Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
Lol - you tried the same smear against me. LDs - truly the 'nasty party'.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Indeed - they have completely ignored the polling which showed early on the Cameron was very much on the right track - now even the EU are playing catch-up. It has all been very amusing - those BBC/SKy journos are looking increasingly silly.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
OT - interesting to see Starbucks - the latest of several to offer their employees the Living wage and more. Looks like Osborne's budget may have the desired effect of replacing tax credits with private sector wages - win win for those who want to work.
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Good to know I'm not coming across as an old fogey to everyone!
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I don't know if there is evidence that Ukip radicalised public opinion - identification is difficult here. Did Ukip's rise cause rising opposition to the EU (your contention), or vice versa, or is there no chain of causation? I go with option three. Public opinion in the UK has always been sceptical since the Social Chapter at latest but something else caused Ukip to rise. Expenses, immigration and Lib Dems in government are the most compelling answers. And I believe most of the heavy lifting in the Conservative Party was done by the membership, who have chosen not to select pro-European candidates to Westminster when given the option. Unlike those other parties you mention this acted as a leftward barrier on feasible policies, and Ukip helped but I think was not the prime mover.
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I don't know if there is evidence that Ukip radicalised public opinion - identification is difficult here. Did Ukip's rise cause rising opposition to the EU (your contention), or vice versa, or is there no chain of causation? I go with option three. Public opinion in the UK has always been sceptical since the Social Chapter at latest but something else caused Ukip to rise. Expenses, immigration and Lib Dems in government are the most compelling answers. And I believe most of the heavy lifting in the Conservative Party was done by the membership, who have chosen not to select pro-European candidates to Westminster when given the option. Unlike those other parties you mention this acted as a leftward barrier on feasible policies, and Ukip helped but I think was not the prime mover.
I don't know if it is still the case but I have heard one Tory MP confirm they had great difficulty in being selected due to being Eurosceptic. Although it was senior Tory officials interfering and not the members.
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Personally I liked the description of Jacob Rees-Mogg as being the 'youngest dinosaur' in parliament, so young dinosaur sounds better I think.
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
We seem to have reverted to a medieval trial by water system, where if you sink you weren't a genuine refugee.
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I don't know if there is evidence that Ukip radicalised public opinion - identification is difficult here. Did Ukip's rise cause rising opposition to the EU (your contention), or vice versa, or is there no chain of causation? I go with option three. Public opinion in the UK has always been sceptical since the Social Chapter at latest but something else caused Ukip to rise. Expenses, immigration and Lib Dems in government are the most compelling answers. And I believe most of the heavy lifting in the Conservative Party was done by the membership, who have chosen not to select pro-European candidates to Westminster when given the option. Unlike those other parties you mention this acted as a leftward barrier on feasible policies, and Ukip helped but I think was not the prime mover.
I don't know if it is still the case but I have heard one Tory MP confirm they had great difficulty in being selected due to being Eurosceptic. Although it was senior Tory officials interfering and not the members.
Yes, I am not surprised by that anecdote. I would expect that if you had an indicator of members' influence on the MP's initial selection, it would strongly predict his or her vote on European affairs.
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Personally I liked the description of Jacob Rees-Mogg as being the 'youngest dinosaur' in parliament, so young dinosaur sounds better I think.
Jacob is the archetype for all young Conservatives to aspire to.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
We seem to have reverted to a medieval trial by water system, where if you sink you weren't a genuine refugee.
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I'm glad UKIP exist.
Me too. They have added considerably to the gaiety of the nation and have helped detoxify the Conservative party by leaving. They have also enriched me financially as betting against kipper surges has proven quite profitable (apart from my bet with HL).
Would it really be up to Mr Cameron to decide? Wouldn't he be obliged to accept the recommendation of intelligence people?
What's most interesting about that Standard interview is how Benn is saying that Labour will opt back into what ever social chapter changes Cameron renegotiates once they get back into government.
Ah yes ...... I remember "Social Chapters" ..... pure unadulterated, meaningless, socialist prattle. Those were the days!
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
So, why don't governing parties boast about high levels of immigration?
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
We seem to have reverted to a medieval trial by water system, where if you sink you weren't a genuine refugee.
