We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
SO..Who are the WE of which you speak. McBride will always be a scumbag, but even scumbags can sometimes tell the truth. Good idea to get your defence in early tho..
I think the orange bookers are just defending their role. The LDs need a position of equidistance from the two parties to remain viable in the long term. With both parties abandoning the centre ground it looks a good opportunity to restate the position of equidistance.
The LD leadership does seem to be preparing the way for a new coalition with the Tories. Clegg, Ashdown and Laws have all been saying similar things. That may not be the best way to persuade Labour voters supporting LD candidates in LD/Tory marginals. I hope that the LDs do not come out explicitly for a continuation. I'd have to give up on them, just as I have been becoming more drawn to them.
I think we can safely assume that this time next week the PB Guido tendency will no longer regard McBride as a lying, smearing sleazeball, but will instead be promoting him as a fearless speaker of the truth.
He's donating the royalties from the book to charity.
So he's doing it for noble reasons like the good Catholic that he is.
Royalties from sales of the book will be split between McBride’s current employer CAFOD (the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development) and his former employers, Finchley Catholic High School.
The movement is clearly against Ed Balls "too far too fast" meme, indeed the Lab supporters on here are predicting a bubble now rather than a triple dip. I think this is going to be a major problem for Balls, who with EdM friendless and under attack is not in a position to reshuffle him.
Question 7 in the Ashcroft poll is interesting (on cuts), the big movement is from "too far too fast" to "not far enough or deep enough". The latter is still a minority position, but now held by 17% compared to 10%. How much more will it move in that direction before 2015?
Question 10 is also interesting; it looks to me as if all parties are fairly equally toxic. A beauty contest between Cindarellas sisters!
I'm expecting/hoping the lack of spending cuts to be an issue in the 2015 election. After all the talk of 'tough decisions', and 'difficult choices', I think the voters will be surprised by the distance between rhetoric and action.
Ah. I think it's going to be a problem for the Conservatives/LDs. Their 2010 supporters are going to be asking "what have they been doing for the past 5 years"? The coalition was supposedly formed to deal with HMG budget black hole. That was supposed to be their primary objective, which they were going to address by cutting government spending.
I think we can safely assume that this time next week the PB Guido tendency will no longer regard McBride as a lying, smearing sleazeball, but will instead be promoting him as a fearless speaker of the truth.
He's donating the royalties from the book to charity.
So he's doing it for noble reasons like the good Catholic that he is.
Royalties from sales of the book will be split between McBride’s current employer CAFOD (the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development) and his former employers, Finchley Catholic High School.
Good PR, especially as the royalties will be minimal, even if you include serialisation rights. Meanwhile, Brand McBride - until now almost totally unknown outside anorak circles - gets splashed all over the media, so increasing future earning opportunities.
This megapoll is unquestionably good for Labour. As these seats are tory held what happened to the incumbency bonus?
My only reservation, like the last megapoll, is that the data is so old, nearly 5 weeks old in this case. I am not really sure I understand why Ashcroft allows the moss to grow on his results before publication.
In the last 5 weeks we have had a fairly thorough and consistent character assassination of Ed Miliband, almost exclusively by what is supposed to be his own side. Would that have made a difference? Who knows. It has not moved the main polls enormously but these super marginals are more politicised, constantly getting more attention from the parties than the rest of us and they may well be more susceptible to this kind of mood music.
Still, once again, it shows there is absolutely no room for complacancy on the tory side. Any assumptions of a gentle swing back to victory with Ed deflating are misplaced. At this stage that is a good thing. The tories have become increasingly focussed in their messaging this year and need to keep that up.
Can only comment from anecdote, but I've talked to a lot of people already. I've met Labour supporters who said they worried that Ed wasn't doing better, and Tories who said they didn't rate Ed. I've not met anyone - literally zero - who said they would have voted Labour but were being put off by Ed. I think he's priced in.
Having canvassed quite a bit in London as wel as my marginal, London is MUCH more politicised. A typical local question is what I think about the tramworks; a typical London question is Syria.
I think the financial black hole will be a problem for us all, particularly when interest rates and gilt yields return to normal levels. Given the choice of Osborne/Alexanders plan or Balls drunken sailor on shore leave approach, it is a no brainer!
The movement is clearly against Ed Balls "too far too fast" meme, indeed the Lab supporters on here are predicting a bubble now rather than a triple dip. I think this is going to be a major problem for Balls, who with EdM friendless and under attack is not in a position to reshuffle him.
Question 7 in the Ashcroft poll is interesting (on cuts), the big movement is from "too far too fast" to "not far enough or deep enough". The latter is still a minority position, but now held by 17% compared to 10%. How much more will it move in that direction before 2015?
Question 10 is also interesting; it looks to me as if all parties are fairly equally toxic. A beauty contest between Cindarellas sisters!
I'm expecting/hoping the lack of spending cuts to be an issue in the 2015 election. After all the talk of 'tough decisions', and 'difficult choices', I think the voters will be surprised by the distance between rhetoric and action.
Ah. I think it's going to be a problem for the Conservatives/LDs. Their 2010 supporters are going to be asking "what have they been doing for the past 5 years"? The coalition was supposedly formed to deal with HMG budget black hole. That was supposed to be their primary objective, which they were going to address by cutting government spending.
The referendum looks as if it will be tight (initself a problem if turnout is low and the verdict close for such a once in a lifetime vote).
The odds on yes seem rather good, at william hill 4/1, and I can see that this is good value. I expect the national polls and Ed is crap meme to bring the poll much closer.
So the anti-Tory Party seems to be reorganising and refocusing. The Tories need those UKIPers back, but as they hone their rhetoric rightwards they only strengthen the anti-Tory resolve. It's a tricky one for them.
It's crap EdM v the toxic Tories and it looks like it will come down to who is hated more. That's no way to run a country. Good old FPTP.
And some folk wonder why we want out.
I am very attached to the Union and I hope that No prevails, but if I lived in Scotland I would have a tough job persuading myself not to vote Yes. It's a chance to start again, to learn from mistakes, to recast. And maybe a Yes would help the rest of us do that too. What I find amazing, though, is how little anyone in England seems to care about the vote. I wonder how much focus there is on it in Northern Ireland and Wales. In the former the implications of a Yes could be huge.
The Yes campaign is greatly assisted by the wording of the ballot paper question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"
I was talking to an elderly friend of my mother. Originally from the Western Isles but resident in Glasgow during her adult life, she is a lifelong Tory voter. However, I was asking her about her attitude towards Scottish independence, and she said that she found the concept, the idea of national independence, very attractive. She thinks of herself primarily as a Scot, and is very proud of that fact. She is swithering over how to vote next September, and it may be that folk like her, who have voted Con/Lab/LD their entire lives, will take a very close look at that ballot paper question, think deep and dig deep, and find that the correct answer is not the one that the Con/Lab/LD parties have been fighting for.
Yes was at 6/1 last month, at Hills. Which was a preposterously good price, sadly gone.
This megapoll is unquestionably good for Labour. As these seats are tory held what happened to the incumbency bonus?
