politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A Sutton Coldfield by-election could now be nailed on
The guilty plea in the trial of the PC who falsely made up evidence about the Plebgate affair has been used by Andrew Mitchell’s friends as vindication of his position. It’s not quite that – if he wasn’t there then the substance of what was said remains disputed – but it hasn’t done anything for the police case.
Comments
-
He sounds like a terrible fit for a Commission job. Commissioners don't have much power to do anything beyond their ability to build a consensus among a diverse group of ministers. Whatever Mitchell's talents may be, does anybody think that's what he'd be good at?
On the internal party politics David Herdson makes a good case, but I'm not sure it would be worth risking a by-election for. Is there really nobody in Britain who:
1) Tories like
2) Isn't a sitting MP
3) Wouldn't be utterly shit at the job?0 -
I know this fails (1) in my previous post but can't Cameron just give Catherine Ashton another term? She's apparently doing a good job, keeps a British representative in a top post (as opposed to Mitchell who would get the paperclip portfolio), avoids a tricky by-election and gives Cameron a chance to be all inclusive and one-nation-y. He needs to build that old brand up again if he's really aiming for a majority.0
-
Another though: If Cameron picks Mitchell or another sitting MP, does he really need to call a by-election? Can't the person just stay on as an MP for six months? Or couldn't Cameron just leave the seat open? It's only six months, and what with the time to hold the election, recesses and the dissolution before the election the by-election winner would hardly have time to get their coat off before they had to go back and face the voters again.0
-
I dunno, good region for UKIP, high elderly population which suits them. I don't think they'd win but I reckon they'd make it uncomfortable for Cameron.0
-
I reckon they'd be the favourite. Start with the 2010 numbers then do:Quincel said:I dunno, good region for UKIP, high elderly population which suits them. I don't think they'd win but I reckon they'd make it uncomfortable for Cameron.
6% from UKIP/BNP
8% from LibDem
6% from Lab
= 20%
Then they only need 17% + 1 out of the current 54% to switch from Con to take the seat. That's less than a third of the Tory vote. In a by-election they could easily get half.0 -
I can tell you, there aren't many by-election gains from starting with just 3% (and falling) of the vote...
Galloway was about the only one in the past 100 years.
Do UKIP have a Galloway, by any chance?0 -
I really don't see how Cameron could possibly nominate Mitchell to the European Commissioner's post at present. The conviction on his own plea of PC Wallis at the Central Criminal Court doesn't help Mitchell. Indeed, if the result of the plea is that a High Court Judge sentences Wallis on the basis that he falsely reported witnessing a true incident, which is perfectly possible, then the criminal proceedings may actually set back Mitchell's case.[1] Whether Mitchell is vindicated depends on the outcome of his libel action against News Group Newspapers, and, if PC Toby Rowland chooses to bring proceedings against Mitchell, on that case.[2] I don't see how a European Commissioner can be expected to do his job while bogged down in these proceedings. Supposing Mitchell were to lose, even on Reynolds grounds, and Rowland were to win after his appointment, Cameron's judgment in nominating him would have to be seriously questioned.
[1] Based on the prosecution decisions, it is clear that the Crown have insufficient evidence to prove that Rowland's account was false. It is unlikely therefore that they will ask the court to order a Newton hearing, if Wallis states that he falsely claimed to have witnessed a true incident.
[2] Thus far, Rowland has only issued a letter before claim.0 -
Methinks seats where one party is very far ahead are likely to be too posh or too poor for Ukip who'll do best in the seats in-between (imo). Still, that might mean the political class will risk some by-elections cos at the moment MPs in marginals could be caught being child-sacrificing satanists and still be safe.0
-
UKIP went from 3.6% to 27.8% in Eastleigh. That wasn't a win, but was a hell of an increase. How often had an increase like that happened this century before it did?RodCrosby said:I can tell you, there aren't many by-election gains from starting with just 3% (and falling) of the vote...
And UKIP's base is higher in Sutton Coldfield, because it has a BNP vote that UKIP will be able to snaffle now that the BNP has fallen over.0 -
I can tell you... UKIP's performance in Eastleigh, while encouraging, and almost delivering a fluke win, was a comparatively modest increase in the vote when compared with most by-election "earthquakes"...edmundintokyo said:
UKIP went from 3.6% to 27.8% in Eastleigh. That wasn't a win, but was a hell of an increase. How often had an increase like that happened this century before it did?RodCrosby said:I can tell you, there aren't many by-election gains from starting with just 3% (and falling) of the vote...