That is in really bad taste
I'm sure it was just a phrase, and the connection wasn't deliberate.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
We seem to have reverted to a medieval trial by water system, where if you sink you weren't a genuine refugee.
Wrong - the choice to pay people -smugglers is entirely down to the migrants. "we" have nothing to do with it.
The new old Labour is not really far left-wing on economics. Yes, they don't want swinging welfare cuts, think austerity is largely optional, are naive about borrowing, and want to protect public sector pay, pensions, and spending. But that's mainly because of their reliance on union funding and the fact their membership base is firmly rooted in academia, arts, charities and public sector employees; they don't want a command economy, and confiscatory income tax rates, because they're largely middle-class now.
What makes them far-left is their socio-cultural marxist values: seeing almost everything through the prism of racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation politics (in that order), the prioritising of inoffensiveness over free speech, a policing of non-progressive views, the irrelevance and anachronism of nation states, the oppressiveness of tradition, icons, symbols, families and national history (particularly in the West) and the worship of "diversity", the absolute and overriding importance of internationalism, eco-communitarianism, and using regulation to influence and control people's lives; supporting democratic voices only when it supports the above.
It's about control. But it's more about socio-cultural control, and less about economic control.
That's why Labour is losing its voters and WWC base, but remains strong amongst graduates and the young in the cities.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
Immigration is vital for the economy but opening Europe's borders to millions of migrants will require a points system or similar to ensure the immigration is positive and does not overwhelm our services
We seem to have reverted to a medieval trial by water system, where if you sink you weren't a genuine refugee.
That is in really bad taste
I'm sure it was just a phrase, and the connection wasn't deliberate.
I was only trying to highlight the nonsense that people are having to risk their lives on a sea crossing before the EU will consider their claim. I actually agree with Cam that people should be processed in Turkey.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
So, why don't governing parties boast about high levels of immigration?
Because there are few votes in that position - sorry Tim Farron. First it is a (large) minority view, and second those who espouse it are less contestable among the parties because contrarian views are more likely to be espoused by those with strong preferences about politics. Whereas the contestable/swing voter tends to be low-information, to espouse the middle position, and to lack strong preferences about politics. However, there seems to be something about the nasty tone of anti-immigration rhetoric that turns people off the messenger even as they agree (often in a low-information way) with the message.
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I'm glad UKIP exist.
Me too. They have added considerably to the gaiety of the nation and have helped detoxify the Conservative party by leaving. They have also enriched me financially as betting against kipper surges has proven quite profitable (apart from my bet with HL).
I'm pleased for the very good reasons Sean Fear outlined.
What makes them far-left is their socio-cultural marxist values: seeing almost everything through the prism of racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation politics (in that order)
A socio-cultural Marxist would see almost everything through the prism of class and let the rest go hang. But it seems that this whole series of suggestions is incorrect, because Labour isn't losing voters, doing better in 2015 than in 2010.
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
Woman jealous of attractive neighbour shock! Will the revelations never stop?
Apologies if posted before. Cam talks about that book.
"I've had an interesting week. It's a week in which thousands of trees have died in vain, sales of Supertramp albums have gone through the roof and one man's reputation lies in ruins. "I don't think Michael Ashcroft will ever recover."
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
Frances Osborne a bit miffed SamCam gets PAs and designer clothes shock!
Corbyn is going to apologise for the Iraq War. But not for being a twat. UNBELIEVABLE @KTHopkins
I know some people don't like tweet repeats on here, though I accept they have their uses.
BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S GOOD can we have a moratorium on K T Hopkins? I don't care what she says, just make that woman go away.
(That's not head-in-sand, she's just a very loud media-personality irrelevance. Whatever she says, about anything, simply crapulates the ratio of noise - and heat - to signal.)
Utterly pathetic and disgusting of Ashcroft and particularly Oakshott Plus the Mail and Iain Dale's Biteback company to bring the wives into it. What a toad Ashcroft has turned into.
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion othan they resent minorities.
So, why don't governing parties boast about high levels of immigration?
Because there are few votes in that position - sorry Tim Farron. First it is a (large) minority view, and second those who espouse it are less contestable among the parties because contrarian views are more likely to be espoused by those with strong preferences about politics. Whereas the contestable/swing voter tends to be low-information, to espouse the middle position, and to lack strong preferences about politics. However, there seems to be something about the nasty tone of anti-immigration rhetoric that turns people off the messenger even as they agree (often in a low-information way) with the message.