My only reservation, like the last megapoll, is that the data is so old, nearly 5 weeks old in this case. I am not really sure I understand why Ashcroft allows the moss to grow on his results before publication.
Perhaps he is taking betting positions (in the knowledge it will move markets) or otherwise exploiting it before sharing it with the likes of us, for free?
This megapoll is unquestionably good for Labour. As these seats are tory held what happened to the incumbency bonus?
My only reservation, like the last megapoll, is that the data is so old, nearly 5 weeks old in this case. I am not really sure I understand why Ashcroft allows the moss to grow on his results before publication.
Perhaps he is taking betting positions (in the knowledge it will move markets) or otherwise exploiting it before sharing it with the likes of us, for free?
Whilst PB loyalists fend off the dribblings of the "Scottish Independence One" they may also wish to note in their busy diaries :
0900hrs 18th September 2013 - First McARSE Scottish Independence Referendum Projection.
Before we swallow the proffered pill, what is the track record of your McARSE projection?
One year prior to Polling Day, what did you predict the result would be in the Norwegian independence referendum? What about the Icelandic independence referendum?
You're being treated to the inaugural McARSE referendum projection Stuart.
Do you not feel a sense of history course through your veins as the mighty ARSE branches out to provide PBers and the wider world with the very finest of political projections ??
I think the financial black hole will be a problem for us all, particularly when interest rates and gilt yields return to normal levels. Given the choice of Osborne/Alexanders plan or Balls drunken sailor on shore leave approach, it is a no brainer!
The movement is clearly against Ed Balls "too far too fast" meme, indeed the Lab supporters on here are predicting a bubble now rather than a triple dip. I think this is going to be a major problem for Balls, who with EdM friendless and under attack is not in a position to reshuffle him.
Question 7 in the Ashcroft poll is interesting (on cuts), the big movement is from "too far too fast" to "not far enough or deep enough". The latter is still a minority position, but now held by 17% compared to 10%. How much more will it move in that direction before 2015?
Question 10 is also interesting; it looks to me as if all parties are fairly equally toxic. A beauty contest between Cindarellas sisters!
I'm expecting/hoping the lack of spending cuts to be an issue in the 2015 election. After all the talk of 'tough decisions', and 'difficult choices', I think the voters will be surprised by the distance between rhetoric and action.
Ah. I think it's going to be a problem for the Conservatives/LDs. Their 2010 supporters are going to be asking "what have they been doing for the past 5 years"? The coalition was supposedly formed to deal with HMG budget black hole. That was supposed to be their primary objective, which they were going to address by cutting government spending.
But that was the choice we made in 2010. And the team we chose, the one offering to cut government spending (rather than just increase taxes, which they have done) has not delivered.
@DavidL – “This positively encourages the author, I use that term loosely, to spice up the stories and the character assassination.”
Oh I don’t know, I got the impression that the daily goings on within No10 at the time, require no ‘spicing up’ per se, - quite the opposite in fact, as a true account would probably lead to jail time.
And where would you find a credible witness in Gordon Brown's Downing Street operation?
Last word on the subject – I doubt we shall ever find one, I doubt such an animal exists.
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
This megapoll is unquestionably good for Labour. As these seats are tory held what happened to the incumbency bonus?
My only reservation, like the last megapoll, is that the data is so old, nearly 5 weeks old in this case. I am not really sure I understand why Ashcroft allows the moss to grow on his results before publication.
In the last 5 weeks we have had a fairly thorough and consistent character assassination of Ed Miliband, almost exclusively by what is supposed to be his own side. Would that have made a difference? Who knows. It has not moved the main polls enormously but these super marginals are more politicised, constantly getting more attention from the parties than the rest of us and they may well be more susceptible to this kind of mood music.
Still, once again, it shows there is absolutely no room for complacancy on the tory side. Any assumptions of a gentle swing back to victory with Ed deflating are misplaced. At this stage that is a good thing. The tories have become increasingly focussed in their messaging this year and need to keep that up.
Can only comment from anecdote, but I've talked to a lot of people already. I've met Labour supporters who said they worried that Ed wasn't doing better, and Tories who said they didn't rate Ed. I've not met anyone - literally zero - who said they would have voted Labour but were being put off by Ed. I think he's priced in.
Having canvassed quite a bit in London as wel as my marginal, London is MUCH more politicised. A typical local question is what I think about the tramworks; a typical London question is Syria.
This poll is certainly good news for you Nick. But I think in the ever more presidential contest we have these days you are being a little optimistic if you think that people's perceptions of Ed, however unfair, will not move votes.
Also glad to hear it is not just the burghers of Edinburgh who spend all their time lamenting their betters obsession with trams!
I think the orange bookers are just defending their role. The LDs need a position of equidistance from the two parties to remain viable in the long term. With both parties abandoning the centre ground it looks a good opportunity to restate the position of equidistance.
Morning all
Nice to see so many up so early on what is in London at any rate a glorious morning. Before I do something more useful with my life such as some gardening, just a reflection or two on the above.
Yes, the LDs have a record in Government to defend and there's a strong argument that it is a "work in progress". None of that presages a second Coalition. There are elements in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that want the Coalition to have a defined end (quite apart from those who never wanted it to start).
Within activists, partisan bloggers and contributors to forums like this is a strong element of adversarial competitive politics based on distinct competing ideologies and policies. It's all about the debate, the argument, the election, the fight if you will. It becomes impossible to suppress these instincts indefinitely.
In 1945, both Conservative and Labour members of the Wartime Coalition wanted to get back to business as usual almost as soon as the Germans surrendered (and while we were still fighting the Japanese). The verbal sparring between the likes of Brendan Bracken and Aneurin Bevan in the spring of 1945 is indicative of this.
This is why I've always been doubtful of Coalition 2 or at least in the same form as Coalition 1. The Ashcroft poll suggests neither current Government party will be in a position to do much more than heckle from the side lines at the Government Front Bench. What will be interesting is to see how quickly in policy terms the two parties diverge and the extent to which one or either repudiates the actions of the 2010-15 Government.
All sides agree Scotland *could* be a successful, prosperous independent country. If that is true, why not be one? I can't find a logical argument against it. My Unionism is based on an instinctive notion of solidarity that developed because I grew up and have always worked with people from all parts of the UK and (Ireland). I have learned we're much more the same than not, so why break-up? But if I were sitting in Scotland I can see that might not be a good enough reason.
If the UK was so super the Irish would be pounding the door trying to get back in. Closely followed by the Australians, Jamaicans, Americans et al.
Mostly what we'd expect, consistent what we'd have thought based on the national polls, plus the way LD has held up against Con in Eastleigh and local elections.
One new data point is that we might have expected the "thinking about your constituency" question to help Con recover some votes from UKIP. But in fact there's not much movement, and what there is helps Lab and Lib (?!?) in Lab/Con marginals. In Con/Lib marginals the Con share actually drops.
I still think UKIP will fall back to the benefit of Con, but it doesn't look like Con can hope for a lot of tactical support in the marginals from their UKIP defectors. Maybe right-wingers just don't do tactical voting.
