'Meanwhile, the debate surrounding austerity is over, and Labour has lost. The public has looked at the Conservatives' argument that austerity is the necessary and unavoidable price for Labour’s years of spending and excess. They have also looked at Labour’s argument that there is an alternative, and that we should spend and borrow a bit more until growth returns. And they have come done squarely on the side of the Tories.
Which leaves Ed Miliband in an horrendous place. He is basically out of moves. Big Week, the attempt to “pivot” Labour into a new position on the economy, has left the party in an even worse position than it was before. The current stance, “We will not spend or borrow any more money, except where we think we need to spend and borrow more money”, is as bankrupt politically as it is economically.
It is the same everywhere you look. Welfare – a car crash. Education – a car crash. Europe – a car crash. The relationship with the unions – a car crash.
And the situation is set to get even worse. Yet again, Ed Miliband will have to spend the conference season having to shore up his own leadership, rather than take the fight to the Tories. Fully three years after his election he is still in the position of fighting to convince the voters he is a worthy leader of the opposition, never mind a future prime minister.'
Chuckle. It's really not even worth reading Hodges column any more. Once you've read one, you've honestly read them all.
That's so unfair.
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
True!
Sometimes it's the one of David Cameron looking triumphant or statesmanlike, sometimes it's the one of Ed Miliband looking despondent or awkward. He likes to keep his readers guessing does Dan!
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Chuckle. It's really not even worth reading Hodges column any more. Once you've read one, you've honestly read them all.
That's so unfair.
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
And if our Labour friends dismiss what he has to say, the Tories would be wise to pay heed:
"Which doesn’t mean Tory victory in 2015 is by any means guaranteed. There are still two years to go. The Tory “traditionalists” could cause more trouble for the Prime Minister. Indeed, it is a racing certainty they will try to cause more trouble for him. Ministers could again lose the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as we saw in the omnishmabolic summer of 2012. They could overreach themselves over social security reform, education reform and reform of the NHS. The Conservative party could still blow it."
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Indeed. Are the Tories any closer to winning seats like Eastleigh this week than they were a couple of weeks back?
Chuckle. It's really not even worth reading Hodges column any more. Once you've read one, you've honestly read them all.
That's so unfair.
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
And if our Labour friends dismiss what he has to say, the Tories would be wise to pay heed:
"Which doesn’t mean Tory victory in 2015 is by any means guaranteed. There are still two years to go. The Tory “traditionalists” could cause more trouble for the Prime Minister. Indeed, it is a racing certainty they will try to cause more trouble for him. Ministers could again lose the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as we saw in the omnishmabolic summer of 2012. They could overreach themselves over social security reform, education reform and reform of the NHS. The Conservative party could still blow it."
That is a lot of words to say "Govts lose elections".
Chuckle. It's really not even worth reading Hodges column any more. Once you've read one, you've honestly read them all.
That's so unfair.
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
And if our Labour friends dismiss what he has to say, the Tories would be wise to pay heed:
"Which doesn’t mean Tory victory in 2015 is by any means guaranteed. There are still two years to go. The Tory “traditionalists” could cause more trouble for the Prime Minister. Indeed, it is a racing certainty they will try to cause more trouble for him. Ministers could again lose the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as we saw in the omnishmabolic summer of 2012. They could overreach themselves over social security reform, education reform and reform of the NHS. The Conservative party could still blow it."
That is a lot of words to say "Govts lose elections".
Oh no it's not. Have you seen how many words he's used to say "I don't like Ed Miliband" over the past couple of years?!
Anyway, enough laughing at Dan Hodges, it's shooting fish in a barrel really.
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
Although they probably write less and get paid more than you...
Mr. Jessop, impressive but not perhaps overly surprising. They have, after all, run prototype tyres at the last two Grands Prix and probably set about manufacturing more for testing in free practice at Germany anyway. Plus, they may have a stockpile from when the tyres were meant to change but the teams vetoed it.
Firstly there is an argument for dividing the role of the MP into two halves: casework and scrutiny. (Let's say for the sake of argument pay them each £32,500). MPs all get paid for the scrutiny role, but can then opt to do the casework role - but not do any outside activities - or do outside activities but then not get paid for any casework that they may choose to do in addition. In theory the voters can then decide whether they are strongly opposed to one structure or not when it comes to an election.
The more important issue, for me, is to create a career structure for backbench MPs that doesn't involve becoming ministers. I have no issue with paid Select Committee chairman / members (and properly resourcing the committees) - make it viable for someone not to focus on the greasy pole. (Longer term, I think we would benefit from ministers not - in effect - having to be MPs, but that would take time to get to that position)
I'm not sure that your strict division would work in practice - as noted in another response, no MP is going to take the "sod off, constituents, I'm too busy with my second job for your petty concerns" option. I'm also opposed to an absolute ban on outside activities - I think it's up to MPs what they do with any spare time they have, go yachting or run businesses or whatever, with the voters the ultimate arbiter of whether they are letting themselves be distracted too much.
But I agree about the backbench roles. This does work for prestige purposes - being on an important Select Committee is well-respected, and the Chief Whip thought I was highly misguided when I asked to come off Treasury so I could become a PPS (I was bored with criticising policy and wanted to help shape it). But there is no financial reward except for the Chair. Similarly, participating in the sometimes unpleasantly long Bill Committees (the Finance Bill is typical about 10 sessions, some very long and 99% nitpicking) is something people do as a duty if at all. I think that MPs who do a lot of committee work should indeed be paid better than those who don't - analogously to County Councils, I think.
What this thread shows quite nicely is why No Overall Majority remains an excellent value bet and is likely to continue to do so right the way up to the next election.
Chuckle. It's really not even worth reading Hodges column any more. Once you've read one, you've honestly read them all.
That's so unfair.
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
And if our Labour friends dismiss what he has to say, the Tories would be wise to pay heed:
"Which doesn’t mean Tory victory in 2015 is by any means guaranteed. There are still two years to go. The Tory “traditionalists” could cause more trouble for the Prime Minister. Indeed, it is a racing certainty they will try to cause more trouble for him. Ministers could again lose the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as we saw in the omnishmabolic summer of 2012. They could overreach themselves over social security reform, education reform and reform of the NHS. The Conservative party could still blow it."
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
A lot of laughter from the left at "Uncle Tom" Dan Hodges - and yes he called the leadership result wrong - but he has stuck to the line that the position and tactics of rEd would eventually end in tears...
First signs of that coming to pass are in the polls..
With reference to a certain D Hodges the latest ARSE projection is for both Coalition partners to lose a small number of seats but together to achieve 340 seats and a majority of 30.