Between 1960-2005 every governing party presided over increased rates of violent crime. One could therefore conclude that the British public weren't concerned about violent crime, because they'd have voted out a government that saw violent crime rise. But, I think that would be to misread public opinion. Between 1945-1979, every government presided over widespread strikes. One could therefore conclude that the public weren't bothered about trade union power. Again, that would misread public opinion. Therefore, I think it's a misreading of public opinion to conclude that the public aren't bothered by mass immigration.
Corbyn is going to apologise for the Iraq War. But not for being a twat. UNBELIEVABLE @KTHopkins
I know some people don't like tweet repeats on here, though I accept they have their uses.
BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S GOOD can we have a moratorium on K T Hopkins? I don't care what she says, just make that woman go away.
(That's not head-in-sand, she's just a very loud media-personality irrelevance. Whatever she says, about anything, simply crapulates the ratio of noise - and heat - to signal.)
You want me to apologise for my views? Never. I am not sorry. I put British people first.@KatieHopkins 12 mins ago (apparently she is in Doncaster with UKIP debating with the Electoral Reform Society)
Would it really be up to Mr Cameron to decide? Wouldn't he be obliged to accept the recommendation of intelligence people?
This is a democracy. What will your "intelligence" people do if Corbyn became PM ? Labour does not need a majority for JC to be PM.
The first duty of the State is the safety and security of the people of this country.
Any courtesy to Corbyn goes straight into the dustbin if he's a risk to that in any way.
Au contraire. It's not up to the IAs. Their main concern will be to protect capabilities, not information itself but that's standard procedure with any politician (though if it's absolutely necessary, capabilities may be disclosed).
Two years to the referendum and Europe will be vastly different with freedom of movement gone. It simply cannot survive and there are going to be a lot of discussions and States forced to compromise or the whole edifice will come crashing down. Interesting even Hollande was conciliatory with Cameron this week as they know they will have to co-operate over Syria and economic issues. Hollande said he is open to Treaty Change and that is a first. The referendum will concentrate minds and I expect other countries will also hold referendums. Change is coming in a big way that is going to rock the Brussel elite and yes that means Juncker
the post EU migrant summit speech by Tusk was almost word for word what Cameron has been saying for the past month. the media have completely missed the EU U-turn because all their reporters are still trying to get awards for posting pictures of 'desperate refugees' fleeing brutal torture from the Turkish riviera.
This was what made Farron's speech the other day so completely bonkers.
As I have commented on here several times the media, in particular the broadcast media, have not been fair to the public who seem to have far more sense in seeing through the sentiment. Both Corbyn and Farron are a million miles from public opinion on this issue
Sometimes people go with this line of argument as if there is monolithic, near-90-per-cent support for zero immigration and anyone who wants one immigrant will be sacked, but that's not really true. All recent British prime ministers have overseen extremely high rates of immigration and all won majorities, apart from Gordon Brown, who inherited one. So it seems that immigration doesn't really sway elections because people distrust the anti-immigrant forces more than they resent minorities.
So, why don't governing parties boast about high levels of immigration?
We have actually prepared the way for the continental nations to accept many migrants from the Middle East. We have over the years taken in millions of EU citizens and made space in their countries for the newcomers.
Of course, there may be some disagreement about the distribution!
Yet if the UK votes for Leave, UKIP can claim to be the most successful party in recent history, even as they disappear.
If that happy day does come, I can't help feeling it will be as much in spite of UKIP (and especially Farage) as because of it.
There I beg to differ. It was UKIP that campaigned for Brexit when the idea seemed absurd; UKIP that brought the idea into the mainstream; UKIP that applied the pressure that led the Prime Minister to agree to a referendum.
First, Ukip is only partly a movement of anti-European Union sentiment and has primarily been about other kinds of fear and resentment. If they have had an impact, it has been on responses to the current refugee crisis. Second, Ukip could not have pushed Cameron without a massive heave from his own MPs, helped by the anti-European Union tendency of grassroots members who had a big role in their selection. Third, Brexit has never been off the agenda and has tended to have respectable people backing it at every stage of the UK's membership of the Union; in this sense, Ukip is an avatar rather than an instigator.
