Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
You'll vote for a Party that you believe will support your own preferences, like every other election.
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
Exactly the same as remain.
Erm, no.
HMG are campaigning for Remain and run by the PM and Chancellor.
Absolutely right. If RemaIN wins, we should embrace the EU. We have only been a reluctant member so far. The EU has given and protected worker's rights more than British government would have done.
Neither IN nor OUT should really be focussing on the past. After all, the question is not: has the EU worked for us; but will the EU work for us in the future.
Consider the fact that the working time directive which the post lauds in top of the "most expensive pieces of EU legislation" list as well... but apparently the EU has nothing to do with it!
And you know as well as I do that it's necessary for Leave to rebut Hattiesque nonsense about the EU being the font of all workers rights. It's simply untrue.
Correct. But Leave do need to explain if either: EU workers' rights go too far and are expensive and unnecessary; or EU worker's rights add nothing as we do it ourselves.
By comparison although Hattie's comments about the EU being the sole source of workers' rights are disingenuous, at least the worker's rights = good is consistent.
I'm genuinely puzzled here.
Why should Leave need to do anything? They aren't HMG. They're a coalition of viewpoints that believes we're better off out. I'm not expecting LabourLeave to do so, anymore than GrassrootsOut.
Well, as a voter, should I vote leave to protect worker's rights or should I vote leave to get rid of them?
You'll vote for a Party that you believe will support your own preferences, like every other election.
Leave aren't in Government and aren't a single Party.
At the GE, I vote for a party that puts forward a single, united view of how Britain would be different if I voted for them and I vote on the basis of that.
I have difficulty voting for Leave because they aren't putting forward a single view, as you accept.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Seriously, what's this Boris as leader nonsense? There's not a single Tory backing him here, and I've never met one with a party vote suggesting him either anywhere.
According to Nadine Boris will be leader
Now I know you're trolling. Citing Nadine? Seriously?
Looks like it's Meltdown Sunday in the Tory Party...
If only Cameron had conducted a genuine renegotiation (as he promised he would) with genuine reforms, all of this could have been avoided.
What a disaster he's turned out to be...
If only he had conducted this campaign without the fear mongering he would be in a much stronger position.
He might perhaps be in an even stronger position if his actions matched his words and he did not assume we were all idiots who couldn't remember what he said a couple of years ago and what was in the Conservative manifesto last year.
Genuine question - if David Cameron had become PM in 1997 instead of Tony Blair - what would have been different?
er the tories would've won a fifth term which would have shifted the Labour party well to the right of the current Labour party which in turn would have shifter the Tories even further right which in turn would have meant Scotland would be independent right now. Which would mean rU.K politics would be EVEN further right wing. And UKIP winning a landslide and Vote Leave would be ahead in the polls.
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Seriously, what's this Boris as leader nonsense? There's not a single Tory backing him here, and I've never met one with a party vote suggesting him either anywhere.
According to Nadine Boris will be leader
Now I know you're trolling.
Thought you would like that but there are many who see Boris as leader but I am not one of them Theresa seems a good prospect now
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
It's a tricky one. A Tory party that moves too far right post-Cameron may prove vulnerable in 2020. But that still leaves four years of a government that is even further to the right of this one. And with Corbyn in charge, whatever happens the Tories will get most seats in 2020. You shouldn't confuse labour voters with Labour members. The latter are certifiable. The former mostly aren't and realise where Labour is heading.
'Most seats' does not guarantee the Tories remaining in government of course.
If "LEAVE" have made a mistake it is regarding migration:
This has never been an issue for those 'sensible' protaganists for "BrExit". What angers people is the inability and confliction from a bunch-of-folk that impose benefit-equivilance upon use but, yet, raised stipulations from foriegn 'bishoprics' upon realms of-which they have no legitimacy.
Had 'LEAVE' made this about soveriengty, free-trade and international-cooperation then I think "BOO" would be ahead in the polls by miles: Noone wishes to see Poles , Pakistanis or Phillipinoes denied the honest chance to work in England (though they may bulk at other, Celtic, regions). Our ability to determine our own future was stolen in 1973 and 1975: Time to fight back...!
:God-Save-The-Queen:!
