Compared (unfavourably) to Danny. Oh, the humiliation.
LOL
Hilarious isn't it?
Talk about damning with the faintest of praise.
It's also wrong because the people the tories really need to win back are the ones least likely to be laughing about this. The ones laughing at it anyway are those who would most respond to humour and who don't much care about Farage.
But I suppose Cleggites/Cameroons have to look for any kind of solace after incompetent stupidity like Soubry displayed. Regardless of the reaction it was just a massively dumb thing to say on a morning TV show. Not quite as dumb as calling kippers fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists of course, but still wonderfully dumb and alienating to those tory/UKIP waverers and activists who will be even more inclined to think Cammie's chumocracy is full of out of touch twits.
Exactly right. Soubry took a Bucket of F*ck Off, and poured it with unnerving accuracy over the precise group of voters the Tories most need to win over, the rightwing UKIP waverers.
It's like they WANT to lose.
Ken Clarke stuck his oar in again today too. Just to make sure the voters know where they stand:
"Ken Clarke, the Cabinet Minister, this morning suggested people who vote for Ukip are "angry" and "don't care" about the public finances."
The way things stand we have a hell of a lot more chance of winning a referendum if the Tories lose the next election. What you and the middle of the roaders continually fail to understand is that the EU you want cannot and will not ever exist. Unfortunately Cameron will try and may well succeed in conning enough people to believe his myth so that they will vote to stay in. I have no illusions about that.
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.If he then won the election - as I believe he probably will anyway - he would then ideally be faced with a new truly Eurosceptic Tpry leader whilst at the same time having to meet the idiotic promises he had made before the election. Something I have no doubt he would fail to do.
The prospect of an unpopular Labour leader campaigning for continued membership of a deeply unpopular EU would be the perfect storm for Eurosceptics.
I am not saying this is going to happen of course. It is just a hell of a lot more likely a scenario for seeing us actually leave the EU than a Cameron backed referendum after he comes back with a pocket full of lies about non existent EU concessions.
The middle-of-the-road option may not exist. But I think we should try for it - and if we fail, it may be best to opt out of any further power grab, draw firm red lines, and if these are broken, leave. Basically create the two-speed Europe that exists in practice if not in the politicians' minds.
There is a small chance of Miliband 'cracking' and committing to a referendum before 2015. There is sod-all chance of him keeping his word after the election. Why?
1) If Labour get a majority, they can ignore their commitment, as has happened with all parties in the past. The Labour Party is fairly solidly pro-EU. He would excuse the shift in some way, especially to keep his MPs on board. If he does 'crack', examine the wording very closely. It will have lots of get-out clauses, and may not be the referendum you want.
2) If they lose to the Conservatives, they cannot enact it, and they will return to their pro-Europe ways.
3) If they go into coalition with the Lib Dems, then the Lib Dems would not allow it.
4) He is Miliband and he is a politician.
As a matter of interest, which parts and organisations in Europe do you think we should be leaving, and which should we remain in? Is it just the EU you would wish to leave?
Amazing, everything said in the name of Ukip appears to be racist, derogatory to someone, politically incorrect or not at all funny, an elected member of Parliament makes a crude, rude personal insult on national television & we're all suddenly supposed to have a sense of humour, is their no end to the hypocrisy of the establishment!
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
I am sick of UKIP being accused of helping Ed into No.10
What are we supposed to do, vote for a man who has repeatedly insulted us? Who may or may not give us a referendum but would campaign against it even if he did?
It is not up to us Kïppers to vote for someone who hates us, the Tories need to take responsibility if they don't get elected, not blame others.
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
Nope. The Tories are helping him into No 10. We are simply benefiting from your failings.
No spoilers about Homeland before tonight's episode has aired
Both Mike Smithson and TSE are fans of the show, anyone spoiling it for them may find they will only post threads on electoral reform on PB over the festive period.
....... The way the Scotsman's going, it'll be 'restructured' into 2 blokes in a portakabin in West Lothian by the end of 2014.
Hmm - the article does say "the Sunday Herald understands" as nobody is admitting it. But to put it into context, those not familiar with the area need to know that
1. the building in question was specially built in 1999 to give the Scotsman (then owned by Messrs Barclay brothers) to give it a high profile home practically next door to the then new Scottish Parliament (as one might guess from the Holyrood Road address). Which says a lot about JP and the Scotsman's views on their relationships with Holyrood - or whether they can afford to maintain it. (It is the building notorious for the graffiti which appeared on the front, which is very deplorable of course, but it did not help that the unionists pretty much accused Mr Salmond of personally masterminding it ...)
2. Johnston Press own the Scotsman, AFAIK
3. Johnston Press shares are a small fraction of what they ysed to be
4. The Scotsman is rabidly unionist - to the degree that the Scotsman's Sunday paper went to the extent of digitally airbrushing a swastika over the St Andrew's Cross in the Saltire flag being held by some Scots chaps, in an article trying to claim that the indy folk are old fashioned Blood and Soil racist nationalists, like those chaps who used to go around in brown shirts and red, white and black armbands. (In fact, apart from the odd eccentric, the one who did get banged up come WW2 was a local Unionist MP ...). Trouble was they forgot that the original photo happens to be very well known, being used if I recall right as the cover image of one of the most widely published histories of modern Scotland. [I don't regard this as triggering Godwin's Law as it is germane and relevant]. I don't mind sendible unionist arguments in a balanced newspaper, but this ...
5. The Scotsman is pretty much at the red end of the spectrum for rate of newspaper circulation collapse in the UK, and is already circling the bath outlet, judging from the way it has cut down its content in recent months.
How far those facts are interconnected, I've often wondered. But upsetting at least 1/3 of your circulation right away, and insulting the intelligence of the rest, does not seem the way to become a successful press baron.
And it used to be one of the very best newspapers in the UK!
Best schadenfreude story in months. Thanks!
Actually Messrs/Mesdames The uniondivvie and MickPork deserve the credit for bringing it up and commenting first - I still have not got the hang of editing down quotes to fit without making mince of them, my apologies. But pleased to have helped in any way I can.
Compared (unfavourably) to Danny. Oh, the humiliation.
LOL
Hilarious isn't it?
Talk about damning with the faintest of praise.
It's also wrong because the people the tories really need to win back are the ones least likely to be laughing about this. The ones laughing at it anyway are those who would most respond to humour and who don't much care about Farage.
But I suppose Cleggites/Cameroons have to look for any kind of solace after incompetent stupidity like Soubry displayed. Regardless of the reaction it was just a massively dumb thing to say on a morning TV show. Not quite as dumb as calling kippers fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists of course, but still wonderfully dumb and alienating to those tory/UKIP waverers and activists who will be even more inclined to think Cammie's chumocracy is full of out of touch twits.
Exactly right. Soubry took a Bucket of F*ck Off, and poured it with unnerving accuracy over the precise group of voters the Tories most need to win over, the rightwing UKIP waverers.
It's like they WANT to lose.
Ken Clarke stuck his oar in again today too. Just to make sure the voters know where they stand:
"Ken Clarke, the Cabinet Minister, this morning suggested people who vote for Ukip are "angry" and "don't care" about the public finances."
With the likelihood that a re-elected Cameron actually would hold a "dangerous" in/out referendum, you have to question the loyalty of ardent europhiles like Clark and Soubry (esp Clark, whose europhilia has dominated his whole life and career).
Do they really want Cameron to win, or would they prefer safe EU-loving Ed Miliband? They are both politically closer to Miliband, in many ways, than they are to the centre of gravity in the Tory party.
I think Mr Cameron is every bit as europhile as Mr Clarke. The bulk of the parliamentary Conservative Party too.
Compared (unfavourably) to Danny. Oh, the humiliation.
LOL
Hilarious isn't it?
Talk about damning with the faintest of praise.
It's also wrong because the people the tories really need to win back are the ones least likely to be laughing about this. The ones laughing at it anyway are those who would most respond to humour and who don't much care about Farage.
But I suppose Cleggites/Cameroons have to look for any kind of solace after incompetent stupidity like Soubry displayed. Regardless of the reaction it was just a massively dumb thing to say on a morning TV show. Not quite as dumb as calling kippers fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists of course, but still wonderfully dumb and alienating to those tory/UKIP waverers and activists who will be even more inclined to think Cammie's chumocracy is full of out of touch twits.
Exactly right. Soubry took a Bucket of F*ck Off, and poured it with unnerving accuracy over the precise group of voters the Tories most need to win over, the rightwing UKIP waverers.
It's like they WANT to lose.
Ken Clarke stuck his oar in again today too. Just to make sure the voters know where they stand:
"Ken Clarke, the Cabinet Minister, this morning suggested people who vote for Ukip are "angry" and "don't care" about the public finances."
With the likelihood that a re-elected Cameron actually would hold a "dangerous" in/out referendum, you have to question the loyalty of ardent europhiles like Clark and Soubry (esp Clark, whose europhilia has dominated his whole life and career).
Do they really want Cameron to win, or would they prefer safe EU-loving Ed Miliband? They are both politically closer to Miliband, in many ways, than they are to the centre of gravity in the Tory party.
Best thing would be to vote LibDem. They've kept this primrily Tory Governmet afloat and are pro EU.
"A THIRD of sellers of The Big Issue, the magazine founded to help homeless people earn money, are from eastern Europe, its founder has revealed.
"Bird said most of the east Europeans who sold The Big Issue originally came from Roma communities. He said many Roma were escaping lives of “feral poverty”, and their reasons for choosing Britain were “made up maybe of [claiming] social security, maybe the ability to beg, maybe the ability to thieve."