And UKIP's base is higher in Sutton Coldfield, because it has a BNP vote that UKIP will be able to snaffle now that the BNP has fallen over.0 -
I can only think of two plausible explanations for Plebgate.0
-
Well there you go then, they can get a big increase without any particularly exceptional earthquaking, and if they get big enough increase, they win the seat.RodCrosby said:
I can tell you... UKIP's performance in Eastleigh, while encouraging, and almost delivering a fluke win, was a comparatively modest increase in the vote when compared with most by-election "earthquakes"...edmundintokyo said:
UKIP went from 3.6% to 27.8% in Eastleigh. That wasn't a win, but was a hell of an increase. How often had an increase like that happened this century before it did?RodCrosby said:I can tell you, there aren't many by-election gains from starting with just 3% (and falling) of the vote...
And UKIP's base is higher in Sutton Coldfield, because it has a BNP vote that UKIP will be able to snaffle now that the BNP has fallen over.0 -
DH days Cameron will have to nominate "soon". How soon is soon?
As has been said earlier, if he doesn't HAVE to do it this year (2014), a by-election can be avoided.0 -
If I've got this right the nomination doesn't have to happen until after the election of the President and the High Representative, which in turn don't happen until after the Euro elections. Also, the European Parliament have a veto over the Commission (they have to vote through all of them or none at all) so you can't be sure that Cameron's first choice will get selected.OldKingCole said:DH days Cameron will have to nominate "soon". How soon is soon?
As has been said earlier, if he doesn't HAVE to do it this year (2014), a by-election can be avoided.
All this is going on against the background of a potential game of chicken between the Parliament and the member states, where it's possible the member states will refuse to nominate the person the Parliament thinks just won the election, which could drag the process out for ages.
PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?0 -
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
0 -
Just as well as that "consensus" was not followed up on. It could be argued that Brown having been the cause of the mess was best placed. but then there is always an argument that lunatics should run the asylum.DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
0 -
TBF a Gordon Brown appointment would have directly contradicted the government's messaging. It must be hard to fight an election saying, "This person is an irresponsible maniac who has destroyed Britain's economy" then turn around and say, "...which makes them the ideal candidate to lead the International Monetary Fund".DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
There's nothing like that with Ashton. There's no particular aspect to the EU's foreign policy that the Tories have been running against, and if they'd had a Tory in the same job, there's nothing they'd obviously be doing differently.0 -
Although it pains me to say it, Ashton deserves another term for her recent work with Serbia, Ukraine and Iran. The shortlist is not exactly of the calibre of Patten0
-
Of course she has said she will step down. Looking forward to see what YouGov makes of it0
-
On Brown, McBride suggests that even on partisan grounds, blocking his IMF nomination was stupid: "Firstly, from a narrow political point of view, having Gordon run the IMF would have effectively neutralised the organisation’s influence on the 2015 election. Any criticism in the IMF’s reports on the UK economy could simply have been dismissed by Osborne with a ‘What do you expect?’ shrug."edmundintokyo said:
TBF a Gordon Brown appointment would have directly contradicted the government's messaging. It must be hard to fight an election saying, "This person is an irresponsible maniac who has destroyed Britain's economy" then turn around and say, "...which makes them the ideal candidate to lead the International Monetary Fund".DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
There's nothing like that with Ashton. There's no particular aspect to the EU's foreign policy that the Tories have been running against, and if they'd had a Tory in the same job, there's nothing they'd obviously be doing differently.
Rationally, Ashton stays. What will happen, who knows? I see David Herdson's OP point but am not sure Mitchell is currently in Cameron or Osborne's inner circle, and if they need to buy him off to make plebgate go away, is that not what peerages are for?0 -
From previous thread:
The problem for labour is that Nicks post demonstrates that a lot of their support in the opinion polls is coming from people who don't care or know much about their policies but are just annoyed with the incumbent government. As election day approaches, and voters start to pay more attention to what the oppositions policies are and who their key player are, the lesson of the last 30 years is that a lot of this support peels away. In this election it will also be vulnerable to going to UKIP as an anti coalition vote.NickPalmer said:
Yes, that seems to be right. It doesn't usually seem even based on dislike of any particular policies (people don't usually say "I'll vote for you because I'm against policy X") as much as on a deep-seated dislike of the government ("Yes, I'm going to vote to get the Tories out"). That's why it's not much affected by good or bad news.TheLastBoyScout said:@NickPalmer
There is a coalition of Generation X and Y that are determined to kick out the government. I don't see why Conservative supporters deny this. It is clear from the data.
