FPT: Osborne has laid down a humdinger of a challenge to Balls (and to the LibDems), by pledging to run a budget surplus. Will Balls now match this pledge?
As political traps go this is quite a goody, but more importantly it is of course absolutely what needs to be done. Once we get through the long slog of actually getting rid of the huge deficit, we're going to need to start getting the absolute level of debt down as well (the alternative strategy, of letting it inflate away, is I think not practical given the peak we'll be starting from, which is unprecedented in peacetime).
Yes indeed, got to be the best (long term) thing from Osborne's speech. Labour ran large deficits during the boom years, without which we would have had the money to eradicate the pain of recession/depression.
At the beginning of Grayling's speech, he mentioned inmates using a mobile phone to take photos of themselves and using the internet to send them to Facebook or something.
It seems to me that the prison officers are smuggling mobiles into the prison for the inmates in return for cash.
When I did some prison visits, they did not allow me to take in a handkerchief.
If Farage can't play nicely with Bill Cash of all people (who is effectively UKIP in all but name), then what hope does he have of working with anyone?
Very true, but that is what Farage does. There are more former members of UKIP than even today's high level. Back a few years ago UKIP had a similar level of membership but divisions and fall outs involving Farage drove those people out of UKIP. For the Bruges/Freedom Association people, we are fast approaching the point where the referendum on Europe is threatened by the electoral performance of UKIP in GE 2015 defeating Conservative MPs. Farage has promised that Labour and the Lib Dems will also promise a referendum at GE 2015, but time is running out on them falling in line with Farage's promise. The manifestos are only 17 months away from being announced.
I am no fan of Farage but on the point of membership you are completely wrong. UKIP have never been even close to the levels of membership they have today. It is only a few years since they were well below 20,000 members.
2005 it was 28,000.
No that was massively disputed and everyone knew they were inflating membership figures. The real figure was generally accepted to be nearer 20,000.
He doesn't even need to do that: all he has to do is make sure that the deficit is no bigger than the proportional change in nominal GDP. So, if nominal GDP grows by 5% (3% inflation, 2% economic growth), then the national debt relative to GDP will shrink by 5%. You can run a pretty decent sized deficit in this circumstance and still see debt-to-GDP fall.
Very true, the rhetoric is much more impressive than the reality. It's still difficult for Labour to get on board with this, they exist to spend money in the good times. If a political consensus is built that we should save in the good times and spend in the bad it would be difficult for Labour to continue operating as they do. I don't view this as a likely outcome, the British public are too addicted to state handouts to ever get on board with lower spending during the good times.
I can see the logic in this. If the Tories get a majority and have their in/out referendum and Dave manages to get a decent settlement from the EU (an unlikely prospect IMO) the nation will vote to stay in, effectively ending the BOOers raison d'être. However, there is a massive chance that Dave's negotiating skills will turn out to be as bad as his skills at being a PM and the settlement will be poor and the nation will vote to leave the EU.
Richard T's position is that there won't be any meaningful renegotiation, indeed that it is impossible. You'd have thought he'd be delighted by this, as it makes an Out vote more likely.
It's impossible avoid the conclusion that the UKIPpers are frit. They think they can't win a referendum, so they don't want one. I think they're probably right on this (indeed I have a bet with Richard on the subject), but it can't have anything to do with Cameron or renegotiation, because if Cameron is as useless as they claim, and renegotiation so impossible, that's the best possible scenario for taking us out. It's if Cameron IS successful in renegotiating that they've potentially got a problem.
Not sure if this has been linked to, but there is a very interesting article on the BBC website about national identity in the UK. Those from ethnic minorities are most likely to describe themselves as British and there may be a correlation between areas of strong UKIP support and feelings of being English (my conclusion, not the BBCs):
In England, the local authorities in which higher proportions of people simply ticked English as their national identity tend to be on the coasts, particularly on the eastern side of the country. East Anglia and the Fens, parts of the Midlands and up the north-east coast show some of the highest figures for English identity. The place that tops the table for English identity is Castle Point - the local authority that includes Canvey Island on the Thames estuary. Home to an older and predominantly white, working-class population, eight out of 10 people here ticked the English box in the census.
There seems to be quite a strong degree of correlation between support for UKIP and areas of Danish settlement (Kent excepted). I don't kow whether or not that's just a coincidence.
The correlation is stronger than you think. The Isle of Thanet was the first place the Danes overwintered rather than going home at the end of the fighting season in 850AD.
But the Danes were slaughtered in a battle in 894 what is now Castle Point. There's alleged to be the ghost one of the few survivors wandering Canvey Point (the far eastern tip of the island) looking for a ship. All the Dane's ships were, apparently burned.
I can see the logic in this. If the Tories get a majority and have their in/out referendum and Dave manages to get a decent settlement from the EU (an unlikely prospect IMO) the nation will vote to stay in, effectively ending the BOOers raison d'être. However, there is a massive chance that Dave's negotiating skills will turn out to be as bad as his skills at being a PM and the settlement will be poor and the nation will vote to leave the EU.
I think the bigger problem from a BOO point of view is that it is almost immaterial what result Dave comes back with. Whatever he gets he will claim it is a great deal for Britain and the other two parties will back him on that since all of them would put staying in the EU above absolutely any other political considerations.
If one is being realistic then from a BOO position the best result is for Cameron to lose the next GE and be replaced by someone who is genuinely Eurosceptic and who will then openly campaign on the basis of leaving the EU.
I can see the logic in this. If the Tories get a majority and have their in/out referendum and Dave manages to get a decent settlement from the EU (an unlikely prospect IMO) the nation will vote to stay in, effectively ending the BOOers raison d'être. However, there is a massive chance that Dave's negotiating skills will turn out to be as bad as his skills at being a PM and the settlement will be poor and the nation will vote to leave the EU.
Richard T's position is that there won't be any meaningful renegotiation, indeed that it is impossible. You'd have thought he'd be delighted by this, as it makes an Out vote more likely.
It's impossible avoid the conclusion that the UKIPpers are frit. They think they can't win a referendum, so they don't want one. I think they're probably right on this (indeed I have a bet with Richard on the subject), but it can't have anything to do with Cameron or renegotiation, because if Cameron is as useless as they claim, and renegotiation so impossible, that's the best possible scenario for taking us out. It's if Cameron IS successful in renegotiating that they've potentially got a problem.
You beat me to it Richard. I said pretty much the same thing about meaningful negotiation in a later post. But you miss the real point I was making. It is not that Cameron can or can't do negotiation well. It is that it doesn't matter. Whatever he manages to achieve he will claim it as a great victory which justifies voting to stay in in the subsequent referendum and the other two parties will support him in this as they consider leaving the EU to be an absolute anathema.
Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.
Excellent cartoon Marf and it's good to see ratty. After a moment's thought I wondered whether one could do a cartoon of a ship leaving a sinking rat. But we wouldn't want that done to ratty.
