Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
LDs have voted in favour of nuclear power for the first time in their history.
Interesting – I wonder what has sparked this volte face ?
Probably something to do with the fact that most of their left-wing members have torn up their membership cards over the last three years...
Many thanks for that, - however after a little googling it appears Aunty has an alternative view.
BBC - “Liberal Democrats have voted to support the building of a new generation of nuclear power plants - a policy U-turn which marks an important victory for the Party's leadership.”
“Ed Davey told delegates nuclear was a 'genuinely low carbon source of electricity'”
It seems Nick Clegg after only a short time in power has become a pragmatist and excepted ‘wind-farms’ and other such quackery will never fulfil the UK’s long term energy needs.
We know a lot of left-wing LD members have left the party recently because the polls show that the current membership prefers a 2015 coalition deal with the Tories whereas those who voted LD in 2010 prefer one with Labour.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
LOL - post of the day and a wonderful antidote to the poll hysteria induced toxicity of some of the left leaners today!
This is interesting: "Mr Afriyie told the Conservative Renewal conference: "I believe the British people should have a referendum on EU membership this side of the election"
That's a real offer there.
Afriyie challenge in June 2014? :-)
That must be the first time ever that the word interesting has been in the same sentence as Adam Afriyie.
It is like Ed Miliband telling Labour supporters that the only way to equality is to nationalise the 300 largest companies. And then when in government doing nothing of the sort.
Labour voters would realising that they weren't going to get what they were being told was necessary would go off and vote SWP.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
Can't help but think Crosby should be fired. He is helping the Tories lose members hand over fist. Latest news is that is approaching 85,000......
I do love the way our friends on the left attack Crosby for the alleged failings of Shapps....one might be tempted to think they would like Crosby removed and Shapps left in situ.
Of course, they can only have the Tories best interests at heart......
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
"Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?"
I think the precise answer is when 63% of the population would rather have their sexual organs put through a meat grinder rather than vote Tory however incompetent the alternative
This is interesting: "Mr Afriyie told the Conservative Renewal conference: "I believe the British people should have a referendum on EU membership this side of the election"
That's a real offer there.
Afriyie challenge in June 2014? :-)
That must be the first time ever that the word interesting has been in the same sentence as Adam Afriyie.
I'll up it, "exciting".
In your kipper dreams.
He's even given us a timetable:
"Whether the public believe Mr Cameron will become apparent in next year's European elections. He said: "We need to see if the public do begin to trust that the Conservative Party are serious about a referendum." If not, a vote before the 2015 election will be necessary, he said."
Can't help but think Crosby should be fired. He is helping the Tories lose members hand over fist. Latest news is that is approaching 85,000......
I do love the way our friends on the left attack Crosby for the alleged failings of Shapps....one might be tempted to think they would like Crosby removed and Shapps left in situ.
Of course, they can only have the Tories best interests at heart......
From a Tory perspective Crosby has done a good job. He has them focused on a few, right-leaning messages that all in the party are comfortable espousing. There's not much he can do about what looks to be the Tory glass ceiling except what he is doing at the moment - seeking to win over UKIP supporters and hoping that EdM will put off more voters than Brown did.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
I think he is making the reasonable point that it is ridiculous to use words like toxicity about a party that polls in excess of 35% at election after election. Its deeply insulting to a sizeable proportion of the electorate and the whole 'baby eating' meme trivialises political debate and highlights the lack of a serious alternative philosophy on the part of the left - they know they hate capitalism, tories, thatcha but there is no vision at all of an alternative - all Blair could offer was thatcha-lite and he has been their most successful leader ever - yet in the eyes of many in the party is now firmly entrenched as traitor to the cause.
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
And if a party can gain votes by painting the opposition as 'toxic', then good luck to them. Saves actually having any policies.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
I think he is making the reasonable point that it is ridiculous to use words like toxicity about a party that polls in excess of 35% at election after election. Its deeply insulting to a sizeable proportion of the electorate and the whole 'baby eating' meme trivialises political debate and highlights the lack of a serious alternative philosophy on the part of the left - they know they hate capitalism, tories, thatcha but there is no vision at all of an alternative - all Blair could offer was thatcha-lite and he has been their most successful leader ever - yet in the eyes of many in the party is now firmly entrenched as traitor to the cause.
It was Theresa May who bought the word "toxic" into use with regard to the Tories. I would say that dismissing dislike of the Tories as an aversion to "baby eating" is trivialising what May clearly recognised as a serious issue and which Cameron sought to address when he was elected Tory leader, but has now given up on. It also trivialises politics to talk of Labour creating a dependency culture, hating Britain's history and so on. As I said this morning on the previous thread, it's what you get with a FPTP electoral system and it serves the country ill.
I am not stupid enough to think that what I right here has an impact on anything so I can tell you whatever and it won't harm or help the Labour party.
You are right that Shapps is useless and has to take a lot of responsibility for the terrible terrible state of the Tory electoral machine.
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
Not at all. There is certainly evidence that the Tories struggle to get policies across in certain areas, and Charles makes a valid point that there is evidence that policies become more unpopular if the Conservative party is shown to be the source of them. But the Left's paucity of any ideas worth having is shown that the only reason they can think of for voting for them is that the other parties are "toxic". Old fashioned tribal politics. I suppose you have to, Labour no longer supports "the workers" in any meaningful way.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
And a lot of them vote Tory!
