The big question is what will interest rates be near May 2015 ? The current prediction is that the BOE will not increase rates before the end of 2016, but perhaps influences outside the UK will decide the timing. I have a feeling that some of the increased activity in the economy is down to people taking advantage of lower interest rates while they can.
UKIP received 920,000 votes at the last GE. Every voter who voted UKIP did so because it was the party which most closely reflected his views. Approximately 0% of UKIP voters thought they had just picked their next MP.
Many expert commentators, like Mike Smithson, are saying things such as 'UKIP will have a big influence on the next GE even if they win 0 MPs'.
If we can make this effect more widely known, it undermines the point that a 'vote for UKIP is a wasted vote'. The more votes UKIP receives, anywhere, the more influence it has.
How will you improve your influence? The Greens have more MPs than you, how influential do you think they are?
The fact of the matter is that the more votes UKIP get the more chance we have of electing a Europhile Labour government.
I respect your right to vote UKIP but for someone who is anti-EU it just doesn't make sense. UKIP are never going to be in power, ever. So the choice is between Labour and the Conservatives. I know who I'd prefer in charge when it comes to EU matters.
I'll let Smithson and other experts---few of whom are natural UKIP supporters---explain to you how every UKIP vote increases our influence.
The stronger UKIP is, the more likely any govt is to offer a referendum. And much more importantly and quite differently, the more likely we are to win one.
By far the worst result for UKIP would be a reluctant, unethusiastically given referendum, to humour us. That to be followed by masses of EU money to artificially prop up the stay-in vote, accompanied by relentlessly negative and untruthful campaigning (see any of Clegg's relevant comments for a sample).
And worst of all, we then lose the vote by whisker.
That's a thoroughly unconvincing argument. A Lab or Lab\Lib government will laugh at your "pressure" and ignore it. You'll be dead before you ever see a referendum.
And equally dead before we ever see Cameron pull us out of the EU - whatever the referendum result.
Ah, now we're getting the 'wrong sort of referendum' line from UKIP.
That fact is, they don't want a referendum, nor the only opportunity of actually leaving the EU. Now that Cameron has committed to the referendum, and Conservative MPs have almost unanimously supported a bill giving a deadline of 2017, the nonsense of the UKIP position is completely clear: they are just wreckers, wanting to wreck for the sake of it, to the extent of campaigning in a way designed to produce a Labour or Labour/LD government whose policy positions on every single issue, bar none, would be the diametric opposite of what UKIP claim to want.
There's only one possible explanation which makes any sense for this mad behaviour, which is that their real interest is that they enjoy moaning. It would be cruel to take away their principal excuse for moaning by actually holding the referendum, wouldn't it?
Which is why they are destined for 3-5% in GE2010. Moaning is quite satisfying so there will be a rump group of moaners.
And if Lab are shouted at for not having policies, why not the Kippers?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 3m @GoddersUKIP Aid to India 300 million GBP a year. Net aid to the DEVELOPED countries of the EU 10 BILLION poundsayear pic.twitter.com/HYR8u9nOTc
[NB. the net figure is 10 billion, gross is 18 billion]
Shrewdies in UKIP do not treat a referendum as the 'holy grail'. The magical day will come the day we give notice to quit the EU.
Cameron would be gain more credence for his promise for an in/out refendum if he went on to timetable what would happen if there were a No vote. If he said 'the following day, we will give immediate notice to leave the EU, and would arrange a 2-year transition period, starting today, to sort out the various administrative details', it would make him a more believable figure. But he does not seem to be close to this approach. Just by setting out a leaving timetable would give himself valuable extra clout during any 're-negotiation'.
But even DC's friends would describe him as more a 'mediator' than a negotiator.
He'd be mad to.
As soon as he publishes one thing then it's a barrage from both sides as to why he's wrong because they don't agree with him. The tail would simply wag the dog. UKIP wouldn't accept to operating under those conditions so why should any other political party ?
Cameron knows his approach to leaving the EU is wholly disingenuous. He claims that he is likely to want to campaign to stay in the EU after 're-negotiation', thus underming his own negotiating position.
If he really wants to appeal to UKIP/Tory waverers, by offering an in/out EU referendum, he has to be far more convincing than so far. It is not unreasonable for him to set out a vision of how life would be better within the EU, and at the same time explain how he would carry out the wishes of the British people if there were a 'quit' vote.
If he doesn't, that is his choice.
But he cannot then expect anybody who wants to leave the EU to treat him as the man to carry it through. As a mjority of the public would prefer to leave, he risks irriating a significant % of the populus.
UKIP received 920,000 votes at the last GE. Every voter who voted UKIP did so because it was the party which most closely reflected his views. Approximately 0% of UKIP voters thought they had just picked their next MP.
Many expert commentators, like Mike Smithson, are saying things such as 'UKIP will have a big influence on the next GE even if they win 0 MPs'.
If we can make this effect more widely known, it undermines the point that a 'vote for UKIP is a wasted vote'. The more votes UKIP receives, anywhere, the more influence it has.
How will you improve your influence? The Greens have more MPs than you, how influential do you think they are?
The fact of the matter is that the more votes UKIP get the more chance we have of electing a Europhile Labour government.
I respect your right to vote UKIP but for someone who is anti-EU it just doesn't make sense. UKIP are never going to be in power, ever. So the choice is between Labour and the Conservatives. I know who I'd prefer in charge when it comes to EU matters.
Then if you are anti-EU to the extent of wishing to leave (which I actually doubt), you are deluded. There is no more chance of getting out of the EU with the Tories in power than there is with Labour in.
So your argument is hogwash.
Which sort of means the whole concept's screwed anyway. UKIP can't win and aren't effective as a pressure group and none of the other political parties can be trusted.
It sort of says back to the drawing board for BOOers.
Nope, what it says is that we have the foresight to realise that the biggest barrier to us leaving the EU at the moment is the current Tory leadership. Accepting that Labour are not going to pull us out seems to be easy for you to understand. Your logic failure is in not realising exactly the same applies to the Tories under Cameron. Therefore, given that the Tory grassroots as a whole are more Eurosceptic than the Labour grassroots, the aim must be to ensure that the pressure is put on in the right way to get an equally Eurosceptic Tory leadership. If that means forcing the tories to realise they cannot win under a Europhile like Cameron then so be it.
"Tory MP challenges Ed Miliband to condemn colleague's Gibraltar remarks
LABOUR leader Ed Miliband was challenged yesterday to condemn a senior colleague’s call for Britain to reopen talks with Spain about sharing sovereignty of Gibraltar."
BONGOBONGOLAND last night insisted it has never received a penny in international aid.
The country’s president spoke out after UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom claimed all of Britain’s £11bn aid budget was being sent to the small west African nation. President Brian Inkatwe said: “We get by on our own. I think it’s because no-one actually believes we exist.
“I have written to the UN on several occasions asking them if they could give us advice on starting a rural banking scheme, but every time they write back and tell me that the phrase ‘Bongobongoland’ is horribly racist and that I should stop wasting their time.
What has amazed me is not the salary but the increases over the last two years. Increases of 9% to 22% - something that their personal donors can only dream of.
It is time that many large Charities reverted to being charities and not pseudo government organisations who are recipients of major HMG money.
BTW, yesterday was accosted by some Chuggers in the High St. As they refused to tell me what their share of the take is, I refused to listen to them. Gathered quite a crowd round us, and the Chuggers' attitude so disgusted the on-lookers (most of whom did not realise that these people earned from the donations) that their time on the High St was fruitless. Also they were operating without the licence that the local council requires for charity collectors.
Someone from Christian Aid was on PM yesterday explaining the reality of the situation, which is that people are always looking for an excuse to stop giving to charity, and that is the entire explanation for any criticism of CEO salaries. It's not often one comes across someone more punchable than ed balls.