Completely wrong. In the end immigration is the one thing that can and might win it for LEAVE. They've lost the economic case, sovereignty is too airy-fairy for many people, but immigration is an absolute killer.
Sensible REMAINIANS know this and worry. They can always scream RACIST but too many voters don't care any more, having seen it all their lives.
Essentially, a vote for REMAIN is a vote that says: I accept that the UK will never have anything like full and proper control over migration into this country, for the rest of the foreseeable future.
Absolutely right. If Remain wins now then the British people will have actively endorsed ongoing, large-scale immigration into the UK - as per government policy - and no-one will ever be able to claim again that they were not asked. That's why I have always expected Leave to win.
Only if Remain win a landslide, if Remain scrape home it will only be because economic fears beat immigration fears, the latter fears still remain
Of course, the worries will still be there. But the voters will have had their say.
Out of interest you called the 2015 GE right what did you predict for 2010? A Tory minority?
A hung parliament. But as many on here will tell you I have got plenty wrong too.
Yes, which is why ironically the best bet for UKIP is a very close Remain win rather than a Leave vote
I keep reading that on here but I don't think it is true. If we are talking about a future for UKIP as a political party then I think the best result would be a leave vote after which it can move on to being a party of the people Labour no longer want to represent and the Conservatives don't give a shit about. They will probably never achieve power but they will have a useful role to perform at local and national levels.
No, a Leave vote would kill UKIP's raison d'etre, no one apart from an obsessive few are going to vote for it for more grammar schools or because they are annoyed by gay marriage. It would fade into a minor pressure group at best or disappear completely at worst. A narrow Remain vote though, with Labour weak and having backed Remain, would immediately set UKIP up as effectively the principal opposition party in the UK to the pro-EU Tory government, much as opposition to the Iraq War set the LDs up as effectively the main opposition under Charles Kennedy to New Labour's pro Iraq War government when the Tories were weak and had also backed the War
I agree that a Leave vote should kill UKIP. It would have lost is only legitimate reason for existing.
Yes, and something which many if not most members of UKIP would probably be happy with. However, there is currently a section of society which the main two political parties seem to want to ignore at both local and national levels. That is a niche market, if you will forgive the term, that could and, in my view for the common good, should be met. UKIP are well placed to do so. Whether they could or even would want to is another matter.
However, I maintain that for the members of UKIP a leave vote i not the worst that could happen and a narrow remain is not the best.
If it is Leave then supposedly we get a grip on immigration and much of the reason for that disillusion amongst the working class goes with it
Mr. Hyfud, There are a lot more issues than just immigration that exercise the minds of the people the main parties want to ignore.
Not really beyond the niche, once out of the EU if you want leftwing politics vote for Corbyn's Labour, if you want centrist politics vote LD, if you want rightwing politics vote for a more rightwing Tory party in a Brexited UK, UKIP will have little space to fill
The most amazing fact of this war fare in the Conservative party is that those on the Brexit side believe getting rid of David Cameron and calling an early Autumn election would result in an increased mandate. I do not believe that for one moment as a post David Cameron conservative party, probably with Boris as leader, would put off a vast number of voters and probably see a minority conservative government with no one prepared to negotiate a viable government, also a left leaning House of Lords that would paralysis any legislation put forward. There are parts of the conservative party that really do not get it as this is as good as it is likely to get, irrespective of labour's present problems
Seriously, what's this Boris as leader nonsense? There's not a single Tory backing him here, and I've never met one with a party vote suggesting him either anywhere.
According to Nadine Boris will be leader
Now I know you're trolling.
Thought you would like that but there are many who see Boris as leader but I am not one of them Theresa seems a good prospect now
"The Commission’s proposals are primarily aimed at tackling mainland Europe’s inefficient State run ports. However, the UK’s independent, market-driven ports system risks getting caught in the crossfire of these proposed regulations.
The UK’s ports are currently at liberty to determine all aspects of port services. The Commission’s proposals would change this. A new regulator would be imposed on the UK’s ports industry, which will be able to put controls on things such as price proportionality...
MR. Hyfud, you talk of left, centre and right, I have never met a person who thinks in those terms. People in my experience think about issues that affect them not about some continuum on an imaginary axis.