Not really - the only facts that really matter are an assessment of the last government's performance. Although there were some good things that happened - increasing social liberalism and tolerance, for instance, these were despite the last government's best efforts to drive wedges between different groups in society (e.g. hate crime)
In economics, foreign affairs, education, welfare and so many other ways the last government was nothing sure of a disaster for the country
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
And a lot of them vote Tory!
Not really - the only facts that really matter are an assessment of the last government's performance. Although there were some good things that happened - increasing social liberalism and tolerance, for instance, these were despite the last government's best efforts to drive wedges between different groups in society (e.g. hate crime)
In economics, foreign affairs, education, welfare and so many other ways the last government was nothing sure of a disaster for the country
Hmmm - I am not sure I agree that the voters of, say, Stratford upon Avon go to the polls at each GE and cast their Tory votes having disinterestedly made an assessment of the pros and cons of voting for each of the parties putting up candidates.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
I think he is making the reasonable point that it is ridiculous to use words like toxicity about a party that polls in excess of 35% at election after election. Its deeply insulting to a sizeable proportion of the electorate and the whole 'baby eating' meme trivialises political debate and highlights the lack of a serious alternative philosophy on the part of the left - they know they hate capitalism, tories, thatcha but there is no vision at all of an alternative - all Blair could offer was thatcha-lite and he has been their most successful leader ever - yet in the eyes of many in the party is now firmly entrenched as traitor to the cause.
It was Theresa May who bought the word "toxic" into use with regard to the Tories. I would say that dismissing dislike of the Tories as an aversion to "baby eating" is trivialising what May clearly recognised as a serious issue and which Cameron sought to address when he was elected Tory leader, but has now given up on. It also trivialises politics to talk of Labour creating a dependency culture, hating Britain's history and so on. As I said this morning on the previous thread, it's what you get with a FPTP electoral system and it serves the country ill.
Concern about a dependency culture is by no means trivial and I am shocked with your experience of the welfare state you should think so.
Accusing Labour of doing it *deliberately* is childish, but it seems to be the outcome of them refusing to undertake any meaningful reform during their time in government. (I am a fan of Frank Field, although I don't always agree with him)
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
Not at all. There is certainly evidence that the Tories struggle to get policies across in certain areas, and Charles makes a valid point that there is evidence that policies become more unpopular if the Conservative party is shown to be the source of them. But the Left's paucity of any ideas worth having is shown that the only reason they can think of for voting for them is that the other parties are "toxic". Old fashioned tribal politics. I suppose you have to, Labour no longer supports "the workers" in any meaningful way.
Not the other parties, the Tories. And if the message did not resonate it would not be an issue. But it does resonate. One day the Tories will look to themselves to see why.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
And a lot of them vote Tory!
Not really - the only facts that really matter are an assessment of the last government's performance. Although there were some good things that happened - increasing social liberalism and tolerance, for instance, these were despite the last government's best efforts to drive wedges between different groups in society (e.g. hate crime)
In economics, foreign affairs, education, welfare and so many other ways the last government was nothing sure of a disaster for the country
Hmmm - I am not sure I agree that the voters of, say, Stratford upon Avon go to the polls at each GE and cast their Tory votes having disinterestedly made an assessment of the pros and cons of voting for each of the parties putting up candidates.
And I am certain that they do. Most voters many not look at the detail, and certainly not this far out, but they have a good view of what the parties stand for.
If you wish to ignore the polling evidence - posted on here time and again by Mike - then it is entirely up to you. I hope that the Conservative party generally continues to do the same.
Not at all. There is certainly evidence that the Tories struggle to get policies across in certain areas, and Charles makes a valid point that there is evidence that policies become more unpopular if the Conservative party is shown to be the source of them. But the Left's paucity of any ideas worth having is shown that the only reason they can think of for voting for them is that the other parties are "toxic". Old fashioned tribal politics. I suppose you have to, Labour no longer supports "the workers" in any meaningful way.
Not the other parties, the Tories. And if the message did not resonate it would not be an issue. But it does resonate. One day the Tories will look to themselves to see why.
It's largely an issue for some of the guilt ridden chattering classes who have a disproportionate influence in a section of the media. Tribal anti party voting is regional - anti Tory in the north and anti Labour in the south. One could view either through the prism of 'toxicity' if you wished. However, none of this addresses the absence of policy on the Labour side. Beyond Apple pie for everyone and free money what do they stand for?
It also trivialises politics to talk of Labour creating a dependency culture, hating Britain's history and so on.
On the contrary, here you are arguing about policy, or at least about the results of policy.
By all means attack the Tories for policies that benefit the rich, for example, as the vast majority of the 37% who voted for them at the last election obviously are not rich. I'm not. It just happens that I have made the judgment that the Tories come closest to my judgment of what policies are best for the country.
Stuart_Dickson Panelbase/Sunday Times Scottish Parliament voting intention Constituency vote SNP 45% (n/c) Lab 32% (n/c) Con 12% (-2) LD 5% (-3)
If unfortunately the referendum is No, the LDs will be trying to save 11 MP seats on this base? Also the SNP may decide to maximise their MPs to have the highest number of Scots MPs. Maybe then the SNP hold the balance of power in a result similar to Feb 1974?