UKIP received 920,000 votes at the last GE. Every voter who voted UKIP did so because it was the party which most closely reflected his views. Approximately 0% of UKIP voters thought they had just picked their next MP.
Many expert commentators, like Mike Smithson, are saying things such as 'UKIP will have a big influence on the next GE even if they win 0 MPs'.
If we can make this effect more widely known, it undermines the point that a 'vote for UKIP is a wasted vote'. The more votes UKIP receives, anywhere, the more influence it has.
How will you improve your influence? The Greens have more MPs than you, how influential do you think they are?
The fact of the matter is that the more votes UKIP get the more chance we have of electing a Europhile Labour government.
Conservatives. I know who I'd prefer in charge when it comes to EU matters.
I'll let Smithson and other experts---few of whom are natural UKIP supporters---explain to you how every UKIP vote increases our influence.
The stronger UKIP is, the more likely any govt is to offer a referendum. And much more importantly and quite differently, the more likely we are to win one.
And worst of all, we then lose the vote by whisker.
That's a thoroughly unconvincing argument. A Lab or Lab\Lib government will laugh at your "pressure" and ignore it. You'll be dead before you ever see a referendum.
And equally dead before we ever see Cameron pull us out of the EU - whatever the referendum result.
So as I said downthread, your current strategy doesn't work.
You either say vote UKIP in the knowledge you can't win a majority - so no referendum. Or you say none of the other parties will give you a referendum. In all events the outcome is no referendum so UKIP is failing on its own terms.
What has amazed me is not the salary but the increases over the last two years. Increases of 9% to 22% - something that their personal donors can only dream of.
It is time that many large Charities reverted to being charities and not pseudo government organisations who are recipients of major HMG money.
BTW, yesterday was accosted by some Chuggers in the High St. As they refused to tell me what their share of the take is, I refused to listen to them. Gathered quite a crowd round us, and the Chuggers' attitude so disgusted the on-lookers (most of whom did not realise that these people earned from the donations) that their time on the High St was fruitless. Also they were operating without the licence that the local council requires for charity collectors.
Someone from Christian Aid was on PM yesterday explaining the reality of the situation, which is that people are always looking for an excuse to stop giving to charity, and that is the entire explanation for any criticism of CEO salaries. It's not often one comes across someone more punchable than ed balls.
WTF? I see entitlement and earning commission have converged...
The most recent "how vote if Cameron renegotiated" results:
Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms. How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?
Net stay (Change vs ''if there was a vote") Con: +22 (+58) Lab: +44 (+11) LibD: +63 (+22) UKIP: -50 (+38)
And worst of all, we then lose the vote by whisker.
That's a thoroughly unconvincing argument. A Lab or Lab\Lib government will laugh at your "pressure" and ignore it. You'll be dead before you ever see a referendum.
And equally dead before we ever see Cameron pull us out of the EU - whatever the referendum result.
So as I said downthread, your current strategy doesn't work.
You either say vote UKIP in the knowledge you can't win a majority - so no referendum. Or you say none of the other parties will give you a referendum. In all events the outcome is no referendum so UKIP is failing on its own terms.
I'd say back to the drawing board.
Nope. You seem to believe that the next election must be the be all and end all in terms of withdrawal. The referendum is meaningless under Cameron because he simply will not countenance withdrawal under any circumstances. Whatever they might say, few in UKIP believe we will be out of the EU by 2020. The aim must be to make sure that the Tories know they cannot win without a BOO agenda. Cameron losing the next election (or at least failing to be part of the next government) has to be an important part of that.
To a Tory fanatic like yourself I know this is hard to understand but what you have to realise is that the current Tory leadership are just as much the enemy as Labour as far as BOO is concerned..
Incidentally, some people believe that if Cameron couldn't beat Gordon last time, he can't win this time, but I'm not so sure. Generally, governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Gordon reached the giddy heights of 29% last time for a couple of reasons.
(1) By far the most important. Although HMS UK hit an iceberg, we somehow managed to scramble to some temporary dry land. I think that had more to do with the Badger than Gordon, but he took the credit.
(2) The feeling that the Tories would impose cuts for the sake of it. Rumours of the removal of bus-passes and other perks, although unfounded, had an effect. Probably down to the Lord of Darkness.
Our Offie man blames GO. Gideon may not be the strategist he thinks he is (he's not even a talented amateur) but point number (1) and Mr Crosby's swing back theory is more than enough to explain the 29%.
Next time, Labour are the opposition. If things are going well, the Government gain. If things are going badly (especially if it's worldwide),"this is no time for an amateur", and particularly, not a plasticine model of one.
In 1997, the government had no economic credibility. This time, they might have enough.
But my guess, for what it's worth, is a hung parliament again.
Ah, now we're getting the 'wrong sort of referendum' line from UKIP.
That fact is, they don't want a referendum, nor the only opportunity of actually leaving the EU. Now that Cameron has committed to the referendum, and Conservative MPs have almost unanimously supported a bill giving a deadline of 2017, the nonsense of the UKIP position is completely clear: they are just wreckers, wanting to wreck for the sake of it, to the extent of campaigning in a way designed to produce a Labour or Labour/LD government whose policy positions on every single issue, bar none, would be the diametric opposite of what UKIP claim to want.
There's only one possible explanation which makes any sense for this mad behaviour, which is that their real interest is that they enjoy moaning. It would be cruel to take away their principal excuse for moaning by actually holding the referendum, wouldn't it?
You keep on believing that Richard. Right up to teh point that head in the sand attitude costs your party the next election.
What has amazed me is not the salary but the increases over the last two years. Increases of 9% to 22% - something that their personal donors can only dream of.
It is time that many large Charities reverted to being charities and not pseudo government organisations who are recipients of major HMG money.
BTW, yesterday was accosted by some Chuggers in the High St. As they refused to tell me what their share of the take is, I refused to listen to them. Gathered quite a crowd round us, and the Chuggers' attitude so disgusted the on-lookers (most of whom did not realise that these people earned from the donations) that their time on the High St was fruitless. Also they were operating without the licence that the local council requires for charity collectors.
Someone from Christian Aid was on PM yesterday
Did they explain why the head of Christian Aid has to be paid more than twice as much as the head of Islamic Relief?
And in a nutshell that sums up UKIP. You are a pressure group for one political party - the Conservatives. You have nothing much to say on Lab or Lib, you pretty much give them a free ride whereas you could make some of their more Eurohile MPs sweat. Your constant niggling at the blues I can't help feeling is counterproductive. It's a turnoff for non-party members such as myself and doesn't really put as much pressure on the party leadership as if the kippers were still in their old party. To date there is nothing to show that UKIP can set the terms of a referendum and worse if one is called in the near future that they have done enough work to win it.
You keep on believing that Richard. Right up to teh point that head in the sand attitude costs your party the next election.
What might cost us the next election, and lead to the unmitiagated disaster of a Labour or (even worse) weak Labour/LibDem government, will be UKIP voters cutting off their noses to spite their faces, thereby guaranteeing they get absolutely nothing that they claim to want. It's hardly a 'head-in-the-sand' attitude to point out this obvious truth; quite the opposite, I and everyone else in the party are extremely aware of the potential damage UKIP might do to the country by their campaigning on behalf of Labour.
Obviously I hope that voters will be sensible when it actually comes to the real choice of 2015, but, if not, well, we'll have to live with the consequences - which by no conceivable stretch of any imagination could be anything other than the opposite of what UKIP claim to want.
The big question is what will interest rates be near May 2015 ? The current prediction is that the BOE will not increase rates before the end of 2016, but perhaps influences outside the UK will decide the timing. I have a feeling that some of the increased activity in the economy is down to people taking advantage of lower interest rates while they can.