The LD vote did not 'hold up' in Eastleigh. It fell.
2010 Eastleigh: LD 47% 2013 Eastleigh: LD 32%
I said it held up against Con. UKIP took votes from both of them.
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Dickson wanted out of Scotland. He's currently spoiling the Swedish landscape.
"And McBride on Ed Miliband "His voice and tone reminded me eerily of Hal the computer in the film 2001"
Opportunity for some great mash ups from 2001....
Just before the Labour leadership contest, David Miliband asks his brother to stand aside.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave: What's the problem? HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Dave: What are you talking about, HAL? HAL: The mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it....
And a little more recently to the Shadow Cabinet:
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
And then the PMQ's we would all remember:
Ed stands up and addresses the Prime Minister: "I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a .... fraid. Good afternoon gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer....."
All sides agree Scotland *could* be a successful, prosperous independent country. If that is true, why not be one? I can't find a logical argument against it. My Unionism is based on an instinctive notion of solidarity that developed because I grew up and have always worked with people from all parts of the UK and (Ireland). I have learned we're much more the same than not, so why break-up? But if I were sitting in Scotland I can see that might not be a good enough reason.
If the UK was so super the Irish would be pounding the door trying to get back in. Closely followed by the Australians, Jamaicans, Americans et al.
I'm surprised that such a proud patriot as you sees Scotland's interests as indistinguishable from those of Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and the US
The papers' spin on the Ashcroft polling is that the strong UKIP showing in these seats is decimating the tories' vote. It not because people are switching to labour.
All sides agree Scotland *could* be a successful, prosperous independent country. If that is true, why not be one? I can't find a logical argument against it. My Unionism is based on an instinctive notion of solidarity that developed because I grew up and have always worked with people from all parts of the UK and (Ireland). I have learned we're much more the same than not, so why break-up? But if I were sitting in Scotland I can see that might not be a good enough reason.
If the UK was so super the Irish would be pounding the door trying to get back in. Closely followed by the Australians, Jamaicans, Americans et al.
I'm surprised that such a proud patriot as you sees Scotland's interests as indistinguishable from those of Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and the US
I think the orange bookers are just defending their role. The LDs need a position of equidistance from the two parties to remain viable in the long term. With both parties abandoning the centre ground it looks a good opportunity to restate the position of equidistance.
Morning all
Nice to see so many up so early on what is in London at any rate a glorious morning. Before I do something more useful with my life such as some gardening, just a reflection or two on the above.
Yes, the LDs have a record in Government to defend and there's a strong argument that it is a "work in progress". None of that presages a second Coalition. There are elements in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that want the Coalition to have a defined end (quite apart from those who never wanted it to start).
Within activists, partisan bloggers and contributors to forums like this is a strong element of adversarial competitive politics based on distinct competing ideologies and policies. It's all about the debate, the argument, the election, the fight if you will. It becomes impossible to suppress these instincts indefinitely.
In 1945, both Conservative and Labour members of the Wartime Coalition wanted to get back to business as usual almost as soon as the Germans surrendered (and while we were still fighting the Japanese). The verbal sparring between the likes of Brendan Bracken and Aneurin Bevan in the spring of 1945 is indicative of this.
This is why I've always been doubtful of Coalition 2 or at least in the same form as Coalition 1. The Ashcroft poll suggests neither current Government party will be in a position to do much more than heckle from the side lines at the Government Front Bench. What will be interesting is to see how quickly in policy terms the two parties diverge and the extent to which one or either repudiates the actions of the 2010-15 Government.
The garden beckons...
After a beautiful day yesterday we have driving rain and howling gales today.
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Another idiot who can see into the future, typical pompous Tory.
If Scotland and England ever came to an equitable 'devomax' settlement that largely satisfied both countries, might that model appear attractive to some former colonies??
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Another idiot who can see into the future, typical pompous Tory.
How do you account for the 11 point swing in today's Panelbase in favour of the Union?
Many of these Labour seats were surprise Tory gains in 2010 and not even won in 1992, eg Ipswich, Sherwood, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Weaver Vale so it is not surprising if they swing back to Labour and have an above average swing to Labour after an above average swing to the Tories in 2010. The Tories will clearly need to squeeze the UKIP vote to hold their key seats though both against Labour and the LDs. Seats the Tories won in 2010 saw an above average swing to the Tories too given the LD-Tory swing was about 1.5%
If Scotland and England ever came to an equitable 'devomax' settlement that largely satisfied both countries, might that model appear attractive to some former colonies??
This megapoll is unquestionably good for Labour. As these seats are tory held what happened to the incumbency bonus?
g are misplaced. At this stage that is a good thing. The tories have become increasingly focussed in their messaging this year and need to keep that up.
Can only comment from anecdote, but I've talked to a lot of people already. I've met Labour supporters who said they worried that Ed wasn't doing better, and Tories who said they didn't rate Ed. I've not met anyone - literally zero - who said they would have voted Labour but were being put off by Ed. I think he's priced in.
Having canvassed quite a bit in London as wel as my marginal, London is MUCH more politicised. A typical local question is what I think about the tramworks; a typical London question is Syria.
This poll is certainly good news for you Nick. But I think in the ever more presidential contest we have these days you are being a little optimistic if you think that people's perceptions of Ed, however unfair, will not move votes.
Also glad to hear it is not just the burghers of Edinburgh who spend all their time lamenting their betters obsession with trams!
Even if nothing else happens the split of 2010 lib Dems 34% Lab to 10% Con in a marginal like Broxtow would see nick home.
Of the 9,000 Lib Dems in the seat you'd expect around 3000 to vote Labour and 1000 to vote Conservative. Allowing Anna Soubry to go and spend more time researching cake sizes in the 60's
The problem with that thesis of how LD's will vote in Broxtowe is that prior to 2010 Nick was telling us that half the LD's in Broxtowe were already voting for him . Assuming that was true it would say that those who did vote LD in 2010 were not so likely to shift to Labour now . Indeed in the local elections in 2011 and in May , they still voted LD although Nick told us that that was personal votes for good LD councillors .
LOL & the arch hypocrite Tim going into overdrive over one poll that suits his party. Do as I say, not as I do, typical Labour really.
Mid terms polls are an interesting distraction but they don't give much guidance to what will happen at a general election. There is no consequence in stating your voting intention is UKIP in a mid term poll, there are huge, damaging consequences if the country wakes up on 8th May 2015 with Ed Miliband as PM.
And that's what the tory general election campaign will/should largely focus on. In the real world, there are only two possible PM's after this election, regardless of what reservations you have about Cameron, how would you feel if Ed Miliband was PM?
ComRes poll on LD councillors - 38% would prefer coalition with Labour after 2015; 16% with Labour. Cable preferred leader if Clegg were to stand down.
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Another idiot who can see into the future, typical pompous Tory.
How do you account for the 11 point swing in today's Panelbase in favour of the Union?
A suffer fall in Yes support or
The change in methodology ?