Well I'm not surprised, they failed to be straight with us about the Lisbon referendum. The result was exactly as I had expected - no point having a referendum if the treaty has already been ratified - but they should have told us that to start with.
I would have thought that it was a matter of the bleeding obvious that if the treaty had already been ratified that there would be no point in having a referendum. Are the people completely stupid? The Lisbon thing is just a meme to throw at Cammo by those who don't like him anyway.
Stuart_Dickson Panelbase/Sunday Times Scottish Parliament voting intention Constituency vote SNP 45% (n/c) Lab 32% (n/c) Con 12% (-2) LD 5% (-3)
If unfortunately the referendum is No, the LDs will be trying to save 11 MP seats on this base? Also the SNP may decide to maximise their MPs to have the highest number of Scots MPs. Maybe then the SNP hold the balance of power in a result similar to Feb 1974?
If the IndyRef result is No then I think we will see a political earthquake in Scotland at the 2015 UK GE. The Scottish Lib Dems, with next to non-existent membership numbers and no cash, will be starting from a 5% base and trying to fight on 3 fronts in 11 very different constituencies. I actually pity the poor guy at Clifton Terrace who has got to allocate the scarce resources to each of the panicking local constituency groups.
The Libdems have discovered that being in Government is all about delivering the possible rather than the dream. No matter how green their credentials, no one wants to be in a Government that cannot keep the lights on.
I would have thought that it was a matter of the bleeding obvious that if the treaty had already been ratified that there would be no point in having a referendum. Are the people completely stupid? The Lisbon thing is just a meme to throw at Cammo by those who don't like him anyway.
No it's not. Hague and Cameron could could have said exactly what you have. They chose not to. Not a good start when people are looking for a government that would be more open and less mendacious than the last one.
I would have thought that it was a matter of the bleeding obvious that if the treaty had already been ratified that there would be no point in having a referendum. Are the people completely stupid? The Lisbon thing is just a meme to throw at Cammo by those who don't like him anyway.
No it's not. Hague and Cameron could could have said exactly what you have. They chose not to. Not a good start when people are looking for a government that would be more open and less mendacious than the last one.
As a matter of interest, what did Cameron and Hague say? - A reputable link would also be useful.
Hague and Cameron could could have said exactly what you have. They chose not to.
They did say that.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum."
If you speak English and have the comprehensive abilities of a primary school child, you will understand from the quote that 'referendum' comes before 'ratification'
Anyone who pretends that this quote implies a referendum after ratification is mendacious, or an idiot.
As a matter of interest, what did Cameron and Hague say? - A reputable link would also be useful.
Not sure I can find one, I'm not tim, but it was something like "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it".
Which is pretty stupid. If you have a strategy which is dependent on X not happening, you pretty well have to have a fallback position for if it doesn't.
@Felix Sometimes not standing for stuff is a good place to start. I am a director of a highly profitable start-up company that over the last 10 years has grown to employ over 20 people, all on a living wage, without taking on a penny of debt. I should be a natural Tory. But I started life in a working class family and made my way thanks to a generous welfare state that looked after my health, gave me a free education until I was 21, supported me (and paid my mortgage) when I was unemployed, and did not force me into the first job available, but instead gave me a bit of time to find the right one. My wife was also born into a working class family and took the same path as me. She's now a teacher. I see the state as an enabler; the Tories seem to see it as the enemy. I believe that the vast majority of people claiming benefits either work or would like nothing more than a job; the Tories have made it clear they see such people as shirkers; i know teachers work hard, often spend their own money to make sure their classes are properly equipped and only want the best for their pupils; the Tories want to confront them.
I don't begin to pretend that Labour has all the answers. I have argued many times on here for a realignment on the centre-left that reflects the realities of 21st century Britain. But the Conservative party seems to despise what I believe in, denigrates the work my wife does and gives every impression of holding millions of Britons in the public sector and on benefits in contempt. That is not a party I could ever support. Sorry.
Labour was toxic. Even people like me could not for them. But all the polls are now telling us that it seems to have been a temporary toxicity and that things have reverted to norm.
Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?
To be fair to SO - although I think he delights in it too much - there has been polling that shows a marked drop in support for policies once they are known to be Tory rather than those of an unnamed party.
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
And a lot of them vote Tory!
Not really - the only facts that really matter are an assessment of the last government's performance. Although there were some good things that happened - increasing social liberalism and tolerance, for instance, these were despite the last government's best efforts to drive wedges between different groups in society (e.g. hate crime)
In economics, foreign affairs, education, welfare and so many other ways the last government was nothing sure of a disaster for the country
Hmmm - I am not sure I agree that the voters of, say, Stratford upon Avon go to the polls at each GE and cast their Tory votes having disinterestedly made an assessment of the pros and cons of voting for each of the parties putting up candidates.
And I am certain that they do. Most voters many not look at the detail, and certainly not this far out, but they have a good view of what the parties stand for.
So you are saying Labour voters know what Labour stands for and vote accordingly. Doesn't that contradict your previous point?
@Scott_P You cannot seriously expect me to believe that because the word "referendum" comes before "ratified" in that quotation it means what you claim it does. Bollocks. The question of what would happen if the treaty had already been ratified is left unsaid.
No I don't believe it means referendum after ratification because that question isn't addressed. Instead we were told "we will not let matters rest there",
@Scott_P You cannot seriously expect me to believe that because the word "referendum" comes before "ratified" in that quotation it means what you claim it does.