Your hunch would be more plausible if public, private and household debt had not been falling over the course of this parliament.
The recent pickup in household expenditure, which is only part of a broadly based increase in economic activity, is partially coming from reduced consumer savings, but there is no evidence yet that consumers are increasing their net debt. The small rises in unsecured lending are more than being offset by mortgage paydowns,
By far the worst result for UKIP would be a reluctant, unethusiastically given referendum, to humour us. That to be followed by masses of EU money to artificially prop up the stay-in vote, accompanied by relentlessly negative and untruthful campaigning (see any of Clegg's relevant comments for a sample).
And worst of all, we then lose the vote by whisker.
This is precisely the same sort of crap argument I hear from Lib Dem federalists on the other side of the coin. If we get a referendum then we must abide by the result, at least for the next 20-40 years or so (See Norway for details). A referendum would be good, it would be the voice of the British people - Not UKIP, Not the Lib Dems but the voice of BRITAIN.
Even worse than chuggers, however, are charity doorknockers (churglars?). I have a burning hatred of guilt-trips, and not much cash, so being told by a self-righteous stranger who has decided to interrupt my work and intrude upon my time that it's "not much" to ask for put me off the charity in question for life.
If/when I have money to spare it'll be for the likes of Help for Heroes (assuming they don't follow suit regarding the obnoxious doorknockers).
An issue I've never seen addressed by a pollster - and perhaps Nick Sparrow can speak to it - is that many minor parties do not stand candidates in every seat.
In 2010, the numbers of candidates (out of 650 seats in the UK, or 632 excluding Northern Ireland) for the main minor (non-nationalist) parties were:
UKIP: 558 (nearly all seats, but a substantial number uncontested) BNP: 338 (just over half) Green: 310 (just under half)
Quite obviously a party cannot gain votes or vote share in the seats it does not contest; but pollsters must present all interviewees for their response based on all parties, regardless of whether a particular party candidate will present themselves in their seat.
It's also not necessarily reasonable to simply scale down the proportion of votes for a given party by the proportion of seats they choose to contest, since one of the criteria for choosing to contest a seat must presumably be their likelihood of success.
The question is - what do voters who self-identify as Green (say) do when there's no Green candidate in their seat? Do they not bother? Do they vote tactically for somebody else? How many of them even know how wide or constrained their actual choice of parties will be until they see their ballot paper?
It is not just about CEO salaries. At first sight, the important thing with any charity is the proportion of income that gets spent on the cause itself. In many cases this is easy to ascertain; in others much harder.
For instance, is an animal welfare charity lobbying spending money on a lobbyist to get a change in the law actually helping animal welfare? Directly, no. Indirectly, possibly.
And then you get some research with seemingly strange results: that charities that spend more on administration perform best. But as with all such research, treat with care.
You keep on believing that Richard. Right up to teh point that head in the sand attitude costs your party the next election.
What might cost us the next election, and lead to the unmitiagated disaster of a Labour or (even worse) weak Labour/LibDem government, will be UKIP voters cutting off their noses to spite their faces, thereby guaranteeing they get absolutely nothing that they claim to want. It's hardly a 'head-in-the-sand' attitude to point out this obvious truth; quite the opposite, I and everyone else in the party are extremely aware of the potential damage UKIP might do to the country by their campaigning on behalf of Labour.
Obviously I hope that voters will be sensible when it actually comes to the real choice of 2015, but, if not, well, we'll have to live with the consequences - which by no conceivable stretch of any imagination could be anything other than the opposite of what UKIP claim to want.
Do you really think that trying to shame former Tory voting UKIP supporters, who by definition are dissatisfied with what Cameron has to offer, into coming "home" by accusing them of helping Labour is wise? Don't you think they realise that less Conservative votes help Labour?
The way for people who want to leave the EU, are in favour of grammar schools, & dislike excessive foreign aid etc to make themselves heard is to refuse to vote for any of the big three. Propping up the least worst will get them nowhere
Well Richard it's fun to learn I'm a Tory fanatic, since I didn't vote for them at the locals, won't for them at the GE unless they move Osborne and probably spar more with Messrs Nabavi and Pole than you do. atm I'd describe myself as a disaffected blue who wouldn't trust Cameron on a referendum any more than a kipper.
However that said I see nothing convincing in UKIP either. Your plans either all end up in no referendum or in some jam tomorrow plan which sees Labour in power for the next decade while you somehow dispose of Cameron's coterie from outside his party. I'm afraid for a lot of the not so die-hard people such as yourself the constant concentration on Cameron just doesn't work. MikeK will come on every morning and say Cameron is a twat. That's someone saying Cameron is a twat, it's not a reason why I should shift my vote to UKIP. A sensible set of policies with a good chance of implementation is a reason to vote UKIP, polemic isn't. And at the moment UKIP still can't present a set of policies which will stop people more europhile than Cameron getting elected. And the idea that we have to break everything up and start again just isn't attractive to most voters since whatever comes out the other side it's never what its proponents predicted.
I recall a story several years ago re the Sally Army. They had a very high admin rate - but since they spent almost all of their donations on their hostels for their target group etc - it totally skewed the % so made them look lazy/grasping.
Shelter IIRC actually have no shelters and just lobby instead.
It is not just about CEO salaries. At first sight, the important thing with any charity is the proportion of income that gets spent on the cause itself. In many cases this is easy to ascertain; in others much harder.
For instance, is an animal welfare charity lobbying spending money on a lobbyist to get a change in the law actually helping animal welfare? Directly, no. Indirectly, possibly.
And then you get some research with seemingly strange results: that charities that spend more on administration perform best. But as with all such research, treat with care.
In all cases, the losing party was led by an obvious clot; nothing else really explains 1992, when Kinnock managed to lose to Major, of all people, in the depths of a recession.
As to how one spots the clot, a good way is if the only or first thing you can remember about them casts them in a bad light.
Callaghan is famous for "what crisis?" and the winter of discontent. Foot is famous for his donkey jacket. Kinnock is famous for being the strikers' friend and "We're aaaaalriiiiiight!" Major is famous for White Wednesday. Hague is famous for being 16 at the Tory confewenthe. Howard is famous for something of the night. Brown is famous for stealth taxes. Miliband is famous for knifing his brother.
The above is nothing to do with popularity in polls then or now, any more than the most popular TV show is the best.
It also matters not whether what you remember is actually correct or fair. Callaghan didn't say "what crisis?", for example, but it is how he is remembered. Kinnock probably has least to complain about, since the way he is remembered, though discreditable, is also accurate.
As Cameron is a more plausible leader than Miliband, who of the two of them is more obviously the clot, Cameron's party will lead in vote share at the next GE. This need not mean Cameron wins, of course.
The way for people who want to leave the EU, are in favour of grammar schools, & dislike excessive foreign aid etc to make themselves heard is to refuse to vote for any of the big three. Propping up the least worst will get them nowhere
Not propping up what they see as the least worst will certainly get them somewhere: further away from any progress on the EU, no referendum, further away from good schools, more excessive foreign aid, more political correctness and nanny-statism, higher taxes, more big-government spending, a bigger deficit, etc etc etc.
The basic problem is that the idea of (a) somehow forcing the Conservative Party to become UKIP, (or replacing it altogether), and (b) thereby going on to win some election on a UKIP-style platform in the distant future, simply doesn't work. Even in the highly unlikely event that you succeeeded in (a), there would not be a snowflake's chance in hell of achieving (b), and in any case in order to attempt to achieve it one of the two parties would have to disband. Just work through the mechanism: it is utter fantasy.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 4m “@joeyjonessky: Spanish PM tells david cameron he'll de-escalate situation at gibraltar border.” I think we just won #war
Thank f*** we don't have Peter Hain in charge of anything..