What this thread shows quite nicely is why No Overall Majority remains an excellent value bet and is likely to continue to do so right the way up to the next election.
Agreed. It's been looking like NoM ever since 2010 and nothing has happened recently to indicate things have changed.
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
Although they probably write less and get paid more than you...
I'm sure your affinity with the second rate products of talented parents is genuine.
Depends how you measure success.
Hodges may be wrong, but he generates a lot of readers and plenty of comments. From a commercial perspective he gets paid as well, which is a good result in the newspaper world. I'm sure there are lots of hacks who would love to have a steady gig in the Telegraph.
What this thread shows quite nicely is why No Overall Majority remains an excellent value bet and is likely to continue to do so right the way up to the next election.
Indeed - and laying a Lab majority at 2.2-2.3 is beginning to show some return.
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
Waiting to see your name in the papers as their new star commentator any day now...
With reference to a certain D Hodges the latest ARSE projection is for both Coalition partners to lose a small number of seats but together to achieve 340 seats and a majority of 30.
For there to be a Tory/LD coalition in 2015, Cameron is going to have to persuade the LDs to accept his timetable and conditions for a referendum on the EU. Otherwise, he will have to resign.
What this thread shows quite nicely is why No Overall Majority remains an excellent value bet and is likely to continue to do so right the way up to the next election.
Indeed - and laying a Lab majority at 2.2-2.3 is beginning to show some return.
Currently Lab OM 2.38 / NOM 2.68
Crossover coming soon...
You've been laying a Labour majority at the same price as you've been laying Miliband as next PM?
You can lay rEd at a much shorter price now - 1.86 avail.
As a principle, I dislike the idea of banning anyone from office. It should be down to the party to determine who is fit to fly their colours and the local electorate to decide who of those nominated they want to represent them.
Even though a donkey wearing a blue or red rosette in certain seats would get in! I remember the 'right of being elected' attitude of Marcus Fox and welcomed his defeat - because of this attitude, even though I'm as blue as a clear day's sky!
I remember that too - indeed, I was there. The sense of entitlement in safe seats is one of the strongest arguments in support of formal primaries that there is, something made significantly easier logistically now that there are fixed-term parliaments.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
With reference to a certain D Hodges the latest ARSE projection is for both Coalition partners to lose a small number of seats but together to achieve 340 seats and a majority of 30.
For there to be a Tory/LD coalition in 2015, Cameron is going to have to persuade the LDs to accept his timetable and conditions for a referendum on the EU. Otherwise, he will have to resign.
Clegg would probably indicate a pragmatic free HoC vote to decide.
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
What this thread shows quite nicely is why No Overall Majority remains an excellent value bet and is likely to continue to do so right the way up to the next election.
Indeed - and laying a Lab majority at 2.2-2.3 is beginning to show some return.
Currently Lab OM 2.38 / NOM 2.68
Crossover coming soon...
You've been laying a Labour majority at the same price as you've been laying Miliband as next PM?
You can lay rEd at a much shorter price now - 1.86 avail.
But you told me you'd been laying him at 2.2, the same as you've now said you're laying a Lab Maj. Strange behaviour, they are clearly very different probabilities.
Different probability now than 2 months ago certainly.
Laid much more on the maj than rEd PM as may not collect on that bet until 2020+
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
Polly Toynbee can be ridiculous, as can James Delingpole.
Ms Toynbee is clearly a bright lady and an influential writer but sometimes she can be unashamedly silly and emotional. Remember her swooning over the great Gordon Brown before two years later telling everyone to vote Lib Dem? And now she's telling us all how great Gordon's spending was again.
I'll permit anybody a viewpoint but for God's sake stick to it.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
Despite all the bleating from MPs I can see no basis for them having any pay increase at all at a time of austerity, especially when so many in the public and private sector are getting no pay increases at all. Expenses should be paid in line with Inland Revenue rules and should be the same as for all other citizens.
All expenses to be published online every month. All other paid activities to be fully transparent. I would not ban other jobs since it does keep MPs in touch though it would be nice if we had more doctor/MPs, say, than all these MPs with directorships.
Pensions should be money purchase so that they are not insulated - unlike the rest of use - from the consequences of their mismanagement of the economy.
Once the economy is moving again and the deficit eliminated, then - maybe - we can think about a pay increase and link it to CPI.
But really MPs need to realise that being paid the sums they are, they are very well-paid by comparison with the majority of the public and their constituents and stop feeling sorry for themselves.
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
I'm leaning to the view that Coalition supporters should be mindful of the mental health of our PB Labour supporters.
These poor souls handicapped as they are with blame for the state of the economy, a leader of the most dubious capability and a set of (non) policies and U turns so bewilderingly woeful as to drive them all barking mad or take up farming in Cheshire.
Accordingly I propose that for an experimental period that OGH adopts "Ed is Crap Tuesday" where the first thread of the day is devoted to this new sport. No other Ed is totally useless thread will then be allowed for the remainder of the week. Thus by lancing the boil and evacuating the poison for one short period only it may be possible for PB lefties to maintain some level of political equilibrium and lead a more fulfilling life.
Huzzah for "Ed is Crap Tuesday"
Jack you used to avoid this low-rent partisan crap. What changed?
Dare I say experience of the economic wasted years of Labour government and frankly the truly awful opposition that Ed is providing.
Labour has simply lost its way.
Sad loss to the dwindling band of reasonable posters. EdM has had a bad 2013, after a decent 2012. Not more to it than that. No reason to get excited.
Can't disagree with that per se, particularly as the election is still some way, but not that far off. And it's the looking ahead that should be causing Labour a certain disquiet. All the signs are that the economy is in genuine, albeit modest, recovery mode: it may not last until 2015, but the odds seem to be that it will. As a result the deficit is also likely to decline (another 'vindication' of the coalition).
And what if, finally, at last, people's living standards begin to improve; hardly a veritable feel good factor, but maybe a nascent, cautious mood of optimism.
Meanwhile, Labour are not carving a distinctive political niche for themselves; on the contrary, whether on the economy, education, even the NHS they are conceding the high ground to the government.
It could all change, of course it could, but you can understand the present spring in the step of us Blues.
My emphasis. One of the interesting things about living standards is that the ONS released some figures recently that showed that average income after tax had increased in real terms, presumably due to the large increases in the personal allowance and in employment.
For the majority of the population, austerity has not been as hard as you might think when looking at some of the figures, such as those often referred to as "living standards".
UK households saw the biggest decline in their disposable income in 26 years during the first three months of the year, according to official data released on Thursday, raising concerns over the ability of the economy to recover this year.