"There are only around 10,000 Tory members in Scotland now, and the independence referendum demands far more boots on the ground than they can muster from that base. They have therefore decided to appeal more broadly for supporters and activists.
Databases from previous campaigns were scoured and pulled together for a mass mailshot inviting people to join Conservative Friends of the Union. They made it free to subscribe, and that first invitation resulted in 50,000 people signing up.
Overnight the support base they could call on to leaflet, to display posters, to fundraise and pass on the Better Together message increased five-fold. The number has since grown to over 80,000.
Not only has this approach expanded their number of troops, it has raised money, too, bringing in £250,000 in small donations.
This must be the way forward for mass political campaigning. Demanding people pay a subscription before they can get involved in campaigning means we miss out on large numbers of potential activists and supporters, and their donations, too.
We must ask ourselves, which would the Conservative Party rather have – a small number of pre-paid members, or a large army of supporters who join for free and give their time?"
I can see the logic in this. If the Tories get a majority and have their in/out referendum and Dave manages to get a decent settlement from the EU (an unlikely prospect IMO) the nation will vote to stay in, effectively ending the BOOers raison d'être. However, there is a massive chance that Dave's negotiating skills will turn out to be as bad as his skills at being a PM and the settlement will be poor and the nation will vote to leave the EU.
Richard T's position is that there won't be any meaningful renegotiation, indeed that it is impossible. You'd have thought he'd be delighted by this, as it makes an Out vote more likely.
It's impossible avoid the conclusion that the UKIPpers are frit. They think they can't win a referendum, so they don't want one. I think they're probably right on this (indeed I have a bet with Richard on the subject), but it can't have anything to do with Cameron or renegotiation, because if Cameron is as useless as they claim, and renegotiation so impossible, that's the best possible scenario for taking us out. It's if Cameron IS successful in renegotiating that they've potentially got a problem.
Whatever happens in the renegotiation I do not believe that Cameron would ever advocate leaving the EU, so the options on the ballot paper would be:
1. Accept Cameron's renegotiated settlement. 2. Status Quo.
Leaving the EU will not be on the ballot paper.
From the BOO point of view the tendentious way [they fear] this will be campaigned is that anyone opposed to the EU should vote for Cameron's renegotiated settlement, for the small repatriations that it includes, rather than for the status quo which is in some way "worse", but voting either way will be seen as either acceptance of the EU status quo or acceptance of the new EU under Cameron's renegotiation.
There is no way for BOO to win a referendum set-up in such a way.
If one is being realistic then from a BOO position the best result is for Cameron to lose the next GE and be replaced by someone who is genuinely Eurosceptic and who will then openly campaign on the basis of leaving the EU.
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
It's quite a disconcerting feeling sat at your desk at work whilst your peripheral vision is constantly drawn to the police marksmen on the roof of the building next to you, training their rifle on various targets as they monitor the ground below from their binoculars.
I'm not in some war-torn, riot-hit part of the world though, I'm in Britain's second city - albeit next door to a political party conference venue.
What I have noticed is that they seem to have a fairly regular "brew run" - I guess it's pretty boring work surveiling all day.
Though it could be worse, they could be inside Manchester Central....!
I'm coming round to the idea of rebranding the Human Rights Act. Free of the poisonous belief that they are "foreign" rights being "imported" against our wishes into British law, we might actually be able to discuss the merits of them properly. (It can only be a rebranding, because Laws LJ's pre-HRA mission to define common law rights in the same way as their HRA counterparts is functionally complete.)
Are you seriously suggesting that if HRA 1998 were repealed, it would have no practical effect?
I bet you any sum you like (up to £100,000) that leaving the EU will be on the ballot paper (bet obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
Whatever happens in the renegotiation I do not believe that Cameron would ever advocate leaving the EU, so the options on the ballot paper would be:
1. Accept Cameron's renegotiated settlement. 2. Status Quo.
Leaving the EU will not be on the ballot paper.
From the BOO point of view the tendentious way [they fear] this will be campaigned is that anyone opposed to the EU should vote for Cameron's renegotiated settlement, for the small repatriations that it includes, rather than for the status quo which is in some way "worse", but voting either way will be seen as either acceptance of the EU status quo or acceptance of the new EU under Cameron's renegotiation.
There is no way for BOO to win a referendum set-up in such a way.
It's an in/out referendum promise. I think what they may do is go for a FPTP vote and have three answers, one answer stays in, the other two split the out vote. 40% vote to stay in and 30% vote for the other two, a minority of people keep us in the EU.
If the question/answers are fair then I think Richard's suspicions are unfounded. Cameron can come back and declare victory, but without meaningful wins (opting out of the fisheries policy or the CAP for example) it will be a very tough campaign.
I bet you any sum you like (up to £100,000) that leaving the EU will be on the ballot paper (bet obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
Cameron has said it will be an in/out choice of some sort so, as you say, I don't think he can avoid an 'out' option.
I bet you any sum you like (up to £100,000) that leaving the EU will be on the ballot paper (bet obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
Cameron has said it will be an in/out choice of some sort so, as you say, I don't think he can avoid an 'out' option.
Oh, I'd missed that, but it seems there would have to be three options on the ballot then, for people who did not want to opt out of the things Cameron had negotiated opt-outs from.
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP embroiled in race row over text message from top aide describing a journalist as "of ethnic extraction" #cpc13
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP officials defend Nigel Farage's spin doctor Gawain Towler after he sent text describing female journalsit as "of ethnic extraction"
I'm coming round to the idea of rebranding the Human Rights Act. Free of the poisonous belief that they are "foreign" rights being "imported" against our wishes into British law, we might actually be able to discuss the merits of them properly. (It can only be a rebranding, because Laws LJ's pre-HRA mission to define common law rights in the same way as their HRA counterparts is functionally complete.)
Are you seriously suggesting that if HRA 1998 were repealed, it would have no practical effect?
Between that, the very concept of a British Bill of Rights (including a right to a fair trial, for example), and not leaving the ECHR (that "might come later"), I do not think the repeal of the Human Rights Act would be very significant. The courts that under the HRA identify the right to a fair trial as requiring an independent and impartial tribunal are not going to backtrack on that unless contrary legislation was imposed. That's all in my opinion, of course, and if you think differently (which one must suppose you do) I'd welcome your thoughts.
"...Having spent the day talking to senior members of the party, the analysis seems to be this: repeat ad nauseam what the Conservatives have achieved in office.
MPs are being urged to remind voters that David Cameron has vetoed an EU treaty, pulled Britain out of the euro bail-out mechanism and legislated to ensure there will be a referendum before any further powers are given to Europe.
Talk, too, of the requirement for a Tory majority to achieve an EU in-out referendum. And shout from the roof tops that a vote for UKIP will take Ed Miliband into Downing Street. And now we have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I have just bumped into the Conservatives' campaign director, Lynton Crosby, a man who rarely speaks in public. But on camera today he told me that the party will not change its policies to accommodate UKIP. He said the party should focus on the future and the policies it was taking to the British people. And he said that would be enough to deal with UKIP.
