Mr. Herdson, forcing payment indirectly costs us just as much...
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
I certainly wouldn't want to be complacent.
Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance. Delors embedded socialism in the Commission: government by regulation and standardisation. It's a mission it's taken to heart but it doesn't have to be that way. The single market needs to be a market - properly monitored but allowed to let its own natural dynamics generate improvements not just in goods and services but in pay and conditions and quality too. That was the pre-Delors belief and with the right pressure in the right places, could be again. The growing support for sceptic ECR parties will help in that respect, particularly given the threats from the also-growing phobic EFDD and ultra-phobic ENF groups.
But isn't the issue there that the Commission is a self reinforcing autonomous unit. It appoints people who share the ideology, not people on merit or people to challenge the consensus. It is isolated from the variety of realities of the nations it 'serves'. It could become a remote and tunnel visioned self perpetuating virtue signalling self congratulatory organisation in perpetuity.
We are travelling on a red EU bus headed towards ever closer union. David Cameron's "brilliant negotiation skills" have persuaded the EU to allow us to repaint the bus blue, but it is still the same bus headed to the same destination.
Given how little reform Cameron has asked for and apparently received I really don't know why he bothered, it certainly doesn't look like it will change many minds one way or the other.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
@rcs1000 I would be more than happy with an EEA/EFTA arrangement. It would be a significant improvement on our current relationship. But Dave has made reducing migration a key aim of his renegotiation. What has been talked about so far would achieve very little.
The whole "renegotiation" process sums up why I want to leave, it's about self rule. I am dismayed that our PM (the fact its Cameron is irrelevant) is pleading with other countries in order to get permission to decide how taxpayer's money is spent.
Its a travesty and a nonsense, badly run countries want our money and to impose jurisdictions on us with very little in return. Remain are clouding the issue with trivia, a vote to Remain takes more power away from Parliament.
Worth noting that the much-vaunted Des Moines poll was well out - it predicted Trump and Clinton winning by clear margins. Its reputation was based on happening to be right last time - a warning to all of us not to declare gold standards too easily...
To an extent you can argue that the position of New Labour was correct:
At the heart of Europe, working in harmony and from within the EU to get the best deal for Europe and the UK, as the two objectives should be compatible. It is the way organisations should work, as they progress all gain some benefits, non reap all of the rewards.
You can also argue that the actions and negotiations of New Labour and the development of the EU during the period they were handling our affairs proved that the EU wants to move in a way that benefits the EU even if there is detriment to UK or the views of the UK electorate.
In what way will we have a better, more productive and rewarding relationship with the EU after these negotiations than we had previously.
If our relationship is to continue to be fractious and negative then are we compatible and is it in the best interest of both parties for us to part amicably?
We are travelling on a red EU bus headed towards ever closer union. David Cameron's "brilliant negotiation skills" have persuaded the EU to allow us to repaint the bus blue, but it is still the same bus headed to the same destination.
Given how little reform Cameron has asked for and apparently received I really don't know why he bothered, it certainly doesn't look like it will change many minds one way or the other.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
Yes - definitely worth the effort to try - makes remain more likely.
Mr. Herdson, forcing payment indirectly costs us just as much...
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
I certainly wouldn't want to be complacent.
Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance. Delors embedded socialism in the Commission: government by regulation and standardisation. It's a mission it's taken to heart but it doesn't have to be that way. The single market needs to be a market - properly monitored but allowed to let its own natural dynamics generate improvements not just in goods and services but in pay and conditions and quality too. That was the pre-Delors belief and with the right pressure in the right places, could be again. The growing support for sceptic ECR parties will help in that respect, particularly given the threats from the also-growing phobic EFDD and ultra-phobic ENF groups.
But isn't the issue there that the Commission is a self reinforcing autonomous unit. It appoints people who share the ideology, not people on merit or people to challenge the consensus. It is isolated from the variety of realities of the nations it 'serves'. It could become a remote and tunnel visioned self perpetuating virtue signalling self congratulatory organisation in perpetuity.
The Commission appoints its own staff but the Commissioners are national appointees and the president agreed at European Council level. If Delors (backed enthusiastically by Mitterrand) could change the culture in the 1980s, another Commission president - backed by sufficiently powerful national leaders - could reverse it now.
'Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance'
You are really warming up all the old chestnuts this morning David.
We have been told this bedtime story for 40 years i.e. that we can shape the EU so it works well for us.
I recall being repeatedly told EU expansion would do this, for example - 'a wider EU will be a looser one' etc.
All the accumulated evidence over that period shows the opposite is true. All the evidence you could look at now for the future direction of the EU also points the opposite way.
The one substantive change in our favour we got was Thatcher's rebate - achieved by serious hard-nosed battling.
And then we gave that away again, for nothing in return.
Off topic, Cameron likely to get a claimable "red card" deal. Legislation stopped if 55% of parliaments opposed - a chamber of parliament gets one vote, so HoL and HoC would get two votes:
In practice this means ~16 EU member states would have to join forces, but given there are only 9 non-eurozone member states, it'd require 7 eurozone members to tango with them to exercise it.
So I'm not sure how this protects non-eurozone countries from the eurozone acting as a bloc.
Can we change to an octocameral legislature, that way we'd get 8 votes? Could divide the HoL into the House of Barons, House of Earls, House of Bishops....
(How is the system fair to countries with unicameral systems?)
I suggest this is a quick fudge by some in the EU to appear to give Cameron what he wants. Something which can be quietly scrapped later. With everything else that is going on, many of them must be sick to death of his posturing.
It wasn't posturing though. In fact, we are where we are because of Merkel's stupid posturing.
If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now, more capable of dealing with the migrant crisis (Cameron talked in his speech of greater powers for the Eurozone as a quid pro quo for protection of those not in it, but the same principle applies to Schengen). They didn't engage with it and now not only is the Union as badly run as ever but they risk losing an important member (and its cash) and seeing the whole project take two massive - possibly terminal - hits to its momentum.