"Bird was scathing about the decision by the Labour government to let people from the “economically blasted” countries of Bulgaria and Romania travel freely to Britain. “I said, ‘Don’t open the sluice gates to the ferally poor — go to their countries and help them earn their way into an economy which is more equal.’ But I was accused of being a fascist.!
All the Big Issue sellers I have seen for about a year, in London, have been Roma. So they come here - very understandably - expressly to be homeless - then beg, thieve, claim benefit, and get tax credit for selling the Big issue. Excellent system. Well done everyone.
Other people have been saying exactly the same thing to me about Roma and the Big Issue in the East Midlands. It is a good opportunity for UKIP.
But a few warnings: *) Roma != Romanians. Romani people can be found all over Central Europe, including countries that have already joined the EU.
*) I have a rather sympathetic view of Romanis. They have suffered terrible persecution over the years, not the least during WWII. They are the forgotten victims.
What is more, I have met many Gypsy-style Romanis whilst out walking, and AFAICR have never had an upset word with any of them - they have always been warm. I sadly cannot say the same for English or Irish Travellers, with whom Romanis often get confused.
Also, there are some parts of Romani lifestyle that I detest. See the problems Florin Cioabă (The King of the Romanis) had in 2003 as an example (which were curiously not mentioned in the Economist's obituary of him)
No spoilers about Homeland before tonight's episode has aired
Both Mike Smithson and TSE are fans of the show, anyone spoiling it for them may find they will only post threads on electoral reform on PB over the festive period.
That'd be the same Mike Smithson who offered to bet on the storyline? Or a different one?
Compared (unfavourably) to Danny. Oh, the humiliation.
LOL
Hilarious isn't it?
sts who will be even more inclined to think Cammie's chumocracy is full of out of touch twits.
Exactly right. Soubry took a Bucket of F*ck Off, and poured it with unnerving accuracy over the precise group of voters the Tories most need to win over, the rightwing UKIP waverers.
It's like they WANT to lose.
Ken Clarke stuck his oar in again today too. Just to make sure the voters know where they stand:
"Ken Clarke, the Cabinet Minister, this morning suggested people who vote for Ukip are "angry" and "don't care" about the public finances."
With the likelihood that a re-elected Cameron actually would hold a "dangerous" in/out referendum, you have to question the loyalty of ardent europhiles like Clark and Soubry (esp Clark, whose europhilia has dominated his whole life and career).
Do they really want Cameron to win, or would they prefer safe EU-loving Ed Miliband? They are both politically closer to Miliband, in many ways, than they are to the centre of gravity in the Tory party.
I think Mr Cameron is every bit as europhile as Mr Clarke. The bulk of the parliamentary Conservative Party too.
Possibly true, however I do believe Cameron - if given the chance - WOULD cleave to his promise of an in/out referendum, not least because the Tory party would go into epochal revolt if he didn't - the party would probably split, terminally. Likewise Tory support in the media and the country would be roiled for a generation.
Who knows if this referendum will be won by the in-ers? Probably it would, but there is a serious risk the Brits might just say Feck It, We're Off, as with the Scots.
On that basis I wouldn't be surprised if the passionate Tory philes would be very content with a Miliband victory.
Agreed. Clarke's "accidental" nasty comments about UKIP seem a little too Machiavellian.
Or maybe he is so Europhile he just cannot help spitting bile at them?
Actually Messrs/Mesdames The uniondivvie and MickPork deserve the credit for bringing it up and commenting first - I still have not got the hang of editing down quotes to fit without making mince of them, my apologies. But pleased to have helped in any way I can.
Nah, it's really uniondivvie who deserves it most for spotting it first though I must admit I've heard more than one rumour over the year concerning Johnstone Press and the Hootsman's declining fortunes that seem to be coming true one by one.
Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.
"...at the very moment that the “no-policy party” was unveiling new ideas and looking forward to hearing a speech by Lord (Digby) Jones, former UK trade minister, Godfrey turned attention away from policy and on to himself."
& Soubry
"Her half-hearted apology after her rather anatomical description of me is clearly not genuine, and I look forward to standing a Ukip candidate in her constituency in 2015."
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
Please explain how Richard Tyndall or UKIP generally is doing that.
Perhaps you think that every right-of-centre voter should be obliged to vote Conservative.
Sorry RN but we're no longer in the 1950s.
The Conservative party has to earn those votes and if it fails to do so by not having the right policies or right people then it has nobody to blame but itself.
And certainly not the voters or the parties they decide to vote for.
No spoilers about Homeland before tonight's episode has aired
Both Mike Smithson and TSE are fans of the show, anyone spoiling it for them may find they will only post threads on electoral reform on PB over the festive period.
You mean we are not allowed to tell you that Brodie **** and *** then he ****** ***** **** ***!
The middle-of-the-road option may not exist. But I think we should try for it - and if we fail, it may be best to opt out of any further power grab, draw firm red lines, and if these are broken, leave. Basically create the two-speed Europe that exists in practice if not in the politicians' minds.
There is a small chance of Miliband 'cracking' and committing to a referendum before 2015. There is sod-all chance of him keeping his word after the election. Why?
1) If Labour get a majority, they can ignore their commitment, as has happened with all parties in the past. The Labour Party is fairly solidly pro-EU. He would excuse the shift in some way, especially to keep his MPs on board. If he does 'crack', examine the wording very closely. It will have lots of get-out clauses, and may not be the referendum you want.
2) If they lose to the Conservatives, they cannot enact it, and they will return to their pro-Europe ways.
3) If they go into coalition with the Lib Dems, then the Lib Dems would not allow it.
4) He is Miliband and he is a politician.
As a matter of interest, which parts and organisations in Europe do you think we should be leaving, and which should we remain in? Is it just the EU you would wish to leave?
In fact, what do you want?
Sorry for the delay in replying JJ. Been putting son to bed.
Will reply on your analysis later but for now in answer to your question for me it would be a case of leave EU and probably remain in EFTA. I am not opposed to migration per se so unlike many UKIP supporters I am able to square the circle which many seem to be determined to avoid.
The important point would be to remove ourselves from the political domination of our country by the EU and at the same time improve our overall trading position radically.
EFTA membership is not an absolute for me as other countries are doing perfectly well in free trade agreements with the EU without having to be members.
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
While pretty damn unlikely it's still possible. What is more the Cameroons know it and fear the prospect mightily. If little Ed found himself sinking and behind in the polls staring an imminent GE in the face then it's a desperate last gasp move that would be done purely for short term strategic purposes. (A bit like Cammie's own Cast Iron referendum pledge then ) It would make the difference between the tory and labour stance that of who do you trust the least to deliver this jam tomorrow referendum. It would of course boost the kipper vote which little Ed would hardly be very upset over. Fact is kippers won't believe either labour or tory promises anyway so it's a marginal strategy at best but it would still shift the narrative away from the economy onto something the tories can't help but run about like headless chickens over whenever it takes centre stage.
You only have to look at the way some PB tories jumped on "no-brainer" McTernan as somehow 'proof' that little Ed wouldn't pledge a referendum to know that they fear such a pledge. Little Ed could also just pledge to have the referendum on a referendum. The so called 'mandate referendum' that some tories favoured. Whatever happens if the tory party are still obsessing over it by May 2015 then Farage will be the one most pleased.
I think this post was just deleted by a @PBmoderator.... that's one way of dealing with a joke you don't like eh Mike?!!
Here it is without the joke...
"davidaslindsay 1 hours ago
In After The Party, a collection of reminisces published in 2011 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Andrew Pearmain writes:
"I started sleeping with other women on my trips to London, other Communist students and even a Tory member of the NUS Executive whose taste for rough sex really shocked me; she later joined the SDP."
Well, she is not in the SDP, or even the Lib Dems, now..."
'Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.'
He has to say stuff like that to be noticed,his record in government has been so piss poor,remember the tit he made of himself a couple of years ago with two female reporters pretending to be constituents.
I think this post was just deleted by a @PBmoderator.... that's one way of dealing with a joke you don't like eh Mike?!!
Here it is without the joke...
"davidaslindsay 1 hours ago
In After The Party, a collection of reminisces published in 2011 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Andrew Pearmain writes:
"I started sleeping with other women on my trips to London, other Communist students and even a Tory member of the NUS Executive whose taste for rough sex really shocked me; she later joined the SDP."
Well, she is not in the SDP, or even the Lib Dems, now..."
I think this post was just deleted by a @PBmoderator.... that's one way of dealing with a joke you don't like eh Mike?!!
Here it is without the joke...
"davidaslindsay 1 hours ago
In After The Party, a collection of reminisces published in 2011 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Andrew Pearmain writes:
"I started sleeping with other women on my trips to London, other Communist students and even a Tory member of the NUS Executive whose taste for rough sex really shocked me; she later joined the SDP."
Well, she is not in the SDP, or even the Lib Dems, now..."
I think this post was just deleted by a @PBmoderator.... that's one way of dealing with a joke you don't like eh Mike?!!
Here it is without the joke...
"davidaslindsay 1 hours ago
In After The Party, a collection of reminisces published in 2011 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Andrew Pearmain writes:
"I started sleeping with other women on my trips to London, other Communist students and even a Tory member of the NUS Executive whose taste for rough sex really shocked me; she later joined the SDP."
Well, she is not in the SDP, or even the Lib Dems, now..."
You'd think if a politician is inclined to make jokes about other politician's sexual habits on Sunday morning telly they shouldn't be able to complain if other people do it back?
In theory anyway. In practise there's increasingly no rules and it's all who, whom.
Remember how Danny Alexander dealt with Harriet Harman’s silly “ginger rodent” remark three years ago. He came out saying “rodents do valuable work cleaning up mess others leave behind“.