That's exactly what it means. To claim otherwise is mendacious, or stupid.
The quote was made at a time when neither had happened. Cameron was laying out the sequence of events he was advocating. Referendum, then ratification (if the referendum passed)
It's true that Cameron did not address in that quote what might happen under any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen, but that does not detract from the indisputable fact that he said referendum before ratification.
You can choose to misrepresent his words, but that says more about you than him.
@Scott_P You cannot seriously expect me to believe that because the word "referendum" comes before "ratified" in that quotation it means what you claim it does. Bollocks. The question of what would happen if the treaty had already been ratified is left unsaid.
No I don't believe it means referendum after ratification because that question isn't addressed. Instead we were told "we will not let matters rest there",
I see the old prejudices are still going strong on both sides here on PB. Out of interest, which party was in Government when you got your free education until 21, then supported you and paid your mortgage while you were unemployed, and then saw you start up your own business?
@Felix Sometimes not standing for stuff is a good place to start. I am a director of a highly profitable start-up company that over the last 10 years has grown to employ over 20 people, all on a living wage, without taking on a penny of debt. I should be a natural Tory. But I started life in a working class family and made my way thanks to a generous welfare state that looked after my health, gave me a free education until I was 21, supported me (and paid my mortgage) when I was unemployed, and did not force me into the first job available, but instead gave me a bit of time to find the right one. My wife was also born into a working class family and took the same path as me. She's now a teacher. I see the state as an enabler; the Tories seem to see it as the enemy. I believe that the vast majority of people claiming benefits either work or would like nothing more than a job; the Tories have made it clear they see such people as shirkers; i know teachers work hard, often spend their own money to make sure their classes are properly equipped and only want the best for their pupils; the Tories want to confront them.
I don't begin to pretend that Labour has all the answers. I have argued many times on here for a realignment on the centre-left that reflects the realities of 21st century Britain. But the Conservative party seems to despise what I believe in, denigrates the work my wife does and gives every impression of holding millions of Britons in the public sector and on benefits in contempt. That is not a party I could ever support. Sorry.
If you want us to vote No then you'd be unwise to carry on being rude about us.
I'm easy. You can vote either way. In many ways I would prefer a Yes, as I can't see asymmetric devolution ever being sorted out while the Scots remain in the Union.
I've been through the list of candidates and I think 113 women candidates have been selected so far out of a total of 357, which is 31.6%. (Might be one or two errors due to male-sounding names. One I do know about is Lee Sherriff, who is the female Labour candidate for Carlisle).
@Scott_P You cannot seriously expect me to believe that because the word "referendum" comes before "ratified" in that quotation it means what you claim it does.
That's exactly what it means. To claim otherwise is mendacious, or stupid.
The quote was made at a time when neither had happened. Cameron was laying out the sequence of events he was advocating. Referendum, then ratification (if the referendum passed)
It's true that Cameron did not address in that quote what might happen under any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen, but that does not detract from the indisputable fact that he said referendum before ratification.
You can choose to misrepresent his words, but that says more about you than him.
Bloody hell, you have swallowed the Tory line.
We are not talking about "any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen". We are talking about the one obvious circumstance that was actually likeliest to happen: that the Brown government would ratify the treaty before the election, and so would the rest of the EU.
In any case, they then further muddied the waters with "we will not let matters rest there".
While I agree that common sense told us the subsequent non-event was the likeliest outcome, the lack of clarity laid the Tories open to accusations of U-turn.
What would have been wrong with saying:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. However, if this Labour government chooses to ratify the treaty without consulting the British people, and it is already in place by the time of the election, there is unfortunately probably little we can do"
Indeed nothing would benefit the Tories more in electoral terms than Scottish independence, particularly if the other celtic nations get increased devolution also.
A vote for independence would force a realignment in English politics, and it would be one that benefits the right. But if the Scots vote Yes to independence then that is no longer any business of theirs.
If you want us to vote No then you'd be unwise to carry on being rude about us.
I'm easy. You can vote either way. In many ways I would prefer a Yes, as I can't see asymmetric devolution ever being sorted out while the Scots remain in the Union.
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.
That is what he did say. Succinct, transparent and honest.
However, if this Labour government chooses to ratify the treaty without consulting the British people, and it is already in place by the time of the election, there is unfortunately probably little we can do"
for the same reason he didn't say "if the World is eaten by a giant squid there will be no referendum"
I would have thought that it was a matter of the bleeding obvious that if the treaty had already been ratified that there would be no point in having a referendum. Are the people completely stupid? The Lisbon thing is just a meme to throw at Cammo by those who don't like him anyway.
No it's not. Hague and Cameron could could have said exactly what you have. They chose not to. Not a good start when people are looking for a government that would be more open and less mendacious than the last one.
for the same reason he didn't say "if the World is eaten by a giant squid there will be no referendum" Some things are not required to be stated.
Oh ffs. That was the only other likely circumstance. It was also the likeliest circumstance, much likelier than the treaty left unratified at the time of the election.
If there was no need to say anything else, why did we get the crap about "we will not let the matter rest there"?
And can you not understand that the failure to specifiy what would happen in the result of the treaty already being ratified laid cameron open to accusations of a u-turn, and look mendacious?