Here is the transcript of the brief exchange:
JL: We are talking about UKIP this morning. How worried should the party be by it?
LC: I think the party is most importantly focused on the future and the policies it is taking to the British people and that's what it should focus on.
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
A somewhat complacent and foolhardy view imho– As you say, “Cameron has made an in/out referendum promise if he wins” that is the reality of what you will be throwing away.
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
In terms of Europe she's probably less sceptical than her party, but so what ? She currently has her own version of scepticism growing of home soil and it's cost her her traditional partner in government. She's going to have to find more of a Germany first line and that goes with the Zeitgeist as increasingly the war guilt generation dies and younger Germans no longer feel the same need to bail out their neighbours or sacrifice their own interests. Ever closer Union's looking harder to justify.
next door in Austria the right got about 60% of the vote yet the socialist will end up in government to keep the Brussels show on the road. How long do you think voters will keep putting up with that ?
I've been saying since long before the election that Angela was keener on a grand coalition with the SPD than the FDP. Let's not forget that while the staunchly anti-Euro gained votes, the moderately Eurosceptic FDP lost them. And Angela specifically targetted the FDP going into the election - the CDU/CSU knifed their traditional coalition partners in the back.
Now, I'm not going to show my ignorance of Austrian politics, however, we could have a situation with the rise of UKIP where more than 50% of the population vote for Eurosceptic parties (Con + UKIP), but because of the vagaries of the election system the pro-EU Labour party could end up in power. This isn't because of Brussels, but because of the electoral system. Is this true of Austria too?
In Austria it's because the centre-right OVP doesn't want to do a deal with the other rightwing parties, but to stay in coalition with the socialists. The FPO and others are more anti EU whereas the OVP and the SPO are pro. In essence it's the big traditional parties huddling up to keep out the upstarts, but the more they do it the more their vote declines.
It's quite a disconcerting feeling sat at your desk at work whilst your peripheral vision is constantly drawn to the police marksmen on the roof of the building next to you, training their rifle on various targets as they monitor the ground below from their binoculars.
I'm not in some war-torn, riot-hit part of the world though, I'm in Britain's second city - albeit next door to a political party conference venue.
What I have noticed is that they seem to have a fairly regular "brew run" - I guess it's pretty boring work surveiling all day.
Though it could be worse, they could be inside Manchester Central....!
For nearly two years I did live and work in Manchester Central.
In fact I was one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the by-election last year.
But trying looking like me with those marksmen about.
Especially when I have to walk past the Midland every day.
Between that, the very concept of a British Bill of Rights (including a right to a fair trial, for example), and not leaving the ECHR (that "might come later"), I do not think the repeal of the Human Rights Act would be very significant. The courts that under the HRA identify the right to a fair trial as requiring an independent and impartial tribunal are not going to backtrack on that unless contrary legislation was imposed. That's all in my opinion, of course, and if you think differently (which one must suppose you do) I'd welcome your thoughts.
It's obvious that if we don't withdraw from the Council of Europe, then the effect of the ECHR on the United Kingdom in international law will remain unchanged. I don't think it follows that the substitution of a so-called "British Bill of Rights" for HRA 1998 would have as limited effects as you envisage. While it is inconceivable that the right to a fair trial would be omitted, it is perfectly plausible that other, more contentious provisions, will be substantially modified. Article 8 is the most obvious example. There is also no guarantee that under a "British Bill of Rights", domestic courts would be obliged to have regard to decisions of the ECtHR (per s. 2(1) of HRA 1998), that public authorities would be prevented from acting contrary to convention rights, as opposed to "British" rights, or that remedial orders would be available to remedy statutory incompatibility with convention rights. Should Parliament choose to pass a "British Bill of Rights", its practical effect would depend very much on the statute in question, rather than jurisprudential theories of the British or European courts. After all, the (English) judiciary has generally been faithful to HRA 1998.
I bet you any sum you like (up to £100,000) that leaving the EU will be on the ballot paper (bet obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
Cameron has said it will be an in/out choice of some sort so, as you say, I don't think he can avoid an 'out' option.
Oh, I'd missed that, but it seems there would have to be three options on the ballot then, for people who did not want to opt out of the things Cameron had negotiated opt-outs from.
I think the point is preceisely that it is a force choice between "isn't Cameron great" and "Cameron hasn't done enough so we'll leave".
next door in Austria the right got about 60% of the vote yet the socialist will end up in government to keep the Brussels show on the road. How long do you think voters will keep putting up with that ?
Now, I'm not going to show my ignorance of Austrian politics, however, we could have a situation with the rise of UKIP where more than 50% of the population vote for Eurosceptic parties (Con + UKIP), but because of the vagaries of the election system the pro-EU Labour party could end up in power. This isn't because of Brussels, but because of the electoral system. Is this true of Austria too?
Austria has a party-list proportional system.
The reason the "Socialists" will end up in government is that (a) they received the largest number of votes and (b) the second-placed centre-right party will likely continue the existing Grand Coalition, presumably because they prefer to work with the centre-left than with the parties further to their right. I'm sure Cameron is more comfortable working with the Lib Dems than he would be with a possible UKIP parliamentary party.
As a point of info, the right-wing parties in Austria received about 55% of the vote (between four parties, but one of those parties failed to win any seats), the Grand Coalition has 51% of the vote (54% of the seats).
In terms of democratic legitimacy I would think a coalition of the 1st and 2nd placed parties would have more legitimacy than one between the 2nd, 3rd and 5th placed parties - though both those possible coalitions have the same number of seats.
It's not possible for the Social Democrats to form a coalition without the centre-right People's Party, as they, the Greens and the centrist liberals can only muster 84 of the 183 seats.
In seat terms it was a bad night for the Austrian right. The centre-right People's Party lost 5 seats, and the parties to their right lost a net 2 seats. The Greens, and the new centrist liberal party both gained seats (2 and 9 respectively), while the Social Democrats lost 4 seats.
I don't entirely agree with Fraser Nelson, but I do at least feel that a debate with him would be one that discussed facts and not soundbites and spin.
I bet you any sum you like (up to £100,000) that leaving the EU will be on the ballot paper (bet obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
Cameron has said it will be an in/out choice of some sort so, as you say, I don't think he can avoid an 'out' option.
Oh, I'd missed that, but it seems there would have to be three options on the ballot then, for people who did not want to opt out of the things Cameron had negotiated opt-outs from.
Three options isn't going to happen in the event of a Con win in 2015.
"Chart from @YouGov showing which groups in society Tories are seen as being close to - Big challenges there "
Masterful understatement.
The tea party tories in all their out of touch Romneyesque glory.
Still, you can't say the tory ministers don't know their audience. Today's laughably unconvincing posturing for their gullible base on the human rights act, welfare and immigration has about as much chance of happening as Cammie's Cast Iron Lisbon referendum did.
