Mr. Sandpit, indeed, the endless bitching is pathetic.
They're not taking any responsibility for their current predicament, which is entirely of their own making. I do want both teams to stay, but the sense of entitlement is galling.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
The notion that the LibDems were always going to be toast in terms of seats is the wisdom of hindsight. In the event, the political strategy pursued by Cameron and Osborne was wholly vindicated and the unrelenting critique of UKIP (whose intention remains to supplant the Conservatives...they are not somehow our brothers in spirit) was an important component in making the party more attractive to centrist leaning voters.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
The comedian who plays that Nigel Farage character is much better. The whole Tweed suit, pint, 'we'll fight those Johnnies at Dover' patter is top notch. Is he making a Xmas DVD?
Thinking about it, UKIP could do a poster campaign of the pub landlord with a caption 'when David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn look at you, this is what they see'.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
TBH I don't think I have terribly much in common with the world outlook of either David Cameron or George Osborne.
I do share quite a lot in common with a lot of members of the Conservative Party, but not those at the highest level.
Mr. Taffys, only with Al Murray's permission, which is very unlikely to be granted (I suspect). They could do likewise with a similar stereotype, though.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
Yes fair play to him on the migrant crisis.. Thank god the loons that wanted 125k weren't representative of the whole metropolitan elite!
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
TBH I don't think I have terribly much in common with the world outlook of either David Cameron or George Osborne.
I do share quite a lot in common with a lot of members of the Conservative Party, but not those at the highest level.
''When I see Mike Gapes tweets, I feel respect. ''
One of the other labour MPs who has taken up the cudgels against Corbynism with vigour and venom is Ben Bradshaw. And he knows how to win in the south.
A name to watch in the future?
Perhaps he should be, but he did poorly among the members in the deputy election, and according to MarqueeMark(I think) there were rumours he had been looking to retire this time in any case, but had been persuaded to stick around.
That is what I had heard about Bradshaw, directly from neighbours who went canvassing for him in Exeter...
They seem determined to do this in public. Where is the modern day Alastair Campbell to keep the party on message?
Campbell supplied the message. It was discipline borne of 14+ years of opposition and the realistic prospect of power that kept MPs on it.
And Corbyn and McDonnell were never on message anyway. Nothing's changed there apart from the fact that they're now Leader and SCotE (which is, admittedly, a bloody big change).
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
Yes fair play to him on the migrant crisis.. Thank god the loons that wanted 125k weren't representative of the whole metropolitan elite!
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
TBH I don't think I have terribly much in common with the world outlook of either David Cameron or George Osborne.
I do share quite a lot in common with a lot of members of the Conservative Party, but not those at the highest level.
Speaking as someone who agrees with you 95% of the time, I agree with you on Osborne but not Cameron. I think his instincts are basically Conservative. But he although he is a natural political arbitrator, he is subject to producer capture.
We all have our own views and conclusions but I think so much of the internal splits in the conservative movement were manufactured, and we are justifying it post-event, and unnecessarily so.
I see no reason why we couldn't have remained a broad church attracting 40-43% of the vote.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
" Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views?...And try to be less pompous and supercilious"
bejasus, sure it's the gift of the ould Blarney you're got there Seaneen
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
" Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views?...And try to be less pompous and supercilious"
bejasus, sure it's the gift of the ould Blarney you're got there Seaneen
:-)
Brookie, More comments like that and we'll have you back to navvying, somewhere on the road to the Northern Powerhouse.
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
.
" Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views?...And try to be less pompous and supercilious"
bejasus, sure it's the gift of the ould Blarney you're got there Seaneen
:-)
Brookie, More comments like that and we'll have you back to navvying, somewhere on the road to the Northern Powerhouse.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
" Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views?...And try to be less pompous and supercilious"
bejasus, sure it's the gift of the ould Blarney you're got there Seaneen
:-)
Brookie, More comments like that and we'll have you back to navvying, somewhere on the road to the Northern Powerhouse.
Setting aside the obvious goal of trapping Labour in to idiocy, why are none of our righties questioning the wisdom of permanent surpluses, at some point things will go tits up and a deficit will need to0 be an option.
They do not think about any sensible policy , they are happy as long as it is Tories thumbing their noses at Labour , never mind the public they think they are smart ars**.
No it is a sensible policy, the books should be running a surplus during "normal times" and a the points were things go "tits up" a deficit will be permitted.
So the two of you have made a mistake. Not those of us who are right.
As the more sensible righties have said (DavidL and TSE) it's simply a political gesture. It has no economic benefit to the country.
Well that depends doesn't it?
If it is actually implemented as intended then it will bring profound economic benefit to the country. It will bring our debt under control while allowing truly cyclical spending and avoid a repeat of the disaster of the last few years.
However the reason its said to be a gesture is because no Parliament can bind its successors. Which isn't entirely true (they sort of can via international treaties) and so a future government could just reverse this law and spend as it pleases. However in order to do that the future government of the day would have to actively vote through Parliament the fact they wanted to break this rule and why and then when things went tits up they should be held to account for the fact they deliberately broke this rule.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Di
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
There were the reported comments of Lord Feldman and numerous 'off the record' briefings from No.10 staffers. There were also numerous briefings on strategy by senior advisors to friendly journalists, like James Forsyth, D'Ancona and Fraser Nelson. I also think the way Cameron referred to UKIP sympathisers as fruitcakes wasn't helpful. There was also no serious attempt to carry the bulk of the voluntary party with Cameron on gay marriage aside from a speech or two, and a couple of emails.