I wish this was carrying on a bit longer so we could find out what any Labour official position was. Hain and Bryant just seem to want to hand Gib over to Spain and its all fuss and nonsense.
Not propping up what they see as the least worst will certainly get them somewhere: further away from any progress on the EU, further away from good schools, more excessive foreign aid, more political correctness and nanny-statism, higher taxes, more big-government spending, a bigger deficit, etc etc etc.
The problem, surely, is that UKIPpers genuinely believe all that will happen with a Conservative government? And that they do not believe Cameron has any intention of doing anything different to what Labour would do, and that - given how Conservative governments post Thatcher have all performed - they are right?
The way for people who want to leave the EU, are in favour of grammar schools, & dislike excessive foreign aid etc to make themselves heard is to refuse to vote for any of the big three. Propping up the least worst will get them nowhere
Not propping up what they see as the least worst will certainly get them somewhere: further away from any progress on the EU, no referendum, further away from good schools, more excessive foreign aid, more political correctness and nanny-statism, higher taxes, more big-government spending, a bigger deficit, etc etc etc.
The basic problem is that the idea of (a) somehow forcing the Conservative Party to become UKIP, (or replacing it altogether), and (b) thereby going on to win some election on a UKIP-style platform in the distant future, simply doesn't work. Even in the highly unlikely event that you succeeeded in (a), there would not be a snowflake's chance in hell of achieving (b), and in any case in order to attempt to achieve it one of the two parties would have to disband. Just work through the mechanism: it is utter fantasy.
It's also utter fantasy to think the Conservative party can win an election on the votes of the South East but currently that's where Cameron is.
Hmmm. I need to remortgage in 2Q2014 and I am wondering whether to go for a 2-year cheap fix and then hope cheap 5-year fixes are still around in 2016; or go for a 5-year fix in 2014 and risk remortgaging in 2019 well after this "guidance" has expired.
I wish I were a climate scientist; they can predict things 100 years into the future.
The way for people who want to leave the EU, are in favour of grammar schools, & dislike excessive foreign aid etc to make themselves heard is to refuse to vote for any of the big three. Propping up the least worst will get them nowhere
Not propping up what they see as the least worst will certainly get them somewhere: further away from any progress on the EU, no referendum, further away from good schools, more excessive foreign aid, more political correctness and nanny-statism, higher taxes, more big-government spending, a bigger deficit, etc etc etc.
The basic problem is that the idea of (a) somehow forcing the Conservative Party to become UKIP, (or replacing it altogether), and (b) thereby going on to win some election on a UKIP-style platform in the distant future, simply doesn't work. Even in the highly unlikely event that you succeeeded in (a), there would not be a snowflake's chance in hell of achieving (b), and in any case in order to attempt to achieve it one of the two parties would have to disband. Just work through the mechanism: it is utter fantasy.
The difficulty is that should ex Tory voting UKIP supporters return to the fold, Cameron may well take it as a mandate that his pro EU, anti grammar school, pro foreign aid policies are popular.. and who could blame him if people voted for him after taking this stance?
You are an intelligent guy, surely you can see why people who want out of the EU aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of a referendum proposed and led by a man who has no intention of leaving, will campaign to stay in, and has just been voted into government on the back of this stance?
The Visa Europe Consumer Expenditure Index was released today. Contrary to the recent British Retail Consortium's upbeat estimate of a 3.9% increase in retail expenditure (against 2% in July 2012), Visa's broader based Consumer Expenditure Index fell by -2.4% month on month and by -0.1% year on year.
Key Findings
• Month-on-month consumer spending falls for the first time since April (-2.4%), down from +0.9% in June and +0.7% in May.
• Year-on-year spending relatively unchanged in July (-0.1%), and down from the high of +2.0% in June.
• Latest expenditure data depresses quarterly spending figures, which registers at -0.7% in July.
• Year-on-year expenditure declines in Face-to-Face (-1.2%) and Online (-1.7%) spending channels...
• ... but continues to increase through Mail/Telephone Order categories (+2.7%).
Paul Smith, Senior Economist at Markit, suggested the contraflow with other more upbeat economic data may be a phasing anomaly:
the latest fall in household consumption was only the second of the year so far and heavily loaded to the start of the month, with declines in spending in the first fortnight of July following on from a stellar end to June. The good weather during the month may have also encouraged households to spend more time away from recreational activities such as trips to the cinema, theatre and museums.
Hot weather was also suggested as a factor in expenditure falling. Dr. Steve Perry from Visa explained:
Recreation & Culture spending was down -5.4% as people perhaps took to the beaches and parks rather than theme parks and cinemas. Hotels and restaurants benefited with a +3.3% increase in spending on the year, while Clothing & Footwear (-2.4%) and Food, Beverages & Tobacco (-2.7%) continued to struggle to increase their share of consumer spending.
And in a nutshell that sums up UKIP. You are a pressure group for one political party - the Conservatives. You have nothing much to say on Lab or Lib, you pretty much give them a free ride whereas you could make some of their more Eurohile MPs sweat. Your constant niggling at the blues I can't help feeling is counterproductive. It's a turnoff for non-party members such as myself and doesn't really put as much pressure on the party leadership as if the kippers were still in their old party. To date there is nothing to show that UKIP can set the terms of a referendum and worse if one is called in the near future that they have done enough work to win it.
As much as I have sympathy with the anti-EU lobby I think you are absolutely right. And the most off-putting thing for normal people in UK blog and commentary politics is the hijacking of comment pieces by UKIP supporters. Virtually every topic is turned into some hell-in-a-handcart rant about the EU and our 'spineless' politicians. It's bananas.
I have long respected and read the views of intelligent UKIP supporters like Richard Tyndall but the visceral anti-everything brigade (people who love moaning, as RN eloquenty describes below) who make up the core UKIP vote are - in my view - seriously irrational and will always be completely ineffective in terms of gaining power..
Politics is complex and I would have sympathy with an articulate UKIP view as to how leaving the EU would work, what the implications would be and what policies they would put in place to ensure we remain an economic player in the world. But I do not think UKIp are capable of providing one.
Sadly, given the almost fundamentalist belief of their core vote, they will very likely prevent the Tories from winning enough seats at the next election and send Ed Miliband to Downing Street to lead one of the most Europhile governments we have ever had.
If that isn't counter productive I don't know what is. And it leads me to suspect - as RN points out - that the driving force of UKIP isn't the EU, or the pursuit of power, but instead the bitter desire to give Tories a bloody nose.
The Visa Europe Consumer Expenditure Index was released today. Contrary to the recent British Retail Consortium's upbeat estimate of a 3.9% increase in retail expenditure (against 2% in July 2012), Visa's broader based Consumer Expenditure Index fell by -2.4% month on month and by -0.1% year on year.
Key Findings
• Month-on-month consumer spending falls for the first time since April (-2.4%), down from +0.9% in June and +0.7% in May.
• Year-on-year spending relatively unchanged in July (-0.1%), and down from the high of +2.0% in June.
• Latest expenditure data depresses quarterly spending figures, which registers at -0.7% in July.
• Year-on-year expenditure declines in Face-to-Face (-1.2%) and Online (-1.7%) spending channels...
Recreation & Culture spending was down -5.4% as people perhaps took to the beaches and parks rather than theme parks and cinemas. Hotels and restaurants benefited with a +3.3% increase in spending on the year, while Clothing & Footwear (-2.4%) and Food, Beverages & Tobacco (-2.7%) continued to struggle to increase their share of consumer spending.
depends what's happening with the cash. If people are still paying down debt then that's good news. if the cash is being eaten up by rising prices and taxes, then HMG might want to think about spending less and putting some more money back in people's pockets.