Previously I'd just looked at inflation [CPI/RPI take your pick] and compared with growth in median full-time earnings. This has seen earnings growth consistently below inflation since the crash. Figure 14 shows that the situation is a lot better than that implies, though the first quarter figure is bad.
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
You appear to have given up on Labour winning never mind being nailed on ?
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Speaking of the Conservative Party's European policy, you would have thought that the party would have managed to tidy up the shambles of the draft Bill that Shapps-Green first published. They have got rid of the most of obvious errors, relating to the numbering of subclauses, but the drafting of James Wharton's European Union (Referendum) Bill leaves much to be desired. Clause 1(5), for example, is a farce. It provides that:
'In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers, as provided by order.'
The error is obvious, as the clause doesn't specify the person whom the power to make the order is conferred. It appears that nothing that the Conservatives do is done with the slightest scintilla of competence.
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
Yes, Dave needs a majority, or the country may indeed be in severe trouble, for much the reasons you give. Of course, much would depend on the exact bargaining position and whether the LibDems have a viable alternative in forming a coalition with Labour.
As I've mentioned before, the political risk of a weak Labour-led coalition, or a minority government led by either party, is certainly very significant, and I'm arranging my pension and other investments accordingly.
Speaking of the Conservative Party's European policy, you would have thought that the party would have managed to tidy up the shambles of the draft Bill that Shapps-Green first published. They have got rid of the most of obvious errors, relating to the numbering of subclauses, but the drafting of James Wharton's European Union (Referendum) Bill leaves much to be desired. Clause 1(5), for example, is a farce. It provides that:
'In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers, as provided by order.'
The error is obvious, as the clause doesn't specify the person whom the power to make the order is conferred. It appears that nothing that the Conservatives do is done with the slightest scintilla of competence.
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
You appear to have given up on Labour winning never mind being nailed on ?
Courage and shuffle the cards young leftie !
I have never thought Labour would win an oversall majority in 2015. They still look best placed to get most seats, though. However, should it be the Tories with most seats, the referendum promise Dave has made does seem to be a pretty big obstacle to another coalition with the LDs.
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
You appear to have given up on Labour winning never mind being nailed on ?
Courage and shuffle the cards young leftie !
I have never thought Labour would win an oversall majority in 2015. They still look best placed to get most seats, though. However, should it be the Tories with most seats, the referendum promise Dave has made does seem to be a pretty big obstacle to another coalition with the LDs.
You would have got long odds on the LDs agreeing to bring in loans for Uni fees at £9k.
An endless debate about what happens if the Con position improves significantly such that Cam is still PM is a bit premature to be honest.
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
Yes, Dave needs a majority, or the country may indeed be in severe trouble, for much the reasons you give. Of course, much would depend on the exact bargaining position and whether the LibDems have a viable alternative in forming a coalition with Labour.
As I've mentioned before, the political risk of a weak Labour-led coalition, or a minority government led by either party, is certainly very significant, and I'm arranging my pension and other investments accordingly.
If your entire pension and investment portfolio has been UK-based up to now, you are currently doing what you should have done a long time ago. There are plenty of opportunities all over the world. But I am sure you knew that already and are just being a little dramatic ;-)
In terms of the specifics, EU membership goes to the very core of what the LDs are all about. I can see them agreeing to a referendum, but a simple Yes or No one - and certainly not one that is dictated by Dave's need to placate his swivel-eyed backbenchers. In that specific negotiation it seems to me that the LDs would hold almost every single card. Dave could call their bluff and go for a minority government, but he still wouldn't get the referendum he has promised in 2017 if he is PM.
Mr. Observer, I agree that it's hard to see the Lib Dems agreeing to that (despite Clegg's claimed desire for such a vote in the previous Parliament).
However, if the blues had, say 310 seats and a pretty decent chance of getting the referendum through anyway the yellows might exact the highest price they could on the basis that the vote would happen regardless and they might as well get state subsidies for sandal-makers (or suchlike).
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
You appear to have given up on Labour winning never mind being nailed on ?
Courage and shuffle the cards young leftie !
I have never thought Labour would win an oversall majority in 2015. They still look best placed to get most seats, though. However, should it be the Tories with most seats, the referendum promise Dave has made does seem to be a pretty big obstacle to another coalition with the LDs.
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
Yes, Dave needs a majority, or the country may indeed be in severe trouble, for much the reasons you give. Of course, much would depend on the exact bargaining position and whether the LibDems have a viable alternative in forming a coalition with Labour.
As I've mentioned before, the political risk of a weak Labour-led coalition, or a minority government led by either party, is certainly very significant, and I'm arranging my pension and other investments accordingly.
If your entire pension and investment portfolio has been UK-based up to now, you are currently doing what you should have done a long time ago. There are plenty of opportunities all over the world. But I am sure you knew that already and are just being a little dramatic ;-)
In terms of the specifics, EU membership goes to the very core of what the LDs are all about. I can see them agreeing to a referendum, but a simple Yes or No one - and certainly not one that is dictated by Dave's need to placate his swivel-eyed backbenchers. In that specific negotiation it seems to me that the LDs would hold almost every single card. Dave could call their bluff and go for a minority government, but he still wouldn't get the referendum he has promised in 2017 if he is PM.
I'm sure Mr Clegg will get asked repeatedly about this in the run up to 2015 - its a problem for him too - a big one. Does he block a referendum that they could probably win - not sure Ukip and the right wing press have a bucket big enough to pour on his head in that event.
@Southam - I'm not sure the LibDems do hold all the cards. Are they really going to bring down the government in order to deny a referendum which previously they've supported?
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc. Also they have in the past said they support some renegotiation, although I agree it's clear that they really don't. If it's dressed up as restructuring the EU for the benefit of all members (which is the line Cameron is already taking, and which in any case is good politics in terms of the likely reaction from our EU friends), they might grudgingly sign up.
Of course, I do agree that there are lots of pitfalls. This was never going to be easy.
Mr. Observer, I agree that it's hard to see the Lib Dems agreeing to that (despite Clegg's claimed desire for such a vote in the previous Parliament).
However, if the blues had, say 310 seats and a pretty decent chance of getting the referendum through anyway the yellows might exact the highest price they could on the basis that the vote would happen regardless and they might as well get state subsidies for sandal-makers (or suchlike).
Would they have a decent chance getting a referendum through on the terms under which Dave wanted. Labour MPs are unlikely to rebel against a 3-line whip in fabour of a Yes/No vote based on terms that Dave has renegotiated if these included dilution of employment rights, for example. It seems to me that the only realistic chance that a bill would be carried would be if there was a straight, unconditional Yes/No referendum on offer. And if that were passed, on which side would Dave campaign?