"Yes, our drive to cut immigration has been so successful, even the Liberal Democrats are boasting about it in their campaign handbook. I don’t remember their enthusiasm for cutting immigration when we worked on the policies – so I’m going to take this with me next time they try to block our reforms.
The latest policy they’re fighting is immigration bonds. It’s a simple idea – the government should be able to take a £3,000 deposit from temporary migrants and return it when they leave. If they overstay their visa, they’ll lose their money.
Bonds were in our manifesto at the last election. But the Lib Dems suddenly announced that it was their idea. Then they said they were against them. Then they said they were for them – but only to help more immigrants to come here. Now they say they’re against them after all. They were for them, then they were against them… then they were for them, and now they’re against them."
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP embroiled in race row over text message from top aide describing a journalist as "of ethnic extraction" #cpc13
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP officials defend Nigel Farage's spin doctor Gawain Towler after he sent text describing female journalsit as "of ethnic extraction"
It might help if Ozzy hadn't overseen spiralling debt and a barely touched deficit. Re: Ukip - is that racist? I must say I don't see that it is.
Dan Sabbagh @dansabbagh Guardian CEO Miller on l/t prospects for Gdn: “At the moment, I believe we could not survive in the UK w the oversupply” of papers + BBC
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
A somewhat complacent and foolhardy view imho– As you say, “Cameron has made an in/out referendum promise if he wins” that is the reality of what you will be throwing away.
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
'Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.'
After years of UKIP campaigning to have an in/out EU referendum,they now look for every excuse to block it/rubbish it.
I certainly won't be lending them my vote next year at the euros.
Nope. I am not speaking for UKIP I am speaking for myself. I have no interest in party politics beyond achieving the specific aim of leaving the EU.
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
Your faith in Cameron is impressive. He just needs to say the word, and UK voters will follow, eh?
'Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.'
After years of UKIP campaigning to have an in/out EU referendum,they now look for every excuse to block it/rubbish it.
I certainly won't be lending them my vote next year at the euros.
Nope. I am not speaking for UKIP I am speaking for myself. I have no interest in party politics beyond achieving the specific aim of leaving the EU.
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
"The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue"
when Cameon goes I suspect you will be as disappointed by his successor as much as you are with Cameron. UKIP are playing the man and not the ball.
"As I told yesterday’s ConHome fringe meeting, I am more optimistic about Tory prospects than I have felt for some time. Don’t be spooked by Labour’s poll bump this weekend. Research I conducted immediately before the conference season, to avoid the skewing effect of the relentless coverage, showed improved ratings over the summer for the party in general – particularly on being united, and being trusted on the economy – and for David Cameron in particular, who trounces Ed Miliband on nearly all measures. The picture in the marginal seats is admittedly more sobering. But nearly four in ten of those who say they would vote Labour tomorrow don’t think the party has learned the right lessons from their time in government, and only just over half of them would rather see Miliband in Number 10 than Cameron. It’s not over by a long way." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2013/09/lordashcroft-conference-diary-monday.html
'Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.'
After years of UKIP campaigning to have an in/out EU referendum,they now look for every excuse to block it/rubbish it.
I certainly won't be lending them my vote next year at the euros.
Nope. I am not speaking for UKIP I am speaking for myself. I have no interest in party politics beyond achieving the specific aim of leaving the EU.
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
"The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue"
when Cameon goes I suspect you will be as disappointed by his successor as much as you are with Cameron. UKIP are playing the man and not the ball.
You may well be right over disappointment although that would be the Tories making the mistake. As for playing the man, the man in this case is everything. It is his policy and beliefs that are the biggest barrier to our leaving the EU. As such there is no alternative but to play the man. That is the nature of modern politics.
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
Utterly, batshit-crazy mad.
Firstly it doesn't matter a hoot what the leader of the Conservatives thinks, if the party is in opposition having lost a crucial election. Secondly, who on earth is this leader of whom you speak? The chances of the party choosing a UKIP-style leader is zero. They haven't chosen any such leader for the last quarter of a century, and are unlikely to start now, for the very good reason that most people don't want to shift dramatically to the right. And thirdly, if you really do want to influence the choice of leader, wouldn't it be more sensible to help the Conservatives win elections and work within the party to get the policy mix you want? Every activist who moves to UKIP makes it LESS likely that the party will move in the UKIP direction, since those that are left will be definition be more from the Cameroon wing of the party.
Conversely, if the party does get a majority, you'll have the referendum - almost certainly the only chance for a generation.
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
A somewhat complacent and foolhardy view imho– As you say, “Cameron has made an in/out referendum promise if he wins” that is the reality of what you will be throwing away.
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
It's a referendum, Cameron gets just one vote - the same as you or I.
Owen Jones@OwenJones8410m Themes of Tory conference so far. Fear. Prejudice. No hope, no positive answers to Britain's ever falling living standards. Bleak. #cpc13
Some interesting comments from Osborne today on workfare, although it has left the baronet son of a multi-millionaire open to this rather brilliant quip from newsthump 'No-one should get something for nothing, claims man who got everything for nothing' https://www.facebook.com/NewsThump?hc_location=stream
RichardNavani - Indeed, and it was interesting that the two military officers who heckled Hammond were clearly furious over defence cuts, but were staying Tory members!
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
Your faith in Cameron is impressive. He just needs to say the word, and UK voters will follow, eh?
No, I am just realistic enough to realise that the combined support of all three main parties would make winning an out vote very difficult. Were the vote to be held in the future with one party's support firmly established for leaving then the odds would be much higher.
Why would you want a respected national newspaper with a great campaigning tradition to go to the wall?
The Guardian is a republican socialist rag and the sooner it stops publishing the better. Let Polly Toynbee spend more time with her vines in Tuscany
Dissidents must be crushed! All who question us must be destroyed! Only the right shall be free!
Bobajob, I don't give a shit about the left. They want to beggar people like me, confiscate our assets and hand them to their workshy pals. RIch chatterati like La Toynbee stick in my throat. They prance about like spoilt eurocrats telling those of us who work damn hard running businesses what is good for us when the only thing they have run for is the departure gate at Heathrow for one of their endless holidays paid for by others. The Guardian supported Gordon Brown up until it jumped to the LibDems and that woman used to lionise him.
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
A somewhat complacent and foolhardy view imho– As you say, “Cameron has made an in/out referendum promise if he wins” that is the reality of what you will be throwing away.
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
It's a referendum, Cameron gets just one vote - the same as you or I.
Cameron gets a whole party machine (if not the members themselves) along with the name tag of the party to support the In position. If you really think that Cameron is only one vote then you are either disingenuous or a fool.
'Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.'
After years of UKIP campaigning to have an in/out EU referendum,they now look for every excuse to block it/rubbish it.
I certainly won't be lending them my vote next year at the euros.
