The Conservative party and Cameron are giving people the first choice about membership that the UK public have had in more than 40 years. I find all this moaning by conspiracy theorists about how that choice is supposedly going to be rigged quite pathetic and, as an agnostic on the matter, more than a bit off putting.
We can all judge the package when we have it. It will either be adequate or it will not. Kippers and Euro phobes alike would be making a much better use of their considerable energy by working up and agreeing alternatives to membership and making a positive case for them in the media and elsewhere. I, for one, am seriously interested in what that alternative might be because the present situation is unsatisfactory and it is unlikely that Cameron will be able to ensure we have adequate protections for our key industries in the future.
So we have the choice of an ok to bad deal in or a completely (as yet) undefined out. Get on with it. There is a case to be made and won here if you only stop the winging and do some positive work. But it is always easier just to carp.
That works both ways, Cameron has said he wants to stay in a reformed EU, it is entirely legitimate to question what those reforms are and what his stance is if he fails to achieve them.
Eurosceptics want to leave regardless of reform, it's about democracy, sovereignty and the right to trade freely across the world.
It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out.
You have totally failed to answer the criticism. Wait til the referendum and listen (difficult I know) and vote. Meanwhile just stop whinging. And if we stay in the path for us to ever closer union will not be a realty because that is the point of the negotiations and we will vote NO otherwise.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, given UKIP's poor performance last night.
Predictable response, deflect a big story towards a council by election.
As uncomfortable as it is for Tories, Cameron is making a fool of himself over the EU, the press are unanimous.
Firstly, I am not a Conservative.
Secondly, we're approaching the EU referendum and UKIP are losing ground. As I said above, if you want to leave the EU you might want to address the problems within your own party rather than just bitching about Cameron.
Sometimes I wonder if a fair few vocal UKIPpers don't actually want to leave the EU ...
Why do you continually refer to ukip? Your stance is extraordinary, I point out that negotiations are going badly and you poke your tongue out and say "yeah but ukip are finished".
The issue of EU membership is non party political, I was campaigning last week with Young Conservatives.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, givensht.
A rather poor had a brief attack of the vapours and assumed against the evidence th comes home with a very small bit of tinsel and tries to dress it up as a great success.
Mr indigo are you Douglas Carswell?
T
Heathrow's not really the government's fault (although they should change the rules).
Unfortuunfortunately the government needs to do the extra work. If they didn't, it would go to court, be delayed & then there would be a good chance they'd need to do the extra work anyway
Convenient that it also gives the opportunity to kick the can down the road to try to avoid a politically impactful decision then.
Gutless. Or incompetent in not being in a position to take the decision yet.
The political advantages are a side benefit.
The choices were making a decision, getting sued, no progress for 6 months and a 50/50 chance of further delay
Or (b) delay now, do the analysis, get sued, 90/10 chance of being able to progress. With political upside.
Not gutless, sensible. For a 50 year decision, 6 months is neither here nor there. But they need to reform judicial review (as I've been saying for 5 years)
So its the second of my two options then - incompetence that after 1000 years, or however bloody long it has taken, they still aren't in a position to take the decision without thinking they will lose a legal challenge, or rather that the risk they might lose is still too high.
Not a ringing endorsement of the government's position even if, as you say, the judicial review system is in dire need of reform. They've had absolutely ages to prepare for whatever option may have ended up being the best.
It's like Chilcott and his excuses for needing to take so long with his report - sure, many of the reasons are valid factors, but even considering them he has taken too damn long. I accept the complexities are likely out of my grasp, but the factors should not have been impossible to overcome in all this time.
Mr. L, you could also ask how it could be worse for us than being locked into a club where a permanent majority (in QMV terms) is set down a course of deeper integration. It's not in our interests to be bound by such a club, particularly when countries such as South Korea can trade with the EU without paying billions every year for the privilege.
'It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out'
Yes indeed it is. The status quo is not acceptable, and the status quo itself will of course give way over time to an even more unacceptable position. The only way to stop the ratchet is to exit the system entirely.
But the leave side need to work a lot harder on this aspect of the argument I think
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, given UKIP's poor performance last night.
A rather poor attempt to deflect the basic truth that Cameron is about to bottle even the 4 year benefits position. At the last election as a Hannanite Tory I wavered toward a kipper vote, but eventually stayed blue because I had a brief attack of the vapours and assumed against the evidence that Cameron can be trusted, not a mistake quite a lot of Tory waverers are likely to make again after this debacle, assuming as expected he comes home with a very small bit of tinsel and tries to dress it up as a great success.
Mr indigo are you Douglas Carswell?
The eurosceptics in the Conservative party regard Cameron as being thoroughly untrustworthy, this sham of renegotiations is going to expose him completely. That's not to say we'll leave, but it will discredit Cameron in the way plenty of us have been pointing out for years.
The Heathrow farce is further evidence.
Heathrow's not really the government's fault (although they should change the rules).
Unfortunately the concept of judicial review - intended to avoid unfair and perverse decisions by the executive - has been stretched beyond all recognition by campaigners.
With the Heathrow activists threatening court action because inadequate analysis of environmental and noise impact of a third runway had been performed, unfortunately the government needs to do the extra work. If they didn't, it would go to court, be delayed & then there would be a good chance they'd need to do the extra work anyway
Convenient that it also gives the opportunity to kick the can down the road to try to avoid a politically impactful decision then.
Gutless. Or incompetent in not being in a position to take the decision yet.
Hasn't Zac Goldsmith threatened to resign as an MP and fight an "anti' byelection campaign if the runways goes ahead> I doubt though he consider resigning as Mayor of London, so that's clearly the gamble.
Since the report by the airport enquiry did not give the desired result I am glad the can has been kicked down the road.
It might be because I'm a metropolitan liberal, but I don't really see why there's all the fuss about in-work benefits for immigrants. Is anyone really going to determine their vote on such a tiny share of public spending?