So you're keen, perhaps desperate, to stay part of something that is "as badly run as ever".
I'm puzzled by that stance
The economic and strategic benefits of membership are still net positive as against non-membership. They could be a lot bigger with reform.
There are no Strategic benefits of EU membership. They are all negatives or irrelevancies as far as EU membership is concerned.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Well, there's
The 2010 GE The AV referendum SindyRef The 2015 GE
Any others you'd like to add?
He's seen four Labour leaders, five Lib Dems, several UKIP changes (difficult to keep track) and two from the SNP......which of them would you say had been more successful?
To be fair, Salmond has been the most successful politician of his era; more so even than Blair. Salmond has a legacy in keeping with his beliefs; what's Blair's legacy?
True, Salmond lost the referendum but the very idea of a referendum being held at all - never mind one with a 45% Yes vote - when he took over on either occasion was a pipe dream. At the very minimum, he's secured a Scottish parliament with very considerable powers and established the SNP as the dominant party in his country. Cameron has been a very successful tactical politician but he's a Macmillan not a Thatcher at the moment.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Four major elections/referendums, four wins. I'd not turn down that record of failure.
At a push, one of those was a score-draw, won on penalties.
Most votes, most seats, no possible alternative government, became PM. Looks like a win to me.
I'm surprised how the whole EU thing has become about Cameron, he has supporters who will justify and defend him regardless of whether or not they feel he's got a good deal. My concern is that the debate over EU membership has evaporated into a vote over whether or not Cameron stays on as PM, regardless of your stance that's not healthy. I was anti EU long before Cameron became PM, I'd want out regardless of who was PM, I don't believe everybody feels that way.
My problem is that I want Leave to win but Cameron to stay on as PM. The more Cameron ties his flag to the mast of Remain the less likely that combination becomes.
'Strategic benefits' is code for 'our PM and big cheeses get to sit round a big table with other big cheeses and look important'
Genuine strategic strength comes from economic strength, for which the EU is at best neutral, and military strength for which the EU is a total irrelevance.
Off topic, Cameron likely to get a claimable "red card" deal. Legislation stopped if 55% of parliaments opposed - a chamber of parliament gets one vote, so HoL and HoC would get two votes:
In practice this means ~16 EU member states would have to join forces, but given there are only 9 non-eurozone member states, it'd require 7 eurozone members to tango with them to exercise it.
So I'm not sure how this protects non-eurozone countries from the eurozone acting as a bloc.
Can we change to an octocameral legislature, that way we'd get 8 votes? Could divide the HoL into the House of Barons, House of Earls, House of Bishops....
(How is the system fair to countries with unicameral systems?)
I suggest this is a quick fudge by some in the EU to appear to give Cameron what he wants. Something which can be quietly scrapped later. With everything else that is going on, many of them must be sick to death of his posturing.
It wasn't posturing though. In fact, we are where we are because of Merkel's stupid posturing.
If you look at Cameron's Bloomberg speech, it was a positive basis for reform that would have benefitted the whole of the EU. Had they engaged with it, there'd be a better run Union now, more capable of dealing with the migrant crisis (Cameron talked in his speech of greater powers for the Eurozone as a quid pro quo for protection of those not in it, but the same principle applies to Schengen). They didn't engage with it and now not only is the Union as badly run as ever but they risk losing an important member (and its cash) and seeing the whole project take two massive - possibly terminal - hits to its momentum.
So you're keen, perhaps desperate, to stay part of something that is "as badly run as ever".
I'm puzzled by that stance
The economic and strategic benefits of membership are still net positive as against non-membership. They could be a lot bigger with reform.
There are no Strategic benefits of EU membership. They are all negatives or irrelevancies as far as EU membership is concerned.
This is the trivia and nonsense I referred to earlier. Remain categorically state that trade will be affected if we leave, press them as to what the EU would stop buying or selling and the response is zero.
I don't see what the proposed "Red Card" adds. If 15 member states oppose a proposed piece of legislation, it's not going to happen anyway.
The Red Card isn't a red card.
The Emergency Brake isn't an emergency brake.
Alastair points out downthread that those who declared there were no terms Cameron could negotiate would convince them to Remain are unsurprisingly unimpressed by this rather transparent attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), alas, I think Remain will win, likely at a canter. There is an off-chance the migration crisis could upset things, but, excepting that, Remain has far more on its side than Leave.
Mr. Herdson, in an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But I think you have more chance of repealing the Second Amendment.
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
What's the arb? Rubio for Pres or Dems win vs Rubio not nominee?
Rubio 4.15 for president and 1.93 for nominee (Both Betfair midpoints) - I guess it is more or less gone now as it implies Rubio at Evens for president if he gets the nomination.
It is not possible to control migration within the EU. The fundamental principle that guided its creation was: The free movement of goods, services and people.
.. and yet the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury claims repeatedly he would be doing just that, not just lying, but stupid lying since it was self-evidently not deliverable. He makes rather a habit of what might be described charitably as "over promising and under delivering" but might more correctly be described as lying through his teeth.
Mr. Herdson, forcing payment indirectly costs us just as much...
I think you're being complacent, to be frank. We agree the EU would love to tap the City for cash, but your assumption we'll always have a government that would fight for the UK interest rather than 'pooling sovereignty' or bashing bankers is too laid back, I think.
I certainly wouldn't want to be complacent.
Actually, I think the key to the solution is changing the mindset of the EU rather than eternal vigilance. Delors embedded socialism in the Commission: government by regulation and standardisation. It's a mission it's taken to heart but it doesn't have to be that way. The single market needs to be a market - properly monitored but allowed to let its own natural dynamics generate improvements not just in goods and services but in pay and conditions and quality too. That was the pre-Delors belief and with the right pressure in the right places, could be again. The growing support for sceptic ECR parties will help in that respect, particularly given the threats from the also-growing phobic EFDD and ultra-phobic ENF groups.