Nope. I am not speaking for UKIP I am speaking for myself. I have no interest in party politics beyond achieving the specific aim of leaving the EU.
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
"The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue"
when Cameon goes I suspect you will be as disappointed by his successor as much as you are with Cameron. UKIP are playing the man and not the ball.
You may well be right over disappointment although that would be the Tories making the mistake. As for playing the man, the man in this case is everything. It is his policy and beliefs that are the biggest barrier to our leaving the EU. As such there is no alternative but to play the man. That is the nature of modern politics.
I'm sorry Richard I can normally follow your logic on most of your posts but re Cameron kippers just have an inability to think straight. Whether that's because he has been stupidly insulting or because kippers need a bogey man who can say. But just replacing Cameron will bring the UK no closer to an exit than replacing Miliband or Farage.
UKIP if they want a referendum need to find a better way of getting a vote than merely hoping Cameron will be history. Likewise thy need to have better arguments than they are advancing at the moment if they want to win "out". Cameron is simply a distraction and one which turns people like me away from voting kipper.
Owen Jones@OwenJones8410m Themes of Tory conference so far. Fear. Prejudice. No hope, no positive answers to Britain's ever falling living standards. Bleak. #cpc13
Sounds rather like many of the reviews of the Labour conference we were getting on here last week.
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP embroiled in race row over text message from top aide describing a journalist as "of ethnic extraction" #cpc13
norman smith @BBCNormanS UKIP officials defend Nigel Farage's spin doctor Gawain Towler after he sent text describing female journalsit as "of ethnic extraction"
It might help if Ozzy hadn't overseen spiralling debt and a barely touched deficit. Re: Ukip - is that racist? I must say I don't see that it is.
It depends how you define racism (i.e. is it tied to discrimination or not). However, to highlight her racial background when that is presumably irrelevant to her role and peformance as a journalist, suggests a certain attitude which isn't that welcoming
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
Utterly, batshit-crazy mad.
Firstly it doesn't matter a hoot what the leader of the Conservatives thinks, if the party is in opposition having lost a crucial election. Secondly, who on earth is this leader of whom you speak? The chances of the party choosing a UKIP-style leader is zero. They haven't chosen any such leader for the last quarter of a century, and are unlikely to start now, for the very good reason that most people don't want to shift dramatically to the right. And thirdly, if you really do want to influence the choice of leader, wouldn't it be more sensible to help the Conservatives win elections and work within the party to get the policy mix you want? Every activist who moves to UKIP makes it LESS likely that the party will move in the UKIP direction, since those that are left will be definition be more from the Cameroon wing of the party.
Conversely, if the party does get a majority, you'll have the referendum - almost certainly the only chance for a generation.
Richard you are well established as a party fanatic who will simply not countenance the idea that Cameron might be wrong on this. You have always appeared to put party before principle so I am afraid your views on this are not to be trusted.
Cameron will not oversee our withdrawal from the EU. That much is absolutely certain. Under Cameron we will not leave. Therefore the aim must be to make sure that the Tory party sees clearly the consequences of having a Europhile in charge. The best way to do that is to make sure they do not win elections under those circumstances.
he number of Americans who identify as tea party supporters is at a near-record low, according to a new poll.
The Gallup Poll released on Thursday found that just 22 percent of Americans call themselves tea party supporters. Meanwhile, 27 percent identify as tea party opponents. A majority, 51 percent, said they did not have an opinion.
The finding is just one percentage point short of the survey's record low for the question. In 2011 21 percent of Americans identified as tea party supporters and 21 percent identified as opponents.
The poll's findings are also in contrast to late 2010 when, after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, 32 percent said they supported the tea party. At the time 30 percent identified as opponents of the tea party and 38 percent said they did not have an opinion.
The poll's findings come as lawmakers try to overcome opposition from groups supported by the tea party on passing a continuing resolution bill to keep the government open.
Dan Sabbagh @dansabbagh Guardian CEO Miller on l/t prospects for Gdn: “At the moment, I believe we could not survive in the UK w the oversupply” of papers + BBC
No, I am just realistic enough to realise that the combined support of all three main parties would make winning an out vote very difficult. Were the vote to be held in the future with one party's support firmly established for leaving then the odds would be much higher.
Hmm, I hope you haven't forgotten that we have a bet outstanding on this! You seem to have changed your view since we struck the bet - you were adamant that the result would be Out, if a referendum were held.
Good luck to the City of Dundee with its City of Culture bid. Being the chief stronghold of the SNP it would be somewhat ironic if the uncertainty over the Independence Referendum works against it.
Viewing the progress of Eurosceptics in British politics over the last couple of decades it strikes me that they have not made the progress they have made to date by compromising with politicians less sceptical than themselves.
Well it’s an opinion I guess – personally I think after waiting a further 5 or possibly 10 years, you’ll not only have lost great chunks of sovereignty, but also the £.
If that is the consequence then you had better get used to it because, as I say, the Tory party under Cameron will not support leaving the EU.
A somewhat complacent and foolhardy view imho– As you say, “Cameron has made an in/out referendum promise if he wins” that is the reality of what you will be throwing away.
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
Cameron has stated often and clearly that he will not support the UK leaving the EU under any circumstances. I am simply taking him at his word on this. Since my aim is not just a meaningless referendum but actually leaving the EU, I am clear that the Cameron route is a dead end.
It's a referendum, Cameron gets just one vote - the same as you or I.
Cameron gets a whole party machine (if not the members themselves) along with the name tag of the party to support the In position. If you really think that Cameron is only one vote then you are either disingenuous or a fool.
I am neither I hope, just a little more pragmatic to the realities perhaps.
And you appear to have conceded all hope of UKIP’s ability to mount an effective campaign for leaving the EU – which is a great shame, as I loathe the entire edifice.
Working too hard at reducing the deficit today but it does seem to have been a good speech by Osborne.
Inevitably his work for benefit proposals has got the most attention but as I hoped this morning the language was more measured and constructive than many in the hall might have gone for.
His commitment for a surplus is overdue and really is the minimum for any serious party at the next election. It took us about 60 years to pay for WW2 and it will be something similar for Brown. The sooner we get started the better.
His fuel duty freeze should be deliverable provided that there is no unexpected bumps in the finances. I am looking forward to his Autumn statement when we should get revised forecasts from the OBR showing the deficit falling much more rapidly. Not fast enough for Fraser Nelson of course, but maybe for the rest of us.
Cameron will not oversee our withdrawal from the EU. That much is absolutely certain. Under Cameron we will not leave.
Not the point though since Cammie was so weak he had to cave in to the eurosceptics. So now there is only one direction of travel possible for the tory party which is to full blown OUT.
That's where the tory base is and that's where the leadership votes are likely to be. The argument kept shifting ever closer to full blow OUT and tory leaders did nothing but let it happen. Cammie has bequeathed the tory party neverending internecine war over IN/OUT in his feeble desperation to stop eurosceptics from repeatedly humiliating him.