I feel the question of protection for non-Eurozone countries is much more important, yet it seems to have had very little attention. It is a likelihood the Eurozone will integrate much more over the next 10-15 years, and there is a danger we will be caught in their slipstream. The difference between a veto and an ECJ-enforced guarantee of equal protection is vast in terms of the implications for our sovereignty and influence.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, given UKIP's poor performance last night.
Predictable response, deflect a big story towards a council by election.
As uncomfortable as it is for Tories, Cameron is making a fool of himself over the EU, the press are unanimous.
Firstly, I am not a Conservative.
Secondly, we're approaching the EU referendum and UKIP are losing ground. As I said above, if you want to leave the EU you might want to address the problems within your own party rather than just bitching about Cameron.
Sometimes I wonder if a fair few vocal UKIPpers don't actually want to leave the EU ...
Why do you continually refer to ukip? Your stance is extraordinary, I point out that negotiations are going badly and you poke your tongue out and say "yeah but ukip are finished".
The issue of EU membership is non party political, I was campaigning last week with Young Conservatives.
I've not said UKIP are finished; if you want to be a serious commenter, I suggest you don't invent quotes just so you can argue against the quote.
My stance is not extraordinary in the least: saying that the main party wanting out not performing well is a problem for out is hardly rocket science.
The Conservative party and Cameron are giving people the first choice about membership that the UK public have had in more than 40 years. I find all this moaning by conspiracy theorists about how that choice is supposedly going to be rigged quite pathetic and, as an agnostic on the matter, more than a bit off putting.
We can all judge the package when we have it. It will either be adequate or it will not. Kippers and Euro phobes alike would be making a much better use of their considerable energy by working up and agreeing alternatives to membership and making a positive case for them in the media and elsewhere. I, for one, am seriously interested in what that alternative might be because the present situation is unsatisfactory and it is unlikely that Cameron will be able to ensure we have adequate protections for our key industries in the future.
So we have the choice of an ok to bad deal in or a completely (as yet) undefined out. Get on with it. There is a case to be made and won here if you only stop the winging and do some positive work. But it is always easier just to carp.
That works both ways, Cameron has said he wants to stay in a reformed EU, it is entirely legitimate to question what those reforms are and what his stance is if he fails to achieve them.
Eurosceptics want to leave regardless of reform, it's about democracy, sovereignty and the right to trade freely across the world.
It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out.
What is the alternative and how will it be better for the UK? The argument that the dynamics and future direction of the EU has been set by the creation and survival of the Euro (despite all the certainties of the sceptics to the contrary) is really overwhelming. It is very far from an ideal scenario for us. But, as we saw in Scotland, there has to be a credible choice. If there is not we will take the deal on offer no matter how disappointing it is.
The alternative is we will be able to trade freely with the whole world, we will be free from EU membership fees, free to control our own borders, free from EU bureaucracy, removed from ever closer political union.
You may not want that, that's your choice and you'll vote accordingly.
I'm simply pointing out the sham of Cameron's negotiations in line with his "gutless" stance over Heathrow. I appreciate certain Tories won't hear of criticism of the PM, but it's entirely legitimate.
If @rcs1000 is about - on your recommendation, I slogged through 7 episodes of Jennifer Jones. I'd give it a 7/10. I'm clearly missing what made you such a fan. I'll finish it only because I'm stubborn
Do you mean Jessica Jones? If so, I'd give 7/10 as about right. A bit like Daredevil I found it brilliantly produced and brilliantly acted, but it just didn't grab me. The grimness of both may not have been right up my alley, but onboth cases I felt it had all the elements there that I should have thought them brilliant, but ended up just thinking it was pretty decent. I also kept thinking the heroine, even considering the burdens she was under mentally, came across as pretty dim, rather than stubborn, which was distracting.
If @rcs1000 is about - on your recommendation, I slogged through 7 episodes of Jennifer Jones. I'd give it a 7/10. I'm clearly missing what made you such a fan. I'll finish it only because I'm stubborn
Do you mean Jessica Jones? If so, I'd give 7/10 as about right. A bit like Daredevil I found it brilliantly produced and brilliantly acted, but it just didn't grab me. The grimness of both may not have been right up my alley, but onboth cases I felt it had all the elements there that I should have thought them brilliant, but ended up just thinking it was pretty decent. I also kept thinking the heroine, even considering the burdens she was under mentally, came across as pretty dim, rather than stubborn, which was distracting.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
Miss Lass, problem is that Corbyn's already referred to friends in Hamas and Hezbollah, and he and his chancellor have quoted Hoxha and Mao whilst Livingstone, appointed by Corbyn to a Defence matter, has claimed UK foreign policy absolved the 7/7 bombers of their responsibility.
Corbyn has a lot of previous which Sturgeon did not.
Indeed, it all depends on how you are already perceived. Osborne could have quoted Mao and there would have been no fuss. (Well, maybe some. He might have tried a line of Mao's from Nixon in China: "I like right-wingers. Nixon, Heath...")
'It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out'
Yes indeed it is. The status quo is not acceptable, and the status quo itself will of course give way over time to an even more unacceptable position. The only way to stop the ratchet is to exit the system entirely.
But the leave side need to work a lot harder on this aspect of the argument I think
That's the main reason I'll probably vote to leave. Even though I could live with the relationship as it is, all I see from the EU is the desire for further integration. Frankly, I don't want to head where they're heading, and they seem in little mood to stop.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, given UKIP's poor performance last night.
Predictable response, deflect a big story towards a council by election.
As uncomfortable as it is for Tories, Cameron is making a fool of himself over the EU, the press are unanimous.
Firstly, I am not a Conservative.
Secondly, we're approaching the EU referendum and UKIP are losing ground. As I said above, if you want to leave the EU you might want to address the problems within your own party rather than just bitching about Cameron.