The Visa Europe Consumer Expenditure Index was released today. Contrary to the recent British Retail Consortium's upbeat estimate of a 3.9% increase in retail expenditure (against 2% in July 2012), Visa's broader based Consumer Expenditure Index fell by -2.4% month on month and by -0.1% year on year.
Key Findings
• Month-on-month consumer spending falls for the first time since April (-2.4%), down from +0.9% in June and +0.7% in May.
• Year-on-year spending relatively unchanged in July (-0.1%), and down from the high of +2.0% in June.
• Latest expenditure data depresses quarterly spending figures, which registers at -0.7% in July.
• Year-on-year expenditure declines in Face-to-Face (-1.2%) and Online (-1.7%) spending channels...
Recreation & Culture spending was down -5.4% as people perhaps took to the beaches and parks rather than theme parks and cinemas. Hotels and restaurants benefited with a +3.3% increase in spending on the year, while Clothing & Footwear (-2.4%) and Food, Beverages & Tobacco (-2.7%) continued to struggle to increase their share of consumer spending.
depends what's happening with the cash. If people are still paying down debt then that's good news. if the cash is being eaten up by rising prices and taxes, then HMG might want to think about spending less and putting some more money back in people's pockets.
Interesting read here linked by D Smith of the Sunday Times
yes I agree with a lot of that. I'd say the problem for UKIP is they can't decide if they are a political party or a pressure group. I think they'd have more success as the latter but would need to change their tactics.
If Richard T is 100% forout I'm probably at 65%, but I want to look at the full arguments before finally deciding. Unfortunately given the level of preparedness by both sides I think this is the one campaign that can make the Indyref look entertaining and informative.
This Carney experiment may or may not be a good idea but once again it's GO and the Cons making the news weather.
I like the idea of using unemployment as the yardstick instead of inflation. The latter seems to be a techie measure that bobs about month on month - unemployment is a longer trend.
Like other bloated public sector (and now charity) fat cats, the defence is that you need to pay for the best otherwise they will work for the evil private sector, mining orphans for organs and throwing kittens out of work. Carney's claim to fame is guiding Canada out of economic meltdown and calling for international action to recapitalise banks. The first country to do this was Britain, but we don't like to boast about that. Not flash, just Gordon.
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound Cameron warned Rajoy that unless Spain backs off 'we will be forced to do more' Calls Spanish measures 'disproportionate' = threat to sue
The Visa Europe Consumer Expenditure Index was released today. Contrary to the recent British Retail Consortium's upbeat estimate of a 3.9% increase in retail expenditure (against 2% in July 2012), Visa's broader based Consumer Expenditure Index fell by -2.4% month on month and by -0.1% year on year.
...
depends what's happening with the cash. If people are still paying down debt then that's good news. if the cash is being eaten up by rising prices and taxes, then HMG might want to think about spending less and putting some more money back in people's pockets.
Difficult to know what this says about the overall picture until we have had a full month of data from various sources and completed the jigsaw.
If the Visa Index is right (and Visa are aggregating real transactions rather than sampling), then it does look as though we are seeing some useful deleveraging and rebalancing of growth drivers in the economy.
Two key sets of stats will be:
• the July ONS Public Finances Bulletin which is a seasonally a bumper month for tax revenues and will give good indications of how much deficit reduction we can expect from the higher than forecast growth rates; and,
• the BoE bank lending and monetary figures which will show how fast consumers are depleting their savings.
I don't see much prospect for short-term large drops in inflation.
Newsflash for tim: help to buy shared equity scheme "working"
Given that the idiotic taxpayer subsidised £600k remortgaging doesn't start till Jan that's an achievement.
All aboard the inflation-devaluation-housing bubble train
I thought you'd be pleased, it's the kind of "growth" we had in the noughties.
Watching the PB Tories cheer it on is funny, and this time the taxpayer is going to underwrite the risk when mortgage rates rise.
Politically the interesting angle is what Tory-UKIP pensioner savers make of it I guess, but Osborne is the Brown bubble on steroids
It must be difficult when no party has policies which you support. And you're not all wrong about housing, of course you're not. Thing is, yours is an "I wouldn't have started from here" approach.
We are where we are with house prices; no govt, not mine not yours, is going to enforce the rebalancing necessary to undo 30 years of house price inflation.
But listen to what they are saying: mortgage applications below historical averages at 60k/mth; LTVs lower than average at 40% vs 70%; and valuations retrenched from their highs.
It's a lower risk strategy if not risk-free.
We all wish we lived in a low house price environment but we don't. The challenge is for the govt to manage what is in front of them. Which they are doing well IMO.
This Carney experiment may or may not be a good idea but once again it's GO and the Cons making the news weather.
I like the idea of using unemployment as the yardstick instead of inflation. The latter seems to be a techie measure that bobs about month on month - unemployment is a longer trend.
Not sure how this will pan out myself. With large amounts of migration to the UK, he's not facing the same situation as in Canada. There's litlle point keeping stimulus going if all we're doing is sucking in people from elsewhere.
There is a parallel with the uproar over MPs' pay.
But as a free market capitalist I have no problem with paying people a market rate.
Unless the charity CEOs are political appointees. Perish the thought.
I generally agree (and no, I don't work for a charity). I'm happy to contribute to charities who seem to me to do a good job. I'll take into account what proportion of the money goes to the people who run it, but the bottom line is whether they're effective. Someone who is paid megabucks has more to prove, but if they can convince me that they're wonderfully effective because of all the good work they've done, fine. Of course, if he can show the same AND (s)he does it for fourpence a week, better still.
This Carney experiment may or may not be a good idea but once again it's GO and the Cons making the news weather.
I like the idea of using unemployment as the yardstick instead of inflation. The latter seems to be a techie measure that bobs about month on month - unemployment is a longer trend.
Not sure how this will pan out myself. With large amounts of migration to the UK, he's not facing the same situation as in Canada. There's litlle point keeping stimulus going if all we're doing is sucking in people from elsewhere.
But this approach does allow for planning re interest rates. Being at the whim of the oil or coffee or whatever markets month to month is no way to run our interest rate strategy.
At least using unemployment means its long term metric, it expects more in employment will be paid more so can cope with a rate rise and fewer on benefits will be adversely affected.
Newsflash for tim: help to buy shared equity scheme "working"
Given that the idiotic taxpayer subsidised £600k remortgaging doesn't start till Jan that's an achievement.
All aboard the inflation-devaluation-housing bubble train
I thought you'd be pleased, it's the kind of "growth" we had in the noughties.
Watching the PB Tories cheer it on is funny, and this time the taxpayer is going to underwrite the risk when mortgage rates rise.
Remortgaging will assist in easing any future rise in mortgage rates. If a borrower cannot meet the increased monthly mortgage payment, there will be an option to remortgage and extend the term of the loan thereby keeping the monthly payment affordable.
It will also assist interest only mortgagees without balancing assets to convert to repayment mortgages; and any other mortgagee who foolishly became a victim of the Brown bubble to refinance on prudent borrowing terms.
All in the voters' and nation's best interest, tim.
'Steve Crowther, the Ukip chairman, said: "We are asking Godfrey not to use this phrase again, as it might be considered disparaging by members from other countries. However, foreign aid is an extremely important debate that needs wider discussion." '
This Carney experiment may or may not be a good idea but once again it's GO and the Cons making the news weather.
I like the idea of using unemployment as the yardstick instead of inflation. The latter seems to be a techie measure that bobs about month on month - unemployment is a longer trend.
Not sure how this will pan out myself. With large amounts of migration to the UK, he's not facing the same situation as in Canada. There's litlle point keeping stimulus going if all we're doing is sucking in people from elsewhere.