Carlotta, I do not concern myself with Scottish polls at present, they have been proven to be consistently bollocks till the last month or so of campaigns. I will start to look at them from August 2014. Only thing I will say is that it will be a lot closer than Bitter Together or Curtice think it will be.
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
I think the financial black hole will be a problem for us all, particularly when interest rates and gilt yields return to normal levels. Given the choice of Osborne/Alexanders plan or Balls drunken sailor on shore leave approach, it is a no brainer!
The movement is clearly against Ed Balls "too far too fast" meme, indeed the Lab supporters on here are predicting a bubble now rather than a triple dip. I think this is going to be a major problem for Balls, who with EdM friendless and under attack is not in a position to reshuffle him.
Ah. I think it's going to be a problem for the Conservatives/LDs. Their 2010 supporters are going to be asking "what have they been doing for the past 5 years"? The coalition was supposedly formed to deal with HMG budget black hole. That was supposed to be their primary objective, which they were going to address by cutting government spending.
But that was the choice we made in 2010. And the team we chose, the one offering to cut government spending (rather than just increase taxes, which they have done) has not delivered.
I think the financial black hole will be a problem for us all, particularly when interest rates and gilt yields return to normal levels. Given the choice of Osborne/Alexanders plan or Balls drunken sailor on shore leave approach, it is a no brainer!
But that was the choice we made in 2010. And the team we chose, the one offering to cut government spending (rather than just increase taxes, which they have done) has not delivered.
ComRes poll on LD councillors - 38% would prefer coalition with Labour after 2015; 16% with Labour. Cable preferred leader if Clegg were to stand down.
The Lib-Lab pact was a disaster and Blair betrayed Ashdown in 1997 while the Coalition has been a success. Real LibDems know that their true enemy is Labour.
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies from CoE.
Douglas Adams had a nice political skit in one of his books:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
If you really think there is no difference between Balls and Osborne/Alexander, then you reach the position that I said.
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies from CoE.
Douglas Adams had a nice political skit in one of his books:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
@JGForsyth: Clegg called Cable to ask him to speak against a return to a 50p top rate. Vince agreed. Clegg now expects 2 win vote http://t.co/ZRklGtKkeP
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.
Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without
If you really think there is no difference between Balls and Osborne/Alexander, then you reach the position that I said.
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies from CoE.
Douglas Adams had a nice political skit in one of his books:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
Choice and competition is a proven way to drive up quality. If UKIP manages to elect their Westminster candidates, it will provoke a response from the other parties.
The people that labour posters should be railing at aren't tories but those on their own side who are trying to destabilise Ed.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
The right is split, UKIP switchers loathe Cameron a d he loathes them. And he's killing the Tory membership on the ground
Uncomfortable truths that the bulk of the PB Tories want to hide from
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
If you really think there is no difference between Balls and Osborne/Alexander, then you reach the position that I said.
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
UKIP is a dead end. --------------------
Is foxinsoxuk really equating UKIP with the communist party? Is he saying that Nigel farage is a new Lenin?
Has foxinsoxuk gone bonkers, or was he always mad?
The people that labour posters should be railing at aren't tories but those on their own side who are trying to destabilise Ed.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
The right is split, UKIP switchers loathe Cameron a d he loathes them. And he's killing the Tory membership on the ground
Uncomfortable truths that the bulk of the PB Tories want to hide from
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
Cameron is not "pretending" to offer a route out of the EU. He is offering a referendum which will offer a vote to leave the EU although he would like to stay in a reformed EU. This goes back to Hague's leadership - "in Europe but not run by Europe".
The people that labour posters should be railing at aren't tories but those on their own side who are trying to destabilise Ed.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
The right is split, UKIP switchers loathe Cameron a d he loathes them. And he's killing the Tory membership on the ground
Uncomfortable truths that the bulk of the PB Tories want to hide from
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
Cameron is not "pretending" to offer a route out of the EU. He is offering a referendum which will offer a vote to leave the EU although he would like to stay in a reformed EU. This goes back to Hague's leadership - "in Europe but not run by Europe".
True, but you wonder what the likelihood of leaving the EU will be when you have a PM (who may be offering a referendum) that wants to stay in and the two other largest parties (certainly in parliamentary terms) also will want to stay in. Will be very difficult for the sceptics to win.
The people that labour posters should be railing at aren't tories but those on their own side who are trying to destabilise Ed.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
The right is split, UKIP switchers loathe Cameron a d he loathes them. And he's killing the Tory membership on the ground
Uncomfortable truths that the bulk of the PB Tories want to hide from
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
Cameron is not "pretending" to offer a route out of the EU. He is offering a referendum which will offer a vote to leave the EU although he would like to stay in a reformed EU. This goes back to Hague's leadership - "in Europe but not run by Europe".
The Conservatives voted against a referendum in 2011. Their 'offer' of a referendum after the 2015 election is not credible.
The people that labour posters should be railing at aren't tories but those on their own side who are trying to destabilise Ed.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
The right is split, UKIP switchers loathe Cameron a d he loathes them. And he's killing the Tory membership on the ground
Uncomfortable truths that the bulk of the PB Tories want to hide from
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
Cameron is not "pretending" to offer a route out of the EU. He is offering a referendum which will offer a vote to leave the EU although he would like to stay in a reformed EU. This goes back to Hague's leadership - "in Europe but not run by Europe".
True, but you wonder what the likelihood of leaving the EU will be when you have a PM (who may be offering a referendum) that wants to stay in and the two other largest parties (certainly in parliamentary terms) also will want to stay in. Will be very difficult for the sceptics to win.
The renegotation is the element many will not find genuine.
hard to believe the absolute bollocks Davey is spouting at Lib Dem conference, deluded fool thinks the Lib Dems actually matter. Hall is very very sparsely populated.
hard to believe the absolute bollocks Davey is spouting at Lib Dem conference, deluded fool thinks the Lib Dems actually matter. Hall is very very sparsely populated.
What I don't quite understand about UKIP is that you describe yourselves as a libertarian party, and then oppose gay marriage. A truer libertarian position IMO (other than derecognising marriage in the legal system, which would be impracticable) would be to do something like abolish "straight marriage" and offer civil partnership as the only option for a State-recognised partnership.
I count myself a true liberal - liberal-libertarian on social issues and a 19th century liberal on economics - and vote Tory fairly grudgingly as they are the most liberal on economics and while there are some members with a libertarian bent there are also social conservatives and authoritarians in there. The Lib Dems contain too many left-liberals and social democrats.
For local elections I am less of a Tory as macroeconomic issues are not really important. I would hope that a Tory council would generally be in favour of small (local) government and spending less taxpayers' money, but often I despair at the fact that they are as likely to want to p*ss taxpayers' money up against the wall as anyone. I do sometimes vote LibDem in local elections and I voted UKIP for the first time (I think) in the Counties this year. In the neighbouring borough of Rushmoor you have some local councillors who have been doing good work on the ground.