Of course, UKIP on its own would be a voice in the wilderness. But, where the party has succeeded is in radicalising public opinion, and drawing the Conservative Party in its direction. The Conservatives could have responded like the Moderates in Sweden, or the CDU, treating the party to their Right as lepers, but that risked losing half their members.
I'm glad UKIP exist.
Ukip has attracted a succession of nutjobs. It's led by one. Farage clearly cares little for UKIP, he has really admitted it. Country before Party is really code for Farage before Party.
What makes them far-left is their socio-cultural marxist values: seeing almost everything through the prism of racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation politics (in that order)
A socio-cultural Marxist would see almost everything through the prism of class and let the rest go hang. But it seems that this whole series of suggestions is incorrect, because Labour isn't losing voters, doing better in 2015 than in 2010.
Labour is, on the most optimistic reading, eating its tail. Picking up votes from further left, while alienating the rest.
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
It all seems rather pointless now.
I wonder what Lord Ashcroft will do now he has burnt his bridges with the party.
'GOP Rep Peter King 'House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party...Boehner's decision to resign is "like throwing raw meat" to more extreme factions of the caucus who are trying to "hijack and blackmail the party," King said. "They’re not going to see it as a gesture of peace, they’re going to just look for more." Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'
“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” '
'GOP Rep Peter King 'House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party...Boehner's decision to resign is "like throwing raw meat" to more extreme factions of the caucus who are trying to "hijack and blackmail the party," King said. "They’re not going to see it as a gesture of peace, they’re going to just look for more." Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'
“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” '
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Personally I liked the description of Jacob Rees-Mogg as being the 'youngest dinosaur' in parliament, so young dinosaur sounds better I think.
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
It all seems rather pointless now.
I wonder what Lord Ashcroft will do now he has burnt his bridges with the party.
Piss off back to Belize with Iain Dale? I'd imagine the latter's no longer welcome in many places.
There's probably room over at Duneuropean in the Kipper household, but they'd both fall out soon enough with Farage's vanity. The clash of egos would be spectacular.
'GOP Rep Peter King 'House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party...Boehner's decision to resign is "like throwing raw meat" to more extreme factions of the caucus who are trying to "hijack and blackmail the party," King said. "They’re not going to see it as a gesture of peace, they’re going to just look for more." Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'
“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” '
I wonder how much money Ashcroft spent on researching and writing for this book, so that it could come out with gems like these (which really have nothing to do with DC.)
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
It all seems rather pointless now.
I wonder what Lord Ashcroft will do now he has burnt his bridges with the party.
Piss off back to Belize?
Back stabbing, disloyalty, public spats, surely Lord Ashcroft is better off joining UKIP.
'GOP Rep Peter King 'House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party...Boehner's decision to resign is "like throwing raw meat" to more extreme factions of the caucus who are trying to "hijack and blackmail the party," King said. "They’re not going to see it as a gesture of peace, they’re going to just look for more." Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'
“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” '
Apologies if posted before. Cam talks about that book.
"I've had an interesting week. It's a week in which thousands of trees have died in vain, sales of Supertramp albums have gone through the roof and one man's reputation lies in ruins. "I don't think Michael Ashcroft will ever recover."
A little less natural than his occasional cutting remarks, but in truth, a bit of a weird revenge in the end from Ashcroft - without corroboration, and Cameron already not standing again, it didn't damage him, but of course Ashcroft can do whatever he wants and he'll still be a billionaire, which means at some point he can have influence if he wants it, so failing to wound Cameron won't bother him much I guess (though he has shown petty anger about all this).
I suppose it wsa only ever intended to despoil the political corpse of Cameron after yet another failure to win a majority, or knock him off a precarious perch of another coalition government and dissatisfied backbenchers, and that situation just doesn't exist.
Apologies if posted before. Cam talks about that book.
"I've had an interesting week. It's a week in which thousands of trees have died in vain, sales of Supertramp albums have gone through the roof and one man's reputation lies in ruins. "I don't think Michael Ashcroft will ever recover."
Apologies if posted before. Cam talks about that book.