But isn't the issue there that the Commission is a self reinforcing autonomous unit. It appoints people who share the ideology, not people on merit or people to challenge the consensus. It is isolated from the variety of realities of the nations it 'serves'. It could become a remote and tunnel visioned self perpetuating virtue signalling self congratulatory organisation in perpetuity.
The Commission appoints its own staff but the Commissioners are national appointees and the president agreed at European Council level. If Delors (backed enthusiastically by Mitterrand) could change the culture in the 1980s, another Commission president - backed by sufficiently powerful national leaders - could reverse it now.
In theory, yes.
There are numerous ways in which changed political will can be diluted by bureaucratic malaise or legal wrangling. The difference between now and the 1980s is that the Commission is far more autonomous and able to fight for the values imbued over many years than it was in 1980s.
Going native is often more pleasant and rewarding than fighting.
Well, some seem to be scoffing the "thin gruel" as though it were a veritable banquet but then they'd have applauded Cameron if he'd read pages from the Brussels phone book so nothing much on offer there - as a side issue, are the cheerleaders pro-Cameron or simply pro-whoever is leader of the Conservative Party ?
I've long argued we "got it wrong" in 1989 and the years afterward when dealing with the ex-Communist countries and, as has happened throughout history, people will, if they can,.go to the work and the money.
The question for me is whether if we're going to have a genuine free market, doesn't free movement of labour have to happen as much as free movement of capital ? This perpetuates the distortions within the economy (the alternative, a planned economy, is of course much much worse) but there have to be mechanisms in place to meet the distortions and mitigate them where possible.
The aspect of this I struggle with is that political leaders simply failed to acknowledge the possibility that millions of people could and would uproot from their places of origin and travel thousands of miles to find work and earn money. They always have done.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Four major elections/referendums, four wins. I'd not turn down that record of failure.
At a push, one of those was a score-draw, won on penalties.
Most votes, most seats, no possible alternative government, became PM. Looks like a win to me.
Well, yes, but I'm trying to throw some sort of meat to our friend in the north.
I'm surprised how the whole EU thing has become about Cameron, he has supporters who will justify and defend him regardless of whether or not they feel he's got a good deal. My concern is that the debate over EU membership has evaporated into a vote over whether or not Cameron stays on as PM, regardless of your stance that's not healthy. I was anti EU long before Cameron became PM, I'd want out regardless of who was PM, I don't believe everybody feels that way.
My problem is that I want Leave to win but Cameron to stay on as PM. The more Cameron ties his flag to the mast of Remain the less likely that combination becomes.
The impact of us leaving the EU is far greater than remaining in order to keep Cameron for another couple of years. He's standing down anyway, if we're voting to preserve somebody's career when he's preempted his retirement we are morally bankrupt.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
How very tiresome, and cheerleaders of the EU like yourself will continue to trot this out until minutes before the polls open as a means of closing down debate, there is always a chance he might get some last minute concession after all! Far better not to debate Cameron's non-delivery it might lead people to voting the wrong way.
I don't see what the proposed "Red Card" adds. If 15 member states oppose a proposed piece of legislation, it's not going to happen anyway.
The Red Card isn't a red card.
The Emergency Brake isn't an emergency brake.
Alastair points out downthread that those who declared there were no terms Cameron could negotiate would convince them to Remain are unsurprisingly unimpressed by this rather transparent attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
It's fine to want to Leave come what may. But it's a bit ridiculous how the Leavers are fuming about the rumoured terms when they wouldn't have been satisfied with any terms.
It's all reminiscent of the Woody Allen joke about the two little old ladies in the restaurant.
"This food is disgusting." "Yes, and the portions are so small."
I don't see what the proposed "Red Card" adds. If 15 member states oppose a proposed piece of legislation, it's not going to happen anyway.
The Red Card isn't a red card.
The Emergency Brake isn't an emergency brake.
Alastair points out downthread that those who declared there were no terms Cameron could negotiate would convince them to Remain are unsurprisingly unimpressed by this rather transparent attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
It's fine to want to Leave come what may. But it's a bit ridiculous how the Leavers are fuming about the rumoured terms when they wouldn't have been satisfied with any terms.
It's all reminiscent of the Woody Allen joke about the two little old ladies in the restaurant.
"This food is disgusting." "Yes, and the portions are so small."
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Boris Johnson says he has "doubts" about a 'red card' system for vetoing EU policies & believes "much more that needs to be done" on reforms
I'm not a Boris fan, but really, is there anyone who isn't bored by his transparent attempts to keep a foot in both camps? He reminds me of the possibly apocryphal MP whose standard reply to constituents was "Thank you for your letter. There is a lot in what you say."
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
There's little doubt that Cameron is good at winning elections which is why he's so popular with tory voters. Beyond that I'm interested in how he'll be viewed once he steps down, who would have thought that Blair would be so reviled back in 2000.
Thoughts after getting up early to watch the fall-out...
*If there wasn't Trump, Cruz would be the scary one *Rubio is nicely placed, needs a big success in the next few primaries *They are ALL trying to play the underdog *Sanders is doing to Clinton the same sort of thing Corbyn did to Burnham/Cooper *Clinton has more than a faint dash of the Ed Milibands about her.
Rather feel that Cruz is scarier than Trump. Trump is saying what he believes he needs to say to get elected; Cruz is saying what he’s saying because he believes it.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Boris Johnson says he has "doubts" about a 'red card' system for vetoing EU policies & believes "much more that needs to be done" on reforms
I'm not a Boris fan, but really, is there anyone who isn't bored by his transparent attempts to keep a foot in both camps? He reminds me of the possibly apocryphal MP whose standard reply to constituents was "Thank you for your letter. There is a lot in what you say."