But - quite apart from the tactical voting thing of letting Labour in by the back door, which means I will probably continue voting Tory in GEs - you are not going to attract people like me if you continue to pander to social conservatives.
hard to believe the absolute bollocks Davey is spouting at Lib Dem conference, deluded fool thinks the Lib Dems actually matter. Hall is very very sparsely populated.
I saw one of the Unionist papers trying to claim that the LD conference would be a boost to Glasgow's economy. Ho ho. They could have fitted in to a pub function room in Auchtermuchty. Would've saved a few quid, and given the regulars a laugh.
All sides agree Scotland *could* be a successful, prosperous independent country. If that is true, why not be one? I can't find a logical argument against it. My Unionism is based on an instinctive notion of solidarity that developed because I grew up and have always worked with people from all parts of the UK and (Ireland). I have learned we're much more the same than not, so why break-up? But if I were sitting in Scotland I can see that might not be a good enough reason.
If the UK was so super the Irish would be pounding the door trying to get back in. Closely followed by the Australians, Jamaicans, Americans et al.
I'm surprised that such a proud patriot as you sees Scotland's interests as indistinguishable from those of Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and the US
At no point did I say that Ireland, Australia, Jamaica, the U.S. (and all the other former parts of the UK) have common interests. Obviously they do sometimes and they don't at other times. Such is the nature of sovereign states.
However, one thing is very clear, it is in none of their interests to re-join the United Kingdom.
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Appearances can be deceptive. I'd wait until the counting is finished before declaring a victor if I were you.
Either D. Cameron or A. Salmond is going to be very, very, very chuffed with himself come the 19th of September 2014. Will we be able to bear it?
What I don't quite understand about UKIP is that you describe yourselves as a libertarian party, and then oppose gay marriage. A truer libertarian position IMO (other than derecognising marriage in the legal system, which would be impracticable) would be to do something like abolish "straight marriage" and offer civil partnership as the only option for a State-recognised partnership.
I count myself a true liberal - liberal-libertarian on social issues and a 19th century liberal on economics - and vote Tory fairly grudgingly as they are the most liberal on economics and while there are some members with a libertarian bent there are also social conservatives and authoritarians in there. The Lib Dems contain too many left-liberals and social democrats.
For local elections I am less of a Tory as macroeconomic issues are not really important. I would hope that a Tory council would generally be in favour of small (local) government and spending less taxpayers' money, but often I despair at the fact that they are as likely to want to p*ss taxpayers' money up against the wall as anyone. I do sometimes vote LibDem in local elections and I voted UKIP for the first time (I think) in the Counties this year. In the neighbouring borough of Rushmoor you have some local councillors who have been doing good work on the ground.
But - quite apart from the tactical voting thing of letting Labour in by the back door, which means I will probably continue voting Tory in GEs - you are not going to attract people like me if you continue to pander to social conservatives.
You would seem to fit neatly as an "Orange Book LibDem" rather than a grudging Conservative ?
labour might have a problem that nobody thinks Ed is up to being PM but nothing compared to the glass ceiling that this poll seems to imply about the Conservatives.
Quite simply whether they tack to the right or left there are just too many voters who'll do what's necessary to keep them out. It's not totally rational as I can attest being one them. I guess the best example is still Ratners. It's just an irretrievably trashed brand.
Choice and competition do not apply well in fptp, and the principle is particularly problematic in marginal seats. I voted green in one GE where I was in a safe seat, to apply pressure on the parties to take the green agenda seriously.
If you vote UKIP in local elections or the euros, then the pressure may alter the Tories policy. If you do so in a marginal seat in a general election then only Mr Balls will be smiling.
My analogy of UKIP with the Bolsheviks is that both are political groups who want to destroy the established political order by any means, and not too worried about collateral damage. Clearly they are not politically alike.
All things will pass, and David Cameron will not be leader forever. To chop down the tree because you do not like the bird singing in it is very foolish.
If you really think there is no difference between Balls and Osborne/Alexander, then you reach the position that I said.
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies
Choice and competition is a proven way to drive up quality. If UKIP manages to elect their Westminster candidates, it will provoke a response from the other parties.
Choice and competition do not apply well in fptp, and the principle is particularly problematic in marginal seats. I voted green in one GE where I was in a safe seat, to apply pressure on the parties to take the green agenda seriously.
If you vote UKIP in local elections or the euros, then the pressure may alter the Tories policy. If you do so in a marginal seat in a general election then only Mr Balls will be smiling.
My analogy of UKIP with the Bolsheviks is that both are political groups who want to destroy the established political order by any means, and not too worried about collateral damage. Clearly they are not politically alike.
All things will pass, and David Cameron will not be leader forever. To chop down the tree because you do not like the bird singing in it is very foolish.
If you really think there is no difference between Balls and Osborne/Alexander, then you reach the position that I said.
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies
Choice and competition is a proven way to drive up quality. If UKIP manages to elect their Westminster candidates, it will provoke a response from the other parties.
@IsabelOakeshott: I can't wait for @DPMcBride memoir. Tantalising teasers p25 Mail. Alistair Darling described as "absolutely clueless". Attack dog returns
Ho ho. If I were a Scottish Tory like you Scott I wouldn't be trying to spread the "Alistair Darling is absolutely clueless" meme. You are aware of his current job, aren't you? David Cameron's right hand man in the restive Caledonian province.
You would seem to fit neatly as an "Orange Book LibDem" rather than a grudging Conservative ?
I would, but I probably disagree more with the left-liberal/social democrat wing of the LibDems than I do with the bits of the Conservative party I disagree with. And I am not even sure the Orange-Bookers are "liberal" enough for me. I did vote Lib Dem in 1997 but living in Kingston it was the most effective anti-Government vote. If I was German I would almost certainly vote Free Democrat.
Edited to add: I am almost a Hannanite, although sometimes I think he goes a bit far. I would have probably voted UKIP in the last Euros if he had not been at the top of the Tory list.
What I don't quite understand about UKIP is that you describe yourselves as a libertarian party, and then oppose gay marriage. A truer libertarian position IMO (other than derecognising marriage in the legal system, which would be impracticable) would be to do something like abolish "straight marriage" and offer civil partnership as the only option for a State-recognised partnership.
I count myself a true liberal - liberal-libertarian on social issues and a 19th century liberal on economics - and vote Tory fairly grudgingly as they are the most liberal on economics and while there are some members with a libertarian bent there are also social conservatives and authoritarians in there. The Lib Dems contain too many left-liberals and social democrats.
I do think UKIP has made some serious errors as far as its positioning on matters like gay marriage are concerned and I do think those decisions can be seen as undermining the UKIP claim to be Libertarian. There are many of us within the party who would like to see that change but it will not do so as long as the current leadership unfortunately sees some short term polling gain from those positions.
But I also believe you are confusing Liberal and Libertarian in your critique. UKIP is certainly far more Libertarian - in so far as it is anti-statist - than any of the other main parties and certainly far more than the Liberal Democrats who seem at times to have an astounding lack of what both liberalism and democracy mean.