MR. Hyfud, you talk of left, centre and right, I have never met a person who thinks in those terms. People in my experience think about issues that affect them not about some continuum on an imaginary axis.
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
It's a tricky one. A Tory party that moves too far right post-Cameron may prove vulnerable in 2020. But that still leaves four years of a government that is even further to the right of this one. And with Corbyn in charge, whatever happens the Tories will get most seats in 2020. You shouldn't confuse labour voters with Labour members. The latter are certifiable. The former mostly aren't and realise where Labour is heading.
'Most seats' does not guarantee the Tories remaining in government of course.
It pretty much guarantees gridlock.
We are heading into a very difficult period, whatever the result on 23rd June. A useless government combined with an unelectable opposition is not a happy prospect.
"The Commission’s proposals are primarily aimed at tackling mainland Europe’s inefficient State run ports. However, the UK’s independent, market-driven ports system risks getting caught in the crossfire of these proposed regulations.
The UK’s ports are currently at liberty to determine all aspects of port services. The Commission’s proposals would change this. A new regulator would be imposed on the UK’s ports industry, which will be able to put controls on things such as price proportionality...
Wait: aren't continental Europe's two largest ports, accounting for around 60% of container traffic, Rotterdam and Hamburg? And neither of which is either state owned or inefficient .
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
It's a tricky one. A Tory party that moves too far right post-Cameron may prove vulnerable in 2020. But that still leaves four years of a government that is even further to the right of this one. And with Corbyn in charge, whatever happens the Tories will get most seats in 2020. You shouldn't confuse labour voters with Labour members. The latter are certifiable. The former mostly aren't and realise where Labour is heading.
'Most seats' does not guarantee the Tories remaining in government of course.
It pretty much guarantees gridlock.
We are heading into a very difficult period, whatever the result on 23rd June. A useless government combined with an unelectable opposition is not a happy prospect.
A Labour Party led by Sadiq Khan would be very electable. Sadly little chance of him bring leader in 2020.
"The Commission’s proposals are primarily aimed at tackling mainland Europe’s inefficient State run ports. However, the UK’s independent, market-driven ports system risks getting caught in the crossfire of these proposed regulations.
The UK’s ports are currently at liberty to determine all aspects of port services. The Commission’s proposals would change this. A new regulator would be imposed on the UK’s ports industry, which will be able to put controls on things such as price proportionality...
Wait: aren't continental Europe's two largest ports, accounting for around 60% of container traffic, Rotterdam and Hamburg? And neither of which is either state owned or inefficient .
Which makes one wonder why the EU is bringing forward this directive. What problem are they trying to solve or is it just another power grab?
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
It's a tricky one. A Tory party that moves too far right post-Cameron may prove vulnerable in 2020. But that still leaves four years of a government that is even further to the right of this one. And with Corbyn in charge, whatever happens the Tories will get most seats in 2020. You shouldn't confuse labour voters with Labour members. The latter are certifiable. The former mostly aren't and realise where Labour is heading.
'Most seats' does not guarantee the Tories remaining in government of course.
It pretty much guarantees gridlock.
We are heading into a very difficult period, whatever the result on 23rd June. A useless government combined with an unelectable opposition is not a happy prospect.
A Labour Party led by Sadiq Khan would be very electable. Sadly little chance of him bring leader in 2020.
I doubt 'Diq Khan would be electable anywhere outside of London.
Why are these leading Tories who are desperate to leave EU spending their sunday plotting to get Cameron instead of out campaigning for what they want?
I have been staggered by how poorly prepared the whole leave brigade were for this referendum (which they've been arguing for for decades). No idea about what a post-Brexit UK would look like and no comms plan for a campaign other than Boris in a bus and letting other people just go off and say anything they like. They seem to have spent the entire campaign just moaning about Project Fear. What did they seriously expect?
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
What are they 'ignored about'? Name 1 issue other than immigration and the EU Labour, the LDs, the Tories or the Greens do not campaign on the voters are concerned about and UKIP campaign on. The only ones I can think of are more grammar schools and gay marriage, neither of which exercise more than a small minority
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
Gaitskill won 43.8% of the vote in 1959, Miliband 30.7%. Heath had only been leader for 2 years when he lost in 1966, had he lost in 1970 too he would have gone. Churchill had won WW2, not quite the same as Ed!