There's little doubt that Cameron is good at winning elections which is why he's so popular with tory voters. Beyond that I'm interested in how he'll be viewed once he steps down, who would have thought that Blair would be so reviled back in 2000.
In 2000.
I can't imagine what specific thing Blair did, sometime after 2000, that turned opinion against him.
And, somehow, after all of that, he still polls better and is more popular than Labour's last few leaders.
Boris Johnson says he has "doubts" about a 'red card' system for vetoing EU policies & believes "much more that needs to be done" on reforms
I'm not a Boris fan, but really, is there anyone who isn't bored by his transparent attempts to keep a foot in both camps? He reminds me of the possibly apocryphal MP whose standard reply to constituents was "Thank you for your letter. There is a lot in what you say."
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
Yes yes, but since neither Cameron nor Miliband were candidates to lead an independent Scotland, I fail to see what this has to do with indyref. I don't doubt Cameron was instrumental in winning the general election, although how much of that was due to his talents, and how much was due to him not being Ed Miliband is open to debate. The evidence that he had anything much to do with the indyref result is much more flimsy. Did he for example make more difference that Gordon Brown's pledge nonsense, or the SNPs conspicuous porkies on the economy of an independent Scotland ?
Politics Daily Breaking: Its reported, Labour's leader on the GLA Len Duvall has resigned over Sadiq Khan blocking a Labour alternative budget. #London2016
There's little doubt that Cameron is good at winning elections which is why he's so popular with tory voters. Beyond that I'm interested in how he'll be viewed once he steps down, who would have thought that Blair would be so reviled back in 2000.
In 2000.
I can't imagine what specific thing Blair did, sometime after 2000, that turned opinion against him.
And, somehow, after all of that, he still polls better and is more popular than Labour's last few leaders.
Christ.
i'm not sure of your point. Mine is that beyond winning elections I'm not sure how Cameron will be remembered. To tribalists winning elections is all that matters hence Blair's popularity, but its fair to say history takes a dim view of Blair's time as PM
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
What's the arb? Rubio for Pres or Dems win vs Rubio not nominee?
Rubio 4.15 for president and 1.93 for nominee (Both Betfair midpoints) - I guess it is more or less gone now as it implies Rubio at Evens for president if he gets the nomination.
I think the assumption on the betting markets is that (a) Trump is a populist joke (b) he turns off everyone else who isn't a true believer (c) Iowa showed they can't really be arsed to turn out anyway (d) Iowa showed a clear photogenic and credible challenger for all anti-Trumpers to unite around, and that's Rubio
Ergo, Rubio will win.
Personally, I'm not convinced. I think people betting on the markets like Rubio and don't like Trump and that's influencing their betting. Trump still has clear national and state leads virtually everywhere else. Rubio has also had a very damp campaign so far getting nowhere in the debates.
I've taken another bite of Trump this morning. Risky but the value tells you there's only one course of action to take.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
And you'd be wrong again.
And you correct. The pathetic twisting by the phobes to rubbish everything coming out of the negotiations is miserable to behold. The trouble with the phobes is that different groups all have different motives and they see a referendum win as being the next step on their particular agenda. My problem is I pretty much despise what those agendas are. From UKIPers seeking to impose their BNPlite philosophy to some tory corbyn-type-loon thinking he could seize the leadership its all pretty unpalatable to me.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
Yes yes, but since neither Cameron nor Miliband were candidates to lead an independent Scotland, I fail to see what this has to do with indyref. I don't doubt Cameron was instrumental in winning the general election, although how much of that was due to his talents, and how much was due to him not being Ed Miliband is open to debate. The evidence that he had anything much to do with the indyref result is much more flimsy. Did he for example make more difference that Gordon Brown's pledge nonsense, or the SNPs conspicuous porkies on the economy of an independent Scotland ?
Boris Johnson says he has "doubts" about a 'red card' system for vetoing EU policies & believes "much more that needs to be done" on reforms
I'm not a Boris fan, but really, is there anyone who isn't bored by his transparent attempts to keep a foot in both camps? He reminds me of the possibly apocryphal MP whose standard reply to constituents was "Thank you for your letter. There is a lot in what you say."
He's certainly risking Portilloing or (David) Milibanding himself out of leadership contention by overt dither.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Sadly a fair few Conservative tribalists are fine with this. It seems that all principles are expendable in pursuit of getting elected.
However the views of the members and the activists, some way to the right and much more eurosceptic that Cameron, which are currently muted because of Cameron delivering some wins, are likely to be rather less charitable to his successor if he continues to be another centrist wet, but without the track record.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
Tell me all about those protections we have been offered again a Eurozone block vote.... Not exactly unreasonable.
Dave is committed to getting migration down to the tens of thousands. I would love to know how he will achieve that.
He has made various statements over the last couple of years on what he would like to renegotiate with the EU. Most of them have now been dropped.
It is therefore possible to conclude that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
Yes yes, but since neither Cameron nor Miliband were candidates to lead an independent Scotland, I fail to see what this has to do with indyref. I don't doubt Cameron was instrumental in winning the general election, although how much of that was due to his talents, and how much was due to him not being Ed Miliband is open to debate. The evidence that he had anything much to do with the indyref result is much more flimsy. Did he for example make more difference that Gordon Brown's pledge nonsense, or the SNPs conspicuous porkies on the economy of an independent Scotland ?
''My problem is I pretty much despise what those agendas are. From UKIPers seeking to impose their BNPlite philosophy to some tory corbyn-type-loon thinking he could seize the leadership its all pretty unpalatable to me''
Foam flecked insults at perfectly reasonable posters.