I have been meaning for some time to right a piece for OGH on the problems that UKIP face internally which I believe could seriously impact on their chances of performing well next year and one of the issues that I believe they need to urgently address is the disconnect between their stated philosophical position as a Libertarian party and their actual policies when it comes to dealing with issues that some of their older, more socially conservative, members and supporters find distasteful. I do fear (for their sake) that were they to harden up some of their Libertarian credentials then they might find that some of their ex-Tory support began to drift away again.
I can't believe that Scotland will vote to continue the Union while Cameron and the Tories are in power. it's not rational particularly if they look like winning in 2015. Surely the number of Scottish Tory MPs indicates what the Scottish think of the party currently governing them?
I can't believe that Scotland will vote to continue the Union while Cameron and the Tories are in power. it's not rational particularly if they look like winning in 2015. Surely the number of Scottish Tory MPs indicates what they think of the party currently governing them?
I can't believe you have such a low opinion of the Scots to suggest they will vote for a permanent state of independence because they don't like the government they have now or for the next 2 or possibly 7 years.
I would certainly be interested in reading such an article.
The problem with Liberal is that it means two things - the original version which is often now considered closer to Libertarianism, and the American definition which seems to have been adopted by everyone else to mean, approximately, Guardian readers.
Interestingly, the Greens still use the old version, as their leader in her Conference keynote address in which she called for far-left policies, referred to the Cons, Labs and LibDems as being "liberal parties"
JL..Woger..man of the moment..but just for the moment. He doesn't seem to understand that seperation will be permanent. Scots will not return if Labour are in Number 10. The 30 second- eternity man.
What I don't quite understand about UKIP is that you describe yourselves as a libertarian party, and then oppose gay marriage. A truer libertarian position IMO (other than derecognising marriage in the legal system, which would be impracticable) would be to do something like abolish "straight marriage" and offer civil partnership as the only option for a State-recognised partnership.
I count myself a true liberal - liberal-libertarian on social issues and a 19th century liberal on economics - and vote Tory fairly grudgingly as they are the most liberal on economics and while there are some members with a libertarian bent there are also social conservatives and authoritarians in there. The Lib Dems contain too many left-liberals and social democrats.
I do think UKIP has made some serious errors as far as its positioning on matters like gay marriage are concerned and I do think those decisions can be seen as undermining the UKIP claim to be Libertarian. There are many of us within the party who would like to see that change but it will not do so as long as the current leadership unfortunately sees some short term polling gain from those positions.
But I also believe you are confusing Liberal and Libertarian in your critique. UKIP is certainly far more Libertarian - in so far as it is anti-statist - than any of the other main parties and certainly far more than the Liberal Democrats who seem at times to have an astounding lack of what both liberalism and democracy mean.
I have been meaning for some time to right a piece for OGH on the problems that UKIP face internally which I believe could seriously impact on their chances of performing well next year and one of the issues that I believe they need to urgently address is the disconnect between their stated philosophical position as a Libertarian party and their actual policies when it comes to dealing with issues that some of their older, more socially conservative, members and supporters find distasteful. I do fear (for their sake) that were they to harden up some of their Libertarian credentials then they might find that some of their ex-Tory support began to drift away again.
UKIP have no objection to same-sex civil unions. Their objection to gay marriage is presented as a defence of religious freedom.
All sides agree Scotland *could* be a successful, prosperous independent country. If that is true, why not be one? I can't find a logical argument against it. My Unionism is based on an instinctive notion of solidarity that developed because I grew up and have always worked with people from all parts of the UK and (Ireland). I have learned we're much more the same than not, so why break-up? But if I were sitting in Scotland I can see that might not be a good enough reason.
If the UK was so super the Irish would be pounding the door trying to get back in. Closely followed by the Australians, Jamaicans, Americans et al.
I'm surprised that such a proud patriot as you sees Scotland's interests as indistinguishable from those of Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and the US
At no point did I say that Ireland, Australia, Jamaica, the U.S. (and all the other former parts of the UK) have common interests. Obviously they do sometimes and they don't at other times. Such is the nature of sovereign states.
However, one thing is very clear, it is in none of their interests to re-join the United Kingdom.
What you said was "if the UK is so super why aren't X and Y pounding on the door".
The answer is that they have different interests to Scotland and the Scottish.
So you are agreeing that your original response to SO was meaningless?
(On malcolmg, his comment was so pointless I'll just tag the response on here: malcolm, I wasn't predicting the future. Just noting that, based on polls, it appears that a majority of Scots are cntent in the Union. It's not pompous or 'typically Tory' to look at polls occasionally...
John Lilburne - my problem with Clegg's liberalism is that it seems stuck in the pre-democratic 19th century. It's like the 20th century never happened with these guys. Prominent figures like Lloyd George, Beveridge and Keynes aren't important to them. They've been remarkably receptive to the neoliberal economic ideas of the last 30 years. Their belief in creating a fairer world whilst scorning the state seems pretty strange right now.
Vote UKIP, get Balls as CoE with a working majority. That is the message from this poll.
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
What I'm saying is that if you vote Conservative/LD, you also get Balls' policies from CoE.
Douglas Adams had a nice political skit in one of his books:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
Choice and competition do not apply well in fptp, and the principle is particularly problematic in marginal seats. I voted green in one GE where I was in a safe seat, to apply pressure on the parties to take the green agenda seriously.
If you vote UKIP in local elections or the euros, then the pressure may alter the Tories policy. If you do so in a marginal seat in a general election then only Mr Balls will be smiling.
My analogy of UKIP with the Bolsheviks is that both are political groups who want to destroy the established political order by any means, and not too worried about collateral damage. Clearly they are not politically alike.
All things will pass, and David Cameron will not be leader forever. To chop down the tree because you do not like the bird singing in it is very foolish.
There is only pressure if UKIP candidates get elected. If they don't get their candidates elected, they can be ignored.
I do not think there is a meaningful policy difference between the Conservatives and Labour.
Just to add is Clegg yet another British politician guilty of Victorian nostaglia? His own brand of politics seems to go back there just as Mrs Thatcher's did.
John Lilburne In France to be a 'liberal' is a dirty word on the left, in Germany, Scandinavia and Italy Liberals tend to be on the centre-right, as they do in Japan, and of course the Liberal Party in Australia is clearly right of centre. It is only really in the USA and Canada where Liberals are centre-left
We do not have any straight Lab-Con battleground seats in Scotland, let alone "mega-marginals", so I assume that none were included in the Ashcroft fieldwork?
The poll only covers Conservative-held seats and there's only one in Scotland (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale) and it's not a marginal.
Thanks.
So, not a single Scottish or Northern Irish seat was included in the Ashcroft poll. Were there any Welsh ones?
Quite the opposite.
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
And some folk wonder why we want out.
A majority of "you" appears to want to remain in
Appearances can be deceptive. I'd wait until the counting is finished before declaring a victor if I were you.
Either D. Cameron or A. Salmond is going to be very, very, very chuffed with himself come the 19th of September 2014. Will we be able to bear it?
I wasn't declaring a victor - I was just commenting that it's a bit much to make sure a bold statement on behalf of the Scots when the best evidence that we have is that they take a diametrically opposite position
JL..Woger..man of the moment..but just for the moment. He doesn't seem to understand that seperation will be permanent. Scots will not return if Labour are in Number 10. The 30 second- eternity man.