On a GB basis Labour actually polled 31.2% in 2015. Comparisons with the 1950s in terms of party vote % shares are pretty meaningless because like is not being compared with like. In 1959 over 400 seats did not have a Liberal candidate and there were no UKIP or Green parties to support either.National party support has obviously become more fragmented , and had there been a full slate of Liberal Candidates in 1959 Labour would have probably polled 38/39% with Tory % share dropping by a similar amount. In 1966 Heath had actually only been Tory leader for 8 months- having succeeded Douglas - Home in July 1965.
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed toEd gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Ed Miliband would be the equivalent of William Hague taking over as transitional leader in the Tory Party in 2003, not Michael Howard
HYUFD. I don't mind which Tory leader Ed would be most analagous to - as long as the bet delivers!
Michael Howard was the Shadow Chancellor when he took over and had not been leader before, Hague like Ed Miliband was a backbencher and like Ed had lost the last election. John McDonnell is more likely than Ed Miliband
Hague and Milliband were not backbenchers. Hague had been Secretary of State for Wales and Milliband had been Energy Secretary!
"there could be no disguising that it would be the most severe reverse to the EU in its history. For the first time, the organisation would have lost a member – a very big member. That would diminish both the EU’s sense of itself and its clout in the world.
It would be a profound blow at any time and even more so when the EU is already severely stressed by the refugee crisis, the strains within the eurozone, the rise of anti-European nationalists of the hard right and Russian adventurism on its eastern border."
And therein lies much of the anger that is directed at Cameron. How can he have done quite so poorly in negotiation?
"there could be no disguising that it would be the most severe reverse to the EU in its history. For the first time, the organisation would have lost a member – a very big member. That would diminish both the EU’s sense of itself and its clout in the world.
It would be a profound blow at any time and even more so when the EU is already severely stressed by the refugee crisis, the strains within the eurozone, the rise of anti-European nationalists of the hard right and Russian adventurism on its eastern border."
And therein lies much of the anger that is directed at Cameron. How can he have done quite so poorly in negotiation?
How can he have wielded so little influence?
There's a great video from Chrisg0000 floating about on Twitter. IIRC it's Shirley Williams retelling the charade of Wilson.
All this does (apart from damaging the Tories) is highlight the startling fact that Cameron will have to quit if he loses - and probably if he wins by a small margin, as well.
Which will make it very tempting for Tory-hating lefties to vote LEAVE.
Above all Cameron likes to win. At heart he's an upper class amateur sportsman. But he can't win this time. If the referendum goes his way his disembowelling will be demanded as part of the healing process inside the Tory party.
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
What are they 'ignored about'? Name 1 issue other than immigration and the EU Labour, the LDs, the Tories or the Greens do not campaign on the voters are concerned about and UKIP campaign on. The only ones I can think of are more grammar schools and gay marriage, neither of which exercise more than a small minority
May or Hammond could be leader if a close Remain
Well chatting to the people in my area I'd say that people were exercised about housing, education, training of young people, as well as purely local issues (notably street lighting, health provision and transport). I have never heard anyone mention grammar schools or gay marriage.
May or Hammond could be the next Conservative leader, I agree, I just hope they are not - the Country deserves better.
In the event of a Leave vote, UKIP's role becomes 'guardians of the true flame'. Whatever deal is done by the Tories in the aftermath of the vote won't be good enough for them, and there will be plenty of people ready to cry "sell out" the minute we join the single market, agree to make new payments to the EU, agree to follow lots of EU rules, or accept 'free movement', etc.
Whilst this doesn't, I think, offer a long term base for their party, there would be enough voters eager to express their protest at the new deal with the EU (and no other party really able to collect them) to keep them going for an election or two.
After all, most UKIP people imagine a world where the EU just disappears, and the central problem with their campaign is that it will not, as a consequence, really face up to what life as a small country on the edge of a continuing EU would actually be like...
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
Gaitskill won 43.8% of the vote in 1959, Miliband 30.7%. Heath had only been leader for 2 years when he lost in 1966, had he lost in 1970 too he would have gone. Churchill had won WW2, not quite the same as Ed!
