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.”
You can't reasonably vote for "none of the below" until you have considered all the options. Putting it first will encourage people not to do that. Hence "none of the above" - you consider and consciously reject all the offered alternatives
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
And that presumably reflects their history as paternalist parties (Whigs and Republicans - originally) rather than parties that erupted from the working classes
MG ..Maybe your beef should be with the BBC. I am not aware that Charles is running that at the moment.. and there is certainly a massive building and lots of BBC staff in Glasgow.
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.
Why would Stuart make the assert that "we" [the Scots] want to leave?
The only evidence we have - which is weak, I agree - is that a majority don't. Which is why I carefully stated that "it appears to be" rather than "it is". Positions could change over the next 12 months, but we are talking about today
It's really not worth posting any more on.
I don't have a view on the BBC's sports coverage to be honest. I guess that with a limited amount of time they try to pick the stories that will be of interest to the greatest number of viewers. I know that they don't talk about Spurs that much either, but I don't get offended.
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?
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?
UKIP's views on gay marriage are membership driven, rather than oppotunistic. Why not listen to, and respect your members' opinions on a social issue?
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
If you look at the rise of UKIP recently I am firmly of the opinion that much of the increase in membership and hence the membership view regarding Gay Marriage is because the leadership adopted a position opposing it.
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
Charles - Indeed, that is the key, the US and Canada are the only western nations to not have a socialist, social democratic or labour party as the main party of the centre-left. (Canada looked to be changing in 2011 with the NDP, a social democratic party, overtaking the liberals, but Justin Trudeau and his brand name now seems to have put the liberals back on top for the next election)
"But the survey shows Labour has made no further progress in Tory-held target seats since 2011. In a similar poll two years ago, Lord Ashcroft found Labour on 44 per cent in their targets, compared to 43 per cent today. Support for the Tories over the same period has slumped by six points from 35 per cent to 29 per cent."
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?
Er, the right to marriage. Why is it important to you that there be a distinction under the law? Why should the law have been involved at all in the first place?
Bear in mind the changes have not forced any church or religion to perform gay marriage if they do not want to. All they have done is removed a legal bar to them doing so if they so desire. As such they have reduced legal impediment to free pursuit of beliefs rather than increasing it as you seem to think.
The significance of findings such as these is that a man of 69 is being told he would be the Leader of his party if there is an election sooner rather than later. After GE 2015, Cable will be 71. Can Cable afford to wait that long? He may well be the oldest LD MP after GE 2015, does that weaken his hand? What it would probably require is a major electoral meltdown such as at the EC elections next year. Being left with 1 or 2 MEPs might embolden the LD MPs worried about their seats to act against Clegg. Clegg should beware an old man in a hurry.
UKIP's views on gay marriage are membership driven, rather than oppotunistic. Why not listen to, and respect your members' opinions on a social issue?
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
If you look at the rise of UKIP recently I am firmly of the opinion that much of the increase in membership and hence the membership view regarding Gay Marriage is because the leadership adopted a position opposing it.
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
I also don't think Farage will not soften that image this side of a GE. It wouldn't make sense once he has said it and seems to have given UKIP legs.
UKIP's views on gay marriage are membership driven, rather than oppotunistic. Why not listen to, and respect your members' opinions on a social issue?
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
If you look at the rise of UKIP recently I am firmly of the opinion that much of the increase in membership and hence the membership view regarding Gay Marriage is because the leadership adopted a position opposing it.
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
UKIP trace their boost in support to the Rotherham adoption story.
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?
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?Think about the comparison you're making there.
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?
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?
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?
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?
Think about the comparison you're making there.
I know exactly the comparison I was making.Then you're a muppet.
UKIP's views on gay marriage are membership driven, rather than oppotunistic. Why not listen to, and respect your members' opinions on a social issue?
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
If you look at the rise of UKIP recently I am firmly of the opinion that much of the increase in membership and hence the membership view regarding Gay Marriage is because the leadership adopted a position opposing it.
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
UKIP trace their boost in support to the Rotherham adoption story.
Of course they do. They are hardily going to admit that their increase in support is because they have adopted a homophobic position are they? They are trying to walk the tightrope because they know how many of their long term members including a lot of their activists are of the libertarian bent and find the anti-gay marriage rhetoric extremely difficult to accept.
Sunday Politics. Janan Ganesh says about the LDs "they may well lose 12 or so MPs"! With LDs almost bound to lose 6-7 in Scotland alone and a further 7+ to Labour elsewhere, plus some to the Conservatives, Ganesh's has little grasp of the dynamics involved.
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?
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?
Think about the comparison you're making there.
I know exactly the comparison I was making.
Then you're a muppet.
I thought you were arguing that gays should be satisfied with civil partnerships because marriage confers no extra legal rights.
If I have misunderstood your position then I apologise. But stand by my views in respect of people who do adopt that position.
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.
An offer of a referendum before the GE is not credible, Labour and the LibDums would prevent it in parliament - they have the votes.
JL. It surely reminds them of the recurring possibility of their marginalization?
Sad....