Sometimes I wonder if a fair few vocal UKIPpers don't actually want to leave the EU ...
Why do you continually refer to ukip? Your stance is extraordinary, I point out that negotiations are going badly and you poke your tongue out and say "yeah but ukip are finished".
The issue of EU membership is non party political, I was campaigning last week with Young Conservatives.
I've not said UKIP are finished; if you want to be a serious commenter, I suggest you don't invent quotes just so you can argue against the quote.
My stance is not extraordinary in the least: saying that the main party wanting out not performing well is a problem for out is hardly rocket science.
Not for the first time you attempt to patronise when cornered. If I wanted to be a serious commenter I wouldn't waste time on here.
And again you are incorrect, millions of Tories want out, more Tories than kippers.
'It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out'
Yes indeed it is. The status quo is not acceptable, and the status quo itself will of course give way over time to an even more unacceptable position. The only way to stop the ratchet is to exit the system entirely.
But the leave side need to work a lot harder on this aspect of the argument I think
Exactly the point I have been making since the campaigns kicked off. – The BOOers should be hammering this home every day, but instead it would appear they have chosen immigration as their main theme. – Such an easy target to paint your opponent as [fill in space] and just looks awful for those undecideds who could be swayed into the leave camp.
'It must be pointed out that if we stay the dynamic will change completely, that the path to ever closer union will become a reality. It's the responsibility of eurosceptics to point that out'
Yes indeed it is. The status quo is not acceptable, and the status quo itself will of course give way over time to an even more unacceptable position. The only way to stop the ratchet is to exit the system entirely.
But the leave side need to work a lot harder on this aspect of the argument I think
Correct Mr Runnymede and thanks for picking up on my point. If you're tired of the EU now you ain't seen nothing yet.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
From what I've read, both the projections on air pollution at Heathrow and the estimations of passenger numbers at Gatwick have been shown to be completely incorrect and unduly favouring Heathrow.
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
You are putting words into my mouth in the first sentence.
Leaving that aside, let me ask you some questions:
1) when do you think Farage will have taken UKIP as far as he can? 2) what matters more: UKIP or winning the referendum? 3) do you think Farage will help or hinder the leave campaign, and why?
You can tell a lot about the bias of the piece from the photo they choose to accompany it I always think!
But it is true enough that UKIP don't seem to be doing as well as other, similar European parties. Could it be FPTP?
Another thing that rings true is the desire of some people to be more aggressively outspoken than UKIP are... A criticism of UKIP I could make is that, rather like any minority/fringe group that likes to think of itself as "Different", its ultimate aim is to be part of the establishment, and UKIP politicians are pretty indistinguishable from others since they thought they might be getting there
Mr. Isam, far likelier UKIP is suffering from under-performing at the General Election [yes, FPTP plays a role but they know the rules and have been rubbish at electioneering for decades], and Farage's ridiculous non-resignation.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
From what I've read, both the projections on air pollution at Heathrow and the estimations of passenger numbers at Gatwick have been shown to be completely incorrect and unduly favouring Heathrow.
I'd be interested in sources for that; I intend to read up on this subject again when I get a chance.
(One of the problems being that the pro-Heathrow campaign, and to a lesser extent the Gatwick one, is funded by large organisations. They are both muddying each others' water. Or polluting each others' air)
You can tell a lot about the bias of the piece from the photo they choose to accompany it I always think!
But it is true enough that UKIP don't seem to be doing as well as other, similar European parties. Could it be FPTP?
Another thing that rings true is the desire of some people to be more aggressively outspoken than UKIP are... A criticism of UKIP I could make is that, rather like any minority/fringe group that likes to think of itself as "Different", its ultimate aim is to be part of the establishment, and UKIP politicians are pretty indistinguishable from others since they thought they might be getting there
I thought the article's sharpest point was this one:
"Successful populist parties tend to play simultaneously on two different fears: one of cultural erosion and a loss of sovereignty, blamed on mass immigration or the EU; the other of the threat to traditional jobs and ways of life from globalisation (or “getting slaves to make things abroad to sell to unemployed people here”, as Ms Le Pen calls it). But UKIP’s focus is only on the first, as it is broadly at ease with free markets: Mr Farage even backs privatisation of the National Health Service. That makes it harder to woo Labour voters."
UKIP had a big choice to make after the last election but it hasn't made it. If it wants to progress, it needs to junk the Thatcherism.
.... Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
You are putting words into my mouth in the first sentence.
Leaving that aside, let me ask you some questions:
1) when do you think Farage will have taken UKIP as far as he can? 2) what matters more: UKIP or winning the referendum? 3) do you think Farage will help or hinder the leave campaign, and why?
Possibly Winning the referendum He will help I think, because a lot more people like him than vote UKIP (say the polls), the man on the street that doesn't like politics does like him, and it is mainly political obsessives and diehards of other parties that don't. I don't think he should lead the campaign though, that should be Michael Portillo...come on sadmanonatrain!
Sorry I missed the "when" in the first question. I don't know
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
This may just be me but it also appears to be an extremely dull subject, about on a par with arguing about railway gauges.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, given UKIP's poor performance last night.
Predictable response, deflect a big story towards a council by election.
As uncomfortable as it is for Tories, Cameron is making a fool of himself over the EU, the press are unanimous.
Firstly, I am not a Conservative.
Secondly, we're approaching the EU referendum and UKIP are losing ground. As I said above, if you want to leave the EU you might want to address the problems within your own party rather than just bitching about Cameron.
Sometimes I wonder if a fair few vocal UKIPpers don't actually want to leave the EU ...
Why do you continually refer to ukip? Your stance is extraordinary, I point out that negotiations are going badly and you poke your tongue out and say "yeah but ukip are finished".
The issue of EU membership is non party political, I was campaigning last week with Young Conservatives.