"Ottawa, February 13, 2011 — In 2010, Canada welcomed the highest number of legal immigrants in more than 50 years, at 280,636 permanent residents, Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and Parliamentary Secretary Dr. Alice Wong announced today in Toronto and Vancouver.
“While other Western countries cut back on immigration during the recession, our government kept legal immigration levels high. Canada’s post-recession economy demands a high level of economic immigration to keep our economy strong,” said Minister Kenney. “In 2010, we welcomed the highest number of permanent residents in the past 50 years to support Canada’s economic recovery while taking action to maintain the integrity of Canada’s immigration system with the introduction of the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act.”
According to preliminary data, last year Canada admitted 280,636 permanent residents, about six percent more than the government’s planned range of 240,000 to 265,000 new permanent residents for 2010. This is in line with Minister Kenney’s announcement in June of last year that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) would adjust its 2010 immigration plan to meet the need for economic immigration. The 280,636 number is about 60,000 higher than the average annual intake of permanent residents the Government of Canada admitted in the 1990s."
yeah tim it's controlled - they have an immigration plan.
here it's if there's no work in Lublin or Leon or elsewhere in the EU you can come in. And then there's the rest of the world. And the illegals.
You are an intelligent guy, surely you can see why people who want out of the EU aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of a referendum proposed and led by a man who has no intention of leaving, will campaign to stay in, and has just been voted into government on the back of this stance?
Of course they should be jumping with joy, because it's the only chance they'll ever get, and it's absolutely certain to happen if the Conservatives get a majority. What you are effectively saying is that they don't think they'd win the referendum. I agree, as it happens, but UKIP keep telling us there's a majority in favour of leaving, and in any case, if there isn't, then there isn't. It's certainly a bit odd, one might use the term 'loony', to complain at being offered exactly what you've been asking for. As Dan Hannan put it, "What part of ‘Yes’ don’t you understand?":
This Carney experiment may or may not be a good idea but once again it's GO and the Cons making the news weather.
I like the idea of using unemployment as the yardstick instead of inflation. The latter seems to be a techie measure that bobs about month on month - unemployment is a longer trend.
Not sure how this will pan out myself. With large amounts of migration to the UK, he's not facing the same situation as in Canada. There's litlle point keeping stimulus going if all we're doing is sucking in people from elsewhere.
It is important to note that Carney stressed that the unemployment rate was not a "target" in the same way that the 2.0% inflation rate was a target.
The unemployment rate had been chosen as the best available composite indicator of economic health. The MPC had considered a number of other metrics as conditions but concluded that the unemployment rate served as the simplest and most comprehensive single measure.
Of course the MPC wouldn't do anything so vulgar as to consider the PR benefit of the public believing they were working to reduce unemployment rather than using unemployment levels as a trigger to raise rates.
There are lots of good points in this, and some bad ones. The authors overlook the potential dangers for Labour of the narrative itself cutting through to voters, even if the detail is completely lost on the general public. And they ignore the inconvenient truth that the overall Labour poll share is undeniably lower than in the second half of 2012. But it's a valuable corrective to many of the assumptions made by right-leaning commentators.
'Steve Crowther, the Ukip chairman, said: "We are asking Godfrey not to use this phrase again, as it might be considered disparaging by members from other countries. However, foreign aid is an extremely important debate that needs wider discussion." '
That could be a very interesting seat indeed - Anne-Marie Trevelyan has been working hard to get the Conservatives back in contention and managed an impressive 8.3% swing last time.
While the analysis is sound (not much is happening) what he neglects is the impact of polls on 'the narrative' - and how that may ultimately also influence the polls themselves.....for all parties.....
Best investment advice for the baby boomers is to remortgage,get taxpayer subsidy, lend to children to invest in housing, get more taxpayer subsidies and watch the bubble inflate
How can this be done when, unless i'm mistaken, the scheme does not permit additional funds to be raised by remortgaging, only a debt for debt swap and then only on a repayment basis with affordibility fully underwriten by the lender?
Red Dwarf fans - all this talk of Kippers and Bongos reminds me of the scene where Rimmer is his alter ego from a perfect dimension, the heroic "Ace Rimmer".
"Bye, Bongo... Smoke me a Kipper. I'll be back for breakfast!"
Comments
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1538418
And if Lab are shouted at for not having policies, why not the Kippers?
pic.twitter.com/HYR8u9nOTc
[NB. the net figure is 10 billion, gross is 18 billion]
"Tory MP challenges Ed Miliband to condemn colleague's Gibraltar remarks
LABOUR leader Ed Miliband was challenged yesterday to condemn a senior colleague’s call for Britain to reopen talks with Spain about sharing sovereignty of Gibraltar."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/420223/Tory-MP-challenges-Ed-Miliband-to-condemn-colleague-s-Gibraltar-remarks
BONGOBONGOLAND last night insisted it has never received a penny in international aid.
The country’s president spoke out after UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom claimed all of Britain’s £11bn aid budget was being sent to the small west African nation. President Brian Inkatwe said: “We get by on our own. I think it’s because no-one actually believes we exist.
“I have written to the UN on several occasions asking them if they could give us advice on starting a rural banking scheme, but every time they write back and tell me that the phrase ‘Bongobongoland’ is horribly racist and that I should stop wasting their time.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/we-dont-get-any-aid-says-president-of-bongobongoland-2013080777988
You either say vote UKIP in the knowledge you can't win a majority - so no referendum. Or you say none of the other parties will give you a referendum. In all events the outcome is no referendum so UKIP is failing on its own terms.
I'd say back to the drawing board.
Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms.
How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?
Net stay (Change vs ''if there was a vote")
Con: +22 (+58)
Lab: +44 (+11)
LibD: +63 (+22)
UKIP: -50 (+38)
So as I said downthread, your current strategy doesn't work.
You either say vote UKIP in the knowledge you can't win a majority - so no referendum. Or you say none of the other parties will give you a referendum. In all events the outcome is no referendum so UKIP is failing on its own terms.
I'd say back to the drawing board.
Nope. You seem to believe that the next election must be the be all and end all in terms of withdrawal. The referendum is meaningless under Cameron because he simply will not countenance withdrawal under any circumstances. Whatever they might say, few in UKIP believe we will be out of the EU by 2020. The aim must be to make sure that the Tories know they cannot win without a BOO agenda. Cameron losing the next election (or at least failing to be part of the next government) has to be an important part of that.
To a Tory fanatic like yourself I know this is hard to understand but what you have to realise is that the current Tory leadership are just as much the enemy as Labour as far as BOO is concerned..
A good analysis by Mr S.
Incidentally, some people believe that if Cameron couldn't beat Gordon last time, he can't win this time, but I'm not so sure. Generally, governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. Gordon reached the giddy heights of 29% last time for a couple of reasons.
(1) By far the most important. Although HMS UK hit an iceberg, we somehow managed to scramble to some temporary dry land. I think that had more to do with the Badger than Gordon, but he took the credit.
(2) The feeling that the Tories would impose cuts for the sake of it. Rumours of the removal of bus-passes and other perks, although unfounded, had an effect. Probably down to the Lord of Darkness.
Our Offie man blames GO. Gideon may not be the strategist he thinks he is (he's not even a talented amateur) but point number (1) and Mr Crosby's swing back theory is more than enough to explain the 29%.
Next time, Labour are the opposition. If things are going well, the Government gain. If things are going badly (especially if it's worldwide),"this is no time for an amateur", and particularly, not a plasticine model of one.
In 1997, the government had no economic credibility. This time, they might have enough.
But my guess, for what it's worth, is a hung parliament again.