There's little doubt that Cameron is good at winning elections which is why he's so popular with tory voters. Beyond that I'm interested in how he'll be viewed once he steps down, who would have thought that Blair would be so reviled back in 2000.
In 2000.
I can't imagine what specific thing Blair did, sometime after 2000, that turned opinion against him.
And, somehow, after all of that, he still polls better and is more popular than Labour's last few leaders.
Christ.
i'm not sure of your point. Mine is that beyond winning elections I'm not sure how Cameron will be remembered. To tribalists winning elections is all that matters hence Blair's popularity, but its fair to say history takes a dim view of Blair's time as PM
I was just mocking you, I thought that was quite clear?
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
What's the arb? Rubio for Pres or Dems win vs Rubio not nominee?
Rubio 4.15 for president and 1.93 for nominee (Both Betfair midpoints) - I guess it is more or less gone now as it implies Rubio at Evens for president if he gets the nomination.
I think the assumption on the betting markets is that (a) Trump is a populist joke (b) he turns off everyone else who isn't a true believer (c) Iowa showed they can't really be arsed to turn out anyway (d) Iowa showed a clear photogenic and credible challenger for all anti-Trumpers to unite around, and that's Rubio
Ergo, Rubio will win.
Personally, I'm not convinced. I think people betting on the markets like Rubio and don't like Trump and that's influencing their betting. Trump still has clear national and state leads virtually everywhere else. Rubio has also had a very damp campaign so far getting nowhere in the debates.
I've taken another bite of Trump this morning. Risky but the value tells you there's only one course of action to take.
28% voted for Cruz 24% voted for Trump 9% voted for Carson
So over 60% of voters voted for an anti-establishment candidate. The anti-establishment seem to have the potential to win this, so given that the signs are that Trump can still stay ahead of Cruz, he should remain favourite for the nomination. The only question is whether the aura of a winner was essential to his dominance to date.
A Libertarian Rebel 5 succinct tweets from @andrew_lilico show why Cameron's #EU #RedCard is, in effect, meaningless Don't fall for it. https://t.co/V77HTQQQf5
Mr. Flightpath, curious as to what you despise about my agenda, as you call it.
All you have to do is spell it out so we can see.
But I do not want to see Davis or Fox as PM. Its pretty obvious from the surge of anti Cameron anti Osborne fervour suddenly being whipped up that far too many would be happy to be as narrow minded as Corbyn in their appeal for votes and party purity. And pardon me but its clear that the morphing of the kipper tendency into turning the EU into somewhere full of ravenous evil bloodthirsty muslims shows what track their obsessive minds are running on. Previously they thought they were on a winner with the gypsies. I know who that reminds me of.
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
What's the arb? Rubio for Pres or Dems win vs Rubio not nominee?
Rubio 4.15 for president and 1.93 for nominee (Both Betfair midpoints) - I guess it is more or less gone now as it implies Rubio at Evens for president if he gets the nomination.
I think the assumption on the betting markets is that (a) Trump is a populist joke (b) he turns off everyone else who isn't a true believer (c) Iowa showed they can't really be arsed to turn out anyway (d) Iowa showed a clear photogenic and credible challenger for all anti-Trumpers to unite around, and that's Rubio
Ergo, Rubio will win.
Personally, I'm not convinced. I think people betting on the markets like Rubio and don't like Trump and that's influencing their betting. Trump still has clear national and state leads virtually everywhere else. Rubio has also had a very damp campaign so far getting nowhere in the debates.
I've taken another bite of Trump this morning. Risky but the value tells you there's only one course of action to take.
28% voted for Cruz 24% voted for Trump 9% voted for Carson
So over 60% of voters voted for an anti-establishment candidate. The anti-establishment seem to have the potential to win this, so given that the signs are that Trump can still stay ahead of Cruz, he should remain favourite for the nomination. The only question is whether the aura of a winner was essential to his dominance to date.
The trouble is that Iowa just isn't very representative. The caucus process in itself is an oddity that will not happen again in any of the later states. We need NH and then SC (a Northern and then Southern (just about) state) to give us a better idea of Trump's real ability to pull people to the actual polls IMHO. Cruz has got as far as he's going to.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm concerned about the ever closer union. The fact the EU ignores votes or has them re-run until the answer it wants emerges is another problem. The eurozone has a QMV critical mass.
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
e that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
Yes yes, but since neither Cameron nor Miliband were candidates to lead an independent Scotland, I fail to see what this has to do with indyref. I don't doubt Cameron was instrumental in winning the general election, although how much of that was due to his talents, and how much was due to him not being Ed Miliband is open to debate. The evidence that he had anything much to do with the indyref result is much more flimsy. Did he for example make more difference that Gordon Brown's pledge nonsense, or the SNPs conspicuous porkies on the economy of an independent Scotland ?
Cameron lead the NO campaign on the national stage and won - because he is more popular than his party and enough Scots wanted him to be PM of the Uk with Scotland in it than have anyone else run an Indy Scotland.
Let me know when you have interviewed 2M Scots and got the proof of the opposite.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for politicians like Liam Fox and the Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
A Libertarian Rebel 5 succinct tweets from @andrew_lilico show why Cameron's #EU #RedCard is, in effect, meaningless Don't fall for it. https://t.co/V77HTQQQf5
A Libertarian Rebel 5 succinct tweets from @andrew_lilico show why Cameron's #EU #RedCard is, in effect, meaningless Don't fall for it. https://t.co/V77HTQQQf5
Hannan said the same about the migrant benefits emergency break in CapX.
Either we currently control UK benefit policy, or we don't. If we do, we don't need to ask the EU about changing it we can just do it. If we don't control it then its governed by the treaties, and any political agreement won't last ten minutes at the ECJ unless we got a treaty change, and that is off the cards for years.
I backed him in the presidency market last night as the arb is still there
What's the arb? Rubio for Pres or Dems win vs Rubio not nominee?