On a GB basis Labour actually polled 31.2% in 2015. Comparisons with the 1950s in terms of party vote % shares are pretty meaningless because like is not being compared with like. In 1959 over 400 seats did not have a Liberal candidate and there were no UKIP or Green parties to support either.National party support has obviously become more fragmented , and had there been a full slate of Liberal Candidates in 1959 Labour would have probably polled 38/39% with Tory % share dropping by a similar amount. In 1966 Heath had actually only been Tory leader for 8 months- having succeeded Douglas - Home in July 1965.
0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband. Your point on Heath just reinforces my point even more
When the bet Ed Miliband for next Labour leader was first proposed by Alistair Meeks I thought it was daft. EM was humiliated at the last GE. But since then he has conducted himself with quiet dignity and I no longer think it’s an impossible outcome for the following reasons.
1. Firstly and most importantly he is a current MP so he’s an eligible candidate if there is a vacancy. Unlike David Miliband or Ed Balls. 2. Next there are rumours that he could be invited into the shadow cabinet. 3. After the GE he looked like a hopeless case but since then Labour have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire with Corbyn’s appointment as Labour leader. In comparison to Corbyn EM looks like a proper leader. 4. Despite his defeat at the GE, EM could be a unifying figure should Corbyn voluntarily step down. He is to the left of the party so he could be well placed toEd gain the support of the Corbynites - and the Unions who of course backed him originally. 5. He could play the role of a Michael Howard transitional leader and start to move the Labour party back towards a semblance of political reality. 6. If Corbyn leads Labour to GE defeat in 2020, EM could be appointed next Labour leader after that defeat while Labour undergoes a root and branch review of their situation. So the bet has the potential to deliver either side of the next GE.
At 200/1 it's a value bet. I'm on!
Ed Miliband would be the equivalent of William Hague taking over as transitional leader in the Tory Party in 2003, not Michael Howard
HYUFD. I don't mind which Tory leader Ed would be most analagous to - as long as the bet delivers!
Michael Howard was the Shadow Chancellor when he took over and had not been leader before, Hague like Ed Miliband was a backbencher and like Ed had lost the last election. John McDonnell is more likely than Ed Miliband
Hague and Milliband were not backbenchers. Hague had been Secretary of State for Wales and Milliband had been Energy Secretary!
In 2003 Hague was a backbencher just as Ed Miliband is now and that is the apt comparison for Ed Miliband succeeding Corbyn, not when they first became leader
"The Commission’s proposals are primarily aimed at tackling mainland Europe’s inefficient State run ports. However, the UK’s independent, market-driven ports system risks getting caught in the crossfire of these proposed regulations.
The UK’s ports are currently at liberty to determine all aspects of port services. The Commission’s proposals would change this. A new regulator would be imposed on the UK’s ports industry, which will be able to put controls on things such as price proportionality...
Wait: aren't continental Europe's two largest ports, accounting for around 60% of container traffic, Rotterdam and Hamburg? And neither of which is either state owned or inefficient .
And also grossly distort our trade figures with the EU because any trade from the UK to the rest of the world via those two ports counts as exports/imports to the EU because it passes through another EU country first.
Take out that and trade with EIRE which also counts as trade with the EU but is also to all intents and purposes domestic trade and you have a very different picture.
It is really beginning to look as if Brexit decuded to let remain shoot their bolts early and have a policy of give them the rope to hang themselves with and waited until purdah started before letting rip with their big guna in terms of issues to debate.
In the event of a Leave vote, UKIP's role becomes 'guardians of the true flame'. Whatever deal is done by the Tories in the aftermath of the vote won't be good enough for them, and there will be plenty of people ready to cry "sell out" the minute we join the single market, agree to make new payments to the EU, agree to follow lots of EU rules, or accept 'free movement', etc.
Whilst this doesn't, I think, offer a long term base for their party, there would be enough voters eager to express their protest at the new deal with the EU (and no other party really able to collect them) to keep them going for an election or two.
After all, most UKIP people imagine a world where the EU just disappears, and the central problem with their campaign is that it will not, as a consequence, really face up to what life as a small country on the edge of a continuing EU would actually be like...