I've not said UKIP are finished; if you want to be a serious commenter, I suggest you don't invent quotes just so you can argue against the quote.
My stance is not extraordinary in the least: saying that the main party wanting out not performing well is a problem for out is hardly rocket science.
Not for the first time you attempt to patronise when cornered. If I wanted to be a serious commenter I wouldn't waste time on here.
And again you are incorrect, millions of Tories want out, more Tories than kippers.
I'm not being patronising. It's just that you invented a quote and then argued against it.
I'm not sure why millions of Tories (surely you mean Conservative voters) want out means I am wrong.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
This may just be me but it also appears to be an extremely dull subject, about on a par with arguing about railway gauges.
Ah, there's a topic to warm the cockles of my heart!
We could broadly discuss railway gauges on here, or narrow it down to just UK ones. But I fear as standard we'll just get into arguments and increase the loading on this site.
"That is why jumping on the anti-Stop the War bandwagon by some leading Greens suggests a loss of political nerve. Is it too cynical to detect in this behaviour a fear that the Pied Piper of Islington is attracting the electoral support of large numbers of hitherto Green supporters and needs to be denounced?" http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/the-assault-on-stop-the-war-is-really-aimed-at-jeremy-corbyn
Not backed by polling, so far. Gen Election: 3.8%. Recent polls around 3-4%
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
This may just be me but it also appears to be an extremely dull subject, about on a par with arguing about railway gauges.
Just a proxy for more class war against Osbo and Cam - nothing new .
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
"That is why jumping on the anti-Stop the War bandwagon by some leading Greens suggests a loss of political nerve. Is it too cynical to detect in this behaviour a fear that the Pied Piper of Islington is attracting the electoral support of large numbers of hitherto Green supporters and needs to be denounced?" http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/the-assault-on-stop-the-war-is-really-aimed-at-jeremy-corbyn
Not backed by polling, so far. Gen Election: 3.8%. Recent polls around 3-4%
STW person trampled all over the Lab MP (and Jim Naughtie) this morning.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
Dave's embarrasment before country
It would have been more than embarrassment. There would have been a Parliamentary by-election caused by the Conservatives' London Mayoral candidate resigning, presumably a new Conservative candidate (with very poor prospects) would need to have been found for the Mayoral race in short order and the entire dynamic of British politics would have changed. Why should David Cameron sign up to that when he didn't have to?
You can tell a lot about the bias of the piece from the photo they choose to accompany it I always think!
But it is true enough that UKIP don't seem to be doing as well as other, similar European parties. Could it be FPTP?
Another thing that rings true is the desire of some people to be more aggressively outspoken than UKIP are... A criticism of UKIP I could make is that, rather like any minority/fringe group that likes to think of itself as "Different", its ultimate aim is to be part of the establishment, and UKIP politicians are pretty indistinguishable from others since they thought they might be getting there
I thought the article's sharpest point was this one:
"Successful populist parties tend to play simultaneously on two different fears: one of cultural erosion and a loss of sovereignty, blamed on mass immigration or the EU; the other of the threat to traditional jobs and ways of life from globalisation (or “getting slaves to make things abroad to sell to unemployed people here”, as Ms Le Pen calls it). But UKIP’s focus is only on the first, as it is broadly at ease with free markets: Mr Farage even backs privatisation of the National Health Service. That makes it harder to woo Labour voters."
UKIP had a big choice to make after the last election but it hasn't made it. If it wants to progress, it needs to junk the Thatcherism.
Quite. Just like the SNP, it has to junk the sensible analysis and get on with the pandering.
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
You are putting words into my mouth in the first sentence.
Leaving that aside, let me ask you some questions:
1) when do you think Farage will have taken UKIP as far as he can? 2) what matters more: UKIP or winning the referendum? 3) do you think Farage will help or hinder the leave campaign, and why?
Possibly Winning the referendum He will help I think, because a lot more people like him than vote UKIP (say the polls), the man on the street that doesn't like politics does like him, and it is mainly political obsessives and diehards of other parties that don't. I don't think he should lead the campaign though, that should be Michael Portillo...come on sadmanonatrain!
Sorry I missed the "when" in the first question. I don't know
Thanks.
The third answer is the one that'll be most interesting. Personally I can only see him hindering the campaign, but then I'm probably as anti-Farage as you are for him!
The Conservative party and Cameron are giving people the first choice about membership that the UK public have had in more than 40 years. I find all this moaning by conspiracy theorists about how that choice is supposedly going to be rigged quite pathetic and, as an agnostic on the matter, more than a bit off putting.
We can all judge the package when we have it. It will either be adequate or it will not. Kippers and Euro phobes alike would be making a much better use of their considerable energy by working up and agreeing alternatives to membership and making a positive case for them in the media and elsewhere. I, for one, am seriously interested in what that alternative might be because the present situation is unsatisfactory and it is unlikely that Cameron will be able to ensure we have adequate protections for our key industries in the future.
So we have the choice of an ok to bad deal in or a completely (as yet) undefined out. Get on with it. There is a case to be made and won here if you only stop the winging and do some positive work. But it is always easier just to carp.
Precisely right. After all, if Con/UKIp waverers had voted UKIP in greater numbers, we wouldn't be having the referendum at all, we'd have Ed Miliband as PM.
What's more, in political terms, the tedious claims that the renegotiation is a 'sham', or that Cameron hasn't been tough enough, are counter-productive from the Leave point of view. I remain baffled as to why the Leavers don't seem to understand this blindingly obvious point. It would be far better to say: "The PM has tried really hard to get reforms, and has done everything that couild be done, but the results show that the EU is simply not interested in reform and is set on a different direction to us. So we're better off out".
Combined with the fact that, as you say, they haven't put any effort into resolving the massive uncertainty of what Out might look like, it's as though they want to lose this referendum.
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
You are putting words into my mouth in the first sentence.