And in a nutshell that sums up UKIP. You are a pressure group for one political party - the Conservatives. You have nothing much to say on Lab or Lib, you pretty much give them a free ride whereas you could make some of their more Eurohile MPs sweat. Your constant niggling at the blues I can't help feeling is counterproductive. It's a turnoff for non-party members such as myself and doesn't really put as much pressure on the party leadership as if the kippers were still in their old party. To date there is nothing to show that UKIP can set the terms of a referendum and worse if one is called in the near future that they have done enough work to win it.
Obviously I hope that voters will be sensible when it actually comes to the real choice of 2015, but, if not, well, we'll have to live with the consequences - which by no conceivable stretch of any imagination could be anything other than the opposite of what UKIP claim to want.
The recent pickup in household expenditure, which is only part of a broadly based increase in economic activity, is partially coming from reduced consumer savings, but there is no evidence yet that consumers are increasing their net debt. The small rises in unsecured lending are more than being offset by mortgage paydowns,
Even worse than chuggers, however, are charity doorknockers (churglars?). I have a burning hatred of guilt-trips, and not much cash, so being told by a self-righteous stranger who has decided to interrupt my work and intrude upon my time that it's "not much" to ask for put me off the charity in question for life.
If/when I have money to spare it'll be for the likes of Help for Heroes (assuming they don't follow suit regarding the obnoxious doorknockers).
In 2010, the numbers of candidates (out of 650 seats in the UK, or 632 excluding Northern Ireland) for the main minor (non-nationalist) parties were:
UKIP: 558 (nearly all seats, but a substantial number uncontested)
BNP: 338 (just over half)
Green: 310 (just under half)
Quite obviously a party cannot gain votes or vote share in the seats it does not contest; but pollsters must present all interviewees for their response based on all parties, regardless of whether a particular party candidate will present themselves in their seat.
It's also not necessarily reasonable to simply scale down the proportion of votes for a given party by the proportion of seats they choose to contest, since one of the criteria for choosing to contest a seat must presumably be their likelihood of success.
The question is - what do voters who self-identify as Green (say) do when there's no Green candidate in their seat? Do they not bother? Do they vote tactically for somebody else? How many of them even know how wide or constrained their actual choice of parties will be until they see their ballot paper?
In particular, the point about the artificiality of the voting intention question is one that is often overlooked but is absolutely vital.
Welcome and exactly - if you go down to the polling station and there isn't your preferred candidate on the list - what do you tend to do?
Go home, vote for another nearest?
It is not just about CEO salaries. At first sight, the important thing with any charity is the proportion of income that gets spent on the cause itself. In many cases this is easy to ascertain; in others much harder.
For instance, is an animal welfare charity lobbying spending money on a lobbyist to get a change in the law actually helping animal welfare? Directly, no. Indirectly, possibly.
And then you get some research with seemingly strange results: that charities that spend more on administration perform best. But as with all such research, treat with care.
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/go/news/article/1181016/charities-perform-best-spend-funds-administration/
http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2013/may/02/good-charities-admin-costs-research
The way for people who want to leave the EU, are in favour of grammar schools, & dislike excessive foreign aid etc to make themselves heard is to refuse to vote for any of the big three. Propping up the least worst will get them nowhere
“@joeyjonessky: Spanish PM tells david cameron he'll de-escalate situation at gibraltar border.” I think we just won #war
Well Richard it's fun to learn I'm a Tory fanatic, since I didn't vote for them at the locals, won't for them at the GE unless they move Osborne and probably spar more with Messrs Nabavi and Pole than you do. atm I'd describe myself as a disaffected blue who wouldn't trust Cameron on a referendum any more than a kipper.
However that said I see nothing convincing in UKIP either. Your plans either all end up in no referendum or in some jam tomorrow plan which sees Labour in power for the next decade while you somehow dispose of Cameron's coterie from outside his party. I'm afraid for a lot of the not so die-hard people such as yourself the constant concentration on Cameron just doesn't work. MikeK will come on every morning and say Cameron is a twat. That's someone saying Cameron is a twat, it's not a reason why I should shift my vote to UKIP. A sensible set of policies with a good chance of implementation is a reason to vote UKIP, polemic isn't. And at the moment UKIP still can't present a set of policies which will stop people more europhile than Cameron getting elected. And the idea that we have to break everything up and start again just isn't attractive to most voters since whatever comes out the other side it's never what its proponents predicted.
Shelter IIRC actually have no shelters and just lobby instead.
“@joeyjonessky: Spanish PM tells david cameron he'll de-escalate situation at gibraltar border.” I think we just won #war
Thank f*** we don't have Peter Hain in charge of anything..
Broadly this has been the pattern since 1979 or even 1974. The party led by the clot tends to lose to the one with the more impressive leader:
1979 - Thatcher defeats Callaghan
1983 - Thatcher defeats Foot
1987 - Thatcher defeats Kinnock
1992 - Major defeats Kinnock
1997 - Blair defeats Major
2001 - Blair defeats Hague
2005 - Blair defeats Howard
2010 - Cameron defeats Brown.
In all cases, the losing party was led by an obvious clot; nothing else really explains 1992, when Kinnock managed to lose to Major, of all people, in the depths of a recession.
As to how one spots the clot, a good way is if the only or first thing you can remember about them casts them in a bad light.
Callaghan is famous for "what crisis?" and the winter of discontent.
Foot is famous for his donkey jacket.
Kinnock is famous for being the strikers' friend and "We're aaaaalriiiiiight!"
Major is famous for White Wednesday.
Hague is famous for being 16 at the Tory confewenthe.
Howard is famous for something of the night.
Brown is famous for stealth taxes.
Miliband is famous for knifing his brother.
The above is nothing to do with popularity in polls then or now, any more than the most popular TV show is the best.
It also matters not whether what you remember is actually correct or fair. Callaghan didn't say "what crisis?", for example, but it is how he is remembered. Kinnock probably has least to complain about, since the way he is remembered, though discreditable, is also accurate.
As Cameron is a more plausible leader than Miliband, who of the two of them is more obviously the clot, Cameron's party will lead in vote share at the next GE. This need not mean Cameron wins, of course.
The basic problem is that the idea of (a) somehow forcing the Conservative Party to become UKIP, (or replacing it altogether), and (b) thereby going on to win some election on a UKIP-style platform in the distant future, simply doesn't work. Even in the highly unlikely event that you succeeeded in (a), there would not be a snowflake's chance in hell of achieving (b), and in any case in order to attempt to achieve it one of the two parties would have to disband. Just work through the mechanism: it is utter fantasy.
Philip Aldrick @PhilAldrick
Bank sets 7pc unemployment target before rates rise
Guidance. Indicates no rate rises until end 2016
RT @bankofengland: #InflationReport – August 2013 http://t.co/4gu3XC2hTJ
Bank revises growth fcast for this year from 1.2pc to 1.4pc and from 1.7pc to 2.5pc in 2014
"Are you thinking what we're thinking" ?
I wish I were a climate scientist; they can predict things 100 years into the future.
You are an intelligent guy, surely you can see why people who want out of the EU aren't jumping for joy at the prospect of a referendum proposed and led by a man who has no intention of leaving, will campaign to stay in, and has just been voted into government on the back of this stance?
The Visa Europe Consumer Expenditure Index was released today. Contrary to the recent British Retail Consortium's upbeat estimate of a 3.9% increase in retail expenditure (against 2% in July 2012), Visa's broader based Consumer Expenditure Index fell by -2.4% month on month and by -0.1% year on year.
Key Findings
• Month-on-month consumer spending falls for the first time since April (-2.4%), down from +0.9% in June and +0.7% in May.
• Year-on-year spending relatively unchanged in July (-0.1%), and down from the high of +2.0% in June.
• Latest expenditure data depresses quarterly spending figures, which registers at -0.7% in July.