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
What are they 'ignored about'? Name 1 issue other than immigration and the EU Labour, the LDs, the Tories or the Greens do not campaign on the voters are concerned about and UKIP campaign on. The only ones I can think of are more grammar schools and gay marriage, neither of which exercise more than a small minority
May or Hammond could be leader if a close Remain
Well chatting to the people in my area I'd say that people were exercised about housing, education, training of young people, as well as purely local issues (notably street lighting, health provision and transport). I have never heard anyone mention grammar schools or gay marriage.
May or Hammond could be the next Conservative leader, I agree, I just hope they are not - the Country deserves better.
So you have just confirmed my point, UKIP have no issue to campaign on the other parties are not already campaigning on and they are not going to replace the LDs on pavement politics at council level
I wonder what OGH's trigger point might be for him to start betting on LEAVE winning the referendum? I really can't see the odds getting appreciably larger that the current 5.0 (4/1 in old money), which is widely available, before voting night itself, along with the final polls. Perhaps the odd bookie will stretch to 9/2 to buy in some business at which point I'd be quite tempted myself to invest. Does anyone else sense this weekend that there's quite a strong outpouring in the media for LEAVE and also against Cameron in particular? .... The next few polls could prove very interesting and just possibly informative from a betting perspective.
They've already given their verdict on Mr Miliband once - not up to it - and will be irritated to have the same proposal made again
But Gaitskell did not resign post 1959 election. Neither did Heath in 1966 . Nor Churchill in 1945.
Gaitskill won 43.8% of the vote in 1959, Miliband 30.7%. Heath had only been leader for 2 years when he lost in 1966, had he lost in 1970 too he would have gone. Churchill had won WW2, not quite the same as Ed!
On a GB basis Labour actually polled 31.2% in 2015. Comparisons with the 1950s in terms of party vote % shares are pretty meaningless because like is not being compared with like. In 1959 over 400 seats did not have a Liberal candidate and there were no UKIP or Green parties to support either.National party support has obviously become more fragmented , and had there been a full slate of Liberal Candidates in 1959 Labour would have probably polled 38/39% with Tory % share dropping by a similar amount. In 1966 Heath had actually only been Tory leader for 8 months- having succeeded Douglas - Home in July 1965.
0.5% difference is still 12.6% less than Gaitskill got in the 1950s. Even on an MPs basis rather than voteshare Gaitskill got 26 more MPs than Miliband. Your point on Heath just reinforces my point even more
I wonder what OGH's trigger point might be for him to start betting on LEAVE winning the referendum? I really can't see the odds getting appreciably larger that the current 5.0 (4/1 in old money), which is widely available, before voting night itself, along with the final polls. Perhaps the odd bookie will stretch to 11/2 to buy in some business at which point I'd be quite tempted myself to invest. Does anyone else sense this weekend that there's quite a strong outpouring in the media for LEAVE and also against Cameron in particular? .... The next few polls could prove very interesting and just possibly informative from a betting perspective.
I put my money on Leave on Friday. I expect odds to tighten considerably over the coming weeks.
In the event of a Leave vote, UKIP's role becomes 'guardians of the true flame'. Whatever deal is done by the Tories in the aftermath of the vote won't be good enough for them, and there will be plenty of people ready to cry "sell out" the minute we join the single market, agree to make new payments to the EU, agree to follow lots of EU rules, or accept 'free movement', etc.
Whilst this doesn't, I think, offer a long term base for their party, there would be enough voters eager to express their protest at the new deal with the EU (and no other party really able to collect them) to keep them going for an election or two.
After all, most UKIP people imagine a world where the EU just disappears, and the central problem with their campaign is that it will not, as a consequence, really face up to what life as a small country on the edge of a continuing EU would actually be like...
Small country on the edge of Europe? A state of 60 odd million people, the fifth biggest economy on the planet and still one of the top ten manufacturers. I do not think so.