Cameron's problem with women: Female voters desert Tories because the PM is too posh and 'out of touch'
- Tories had 5-point lead among women in 2010 but now 13 points behind Labour - Voters tell focus groups Cameron does 'bugger all for women like me' - Ed Miliband branded 'creepy' and Nick Clegg 'damaged goods'
You should read what Hague said on 2 October 2007 at Conference ...." a Conservative government elected this autumn will hold a referendum on any treaty which emerges....."
I don't remember being told this policy had been withdrawn following the failure of Brown to call an election in Autumn 2007. It was still on offer up to the point Brown signed the Treaty.
I don't begin to pretend that Labour has all the answers. I have argued many times on here for a realignment on the centre-left that reflects the realities of 21st century Britain. But the Conservative party seems to despise what I believe in, denigrates the work my wife does and gives every impression of holding millions of Britons in the public sector and on benefits in contempt. That is not a party I could ever support. Sorry.
As I've said before, we agree on a lot of the objectives, but I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the state as Labour sees it.
Labour sees the state as an organisation of control. Everyone should go toa "bog-standard comprehensive" because that is equal. It takes no account of individual children having different skills and interests. Variety of provision usually ends up with better outcomes. Similarly, Labour takes the view that the state, or state-owned entities, must be the provider. Even if this leads to inefficient or ineffective delivery - it is a shibboleth for them.
The Tories are slowly groping their way towards an understanding of the state as a facilitator: free schools (and yes there are elements of centralisation that can hopefully be wound down over time) should be beneficial to teachers and pupils. Local convalesence homes (perhaps combined with social care) and specialist acute centres would be better than unwieldy district generals. Trust GPs - and teachers and police officers and whoever - to do the best job: measure them on outcomes, not on process.
Clearly there are still 'hard-faced Tories who look like they did well out of the war', but I think increasingly these are less important in the party's vision of the future.
Oh ffs. That was the only other likely circumstance. It was also the likeliest circumstance, much likelier than the treaty left unratified at the time of the election.
That's not true.
The likeliest outcome at the time of the quote was that Gordo was going to call the election that never was.
It's possible Cameron could have said "In the event that Gordo is a big feartie who is about to destroy his reputation in a single non event before sneaking in the back door to sign the Lisbon treaty without a referendum after all the other leaders have left, then we are stuffed", but that was no more likely than the World being eaten by a giant squid.
@Scott_P You cannot seriously expect me to believe that because the word "referendum" comes before "ratified" in that quotation it means what you claim it does.
That's exactly what it means. To claim otherwise is mendacious, or stupid.
The quote was made at a time when neither had happened. Cameron was laying out the sequence of events he was advocating. Referendum, then ratification (if the referendum passed)
It's true that Cameron did not address in that quote what might happen under any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen, but that does not detract from the indisputable fact that he said referendum before ratification.
You can choose to misrepresent his words, but that says more about you than him.
Bloody hell, you have swallowed the Tory line.
We are not talking about "any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen". We are talking about the one obvious circumstance that was actually likeliest to happen: that the Brown government would ratify the treaty before the election, and so would the rest of the EU.
In any case, they then further muddied the waters with "we will not let matters rest there".
While I agree that common sense told us the subsequent non-event was the likeliest outcome, the lack of clarity laid the Tories open to accusations of U-turn.
What would have been wrong with saying:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations. No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. However, if this Labour government chooses to ratify the treaty without consulting the British people, and it is already in place by the time of the election, there is unfortunately probably little we can do"
There. Succinct, transparent and honest.
Are you really expecting a politician to admit to powerlessness?
Given that Tories desperately need the kippers back in the fold (see above), it is simply foolish for Cameron and Co (and Tories like you) to go on pretending that the "cast iron guarantee" thing did not hack people off.
Oh, I have no doubt it hacked people off, but the people it hacked off are people who desperately wanted to be hacked off, who misrepresent the circumstances and misinterpret the words.
Cameron probably needs to be nice to the Kippers. I don't.
"A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate."
It took fifteen years to admit it but better late than never. I think that's just the BBC left who haven't admitted it yet - at least not on air.
It's not the only thing the BBC won't admit though
Thousands of families on the gang-ruled inner-city hell-estates are having their children raped within a few miles of Whoreminster and BBC HQ and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it because the political class are deliberately covering it up just like they covered up the grooming gangs.
And just like the grooming gangs the problem is ten times worse than it would be *because* the media and political class are covering it up so most of the blood is on their hands.
Given that Tories desperately need the kippers back in the fold (see above), it is simply foolish for Cameron and Co (and Tories like you) to go on pretending that the "cast iron guarantee" thing did not hack people off.
You may think this unfair; I think Cameron brought it on himself with his deliberately vague wording. It doesn't matter.
Fact is lots of people do not trust Cameron on Europe (and still don't) because of that betrayal (as they see it). You have to deal with the world as it is. If Cameron wants a majority he needs a way of making himself newly believable on matters European.
I suggest that the Tories engineer a MASSIVE row with Europe - and I mean BIG and SERIOUS - about three-six months before the election. At that point it won't matter if the LDs collapse the Coalition in disgust.
Interesting - I recall that the drop off in trust happened sometime later (I could be wrong though). That would point to people making mischief with Cameron's words rather than the original pledge itself. (At least, though, he left a hostage to fortune which his enemies are gleefully exploiting).
Your fundamental point is right though: it is better to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you would like it to be
Are you really expecting a politician to admit to powerlessness?
