice in 2 years saved £250 when moved from British Gas and a further £120 when moved to first utility. U Switch is brilliant site.
I actually dont have a problem with BT business. Massively uncompetitive pricing, but first rate customer service (which in a time sensitive environment is very necessary). You ring them up and the first person who picks the phone up is a cliche from the IT crowd. Grumpy but incredibly able. Again with other aspects of BT, i think their openreach operation is very well run. The engineers are first rate (cant say the same about the subbies they use for occasional FTTC connections though), and usually pretty fast on the ground. They do a first rate job of keeping the infrastructure up and running and the fibre roll out has really ratcheted up over the last four years.
All the other stuff, as a customer, why should i care? There are loads of internet/telephone providers out there who have nothing like the kind of setup you are referring to. BT Retail just buys a product off someone else, it doesnt even use its own backbone, it uses BT Wholesale (unlike Sky and talktalk, who i understand now are largely dependent on their own backbone past the exchange).
They are practically virtual providers who buy in products off someone else and then bill you for it.
The latest Dutch poll puts the PVV in first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Dutch_general_election#Seats
The oldest trick in the book is defaulting onto the standard rate with change of ownership and new tenancies. You get move to paying quarterly by bill until you tell them otherwise.
Its the equivalent of driving your car with a drill hole in the petrol tank.
What purdah was that? This kind of purdah - ''Mark Carney: ‘Currency union is incompatible’ with Scottish independence
The Bank of England's governor warns that an independent Scotland could not enter a formal currency union to use the pound'' (Telegraph)
Would it be in order for the BoE to reveal how it would plan to prop up the pound from collapse in the event of a NO? Should the BoE have no view? Should it ignore the view it does have in the name of purdah?
Then we had ''Obama's Scottish independence intervention gets a cautious reaction ... the United States government was they would prefer a no vote''
The same one that sees a party quadruple their vote to an all time high as not really making an impact?
I say this as a 16 yr old who just got her GCSE results
FPTP hinders hugely the growth of smaller parties, and ultimately it leads to many either not voting or voting for one the big two as a 'lesser evil option'. Voters in other European countries don't have that problem. People will mention the SNP, but in their Holyrood elections they don't even use FPTP but a part PR system (additional member system). This was how the SNP proved their were competent to govern, and produced credible figures to the Scottish electorate. It was their ability to emerge as an alternative through this system that allowed the demise of the Westminster establishment parties and their success in 2015 under FPTP. UKIP don't have their option. While they could try and build a local government base like the LDs did that will only get you so far. In UKIP's case, their divisiveness will limit them from having widespread appeal.
The issue of rising immigration has been around for a long time, it's a product of the more negative affects of globalisation such as an increase in job insecurity. But if another anti-establishment platform is going to appear in the UK, it's difficult to see where it's going to come from.
Who did "better" - Major in 1992 or Howard in 2005?
And while the Blair government didn't broadcast it, Brown did in a very public fashion with bigot-gate in 2010.
And while the Blair government didn't broadcast it, Brown did in a very public fashion with bigot-gate in 2010.
Blair lost seats in 2005, that was less than ten years in government - usually after 10 years people become sick of governments, and therefore after that it become more likely they'll lose seats and lose office.
It is conceivable that the entire wwc could vote for a party and they get very few seats, that wouldn't mean they hadn't voted for them
God you just don't know how it feels to be an orphaned, transgender 19 year old
Seats in Scotland matter just as much as seats in England and Wales, we can hardly take out Scotland to try and make Miliband look good in an GE of the UK. As said before, Miliband wasn't powerless on the Scotland issue - it was already there as a problem in 2011, he had more than three years to deal with issue and didn't. We can't assume therefore that Brown would have ignored the issue to such a degree that the post-indyref fallout occurred.