No pomposity is intended: i just think you are just unnecessarily combative and shrill about the right of the Tory party and anything to do with UKIP seems to set off a reaction in you.
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
If that was your prediction that your foresight is to be commended, it was precisely what happened.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
Yes fair play to him on the migrant crisis.. Thank god the loons that wanted 125k weren't representative of the whole metropolitan elite!
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
If that was your prediction that your foresight is to be commended, it was precisely what happened.
Thanks. My competition entry was consistently for one UKIP MP. I was a bit optimistic on the LibDems, on 17....
It was Labour's inability to win Tory seats that threw out my calculations. And as for losing them....(Although having looked at the past trends, I did suggest here that The Gower looked interesting! Especially when the Tories sent a battle bus load of workers down there - probably won them the seat....)
Syrian army and Russia seem to be continuing to do well -again I'm astonished the Russians have not lost helicopters yet - they seem to owe so many of their territorial gains to them. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/category/featured-2/
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
But there was more to go too. Another counter factual is how much better the Conservatives might have done in seats had they not been very rude to UKIP sympathisers and activists amongst their own ranks from 2010-2015.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Disagree. One could see at the time it was the height of foolishness to be rude to longstanding party members and activists who had loyally served the party for decades. Something we are still suffering from: the Conservative Party membership is now very hollowed out.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
TBH I don't think I have terribly much in common with the world outlook of either David Cameron or George Osborne.
I do share quite a lot in common with a lot of members of the Conservative Party, but not those at the highest level.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Di
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
There were the reported comments of Lord Feldman and numerous 'off the record' briefings from No.10 staffers. There were also numerous briefings on strategy by senior advisors to friendly journalists, like James Forsyth, D'Ancona and Fraser Nelson. I also think the way Cameron referred to UKIP sympathisers as fruitcakes wasn't helpful. There was also no serious attempt to carry the bulk of the voluntary party with Cameron on gay marriage aside from a speech or two, and a couple of emails.
No pomposity is intended: i just think you are just unnecessarily combative and shrill about the right of the Tory party and anything to do with UKIP seems to set off a reaction in you.
Bear in mind, UKIP were not exactly the innocent wronged in this. Their stated objective was to fatally wound the Conservative Party. Some might say they got off quite lightly, all things considered...
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
If that was your prediction that your foresight is to be commended, it was precisely what happened.
Thanks. My competition entry was consistently for one UKIP MP. I was a bit optimistic on the LibDems, on 17....
It was Labour's inability to win Tory seats that threw out my calculations. And as for losing them....(Although having looked at the past trends, I did suggest here that The Gower looked interesting! Especially when the Tories sent a battle bus load of workers down there - probably won them the seat....)
You mention Labour's inability to win tory seats, I'm not convinced they tried. They won plenty of lib dem votes but their message, such as it was, did nothing for conservative voters.
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Seriously? Labour elects someone leader who's spent at least the last thirty years behaving like an attention-seeking teenager, who then appoints a mate as his chief lieutenant, and the MPs are surprised that they don't have the competence and self-control expected of a leadership. Who'd have thought it. Never mind. They can always go on a march or tweet something. That'll make up for any deficiencies elsewhere.
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
If that was your prediction that your foresight is to be commended, it was precisely what happened.
Thanks. My competition entry was consistently for one UKIP MP. I was a bit optimistic on the LibDems, on 17....
It was Labour's inability to win Tory seats that threw out my calculations. And as for losing them....(Although having looked at the past trends, I did suggest here that The Gower looked interesting! Especially when the Tories sent a battle bus load of workers down there - probably won them the seat....)
You mention Labour's inability to win tory seats, I'm not convinced they tried. They won plenty of lib dem votes but their message, such as it was, did nothing for conservative voters.
Labour arrogantly assumed they didn't need to win conservative voters. Which was absurd as every 1 won from your opposition is a swing of 2 votes.
Their response to failing to win an election thanks to that failure has been to play double or quits by electing Corbyn.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Seriously? Labour elects someone leader who's spent at least the last thirty years behaving like an attention-seeking teenager, who then appoints a mate as his chief lieutenant, and the MPs are surprised that they don't have the competence and self-control expected of a leadership. Who'd have thought it. Never mind. They can always go on a march or tweet something. That'll make up for any deficiencies elsewhere.
Don't forget the bit where they take photos of each other on their phones when they are addressing Labour conference. Presumably to reassure themselves that it really happened.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
Ahem. Some of us predicted such 'differential swingback' in the lead-up to the GE. I seem to recall being accused of wishful thinking (not by you, I hasten to add).
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Sean Fear is but one example of that. The idea that there is a choice between attracting Lib Dems voters and social conservatives is a false one IMHO. The LDs were always going to be toast.
There were potentially another dozen Labour seats up for grabs.