Rubio 4.15 for president and 1.93 for nominee (Both Betfair midpoints) - I guess it is more or less gone now as it implies Rubio at Evens for president if he gets the nomination.
I think the assumption on the betting markets is that (a) Trump is a populist joke (b) he turns off everyone else who isn't a true believer (c) Iowa showed they can't really be arsed to turn out anyway (d) Iowa showed a clear photogenic and credible challenger for all anti-Trumpers to unite around, and that's Rubio
Ergo, Rubio will win.
Personally, I'm not convinced. I think people betting on the markets like Rubio and don't like Trump and that's influencing their betting. Trump still has clear national and state leads virtually everywhere else. Rubio has also had a very damp campaign so far getting nowhere in the debates.
I've taken another bite of Trump this morning. Risky but the value tells you there's only one course of action to take.
I think Trump should be the favourite, albeit a narrow one.
Cruz needed a big victory with no meaningful third placed candidate. He didn't get that. Iowa is as good as it gets for Cruz, and he is likely to be eclipsed by Rubio is New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
I 'd reckon 50% Trump, 40% Rubio, 10% Cruz as my rough probabilities.
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
Who is proposing to stop the migrants coming?
Every European politician - and I mean every one - realises that a continued flow of migrants is a massive vote loser. What do you think they talk about in Mrs Merkel's cabinet?
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Politics Daily Breaking: Its reported, Labour's leader on the GLA Len Duvall has resigned over Sadiq Khan blocking a Labour alternative budget. #London2016
Can anyone confirm this? I haven't seen it picked up anywhere else and it would be quite big news if true. At least compared to all boring EU faux-negotiation theater occupying me currently...
I can't tell you all just how shocking it is for me to read that all those posters for whom there are no terms that David Cameron could negotiate that would persuade them to vote Remain find that the terms that David Cameron is reported as having negotiated do not persuade them to vote Remain.
e that Dave has failed miserably.
It's a fair indication of your level of open-mindedness that you conclude that"Dave has failed miserably" before any deal has been announced or indeed reached.
History dear boy, he is a serial failure
Apart from in Indy refs..
Do you have any evidence that Cameron won those ? Its entirely possible the same result might have been obtained by a tub of lard. Sure, he was in office, so he can claim the credit, but that is miles away from making a demonstrable difference.
You could make that argument for the General Elections too.
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
Yes yes, but since neither Cameron nor Miliband were candidates to lead an independent Scotland, I fail to see what this has to do with indyref. I don't doubt Cameron was instrumental in winning the general election, although how much of that was due to his talents, and how much was due to him not being Ed Miliband is open to debate. The evidence that he had anything much to do with the indyref result is much more flimsy. Did he for example make more difference that Gordon Brown's pledge nonsense, or the SNPs conspicuous porkies on the economy of an independent Scotland ?
Cameron lead the NO campaign on the national stage and won - because he is more popular than his party and enough Scots wanted him to be PM of the Uk with Scotland in it than have anyone else run an Indy Scotland.
Let me know when you have interviewed 2M Scots and got the proof of the opposite.
Since you're not one of them, debatable whether you have much insight either.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors from the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Mr. Flightpath, curious as to what you despise about my agenda, as you call it.
All you have to do is spell it out so we can see.
But I do not want to see Davis or Fox as PM. Its pretty obvious from the surge of anti Cameron anti Osborne fervour suddenly being whipped up that far too many would be happy to be as narrow minded as Corbyn in their appeal for votes and party purity. And pardon me but its clear that the morphing of the kipper tendency into turning the EU into somewhere full of ravenous evil bloodthirsty muslims shows what track their obsessive minds are running on. Previously they thought they were on a winner with the gypsies. I know who that reminds me of.
You've got us bang to rights there, Flightpath. Richard Tyndall, Morris Dancer, Robert Smithson, Plato, Indigo, Charles, Casino Royale and I are all secret national socialists, who wish to transform the UK into the Fourth Reich, as soon as we leave the EU.
Every European politician - and I mean every one - realises that a continued flow of migrants is a massive vote loser. What do you think they talk about in Mrs Merkel's cabinet?
I think that's naive. I reckon that they talk about in Merkel's cabinet is how to keep the opposition to their migrant programme quiet. And how to offload as many as possible on other European countries.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Yes.
Well we have plenty of evidence that she can increase it.. going to be interesting to see if she can decrease it once the weather improves. Cameron conspicuously thinks its going to get worse, that is why he is in such a hurry to have the referendum before the summer, in anticipation of dire headlines.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
Cameron doesn't despise Blair, he described himself as his heir. Most of Cameron's activists and members despise Blair, which is going to make life interesting for any Cameroon looking at the next leadership. Except the true tribalists of course who don't give a crap what position their party holds so long as they win the election.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
So to summarise, to get elected you have to be like the people you despise.
No, you simply have to be pragmatic and take your chance when - if - it comes. Most politicians are practical about what they can do and who they'll work with to do it. A few are ideologues and ranters, who are mostly ignored and irrelevant. The world is complex and contradictory; why should we expect our politicians to be any different?
I’m glad the PM tried for reforms, it confirmed how bureaucratic and intransigent the EU is.
That's a fair point.
As Hannan says, if this is how they treat us when we're thinking of leaving, imagine how they'll treat us if we stay.
I actually think that isam / Portillo are right on this one.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country 2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing ... x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
The only reason they are in that order though is because they know that Cameron wont really support a vote for out, and they can see the polls mean a vote for remain is more than likely. If Cameron had credibly threatened to leave if he didn't get what he wanted, and polls had Leave 20% in the clear when the UK would be considerably higher up the list, if not first, because the other factors will still be here next year, but the second biggest economy in the EU might not be, and its leave would probably precipitate 2. in any case.
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm sorry, I think you're wrong.