Furthermore, I can remember what it was to be outside the EU, and you know, it wasn't that bad. We could move about pretty well (didn't even need a proper passport for many countries in those days), could buy and sell pretty well too. As I sit here and look around nothing, aside from the books and pictures, is made in the EU and even the wine I am serving with Sunday lunch comes from New Zealand (better value than anything from within the fabled single market)
All in all I'd face the prospect of being in a country on the edge of the EU with equanimity.
"there could be no disguising that it would be the most severe reverse to the EU in its history. For the first time, the organisation would have lost a member – a very big member. That would diminish both the EU’s sense of itself and its clout in the world.
It would be a profound blow at any time and even more so when the EU is already severely stressed by the refugee crisis, the strains within the eurozone, the rise of anti-European nationalists of the hard right and Russian adventurism on its eastern border."
And therein lies much of the anger that is directed at Cameron. How can he have done quite so poorly in negotiation?
How can he have wielded so little influence?
I reckon Cameron was embarrassed by the whole fandango, so he told the other leaders, before they even started,
"Look, I didn't want this vote, but there's no chance we will lose, so don't worry. I just need a couple of token concessions and the silly voters will buy it. Shall we have some more wine, old boy?"
And unsurprisingly they took him at his word. It is the only explanation.
It is really beginning to look as if Brexit decuded to let remain shoot their bolts early and have a policy of give them the rope to hang themselves with and waited until purdah started before letting rip with their big guna in terms of issues to debate.
It's the smart PR approach to keep your big stuff for when the audience is paying most attention. But it takes some steel. That's not 100/70/30 days out - but the final 3 weeks. I think Remain believed early carpet bombing would give them an unassailable lead/demoralise their opponent.
Well, that hasn't worked out as planned. It's all to play for.
I wonder what OGH's trigger point might be for him to start betting on LEAVE winning the referendum? I really can't see the odds getting appreciably larger that the current 5.0 (4/1 in old money), which is widely available, before voting night itself, along with the final polls. Perhaps the odd bookie will stretch to 9/2 to buy in some business at which point I'd be quite tempted myself to invest. Does anyone else sense this weekend that there's quite a strong outpouring in the media for LEAVE and also against Cameron in particular? .... The next few polls could prove very interesting and just possibly informative from a betting perspective.
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
What are they 'ignored about'? Name 1 issue other than immigration and the EU Labour, the LDs, the Tories or the Greens do not campaign on the voters are concerned about and UKIP campaign on. The only ones I can think of are more grammar schools and gay marriage, neither of which exercise more than a small minority
May or Hammond could be leader if a close Remain
Well chatting to the people in my area I'd say that people were exercised about housing, education, training of young people, as well as purely local issues (notably street lighting, health provision and transport). I have never heard anyone mention grammar schools or gay marriage.
May or Hammond could be the next Conservative leader, I agree, I just hope they are not - the Country deserves better.
So you have just confirmed my point, UKIP have no issue to campaign on the other parties are not already campaigning on and they are not going to replace the LDs on pavement politics at council level
Mr. Hyfud, it don't matter about UKIP but there is, I believe, a section of society that feels its voice is not being heard. I think it should be, for the good of all and the body politic especially.
Have to go for lunch now, perhaps we can carry this on later.
And also grossly distort our trade figures with the EU because any trade from the UK to the rest of the world via those two ports counts as exports/imports to the EU because it passes through another EU country first.
For the latest work by actual statisticians on the size of the Rotterdam effect, see here. They wouldn't call it "grossly".
Take out that and trade with EIRE which also counts as trade with the EU but is also to all intents and purposes domestic trade and you have a very different picture.
The republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are two different countries. Pretending that they aren't is fictional. Presenting trade between them as domestic UK trade is also fictional.
Those issues all fit into that scale even if they do not think about it, want higher taxes and more spending vote Labour, want lower taxes and less spending vote Tory, in between vote LD etc
OK, let us agree to disagree. I think there is a space for a party to represent the ignored and you do not. No point in carrying the discussion on.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
What are they 'ignored about'? Name 1 issue other than immigration and the EU Labour, the LDs, the Tories or the Greens do not campaign on the voters are concerned about and UKIP campaign on. The only ones I can think of are more grammar schools and gay marriage, neither of which exercise more than a small minority
May or Hammond could be leader if a close Remain
Well chatting to the people in my area I'd say that people were exercised about housing, education, training of young people, as well as purely local issues (notably street lighting, health provision and transport). I have never heard anyone mention grammar schools or gay marriage.