UKIP have no objection to same-sex civil unions. Their objection to gay marriage is presented as a defence of religious freedom.
They might try to present it as that but it is not. That is simply the excuse they use to try and ameliorate what would otherwise be a thoroughly unpalatable policy position for much of th e rest of the public - most particularly those who they would most like to try and attract to the party.
UKIP have no objection to same-sex civil unions. Their objection to gay marriage is presented as a defence of religious freedom.
They might try to present it as that but it is not. That is simply the excuse they use to try and ameliorate what would otherwise be a thoroughly unpalatable policy position for much of th e rest of the public - most particularly those who they would most like to try and attract to the party. Why? What's wrong with it? Why is same sex 'marriage', so different to same sex 'civil union'? What extra rights are being denied?
What you said was "if the UK is so super why aren't X and Y pounding on the door".
The answer is that they have different interests to Scotland and the Scottish.
So you are agreeing that your original response to SO was meaningless?
(On malcolmg, his comment was so pointless I'll just tag the response on here: malcolm, I wasn't predicting the future. Just noting that, based on polls, it appears that a majority of Scots are cntent in the Union. It's not pompous or 'typically Tory' to look at polls occasionally...
Charles, we hear on this site daily about Scottish polls , sub polls, the inaccuracy of polls, etc , so why would an educated person make such an assertion based on a poll over 1 year away from the actual event. It is pompous and it is typical Tory viewpoint, you just do not realise you are doing it. I will give you another example of the great union as well whilst I am here, on the BBC yesterday they announced that they were now going to give all the British sporting news and what do you think it consisted of , ENGLISH premiership and ENGLAND cricket , no other sport was taking place across Britain yesterday afternoon. That Tories like you are unable to understand how condescending and pompous is amazing, only excuse I can give is that you are spoon fed it from birth.
Comments
If it wasn't for the Scots overwhelming desire to impose a hated Labour administration on England, the English would have much more chance of being ruled by a majority government of their choice ;-)
McBride will always be a scumbag, but even scumbags can sometimes tell the truth.
Good idea to get your defence in early tho..
So he's doing it for noble reasons like the good Catholic that he is.
Royalties from sales of the book will be split between McBride’s current employer CAFOD (the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development) and his former employers, Finchley Catholic High School.
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/biteback-signs-damian-mcbride.html
Having canvassed quite a bit in London as wel as my marginal, London is MUCH more politicised. A typical local question is what I think about the tramworks; a typical London question is Syria.
Also glad to hear it is not just the burghers of Edinburgh who spend all their time lamenting their betters obsession with trams!
Nice to see so many up so early on what is in London at any rate a glorious morning. Before I do something more useful with my life such as some gardening, just a reflection or two on the above.
Yes, the LDs have a record in Government to defend and there's a strong argument that it is a "work in progress". None of that presages a second Coalition. There are elements in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that want the Coalition to have a defined end (quite apart from those who never wanted it to start).
Within activists, partisan bloggers and contributors to forums like this is a strong element of adversarial competitive politics based on distinct competing ideologies and policies. It's all about the debate, the argument, the election, the fight if you will. It becomes impossible to suppress these instincts indefinitely.
In 1945, both Conservative and Labour members of the Wartime Coalition wanted to get back to business as usual almost as soon as the Germans surrendered (and while we were still fighting the Japanese). The verbal sparring between the likes of Brendan Bracken and Aneurin Bevan in the spring of 1945 is indicative of this.
This is why I've always been doubtful of Coalition 2 or at least in the same form as Coalition 1. The Ashcroft poll suggests neither current Government party will be in a position to do much more than heckle from the side lines at the Government Front Bench. What will be interesting is to see how quickly in policy terms the two parties diverge and the extent to which one or either repudiates the actions of the 2010-15 Government.
The garden beckons...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-clarkson-hints-he-could-stand-as-an-mp-against-ed-miliband-in-doncaster-8817672.html
"His voice and tone reminded me eerily of Hal the computer in the film 2001"
Opportunity for some great mash ups from 2001....
Just before the Labour leadership contest, David Miliband asks his brother to stand aside.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: The mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it....
And a little more recently to the Shadow Cabinet:
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you..."
And then the PMQ's we would all remember:
Ed stands up and addresses the Prime Minister: "I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a .... fraid. Good afternoon gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer....."
I'm surprised that such a proud patriot as you sees Scotland's interests as indistinguishable from those of Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and the US
Most do Jamaicans want to return to London rule ;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009487/We-stayed-Britain-Shock-poll-reveals-60-Jamaicans-think-theyd-better-colony.html
I haven't seen any recent polls about the views of the other British creations.
From the Ashcroft polling, he only has to keep breathing to get into Downing Street. The right is hopelessly split.
If Scotland and England ever came to an equitable 'devomax' settlement that largely satisfied both countries, might that model appear attractive to some former colonies??
A suffer fall in Yes support or
The change in methodology ?
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110628/lead/lead1.html
Jah.
Mid terms polls are an interesting distraction but they don't give much guidance to what will happen at a general election. There is no consequence in stating your voting intention is UKIP in a mid term poll, there are huge, damaging consequences if the country wakes up on 8th May 2015 with Ed Miliband as PM.
And that's what the tory general election campaign will/should largely focus on. In the real world, there are only two possible PM's after this election, regardless of what reservations you have about Cameron, how would you feel if Ed Miliband was PM?
There will be only one answer
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/429580/Twice-as-many-Lib-Dem-councillors-would-rather-form-coalition-with-Labour
There is an argument that as Lenin said "the worse, the better", in that the worse things get, the sooner the revolution happens. The short term pain was worth the long term gain in his eyes.
If that is what you mean, then vote UKIP, and wait for the revolution. I think you will be waiting a very long time, but I may be wrong.
Real LibDems know that their true enemy is Labour.
Douglas Adams had a nice political skit in one of his books:
“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”
http://www.samizdata.net/2012/08/douglas-adams-o/
The worse, the better. It did put Lenin in power so has some validity. I cannot say that I think that this was a good result for the Russian people, or indeed for the ultimate Communist cause. Where are the Communists now? Those who are left (apart from North Korea) are more capitalist than Tsarist Russia was!
UKIP is a dead end.
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.
Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2exL2BBsv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
AFA UKIP is concerned, our activists and MEPs don't like Cameron because he is not genuine. He tries to take our support by pretending that he is offering people a route out of the EU, when he is not. All his positioning on the EU is intended to undermine UKIP, not to assist a BREXIT. When it suits him, Cameron does not hide his enthusiasm for the 'European project'---he cheerfully admits that he 'works hard' to keep the UK in the EU.
Our switchers from the Tories don't 'loathe' Cameron. Rather, they despair of him, especially when he is off at silly tangents: eg very expensive GW-inspired electricity and gay marriage. And they are irritated when Cameron is scathing towards them. Maybe Cameron does loathe UKIP.