Think of it this way: How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK? How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Do you think anything Merkel can do it going to make any meaningful difference to the number of migrants arriving ?
Yes.
Such as?
Erect a border, enforced by the national army, on the perimeter of the country.
Having watched a fair amount of the CNN coverage last night and seeing the detail of the caucus process, I am amazed that such a form of 'democracy' still is considered acceptable.
Whilst I can appreciate the idea that people come together for a final mini-rally and then have a vote - but the Democratic Party's system of having people sat in groups and then getting them to move between chairs to indicate their support is utterly mad. The potential for peer pressure/bullying is immense.
At least the Republicans have a basic paper ballot in place.
But the caucus model is just bizarre and I am amazed that it hasn't be challenged. It doesn't come as a shock to me that the pollsters find it an impossible one to test properly through interviews.
Conservatives talking of "free childcare". They have morphed into New Labour.
They always were. This was the complaint from some on the right, and more recently from Corbynites. As we used to say: the Cameroons are Blairites, and the Blairites are Cameroons.
Well, they're centrists, and that's where General Elections are won. There's clearly no stomach for Liam Fox and the hard Right, or Corbyn's crackpot Lefty dreams of the new Venezuala, and they're bitter about it.
Exactly. – When parties occupy the centre ground they will always have their detractors form the left or right wings of their party.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Only one at a time though. If two parties aim for the centre ground, one can get slaughtered if it loses both its radical wing to disillusionment and its moderate wing to the opposition. When Blair was dominant, the Tories had little option but to retreat to a defensible distance and await a more prospitious moment. Not sure that's true now for Labour - certainly not to the same extent.
Indeed Mr Herdson, ‘one at a time’ - apols, I should have made that clearer.
Haven't had the time to read through the entire thread, so apologies if this has been posted already.
Final Des Moines Register poll for Iowa - the gold standard for Iowa - versus the actual result:
Trump: 28 vs 24.3 Cruz: 23 vs 27.7 Rubio: 15 vs 23.1
Hillary: 45 vs 49.9 Bernie: 42 vs 49.5
So she got the Dems within MoE and in the right order. Not so for the GOP.
The most accurate poll in the end was "Emerson"
Emerson 1/29 - 1/31 298 LV
Trump 27 Cruz 26 Rubio 22
Fieldwork was the latest of any GOP poll.
But their Democrat poll was not accurate at all...
More luck than judgement methinks.
Yep. Even the best need some luck. But the bad get very lucky sometimes too.
To be fair, I do think that there may have been some last minute breaking to Rubio over the weekend, and the polls indicated that that was the case, but had not picked up on the scale of it.
Comments
Very poor result for Bush. Surely he will throw the towel in after NH?
Its a travesty and a nonsense, badly run countries want our money and to impose jurisdictions on us with very little in return. Remain are clouding the issue with trivia, a vote to Remain takes more power away from Parliament.
At the heart of Europe, working in harmony and from within the EU to get the best deal for Europe and the UK, as the two objectives should be compatible. It is the way organisations should work, as they progress all gain some benefits, non reap all of the rewards.
You can also argue that the actions and negotiations of New Labour and the development of the EU during the period they were handling our affairs proved that the EU wants to move in a way that benefits the EU even if there is detriment to UK or the views of the UK electorate.
In what way will we have a better, more productive and rewarding relationship with the EU after these negotiations than we had previously.
If our relationship is to continue to be fractious and negative then are we compatible and is it in the best interest of both parties for us to part amicably?
Conservatives
Working parents across the UK will get 30 hours free childcare 1 year early. RETWEET https://t.co/KzcWuSx34d https://t.co/vrEzr49beT
You are really warming up all the old chestnuts this morning David.
We have been told this bedtime story for 40 years i.e. that we can shape the EU so it works well for us.
I recall being repeatedly told EU expansion would do this, for example - 'a wider EU will be a looser one' etc.
All the accumulated evidence over that period shows the opposite is true. All the evidence you could look at now for the future direction of the EU also points the opposite way.
The one substantive change in our favour we got was Thatcher's rebate - achieved by serious hard-nosed battling.
And then we gave that away again, for nothing in return.
True, Salmond lost the referendum but the very idea of a referendum being held at all - never mind one with a 45% Yes vote - when he took over on either occasion was a pipe dream. At the very minimum, he's secured a Scottish parliament with very considerable powers and established the SNP as the dominant party in his country. Cameron has been a very successful tactical politician but he's a Macmillan not a Thatcher at the moment.
Genuine strategic strength comes from economic strength, for which the EU is at best neutral, and military strength for which the EU is a total irrelevance.
The Emergency Brake isn't an emergency brake.
Alastair points out downthread that those who declared there were no terms Cameron could negotiate would convince them to Remain are unsurprisingly unimpressed by this rather transparent attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr. Herdson, in an ideal world, I'd agree with you. But I think you have more chance of repealing the Second Amendment.
There are numerous ways in which changed political will can be diluted by bureaucratic malaise or legal wrangling. The difference between now and the 1980s is that the Commission is far more autonomous and able to fight for the values imbued over many years than it was in 1980s.
Going native is often more pleasant and rewarding than fighting.
In practice may be.
I've long argued we "got it wrong" in 1989 and the years afterward when dealing with the ex-Communist countries and, as has happened throughout history, people will, if they can,.go to the work and the money.
The question for me is whether if we're going to have a genuine free market, doesn't free movement of labour have to happen as much as free movement of capital ? This perpetuates the distortions within the economy (the alternative, a planned economy, is of course much much worse) but there have to be mechanisms in place to meet the distortions and mitigate them where possible.
The aspect of this I struggle with is that political leaders simply failed to acknowledge the possibility that millions of people could and would uproot from their places of origin and travel thousands of miles to find work and earn money. They always have done.