Leaving that aside, let me ask you some questions:
1) when do you think Farage will have taken UKIP as far as he can? 2) what matters more: UKIP or winning the referendum? 3) do you think Farage will help or hinder the leave campaign, and why?
Possibly Winning the referendum He will help I think, because a lot more people like him than vote UKIP (say the polls), the man on the street that doesn't like politics does like him, and it is mainly political obsessives and diehards of other parties that don't. I don't think he should lead the campaign though, that should be Michael Portillo...come on sadmanonatrain!
Sorry I missed the "when" in the first question. I don't know
Thanks.
The third answer is the one that'll be most interesting. Personally I can only see him hindering the campaign, but then I'm probably as anti-Farage as you are for him!
To be honest, I am not a massive fan of his style, I think he can be a bit patronising and should be more serious. Recently he seems more stage managed than he used to and I think it will do him a big favour when he jacks it in.
But I struggle to call someone a failure when he has devoted his life to a cause and has a good shot at achieving it, and struggle even more to criticise him for not taking a back seat now that the moment is almost upon us, I cant think of anyone who would
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
From what I've read, both the projections on air pollution at Heathrow and the estimations of passenger numbers at Gatwick have been shown to be completely incorrect and unduly favouring Heathrow.
I'd be interested in sources for that; I intend to read up on this subject again when I get a chance.
(One of the problems being that the pro-Heathrow campaign, and to a lesser extent the Gatwick one, is funded by large organisations. They are both muddying each others' water. Or polluting each others' air)
'That's the main reason I'll probably vote to leave. Even though I could live with the relationship as it is, all I see from the EU is the desire for further integration. Frankly, I don't want to head where they're heading, and they seem in little mood to stop.'
That I think sums things up perfectly and speaks for most people in the country. And that is what the leave campaign should be saying, rather than obsessing about Cameron's fake renegotiation.
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
From what I've read, both the projections on air pollution at Heathrow and the estimations of passenger numbers at Gatwick have been shown to be completely incorrect and unduly favouring Heathrow.
I'd be interested in sources for that; I intend to read up on this subject again when I get a chance.
(One of the problems being that the pro-Heathrow campaign, and to a lesser extent the Gatwick one, is funded by large organisations. They are both muddying each others' water. Or polluting each others' air)
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
TBH I don't think they had much choice. As you say, the political timing is one factor. The other is that the air quality issue is a very real one in legal terms:
'That's the main reason I'll probably vote to leave. Even though I could live with the relationship as it is, all I see from the EU is the desire for further integration. Frankly, I don't want to head where they're heading, and they seem in little mood to stop.'
That I think sums things up perfectly and speaks for most people in the country. And that is what the leave campaign should be saying, rather than obsessing about Cameron's fake renegotiation.
It's not quite a braveheart-y as Indyref but one shouldn't ignore the nationalist element.
I see it more dispassionately as a regulatory mechanism which, I suppose, in other words is indeed sovereignty...
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
That's the past. If he can't take you from 12.5% to 20% he's worse than useless.
'That's the main reason I'll probably vote to leave. Even though I could live with the relationship as it is, all I see from the EU is the desire for further integration. Frankly, I don't want to head where they're heading, and they seem in little mood to stop.'
That I think sums things up perfectly and speaks for most people in the country. And that is what the leave campaign should be saying, rather than obsessing about Cameron's fake renegotiation.
I'm in the same boat. The out campaign would do well to remember Cameron is more popular than his party and focus on the real baddies - the Federalists running the EU.
Seems as though the telegraph, the sun, the guardian, and the BBC are all xenophobic kippers getting their excuses in early for the referendum defeat
Who knew?!
You're the first person to mention xenophobia on this thread.
As the keenest fan of Farage on here, I'd have thought you'd want to spend a little time considering your position on his 'leadership'.
Sorry europhobes
No it's ok I get it. You are not a conservative and everyone who mocks Cameron's negotiations is a bitter kipper, understood
Farages leadership has taken UKIP from 3% to 12.5% in the GE, won the euros, won a couple of seats in the H of C, improved vote in almost every seat and got us a referendum, so I am ok with it
That's the past. If he can't take you from 12.5% to 20% he's worse than useless.
My first instinct is you are joking, but just in case you are not...
I thought the question was what I thought of Farage's leadership? I base that on how the party has done in the 5 years he has been leader. It would take some nerve to suggest UKIP are worse off now, though I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it
This from the publication that predicted UKIP would struggle to get more than 10% at the general election.
The answer to the question is that the Purples usually do better in the second half of a parliament AFAIK.
First past the post is one obvious answer. On current polling, UKIP will have little difficulty getting members elected to the Senedd and London Assembly in May, because they use a form of PR.
Most continental countries by contrast, use various forms of PR. Even in France, the Regional Assemblies elect 75% of their members by PR.
'That's the main reason I'll probably vote to leave. Even though I could live with the relationship as it is, all I see from the EU is the desire for further integration. Frankly, I don't want to head where they're heading, and they seem in little mood to stop.'
That I think sums things up perfectly and speaks for most people in the country. And that is what the leave campaign should be saying, rather than obsessing about Cameron's fake renegotiation.
Totally agree. – You can do both of course, but the main focus should always be on the EU.
Cameron will be hoping Trump keeps himself in the news, the Telegraph front page refers to the PM as "gutless" while the Guardian reports on his EU "negotiations".
I'm sure the pack of pb Tories will rush to his defence.
You might be better off giving some thought to your own party's travails, givensht.
A rather poor had a brief attack of the vapours and assumed against the evidence th comes home with a very small bit of tinsel and tries to dress it up as a great success.
Mr indigo are you Douglas Carswell?
T
Heathrow's not really the government's fault (although they should change the rules).
Unfortuunfortunately the government needs to do the extra work. If they didn't, it would go to court, be delayed & then there would be a good chance they'd need to do the extra work anyway
Convenient that it also gives the opportunity to kick the can down the road to try to avoid a politically impactful decision then.