"I've had an interesting week. It's a week in which thousands of trees have died in vain, sales of Supertramp albums have gone through the roof and one man's reputation lies in ruins. "I don't think Michael Ashcroft will ever recover."
Just seen the news clips of Farron's speech. I don't find him appealing at all. He came across as an angry student politician.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr JEO, his speech was not directed towards your demographic. IIRC you are an elderly, rather reactionary Tory supporter. I woud be concerned if you were youngish and somewhat free-thinking.
I am in my late 30s and a mainstream conservative. I was more speaking about his demeanour rather than the policy arguments he was making, but thank you for your concern.
Pclipp's post got me wondering, I didn't think you were that old !
Some of the oldest seeming people on here turn out to be among the youngest, I find. I suppose I should stop trying to guess age based off political opinions and syntax.
Tories are all young fogies the moment they leave Eton, aren't they?
Below the Mason-Dixon line but not southern. So, it is southern based on a historical measure (and yes, I knew where the Mason Dixon line is before your helpful - I across it quite regularly) but you simply can't get away with the false cultural implications that O'Malley is a southern governor!
Below the Mason-Dixon line but not southern. So, it is southern based on a historical measure (and yes, I knew where the Mason Dixon line is before your helpful - I across it quite regularly) but you simply can't get away with the false cultural implications that O'Malley is a southern governor!
Not just historical. All US statistical authorities class Maryland as part of the South. Sure, it's part of the south that has been colonised by northern culture, but that's also true of much of Florida and Virginia. As for being "culturally southern", the guy plays the banjo!
I did say on here after the last debate that I felt that Trump had peaked and Fiorina would get a boost.
Trump said nothing for over 23 minutes during the debate at one point, when they talked about policy.
His answer on almost everything is "We'll hire good people and I'll know more than you when we get there." When compared to Rubio and Fiorina, who are comfortable and knowledgeable on the subject, he is lacking. On substance rather than one liners or insults, Trump is a poor debater.
Otherwise than what a deal maker he is, there's not much substance.
Fiorina, by contrast. can get more facts into a sentence and present a cogent argument clearly and concisely.
There's always 'the turtle' as Jeb describes himself, crawling relentlessly to the finish line.
But above all this race will be greatly affected by what Tip O'Neill called the mother's milk of politics - money.
Debate poorly, be seen to drop in the polls, and you have money pressure - except Trump of course.
Debate well, rise in the polls and the money comes in.
We have a long way to go in this race, and anything can happen.
Below the Mason-Dixon line but not southern. So, it is southern based on a historical measure (and yes, I knew where the Mason Dixon line is before your helpful - I across it quite regularly) but you simply can't get away with the false cultural implications that O'Malley is a southern governor!
Not just historical. All US statistical authorities class Maryland as part of the South. Sure, it's part of the south that has been colonised by northern culture, but that's also true of much of Florida and Virginia. As for being "culturally southern", the guy plays the banjo!
Didn't you see Deliverance? Sounds like a good Georgia Boy - or on the Black and White minstrel Show
OT In case anyone's interested, it appears there is a lot of hard work is going in to make sure all Conservative Party members in London are registered for the primary... How are PBLondonTories intending to vote? I attended the huntings in Wandsworth last week and came away with Syed and Zac in my top two. Syed was convincing and, given a couple of years of publicity, would make a credible and creditable candidate. However, we don't have a couple of years to get his face known, so I'm intending to plump for Zac, who was confident, reasonably charismatic and starts with the advantage of name and face recognition. Down here - darkest Tooting - we all know Sadiq well as he was a local councillor before 2010, so we're keen to select the person most likely to beat him.
From the hustings I attended, the two who impressed me most were Syed Kamall and Stephen Greenhalgh. Zac Goldsmith was a bit vague on details, and Andrew Boff was like a camp Larry Lamb who wouldn't be any good at managing people. I am still waiting for whatever email thingy it is that I need to be able to vote.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/john-mcdonnell-labour-will-match-osborne-and-live-within-our-means?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
@PickardJE: Perceptive from @helenlewis This week's New Statesman is a cracker... http://t.co/mY65gbgCUb
We're all Tories now.
High taxes OR a balanced budget. Pick one.
Earlier on this year, when it looked like the UK would vote decisively to stay, the rest of the EU were ready to tell Cameron to fuck off.