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
@Southam - I'm not sure the LibDems do hold all the cards. Are they really going to bring down the government in order to deny a referendum which previously they've supported?
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc.
I am sure they would support a straight Yes/No choice, but they would not support one based around repatriations of powers because they are opposed to those. A straight Yes/No would also work for the swivel-eyed tendency, but it would be a nightmare for Dave - he'd have to decide which side to campaign on.
@Southam - I'm not sure the LibDems do hold all the cards. Are they really going to bring down the government in order to deny a referendum which previously they've supported?
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc.
I am sure they would support a straight Yes/No choice, but they would not support one based around repatriations of powers because they are opposed to those. A straight Yes/No would also work for the swivel-eyed tendency, but it would be a nightmare for Dave - he'd have to decide which side to campaign on.
I believe there should be a straight YES / NO vote. None of this repatriation nonsense.
I am sure they would support a straight Yes/No choice, but they would not support one based around repatriations of powers because they are opposed to those.
Ah, no. It's more subtle than that. They are opposed to unilateral repatriation of powers.
Plenty of room there to finesse things and dress up any new settlement as 'EU reform' rather than 'unilateral repatriation'.
Personally I don't care what it's called, and I'm not in the least bit fussed if it's unilateral or multi-lateral. Cameron indeed argued very strongly and persuasively in his January speech that this is about EU reform, not just the UK.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
The EU in/out vote is probably regarded as a relatively trivial political matter by Clegg, Cameron and Miliband. Economically we will be in crisis-mode for a while and that's a big fish to fry for any leader.
I'd guess that if Cameron - during a time of upheaval, cuts and general woe - was offered the largest vote and seat-share and another coalition with the LIb Dems at the next GE he'd snap your hand off.
Winning is everything, how to deal/renege on an EU referendum will be way down on the list of priorities and probably something that can be sorted quite easily, with a little political shamlessness and chutzpah.
Familiar it may be in some ways, but it's a very interesting article all the same - especially the bit about the LibDems.
The bit about the Lib Dems snuggling up to the Tories in the election run up?
I guess if you don't know where the majority of Lib Dem seats are it might be interesting.
Given Dan is calling the election, he should have the decency to tell us where the Tories are going to win their extra seats and explain why the LDs are going to do their best to alienate tactical Labour voters by getting cosy with the Tories once again.
Dan Hodges, Toby Young and Seamus Milne. The three most ludicrous commentators in the country.
Don't forget all the restaurant critics. Brilliant on port wine reductions, comically dire on anything approaching social commentary.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM 'With a CON majority Gov't' I thought the deal was ?
@Southam - I'm not sure the LibDems do hold all the cards. Are they really going to bring down the government in order to deny a referendum which previously they've supported?
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc. Also they have in the past said they support some renegotiation, although I agree it's clear that they really don't. If it's dressed up as restructuring the EU for the benefit of all members (which is the line Cameron is already taking, and which in any case is good politics in terms of the likely reaction from our EU friends), they might grudgingly sign up.
Of course, I do agree that there are lots of pitfalls. This was never going to be easy.
I'd imagine Dave would love to have the Lib Dems as cover for not negotiating anything of any consequence before he urges an in vote rather than his backbenchers blaming him for not negotiating anything of any consequence before he urges an in vote.
The LibDems made me do it is a great excuse. But the retort is an obvious one - they were only in a position to do so because you did not win. Again. And then Dave wil be campaiginging against many of his own party in support of an agreement that he himself has said was only negotiated because of the LDs. Great stuff. And all because he felt so weak earlier this year.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM 'With a CON majority Gov't' I thought the deal was ?
@Southam - Not necessarily. For one thing, it's not obvious that Labour will vote against, and for another, even the LibDems might find it a little tricky to justify denying people a vote on this. Clegg has been very careful in his wording on this.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
The LDs could well say let's have a referendum, but without the renegotiation. Or they could veto the terms under whic Dave wanted to renegotiate. What would Dave's position be then? Without having secured his red lines - whatever they are - would he campaign for In or Out?
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
You appear to have given up on Labour winning never mind being nailed on ?
Courage and shuffle the cards young leftie !
I have never thought Labour would win an oversall majority in 2015. They still look best placed to get most seats, though. However, should it be the Tories with most seats, the referendum promise Dave has made does seem to be a pretty big obstacle to another coalition with the LDs.
You would have got long odds on the LDs agreeing to bring in loans for Uni fees at £9k.
An endless debate about what happens if the Con position improves significantly such that Cam is still PM is a bit premature to be honest.
Labour still in the box seat.
I think the LD's know now that they didn't have to agree to the student loan. The £1bn or so of the cost pales into insignificance when compared to Osborne's failure to bring down the deficit as planned. What was the deficit projection for 2013-14 when the 2010 budget was unveiled ? The current spend must be £30/40 bn higher than planned then.
And, it saved £1bn. More than any other policy backsliding this cost the LD's about 10% of the votes.
@Southam - I'm not sure the LibDems do hold all the cards. Are they really going to bring down the government in order to deny a referendum which previously they've supported?
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc.
I am sure they would support a straight Yes/No choice, but they would not support one based around repatriations of powers because they are opposed to those. A straight Yes/No would also work for the swivel-eyed tendency, but it would be a nightmare for Dave - he'd have to decide which side to campaign on.
I believe there should be a straight YES / NO vote. None of this repatriation nonsense.
The vote should take place this year.
You really don't see a difference or difficulties arising in our current relationship with the EU from the changes that are needed to make the EZ work? You don't see a risk that the EZ will start to vote as an integrated unit with a built in qualified majority in the interest of the EZ members and not in our interests? You don't think the attempt to force through regulation of the City and taxes on all euro denominated transactions whether in the EZ or in London are an early example of this?
I really find that bizarre. Surely anyone who thinks about the future of the EU must apply their mind to these problems and their implications. We can have different solutions from leaving to associated status to joining the euro ourselves but it is ridiculous to pretend that the rules of the club have not changed in a way that may not be to our advantage.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Here - found his speech text:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
We could see a reduction in the retirement benefits for MPs arising out of the IPSA proposals. In broad terms trading a pay rise for a pension reduction. Is there a chance that this could encourage more MPs to retire at the next GE under the present system?
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Here - found his speech text:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
I think in the context of a whole new government programme you are reading too much into a perfectly solvable problem.
The AV referendum provides a potential road map. Clegg agrees to the referendum and will campaign for the "In" option in return for some LibDem flummery such as tax breaks for quiche manufacturers or subsidised wig powder for Bedford pensioners.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM 'With a CON majority Gov't' I thought the deal was ?