They also spread plague and other deadly diseases, destroy food stocks and crops and do damage to property. Alexander is hardly the sharpest tack in the box.
Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.
No one takes anything uncle Vince says very seriously any more.
The middle-of-the-road option may not exist. But I think we should try for it - and if we fail, it may be best to opt out of any further power grab, draw firm red lines, and if these are broken, leave. Basically create the two-speed Europe that exists in practice if not in the politicians' minds.
There is a small chance of Miliband 'cracking' and committing to a referendum before 2015. There is sod-all chance of him keeping his word after the election. Why?
1) If Labour get a majority, they can ignore their commitment, as has happened with all parties in the past. The Labour Party is fairly solidly pro-EU. He would excuse the shift in some way, especially to keep his MPs on board. If he does 'crack', examine the wording very closely. It will have lots of get-out clauses, and may not be the referendum you want.
2) If they lose to the Conservatives, they cannot enact it, and they will return to their pro-Europe ways.
3) If they go into coalition with the Lib Dems, then the Lib Dems would not allow it.
4) He is Miliband and he is a politician.
As a matter of interest, which parts and organisations in Europe do you think we should be leaving, and which should we remain in? Is it just the EU you would wish to leave?
In fact, what do you want?
Sorry for the delay in replying JJ. Been putting son to bed.
Will reply on your analysis later but for now in answer to your question for me it would be a case of leave EU and probably remain in EFTA. I am not opposed to migration per se so unlike many UKIP supporters I am able to square the circle which many seem to be determined to avoid.
The important point would be to remove ourselves from the political domination of our country by the EU and at the same time improve our overall trading position radically.
EFTA membership is not an absolute for me as other countries are doing perfectly well in free trade agreements with the EU without having to be members.
Thanks for the reply. I don't have any kids, butI can imagine that putting a young child to bed this near to Christmas can be somewhat fraught - it certainly was for my parents.
To keep my reply short (as Mrs J is forcing me to watch Harry Potter): yours appears to be a logical and consistent position, and one I have some sympathy for.
Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.
No one takes anything uncle Vince says very seriously any more.
The bbc and sky news channels did,sky news did a right stich up on the tories and immigration.
Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.
No one takes anything uncle Vince says very seriously any more.
The bbc and sky news channels did,sky news did a right stich up on the tories and immigration.
Cable: "All the evidence suggests that they put far more into the economy in terms of tax than they take out in benefits."
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.
No one takes anything uncle Vince says very seriously any more.
Sometimes one gets the impression that the Tories resent the LibDems keeping them with most of the power in UK. Gratitude, or even appreciation of others difficulties, are not virtues of the modern Tory!
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
I am sick of UKIP being accused of helping Ed into No.10
What are we supposed to do, vote for a man who has repeatedly insulted us? Who may or may not give us a referendum but would campaign against it even if he did?
It is not up to us Kïppers to vote for someone who hates us, the Tories need to take responsibility if they don't get elected, not blame others.
No! How dare you. Don't you understand? You MUST vote for a Tory party whose Defense Minister makes obscene anal sex insults against your party leader on live TV. Why don't you get this? Duh.
I'm intrigued by this Tory belief that we owe our votes to people who despise us.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
It's not our fault if you've got a life and don't spend 24/7 on here religiously reading every single post!
Get rid of the unimportant ephemera of your life such as family and friends, and devote yourself to PB.
Actually Messrs/Mesdames The uniondivvie and MickPork deserve the credit for bringing it up and commenting first - I still have not got the hang of editing down quotes to fit without making mince of them, my apologies. But pleased to have helped in any way I can.
Nah, it's really uniondivvie who deserves it most for spotting it first though I must admit I've heard more than one rumour over the year concerning Johnstone Press and the Hootsman's declining fortunes that seem to be coming true one by one.
Johnstone Press unveils new @TheScotsman headquarters. #indyref pic.twitter.com/kTfueMgrUf
*chortle*
If they manage to survive until 2016, they could thrive post-independence. But I am beginning to seriously doubt they can hold on that long. Their decline is simply too steep, too fast.
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
I am sick of UKIP being accused of helping Ed into No.10
What are we supposed to do, vote for a man who has repeatedly insulted us? Who may or may not give us a referendum but would campaign against it even if he did?
It is not up to us Kïppers to vote for someone who hates us, the Tories need to take responsibility if they don't get elected, not blame others.
No! How dare you. Don't you understand? You MUST vote for a Tory party whose Defense Minister makes obscene anal sex insults against your party leader on live TV. Why don't you get this? Duh.
I'm intrigued by this Tory belief that we owe our votes to people who despise us.
These days, votes have to be earned. Earn them.
The sense of entitlement which the Cameroons and their supporters reek of is very offputting.
The Conservatives are apparantly entitled to every right-of-centre vote, people who went to the right school or did the right degree course are entitled to lord it over everyone else, the 1% is entitled to order everyone around but ignore the same rules when they like.
If the Conservative party is to be successful it must represent aspiration.
Instead it has become the symbal of entitlement and privilege.
"A THIRD of sellers of The Big Issue, the magazine founded to help homeless people earn money, are from eastern Europe, its founder has revealed.
"Bird said most of the east Europeans who sold The Big Issue originally came from Roma communities. He said many Roma were escaping lives of “feral poverty”, and their reasons for choosing Britain were “made up maybe of [claiming] social security, maybe the ability to beg, maybe the ability to thieve."
"Bird was scathing about the decision by the Labour government to let people from the “economically blasted” countries of Bulgaria and Romania travel freely to Britain. “I said, ‘Don’t open the sluice gates to the ferally poor — go to their countries and help them earn their way into an economy which is more equal.’ But I was accused of being a fascist.!
All the Big Issue sellers I have seen for about a year, in London, have been Roma. So they come here - very understandably - expressly to be homeless - then beg, thieve, claim benefit, and get tax credit for selling the Big issue. Excellent system. Well done everyone.
The Big Issue facilitating employment of foreigners is disgraceful. The organisation should look to help those who are traditionally resident here. Do the managers of TBI have a vested interest in boosting the circulation by employing foreigners, perhaps because homelessness among traditional residents was decreasing?
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
I understand that TBI sellers are officially self employed, so able to claim benefits and work without a permit. Romanians and Bulgars who want to come here can already if they sell TBI.
"A THIRD of sellers of The Big Issue, the magazine founded to help homeless people earn money, are from eastern Europe, its founder has revealed.
"Bird said most of the east Europeans who sold The Big Issue originally came from Roma communities. He said many Roma were escaping lives of “feral poverty”, and their reasons for choosing Britain were “made up maybe of [claiming] social security, maybe the ability to beg, maybe the ability to thieve."
"Bird was scathing about the decision by the Labour government to let people from the “economically blasted” countries of Bulgaria and Romania travel freely to Britain. “I said, ‘Don’t open the sluice gates to the ferally poor — go to their countries and help them earn their way into an economy which is more equal.’ But I was accused of being a fascist.!
All the Big Issue sellers I have seen for about a year, in London, have been Roma. So they come here - very understandably - expressly to be homeless - then beg, thieve, claim benefit, and get tax credit for selling the Big issue. Excellent system. Well done everyone.
The Big Issue facilitating employment of foreigners is disgraceful. The organisation should look to help those who are traditionally resident here. Do the managers of TBI have a vested interest in boosting the circulation by employing foreigners, perhaps because homelessness among traditional residents was decreasing?
For me at least the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum.
What pressure? You're helping him into No 10.
Please explain how Richard Tyndall or UKIP generally is doing that.
Perhaps you think that every right-of-centre voter should be obliged to vote Conservative.
Sorry RN but we're no longer in the 1950s.
The Conservative party has to earn those votes and if it fails to do so by not having the right policies or right people then it has nobody to blame but itself.
And certainly not the voters or the parties they decide to vote for.
The PM following the GE on the 7th May 2015 will be either the Conservative leader at the time (almost certainly David Cameron), or the Labour leader (almost certainly Ed Miliband).
Of course no-one is obliged to vote for any particular party, but that is the choice. No ifs, no buts, no maybes: that is the choice. A party which disproportionately takes votes from one, helps the other. With me so far?
Now, Richard Tyndall was claiming that, from UKIP's point of view, "the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum."
All I was saying, was that there is no such pressure, and cannot be, when UKIP is working to make the result of the next election a Labour victory.
This is utterly obvious, is it not?
If UKIP really did want an EU referendum, they would be advising supporters to vote Conservative, as this is the only way of getting it. Clearly they don't want a referendum (as Richard T, to his credit, now admits). If they really did want to put pressure on Ed Miliband, they'd be making it less likely he'd be PM, unless he followed their agenda - for example, by threatening to withdraw from all Con/Lab marginal seats and advise their supporters to vote Conservative, if he didn't promise a referendum. They are doing the opposite.
The only pressure they are putting Ed Miliband under is the pressure of forcing him to disguise his delight at their shooting their cause in the foot.
I understand that TBI sellers are officially self employed, so able to claim benefits and work without a permit. Romanians and Bulgars who want to come here can already if they sell TBI.
"A THIRD of sellers of The Big Issue, the magazine founded to help homeless people earn money, are from eastern Europe, its founder has revealed.
"Bird said most of the east Europeans who sold The Big Issue originally came from Roma communities. He said many Roma were escaping lives of “feral poverty”, and their reasons for choosing Britain were “made up maybe of [claiming] social security, maybe the ability to beg, maybe the ability to thieve."
"Bird was scathing about the decision by the Labour government to let people from the “economically blasted” countries of Bulgaria and Romania travel freely to Britain. “I said, ‘Don’t open the sluice gates to the ferally poor — go to their countries and help them earn their way into an economy which is more equal.’ But I was accused of being a fascist.!