Sean Fear has been entirely consistent. I seem to recall his saying something along the lines of being liberated on departing the Tories. He is at home as a UKIP activist. Good luck to him. He doesn't want to return and I would probably be vehemently opposed to those changes that would attract him back.
Di
Hold on a minute. So who was "rude to longstanding party members and activists"? Do you have a particular person(s) in mind? Who has shown disrespect or intolerance to differing views? Have any members or activists been expelled or MPs deselected? In short, what on earth are you banging on about?
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
There
Bear in mind, UKIP were not exactly the innocent wronged in this. Their stated objective was to fatally wound the Conservative Party. Some might say they got off quite lightly, all things considered...
Sorry MM, just for clarity, I meant existing Conservative party members, voters and activists who might have felt some sympathy with UKIP as social conservatives but needed a little bit of reassuring and TLC that they were still appreciated and wanted by the leadership of the party, who could have better expressed that they understood where they were coming from. Much of that could have been achieved without changing a single policy, IMHO.
I know that sounds a bit trite but I think the leadership were a bit slow in waking up to this and I don't think it was necessary to lose them all.
An interesting report from John Cruddas which is linked to further up this thread.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
That's why UKIP didn't win seats like Boston, Thurrock, and Castle Point, but still hit Labour in seats like Plymouth Moor View, and Morley & Outwood.
As was predicted by some on here (* cough - like myself *) a couple of years out from the election.....
Surely a lot of that was to do with the threat of a SNP-Labour pact?
The most effective poster was that of Miliband in Salmonds pocket, I reckon tats what scared Tory-UKIP floaters back
My logic, expressed two years out, was that at the prospect of Prime Minister Ed Miliband, a significant proportion of those Tories who had gone to UKIP would, on polling day, hold their nose and return to the Blues. Whereas those who had gone to UKIP from Labour would hold their nerve because, frankly, Prime Minister Ed Miliband was not worth going back for.
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
If that was your prediction that your foresight is to be commended, it was precisely what happened.
Thanks. My competition entry was consistently for one UKIP MP. I was a bit optimistic on the LibDems, on 17....
It was Labour's inability to win Tory seats that threw out my calculations. And as for losing them....(Although having looked at the past trends, I did suggest here that The Gower looked interesting! Especially when the Tories sent a battle bus load of workers down there - probably won them the seat....)
You mention Labour's inability to win tory seats, I'm not convinced they tried. They won plenty of lib dem votes but their message, such as it was, did nothing for conservative voters.
But....but...but - they had an army of millions of ground troops! We were told as much. All having conversations* on the doorsteps....
* Those conversations in full:
"I'm not voting for you while you have that pillock Miliband in charge...."
Mr Thompson, I don't wish to be argumentative but I'm not sure arrogant is the right word, labour loathe the conservative party, to call somebody a tory is as offensive as it gets for them. Its almost as if they'd rather lose than canvas in conservative areas and ask for votes.
OK you might call that arrogant but its something far deeper, look at Corbyn and the mob in Manchester, they're rabid.
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Seriously? Labour elects someone leader who's spent at least the last thirty years behaving like an attention-seeking teenager, who then appoints a mate as his chief lieutenant, and the MPs are surprised that they don't have the competence and self-control expected of a leadership. Who'd have thought it. Never mind. They can always go on a march or tweet something. That'll make up for any deficiencies elsewhere.
Don't forget the bit where they take photos of each other on their phones when they are addressing Labour conference. Presumably to reassure themselves that it really happened.
In essence, Labour voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP stayed with UKIP. A good many Conservative voters from 2010 who switched to UKIP in mid-term returned to the Conservatives in May.
As I said at the time, this seemed entirely likely, because the motivations of Con->UKIP switchers were different from the motivations of Lab->UKIP switchers.
Di
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
There were the reported comments of Lord Feldman and numerous 'off the record' briefings from No.10 staffers. There were also numerous briefings on strategy by senior advisors to friendly journalists, like James Forsyth, D'Ancona and Fraser Nelson. I also think the way Cameron referred to UKIP sympathisers as fruitcakes wasn't helpful. There was also no serious attempt to carry the bulk of the voluntary party with Cameron on gay marriage aside from a speech or two, and a couple of emails.
No pomposity is intended: i just think you are just unnecessarily combative and shrill about the right of the Tory party and anything to do with UKIP seems to set off a reaction in you.
Didn't Lord Feldman robustly deny those comments (and he was warmly received at conference last week), and did these other briefings disparage the activists/members (declaration of interest - I've been part of the poor bloody grass-roots infantry for 40 years)? Can't recall any that did. And is Fraser Nelson a friendly journalist? Blimey O'Reilly if he is! So I'm not sure you convince me on the evidence base.
I'm not doubting in the least that gay marriage was not popular for a great many in the party, and I counted myself in the number you may be surprised to learn. But a good leader surely cannot be just the echo chamber of his supporters but have the courage to, well, be a leader. Had Cameron attempted to intimidate the membership or his MPs by threats of expulsion or deselection, that would have been altogether a different matter. But allowing people to agree to disagree is wholly commendable in my book.