Indeed it doesn't. That letter and his speech (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/23/david-cameron-eu-speech-referendum) are saying two different things. The letter has left him no wiggle room whatsoever as who knows what the Lib Dems will agree or otherwise to ? At any rate I agree he's got himself as a hostage to fortune with the letter. The speech was far better for wiggle room, the letter is a disaster to that end.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
I think in the context of a whole new government programme you are reading too much into a perfectly solvable problem.
The AV referendum provides a potential road map. Clegg agrees to the referendum and will campaign for the "In" option in return for some LibDem flummery such as tax breaks for quiche manufacturers or subsidised wig powder for Bedford pensioners.
I promise you it wees gold. And it can predict the lottery results ...
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM 'With a CON majority Gov't' I thought the deal was ?
Indeed it doesn't. That letter and his speech (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/23/david-cameron-eu-speech-referendum) are saying two different things. The letter is badly worded as who knows what the Lib Dems will gree or otherwise to ? At any rat I agree he's got himself as a hostage to fortune with the letter (Not with the speech though).
It's a matter of chronology. It looks like the UKIP surge forced Dave into hardening his position, so to speak.
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
I think in the context of a whole new government programme you are reading too much into a perfectly solvable problem.
The AV referendum provides a potential road map. Clegg agrees to the referendum and will campaign for the "In" option in return for some LibDem flummery such as tax breaks for quiche manufacturers or subsidised wig powder for Bedford pensioners.
I promise you it wees gold. And it can predict the lottery results ...
There's very little us old Jacobites can't manage when we set our minds and Lochaber axes to it !!
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Here - found his speech text:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
"No ifs, no buts."
The coalition government loophole was closed in the original speech. It left open the "negotiations are incomplete" loophole, but it looks like he's closed that in the letter.
That said, I don't think it would be too hard for him to go back on "if I am PM, this will happen" if he can convincingly blame it on the opposition. It's hard to see him refusing to take office in a minority government on the grounds that the Commons won't promise to pass his referendum bill, if it were to come to that.
The Lib Dems broken promise on tuition fees is not far short of UKIP being the minority partners in a coalition and voting against an EU referendum... Nothing against them but to me that was a staggering u turn that I don't think they copped enough flak for.
If it wasn't for the fact they may hold the balance of power again in 2015 surely they would get hammered by both sides for this blatant lie in the campaign, but will Lab or Con have the nerve to rile the party that could make their leader PM?
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Here - found his speech text:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
"No ifs, no buts."
The coalition government loophole was closed in the original speech. It left open the "negotiations are incomplete" loophole, but it looks like he's closed that in the letter.
That said, I don't think it would be too hard for him to go back on "if I am PM, this will happen" if he can convincingly blame it on the opposition. It's hard to see him refusing to take office in a minority government on the grounds that the Commons won't promise to pass his referendum bill, if it were to come to that.
As we know the swivel-eyed tendency among Dave's backbenchers are not exactly reasonable, and they don't like Dave. He has made a cast-iron promise there will be a referendum in 2017. They will expect him to stick to that and they will expect to see serious renegotiation leading up to that point. I am not sure they will be blase about his inability to deliver because, once again, he failed to secure a Tory majority.
As we know the swivel-eyed tendency among Dave's backbenchers are not exactly reasonable, and they don't like Dave. He has made a cast-iron promise there will be a referendum in 2017. They will expect him to stick to that and they will expect to see serious renegotiation leading up to that point.
Almost right, except that the distinguished MPs you refer to don't expect to see serious renegotiation. They think he will get little or nothing. They could be right, of course; we shall see, if the voters so decide in 2015. But the central point that Cameron would be held to the referendum by 2017 at the latest is certainly correct.
If the Lib Dems need to choose then they can just (Most likely) go with Labour in a NOM situation or the CONs. It puts Clegg or whoever is leading the Lib Dems into a crazily strong negotiating position as they know the UKIP ruptions that will follow if Cameron is forced to drop it. And if he doesn't they just go with Labour. The tutition fees and NHS reorganisation pledges by Nick and Dave took out some trust in their words, but all parties are committed to tuition fees so where else would Lib Dems go, also the NHS reorganisation - the people who worry about that probably aren't voting CON anyway - well perhaps Doctors but the subset is smallish...
The problem with this one is that it will be Dave breaking his word with a ready home waiting in the form of UKIP. Catch 22 for Dave if we have NOM and the maths adds up for the LDs to go either way (Far more likely than a CON maj too). Probably all academic as I reckon LAB majority still.
It's a lack of engagement with Syria's rebels, not too much, that is fuelling the ability of extremist elements to take hold. It's the same as with the Republicans int he Spanish Civil War, where Britain did not intervene, and the Communists increasingly took hold - because the moderates couldn't find the support they needed from other quarters. Deny moderate support, and strongly held beliefs become and increasingly dominant factor in motivation.
We are where we are not because Labour ‘overspent’ at the end of its time in power but because they spent 13 years deliberately driving structural costs up and borrowing money to do so - as this was for a while in their own electoral interest. We now have a huge structural deficit precisely because of the public sector recruitment drives and pay settlements and welfare bloating. Osborne is not spending so much out of choice but because he inherited a monster. Shrinking the monster will be a slow and painful process.
Labour must face up to the obvious challenge not that they were incompetent and irresponsible with the money (although true) but that they created this monster out of choice. And that they’d do it again if they could. They ARE the party of the public sector, of the trade unions, of wild spending and debts. To be trustable with the public finances they need to change who they are and who they represent. Labour is no more the party of the working class than it is of the landed gentry. It IS the party of the state, by the state for the state.
But what the UK desperately needs is for the state to be shrunk. To establish credible management of value for money in the public sector. For good regulation to stop rent seeking abuse at the top and at the bottom. Labour can’t do that. It’d be like asking the Muslim Brotherhood to deliver religious tolerance and freedoms across Egypt. Forget it.
With articles like this, and by the people they choose to quote on either side, I think there is a decent chance The Sun will endorse UKIP at the next Election
Erm Grandiose…there are no moderates in pretty much every Middle Eastern revolution. The choice is generally: 1. Brutal secular dictator (Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc) – cross ‘em and they’ll chop yer balls off 2. Sunni religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they cut yer head off 3. Shia religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they’ll cut yer head off 4. Er…that’s it
In Syria the brutal dictator is being opposed by decapitating cannibals and savage fruitloops. There is, I’m afraid, no nice reasonable moderate secular competent likeable rebel.
We hated Iran so we armed Saddam. So we splatted him (and his Sunni chums) and we got a Shia bunch instead – who now brutalise the formerly in control Sunnis.
I very much feel we should not be trying to solve the Islamic world’s profound issues. Leave them to settle their own scores and deal with whoever emerges – with extreme caution and mistrust.