All the Big Issue sellers I have seen for about a year, in London, have been Roma. So they come here - very understandably - expressly to be homeless - then beg, thieve, claim benefit, and get tax credit for selling the Big issue. Excellent system. Well done everyone.
The Big Issue facilitating employment of foreigners is disgraceful. The organisation should look to help those who are traditionally resident here. Do the managers of TBI have a vested interest in boosting the circulation by employing foreigners, perhaps because homelessness among traditional residents was decreasing?
You are correct. Should have said "facilitating self-employment".
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Perhaps, in addition, it might help to woo UKIP voters if the head of the Tory party stopped calling these voters "closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes", and your Defense Minister stopped hurling obscene anal sex insults at the UKIP leader, on live morning TV?
Just a thought. Sorry for butting in. Perhaps this is part of some fiendish but brilliant masterplan to win over UKIP voters to the Tory party, by making them feel faintly nauseous with loathing of the Tory party?
Especially older people or anyone with young kids playing on the carpet in front of the telly.
Perhaps, in addition, it might help to woo UKIP voters if the head of the Tory party stopped calling these voters "closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes", and your Defense Minister stopped hurling obscene anal sex insults at the UKIP leader, on live morning TV?
Just a thought. Sorry for butting in. Perhaps this is part of some fiendish but brilliant masterplan to win over UKIP voters to the Tory party, by making them feel faintly nauseous with loathing of the Tory party?
Well, as I said earlier, I thought Ms Soubry's remark was puerile and vulgar, and not the sort of thing I'd expect a Conservative MP, let alone minister, to say. Of course, some people (especially UKIP supporters) like that kind of language, but I don't.
But let's not get things out of proportion; politicians insult each other the whole time, and the great British public takes no notice whatsoever, other than thinking they're all the same. Even Gordon Brown insulting one of his core voters just a few days before the 2010 election had absolutely zero effect on anything.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Labour lib dems and conservatives use hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party that threatens their domination of uk politics, the same way racists in the 50s smeared, muffled and bad mouthed carribbean immigrants.
Cameron's racist comments Clarkes clown comments Soubrys vulgar comments Warsi alluding they are BNP lite The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
If UKIP really did want an EU referendum, they would be advising supporters to vote Conservative, as this is the only way of getting it. Clearly they don't want a referendum (as Richard T, to his credit, now admits). If they really did want to put pressure on Ed Miliband, they'd be making it less likely he'd be PM, unless he followed their agenda - for example, by threatening to withdraw from all Con/Lab marginal seats and advise their supporters to vote Conservative, if he didn't promise a referendum. They are doing the opposite.
RN you keep on spouting this line but it doesn't get any better.
For those UKIP supporters who regard the EU as the overwhelming issue then a Cameron referendum is worthless.
If Cameron held a referendum - a big if as he has already broken promises regarding the EU and is a proven liar - what would happend ?
The entire political establishment would drown the country in lies and scare stories to ensure an IN vote.
And if there was an OUT vote it would be ignored. We would be immediately be told that there was a need for 'clarification' and 'negotiation' and 'renegotiation' and 'confirmation' and all the other weasel words with the necessity of some second referendum at some indeterminate point in the future all in the 'fullness of time'.
Yes, the Conservative party would be damaged by the infighting that would cause but to an establishment figure like Cameron that would be a price well worth paying.
As Richard Tyndall and SeanT have previously pointed out what is needed by those who want British withdrawl from the EU is an EU referendum in which the Conservative party supports OUT. Somethign which is never going to happen with Cameron as leader.
Now if you're so concerned with keeping Labour out of government by having UKIP supporters vote Conservative then replacing the current Conservative leadership with one which UKIP supporters would trust regarding the EU is required.
And that's what I mean by the Conservative party needing the right policies and right people and if they don't they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Do a Twitter search on "Farage". You will find thousands of incensed kippers.
For once, Sean, you seem to have become uncharacteristically po-faced. Those incensed Kippers are hilarious - this is the party which prides itself on detesting bland politicians who choose their words carefully. Well, Ms Soubry wasn't being bland and didn't choose her words carefully, and now they're incensed. You have to laugh, do you not?
Do a thought-experiment: imagine if a prominent UKIPper had said what she said about David Cameron.
The PM following the GE on the 7th May 2015 will be either the Conservative leader at the time (almost certainly David Cameron), or the Labour leader (almost certainly Ed Miliband).
Of course no-one is obliged to vote for any particular party, but that is the choice. No ifs, no buts, no maybes: that is the choice. A party which disproportionately takes votes from one, helps the other. With me so far?
Now, Richard Tyndall was claiming that, from UKIP's point of view, "the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum."
All I was saying, was that there is no such pressure, and cannot be, when UKIP is working to make the result of the next election a Labour victory.
This is utterly obvious, is it not?
If UKIP really did want an EU referendum, they would be advising supporters to vote Conservative, as this is the only way of getting it. Clearly they don't want a referendum (as Richard T, to his credit, now admits). If they really did want to put pressure on Ed Miliband, they'd be making it less likely he'd be PM, unless he followed their agenda - for example, by threatening to withdraw from all Con/Lab marginal seats and advise their supporters to vote Conservative, if he didn't promise a referendum. They are doing the opposite.
The only pressure they are putting Ed Miliband under is the pressure of forcing him to disguise his delight at their shooting their cause in the foot.
At no point did I say we did not want a referendum. Personally I believe that the only fair way to deal with an issue of such constitutional importance is through a referendum rather than by a vote in the Commons with no reference to the public beyond the General Election. I say this because much as I would love us to leave the EU I would be the first to recognise that a Eurosceptic government would not necessarily be elected because it was Eurosceptic. It would be wrong for any government to assume, on an issue of such constitutional importance, that their electoral mandate gave them the moral right to pull us out of the EU. So I would favour a referendum even in the (admittedly impossible) circumstances of a UKIP majority.
However I am also realistic enough to realise that a Cameron referendum will only ever come about on the back of him claiming that he had won significant concessions. He will do this no matter what he has or has not achieved at Brussels and in the full knowledge that whatever concessions he might achieve will be illusory.
Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory party rather than a Europhile Cameron government supported by a Europhile Labour opposition.
Quite rightly so; an In/Out referendum is unwinnable for the Out side, which is exactly the point I've been making here for years. That is why, having been granted it, they are now running in the opposite direction. So what the hell do they want?
Incidentally, of all the bat-shit crazy ideas circulating, the idea that Cameron would renege on the referendum promise if he had a majority post 2015 is the most bat-shit crazy of all. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him reneging on it, even if he wanted to; he wouldn't survive as party leader a week if he tried to do so.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Labour lib dems and conservatives use hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party that threatens their domination of uk politics, the same way racists in the 50s smeared, muffled and bad mouthed carribbean immigrants.
Cameron's racist comments Clarkes clown comments Soubrys vulgar comments Warsi alluding they are BNP lite The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
Mike is Dan Hodges to Nigel's Ed Miliband!
As I said, hilariously stupid.
"hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party "
Politics has had a silly day. You can smell the faux outrage and hypocrisy.
Though good to see Mandleson has not lost his touch. In that clip he clearly immediately sensed the moment when Soubry's political career left her body. He reaches out to grab it, but it was too late.
Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory party rather than a Europhile Cameron government supported by a Europhile Labour opposition.
And how exactly does helping Ed Miliband into No 10 put pressure on him to hold a referendum, especially one in conditions where he - as a staunch Europhile - might lose?
Do a Twitter search on "Farage". You will find thousands of incensed kippers.
For once, Sean, you seem to have become uncharacteristically po-faced. Those incensed Kippers are hilarious - this is the party which prides itself on detesting bland politicians who choose their words carefully. Well, Ms Soubry wasn't being bland and didn't choose her words carefully, and now they're incensed. You have to laugh, do you not?
Do a thought-experiment: imagine if a prominent UKIPper had said what she said about David Cameron.
You are missing the point
Kippers are incensed because they know full well that if a prominent ukip politician made the same remarks about Cameron, it would be the ukip politician being criticised, with all the stereotypes being wheeled out, and it would be all over the news, which this isnt. Farage was the jokes target and also is copping flak for his humourless reaction, even though his reaction was to make a joke.
the idea that Cameron would renege on the referendum promise if he had a majority post 2015 is the most bat-shit crazy of all. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him reneging on it, even if he wanted to; he wouldn't survive as party leader a week if he tried to do so.
The parliamentary Conservative Party were very happy to oppose an EU referendum in 2011. I don't see why they'd suddenly become militant eurosceptics.
Of course 1, Anna Soubry’s comments 2 on the Marr about Nigel Farage show were wrong but the interesting thing, as is being noted in the Tweets above, has been the UKIP/Farage response 3.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day? 1. Why "of course"? 2. What comments? 3. What response? 4. "Badly"? By doing what? It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Labour lib dems and conservatives use hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party that threatens their domination of uk politics, the same way racists in the 50s smeared, muffled and bad mouthed carribbean immigrants.
Cameron's racist comments Clarkes clown comments Soubrys vulgar comments Warsi alluding they are BNP lite The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
Mike is Dan Hodges to Nigel's Ed Miliband!
As I said, hilariously stupid.
"hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party "
You are Dave Spart and I claim my five pounds.
Well at least you're laughing, and, I note, throwing insults
At least you didn't say 'as a matter of interest...' That's really annoyingly smug
Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory party rather than a Europhile Cameron government supported by a Europhile Labour opposition.
And how exactly does helping Ed Miliband into No 10 put pressure on him to hold a referendum, especially one in conditions where he - as a staunch Europhile - might lose?