I got 130 people to a two and a half hour public meeting peacefully discussing ideas for town planning this evening - one of the largest I've ever organised in low-key Broxtowe. I read about constituencies where people shout at politicians and get furiously angry, and think they must be on different planets.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Man, welcome to pb.com.
Mr. L, that just a reminder of the partisan, short-term poisonous atmosphere that McBride and his fellows created. So what if Brown completely screws up the IMF, so long as it neutralises a potential attack line at a single General Election for the Conservatives?
On Ashton: is there not the significant chance that she's seen as having gone native? One can hardly imagine the EU chose someone who might prefer Britain's interest to that of the EU for their first (effectively) foreign minister.
Edited extra bit: FPT: Mr. Smithson, that's an interesting comparison. Not sure which I'd prefer to watch. The Bridge is much harder to predict, I think, and I do like Saga and Martin's interesting interactions.0 -
That wouldn't be "going native", that would be "doing that actual job that you're getting paid to do". A Commissioner's job is to represent the whole EU in their area of responsibility. Representing an individual member state is the job of the minister from that member state.Morris_Dancer said:
On Ashton: is there not the significant chance that she's seen as having gone native? One can hardly imagine the EU chose someone who might prefer Britain's interest to that of the EU for their first (effectively) foreign minister.0 -
Mr. Tokyo, some would say a Briton taking a job that necessarily involves placing a foreign institution ahead of his or her own country would be a bad thing in and of itself.0
-
Doesn`t quite work that way.Osborne`s favourite pastime is trashing Labour`s economic record and Labour would laugh and point out` It was so bad that Gordon Brown is now running the IMF`.DecrepitJohnL said:
On Brown, McBride suggests that even on partisan grounds, blocking his IMF nomination was stupid: "Firstly, from a narrow political point of view, having Gordon run the IMF would have effectively neutralised the organisation’s influence on the 2015 election. Any criticism in the IMF’s reports on the UK economy could simply have been dismissed by Osborne with a ‘What do you expect?’ shrug."edmundintokyo said:
TBF a Gordon Brown appointment would have directly contradicted the government's messaging. It must be hard to fight an election saying, "This person is an irresponsible maniac who has destroyed Britain's economy" then turn around and say, "...which makes them the ideal candidate to lead the International Monetary Fund".DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
There's nothing like that with Ashton. There's no particular aspect to the EU's foreign policy that the Tories have been running against, and if they'd had a Tory in the same job, there's nothing they'd obviously be doing differently.
Rationally, Ashton stays. What will happen, who knows? I see David Herdson's OP point but am not sure Mitchell is currently in Cameron or Osborne's inner circle, and if they need to buy him off to make plebgate go away, is that not what peerages are for?0 -
Gordon Brown was not fit to run the economy, his own party and certainly not the IMF.
There was no ‘consensus’ - having left the UK economy in tatters, how could the Government then realistically support Brown’s appointment to the IMF without looking ridiculous.
0 -
Speaking of the EU, apparently it's SNP policy, should independence occur, to continue charging the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) tuition fees. Unsurprisingly, everyone whose last name isn't a type of fish (apologies to Augustus Carp) disagrees:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-256994090 -
Some might say that. Some people don't understand the concept of defence lawyers representing people who they think are probably guilty. But we don't need to listen to those people, because they're idiots. They're probably also unemployable, because they don't understand the concept of a job.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, some would say a Briton taking a job that necessarily involves placing a foreign institution ahead of his or her own country would be a bad thing in and of itself.
0 -
0
-
Mr. Tokyo, justice requires that the prosecution and defence both have competent lawyers. There's nothing required about the existence of the EU, or Britain's membership. The world existed long before it did, and will survive long after the bureaucratic monstrosity has crumbled to dust.0
-
To be clear, are you one of these "some people"? Is the head of the IMF supposed to look out for their own country rather than do the job of the IMF? Likewise the Secretary General of the United Nations?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Tokyo, justice requires that the prosecution and defence both have competent lawyers. There's nothing required about the existence of the EU, or Britain's membership. The world existed long before it did, and will survive long after the bureaucratic monstrosity has crumbled to dust.