May or Hammond could be the next Conservative leader, I agree, I just hope they are not - the Country deserves better.
So you have just confirmed my point, UKIP have no issue to campaign on the other parties are not already campaigning on and they are not going to replace the LDs on pavement politics at council level
Mr. Hyfud, it don't matter about UKIP but there is, I believe, a section of society that feels its voice is not being heard. I think it should be, for the good of all and the body politic especially.
Have to go for lunch now, perhaps we can carry this on later.
Yes but you have still found no issue a section of society is not heard on beyond the EU and immigration which the other parties are not already campaigning on
Comments
HMG are campaigning for Remain and run by the PM and Chancellor.
So not much.....
Miss Plato, I have only just noticed your change of name. Either that or I am going completely bonkers. I am sure you used to post under Plato_Says.
The UK’s ports are currently at liberty to determine all aspects of port services. The Commission’s proposals would change this. A new regulator would be imposed on the UK’s ports industry, which will be able to put controls on things such as price proportionality...
http://capx.co/the-eu-is-about-to-crucify-the-uks-thriving-ports/
We are heading into a very difficult period, whatever the result on 23rd June. A useless government combined with an unelectable opposition is not a happy prospect.
On another note I don't see May or Hammond as the next Conservative leader. Well actually I can but for the sake of the Country I hope neither is.
I have been staggered by how poorly prepared the whole leave brigade were for this referendum (which they've been arguing for for decades). No idea about what a post-Brexit UK would look like and no comms plan for a campaign other than Boris in a bus and letting other people just go off and say anything they like. They seem to have spent the entire campaign just moaning about Project Fear. What did they seriously expect?
Still think they'll win mind.
May or Hammond could be leader if a close Remain
In 1966 Heath had actually only been Tory leader for 8 months- having succeeded Douglas - Home in July 1965.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-fear-brexit-contagion
"there could be no disguising that it would be the most severe reverse to the EU in its history. For the first time, the organisation would have lost a member – a very big member. That would diminish both the EU’s sense of itself and its clout in the world.
It would be a profound blow at any time and even more so when the EU is already severely stressed by the refugee crisis, the strains within the eurozone, the rise of anti-European nationalists of the hard right and Russian adventurism on its eastern border."
And therein lies much of the anger that is directed at Cameron. How can he have done quite so poorly in negotiation?
How can he have wielded so little influence?
It's so eerily similar to Cameron's behaviour.
May or Hammond could be the next Conservative leader, I agree, I just hope they are not - the Country deserves better.
Whilst this doesn't, I think, offer a long term base for their party, there would be enough voters eager to express their protest at the new deal with the EU (and no other party really able to collect them) to keep them going for an election or two.
After all, most UKIP people imagine a world where the EU just disappears, and the central problem with their campaign is that it will not, as a consequence, really face up to what life as a small country on the edge of a continuing EU would actually be like...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7181974/Brexit-quizzes-Prime-Minister.html
Take out that and trade with EIRE which also counts as trade with the EU but is also to all intents and purposes domestic trade and you have a very different picture.
1973: The secret conspiracy between Conservative & Labour pro-EU politicians.
#VoteLeave https://t.co/393GexTpAb
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002161.html
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002160.html#more
It turns out he's just another establishment stooge who cannot be trusted.
Sounds OK to me.
Does anyone else sense this weekend that there's quite a strong outpouring in the media for LEAVE and also against Cameron in particular? .... The next few polls could prove very interesting and just possibly informative from a betting perspective.
Furthermore, I can remember what it was to be outside the EU, and you know, it wasn't that bad. We could move about pretty well (didn't even need a proper passport for many countries in those days), could buy and sell pretty well too. As I sit here and look around nothing, aside from the books and pictures, is made in the EU and even the wine I am serving with Sunday lunch comes from New Zealand (better value than anything from within the fabled single market)
All in all I'd face the prospect of being in a country on the edge of the EU with equanimity.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Well, that hasn't worked out as planned. It's all to play for.
Have to go for lunch now, perhaps we can carry this on later.