I am an unashamed moderate Tory but one who has no problem whatever with our being a broad church. We have to be to survive, let alone prosper. But there's the dog and there's the tail and the latter shouldn't wag the former. As for those who choose to leave ro become UKIP members or activists, they have become the party's opponents and they should be defeated. I plead guilty on that score with no remorse.
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Seriously? Labour elects someone leader who's spent at least the last thirty years behaving like an attention-seeking teenager, who then appoints a mate as his chief lieutenant, and the MPs are surprised that they don't have the competence and self-control expected of a leadership. Who'd have thought it. Never mind. They can always go on a march or tweet something. That'll make up for any deficiencies elsewhere.
Don't forget the bit where they take photos of each other on their phones when they are addressing Labour conference. Presumably to reassure themselves that it really happened.
Indeed. None of them pertaining to being the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.
Astonishingly the highest odds on him being PM are a derisory 9/1
Labours leadership has the credibilty of Wolfie from Citizen Smith. They are like teenage protestors changing their views at will. It can only spell disaster for Labour. The public will never trust them.
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
If Gove could just work on his public image and persona a bit (I hope it's possible) I'd be tempted by him for next Tory leader.
He's a much misunderstood man. Incidentally, I'm not sure some of his wife's writings and interviews help - I heard her say 'I'm not as nice a person as I used to be' on a newspaper review only a few months back.
There's a risk that rubs off on him. It shouldn't matter but I fear it does.
Bear in mind, UKIP were not exactly the innocent wronged in this. Their stated objective was to fatally wound the Conservative Party. Some might say they got off quite lightly, all things considered...
But why do you care? You're a private citizen - the only reason the Conservative party exists is to serve your political interests, which I would assume would be moderately right of centre? If it ceases to do that, its existence is merely a habit.
Setting up a new party would be massively complex. Corbyn's Labour would have to keep the brand (which is probably worth millions of votes alone), all the local party hierarchies, the offices, staff under contract, etc.
The splinter group may hoover up many of the saner Labour donors, but building a new mass organisation and particularly the brand would be complex, time-consuming and difficult. There may also be disagreements about the policies of the splinter party.
Also, who in the PLP has the experience, courage and even brains to set up a new party? If anybody did, then they wouldn't be in this hideous position.
Brown's legacy lives on. All the potential leaders on the party's right who could have done it have either gone or are devalued. The problem is, the same is true of the party's left, which si why they ended up with Corbyn.
The Brand problem is easily solved
New Labour was and remains a better brand than Labour
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
If Gove could just work on his public image and persona a bit (I hope it's possible) I'd be tempted by him for next Tory leader.
He's a much misunderstood man. Incidentally, I'm not sure some of his wife's writings and interviews help - I heard her say 'I'm not as nice a person as I used to be' on a newspaper review only a few months back.
There's a risk that rubs off on him. It shouldn't matter but I fear it does.
Yes I like him a lot... Great performance on QT vs Thornberry, great speech at the conference... I'd love him to be PM, might even make me vote Tory!
Bear in mind, UKIP were not exactly the innocent wronged in this. Their stated objective was to fatally wound the Conservative Party. Some might say they got off quite lightly, all things considered...
But why do you care? You're a private citizen - the only reason the Conservative party exists is to serve your political interests, which I would assume would be moderately right of centre? If it ceases to do that, its existence is merely a habit.
I care because UKIP risked fecking up the whole country by letting Labour in again. Serving the greater interests of the British people is a somewhat higher prize than being a fluffer for Farage's ego.
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Probably related to the elderly English gentleman who is going to have hundreds of lashes for having some booze in his car. Considering that the alcohol ban is widely flouted in the country, this is extreme vindictiveness. It is a horrid country.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the Millennium Dome always make me feel nostalgic. Remember when wasting £1bn felt like a big deal?
Its actually a thriving venue now with multiple restaurants, bars and 2 excellent smaller venues as well as the main hall.
Not what Nu Labour built it for but a happy accident.
I like to think if Tories had run the project we'd (I was one back than) have just put in a version of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (including elements from all the home nations and further afield), packed it out every day and night, made a huge profit and had little refitting work to sell it on as an arena. Instead we had New Labour trying to enforce its creepy view of the future on everyone to disastrous effect.
If the fat cats of the Press (etc) hadn’t been kept waiting at Stratford station on 31st Dec 1999, and instead had been whisked straight to their reserved seats, the Millenium Dome would have been judged a success.
No. It wouldn't. Did you go? I did (got a press ticket). I have never seen so many miserable people wondering what the F they were doing in a dirty big tent full of eerie and ludicrous tat.
It was catastrophic.
The problem with the dome were twofold:
1) The contents were not inspiring for adults or children. Reportedly it as superficial fluff with no depth.
2) It was meant to be a temporary structure, which due to cost they decided had to be permanent. Like the Olympic stadium, they did this with no idea of its future use. Therefore it ended up being empty for years, reportedly costing us one million a month to maintain, before it was sold for a song.
If we are going to be build big projects for one-off events, we need to ensure they have a firm and fixed use afterwards. ISTR they did this with the Commonwealth games in Manchester, with the stadium's afterlife sorted before it was built.
They should not be used as a wealth transfer from the state to private companies or football clubs when they are sold.
(On point 1: I didn't go, but this was from reports from people who did, including a couple who enjoyed it).