A few will go back to the Tories. However, we've kicked off on the right foot in Cambridgeshire County Council, and earned grudging respect from our LD fellow councillors. Increasingly, UKIP is looking sensible on the ground. There will be plenty more churn to come.
Has foxinsoxuk gone bonkers, or was he always mad?
http://tinyurl.com/m9paq6u
http://tinyurl.com/qbbb74z
http://tinyurl.com/q6okwqz
* Labour is not attracting voters in the marginals at all.
* Ukip will hand the election to Labour.
Vote Ukip get no referendum.
Ed Davey: 'I've been fracking responsible'. This is met by groans
What I don't quite understand about UKIP is that you describe yourselves as a libertarian party, and then oppose gay marriage. A truer libertarian position IMO (other than derecognising marriage in the legal system, which would be impracticable) would be to do something like abolish "straight marriage" and offer civil partnership as the only option for a State-recognised partnership.
I count myself a true liberal - liberal-libertarian on social issues and a 19th century liberal on economics - and vote Tory fairly grudgingly as they are the most liberal on economics and while there are some members with a libertarian bent there are also social conservatives and authoritarians in there. The Lib Dems contain too many left-liberals and social democrats.
For local elections I am less of a Tory as macroeconomic issues are not really important. I would hope that a Tory council would generally be in favour of small (local) government and spending less taxpayers' money, but often I despair at the fact that they are as likely to want to p*ss taxpayers' money up against the wall as anyone. I do sometimes vote LibDem in local elections and I voted UKIP for the first time (I think) in the Counties this year. In the neighbouring borough of Rushmoor you have some local councillors who have been doing good work on the ground.
But - quite apart from the tactical voting thing of letting Labour in by the back door, which means I will probably continue voting Tory in GEs - you are not going to attract people like me if you continue to pander to social conservatives.
At no point did I say that Ireland, Australia, Jamaica, the U.S. (and all the other former parts of the UK) have common interests. Obviously they do sometimes and they don't at other times. Such is the nature of sovereign states.
However, one thing is very clear, it is in none of their interests to re-join the United Kingdom.
Either D. Cameron or A. Salmond is going to be very, very, very chuffed with himself come the 19th of September 2014. Will we be able to bear it?
Quite simply whether they tack to the right or left there are just too many voters who'll do what's necessary to keep them out. It's not totally rational as I can attest being one them. I guess the best example is still Ratners. It's just an irretrievably trashed brand.
If you vote UKIP in local elections or the euros, then the pressure may alter the Tories policy. If you do so in a marginal seat in a general election then only Mr Balls will be smiling.
My analogy of UKIP with the Bolsheviks is that both are political groups who want to destroy the established political order by any means, and not too worried about collateral damage. Clearly they are not politically alike.
All things will pass, and David Cameron will not be leader forever. To chop down the tree because you do not like the bird singing in it is very foolish.
If you vote UKIP in local elections or the euros, then the pressure may alter the Tories policy. If you do so in a marginal seat in a general election then only Mr Balls will be smiling.
My analogy of UKIP with the Bolsheviks is that both are political groups who want to destroy the established political order by any means, and not too worried about collateral damage. Clearly they are not politically alike.
All things will pass, and David Cameron will not be leader forever. To chop down the tree because you do not like the bird singing in it is very foolish.
Afternoon all, the game is now out if you'd like to take part, entries will close at 8pm next Saturday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/germany13/
Many thanks,
DC
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/video-israel-quietly-treats-wounded-syrians
Edited to add: I am almost a Hannanite, although sometimes I think he goes a bit far. I would have probably voted UKIP in the last Euros if he had not been at the top of the Tory list.
I do think UKIP has made some serious errors as far as its positioning on matters like gay marriage are concerned and I do think those decisions can be seen as undermining the UKIP claim to be Libertarian. There are many of us within the party who would like to see that change but it will not do so as long as the current leadership unfortunately sees some short term polling gain from those positions.
But I also believe you are confusing Liberal and Libertarian in your critique. UKIP is certainly far more Libertarian - in so far as it is anti-statist - than any of the other main parties and certainly far more than the Liberal Democrats who seem at times to have an astounding lack of what both liberalism and democracy mean.
I have been meaning for some time to right a piece for OGH on the problems that UKIP face internally which I believe could seriously impact on their chances of performing well next year and one of the issues that I believe they need to urgently address is the disconnect between their stated philosophical position as a Libertarian party and their actual policies when it comes to dealing with issues that some of their older, more socially conservative, members and supporters find distasteful. I do fear (for their sake) that were they to harden up some of their Libertarian credentials then they might find that some of their ex-Tory support began to drift away again.
http://twitpic.com/ddk5fp
I would certainly be interested in reading such an article.
The problem with Liberal is that it means two things - the original version which is often now considered closer to Libertarianism, and the American definition which seems to have been adopted by everyone else to mean, approximately, Guardian readers.
Interestingly, the Greens still use the old version, as their leader in her Conference keynote address in which she called for far-left policies, referred to the Cons, Labs and LibDems as being "liberal parties"
He doesn't seem to understand that seperation will be permanent.
Scots will not return if Labour are in Number 10.
The 30 second- eternity man.
However, one thing is very clear, it is in none of their interests to re-join the United Kingdom.
What you said was "if the UK is so super why aren't X and Y pounding on the door".
The answer is that they have different interests to Scotland and the Scottish.
So you are agreeing that your original response to SO was meaningless?
(On malcolmg, his comment was so pointless I'll just tag the response on here: malcolm, I wasn't predicting the future. Just noting that, based on polls, it appears that a majority of Scots are cntent in the Union. It's not pompous or 'typically Tory' to look at polls occasionally...
In today's Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens suggests that voting should be compulsory, with "None of the below" heading the list of choices
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2420890/PETER-HITCHENS-Get-rid-guns-cars-Tasers-just-end-real-policemen.html
I do not think there is a meaningful policy difference between the Conservatives and Labour.
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
I can't see any betting markets on the outcome of the German GE .... is it really that much of a foregone conclusion?
What you said was "if the UK is so super why aren't X and Y pounding on the door".
The answer is that they have different interests to Scotland and the Scottish.
So you are agreeing that your original response to SO was meaningless?
(On malcolmg, his comment was so pointless I'll just tag the response on here: malcolm, I wasn't predicting the future. Just noting that, based on polls, it appears that a majority of Scots are cntent in the Union. It's not pompous or 'typically Tory' to look at polls occasionally...
Charles, we hear on this site daily about Scottish polls , sub polls, the inaccuracy of polls, etc , so why would an educated person make such an assertion based on a poll over 1 year away from the actual event. It is pompous and it is typical Tory viewpoint, you just do not realise you are doing it.
I will give you another example of the great union as well whilst I am here, on the BBC yesterday they announced that they were now going to give all the British sporting news and what do you think it consisted of , ENGLISH premiership and ENGLAND cricket , no other sport was taking place across Britain yesterday afternoon. That Tories like you are unable to understand how condescending and pompous is amazing, only excuse I can give is that you are spoon fed it from birth.