• Year-on-year expenditure declines in Face-to-Face (-1.2%) and Online (-1.7%) spending channels...
• ... but continues to increase through Mail/Telephone Order categories (+2.7%). Paul Smith, Senior Economist at Markit, suggested the contraflow with other more upbeat economic data may be a phasing anomaly:
the latest fall in household consumption was only the second of the year so far and heavily loaded to the start of the month, with declines in spending in the first fortnight of July following on from a stellar end to June. The good weather during the month may have also encouraged households to spend more time away from recreational activities such as trips to the cinema, theatre and museums.
Hot weather was also suggested as a factor in expenditure falling. Dr. Steve Perry from Visa explained:
Recreation & Culture spending was down -5.4% as people perhaps took to the beaches and parks rather than theme parks and cinemas. Hotels and restaurants benefited with a +3.3% increase in spending on the year, while Clothing & Footwear (-2.4%) and Food, Beverages & Tobacco (-2.7%) continued to struggle to increase their share of consumer spending.
I have long respected and read the views of intelligent UKIP supporters like Richard Tyndall but the visceral anti-everything brigade (people who love moaning, as RN eloquenty describes below) who make up the core UKIP vote are - in my view - seriously irrational and will always be completely ineffective in terms of gaining power..
Politics is complex and I would have sympathy with an articulate UKIP view as to how leaving the EU would work, what the implications would be and what policies they would put in place to ensure we remain an economic player in the world. But I do not think UKIp are capable of providing one.
Sadly, given the almost fundamentalist belief of their core vote, they will very likely prevent the Tories from winning enough seats at the next election and send Ed Miliband to Downing Street to lead one of the most Europhile governments we have ever had.
If that isn't counter productive I don't know what is. And it leads me to suspect - as RN points out - that the driving force of UKIP isn't the EU, or the pursuit of power, but instead the bitter desire to give Tories a bloody nose.
David Smith @dsmitheconomics
Recovery not driven by falling savings, rising debt. Q1 saving ratio clearly distorted & debt falling in real terms: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/documents/mc/2013/jun/moneyandcredit.pdf …
Tables H and I are of interest to those who think there is a mortgage bubble building.
yes I agree with a lot of that. I'd say the problem for UKIP is they can't decide if they are a political party or a pressure group. I think they'd have more success as the latter but would need to change their tactics.
If Richard T is 100% forout I'm probably at 65%, but I want to look at the full arguments before finally deciding. Unfortunately given the level of preparedness by both sides I think this is the one campaign that can make the Indyref look entertaining and informative.
Letter to Osborne btw if not posted already:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Documents/pdf/govletter130807.pdf
The BoE would far prefer the pound to be trading within the $1.45-$1.50 range than up in the mid 'fifties'.
It appears so. The Marie Celeste Party.
Cameron warned Rajoy that unless Spain backs off 'we will be forced to do more' Calls Spanish measures 'disproportionate' = threat to sue
http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/berwick-mp-sir-alan-beith-5673471
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2013/ir1303.aspx
If the Visa Index is right (and Visa are aggregating real transactions rather than sampling), then it does look as though we are seeing some useful deleveraging and rebalancing of growth drivers in the economy.
Two key sets of stats will be:
• the July ONS Public Finances Bulletin which is a seasonally a bumper month for tax revenues and will give good indications of how much deficit reduction we can expect from the higher than forecast growth rates; and,
• the BoE bank lending and monetary figures which will show how fast consumers are depleting their savings.
I don't see much prospect for short-term large drops in inflation.
Confused !
Berwick-upon-Tweed 2010 Result:
Conservative: 14116 (36.7%)
Labour: 5061 (13.2%)
Lib Dem: 16806 (43.7%)
BNP: 1213 (3.2%)
UKIP: 1243 (3.2%)
MAJORITY: 2690 (7%)
The Conservatives will fancy their chances.
Do you remember the stoning scene in the "Life of Brian."?
Bloom seems like the character dancing around saying "Jehovah" and enjoying it. The Guardian will be John Cleese High Priest.
If the facts change, Carney will change his mind.
So what's the point?
LOL, must tweet that - if your on there, tell us your user name so I can credit you.
We are where we are with house prices; no govt, not mine not yours, is going to enforce the rebalancing necessary to undo 30 years of house price inflation.
But listen to what they are saying: mortgage applications below historical averages at 60k/mth; LTVs lower than average at 40% vs 70%; and valuations retrenched from their highs.
It's a lower risk strategy if not risk-free.
We all wish we lived in a low house price environment but we don't. The challenge is for the govt to manage what is in front of them. Which they are doing well IMO.
Not sure how this will pan out myself. With large amounts of migration to the UK, he's not facing the same situation as in Canada. There's litlle point keeping stimulus going if all we're doing is sucking in people from elsewhere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/10226888/Gibraltar-Peter-Hain-says-joint-sovereignty-plan-has-no-negatives-at-all.html
No negatives at all. Excepting ignoring the right of a free people to self-determination.
Thankfully it sounds like Rajoy's rather more reasonable than his foreign minister.
Did we ever find out what E. Miliband thinks about this?
At least using unemployment means its long term metric, it expects more in employment will be paid more so can cope with a rate rise and fewer on benefits will be adversely affected.
Godfrey Bloom Lefty Bingo has copped
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 1h
So UKIP isn't just full of fruitcakes and closet racists. Out-and-out racists too http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land …
It will also assist interest only mortgagees without balancing assets to convert to repayment mortgages; and any other mortgagee who foolishly became a victim of the Brown bubble to refinance on prudent borrowing terms.
All in the voters' and nation's best interest, tim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23601349
'Steve Crowther, the Ukip chairman, said: "We are asking Godfrey not to use this phrase again, as it might be considered disparaging by members from other countries. However, foreign aid is an extremely important debate that needs wider discussion." '
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/07/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land
here it's if there's no work in Lublin or Leon or elsewhere in the EU you can come in. And then there's the rest of the world. And the illegals.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100216918/an-inout-referendum-and-a-bill-in-this-session-david-cameron-has-delivered/
This week Peter Capaldi was announced as the actor who will play the twelth doctor. Do you
approve or disapprove of the casting?
Net Approve:
Con: +69
Lab: +63
LibD: +69
UKIP: +40
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/n979bqwdac/YG-Archive-Doctor-Who-results-060813.pdf
The unemployment rate had been chosen as the best available composite indicator of economic health. The MPC had considered a number of other metrics as conditions but concluded that the unemployment rate served as the simplest and most comprehensive single measure.
Of course the MPC wouldn't do anything so vulgar as to consider the PR benefit of the public believing they were working to reduce unemployment rather than using unemployment levels as a trigger to raise rates.
http://sotonpolitics.org/2013/08/07/polling-observatory-27-labour-in-crisis-tories-resurgent-not-really/
There are lots of good points in this, and some bad ones. The authors overlook the potential dangers for Labour of the narrative itself cutting through to voters, even if the detail is completely lost on the general public. And they ignore the inconvenient truth that the overall Labour poll share is undeniably lower than in the second half of 2012. But it's a valuable corrective to many of the assumptions made by right-leaning commentators.
"tell us your user name so I can credit you."
Twitter is far too complicated for my poor little brain.
I had downloaded it just a few minutes earlier so I now have two copies.
Would you recommend I throw my first copy out of the window?
LOL
"Polling Observatory #27: Labour in crisis? Tories resurgent? Not really."
http://sotonpolitics.org/2013/08/07/polling-observatory-27-labour-in-crisis-tories-resurgent-not-really/
While the analysis is sound (not much is happening) what he neglects is the impact of polls on 'the narrative' - and how that may ultimately also influence the polls themselves.....for all parties.....
"Bye, Bongo... Smoke me a Kipper. I'll be back for breakfast!"