Gutless. Or incompetent in not being in a position to take the decision yet.
The political advantages are a side benefit.
The choices were making a decision, getting sued, no progress for 6 months and a 50/50 chance of further delay
Or (b) delay now, do the analysis, get sued, 90/10 chance of being able to progress. With political upside.
Not gutless, sensible. For a 50 year decision, 6 months is neither here nor there. But they need to reform judicial review (as I've been saying for 5 years)
So its the second of my two options then - incompetence that after 1000 years, or however bloody long it has taken, they still aren't in a position to take the decision without thinking they will lose a legal challenge, or rather that the risk they might lose is still too high.
Not a ringing endorsement of the government's position even if, as you say, the judicial review system is in dire need of reform. They've had absolutely ages to prepare for whatever option may have ended up being the best.
It's like Chilcott and his excuses for needing to take so long with his report - sure, many of the reasons are valid factors, but even considering them he has taken too damn long. I accept the complexities are likely out of my grasp, but the factors should not have been impossible to overcome in all this time.
For which the blame should lie with the independent commission that spent 3 years reviewing it.
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
As always, when someone is coming in for a lot of flak it usually means that they've done something sensible.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
TBH I don't think they had much choice. As you say, the political timing is one factor. The other is that the air quality issue is a very real one in legal terms:
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
Oh and try to convince me with FACTS , I am open to persuasion. Just leave off the insults that doesn't get us anywhare.
I can not fathom how anyone believes the disputes over EU benefits are genuine. Cameron negotiated with other EU leaders for months and months before he wrote the letter. Any humiliating surrender he needed to make has already been done. Given he was willing to fold so easily, and to such little scrutiny from the compliant media, on migration caps, the CFP, the CAP, the social chapter, the EU budget, treaty change etc, why on Earth would he have put anything in doubt in such a publicly available document? You'd have to be even more gullible to believe it when ministers are on record as saying there would be a manufactured row!
The four demands are actually only two demands: a non-EZ veto and a four year ban on benefits. They have already been won. They were due to be announced in December but the Lords messing about has meant the shine of the false victory would have worn off by the time of the vote. So they are now delaying until the vote is in law. Then there will be a last minute victory by Cameron, which the Europhile and Tory loyalist press will report as an unexpected victory over hard opposition. The word Thatcherite might even be used. Then there will be a rush to vote before it unravels as having no effect on immigration whatsoever.
Nice to see you back.
I like Alistair Meeks' metaphor about tag wrestling "You grunt, I'll groan." He used it in relation to disputes within the coalition from 2010-15.
But, it applies just as much to these negotiations.
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
Firstly, the economists 10% prediction wasn't a poll, so using the Margin of Error % based on the sample size of a poll is so preposterous it can hardly be expressed
If that mistake were allowed, I could predict the Green party to get 2.5% of the vote in Hornchurch, and claim it was within MoE when they got zero votes
I think your example of 12.2-13 would be more creditable than 9.5-15.5 definitely yes
It's astonishing to see the number of supposedly politically neutral people and bodies that have been drawn into making pronouncements regarding Trump's recent comments. Interfering in another country's politics doesn't usually end well, as the Guardian learned with Bush / Ohio in 2004.
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
Firstly, the economists 10% prediction wasn't a poll, so using the Margin of Error % based on the sample size of a poll is so preposterous it can hardly be expressed
If that mistake were allowed, I could predict the Green party to get 2.5% of the vote in Hornchurch, and claim it was within MoE when they got zero votes
I think your example of 12.2-13 would be more creditable than 9.5-15.5 definitely yes
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
Firstly, the economists 10% prediction wasn't a poll, so using the Margin of Error % based on the sample size of a poll is so preposterous it can hardly be expressed
If that mistake were allowed, I could predict the Green party to get 2.5% of the vote in Hornchurch, and claim it was within MoE when they got zero votes
I think your example of 12.2-13 would be more creditable than 9.5-15.5 definitely yes
!0% was a pretty good prediction.
No it wasn't! It was 25% wrong
You are effectively saying that someone predicting the Conservatives would get 30% was on the money
It's astonishing to see the number of supposedly politically neutral people and bodies that have been drawn into making pronouncements regarding Trump's recent comments. Interfering in another country's politics doesn't usually end well, as the Guardian learned with Bush / Ohio in 2004.
Donald Trump made comments about law enforcement in Britain. Can you imagine the headlines if the Prime MInister's spokesperson had declined to comment on claims that there are no-go areas in London for the police?
It's astonishing to see the number of supposedly politically neutral people and bodies that have been drawn into making pronouncements regarding Trump's recent comments. Interfering in another country's politics doesn't usually end well, as the Guardian learned with Bush / Ohio in 2004.
I don't think the Guardian would claim to be a politically neutral body.
Do you think that a 3% margin of error applies to each individual parties percentage? So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
Firstly, the economists 10% prediction wasn't a poll, so using the Margin of Error % based on the sample size of a poll is so preposterous it can hardly be expressed
If that mistake were allowed, I could predict the Green party to get 2.5% of the vote in Hornchurch, and claim it was within MoE when they got zero votes
I think your example of 12.2-13 would be more creditable than 9.5-15.5 definitely yes
!0% was a pretty good prediction.
No it wasn't! It was 25% wrong
You are effectively saying that someone predicting the Conservatives would get 30% was on the money
Isam is right on this - the lower the percentage result the smaller the statistical margin of error. The standard error for p = 10% (sample size 1000) is 0.95%, whereas the standard error for p = 40% is 1.55%. A 95% confidence interval is +/- 1.96 standard errors (1.86% & 3.04% respectively above).
Mr. JS, quite. Saw the smirking idiot Jacqui 'Raw Meat' Smith and the wet Iain Dale on Sky papers a few nights ago who seemed to support the notion Trump should be banned. Hate speech, apparently.