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
Surely it depends on the nature of the investment. We've got into the habit of calling all spending of taxpayer's money an 'investment', because it sounds better and justifies the spending with some nebulous future 'benefit'. But to qualify as an investment surely something should have quantifiable proposed returns that are more than the value of the initial investment. Meaning motorways, bridges, airports, tidal lagoons etc. probably are investments, and public sector pay isn't.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
If all the Saudi's and other devout Muslims were kicked out of the very posh drinking and gambling clubs in Mayfair then those clubs would close down for lack of clientele..I was taken on a tour of most of them by a devout Egyptian..roulette table to roulette table full of our very very devout and drunk followers of Islam
@JohnO - I sense we are much closer to understanding one another now, which pleases me, so will take that as a win for both of us and park it for now. IMHO managing perceptions, reactions, tone, language and messages is as important in politics as it is in business and that is as much a sign of a strong leader in carrying people with you as showing the way.
Perhaps we can pick this up and discuss in more detail at the next PB meet in the pub, as fellow party members. I have Tories who are to the Left of you who I count amongst my closest friends!
And, yes, we do have a barney from time to time, but it's just politics..
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Probably related to the elderly English gentleman who is going to have hundreds of lashes for having some booze in his car. Considering that the alcohol ban is widely flouted in the country, this is extreme vindictiveness. It is a horrid country.
Does anyone have an idea of exactly what the co-operation proposal was, as all I can find are snippets from behind the Times paywall? Am I naive to think that we were going to show a country in the news for the wrong sort of justice today, how to do it properly in the 21st century?
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Probably related to the elderly English gentleman who is going to have hundreds of lashes for having some booze in his car. Considering that the alcohol ban is widely flouted in the country, this is extreme vindictiveness. It is a horrid country.
Does anyone have an idea of exactly what the co-operation proposal was, as all I can find are snippets from behind the Times paywall? Am I naive to think that we were going to show a country in the news for the wrong sort of justice today, how to do it properly in the 21st century?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
Given that ~40% of Dutch Somalis came here, I think it's highly likely that more than 8% of German Syrians/Nigerians/Eritreans/Iraqis/Pakistanis/Afghans come here, especially as we have established communities of most of those groups in the UK.
And, personally, I do not think someone should qualify to live here just because they can speak a language basically after eight years or driven a taxi continuously during that time. Especially if they have a non-working wife and several children that comes with them. I know you do not think there is an upper limit on how many people that should come here, but most people support reducing the numbers substantially. Given a limit number of spots, they should be going to highly skilled migrants that are likely to integrate.
If all the Saudi's and other devout Muslims were kicked out of the very posh drinking and gambling clubs in Mayfair then those clubs would close down for lack of clientele..I was taken on a tour of most of them by a devout Egyptian..roulette table to roulette table full of our very very devout and drunk followers of Islam
Having travelled extensively in Muslim countries, as a teetotaller it was always rather awkward when offered up an extensive drinks cabinet and I had to say sorry, I don't....
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Perhaps we could bid for beheading services instead? We used to hold quite a distinction in the field at one time.
Still, it leaves the door wide open for the Russians to move in as advisers. They're probably more suitable anyway, with their stunning record on human rights and gay bashing.
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Probably related to the elderly English gentleman who is going to have hundreds of lashes for having some booze in his car. Considering that the alcohol ban is widely flouted in the country, this is extreme vindictiveness. It is a horrid country.
Does anyone have an idea of exactly what the co-operation proposal was, as all I can find are snippets from behind the Times paywall? Am I naive to think that we were going to show a country in the news for the wrong sort of justice today, how to do it properly in the 21st century?
If that was the case why not do it?!
One does wonder. Well done Gove for putting himself and politics, above improving prison conditions in Saudi. Twonk.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Looking at the area I'm most interested in, it's easy to argue that there was short-termist under-investment in roads, rail and air. Building the M25 to just three or four lanes is a classic example. It becomes a case of "what is the minimum we can get away with doing" rather than "what will we need in twenty, thirty or more years.
Which is why, if it is done well and gets buy-in from everyone involved, the new Infrastructure Commission might be very useful.
But New Labour's record on 'proper' investment (as you describe above) was very poor IMO.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK, you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
I don't care where you go as long as I don't have to fly out of to Heathrow, never mind Gatwick.
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
Yes fair play to him on the migrant crisis.. Thank god the loons that wanted 125k weren't representative of the whole metropolitan elite!
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
Just for accuracies sake, it is 5 years not 8 before they get EU citizenship and the right to live anywhere in the EU. It is only 8 years for full German citizenship.
And for the EU citizenship there is no requirement to have learnt a language, held down a job or really done anything other than stay in Germany for 5 years.
Say what you like about the Mail, but these images are arguably very emotive, because the town concerned could be anywhere.
To describe Longford as a typical English 'village' is stretching things a bit.
It's surrounded by Heathrow Airport and industrial estates, and hasn't been particularly pleasant for the last 60 years or so. And there's been a very large immigration processing centre there for decades.
Great quote in that article btw.
'But Pakistan-born pub owner Rana Saif said the migrants were damaging his sales, adding: ‘No one comes here, when they are standing 20, 80 people outside on the road, on the walls.