Erm Grandiose…there are no moderates in pretty much every Middle Eastern revolution. The choice is generally: 1. Brutal secular dictator (Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc) – cross ‘em and they’ll chop yer balls off 2. Sunni religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they cut yer head off 3. Shia religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they’ll cut yer head off 4. Er…that’s it
In Syria the brutal dictator is being opposed by decapitating cannibals and savage fruitloops. There is, I’m afraid, no nice reasonable moderate secular competent likeable rebel.
We hated Iran so we armed Saddam. So we splatted him (and his Sunni chums) and we got a Shia bunch instead – who now brutalise the formerly in control Sunnis.
I very much feel we should not be trying to solve the Islamic world’s profound issues. Leave them to settle their own scores and deal with whoever emerges – with extreme caution and mistrust.
Well yes and no, there probably is a small section of moderate middle eastern parties. But as we've seen time after time, they get swamped by stronger and more brutal forces.
The idea that we in the west can somehow prop up and support this small section over these other factions is just a little bit naïve. The Sunni Vs Shia shism is just so large huge, old and bloodied that it makes troubles like Northern Ireland look like a childs tea party.
Indeed - but we in the West seem often, if not always, to have this utterly naive Hollywoodish 'good guys vs the big bad nasty guy' view of rebellions. This ain't Star Wars. There are no good outcomes to look forward to. In Syria. In Egypt. They're a long, long, long, long way away from stability and a reasonable living standard for their people.
Erm Grandiose…there are no moderates in pretty much every Middle Eastern revolution. The choice is generally: 1. Brutal secular dictator (Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc) – cross ‘em and they’ll chop yer balls off 2. Sunni religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they cut yer head off 3. Shia religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they’ll cut yer head off 4. Er…that’s it
In Syria the brutal dictator is being opposed by decapitating cannibals and savage fruitloops. There is, I’m afraid, no nice reasonable moderate secular competent likeable rebel.
We hated Iran so we armed Saddam. So we splatted him (and his Sunni chums) and we got a Shia bunch instead – who now brutalise the formerly in control Sunnis.
I very much feel we should not be trying to solve the Islamic world’s profound issues. Leave them to settle their own scores and deal with whoever emerges – with extreme caution and mistrust.
That is the poisonous perception that emerges, but I'm not sure that's really what happens. If that were true, then no factional infighting could make things better or worse. There could be no "infiltration" of rebel ranks, or poisoning of its members, or whatever. Given that many people believe that the make of the rebels is getting worse, there must be a presumption of better and worse.
Well yes and no, there probably is a small section of moderate middle eastern parties. But as we've seen time after time, they get swamped by stronger and more brutal forces.
The idea that we in the west can somehow prop up and support this small section over these other factions is just a little bit naïve. The Sunni Vs Shia shism is just so large huge, old and bloodied that it makes troubles like Northern Ireland look like a childs tea party.
You have to draw a line somewhere with a defensible group of people. They aren't going to be angels, and I'm not suggesting they are. But the policy should be to identify this group and give it proper support, to ensure no slide - as we are seeing - to the extremes.
With articles like this, and by the people they choose to quote on either side, I think there is a decent chance The Sun will endorse UKIP at the next Election
Ed Miliband should distance himself and Labour from Owen Jones as much as possible if he wants to keep the working class voters they still have, in my opinion
O/T The Conservative Policy Forum (a mechanism for party members to have an early input into policy formulation) is currently discussing the European Court of Human Rights and a possible UK Bill of Rights. They have produced what I think is an excellent paper on the pros and cons of various changes which the UK could make. IMO well worth reading for anyone interested in the subject:
In January, I set out our party’s position on Europe. I made clear that the EU needed fundamental, far reaching change - and that Britain would lead the way in negotiating that reform. I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right. But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
From who ?
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
And the ferociously pro-EU LibDems are just going to agree to Dave's timetable for an EU referendum and the terms he sets for any renegotiation, are they? Alternatively, the ferociously anti-EU Tory right is going to agree to Dave backtracking on the clear promises he made earlier this year, are they?
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Power will be the driver of a further agreement just as it was in 2010.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
Cameron has given a water-tight, cast-iron guarantee that if he is PM there will be a an IN/Out referendum on EU membership by 2017, following on from negotiations he has concluded with the other 27 member states. There is no wriggle room in that. The LDs are going to need some pretty huge concessions in order to give Dave what he needs. Given that, it calls into quesiton whether Dave will be able to deliver on them, as they are unlikely to be palatable to his right-leaning backbenchers. The referendum bill, of course, can only be introduced once the negotiations have been concluded. And Dave will be negotiating on behalf of the UK government, not the Conservative Party. So he would have to get LD agreement on the terms too. The swivel-eyed will just love that.
Here - found his speech text:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
"No ifs, no buts."
The coalition government loophole was closed in the original speech. It left open the "negotiations are incomplete" loophole, but it looks like he's closed that in the letter.
That said, I don't think it would be too hard for him to go back on "if I am PM, this will happen" if he can convincingly blame it on the opposition. It's hard to see him refusing to take office in a minority government on the grounds that the Commons won't promise to pass his referendum bill, if it were to come to that.
No, it would be a red line issue. The only grounds for compromise I can think of would be to add a third option - perhaps as a second question - for a Yes/No on current terms, which is something the Lib Dems advocated in 2005. But the party and its MPs would demand that the renegotiation and the referendum as outlined by Cameron take place.
It's unlikely in any case that a minority Tory administration could last until late 2017. Ahead of it in terms of probability are (in no particular order), Tory majority government, Labour majority government, coalition government, and an early election.
"Black people seven times as likely as white people to be stopped by police under stop and search powers"
This statement would be a really interesting handle for a proper discussion of what might be appropriate or inappropriate discrimination - though I doubt we'll get one.
So, for example, if this is partly the result of more checks in high crime areas, then to what extent - and presumably this is considered legitimate?
What about demography? Do black people make up a greater proportion of young people (the most likely to be stopped I assume) in these areas?
Then the more controversial - would a greater crime rate (illegally carrying a knife, for example) ever justify more stops on black people (or any other minority)?
Are there any more dubious factors - maybe disproportionately acting in a particular way (large groups?), or being known to police that account for any of the difference?
If so, stripping out any 'legitimate' discrimination, is the resulting rate justified?
Comments
I'm sure he uses a different photo from time to time
'Meanwhile, the debate surrounding austerity is over, and Labour has lost. The public has looked at the Conservatives' argument that austerity is the necessary and unavoidable price for Labour’s years of spending and excess. They have also looked at Labour’s argument that there is an alternative, and that we should spend and borrow a bit more until growth returns. And they have come done squarely on the side of the Tories.