Richard, you and the Tories need to catch up with a split right. You remind me alot of Brown's "I agree with Nick". He couldn't understand why people preferred to vote LD rather than keep the Tories out.
Perhaps, in addition, it might help to woo UKIP voters if the head of the Tory party stopped calling these voters "closet racists, loonies and fruitcakes", and your Defense Minister stopped hurling obscene anal sex insults at the UKIP leader, on live morning TV?
Just a thought. Sorry for butting in. Perhaps this is part of some fiendish but brilliant masterplan to win over UKIP voters to the Tory party, by making them feel faintly nauseous with loathing of the Tory party?
Well, as I said earlier, I thought Ms Soubry's remark was puerile and vulgar, and not the sort of thing I'd expect a Conservative MP, let alone minister, to say. Of course, some people (especially UKIP supporters) like that kind of language, but I don't.
But let's not get things out of proportion; politicians insult each other the whole time, and the great British public takes no notice whatsoever, other than thinking they're all the same. Even Gordon Brown insulting one of his core voters just a few days before the 2010 election had absolutely zero effect on anything.
Do a Twitter search on "Farage". You will find thousands of incensed kippers. Grotesquely and crudely insulting the leader they like (and who is way more popular than your leader) is, I suspect, not the way to win them over, however subtle and persuasive your arguments about referendums and Miliband. People like Soubry and Clark (and Cameron, sometimes) are actively driving UKIP voters further away.
As I said before, it is possible you have a 5th column. Do Clark and Soubry really care if you win in 2015? He is retiring, she is gonna lose; both are convinced europhiles.
If a voter is prepared to switch their voting intention on the basis of a poor taste joke then they deserve to be calumnised as a loonie or fruitcake.
And if you doubt the accuracy of Ms. Soubry's observation I suggest you view the following photograph:
Politics has had a silly day. You can smell the faux outrage and hypocrisy.
Though good to see Mandleson has not lost his touch. In that clip he clearly immediately sensed the moment when Soubry's political career left her body. He reaches out to grab it, but it was too late.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Personally i'm not outraged as my opinion of the political class is already too low but back when i used to watch the BBC if my kids were playing on the carpet and a politician said that i'd be fuming.
the idea that Cameron would renege on the referendum promise if he had a majority post 2015 is the most bat-shit crazy of all. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him reneging on it, even if he wanted to; he wouldn't survive as party leader a week if he tried to do so.
The parliamentary Conservative Party were very happy to oppose an EU referendum in 2011. I don't see why they'd suddenly become militant eurosceptics.
Actually they weren't all happy to do so - it was a compromise between the two wings of the party, based on an agreement that a referendum will come in the next parliament, if the party has a majority, and after the best attempts at renegotiation. No-one - absolutely no-one - in the party would think it right to renege on that agreement.
Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory party rather than a Europhile Cameron government supported by a Europhile Labour opposition.
And how exactly does helping Ed Miliband into No 10 put pressure on him to hold a referendum, especially one in conditions where he - as a staunch Europhile - might lose?
I repeat we are not helping Ed Miliband into No 10. You are doing that all on your own.
But more importantly, for there to be any reasonable chance of Out winning a referendum, Cameron must go and be replaced by someone who is actually a Eurosceptic rather than someone who plays at it to gain power but who is happy to lie and mislead the public over what is possible whilst remaining a member of the EU.
Even if that means a 5 year delay UKIP have to play the long game and make sure that there is real Eurosceptic representation in Parliament rather than the mock version presented by the current Tory party.
I am firmly of the belief that we will eventually leave the EU. As we have seen time and time again the rest of the bloc will not pander to the faux scepticism exhibited by successive UK governments and eventually the Europhiles will have no where left to hide. They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
On the M&S story, refusing to serve a customer buying your employer's products is surely gross misconduct and, therefore, a sackable offence. Has the company commented? This smells ever so slightly of something being made up or not reported quite right. It is also something that a lot of different people would want so much to be true - for a wide variety of reasons. If it is true, then M&S is in deep doggy-do.
I agree, it's so barmy, it can't be totally true. The Mail (I know, I know!) are reporting it as fact, along with other Supermarket responses. If it is true, then M&S better brace themselves, and look after any obviously Muslim employees, 'cos they'll get gangs of idiots targeting them, itching to get pork 'n' booze declined at the till.
It all makes sense now, it's the M&S Christmas pork 'n' booze bigot promotion! They should throw in a free copy of the Daily Mail if you guess the right till.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Labour lib dems and conservatives use hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party that threatens their domination of uk politics, the same way racists in the 50s smeared, muffled and bad mouthed carribbean immigrants.
Cameron's racist comments Clarkes clown comments Soubrys vulgar comments Warsi alluding they are BNP lite The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
Mike is Dan Hodges to Nigel's Ed Miliband!
As I said, hilariously stupid.
"hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party "
You are Dave Spart and I claim my five pounds.
Well at least you're laughing, and, I note, throwing insults
At least you didn't say 'as a matter of interest...' That's really annoyingly smug
I stand by my comments. Comparing UKIP's treatment to racism is rather hideously stupid.
As for being smug: perhaps I am, perhaps I am not. But at least I've never used the phrase "hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party ". That's a keeper.
'Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory'
UKIP and an EU referendum are like the badgers in Somerset.
Quite rightly so; an In/Out referendum is unwinnable for the Out side, which is exactly the point I've been making here for years. That is why, having been granted it, they are now running in the opposite direction. So what the hell do they want?
In the right circumstances its perfectly winnable, the best circumstances would be after an EU appeasing Miliband government and with a populist Conservative leadership.
If you do think there is no chance of an OUT vote then ultimately we will end up in an USE.
Incidentally, of all the bat-shit crazy ideas circulating, the idea that Cameron would renege on the referendum promise if he had a majority post 2015 is the most bat-shit crazy of all. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him reneging on it, even if he wanted to; he wouldn't survive as party leader a week if he tried to do so.
Yawn.
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
If that means ruining the Conservative party that would be a price an establishment figure like Cameron would pay.
Everything from Maastricht onwards shows clearly how the political establishment works across the EU.
And Cameron cannot be described as anything but an establishment figure.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
In any case your argument, such as it is, makes no sense. You might be right that he's over-optimistic (no-one ever claimed renegotiation was going to be easy). If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.
If Farage had said something similar about her on Sunday morning telly then no-one would be talking about her response. It's all who, whom.
Of course
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
That is hilariously stupid. I find it hard to imagine you actually believe it.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
Labour lib dems and conservatives use hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party that threatens their domination of uk politics, the same way racists in the 50s smeared, muffled and bad mouthed carribbean immigrants.
Cameron's racist comments Clarkes clown comments Soubrys vulgar comments Warsi alluding they are BNP lite The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
Mike is Dan Hodges to Nigel's Ed Miliband!
As I said, hilariously stupid.
"hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party "
You are Dave Spart and I claim my five pounds.
Well at least you're laughing, and, I note, throwing insults
At least you didn't say 'as a matter of interest...' That's really annoyingly smug
I stand by my comments. Comparing UKIP's treatment to racism is rather hideously stupid.
As for being smug: perhaps I am, perhaps I am not. But at least I've never used the phrase "hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party ". That's a keeper.
Anyway, night-night all.
You are a bit smug
Glad you liked the phrase, sleep on it and maybe you'll see that it's true
On the M&S story, refusing to serve a customer buying your employer's products is surely gross misconduct and, therefore, a sackable offence. Has the company commented? This smells ever so slightly of something being made up or not reported quite right. It is also something that a lot of different people would want so much to be true - for a wide variety of reasons. If it is true, then M&S is in deep doggy-do.
I agree, it's so barmy, it can't be totally true. The Mail (I know, I know!) are reporting it as fact, along with other Supermarket responses. If it is true, then M&S better brace themselves, and look after any obviously Muslim employees, 'cos they'll get gangs of idiots targeting them, itching to get pork 'n' booze declined at the till.
It all makes sense now, it's the M&S Christmas pork 'n' booze bigot promotion! They should throw in a free copy of the Daily Mail if you guess the right till.
Personally I didn't doubt it from the start as its all of a piece with Muslim sportsmen refusing to have alcohol sponsers of their kits, receiving bottles of champagne etc etc
On the M&S story, refusing to serve a customer buying your employer's products is surely gross misconduct and, therefore, a sackable offence. Has the company commented? This smells ever so slightly of something being made up or not reported quite right. It is also something that a lot of different people would want so much to be true - for a wide variety of reasons. If it is true, then M&S is in deep doggy-do.
I agree, it's so barmy, it can't be totally true. The Mail (I know, I know!) are reporting it as fact, along with other Supermarket responses. If it is true, then M&S better brace themselves, and look after any obviously Muslim employees, 'cos they'll get gangs of idiots targeting them, itching to get pork 'n' booze declined at the till.
It all makes sense now, it's the M&S Christmas pork 'n' booze bigot promotion! They should throw in a free copy of the Daily Mail if you guess the right till.
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
I think that is right, but it wouldn't be his choice. If the referendum produced an Out result, I'd expect he'd resign and let someone else take us out.
The faith which the Kippers have in Cameron's unique political power is touching. They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?
On the M&S story, refusing to serve a customer buying your employer's products is surely gross misconduct and, therefore, a sackable offence. Has the company commented? This smells ever so slightly of something being made up or not reported quite right. It is also something that a lot of different people would want so much to be true - for a wide variety of reasons. If it is true, then M&S is in deep doggy-do.
I agree, it's so barmy, it can't be totally true. The Mail (I know, I know!) are reporting it as fact, along with other Supermarket responses. If it is true, then M&S better brace themselves, and look after any obviously Muslim employees, 'cos they'll get gangs of idiots targeting them, itching to get pork 'n' booze declined at the till.