'I am going to move from here, as soon as. It was good before the immigrants came.’
There is a cadre in new Labour, and the more metropolitan parts of the Tory party, who thinks the average Joe is a bit of a secret bigot, which is where euroscepticism and opposition to mass migration comes from.
They need to be thrown bones by occasionally being rude to foreigners within the EU, and bashing immigrants in the odd speech or two, but secretly they despise them and would never do anything serious about either.
Yes indeed. They think we are all foreigner hating 'British is best' types... That guff is for people that have to try prove how English they are, not normal Englishmen... An Al Murray pub landlord caricature
Some of Camerons proposals on how to handle migration (letting lots of immigrants in then treating them as second class citizens) has been too nasty for my liking. I just want a sensible immigration Policy that judges the number that allows integration
But when you have no experience of what real life is, it must be a kick to play bad boy now and then
Cameron's got it right on Syria, which I commend him for, but there's nothing in the rest of his proposals on immigration that lead me to think he's serious about bringing it under control.
He might shave off another 10-20k per year but it will be like shaving parmesan and still miles off his tens of thousands target.
Yes fair play to him on the migrant crisis.. Thank god the loons that wanted 125k weren't representative of the whole metropolitan elite!
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
Just for accuracies sake, it is 5 years not 8 before they get EU citizenship and the right to live anywhere in the EU. It is only 8 years for full German citizenship.
And for the EU citizenship there is no requirement to have learnt a language, held down a job or really done anything other than stay in Germany for 5 years.
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
Just for accuracies sake, it is 5 years not 8 before they get EU citizenship and the right to live anywhere in the EU. It is only 8 years for full German citizenship.
And for the EU citizenship there is no requirement to have learnt a language, held down a job or really done anything other than stay in Germany for 5 years.
Have you got a source for this, I thought EU citizenship was completely indivisible from national citizenship. Which was the issue for the Scots, lose British citizenship and you lose EU citizenship.
I fail to see how anyone can be an EU citizen without being a citizen of a nation, when the Scots can't be.
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Probably related to the elderly English gentleman who is going to have hundreds of lashes for having some booze in his car. Considering that the alcohol ban is widely flouted in the country, this is extreme vindictiveness. It is a horrid country.
Does anyone have an idea of exactly what the co-operation proposal was, as all I can find are snippets from behind the Times paywall? Am I naive to think that we were going to show a country in the news for the wrong sort of justice today, how to do it properly in the 21st century?
If that was the case why not do it?!
One does wonder. Well done Gove for putting himself and politics, above improving prison conditions in Saudi. Twonk.
Haha yes I suppose it would be nice if the prisons that people are sent to for things like witchcraft, sorcery and apostasy were a bit more modern for them before they have their limbs cut off
"But what rattled them at last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party wasn't the politics of the leadership, but a perceived lack of competence." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
Seriously? Labour elects someone leader who's spent at least the last thirty years behaving like an attention-seeking teenager, who then appoints a mate as his chief lieutenant, and the MPs are surprised that they don't have the competence and self-control expected of a leadership. Who'd have thought it. Never mind. They can always go on a march or tweet something. That'll make up for any deficiencies elsewhere.
Don't forget the bit where they take photos of each other on their phones when they are addressing Labour conference. Presumably to reassure themselves that it really happened.
Indeed. None of them pertaining to being the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI.
Astonishingly the highest odds on him being PM are a derisory 9/1
Is that to be PM or to be next PM? To be fair to that Corbyn could win the next election and still not be next PM.
''To describe Longford as a typical English 'village' is stretching things a bit.''
True but there are probably hundreds towns like this in England and their voters decide elections.
But, there aren't hundreds of towns like Longford in England. The 'village' itself was absorbed a very long time ago into the ever growing mass of Heathrow Airport. It hasn't been a pleasant place to live in for decades.
''Haha yes I suppose it would be nice if the prisons that people are sent to for things like witchcraft, sorcery and apostasy were a bit more modern for them before they have their limbs cut off ''.
I don't understand our policy to Saudi any more. When they dominated the global oil market, fair enough.
This Labour "borrow to invest" line is a bit of a joke. Investment is a good thing, but if you are borrowing to invest you are still running up debt in the good times, leaving you no room to borrow in bad times. Labour needs to decide whether it believes in counter cyclical fiscal policy or not. It seems it only believes in it during recessions.
I think that's right. However 'quantifiable proposed returns' (e.g. in the form of BCRs) are rather nebulous beasts at best.
Yet when someone tries some proper infrastructure investment - HS2 - every man jack starts bleating about it. On the converse side the pathetic do something Heathrow 3 has the same goons suggesting it is the bold solution our country needs.
Yes I mean you Fraser Nelson.
I agree, with caveats. The third Heathrow runway is short-termist thinking writ large; a new airport such as Boris Island is the only truly forward-looking solution.
However, given that BI or any other new airport is off the table, and the need is getting desperate, then Heathrow Runway 3 is a reasonable alternative. It's like building the M25 with less lanes than were required. Yet as with the M25, in 20 or 30 years we'll be looking at some very, very expensive further expansions to Heathrow or elsewhere.