Which leaves Ed Miliband in an horrendous place. He is basically out of moves. Big Week, the attempt to “pivot” Labour into a new position on the economy, has left the party in an even worse position than it was before. The current stance, “We will not spend or borrow any more money, except where we think we need to spend and borrow more money”, is as bankrupt politically as it is economically.
It is the same everywhere you look. Welfare – a car crash. Education – a car crash. Europe – a car crash. The relationship with the unions – a car crash.
And the situation is set to get even worse. Yet again, Ed Miliband will have to spend the conference season having to shore up his own leadership, rather than take the fight to the Tories. Fully three years after his election he is still in the position of fighting to convince the voters he is a worthy leader of the opposition, never mind a future prime minister.'
London: £27,560
Westminster North: £39,745
Also:
Witney: £24,625
Doncaster: £17,641
Sheffield Hallam £28,762
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/24/wages-britain-ashe-mapped#data
Sometimes it's the one of David Cameron looking triumphant or statesmanlike, sometimes it's the one of Ed Miliband looking despondent or awkward. He likes to keep his readers guessing does Dan!
"Which doesn’t mean Tory victory in 2015 is by any means guaranteed. There are still two years to go. The Tory “traditionalists” could cause more trouble for the Prime Minister. Indeed, it is a racing certainty they will try to cause more trouble for him. Ministers could again lose the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, as we saw in the omnishmabolic summer of 2012. They could overreach themselves over social security reform, education reform and reform of the NHS. The Conservative party could still blow it."
Nope.
Anyway, enough laughing at Dan Hodges, it's shooting fish in a barrel really.
But I agree about the backbench roles. This does work for prestige purposes - being on an important Select Committee is well-respected, and the Chief Whip thought I was highly misguided when I asked to come off Treasury so I could become a PPS (I was bored with criticising policy and wanted to help shape it). But there is no financial reward except for the Chair. Similarly, participating in the sometimes unpleasantly long Bill Committees (the Finance Bill is typical about 10 sessions, some very long and 99% nitpicking) is something people do as a duty if at all. I think that MPs who do a lot of committee work should indeed be paid better than those who don't - analogously to County Councils, I think.
First signs of that coming to pass are in the polls..
Hodges may be wrong, but he generates a lot of readers and plenty of comments. From a commercial perspective he gets paid as well, which is a good result in the newspaper world. I'm sure there are lots of hacks who would love to have a steady gig in the Telegraph.
Currently Lab OM 2.38 / NOM 2.68
Crossover coming soon...
I also promised an In-Out referendum once those negotiations were complete, and at any event by the end of 2017. That's the right time to have a vote - it is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.
But make no mistake - my commitment to a referendum is absolute. If I am Prime Minister after the next election, there will be an In-Out referendum. No ifs, no buts.
http://news.conservatives.com/interface/external_view_email.php?P921447066073974226432926303316
Dave needs a majority in 2015 or he is in deep, deep trouble.
Edit: Of course, I agree that a Tory majority would make it much more likely.
Laid much more on the maj than rEd PM as may not collect on that bet until 2020+
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784
Lovely.
Ms Toynbee is clearly a bright lady and an influential writer but sometimes she can be unashamedly silly and emotional. Remember her swooning over the great Gordon Brown before two years later telling everyone to vote Lib Dem? And now she's telling us all how great Gordon's spending was again.
I'll permit anybody a viewpoint but for God's sake stick to it.
Both Cameron and Clegg have been playing the long game from day 1 and to my mind that long game is likely to include a second term completing the economic recovery so that in 2020 both sides would say "job done" just as President Clinton is finishing her first term !!
All expenses to be published online every month. All other paid activities to be fully transparent. I would not ban other jobs since it does keep MPs in touch though it would be nice if we had more doctor/MPs, say, than all these MPs with directorships.
Pensions should be money purchase so that they are not insulated - unlike the rest of use - from the consequences of their mismanagement of the economy.
Once the economy is moving again and the deficit eliminated, then - maybe - we can think about a pay increase and link it to CPI.
But really MPs need to realise that being paid the sums they are, they are very well-paid by comparison with the majority of the public and their constituents and stop feeling sorry for themselves.
Dave needs a majority or he is in severe trouble. His swivel-eyed backbenchers are going to just love the LDs dictating the terms under which the country will be consulted. Or dave is going to have to give some mighty concessins elsewhere.
Previously I'd just looked at inflation [CPI/RPI take your pick] and compared with growth in median full-time earnings. This has seen earnings growth consistently below inflation since the crash. Figure 14 shows that the situation is a lot better than that implies, though the first quarter figure is bad.
Courage and shuffle the cards young leftie !
And to think you were doubting the mental health of Labour supporters earlier on today.
Would you be interested in purchasing some flying pigs from me? They wee gold, honest.
Cameron "i didn't explain all the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure....
Speaker; "Given that Ministers initially had their names on this backbench bill that is probably just as well..."
As I've mentioned before, the political risk of a weak Labour-led coalition, or a minority government led by either party, is certainly very significant, and I'm arranging my pension and other investments accordingly.
Cameron should resign this afternoon - shocking.
An endless debate about what happens if the Con position improves significantly such that Cam is still PM is a bit premature to be honest.
Labour still in the box seat.
In terms of the specifics, EU membership goes to the very core of what the LDs are all about. I can see them agreeing to a referendum, but a simple Yes or No one - and certainly not one that is dictated by Dave's need to placate his swivel-eyed backbenchers. In that specific negotiation it seems to me that the LDs would hold almost every single card. Dave could call their bluff and go for a minority government, but he still wouldn't get the referendum he has promised in 2017 if he is PM.
However, if the blues had, say 310 seats and a pretty decent chance of getting the referendum through anyway the yellows might exact the highest price they could on the basis that the vote would happen regardless and they might as well get state subsidies for sandal-makers (or suchlike).
Surely she should be restricted to Home Office matters on prison reform if she needs to be heard from at all.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/eu-referendum-leaflet-will-haunt-clegg-today
If and when the time comes, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to find a way of arguing that it was only the influence of the LibDems which gave the public this historic opportunity etc etc. Also they have in the past said they support some renegotiation, although I agree it's clear that they really don't. If it's dressed up as restructuring the EU for the benefit of all members (which is the line Cameron is already taking, and which in any case is good politics in terms of the likely reaction from our EU friends), they might grudgingly sign up.
Of course, I do agree that there are lots of pitfalls. This was never going to be easy.
The Coalition agreement included areas that both sides found difficult to swallow as well as opt outs. The same will happen again.