It all makes sense now, it's the M&S Christmas pork 'n' booze bigot promotion! They should throw in a free copy of the Daily Mail if you guess the right till.
M&S seem to have admitted to a single incident and a series of personnel policies which may have given rise to that incident but that doesn't quite amount to an admission of a policy which allows checkout assistants to refuse to serve customers purchasing alcohol or pork.
Good intentions and policies not stress tested looks the likely explanation.
I expect we will get a clarification and new policy statement tomorrow.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
Deception, misinformation, false promises call it what you will.
We've had years and years of it and saw another case of it last night with Cameron purportedly being about to veto increased EU enlargement on the immigration issue.
Avery was eulogising Cameron to the skies.
And then Edmund pointed out that it was the usual worthless bollox.
I wonder whether Farage was feeling a bit over-sensitive as a result of the story circulating on Saturday about the things his son got up to with a Labour activist who couldn't resist revealing a few intimate details to 'close friends'....
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
I think that is right, but it wouldn't be his choice. If the referendum produced an Out result, I'd expect he'd resign and let someone else take us out.
The faith which the Kippers have in Cameron's unique political power is touching. They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?
Richard
Cameron will have the option of recommending a post-negotiation IN, remaining neutral or recommending OUT.
The only circumstances under which he would have to resign after an OUT vote would be had he recommended IN.
Of course, he may feel that 2017 is the right time for him to step down and hand over for other reasons, not least of which being that electorates tend to tire of PMs after 8 years in office (and nearly 13 years as party leader).
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
Deception, misinformation, false promises call it what you will.
We've had years and years of it and saw another case of it last night with Cameron purportedly being about to veto increased EU enlargement on the immigration issue.
Avery was eulogising Cameron to the skies.
And then Edmund pointed out that it was the usual worthless bollox.
' They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?'
If it was another Tory PM they would find another excuse,what future would there be for UKIP after an EU referendum?
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
I think that is right, but it wouldn't be his choice. If the referendum produced an Out result, I'd expect he'd resign and let someone else take us out.
The faith which the Kippers have in Cameron's unique political power is touching. They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?
No they want a Conservative party which supports OUT but there is no chance of that with Cameron as leader.
A Conservative leadership which supports IN is damaging to their cause irrespective of whether it includes Cameron or not.
Incidentally would you be willing to sacrifice Cameron as Conservative leader if that led to the return of UKIP voters to the Conservatives ?
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
The idea of getting a treaty of 28 passed in two years goes beyond over-optimistic. It's highly improbable that he really thinks the other member states will do it. I don't know what he really thinks is going to happen, but it's obviously not what he says he thinks is going to happen.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
Deception, misinformation, false promises call it what you will.
We've had years and years of it and saw another case of it last night with Cameron purportedly being about to veto increased EU enlargement on the immigration issue.
Avery was eulogising Cameron to the skies.
And then Edmund pointed out that it was the usual worthless bollox.
Correct interpretation
Avery was drunk and being provocative.
Edmund was stone cold sober.
A word to the wise Avery:
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
Deception, misinformation, false promises call it what you will.
We've had years and years of it and saw another case of it last night with Cameron purportedly being about to veto increased EU enlargement on the immigration issue.
Avery was eulogising Cameron to the skies.
And then Edmund pointed out that it was the usual worthless bollox.
Correct interpretation
Avery was drunk and being provocative.
Edmund was stone cold sober.
A word to the wise Avery:
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
I am a Conservative voter, ar.
I am not and have never been a member, activist or employee of the Conservative Party. I am certainly not, in any official sense, a "Conservative mouthpiece".
In most cases it is up to the reader to determine whether to take my comments at face value or to regard them as ironic.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
In any case your argument, such as it is, makes no sense. You might be right that he's over-optimistic (no-one ever claimed renegotiation was going to be easy). If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.
I don't use the phrase 'over optimistic' because I credit him with being of above average intelligence. It has been clear from the very start from the reactions of the rest of the EU that he was never going to get any meaningful repatriation of powers and just like all his other schemes designed to make him appear Eurosceptic this one will eventually prove to be worthless. If he doesn't know that when almost every other politician and commentator knows it then maybe he really is dumber than a sack of rocks. Not sure if that is better than being dishonest.
As for your scenario of the talks failing, again it is obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about it that Cameron will never come back and say he has failed. He will get whatever scraps he can and dress it up as a great achievement in order to ensure an In vote in a subsequent referendum. He has already said he will never agree to a British withdrawal from the EU so unless you are claiming he was not being honest then I am afraid you are left with the scenario I present.
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
I think that is right, but it wouldn't be his choice. If the referendum produced an Out result, I'd expect he'd resign and let someone else take us out.
The faith which the Kippers have in Cameron's unique political power is touching. They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?
No it is simply an acceptance that one of the main party leaders needs to be in favour of withdrawal and it is far more likely that this would be the Tory party than Labour. As such it is necessary to get rid of Cameron before any meaningful move towards withdrawal can take place.
' They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?'
If it was another Tory PM they would find another excuse,what future would there be for UKIP after an EU referendum?
My hope is none. But then I have never been in favour of parties beyond their usefulness to achieve specific aims. Personally I would be glad to see the back of all parties.
As for your scenario of the talks failing, again it is obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about it that Cameron will never come back and say he has failed. He will get whatever scraps he can and dress it up as a great achievement in order to ensure an In vote in a subsequent referendum. He has already said he will never agree to a British withdrawal from the EU so unless you are claiming he was not being honest then I am afraid you are left with the scenario I present.
That is the definitive explanation.
And why Cameron will never be trusted on the EU issue.
If the Conservatives are so desperate for the return of the relevant UKIP voters then Cameron has to go.
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
I only speak for myself but Avery is welcome to post drunk or not. If he was the authentic voice of the Conservative Party that would be even better because we'd get to hear the authentic voice of the drunk Conservative Party, but in reality people here only represent themselves, and nobody else really cares what we think.
I am not and have never been a member, activist or employee of the Conservative Party. I am certainly not, in any official sense, a "Conservative mouthpiece".
In most cases it is up to the reader to determine whether to take my comments at face value or to regard them as ironic.
In vino veritas.
Its the attempts to spin anything and everything and the triumphalism you seem to indulge in.
And its in effect irrelevant whether you're an official Conservative mouthpiece or just imitating one for a laugh or just accidentally appearing to be what other people might think one looks like. If people think you're a Conservative mouthpiece then the image you present inevitably affects people's perceptions of the Conservative party.
RN, by comparison, for all his elegance and eloquence in support of the Conservatives does come across as his own man. Albeit one with a regrettable blind spot towards George Osborne.
They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
There you go. 'Lies'.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
In any case your argument, such as it is, makes no sense. You might be right that he's over-optimistic (no-one ever claimed renegotiation was going to be easy). If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.
I don't use the phrase 'over optimistic' because I credit him with being of above average intelligence. It has been clear from the very start from the reactions of the rest of the EU that he was never going to get any meaningful repatriation of powers and just like all his other schemes designed to make him appear Eurosceptic this one will eventually prove to be worthless. If he doesn't know that when almost every other politician and commentator knows it then maybe he really is dumber than a sack of rocks. Not sure if that is better than being dishonest.
As for your scenario of the talks failing, again it is obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about it that Cameron will never come back and say he has failed. He will get whatever scraps he can and dress it up as a great achievement in order to ensure an In vote in a subsequent referendum. He has already said he will never agree to a British withdrawal from the EU so unless you are claiming he was not being honest then I am afraid you are left with the scenario I present.
Actually I think it's possible he will say that. But then he'd change the referendum to a "mandate referendum" to tell the EU how grumpy Britain is and give him a mandate to go back and make them take the renegotiation seriously.
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
I only speak for myself but Avery is welcome to post drunk or not. If he was the authentic voice of the Conservative Party that would be even better because we'd get to hear the authentic voice of the drunk Conservative Party, but in reality people here only represent themselves, and nobody else really cares what we think.
Edmondo
My thanks for your comment but I would be disappointed if the parties totally ignored our comments.
An efficient party chairman would be wise to have a group of interns headed by a SpAd monitoring and reporting daily on social media, perhaps with "single page of A4" summary sent upstairs to keep the leaders hand on the pulse.
This would only be an extension of the MSM clippings and comments service which has been standard for decades.
All this effort put in and then we find we don't get an MI5 file in our names would be most disappointing. And here I am counting on a recommendation for an honour by George. Please don't destroy my hopes.
I am not and have never been a member, activist or employee of the Conservative Party. I am certainly not, in any official sense, a "Conservative mouthpiece".
In most cases it is up to the reader to determine whether to take my comments at face value or to regard them as ironic.
In vino veritas.
Its the attempts to spin anything and everything and the triumphalism you seem to indulge in.
And its in effect irrelevant whether you're an official Conservative mouthpiece or just imitating one for a laugh or just accidentally appearing to be what other people might think one looks like. If people think you're a Conservative mouthpiece then the image you present inevitably affects people's perceptions of the Conservative party.
RN, by comparison, for all his elegance and eloquence in support of the Conservatives does come across as his own man. Albeit one with a regrettable blind spot towards George Osborne.
Osborne is doing a good job as chancellor, but he has awful personal poll ratings !
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
I only speak for myself but Avery is welcome to post drunk or not. If he was the authentic voice of the Conservative Party that would be even better because we'd get to hear the authentic voice of the drunk Conservative Party, but in reality people here only represent themselves, and nobody else really cares what we think.
Certainly we're all entitled to post drunk, sober or any condition in between.
Whether the resulting comments do the person's image here any good is another matter although it may well cause much amusement as well.