Hope for all of us then!
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/13780600.Influx_of__new_to_English__pupils_is_biggest_challenge_for_Bradford_s_schools/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3248272/Sam-Frances-tad-frosty-Prime-Minister-s-wife-said-different-personality-Chancellor-s-partner-reportedly-feels-disparity-them.html
What makes them far-left is their socio-cultural marxist values: seeing almost everything through the prism of racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation politics (in that order), the prioritising of inoffensiveness over free speech, a policing of non-progressive views, the irrelevance and anachronism of nation states, the oppressiveness of tradition, icons, symbols, families and national history (particularly in the West) and the worship of "diversity", the absolute and overriding importance of internationalism, eco-communitarianism, and using regulation to influence and control people's lives; supporting democratic voices only when it supports the above.
It's about control. But it's more about socio-cultural control, and less about economic control.
That's why Labour is losing its voters and WWC base, but remains strong amongst graduates and the young in the cities.
Apologies if I offended.
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/sep/23/nhs-winter-meltdown-staffing-standards-money#_=_
We've been doomed every year since 2010, and more.
Night all.
- Sam Cameron and Frances Osborne said to have different personalities"
- "There is no outward hostility but the relationship is not said to be warm"
I do not mind the budget cuts, but do not expect the targets to be met. You gets what you pays for.
@suttonnick: Saturday's Guardian:
Exclusive - We’ll match Osborne and live within our means, says Labour
#tomorrowspaperstoday http://t.co/cyBxFvPSRW
@KTHopkins
"I've had an interesting week. It's a week in which thousands of trees have died in vain, sales of Supertramp albums have gone through the roof and one man's reputation lies in ruins.
"I don't think Michael Ashcroft will ever recover."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34363685
BUT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S GOOD can we have a moratorium on K T Hopkins? I don't care what she says, just make that woman go away.
(That's not head-in-sand, she's just a very loud media-personality irrelevance. Whatever she says, about anything, simply crapulates the ratio of noise - and heat - to signal.)
Of course, there may be some disagreement about the distribution!
I wonder what Lord Ashcroft will do now he has burnt his bridges with the party.
Peter King: Boehner exit means 'the crazies have taken over the party'
“I think whoever runs for speaker should make it clear that he’s not going to give in to these people. We’re not going to appease them," he concluded. "The time for appeasement is over.” '
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/john-boehner-resigns-peter-king-reaction-214083#ixzz3mmzgb0tU"
There's probably room over at Duneuropean in the Kipper household, but they'd both fall out soon enough with Farage's vanity. The clash of egos would be spectacular.
Nige might even give him a job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34363073
I suppose it wsa only ever intended to despoil the political corpse of Cameron after yet another failure to win a majority, or knock him off a precarious perch of another coalition government and dissatisfied backbenchers, and that situation just doesn't exist.
Who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal..."
Calling Faron.
Not sure pigs is a good metaphor this week.
"So Bill Clinton’s a shoo-in to be the first First Gentleman of the United States? Not so fast. Keep an eye on one Frank Fiorina."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/carly-fiorina-profile-the-republicans-card-to-trump-hillary-clinton-in-white-house-race-10517310.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/nigel-farage-drops-ukip-wag-tax-luxury-goods
Mind you, the same is likely to be true for Labour this year.
I'm sorry, but that is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.
What a dog's breakfast.
Trump said nothing for over 23 minutes during the debate at one point, when they talked about policy.
His answer on almost everything is "We'll hire good people and I'll know more than you when we get there." When compared to Rubio and Fiorina, who are comfortable and knowledgeable on the subject, he is lacking. On substance rather than one liners or insults, Trump is a poor debater.
Otherwise than what a deal maker he is, there's not much substance.
Fiorina, by contrast. can get more facts into a sentence and present a cogent argument clearly and concisely.
There's always 'the turtle' as Jeb describes himself, crawling relentlessly to the finish line.
But above all this race will be greatly affected by what Tip O'Neill called the mother's milk of politics - money.
Debate poorly, be seen to drop in the polls, and you have money pressure - except Trump of course.
Debate well, rise in the polls and the money comes in.
We have a long way to go in this race, and anything can happen.
Then and now photos of the great railway stations of the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34333684