Boris Johnson says he has "doubts" about a 'red card' system for vetoing EU policies & believes "much more that needs to be done" on reforms
It's all reminiscent of the Woody Allen joke about the two little old ladies in the restaurant.
"This food is disgusting."
"Yes, and the portions are so small."
And you'd be wrong again.
victory speech.
first proper line - that's "allah'u ackbar" right?
Scots now prefer David Cameron as Prime Minister to Mr Miliband - despite only 15 per cent of voters north of the border backing the Tories.
Etc
I can't imagine what specific thing Blair did, sometime after 2000, that turned opinion against him.
And, somehow, after all of that, he still polls better and is more popular than Labour's last few leaders.
Christ.
Breaking: Its reported, Labour's leader on the GLA Len Duvall has resigned over Sadiq Khan blocking a Labour alternative budget. #London2016
Ergo, Rubio will win.
Personally, I'm not convinced. I think people betting on the markets like Rubio and don't like Trump and that's influencing their betting. Trump still has clear national and state leads virtually everywhere else. Rubio has also had a very damp campaign so far getting nowhere in the debates.
I've taken another bite of Trump this morning. Risky but the value tells you there's only one course of action to take.
The trouble with the phobes is that different groups all have different motives and they see a referendum win as being the next step on their particular agenda. My problem is I pretty much despise what those agendas are. From UKIPers seeking to impose their BNPlite philosophy to some tory corbyn-type-loon thinking he could seize the leadership its all pretty unpalatable to me.
However the views of the members and the activists, some way to the right and much more eurosceptic that Cameron, which are currently muted because of Cameron delivering some wins, are likely to be rather less charitable to his successor if he continues to be another centrist wet, but without the track record.
The rest of Europe has a list of priorities that looks like this:
1. Stop migrants coming to my country
2. Stop the Eurozone from collapsing
...
x. Help the UK
What is likely to be the better vote winner in France or Germany or Italy right now: stopping the flow of migrants or getting the UK a better deal?
Foam flecked insults at perfectly reasonable posters.
24% voted for Trump
9% voted for Carson
So over 60% of voters voted for an anti-establishment candidate. The anti-establishment seem to have the potential to win this, so given that the signs are that Trump can still stay ahead of Cruz, he should remain favourite for the nomination. The only question is whether the aura of a winner was essential to his dominance to date.
5 succinct tweets from @andrew_lilico show why Cameron's #EU #RedCard is, in effect, meaningless
Don't fall for it. https://t.co/V77HTQQQf5
But I do not want to see Davis or Fox as PM. Its pretty obvious from the surge of anti Cameron anti Osborne fervour suddenly being whipped up that far too many would be happy to be as narrow minded as Corbyn in their appeal for votes and party purity. And pardon me but its clear that the morphing of the kipper tendency into turning the EU into somewhere full of ravenous evil bloodthirsty muslims shows what track their obsessive minds are running on. Previously they thought they were on a winner with the gypsies. I know who that reminds me of.
Support for Danish-style migrant asset confiscation across Europe – https://t.co/mJok81A8B8 https://t.co/yugXxEH05x
.. and now we see Cameron revealed for the Europhile we knew him to be when he was quote in the last couple of days as saying he wanted to use the referendum to "dock" the UK in the EU.
I'm concerned about the ever closer union. The fact the EU ignores votes or has them re-run until the answer it wants emerges is another problem. The eurozone has a QMV critical mass.
Let me know when you have interviewed 2M Scots and got the proof of the opposite.
Think of it this way:
How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing a deal with the UK?
How many percent do you think Merkel would pick up for announcing that January was a record low for migrants coming in, and the February would be lower?
Who is proposing to stop the migrants coming?
Either we currently control UK benefit policy, or we don't. If we do, we don't need to ask the EU about changing it we can just do it. If we don't control it then its governed by the treaties, and any political agreement won't last ten minutes at the ECJ unless we got a treaty change, and that is off the cards for years.
http://capx.co/emergency-brake/
Also torpedoed by Boris. This is going down in flames.
Cruz needed a big victory with no meaningful third placed candidate. He didn't get that. Iowa is as good as it gets for Cruz, and he is likely to be eclipsed by Rubio is New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
I 'd reckon 50% Trump, 40% Rubio, 10% Cruz as my rough probabilities.
Always interesting to get the migrant view mind.
The only consolation for such groups is they’ll probably be in power.
Final Des Moines Register poll for Iowa - the gold standard for Iowa - versus the actual result:
Trump: 28 vs 24.3
Cruz: 23 vs 27.7
Rubio: 15 vs 23.1
Hillary: 45 vs 49.9
Bernie: 42 vs 49.5
So she (Ann Selzer) got the Dems within MoE and in the right order. Not so for the GOP.
I think that's naive. I reckon that they talk about in Merkel's cabinet is how to keep the opposition to their migrant programme quiet. And how to offload as many as possible on other European countries.
Emerson 1/29 - 1/31 298 LV
Trump 27
Cruz 26
Rubio 22
Fieldwork was the latest of any GOP poll.
But their Democrat poll was not accurate at all...
More luck than judgement methinks.
It appears his supporters broke for Sanders but who knows ?
Part of the reason Iowa is so hard to poll is such a high proportion of caucus goers are first timers.
Whilst I can appreciate the idea that people come together for a final mini-rally and then have a vote - but the Democratic Party's system of having people sat in groups and then getting them to move between chairs to indicate their support is utterly mad. The potential for peer pressure/bullying is immense.
At least the Republicans have a basic paper ballot in place.
But the caucus model is just bizarre and I am amazed that it hasn't be challenged. It doesn't come as a shock to me that the pollsters find it an impossible one to test properly through interviews.
To be fair, I do think that there may have been some last minute breaking to Rubio over the weekend, and the polls indicated that that was the case, but had not picked up on the scale of it.