0 -
Clearly someone hasn't explained to Eck that IF Scotland gets to join the EU,as rumpUK would be a separate member state, students from it would be entitled to free university places as with students from other EU countries at present. Of course for at least several years an independent Scotland would be outside the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Speaking of the EU, apparently it's SNP policy, should independence occur, to continue charging the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) tuition fees. Unsurprisingly, everyone whose last name isn't a type of fish (apologies to Augustus Carp) disagrees:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25699409
0 -
Mr. Tokyo, you seem a little passive aggressive.
The EU is not the same as the UN, or the IMF. Neither of the latter organisations are attempting to force us to give prisoners the vote*, for example, or taking billions of pounds from us every year. There's also no appetite to leave the UN or IMF. There has been no promised and then reneged upon referendum about the UN or IMF, there is no UN or IMF single currency, there is no proposal to make the UN or IMF a single nation state, neither the UN nor IMF have gone well over a decade (I believe) without having their accounts signed off.
*The European courts are not the same as the EU but are inextricably linked to them. They're overmighty, unaccountable and despicable (another three similarities).0 -
Mr. Easterross, well, quite. It doesn't take someone from south of the border to see it also looks rather anti-English (or Welsh/Northern Irish).0
-
I didn't notice TSE linking to this last night:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10566046/3000-soldiers-will-lose-jobs-as-Army-launches-recruitment-campaign.html
A sorry tale of underfunding and mismangement.
Will TSE announce that his red line on supporting military personnel has been crossed ?
I don't think so either.
0 -
Where we came in was that you (or someone you were speaking for, you won't tell us which) were apparently uncomfortable with the idea of "a Briton taking a job that necessarily involves placing a foreign institution ahead of his or her own country". This is either a bad thing in principle or it isn't. If it's a problem it applies to the UN, and the IMF, and any multinational company, and Médecins Sans Frontières, and all kinds of other organizations, regardless of whether you like the organization or not.Morris_Dancer said:
The EU is not the same as the UN, or the IMF. Neither of the latter organisations are attempting to force us to give prisoners the vote*, for example, or taking billions of pounds from us every year. There's also no appetite to leave the UN or IMF. There has been no promised and then reneged upon referendum about the UN or IMF, there is no UN or IMF single currency, there is no proposal to make the UN or IMF a single nation state, neither the UN nor IMF have gone well over a decade (I believe) without having their accounts signed off.
*The European courts are not the same as the EU but are inextricably linked to them. They're overmighty, unaccountable and despicable (another three similarities).0 -
That's not how I remember it at all. I recall Brown desperately pushing for the job, but it was always going to go to a Frenchie. Osborne, by jumping early to back Lagarde, possibly got some credit for something else? Do you have some evidence of this "even broader international consensus"?DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
On the topic of false memory - where has this meme that Ashton is fantastic suddenly come from? It only seems to have appeared in the last 6 months - but all she has done is nodded through a terrible deal that Obama wanted for legacy reasons, but only the French had the balls to criticise
0 -
Morris, can you confirm that you would like to see the government (once we have left the EU, that is) pass a law clarifying that seeking to re-join counts as high treason, for which of course we have retained the death penalty. I have little doubt that you, and a fair few other Peebies, would be in favour of the restoration of the gallows at Tyburn* so that the public could watch...
-------
* Marble Arch for those who didn't know. But I expect you all did.0 -
Mr. Tokyo, I could have phrased that more precisely. Or, given I'm slightly sleepy, you could've asked for clarification, given it was clearly a reference to the EU specifically.
Mr. Abroad, you're incorrect. When Jack Straw was Home Secretary the last death penalty crimes were changed, so we no longer have the death penalty for any crime committed (including treason or setting fire to shipyards).
Unlike much of the political class I'm rather in favour of freedom of speech. Those who wanted (and still want) to join the euro, or in your scenario, to rejoin the EU should be subject to argument and (in the former case) ridicule, not criminal proceedings.0 -
sunday herald @newsundayherald 11h
ROFL
Our splash tomorrow is a fascinating must read exclusive:
Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond and beat the Scottish #indyref
Incompetent comedy fop.0 -
FPT EiT:
" Maybe the way to understand British politics is like this:
- Only 30% of voters like Tebbit-style Conservatism.
- The Tories were on 30% for a decade.
- Under Cameron they did windmills and huskies and things and got another 5%.
