Why? WTF has it got to do with us? We've got plenty of our own issues to sort out. Why do we need to be choosing the least shitty rebel option and spending cash on them? Leave well alone.
Does the government of South Africa or Sweden or China or the Vatican or Argentina or wherever devote any time or energy to worrying how they can waste money and burn their fingers in the Middle East?
Owen Jones should be congratulated. It is some years since an Independent journalist got himself talked about. And it is not even for something he made up or copied off someone else. You sometimes forget that paper still exists.
Assuming there is any truth in the story that he is not to be challenged by the shadow cabinet I can only presume that this is a public conversation that Miliband does not want to encourage. Labour MPs who do indeed sound like tories, who agree with Osborne and who have to disappoint their more naive supporters are not likely to help the cause. Better pretending that under a Labour government these sorts of choices don't have to be made. More votes in that.
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:
One significant factor which I think is often missed is that most of the rights under the ECHR were, and are, extant British rights. Some, e.g. freedom of speech, have long been rights; others were developed with reference to the Convention but expressed as common law rights, in cases like (IIRC) ex parte Smith. Of the Convention rights, I have seen few opponents actually deny that the UK should recognise that right, in name. It is the content of these rights - what it actually means to uphold the article 3 right against torture, say, that is in dispute.
I think for this reason, leaving the ECHR is unlikely to change anything because it is difficult to say, "well, last year, we thought this meant no extraditing X. Now we don't think it's a problem."
There is also the question of ECHR petitions through the ECJ, a process I don't fully understand but if if the UK does purport to leave the Council of Europe will have weight put on 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.
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.
If you're right then intriguingly, the LibDems in a Hung Parliament would have the option of offering to support a Tory Prime Minister, who will then decline to govern. That might not be a bad move if they get a repeat of 2010, because they could duck the blame for any resulting instability.
Why? WTF has it got to do with us? We've got plenty of our own issues to sort out. Why do we need to be choosing the least shitty rebel option and spending cash on them? Leave well alone.
Does the government of South Africa or Sweden or China or the Vatican or Argentina or wherever devote any time or energy to worrying how they can waste money and burn their fingers in the Middle East?
Just don't go there.
It was once said that foreign policy was like gardening; it takes time, care, and plenty of steps back. But a well developed foreign policy pays dividends. That has been the logic of two or three hundred years of British foreign policy which sees value to Britain's security and economy from influencing the affairs of other countries because of the effect this has on our relations with that country. That's what the Foreign Office is there to do - get involved; develop relationships.
Non-intervention is a policy in itself - you never leave the issue alone. As much effort and work goes into non-intervention, managing our relationships with those countries that are involved. It was the same in Spain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-intervention_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War.
If backing Assad is considered the best policy, we should do that, or non-intervention, or backing the rebels. But it will always have something to do with us.
Yougov are a waste of space at the moment. To get purple you have to go through 'other'. It is not cut out for a 4th insurgent party in todays climate. Opinium had the purple boys at 19%, almost double what they are in some of the phone polls. Virtually the same as May. Recent local byelections have averaged 26%. Virtually the same as May, they got as high as 45% in one area, low turn out or not in the locals, they are guaranteed at least some representation in Westminster come 2015 with those sort of numbers.
Phone polls do not reflect the ballot box scenario accurately. If the purple boys are not prompted the person asked will not know if they are an option unless they are clued up about them, so we can safely say that at least 10% of the population are clued up about them and are virtually guaranteed to vote UKIP. If they know they are an option up front they are more likely to choose them, as would happen in the voting booth, boosting the numbers significantly.
They peaked with yougov and the other phone pollsters during the local elections because people were more aware of them at the time, most of the time people dont care less about politics, and liblabcon are more ingrained. It only takes that impulsive choice when they see them again in front of them to get that tick, not to mention the momentum after the euro elections and the effect of the borders being opened even further next year. If the sun and express officially endorse them it is game over for Cameron..
Comments
Why? WTF has it got to do with us? We've got plenty of our own issues to sort out. Why do we need to be choosing the least shitty rebel option and spending cash on them? Leave well alone.
Does the government of South Africa or Sweden or China or the Vatican or Argentina or wherever devote any time or energy to worrying how they can waste money and burn their fingers in the Middle East?
Just don't go there.
Assuming there is any truth in the story that he is not to be challenged by the shadow cabinet I can only presume that this is a public conversation that Miliband does not want to encourage. Labour MPs who do indeed sound like tories, who agree with Osborne and who have to disappoint their more naive supporters are not likely to help the cause. Better pretending that under a Labour government these sorts of choices don't have to be made. More votes in that.
You can't just look at the overall rate compared to the demographics of the entire country and get anything meaningful.
I think for this reason, leaving the ECHR is unlikely to change anything because it is difficult to say, "well, last year, we thought this meant no extraditing X. Now we don't think it's a problem."
There is also the question of ECHR petitions through the ECJ, a process I don't fully understand but if if the UK does purport to leave the Council of Europe will have weight put on it.
Non-intervention is a policy in itself - you never leave the issue alone. As much effort and work goes into non-intervention, managing our relationships with those countries that are involved. It was the same in Spain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-intervention_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War.
If backing Assad is considered the best policy, we should do that, or non-intervention, or backing the rebels. But it will always have something to do with us.
[EDIT: Reposted on next thread.]
Phone polls do not reflect the ballot box scenario accurately. If the purple boys are not prompted the person asked will not know if they are an option unless they are clued up about them, so we can safely say that at least 10% of the population are clued up about them and are virtually guaranteed to vote UKIP. If they know they are an option up front they are more likely to choose them, as would happen in the voting booth, boosting the numbers significantly.
They peaked with yougov and the other phone pollsters during the local elections because people were more aware of them at the time, most of the time people dont care less about politics, and liblabcon are more ingrained. It only takes that impulsive choice when they see them again in front of them to get that tick, not to mention the momentum after the euro elections and the effect of the borders being opened even further next year. If the sun and express officially endorse them it is game over for Cameron..