It's short-termist, but still required.
Boris Island is perfect for people...........living in France. For the rest of us, it will have to be Heathrow or Gatwick [ less desirable but no other option ] and Stansted.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
What's remarkable in that video given how relatively recent most of the shots are, of the ~10 or so MPs pictured in that video only 2 are still MPs and both of them are backbenchers now. The rest are no longer MPs, as many are dead as are still MPs.
Germany will see 1.5 million migrants this year, according to the latest estimates. You don't think we will see at least 8% of that after the bulk of them get EU passports?
In 8 years time after holding down steady employment and housing in Europe as well as learning the local language? Maybe, maybe not. Don't care, if someone has spent eight years being a productive member of German society and a willingness to learn the local language then that's a good sort of migrant to get is it not?
Just for accuracies sake, it is 5 years not 8 before they get EU citizenship and the right to live anywhere in the EU. It is only 8 years for full German citizenship.
And for the EU citizenship there is no requirement to have learnt a language, held down a job or really done anything other than stay in Germany for 5 years.
Have you got a source for this, I thought EU citizenship was completely indivisible from national citizenship. Which was the issue for the Scots, lose British citizenship and you lose EU citizenship.
I fail to see how anyone can be an EU citizen without being a citizen of a nation, when the Scots can't be.
Slight correction with apologies. It is not EU citizenship it is the right to permanent settlement in the EU. This means you can travel freely to any other EU country and have permanent residence there as well. Effectively it is the same thing. You have the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. It doesn't only apply to Germany but to all EU countries. Obviously Germany is the one causing the most concern at the moment.
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
Manchester probably is too.
You expect us Londoners to go to Manchester ? Isn't it very cold up there ? OK , you can have another runway there too !
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
BI is in the wrong place for most of Heathrow's customers, but the clean-slate idea is probably better than pushing more development on LHR.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
Govt have withdrawn their bid to help run Saudi prisons...
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
Perhaps we could bid for beheading services instead? We used to hold quite a distinction in the field at one time.
Still, it leaves the door wide open for the Russians to move in as advisers. They're probably more suitable anyway, with their stunning record on human rights and gay bashing.
Well they may prefer being bashed to being beheaded, who knows. It's something we can no doubt raise with the Saudis on that Human Rights Comittee that Cameron elected them to the head of.
Comments
They're not taking any responsibility for their current predicament, which is entirely of their own making. I do want both teams to stay, but the sense of entitlement is galling.
Sean Fear said himself it was that which finally made him leave, and that a modicum of respect and tolerance for alternative points of view might have resulted in him staying.
The manifesto was a traditional right-wing one - I read it - and the rest was just mood music and leadership. A successful political leader can, and does, reach out to all sides.
I'm astonished you cannot see this and your 'good riddance' attitude does both you, and the party, no credit at all.
I do share quite a lot in common with a lot of members of the Conservative Party, but not those at the highest level.
And try to be less pompous and supercilious: it doesn't help your case.
It's a very broad church - I had almost nothing in common with most of my local Tories!
And Corbyn and McDonnell were never on message anyway. Nothing's changed there apart from the fact that they're now Leader and SCotE (which is, admittedly, a bloody big change).
We all have our own views and conclusions but I think so much of the internal splits in the conservative movement were manufactured, and we are justifying it post-event, and unnecessarily so.
I see no reason why we couldn't have remained a broad church attracting 40-43% of the vote.
bejasus, sure it's the gift of the ould Blarney you're got there Seaneen
:-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
That the SNP played a blinder for the Tories merely reinforced that for many on the Kipper-> Tory side of the equation, they were doing the right thing. And did no harm at all keeping those Labour -> Kipper quite pleased with their choice.
Are you sure? I can't recall having read that previously.
....
If it is actually implemented as intended then it will bring profound economic benefit to the country. It will bring our debt under control while allowing truly cyclical spending and avoid a repeat of the disaster of the last few years.
However the reason its said to be a gesture is because no Parliament can bind its successors. Which isn't entirely true (they sort of can via international treaties) and so a future government could just reverse this law and spend as it pleases. However in order to do that the future government of the day would have to actively vote through Parliament the fact they wanted to break this rule and why and then when things went tits up they should be held to account for the fact they deliberately broke this rule.
No.10 staffers. There were also numerous briefings on strategy by senior advisors to friendly journalists, like James Forsyth, D'Ancona and Fraser Nelson. I also think the way Cameron referred to UKIP sympathisers as fruitcakes wasn't helpful. There was also no serious attempt to carry the bulk of the voluntary party with Cameron on gay marriage aside from a speech or two, and a couple of emails.
No pomposity is intended: i just think you are just unnecessarily combative and shrill about the right of the Tory party and anything to do with UKIP seems to set off a reaction in you.
All sorts of reasons why McDonnell U turn on budget surplus not a laughing matter, including that Corbyn himself had no idea it was coming
It was Labour's inability to win Tory seats that threw out my calculations. And as for losing them....(Although having looked at the past trends, I did suggest here that The Gower looked interesting! Especially when the Tories sent a battle bus load of workers down there - probably won them the seat....)
I think there is scope for it to be even broader.