Yes. Why not?
Because the same people who hate Cameron for not holding a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified would hate him for admitting he couldn't hold a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified.
SO Which party was it which abolished most of the grammar schools, the greatest engineer for social mobility this country has had? It wasn't the Tories. Which party expanded the universities? The Tories under Macmillan and Major. Which party helped many entrepreneurs and small businesses get off the ground? The Tories under Thatcher and Cameron.
The likeliest outcome at the time of the quote was that Gordo was going to call the election that never was.
In which case, the error was leaving the statement as it stood, without reviewing it in the light of circumstances, i.e. the election didn't happen, and a policy that had been designed to cover the short term, ended up becoming a more permanent one, when circumstances were far more likely to change in ways not covered by the policy statement.
Because the same people who hate Cameron for not holding a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified would hate him for admitting he couldn't hold a referendum on a treaty that had already been ratified.
In which case, better to admit it. The people who hate you... still will. The people who saw it coming and regarded the outcome as no more than common sense... will not be pissed off by the deliberate vagueness, implied mendacity and inability to be open with the electorate.
The key Cameroon quote on Lisbon is "we will not let it rest there."
Did you miss the bit about a plan to renegotiate the Treaties and allow the public to vote on the outcome?
I suspect that, had the Tories won a majority in 2010 (which they did not), that plan would have been implemented in this Parliament. But they didn't, and the other parties wouldn't permit them to go ahead with this plan, so it has been delayed for 5 years
In which case, the error was leaving the statement as it stood, without reviewing it in the light of circumstances
But the circumstances didn't change the statement, or the policy.
The statement, and the policy, was referendum before ratification.
That statement and policy stood, right up until it was ratified, at which point the statement and the policy lapsed.
Only the foolish or mendacious refuse to admit that.
I haven't accused you of foolishness or lying, I have just disagreed with you. So it would be a courtesy if you did not accuse those who disagree with you of those things. We just have a different point of view.
The policy was clearly that the treaty should be put before a referendum before ratification, and that if the Tories had a chance they would do so. Also maybe that in general that's how things should work.
But at no time was it made clear what would happen if it had been ratified. As SeanT pointed out, the vagueness left people unclear what would happen, and allowed people to claim the Tories had made a U-turn. People might think that something might still be done directly about the Lisbon Treaty rather than the longer term re-negotiation that may or may not be happening now. Not wise to give yourself that sort of hostage to fortune. Also it made it look like the Tories either hadn't considered the possibility of other outcomes, or what they might do in those circumstances, or indeed that they had but were keeping quiet about it.
My view is that it was a messy episode which could have been easily avoided if sufficient attention was paid to the clarity of the message.
On the other issue though we all saw how soon after the Times finally broke the media and political class' wall of silence over the grooming gangs the police started arresting people and how the sky didn't fall in.
So if the BBC and political class stopped covering up the inner-city gang-culture and all the 1000s of gang rapes that flow from it then i expect you'd see the same thing. The police could start arresting people, the sky wouldn't fall in and 1000s of families wouldn't have their children raped
But at no time was it made clear what would happen if it had been ratified.
It was always clear. Here's a clue as to what would happen if it had been ratified. It's what happened. There would be no referendum. There is no referendum on ratification of the Lisbon treaty.
We will do A, and then B.
If B has happened, there will be no A.
It's not difficult, which is why only the foolish or mendacious pretend something else was said.
"As a member of Labour's team in the coalition negotiations with the Liberal Democrats in May 2010, I might not be the most objective commentator. But what I saw then, and what the country has seen since, has convinced me that Clegg made a series of serious misjudgments which are costing the country (and his party) dear.
First, he closed down his options. By saying that he was obliged to seek agreement with the party that had won the most seats – a mythical constitutional doctrine – he gave legitimacy to the Tories and fatally undermined Labour support for a Lab-Lib coalition. With Labour and the Lib Dems having 315 seats, plus 28 from largely anti-Tory smaller parties, against the Tories' 307, this remained mathematically possible. But Clegg changed the dynamic and turned decisively right, not left.
In doing so, he abandoned the economic policy on which he and Vince Cable had fought the election and chose to back a Conservative economic plan which a majority of the country had voted against. If Clegg has since had difficulty persuading people that he stands for anything that really matters, it is not hard to see why."
But at no time was it made clear what would happen if it had been ratified.
It was always clear. Here's a clue as to what would happen if it had been ratified. It's what happened. There would be no referendum. There is no referendum on ratification of the Lisbon treaty.
We will do A, and then B.
If B has happened, there will be no A.
Say it, then.
It's not difficult, which is why only the foolish or mendacious pretend something else was said.
Bloody hell, you're getting as bad as tim with your mantras and ritualistic phrases. Give it a break.
Comments
I suspect this partly unwinds under the 'spiral of silence' but also there are a lot of people who will vote based on prejudice rather than an assessment of the facts
It is like Ed Miliband telling Labour supporters that the only way to equality is to nationalise the 300 largest companies. And then when in government doing nothing of the sort.
Labour voters would realising that they weren't going to get what they were being told was necessary would go off and vote SWP.
Of course, they can only have the Tories best interests at heart......
"Labour are currently polling an average of about 38.5%, only 1.5% more than the "toxic" Tories got at the last election. Just where does toxicity end and electability, nay popularity, start exactly?"