Also I'm always interested in new varieties of pig. The Labour flying pig will make a fine porcine product to add to my range. I'll call it a Miliband Pork Stuffed Pie - a clear winner .... unlike him !!
More interesting still if they are in a position to choose (say Lab most seats, Con most votes, the seat maths working out either way)
Lucky old Lib Dems huh.
The vote should take place this year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/01/nick-clegg-david-cameron-eu
http://libdemmeps.com/?p=1018
Plenty of room there to finesse things and dress up any new settlement as 'EU reform' rather than 'unilateral repatriation'.
Personally I don't care what it's called, and I'm not in the least bit fussed if it's unilateral or multi-lateral. Cameron indeed argued very strongly and persuasively in his January speech that this is about EU reform, not just the UK.
I'd guess that if Cameron - during a time of upheaval, cuts and general woe - was offered the largest vote and seat-share and another coalition with the LIb Dems at the next GE he'd snap your hand off.
Winning is everything, how to deal/renege on an EU referendum will be way down on the list of priorities and probably something that can be sorted quite easily, with a little political shamlessness and chutzpah.
http://news.conservatives.com/interface/external_view_email.php?P921447066073974226432926303316
And, it saved £1bn. More than any other policy backsliding this cost the LD's about 10% of the votes.
I really find that bizarre. Surely anyone who thinks about the future of the EU must apply their mind to these problems and their implications. We can have different solutions from leaving to associated status to joining the euro ourselves but it is ridiculous to pretend that the rules of the club have not changed in a way that may not be to our advantage.
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.
It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.'
Key word here is Conservative Government. A coalition Gov't is not the same as a Conservative Gov't as OGH reminds us... alot.
"No ifs, no buts."
The AV referendum provides a potential road map. Clegg agrees to the referendum and will campaign for the "In" option in return for some LibDem flummery such as tax breaks for quiche manufacturers or subsidised wig powder for Bedford pensioners.
That said, I don't think it would be too hard for him to go back on "if I am PM, this will happen" if he can convincingly blame it on the opposition. It's hard to see him refusing to take office in a minority government on the grounds that the Commons won't promise to pass his referendum bill, if it were to come to that.
If it wasn't for the fact they may hold the balance of power again in 2015 surely they would get hammered by both sides for this blatant lie in the campaign, but will Lab or Con have the nerve to rile the party that could make their leader PM?
If the Lib Dems need to choose then they can just (Most likely) go with Labour in a NOM situation or the CONs. It puts Clegg or whoever is leading the Lib Dems into a crazily strong negotiating position as they know the UKIP ruptions that will follow if Cameron is forced to drop it. And if he doesn't they just go with Labour.
The tutition fees and NHS reorganisation pledges by Nick and Dave took out some trust in their words, but all parties are committed to tuition fees so where else would Lib Dems go, also the NHS reorganisation - the people who worry about that probably aren't voting CON anyway - well perhaps Doctors but the subset is smallish...
The problem with this one is that it will be Dave breaking his word with a ready home waiting in the form of UKIP. Catch 22 for Dave if we have NOM and the maths adds up for the LDs to go either way (Far more likely than a CON maj too). Probably all academic as I reckon LAB majority still.
Indeed, although it's probably now too late to be able to recover the situation.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4992722/Channel-4-plans-to-screen-Muslim-call-to-prayer-every-day-during-Ramadam-as-its-more-relevant-than-Diamond-Jubilee.html
Is there a betting market on it? I would price it
11/8 No endorsement
13/8 UKIP
11/4 Con
20/1 Labour
100/1 LibDem
Massive guess up, any one else have a view?
1. Brutal secular dictator (Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarak etc) – cross ‘em and they’ll chop yer balls off
2. Sunni religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they cut yer head off
3. Shia religious fanatics – cross ‘em and they’ll cut yer head off
4. Er…that’s it
In Syria the brutal dictator is being opposed by decapitating cannibals and savage fruitloops. There is, I’m afraid, no nice reasonable moderate secular competent likeable rebel.
We hated Iran so we armed Saddam. So we splatted him (and his Sunni chums) and we got a Shia bunch instead – who now brutalise the formerly in control Sunnis.
I very much feel we should not be trying to solve the Islamic world’s profound issues. Leave them to settle their own scores and deal with whoever emerges – with extreme caution and mistrust.
Ed Miliband's Labour is running scared of Owen Jones
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100224438/ed-milibands-labour-is-running-scared-of-owen-jones/
The idea that we in the west can somehow prop up and support this small section over these other factions is just a little bit naïve. The Sunni Vs Shia shism is just so large huge, old and bloodied that it makes troubles like Northern Ireland look like a childs tea party.
"Some Made Men. Presumably Owen Jones is Joe Pesci"
In Goodfellas Joe Pesci's character was killed before he was "made" because he killed a made man. The whole point was he was not a made man
That is the laziest journalism I have seen for a while
Simon Danczuk vs Owen Jones on welfare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18sK8Vi4vUE
Danczuk to jones 'you sound like a 1980's alternative comedian'
Jones to danczuk 'I'll tell you what you sound like,you sound like a tory politician'
lol
I tell you one person who'll have loved watching Owen Jones' and Simon Danczuk's TV row over benefits: George Osborne.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84
@DPJHodges I got a shoeing, did I? Might want to do a search for Simon Danczuk's twitter handle for a dose of reality, Dan...
I cant see them endorsing Cameron, and Lab & LD have no chance. So you think No endorsement could be odds on maybe? I can see that
10/11 No
5/2 UKIP
11/4 Con
20 Lab
100 LD
http://www.conservativepolicyforum.com/sites/www.conservativepolicyforum.com/files/20130614_bill_of_rights_discussion_paper.doc
It's unlikely in any case that a minority Tory administration could last until late 2017. Ahead of it in terms of probability are (in no particular order), Tory majority government, Labour majority government, coalition government, and an early election.
This statement would be a really interesting handle for a proper discussion of what might be appropriate or inappropriate discrimination - though I doubt we'll get one.
So, for example, if this is partly the result of more checks in high crime areas, then to what extent - and presumably this is considered legitimate?
What about demography? Do black people make up a greater proportion of young people (the most likely to be stopped I assume) in these areas?
Then the more controversial - would a greater crime rate (illegally carrying a knife, for example) ever justify more stops on black people (or any other minority)?
Are there any more dubious factors - maybe disproportionately acting in a particular way (large groups?), or being known to police that account for any of the difference?
If so, stripping out any 'legitimate' discrimination, is the resulting rate justified?
Labour MP @SimonDanczuk humiliated by @OwenJones84 on BBC2, yelled 'It's alright for you, you come from the posh part of Stockport'
lol