Edited extra bit: for the record, I think Trump is an idiot, and his view is idiotic.
But freedom of speech means people have the right to say moronic things without being silenced by the chattering classes and hashtag mobs.
What an odious little organisation Stop the War appear to be. That Corbyn, defending his attending their Xmas do (which I do actually support him doing, as to shun them now would be ridiculous backtracking) referred to them as 'people who want peace' as though those not a part of STW do not want that, is at best self righteous and deluded about the inconsistency of their positioning and ingoring their unsavourary claims, and at worse saying he supports their offensive positioning. They do a disservice to those who are reasoned, consistent and principled in their opposition to military action by tarring them with the STW brush.
What an odious little organisation Stop the War appear to be. That Corbyn, defending his attending their Xmas do (which I do actually support him doing, as to shun them now would be ridiculous backtracking) referred to them as 'people who want peace' as though those not a part of STW do not want that, is at best self righteous and deluded about the inconsistency of their positioning and ingoring their unsavourary claims, and at worse saying he supports their offensive positioning. They do a disservice to those who are reasoned, consistent and principled in their opposition to military action by tarring them with the STW brush.
Well, STW doesn't want peace. Until the West is defeated it wants war.
Apols for posting again - but this trenchant writing was on a Nationalist blog:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Scotland: The Slightly Less English British Franchise....
The Franchise where corporation tax is lower than it is in London. The Franchise where you can still go to jail for possessing cannabis, but hey, didn’t we show those English twats who is boss? The Franchise where we still operate on the same moral playing field as the union we so denounce – politically, economically and militarily insulated by NATO and the EU – while believing ourselves to be morally superior.
Scotland: The Slightly Less English British Franchise where being Scottish alone is what makes us moral. Where being Scottish in and of itself trumps all else. Where being Scottish is its own justification and anybody with anything critical to say is a vicious nonce apologist.
Bella Caledonia is pro Independence not pro SNP. I presume the writer is RISE or SSP.
Not everyone who is pro-Independence is pro-SNP ;-) (as indeed the comments demonstrate: See this “SNPbad” chat? It’s pathetic. It’s designed to shut down legitimate criticism of the One True Party. Time to grow up.)
Comments
And if we stay in the path for us to ever closer union will not be a realty because that is the point of the negotiations and we will vote NO otherwise.
The issue of EU membership is non party political, I was campaigning last week with Young Conservatives.
Not a ringing endorsement of the government's position even if, as you say, the judicial review system is in dire need of reform. They've had absolutely ages to prepare for whatever option may have ended up being the best.
It's like Chilcott and his excuses for needing to take so long with his report - sure, many of the reasons are valid factors, but even considering them he has taken too damn long. I accept the complexities are likely out of my grasp, but the factors should not have been impossible to overcome in all this time.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21679816-populist-right-surging-across-europe-ukip-trails-its-wake-unrisen-fruitcakes
Yes indeed it is. The status quo is not acceptable, and the status quo itself will of course give way over time to an even more unacceptable position. The only way to stop the ratchet is to exit the system entirely.
But the leave side need to work a lot harder on this aspect of the argument I think
Jim Waterson
"I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what I do" Nine years since the greatest ever news story: https://t.co/XVJvtlpj2N https://t.co/JPyu3eIsfS
It might be because I'm a metropolitan liberal, but I don't really see why there's all the fuss about in-work benefits for immigrants. Is anyone really going to determine their vote on such a tiny share of public spending?
I feel the question of protection for non-Eurozone countries is much more important, yet it seems to have had very little attention. It is a likelihood the Eurozone will integrate much more over the next 10-15 years, and there is a danger we will be caught in their slipstream. The difference between a veto and an ECJ-enforced guarantee of equal protection is vast in terms of the implications for our sovereignty and influence.
My stance is not extraordinary in the least: saying that the main party wanting out not performing well is a problem for out is hardly rocket science.
You may not want that, that's your choice and you'll vote accordingly.
I'm simply pointing out the sham of Cameron's negotiations in line with his "gutless" stance over Heathrow. I appreciate certain Tories won't hear of criticism of the PM, but it's entirely legitimate.
Good day everyone.
Good day everyone.
David Cameron is not obliged to make his decision on extra airport capacity on a timetable that causes him needless political problems. Given that the idea of a third runway at Heathrow has been knocking around for 30 years, another 6 months or so isn't going to make all that much difference, even if it is as essential as the consensus seems to have it (personally, I have severe doubts).
Scotland: South Lanarkshire 3.8%
North West: Clifton(Fylde) 11.8%
Midlands: Coal Aston (Derbyshire) 6.7%
Midlands: Market Logan (Harborough) 2.8%
East/SE: Huntingdon East 4.2%
Lab Vote Share (previous) and retention
Scotland: South Lanarkshire 47.2% (54.2%) - retention 87% of previous vote share
North West: Clifton(Fylde) 8.7% (18.3%) - retention 48%
Midlands: Coal Aston (Derbyshire) 33.4% (40.1%) - retention 83%
Midlands: Market Logan (Harborough) 9.2% (15.1%) - retention 61%
East/SE: Huntingdon East 7.5% (10.4) - retention 72%
And again you are incorrect, millions of Tories want out, more Tories than kippers.
Leaving that aside, let me ask you some questions:
1) when do you think Farage will have taken UKIP as far as he can?
2) what matters more: UKIP or winning the referendum?
3) do you think Farage will help or hinder the leave campaign, and why?
But it is true enough that UKIP don't seem to be doing as well as other, similar European parties. Could it be FPTP?