I am not and have never been a member, activist or employee of the Conservative Party. I am certainly not, in any official sense, a "Conservative mouthpiece".
In most cases it is up to the reader to determine whether to take my comments at face value or to regard them as ironic.
In vino veritas.
Its the attempts to spin anything and everything and the triumphalism you seem to indulge in.
And its in effect irrelevant whether you're an official Conservative mouthpiece or just imitating one for a laugh or just accidentally appearing to be what other people might think one looks like. If people think you're a Conservative mouthpiece then the image you present inevitably affects people's perceptions of the Conservative party.
RN, by comparison, for all his elegance and eloquence in support of the Conservatives does come across as his own man. Albeit one with a regrettable blind spot towards George Osborne.
ar
I don't regard Richard Nabavi as a competitor but as a comrade in arms. My admiration for him is unbounded.
You are quite right to talk of "people's perceptions of the Conservative party". It continually provides a source of both comic relief and despair.
But it is not the battleground upon which the General Election will be won or lost however much the Conservatives' political opponents would wish it to be so.
The election will be won on the performance of the incumbent government and the perceptions of competence which derive from such measures.
And it is that approach, and that alone, which unites both Richard Nabavi and myself in our mutual respect for George Osborne.
Comments
"Ken Clarke, the Cabinet Minister, this morning suggested people who vote for Ukip are "angry" and "don't care" about the public finances."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10533408/Minister-apologises-for-crude-Nigel-Farage-comment.html
We hate you: Vote Conservative!
There is a small chance of Miliband 'cracking' and committing to a referendum before 2015. There is sod-all chance of him keeping his word after the election. Why?
1) If Labour get a majority, they can ignore their commitment, as has happened with all parties in the past. The Labour Party is fairly solidly pro-EU. He would excuse the shift in some way, especially to keep his MPs on board. If he does 'crack', examine the wording very closely. It will have lots of get-out clauses, and may not be the referendum you want.
2) If they lose to the Conservatives, they cannot enact it, and they will return to their pro-Europe ways.
3) If they go into coalition with the Lib Dems, then the Lib Dems would not allow it.
4) He is Miliband and he is a politician.
As a matter of interest, which parts and organisations in Europe do you think we should be leaving, and which should we remain in? Is it just the EU you would wish to leave?
In fact, what do you want?
What are we supposed to do, vote for a man who has repeatedly insulted us? Who may or may not give us a referendum but would campaign against it even if he did?
It is not up to us Kïppers to vote for someone who hates us, the Tories need to take responsibility if they don't get elected, not blame others.
Both Mike Smithson and TSE are fans of the show, anyone spoiling it for them may find they will only post threads on electoral reform on PB over the festive period.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
But a few warnings:
*) Roma != Romanians. Romani people can be found all over Central Europe, including countries that have already joined the EU.
*) I have a rather sympathetic view of Romanis. They have suffered terrible persecution over the years, not the least during WWII. They are the forgotten victims.
What is more, I have met many Gypsy-style Romanis whilst out walking, and AFAICR have never had an upset word with any of them - they have always been warm. I sadly cannot say the same for English or Irish Travellers, with whom Romanis often get confused.
Also, there are some parts of Romani lifestyle that I detest. See the problems Florin Cioabă (The King of the Romanis) had in 2003 as an example (which were curiously not mentioned in the Economist's obituary of him)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10271759/Florin-Cioaba.html
Or maybe he is so Europhile he just cannot help spitting bile at them?
Nah, it's really uniondivvie who deserves it most for spotting it first though I must admit I've heard more than one rumour over the year concerning Johnstone Press and the Hootsman's declining fortunes that seem to be coming true one by one. TUD also seems somewhat prophetic with his idea of their new 'venue'.
*chortle*
"...at the very moment that the “no-policy party” was unveiling new ideas and looking forward to hearing a speech by Lord (Digby) Jones, former UK trade minister, Godfrey turned attention away from policy and on to himself."
& Soubry
"Her half-hearted apology after her rather anatomical description of me is clearly not genuine, and I look forward to standing a Ukip candidate in her constituency in 2015."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-godfrey-bloom-thinks-ukip-has-no-policies-perhaps-i-can-put-him-right-9021034.html
Almost as tense.
Perhaps you think that every right-of-centre voter should be obliged to vote Conservative.
Sorry RN but we're no longer in the 1950s.
The Conservative party has to earn those votes and if it fails to do so by not having the right policies or right people then it has nobody to blame but itself.
And certainly not the voters or the parties they decide to vote for.
Will reply on your analysis later but for now in answer to your question for me it would be a case of leave EU and probably remain in EFTA. I am not opposed to migration per se so unlike many UKIP supporters I am able to square the circle which many seem to be determined to avoid.
The important point would be to remove ourselves from the political domination of our country by the EU and at the same time improve our overall trading position radically.
EFTA membership is not an absolute for me as other countries are doing perfectly well in free trade agreements with the EU without having to be members.
You only have to look at the way some PB tories jumped on "no-brainer" McTernan as somehow 'proof' that little Ed wouldn't pledge a referendum to know that they fear such a pledge. Little Ed could also just pledge to have the referendum on a referendum. The so called 'mandate referendum' that some tories favoured. Whatever happens if the tory party are still obsessing over it by May 2015 then Farage will be the one most pleased.
Here it is without the joke...
"davidaslindsay 1 hours ago
In After The Party, a collection of reminisces published in 2011 to mark the twentieth anniversary of the dissolution of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Andrew Pearmain writes:
"I started sleeping with other women on my trips to London, other Communist students and even a Tory member of the NUS Executive whose taste for rough sex really shocked me; she later joined the SDP."
Well, she is not in the SDP, or even the Lib Dems, now..."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-godfrey-bloom-thinks-ukip-has-no-policies-perhaps-i-can-put-him-right-9021034.html
'Never mind fingergate,how the hell vince cable hasn't being ordered to downing street after his smear on immigration with the 'river of blood' remark,I don't know.'
He has to say stuff like that to be noticed,his record in government has been so piss poor,remember the tit he made of himself a couple of years ago with two female reporters pretending to be constituents.
I thought that at first read!
Or is it just a one-man-band?
In theory anyway. In practise there's increasingly no rules and it's all who, whom.
They also spread plague and other deadly diseases, destroy food stocks and crops and do damage to property. Alexander is hardly the sharpest tack in the box.
To keep my reply short (as Mrs J is forcing me to watch Harry Potter): yours appears to be a logical and consistent position, and one I have some sympathy for.
Love to see that evidence.
Rather than find a smart way to laugh it off Farage is coming over badly 4. A short quip would have done the trick.
What is this? Do Your Own Research Day?
1. Why "of course"?
2. What comments?
3. What response?
4. "Badly"? By doing what?
It might help if the article gave some sort of clue about how Farage responded to something that I knew nothing about in the first place.
http://tinyurl.com/oqmkdda
These days, votes have to be earned. Earn them.
Get rid of the unimportant ephemera of your life such as family and friends, and devote yourself to PB.
JOIN USSSSSS!
*chortle*
If they manage to survive until 2016, they could thrive post-independence. But I am beginning to seriously doubt they can hold on that long. Their decline is simply too steep, too fast.
The Conservatives are apparantly entitled to every right-of-centre vote, people who went to the right school or did the right degree course are entitled to lord it over everyone else, the 1% is entitled to order everyone around but ignore the same rules when they like.
If the Conservative party is to be successful it must represent aspiration.
Instead it has become the symbal of entitlement and privilege.
Catalans are asking Spain’s Guardia Civil to apologise for a “joke” tweet, threatening combat vehicles on the streets if they vote for independence.
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2013/12/21/guardia-civil-in-catalan-independence-twitter-trouble/
Labour, Lib Dems & Conservatives treat UKIP the way racists do black people when they think no one is listening... if UKIP were a person they would be a unemployed black South Londoner who gets stopped and searched once a week and isn't welcome at the golf club
The contrived "rules" (used once) concerning the tv debates are a great example... similar to the "Grandfather" rule of immigration in the 70s
Of course no-one is obliged to vote for any particular party, but that is the choice. No ifs, no buts, no maybes: that is the choice. A party which disproportionately takes votes from one, helps the other. With me so far?
Now, Richard Tyndall was claiming that, from UKIP's point of view, "the very best situation would be with Miliband feeling the pressure before the next election and cracking by committing to a referendum."
All I was saying, was that there is no such pressure, and cannot be, when UKIP is working to make the result of the next election a Labour victory.
This is utterly obvious, is it not?
If UKIP really did want an EU referendum, they would be advising supporters to vote Conservative, as this is the only way of getting it. Clearly they don't want a referendum (as Richard T, to his credit, now admits). If they really did want to put pressure on Ed Miliband, they'd be making it less likely he'd be PM, unless he followed their agenda - for example, by threatening to withdraw from all Con/Lab marginal seats and advise their supporters to vote Conservative, if he didn't promise a referendum. They are doing the opposite.
The only pressure they are putting Ed Miliband under is the pressure of forcing him to disguise his delight at their shooting their cause in the foot.
UKIP have MEPs. They are part of the system.
To use your hideous analogy, they're the very people yelling at walkers to keep off the carefully-manicured greens.
But let's not get things out of proportion; politicians insult each other the whole time, and the great British public takes no notice whatsoever, other than thinking they're all the same. Even Gordon Brown insulting one of his core voters just a few days before the 2010 election had absolutely zero effect on anything.