Why would you want a respected national newspaper with a great campaigning tradition to go to the wall?
The Guardian is a republican socialist rag and the sooner it stops publishing the better. Let Polly Toynbee spend more time with her vines in Tuscany
Dissidents must be crushed! All who question us must be destroyed! Only the right shall be free!
The Guardian is dying because its banal leftist views are already expressed by the state funded BBC.
That the Guardian's own CEO says it has too much competition and mentions the BBC specifically speaks volumes. Why buy the paper when the TVLF is compulsory and says much of the same thing anyway?
Richard you are well established as a party fanatic who will simply not countenance the idea that Cameron might be wrong on this. You have always appeared to put party before principle so I am afraid your views on this are not to be trusted.
Cameron will not oversee our withdrawal from the EU. That much is absolutely certain. Under Cameron we will not leave. Therefore the aim must be to make sure that the Tory party sees clearly the consequences of having a Europhile in charge. The best way to do that is to make sure they do not win elections under those circumstances.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Firstly I'm not a party loyalist at all, I just happen to agree with Cameron on most (though not all) issues. Invariably I say what I think, which is that this is the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. Agree or disagree (although I've noticed that whenever I've said this, no-one seems to be able to find an example to contradict me), but it's what I think. Nothing to do with party loyalty - I support the party BECAUSE it is taking the country in the direction I want, and in particular because it is doing a good job undoing the damage of New Labour. If it stops doing that, I'll stop supporting it.
But more to the point, your entire tone seems to be that of a childish tantrum, wanting to punish Cameron and the Conservative Party - Lord only knows why, since he has always been 100% straight on his position. 'Sees the consequences of having a Europhile in charge' - how utterly ridiculous. Cameron just disagrees with you. So does most of the country. Why can't you accept that people might have an honest disagreement on the best way of dealing with Europe, and that you are in the minority? Or, if you're not in the minority, why are you afraid of a referendum?
Conservatives @Conservatives If you missed anything at #cpc13 today, all the speeches are available to watch or read at conservativepartyconference.org.uk
Conservatives @Conservatives If you missed anything at #cpc13 today, all the speeches are available to watch or read at conservativepartyconference.org.uk
Firstly I'm not a party loyalist at all, I just happen to agree with Cameron on most (though not all) issues. Invariably I say what I think, which is that this is the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. Agree or disagree (although I've noticed that whenever I've said this, no-one seems to be able to find an example to contradict me), but it's what I think. Nothing to do with party loyalty - I support the party BECAUSE it is taking the country in the direction I want, and in particular because it is doing a good job undoing the damage of New Labour. If it stops doing that, I'll stop supporting it.
But more to the point, your entire tone seems to be that of a childish tantrum, wanting to punish Cameron and the Conservative Party - Lord only knows why, since he has always been 100% straight on his position. 'Sees the consequences of having a Europhile in charge' - how utterly ridiculous. Cameron just disagrees with you. So does most of the country. Why can't you accept that people might have an honest disagreement on the best way of dealing with Europe, and that you are in the minority? Or, if you're not in the minority, why are you afraid of a referendum?
I have no interest in punishing the Tory party or Cameron. He is doing what he believes to be right. The fact that it is diametrically opposed to what I want is the reason I believe he has to go.
You have no idea whether or not the majority of the country disagree with me. In fact recent polling shows that there are majorities for leaving the EU so on that basis you are wrong.
As to being afraid of a referendum, what I am afraid of is the dishonesty of all three party leaders over the issue and the fact that they will do all in their power to ensure we do not leave.
If you actually trust politicians the you are a bigger fool than I took you for.
Finally I am afraid your denials of party slavery founder on the fact that you will support the parties under any and all circumstances even when they change their position - such as on n the issue of a referendum in the first place. Just as Cameron changed his position due to political pressure you too have changed yours to coincide with his. Your are far and away the most fanatical Tory supporter on here.
I'm amazed at the lack of !!!! of Osborne saying he'll run a surplus post GE2015 - that's a stunning bit of policy that implies a very tight fiscal policy after the election to achieve it.
I'm amazed at the lack of !!!! of Osborne saying he'll run a surplus post GE2015 - that's a stunning bit of policy that implies a very tight fiscal policy after the election to achieve it.
Does anyone actually believe it ? Osborne will simply wriggle out of it if he needs to.
Cameron will not oversee our withdrawal from the EU. That much is absolutely certain. Under Cameron we will not leave. Therefore the aim must be to make sure that the Tory party sees clearly the consequences of having a Europhile in charge. The best way to do that is to make sure they do not win elections under those circumstances.
The problem, Richard, is that you are assuming a more eurosceptic Tory leader would romp home on a wave of popular acclaim. I have my doubts: the tory party is much more scepitcal on Europe than it has been for a long time; the avaialble BOO candidates are not "Cameron + BOO" but come with a whole lot of other baggage. For instance, would Peter Bone, Bill Cash, Nadine Dorris or Jacob Rees-Mogg (selected because of Farage's mentions today) really appeal to a broader spectrum of public opinion than Cameron?
The way to achieve what you claim to want is for UKIP to cease being a political party and focus on becoming a very effective pressure group. At the moment you are just hamstringing your own cause.
Comments
It seems to me that the prison officers are smuggling mobiles into the prison for the inmates in return for cash.
When I did some prison visits, they did not allow me to take in a handkerchief.
Another gem of a cartoon from Comrade Marf!
It's impossible avoid the conclusion that the UKIPpers are frit. They think they can't win a referendum, so they don't want one. I think they're probably right on this (indeed I have a bet with Richard on the subject), but it can't have anything to do with Cameron or renegotiation, because if Cameron is as useless as they claim, and renegotiation so impossible, that's the best possible scenario for taking us out. It's if Cameron IS successful in renegotiating that they've potentially got a problem.
If one is being realistic then from a BOO position the best result is for Cameron to lose the next GE and be replaced by someone who is genuinely Eurosceptic and who will then openly campaign on the basis of leaving the EU.
Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.
"There are only around 10,000 Tory members in Scotland now, and the independence referendum demands far more boots on the ground than they can muster from that base. They have therefore decided to appeal more broadly for supporters and activists.
Databases from previous campaigns were scoured and pulled together for a mass mailshot inviting people to join Conservative Friends of the Union. They made it free to subscribe, and that first invitation resulted in 50,000 people signing up.
Overnight the support base they could call on to leaflet, to display posters, to fundraise and pass on the Better Together message increased five-fold. The number has since grown to over 80,000.
Not only has this approach expanded their number of troops, it has raised money, too, bringing in £250,000 in small donations.
This must be the way forward for mass political campaigning. Demanding people pay a subscription before they can get involved in campaigning means we miss out on large numbers of potential activists and supporters, and their donations, too.
We must ask ourselves, which would the Conservative Party rather have – a small number of pre-paid members, or a large army of supporters who join for free and give their time?"