Not sure where to direct this: At Wodger or Scotland. Just look at a map (including Southern France) and draw your own conclusions....
The British-Isles are at an extreme of the Eurasian continent: The sparesely populated [midges excepted] barren Highlands (which just happen to be whip-lashed by Mother-Nature) just happen to exist at the extremes of those same isles. Few people - save the hardy - would wish to live there!
Then consider the South-East: Huge, diverse and placid folk. Kent providing our substinence (including "illegals") to sate our appetites. Close to our Dutch cousins (and their Flemish kin-folk) such as to feel at home. [Hee-he!]
Margins exist: By definition. [Wodger] Your marginally elite ediffication shuld 'ave learntchya dat, innit...?
UKIP's views on gay marriage are membership driven, rather than oppotunistic. Why not listen to, and respect your members' opinions on a social issue?
Because strength of feeling on the issue is heavily correlated with age, the policy could change again. And what would be wrong with that?
If you look at the rise of UKIP recently I am firmly of the opinion that much of the increase in membership and hence the membership view regarding Gay Marriage is because the leadership adopted a position opposing it.
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
UKIP trace their boost in support to the Rotherham adoption story.
Of course they do. They are hardily going to admit that their increase in support is because they have adopted a homophobic position are they? They are trying to walk the tightrope because they know how many of their long term members including a lot of their activists are of the libertarian bent and find the anti-gay marriage rhetoric extremely difficult to accept.
YouGov annotated a poll graph with various events, see if you can insert a date linked to Gay Marriage that fits.
The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:
The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough. Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail; Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post; Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian; Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; and Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.
Comments
I am not aware that Charles is running that at the moment.. and there is certainly a massive building and lots of BBC staff in Glasgow.
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.
Why would Stuart make the assert that "we" [the Scots] want to leave?
The only evidence we have - which is weak, I agree - is that a majority don't. Which is why I carefully stated that "it appears to be" rather than "it is". Positions could change over the next 12 months, but we are talking about today
It's really not worth posting any more on.
I don't have a view on the BBC's sports coverage to be honest. I guess that with a limited amount of time they try to pick the stories that will be of interest to the greatest number of viewers. I know that they don't talk about Spurs that much either, but I don't get offended.
It's separate but equal. That's the phrase you are looking for, right?
I would love to think that the rise of UKIP popularity in the last couple of years has been because of their anti-EU position or a Libertarian anti-statist position but whilst I think those factors are important to people I don't believe they are necessarily sufficient to have them suddenly jump ship in such large numbers over to UKIP - certainly not when the positions of the main parties including UKIP have remained unchanged on the issue for so long.
I think the UKIP leadership were opportunistic when they saw the opposition amongst a section of the public to the gay marriage laws and they adopted a position designed to maximise that. This means they do now have a party and supporters who are predominantly opposed to gay marriage. But it is that way because they have effectively advertised for that. That is not the same as listening to your membership.
"But the survey shows Labour has made no further progress in Tory-held target seats since 2011. In a similar poll two years ago, Lord Ashcroft found Labour on 44 per cent in their targets, compared to 43 per cent today. Support for the Tories over the same period has slumped by six points from 35 per cent to 29 per cent."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-tops-tories-poll-key-
But Labour are not losing any support either where it matters.
Er, the right to marriage. Why is it important to you that there be a distinction under the law? Why should the law have been involved at all in the first place?
Bear in mind the changes have not forced any church or religion to perform gay marriage if they do not want to. All they have done is removed a legal bar to them doing so if they so desire. As such they have reduced legal impediment to free pursuit of beliefs rather than increasing it as you seem to think.
3m47s into the video below.
http://youtu.be/g4GvG0WeKOc
I know exactly the comparison I was making.
I thought you were arguing that gays should be satisfied with civil partnerships because marriage confers no extra legal rights.
If I have misunderstood your position then I apologise. But stand by my views in respect of people who do adopt that position.
Not sure where to direct this: At Wodger or Scotland. Just look at a map (including Southern France) and draw your own conclusions....
The British-Isles are at an extreme of the Eurasian continent: The sparesely populated [midges excepted] barren Highlands (which just happen to be whip-lashed by Mother-Nature) just happen to exist at the extremes of those same isles. Few people - save the hardy - would wish to live there!
Then consider the South-East: Huge, diverse and placid folk. Kent providing our substinence (including "illegals") to sate our appetites. Close to our Dutch cousins (and their Flemish kin-folk) such as to feel at home. [Hee-he!]
Margins exist: By definition. [Wodger] Your marginally elite ediffication shuld 'ave learntchya dat, innit...?
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2013-05-02/Ukip since Sep-11-01 Rolling.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-stages-climate-denial-on-display.html
The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories. Just in the past week we've seen:
The David Rose Mail on Sunday piece that treated scientific evidence in much the way bakers treat pretzel dough.
Dr. John Christy interviewed by the Daily Mail;
Christy's colleague Dr. Roy Spencer in The Christian Post;
Andrew Montford in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian;
Matt Ridley in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal; and
Bjorn Lomborg in The Washington Post.