I think the precise answer is when 63% of the population would rather have their sexual organs put through a meat grinder rather than vote Tory however incompetent the alternative
"Whether the public believe Mr Cameron will become apparent in next year's European elections. He said: "We need to see if the public do begin to trust that the Conservative Party are serious about a referendum." If not, a vote before the 2015 election will be necessary, he said."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC57rpO8ChA
Be it Tongelre, Bromley or Lewisham; the fight is right....
"woger .. 63 percent of brits would put their sex organs through a meat grinder for fun.."
And I thought you were in rehab for a drink problem
Go back to say 2005 and find the highest point for each party. That figure (excluding rogue polls) is the ceiling for each party.
I am not stupid enough to think that what I right here has an impact on anything so I can tell you whatever and it won't harm or help the Labour party.
You are right that Shapps is useless and has to take a lot of responsibility for the terrible terrible state of the Tory electoral machine.
In economics, foreign affairs, education, welfare and so many other ways the last government was nothing sure of a disaster for the country
Accusing Labour of doing it *deliberately* is childish, but it seems to be the outcome of them refusing to undertake any meaningful reform during their time in government. (I am a fan of Frank Field, although I don't always agree with him)
Priority 1 is "economy and jobs." And Labour have a big lead on this, 44 to Tory 33. Gosh.
Shakes head ..... time to watch Bale's best goals again....
pic.twitter.com/5r08pLlYHT
By all means attack the Tories for policies that benefit the rich, for example, as the vast majority of the 37% who voted for them at the last election obviously are not rich. I'm not. It just happens that I have made the judgment that the Tories come closest to my judgment of what policies are best for the country.
Panelbase/Sunday Times
Scottish Parliament voting intention
Fieldwork end date: 5 September 2013
(+/- change from Scottish GE 2011)
Constituency vote
SNP 45% (n/c)
Lab 32% (n/c)
Con 12% (-2)
LD 5% (-3)
List vote
SNP 46% (+2)
Lab 28% (+2)
Con 12% (n/c)
Grn 6% (+2)
LD 4% (-1)
Putin doesn't have to threaten to DO anything, just to withdraw support would be enough.
Panelbase/Sunday Times Scottish Parliament voting intention Constituency vote
SNP 45% (n/c)
Lab 32% (n/c)
Con 12% (-2)
LD 5% (-3)
If unfortunately the referendum is No, the LDs will be trying to save 11 MP seats on this base? Also the SNP may decide to maximise their MPs to have the highest number of Scots MPs. Maybe then the SNP hold the balance of power in a result similar to Feb 1974?
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 3h
Further evidence that Ed Balls wants the economy to fail, so he can succeed http://bit.ly/1459wVy
Anyone who pretends that this quote implies a referendum after ratification is mendacious, or an idiot.
Which is pretty stupid. If you have a strategy which is dependent on X not happening, you pretty well have to have a fallback position for if it doesn't.
Edited to add: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/06/william-hague-gives-a-reply-if-not-an-answer-to-the-question-what-does-we-will-not-let-matters-rest-.html "We will not let matters rest there" whatever that means. (Actually it means "we will let matters rest there because, in practice, we will have no choice")
If you want us to vote No then you'd be unwise to carry on being rude about us.
I don't begin to pretend that Labour has all the answers. I have argued many times on here for a realignment on the centre-left that reflects the realities of 21st century Britain. But the Conservative party seems to despise what I believe in, denigrates the work my wife does and gives every impression of holding millions of Britons in the public sector and on benefits in contempt. That is not a party I could ever support. Sorry.
No I don't believe it means referendum after ratification because that question isn't addressed. Instead we were told "we will not let matters rest there",
The quote was made at a time when neither had happened. Cameron was laying out the sequence of events he was advocating. Referendum, then ratification (if the referendum passed)
It's true that Cameron did not address in that quote what might happen under any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen, but that does not detract from the indisputable fact that he said referendum before ratification.
You can choose to misrepresent his words, but that says more about you than him.
Common sense says it.
We are not talking about "any other set of circumstances that might subsequently have arisen". We are talking about the one obvious circumstance that was actually likeliest to happen: that the Brown government would ratify the treaty before the election, and so would the rest of the EU.
In any case, they then further muddied the waters with "we will not let matters rest there".
While I agree that common sense told us the subsequent non-event was the likeliest outcome, the lack of clarity laid the Tories open to accusations of U-turn.
What would have been wrong with saying: There. Succinct, transparent and honest.
A vote for independence would force a realignment in English politics, and it would be one that benefits the right. But if the Scots vote Yes to independence then that is no longer any business of theirs.
Commons guide on who is related to who in the House!
http://www.parliament.uk/templates/errorpages/500.html?aspxerrorpath=/briefing-papers/sn04809/pil-current-members-related-to-other-current-or-former-members<http:/www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04809/pil-current-members-related-to-other-current-or-former-members
He didn't say this bit
for the same reason he didn't say "if the World is eaten by a giant squid there will be no referendum"
Some things are not required to be stated.
Who should be fired:
Lynton Crosby
Jim Messina
Grant Shapps
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2007/10/William_Hague_A_peoples_referendum_lock_on_more_EU_powers.aspx
What are you going to do when you realise that all your time on here has been wasted and Labour are back in power.
If there was no need to say anything else, why did we get the crap about "we will not let the matter rest there"?