Quite right.
1. Accept Cameron's renegotiated settlement.
2. Status Quo.
Leaving the EU will not be on the ballot paper.
From the BOO point of view the tendentious way [they fear] this will be campaigned is that anyone opposed to the EU should vote for Cameron's renegotiated settlement, for the small repatriations that it includes, rather than for the status quo which is in some way "worse", but voting either way will be seen as either acceptance of the EU status quo or acceptance of the new EU under Cameron's renegotiation.
There is no way for BOO to win a referendum set-up in such a way.
I'm not in some war-torn, riot-hit part of the world though, I'm in Britain's second city - albeit next door to a political party conference venue.
What I have noticed is that they seem to have a fairly regular "brew run" - I guess it's pretty boring work surveiling all day.
Though it could be worse, they could be inside Manchester Central....!
obviously dependent on a Conservative election victory in 2015).
If the question/answers are fair then I think Richard's suspicions are unfounded. Cameron can come back and declare victory, but without meaningful wins (opting out of the fisheries policy or the CAP for example) it will be a very tough campaign.
"Chancellor George Osborne's clear message today is revolutionary: a surplus in good times as an insurance against bad times.
In 25 years of covering politics, I have never heard a senior politician make an out-and-out commitment to running budget surpluses.
He is intending to fight the next election squarely on the public finances." http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-30/osborne-makes-unusual-commitment-to-budget-surplus/
and in other news
norman smith @BBCNormanS
UKIP embroiled in race row over text message from top aide describing a journalist as "of ethnic extraction" #cpc13
norman smith @BBCNormanS
UKIP officials defend Nigel Farage's spin doctor Gawain Towler after he sent text describing female journalsit as "of ethnic extraction"
Thus the conference posters declaiming: "Crime down, welfare capped, immigration down."
MPs are being urged to remind voters that David Cameron has vetoed an EU treaty, pulled Britain out of the euro bail-out mechanism and legislated to ensure there will be a referendum before any further powers are given to Europe.
Talk, too, of the requirement for a Tory majority to achieve an EU in-out referendum. And shout from the roof tops that a vote for UKIP will take Ed Miliband into Downing Street. And now we have it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I have just bumped into the Conservatives' campaign director, Lynton Crosby, a man who rarely speaks in public. But on camera today he told me that the party will not change its policies to accommodate UKIP. He said the party should focus on the future and the policies it was taking to the British people. And he said that would be enough to deal with UKIP.
Here is the transcript of the brief exchange:
JL: We are talking about UKIP this morning. How worried should the party be by it?
LC: I think the party is most importantly focused on the future and the policies it is taking to the British people and that's what it should focus on.
JL: And that's enough?
LC: Of course.
JL: So no change?
LC: No. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24334595
Ask yourself this, could you trust Labour after their reneging over Lisbon? And do you honestly think the Lib Dems would even bother proposing a Referendum?
I came away having learnt something and very positive about his stewardship of the FO. Big thumbs up here.
In fact I was one of the 752 souls that voted Tory in the by-election last year.
But trying looking like me with those marksmen about.
Especially when I have to walk past the Midland every day.
http://awkwardedmilibandmoments.tumblr.com/post/62714993214/ed-begins-his-annual-child-harvest-the-children
The reason the "Socialists" will end up in government is that (a) they received the largest number of votes and (b) the second-placed centre-right party will likely continue the existing Grand Coalition, presumably because they prefer to work with the centre-left than with the parties further to their right. I'm sure Cameron is more comfortable working with the Lib Dems than he would be with a possible UKIP parliamentary party.
As a point of info, the right-wing parties in Austria received about 55% of the vote (between four parties, but one of those parties failed to win any seats), the Grand Coalition has 51% of the vote (54% of the seats).
In terms of democratic legitimacy I would think a coalition of the 1st and 2nd placed parties would have more legitimacy than one between the 2nd, 3rd and 5th placed parties - though both those possible coalitions have the same number of seats.
It's not possible for the Social Democrats to form a coalition without the centre-right People's Party, as they, the Greens and the centrist liberals can only muster 84 of the 183 seats.
In seat terms it was a bad night for the Austrian right. The centre-right People's Party lost 5 seats, and the parties to their right lost a net 2 seats. The Greens, and the new centrist liberal party both gained seats (2 and 9 respectively), while the Social Democrats lost 4 seats.
John Prescott@johnprescott22m
Unite have just released this poster campaign. Superb! pic.twitter.com/J3puWsbxVq #cpc13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8601781.stm
They just don't get it!
Options will be:
out or the renegotiated terms.
The status quo option is the renegotiated terms.
http://www.peacockshock.com/archives/private eye downturn abbey cover.html
Associating your political enemies with something that's wildly popular seems rather strange.
- Big challenges there "
Masterful understatement.
The tea party tories in all their out of touch Romneyesque glory.
Still, you can't say the tory ministers don't know their audience. Today's laughably unconvincing posturing for their gullible base on the human rights act, welfare and immigration has about as much chance of happening as Cammie's Cast Iron Lisbon referendum did.
Does that have any effect in real terms?
Betting PostBacked Granollers to beat Simon at 2.88 (Japan Open). He's got a 5:1 advantage in the head-to-heads.
Jeremy Clarkson to stand in any UK seat at the next General Election 5/1
Jeremy Clarkson elected as an MP at the next General Election 33/1
'Cameron simply will not come back claiming anything other than we should stay in.'
After years of UKIP campaigning to have an in/out EU referendum,they now look for every excuse to block it/rubbish it.
I certainly won't be lending them my vote next year at the euros.
@TSE - did you ever identify any of the other 751?
"Yes, our drive to cut immigration has been so successful, even the Liberal Democrats are boasting about it in their campaign handbook. I don’t remember their enthusiasm for cutting immigration when we worked on the policies – so I’m going to take this with me next time they try to block our reforms.
The latest policy they’re fighting is immigration bonds. It’s a simple idea – the government should be able to take a £3,000 deposit from temporary migrants and return it when they leave. If they overstay their visa, they’ll lose their money.
Bonds were in our manifesto at the last election. But the Lib Dems suddenly announced that it was their idea. Then they said they were against them. Then they said they were for them – but only to help more immigrants to come here. Now they say they’re against them after all. They were for them, then they were against them… then they were for them, and now they’re against them."
Re: Ukip - is that racist? I must say I don't see that it is.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/intellectual-property/docs/joint-report-epo-ohim-final-version_en.pdf
Dan Sabbagh @dansabbagh
Guardian CEO Miller on l/t prospects for Gdn: “At the moment, I believe we could not survive in the UK w the oversupply” of papers + BBC
Why would you want a respected national newspaper with a great campaigning tradition to go to the wall?
The best way to get out of the EU is to get rid of Cameron and have a Tory party led by someone who better reflects the views of the party grassroots on the issue. The best way to achieve that is to make sure that Cameron does not win the next election.
when Cameon goes I suspect you will be as disappointed by his successor as much as you are with Cameron. UKIP are playing the man and not the ball.