Victory for Michael Gove. No 10: govt has decided not to go ahead with contract to advise Saudi penal authorities. Riyadh informed 1/2
Painful but hilarious to watch.
Their response to failing to win an election thanks to that failure has been to play double or quits by electing Corbyn.
What a complete clusterf...
Heathrow is within 2/3 hours drive for close to 30m people.
I know that sounds a bit trite but I think the leadership were a bit slow in waking up to this and I don't think it was necessary to lose them all.
* Those conversations in full:
"I'm not voting for you while you have that pillock Miliband in charge...."
"But if I could convince you that -"
"Bugger off. I'm having my dinner."
Repeat x million times.....
.@DPJHodges @bbclaurak *Can you imagine* a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer refusing to let his PM know the details of his Budget..! ;-)
OK you might call that arrogant but its something far deeper, look at Corbyn and the mob in Manchester, they're rabid.
AS usual, English bowling in non-English conditions is crap !
Victory for Gove, Javid, Corbyn and Carswell... Defeat for Dave and Hammond
I'm not doubting in the least that gay marriage was not popular for a great many in the party, and I counted myself in the number you may be surprised to learn. But a good leader surely cannot be just the echo chamber of his supporters but have the courage to, well, be a leader. Had Cameron attempted to intimidate the membership or his MPs by threats of expulsion or deselection, that would have been altogether a different matter. But allowing people to agree to disagree is wholly commendable in my book.
I am an unashamed moderate Tory but one who has no problem whatever with our being a broad church. We have to be to survive, let alone prosper. But there's the dog and there's the tail and the latter shouldn't wag the former. As for those who choose to leave ro become UKIP members or activists, they have become the party's opponents and they should be defeated. I plead guilty on that score with no remorse.
Astonishingly the highest odds on him being PM are a derisory 9/1
He's a much misunderstood man. Incidentally, I'm not sure some of his wife's writings and interviews help - I heard her say 'I'm not as nice a person as I used to be' on a newspaper review only a few months back.
There's a risk that rubs off on him. It shouldn't matter but I fear it does.
New Labour was and remains a better brand than Labour
I don't live in Saudi, and know it's asking for trouble to get caught with home brew in the back of the car.
LOL Brilliant.
' A track record stretching back hundreds of years....'
1) The contents were not inspiring for adults or children. Reportedly it as superficial fluff with no depth.
2) It was meant to be a temporary structure, which due to cost they decided had to be permanent. Like the Olympic stadium, they did this with no idea of its future use. Therefore it ended up being empty for years, reportedly costing us one million a month to maintain, before it was sold for a song.
If we are going to be build big projects for one-off events, we need to ensure they have a firm and fixed use afterwards. ISTR they did this with the Commonwealth games in Manchester, with the stadium's afterlife sorted before it was built.
They should not be used as a wealth transfer from the state to private companies or football clubs when they are sold.
(On point 1: I didn't go, but this was from reports from people who did, including a couple who enjoyed it).
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276391/binaries/Rude tube advert.jpg
Perhaps we can pick this up and discuss in more detail at the next PB meet in the pub, as fellow party members. I have Tories who are to the Left of you who I count amongst my closest friends!
And, yes, we do have a barney from time to time, but it's just politics..
And, personally, I do not think someone should qualify to live here just because they can speak a language basically after eight years or driven a taxi continuously during that time. Especially if they have a non-working wife and several children that comes with them. I know you do not think there is an upper limit on how many people that should come here, but most people support reducing the numbers substantially. Given a limit number of spots, they should be going to highly skilled migrants that are likely to integrate.
For me, going to Manchester would be quicker than going to Boris Island !
What if the economy does keep chugging along, with wages rising steadily? Seems to me he is gambling on another recession.
Say what you like about the Mail, but these images are arguably very emotive, because the town concerned could be anywhere.
And for the EU citizenship there is no requirement to have learnt a language, held down a job or really done anything other than stay in Germany for 5 years.
It's surrounded by Heathrow Airport and industrial estates, and hasn't been particularly pleasant for the last 60 years or so. And there's been a very large immigration processing centre there for decades.
Great quote in that article btw.
'But Pakistan-born pub owner Rana Saif said the migrants were damaging his sales, adding: ‘No one comes here, when they are standing 20, 80 people outside on the road, on the walls.
'I am going to move from here, as soon as. It was good before the immigrants came.’
I fail to see how anyone can be an EU citizen without being a citizen of a nation, when the Scots can't be.
True but there are probably hundreds towns like this in England and their voters decide elections.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTv7UoK8oJY
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/12/us-ukraine-crisis-mh-idUSKCN0S61S620151012
I don't understand our policy to Saudi any more. When they dominated the global oil market, fair enough.
To think slightly out of the box, take a green field site between M1 and M40 with nothing much east or west of it, maybe between Bicester and Aylesbury. Build 4 parallel runways 09-27. Run HS2 through the airport as well as local rail and a new motorway linking the two existing motorways, maybe even upgrade A34 down to the M4 while we are at it.
It will be very expensive and will require loads of land purchase, but it would be expandable in future and would allow LHR to eventually be sold off for development. Good luck with the NIMBYs of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire though!
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l23034