And can you not understand that the failure to specifiy what would happen in the result of the treaty already being ratified laid cameron open to accusations of a u-turn, and look mendacious?
- Tories had 5-point lead among women in 2010 but now 13 points behind Labour
- Voters tell focus groups Cameron does 'bugger all for women like me'
- Ed Miliband branded 'creepy' and Nick Clegg 'damaged goods'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2421027/Camerons-problem-women-Female-voters-desert-Tories-PM-posh-touch.html#ixzz2ezYObMS3
Labour sees the state as an organisation of control. Everyone should go toa "bog-standard comprehensive" because that is equal. It takes no account of individual children having different skills and interests. Variety of provision usually ends up with better outcomes. Similarly, Labour takes the view that the state, or state-owned entities, must be the provider. Even if this leads to inefficient or ineffective delivery - it is a shibboleth for them.
The Tories are slowly groping their way towards an understanding of the state as a facilitator: free schools (and yes there are elements of centralisation that can hopefully be wound down over time) should be beneficial to teachers and pupils. Local convalesence homes (perhaps combined with social care) and specialist acute centres would be better than unwieldy district generals. Trust GPs - and teachers and police officers and whoever - to do the best job: measure them on outcomes, not on process.
Clearly there are still 'hard-faced Tories who look like they did well out of the war', but I think increasingly these are less important in the party's vision of the future.
Power to the People!
The likeliest outcome at the time of the quote was that Gordo was going to call the election that never was.
It's possible Cameron could have said "In the event that Gordo is a big feartie who is about to destroy his reputation in a single non event before sneaking in the back door to sign the Lisbon treaty without a referendum after all the other leaders have left, then we are stuffed", but that was no more likely than the World being eaten by a giant squid.
Are you really expecting a politician to admit to powerlessness?
Lab 1/3 (BetVictor, Ladbrokes)
SNP 9/4 (Lad)
LD 25/1
Con 150/1
Cameron probably needs to be nice to the Kippers. I don't.
"A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate."
It took fifteen years to admit it but better late than never. I think that's just the BBC left who haven't admitted it yet - at least not on air.
It's not the only thing the BBC won't admit though
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/boys-quizzed-over-500-rapes-a-year-by-gangs-8335165.html
Thousands of families on the gang-ruled inner-city hell-estates are having their children raped within a few miles of Whoreminster and BBC HQ and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it because the political class are deliberately covering it up just like they covered up the grooming gangs.
And just like the grooming gangs the problem is ten times worse than it would be *because* the media and political class are covering it up so most of the blood is on their hands.
Your fundamental point is right though: it is better to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you would like it to be
These people are in it for power. It would negate their entire being if they were to admit to themselves, or others, that it was all a chimera
The statement, and the policy, was referendum before ratification.
That statement and policy stood, right up until it was ratified, at which point the statement and the policy lapsed.
Only the foolish or mendacious refuse to admit that.
I suspect that, had the Tories won a majority in 2010 (which they did not), that plan would have been implemented in this Parliament. But they didn't, and the other parties wouldn't permit them to go ahead with this plan, so it has been delayed for 5 years
Like i said, the key Cameroon quote is "we will not let it rest there" so the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - or not.
The policy was clearly that the treaty should be put before a referendum before ratification, and that if the Tories had a chance they would do so. Also maybe that in general that's how things should work.
But at no time was it made clear what would happen if it had been ratified. As SeanT pointed out, the vagueness left people unclear what would happen, and allowed people to claim the Tories had made a U-turn. People might think that something might still be done directly about the Lisbon Treaty rather than the longer term re-negotiation that may or may not be happening now. Not wise to give yourself that sort of hostage to fortune. Also it made it look like the Tories either hadn't considered the possibility of other outcomes, or what they might do in those circumstances, or indeed that they had but were keeping quiet about it.
My view is that it was a messy episode which could have been easily avoided if sufficient attention was paid to the clarity of the message.
So if the BBC and political class stopped covering up the inner-city gang-culture and all the 1000s of gang rapes that flow from it then i expect you'd see the same thing. The police could start arresting people, the sky wouldn't fall in and 1000s of families wouldn't have their children raped
Chris Deerin @chrisdeerin 5m
Boris performs something of a Glasgow kiss on Nick Clegg @Telegraph http://fw.to/c47zNHa
We will do A, and then B.
If B has happened, there will be no A.
It's not difficult, which is why only the foolish or mendacious pretend something else was said.
"As a member of Labour's team in the coalition negotiations with the Liberal Democrats in May 2010, I might not be the most objective commentator. But what I saw then, and what the country has seen since, has convinced me that Clegg made a series of serious misjudgments which are costing the country (and his party) dear.
First, he closed down his options. By saying that he was obliged to seek agreement with the party that had won the most seats – a mythical constitutional doctrine – he gave legitimacy to the Tories and fatally undermined Labour support for a Lab-Lib coalition. With Labour and the Lib Dems having 315 seats, plus 28 from largely anti-Tory smaller parties, against the Tories' 307, this remained mathematically possible. But Clegg changed the dynamic and turned decisively right, not left.
In doing so, he abandoned the economic policy on which he and Vince Cable had fought the election and chose to back a Conservative economic plan which a majority of the country had voted against. If Clegg has since had difficulty persuading people that he stands for anything that really matters, it is not hard to see why."