"As I told yesterday’s ConHome fringe meeting, I am more optimistic about Tory prospects than I have felt for some time. Don’t be spooked by Labour’s poll bump this weekend. Research I conducted immediately before the conference season, to avoid the skewing effect of the relentless coverage, showed improved ratings over the summer for the party in general – particularly on being united, and being trusted on the economy – and for David Cameron in particular, who trounces Ed Miliband on nearly all measures. The picture in the marginal seats is admittedly more sobering. But nearly four in ten of those who say they would vote Labour tomorrow don’t think the party has learned the right lessons from their time in government, and only just over half of them would rather see Miliband in Number 10 than Cameron. It’s not over by a long way." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2013/09/lordashcroft-conference-diary-monday.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/tony-abbott-arrives-in-jakarta-for-talks-with-sby/4989734
Gillard, in conversation with Anne Summers at Sydney Opera House, says sexist attacks filled her with 'murderous rage'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/julia-gillard-opera-house-anne-summers-sexist-attacks/4989210
Clive Palmer 3 votes ahead in Fairfax recount
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/clive-palmer-still-ahead-in-fairfax-recount/4989892
Firstly it doesn't matter a hoot what the leader of the Conservatives thinks, if the party is in opposition having lost a crucial election. Secondly, who on earth is this leader of whom you speak? The chances of the party choosing a UKIP-style leader is zero. They haven't chosen any such leader for the last quarter of a century, and are unlikely to start now, for the very good reason that most people don't want to shift dramatically to the right. And thirdly, if you really do want to influence the choice of leader, wouldn't it be more sensible to help the Conservatives win elections and work within the party to get the policy mix you want? Every activist who moves to UKIP makes it LESS likely that the party will move in the UKIP direction, since those that are left will be definition be more from the Cameroon wing of the party.
Conversely, if the party does get a majority, you'll have the referendum - almost certainly the only chance for a generation.
Owen Jones@OwenJones8410m
Themes of Tory conference so far. Fear. Prejudice. No hope, no positive answers to Britain's ever falling living standards. Bleak. #cpc13
'No-one should get something for nothing, claims man who got everything for nothing'
https://www.facebook.com/NewsThump?hc_location=stream
UKIP if they want a referendum need to find a better way of getting a vote than merely hoping Cameron will be history. Likewise thy need to have better arguments than they are advancing at the moment if they want to win "out". Cameron is simply a distraction and one which turns people like me away from voting kipper.
I've been on the Tory Work Programme almost 18 months - complete waste of time!
Re: Ukip - is that racist? I must say I don't see that it is.
It depends how you define racism (i.e. is it tied to discrimination or not). However, to highlight her racial background when that is presumably irrelevant to her role and peformance as a journalist, suggests a certain attitude which isn't that welcoming
LOL ;^ )
Cameron will not oversee our withdrawal from the EU. That much is absolutely certain. Under Cameron we will not leave. Therefore the aim must be to make sure that the Tory party sees clearly the consequences of having a Europhile in charge. The best way to do that is to make sure they do not win elections under those circumstances.
The Gallup Poll released on Thursday found that just 22 percent of Americans call themselves tea party supporters. Meanwhile, 27 percent identify as tea party opponents. A majority, 51 percent, said they did not have an opinion.
The finding is just one percentage point short of the survey's record low for the question. In 2011 21 percent of Americans identified as tea party supporters and 21 percent identified as opponents.
The poll's findings are also in contrast to late 2010 when, after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, 32 percent said they supported the tea party. At the time 30 percent identified as opponents of the tea party and 38 percent said they did not have an opinion.
The poll's findings come as lawmakers try to overcome opposition from groups supported by the tea party on passing a continuing resolution bill to keep the government open.
The Gallup Poll was conducted from Sept. 5 to 8 among a random sample of 1,510 adults 18 years and older. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-tea-party-support-shrinks-to-near-record-low
And you appear to have conceded all hope of UKIP’s ability to mount an effective campaign for leaving the EU – which is a great shame, as I loathe the entire edifice.
Inevitably his work for benefit proposals has got the most attention but as I hoped this morning the language was more measured and constructive than many in the hall might have gone for.
His commitment for a surplus is overdue and really is the minimum for any serious party at the next election. It took us about 60 years to pay for WW2 and it will be something similar for Brown. The sooner we get started the better.
His fuel duty freeze should be deliverable provided that there is no unexpected bumps in the finances. I am looking forward to his Autumn statement when we should get revised forecasts from the OBR showing the deficit falling much more rapidly. Not fast enough for Fraser Nelson of course, but maybe for the rest of us.
That's where the tory base is and that's where the leadership votes are likely to be. The argument kept shifting ever closer to full blow OUT and tory leaders did nothing but let it happen. Cammie has bequeathed the tory party neverending internecine war over IN/OUT in his feeble desperation to stop eurosceptics from repeatedly humiliating him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/GEOFFREY-LEVY-SATURDAY-ESSAY-Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father.html
Firstly I'm not a party loyalist at all, I just happen to agree with Cameron on most (though not all) issues. Invariably I say what I think, which is that this is the best government, bar Maggie, for 50 years. Agree or disagree (although I've noticed that whenever I've said this, no-one seems to be able to find an example to contradict me), but it's what I think. Nothing to do with party loyalty - I support the party BECAUSE it is taking the country in the direction I want, and in particular because it is doing a good job undoing the damage of New Labour. If it stops doing that, I'll stop supporting it.
But more to the point, your entire tone seems to be that of a childish tantrum, wanting to punish Cameron and the Conservative Party - Lord only knows why, since he has always been 100% straight on his position. 'Sees the consequences of having a Europhile in charge' - how utterly ridiculous. Cameron just disagrees with you. So does most of the country. Why can't you accept that people might have an honest disagreement on the best way of dealing with Europe, and that you are in the minority? Or, if you're not in the minority, why are you afraid of a referendum?
If you missed anything at #cpc13 today, all the speeches are available to watch or read at conservativepartyconference.org.uk
Seriously though, where is the blighter
You have no idea whether or not the majority of the country disagree with me. In fact recent polling shows that there are majorities for leaving the EU so on that basis you are wrong.
As to being afraid of a referendum, what I am afraid of is the dishonesty of all three party leaders over the issue and the fact that they will do all in their power to ensure we do not leave.
If you actually trust politicians the you are a bigger fool than I took you for.
Finally I am afraid your denials of party slavery founder on the fact that you will support the parties under any and all circumstances even when they change their position - such as on n the issue of a referendum in the first place. Just as Cameron changed his position due to political pressure you too have changed yours to coincide with his. Your are far and away the most fanatical Tory supporter on here.
The way to achieve what you claim to want is for UKIP to cease being a political party and focus on becoming a very effective pressure group. At the moment you are just hamstringing your own cause.