Cameron's racist comments
Clarkes clown comments
Soubrys vulgar comments
Warsi alluding they are BNP lite
The contrivance of 'rules' to stop Farages involvement in debates
Steven Twiggs collusion with an audience member to smear Ukip on QT
Diane Abbotts claim they drag politics to the gutter
And if anyone mentions it they are called out for playing the victim
Look at today... Farage was the 'butt' of a crass comment and a thread is devoted to his ''humourless'' reaction, ignoring the fact that he did make a joke of it.... When Soubry and Farage rowed on QT a thread was devoted to how Farage has lost it
On both occasions it was Soubry that was incompetent and rude
Mike is Dan Hodges to Nigel's Ed Miliband!
For those UKIP supporters who regard the EU as the overwhelming issue then a Cameron referendum is worthless.
If Cameron held a referendum - a big if as he has already broken promises regarding the EU and is a proven liar - what would happend ?
The entire political establishment would drown the country in lies and scare stories to ensure an IN vote.
And if there was an OUT vote it would be ignored. We would be immediately be told that there was a need for 'clarification' and 'negotiation' and 'renegotiation' and 'confirmation' and all the other weasel words with the necessity of some second referendum at some indeterminate point in the future all in the 'fullness of time'.
Yes, the Conservative party would be damaged by the infighting that would cause but to an establishment figure like Cameron that would be a price well worth paying.
As Richard Tyndall and SeanT have previously pointed out what is needed by those who want British withdrawl from the EU is an EU referendum in which the Conservative party supports OUT. Somethign which is never going to happen with Cameron as leader.
Now if you're so concerned with keeping Labour out of government by having UKIP supporters vote Conservative then replacing the current Conservative leadership with one which UKIP supporters would trust regarding the EU is required.
And that's what I mean by the Conservative party needing the right policies and right people and if they don't they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Do a thought-experiment: imagine if a prominent UKIPper had said what she said about David Cameron.
However I am also realistic enough to realise that a Cameron referendum will only ever come about on the back of him claiming that he had won significant concessions. He will do this no matter what he has or has not achieved at Brussels and in the full knowledge that whatever concessions he might achieve will be illusory.
Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory party rather than a Europhile Cameron government supported by a Europhile Labour opposition.
In other words they're frit.
Quite rightly so; an In/Out referendum is unwinnable for the Out side, which is exactly the point I've been making here for years. That is why, having been granted it, they are now running in the opposite direction. So what the hell do they want?
Incidentally, of all the bat-shit crazy ideas circulating, the idea that Cameron would renege on the referendum promise if he had a majority post 2015 is the most bat-shit crazy of all. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him reneging on it, even if he wanted to; he wouldn't survive as party leader a week if he tried to do so.
"hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party "
You are Dave Spart and I claim my five pounds.
Though good to see Mandleson has not lost his touch. In that clip he clearly immediately sensed the moment when Soubry's political career left her body. He reaches out to grab it, but it was too late.
Kippers are incensed because they know full well that if a prominent ukip politician made the same remarks about Cameron, it would be the ukip politician being criticised, with all the stereotypes being wheeled out, and it would be all over the news, which this isnt. Farage was the jokes target and also is copping flak for his humourless reaction, even though his reaction was to make a joke.
At least you didn't say 'as a matter of interest...' That's really annoyingly smug
Lets see if Cameron apologises and sacks Soubry.
For me they can all say what they like about each other but this event has hurt the Conservatives.
It really isn't a good idea to keep building up the badwill felt towards them.
And if you doubt the accuracy of Ms. Soubry's observation I suggest you view the following photograph:
http://bit.ly/1988KcR
Now all we need is for TSE is to repeat your speculum insult.
We really are in the silly pre-Christmas season.
Personally i'm not outraged as my opinion of the political class is already too low but back when i used to watch the BBC if my kids were playing on the carpet and a politician said that i'd be fuming.
Anyway UKIP doesn't want a referendum either.
But more importantly, for there to be any reasonable chance of Out winning a referendum, Cameron must go and be replaced by someone who is actually a Eurosceptic rather than someone who plays at it to gain power but who is happy to lie and mislead the public over what is possible whilst remaining a member of the EU.
Even if that means a 5 year delay UKIP have to play the long game and make sure that there is real Eurosceptic representation in Parliament rather than the mock version presented by the current Tory party.
I am firmly of the belief that we will eventually leave the EU. As we have seen time and time again the rest of the bloc will not pander to the faux scepticism exhibited by successive UK governments and eventually the Europhiles will have no where left to hide. They will be forced to admit that their lies about changing the EU to suit our views are simply not achievable. I suspect this will be the issue which destroys Cameron and would certainly rather he didn't take the rest of the Tory party down with him.
As for being smug: perhaps I am, perhaps I am not. But at least I've never used the phrase "hegemonic process to smother the voice of the party ". That's a keeper.
Anyway, night-night all.
'Therefore UKIP's aim should not just be to secure a referendum but to ensure that referendum is won. That is far more likely to be the case if it is held under a Europhile Miliband government facing a properly Eurosceptic Tory'
UKIP and an EU referendum are like the badgers in Somerset.
If you do think there is no chance of an OUT vote then ultimately we will end up in an USE. Yawn.
You would say that but Cameron's already made his position clear - he's never going to take Britain out of the EU as prime minister.
If that means ruining the Conservative party that would be a price an establishment figure like Cameron would pay.
Everything from Maastricht onwards shows clearly how the political establishment works across the EU.
And Cameron cannot be described as anything but an establishment figure.
Why not just say he's over-optimistic?
In any case your argument, such as it is, makes no sense. You might be right that he's over-optimistic (no-one ever claimed renegotiation was going to be easy). If so, then the best - indeed only - hope of getting the UK out of the EU is to let the negotiations take their course, and then, when they fail as you expect, point out that reform is hopeless, and that leaving is therefore the only possible option. You might even get me to vote Out in that scenario - but not before it's been tried.
Glad you liked the phrase, sleep on it and maybe you'll see that it's true
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523691.stm
The faith which the Kippers have in Cameron's unique political power is touching. They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?
Good intentions and policies not stress tested looks the likely explanation.
I expect we will get a clarification and new policy statement tomorrow.
We've had years and years of it and saw another case of it last night with Cameron purportedly being about to veto increased EU enlargement on the immigration issue.
Avery was eulogising Cameron to the skies.
And then Edmund pointed out that it was the usual worthless bollox.
Cameron will have the option of recommending a post-negotiation IN, remaining neutral or recommending OUT.
The only circumstances under which he would have to resign after an OUT vote would be had he recommended IN.
Of course, he may feel that 2017 is the right time for him to step down and hand over for other reasons, not least of which being that electorates tend to tire of PMs after 8 years in office (and nearly 13 years as party leader).
Avery was drunk and being provocative.
Edmund was stone cold sober.
' They seem to have somehow convinced themselves that a referendum can be won, but only if Cameron is not the PM campaigning for staying in. It's rather sweet, isn't it?'
If it was another Tory PM they would find another excuse,what future would there be for UKIP after an EU referendum?
A Conservative leadership which supports IN is damaging to their cause irrespective of whether it includes Cameron or not.
Incidentally would you be willing to sacrifice Cameron as Conservative leader if that led to the return of UKIP voters to the Conservatives ?
As you're widely regarded as a Conservative mouthpiece it might be better if you didn't comment when drunk or indeed in a provocative manner at all.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person to still remember your 'bombing ragheads' contribution to the Syrian debate.
The Conservative party has built up more than enough ill will towards itself and already has a sizeable image problem.
I am not and have never been a member, activist or employee of the Conservative Party. I am certainly not, in any official sense, a "Conservative mouthpiece".
In most cases it is up to the reader to determine whether to take my comments at face value or to regard them as ironic.
In vino veritas.
As for your scenario of the talks failing, again it is obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about it that Cameron will never come back and say he has failed. He will get whatever scraps he can and dress it up as a great achievement in order to ensure an In vote in a subsequent referendum. He has already said he will never agree to a British withdrawal from the EU so unless you are claiming he was not being honest then I am afraid you are left with the scenario I present.
And why Cameron will never be trusted on the EU issue.
If the Conservatives are so desperate for the return of the relevant UKIP voters then Cameron has to go.
And its in effect irrelevant whether you're an official Conservative mouthpiece or just imitating one for a laugh or just accidentally appearing to be what other people might think one looks like. If people think you're a Conservative mouthpiece then the image you present inevitably affects people's perceptions of the Conservative party.
RN, by comparison, for all his elegance and eloquence in support of the Conservatives does come across as his own man. Albeit one with a regrettable blind spot towards George Osborne.
'My hope is none. But then I have never been in favour of parties beyond their usefulness to achieve specific aims.'
Hence,my point that UKIP will always find an excuse to avoid an EU referendum.
Why would their MEP's want to get off the gravy train?
My thanks for your comment but I would be disappointed if the parties totally ignored our comments.
An efficient party chairman would be wise to have a group of interns headed by a SpAd monitoring and reporting daily on social media, perhaps with "single page of A4" summary sent upstairs to keep the leaders hand on the pulse.
This would only be an extension of the MSM clippings and comments service which has been standard for decades.
All this effort put in and then we find we don't get an MI5 file in our names would be most disappointing. And here I am counting on a recommendation for an honour by George. Please don't destroy my hopes.
Whether the resulting comments do the person's image here any good is another matter although it may well cause much amusement as well.
I don't regard Richard Nabavi as a competitor but as a comrade in arms. My admiration for him is unbounded.
You are quite right to talk of "people's perceptions of the Conservative party". It continually provides a source of both comic relief and despair.
But it is not the battleground upon which the General Election will be won or lost however much the Conservatives' political opponents would wish it to be so.
The election will be won on the performance of the incumbent government and the perceptions of competence which derive from such measures.
And it is that approach, and that alone, which unites both Richard Nabavi and myself in our mutual respect for George Osborne.