Another thing that rings true is the desire of some people to be more aggressively outspoken than UKIP are... A criticism of UKIP I could make is that, rather like any minority/fringe group that likes to think of itself as "Different", its ultimate aim is to be part of the establishment, and UKIP politicians are pretty indistinguishable from others since they thought they might be getting there
(One of the problems being that the pro-Heathrow campaign, and to a lesser extent the Gatwick one, is funded by large organisations. They are both muddying each others' water. Or polluting each others' air)
"Successful populist parties tend to play simultaneously on two different fears: one of cultural erosion and a loss of sovereignty, blamed on mass immigration or the EU; the other of the threat to traditional jobs and ways of life from globalisation (or “getting slaves to make things abroad to sell to unemployed people here”, as Ms Le Pen calls it). But UKIP’s focus is only on the first, as it is broadly at ease with free markets: Mr Farage even backs privatisation of the National Health Service. That makes it harder to woo Labour voters."
UKIP had a big choice to make after the last election but it hasn't made it. If it wants to progress, it needs to junk the Thatcherism.
Winning the referendum
He will help I think, because a lot more people like him than vote UKIP (say the polls), the man on the street that doesn't like politics does like him, and it is mainly political obsessives and diehards of other parties that don't. I don't think he should lead the campaign though, that should be Michael Portillo...come on sadmanonatrain!
Sorry I missed the "when" in the first question. I don't know
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking 2m2 minutes ago
No further action to be taken over phone hacking at Mirror Group or News Group Newspapers, UK prosecutors says http://bbc.in/1QA7bJW
I'm not sure why millions of Tories (surely you mean Conservative voters) want out means I am wrong.
We could broadly discuss railway gauges on here, or narrow it down to just UK ones. But I fear as standard we'll just get into arguments and increase the loading on this site.
Interesting @YouGov experiment showing possible reaction of voters to @David_Cameron renegotiation results @UKandEU https://t.co/20kOih7aVh
"That is why jumping on the anti-Stop the War bandwagon by some leading Greens suggests a loss of political nerve. Is it too cynical to detect in this behaviour a fear that the Pied Piper of Islington is attracting the electoral support of large numbers of hitherto Green supporters and needs to be denounced?"
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/the-assault-on-stop-the-war-is-really-aimed-at-jeremy-corbyn
Not backed by polling, so far. Gen Election: 3.8%. Recent polls around 3-4%
http://www.markpack.org.uk/136129/stop-the-war-mount-sinjar/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03523/111215-MATT-WEB_3523418a.jpg
The third answer is the one that'll be most interesting. Personally I can only see him hindering the campaign, but then I'm probably as anti-Farage as you are for him!
The answer to the question is that the Purples usually do better in the second half of a parliament AFAIK.
^ German court lets off 'Sharia police' patrol in Wuppertal
How delightfully enriching.
Source: BBC R5
What's more, in political terms, the tedious claims that the renegotiation is a 'sham', or that Cameron hasn't been tough enough, are counter-productive from the Leave point of view. I remain baffled as to why the Leavers don't seem to understand this blindingly obvious point. It would be far better to say: "The PM has tried really hard to get reforms, and has done everything that couild be done, but the results show that the EU is simply not interested in reform and is set on a different direction to us. So we're better off out".
Combined with the fact that, as you say, they haven't put any effort into resolving the massive uncertainty of what Out might look like, it's as though they want to lose this referendum.
But I struggle to call someone a failure when he has devoted his life to a cause and has a good shot at achieving it, and struggle even more to criticise him for not taking a back seat now that the moment is almost upon us, I cant think of anyone who would
And if he did, PB trolls would say he bottled it!
There's a novelty.
http://www.supplymanagement.com/news/2015/mps-call-for-air-pollution-assessment-before-decision-on-heathrows-third-runway
http://www.cityam.com/229109/gatwick-airport-makes-a-case-for-expansion-as-passenger-numbers-leap
That I think sums things up perfectly and speaks for most people in the country. And that is what the leave campaign should be saying, rather than obsessing about Cameron's fake renegotiation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35070431
I'd laugh my head off if a spread firm went 7-13 UKIP vote share, theyd be embarrassed out of the game
#5%inOldham
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2015/airports-commission-report-15-16/
I see it more dispassionately as a regulatory mechanism which, I suppose, in other words is indeed sovereignty...
I thought the question was what I thought of Farage's leadership? I base that on how the party has done in the 5 years he has been leader. It would take some nerve to suggest UKIP are worse off now, though I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try it
Most continental countries by contrast, use various forms of PR. Even in France, the Regional Assemblies elect 75% of their members by PR.
"Armed officers were working in Bracknell Close at about 09:00 GMT when a man received gunshot wounds, police said."
"Received gunshot wounds"...er...would that be the same as "was shot"?
"Did you have sex with my sister?"
"A pregnancy event may have occurred, but at this stage there is no conclusive evidence."
So a Poll showing 12.6% for UKIP would be accurate between 12.2% and 13.0% ?
I like Alistair Meeks' metaphor about tag wrestling "You grunt, I'll groan." He used it in relation to disputes within the coalition from 2010-15.
But, it applies just as much to these negotiations.
If that mistake were allowed, I could predict the Green party to get 2.5% of the vote in Hornchurch, and claim it was within MoE when they got zero votes
I think your example of 12.2-13 would be more creditable than 9.5-15.5 definitely yes
You are effectively saying that someone predicting the Conservatives would get 30% was on the money
And so 200-250 years of history ends.
Sam Cam and Victoria Coren Mitchell are both going to be on Celebrity Bake-Off!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35066928
Edited extra bit: for the record, I think Trump is an idiot, and his view is idiotic.
But freedom of speech means people have the right to say moronic things without being silenced by the chattering classes and hashtag mobs.
"Oh my golly! Gunshot wounds! How thoughtful!".
Just the coppers getting into the spirit of Christmas.
three gunshot wounds
two matching cuffs
and a truncheon to the jacksy
The writer's pen-name is Loki.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-petition-ban-from-uk-suzanne-kelly-shocked-strong-support