- Then they reverted to Tebbit, so they went back to 30%. "
Well it may be an 'internationalist leftist' * thesis of events but it disintegrates on these details:
1) An examination of the 'another 5%' ** shows that they weren't voters attracted by 'windmills and huskies' but those angered by Labour's record on immigration and deindustrialisation. Most of these voters are now probably supporting UKIP.
2) The Conservatives actually did remarkably poorly in the areas where 'windmills and huskies' were said to be big issues.
3) The Conservatives haven't 'reverted to Tebbit' unless that is you think increasing overseas aid, gay marriage, continuing immigration and closing power stations are 'reverting to Tebbit'.
4) The one occasion where the Conservatives did get a boost was in the 'flounce bounce', ie when they did 'revert to Tebbit'.
* 'internationalist leftist' is my new description for the likes of yourself and Nick Palmer, it is not meant in any derogatory sense and I think you might quite like it.
** actually a 3% increase, in the circumstances of 2010 - Brown, the economy, time for a change etc - a very feeble increase.
0 -
Good Morning.
Has Sutton Coalfield retained it's coal mine? If not, surely it should be renamed, Sutton Field or if fracking is allowed: Sutton Frackerstown.
0 -
Correct, it's only been the last 6 months. (But not just the Iran deal, and per the reporting she had a bigger role in that than you're giving her credit for.) Before that she was widely panned for being ineffective and low-key. She said she'd stand down (or rather mysteriously that another term wasn't possible) back in March or so when everyone was still saying she was rubbish, which is why I wonder if she'd want to stay on now that she's flavour of the month.Charles said:On the topic of false memory - where has this meme that Ashton is fantastic suddenly come from? It only seems to have appeared in the last 6 months - but all she has done is nodded through a terrible deal that Obama wanted for legacy reasons, but only the French had the balls to criticise
Ashton-mania sweeps The Telegraph (Peter Oborne):Well, let’s admit we were all completely wrong. It is now obvious that Catherine Ashton has been a success. In her unobtrusive but determined way, she can boast real achievement. Last year a peace deal was struck between Serbia and Kosovo. Nobody had thought it possible. It was a massive step towards healing ancient hatreds and building economic prosperity. It was brokered by Baroness Ashton.
Ashton-mania sweeps der Spiegel:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100238311/we-were-all-wrong-about-baroness-ashton-she-may-save-the-iran-nuclear-talks/The word in diplomatic circles is that this diplomatic renaissance can primarily be attributed to Ashton. In recent months, she has spoken on the phone four times with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, who studied in the United States and gives the impression of being effectively pro-West.
Ashton was the one who came up with the idea of bringing Zarif together with representatives of the P5+1, the international group in charge of negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program that is made up of Germany and the five permanent member states on the UN Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. As a result, the often quarrelling group has embraced Ashton as its chief negotiator.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catherine-ashton-excells-in-western-talks-on-iran-nuclear-program-a-925514.html0 -
Not a good day for the second rate Blair impersonator.
WorthingUKIP @WorthingUKIP 29m
Perhaps Cameron could beg Putin for help dealing with the kippers and his own backbenchers while he's at it?
95 #Tory MPs call for #EU law veto http://dailym.ai/JQLDu7 via @MailOnline but this cannot happen whilst we retain EU membership
*chortle*0 -
1/8 on Labour in Wythenshawe and Sale must be good value, but I'm greedy. That UKIP price must come in a bit more yet, surely?0
-
" An examination of the 'another 5%' ** shows that they weren't voters attracted by 'windmills and huskies' but those angered by Labour's record on immigration and deindustrialisation. Most of these voters are now probably supporting UKIP. "
Plus rising prices and tax increases on the working poor.
The 'cost of living crisis' which Labour inflicted on the low paid in 2008 being far more severe than the one they've got excited about now.
0 -
Daily Mail:Charles said:
That's not how I remember it at all. I recall Brown desperately pushing for the job, but it was always going to go to a Frenchie. Osborne, by jumping early to back Lagarde, possibly got some credit for something else? Do you have some evidence of this "even broader international consensus"?DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
"Brown has backers - but they can't beat a Tory grudge
By ALEX BRUMMER
UPDATED: 10:53, 21 May 2011
"Brown was at the heart of the effort for debt forgiveness in Africa and pivotal in securing new funds for the IMF in the aftermath of the 2007-08 credit crunch
"As chairman of the International Monetary Fund’s main policy-making panel for almost a decade, Gordon Brown demonstrated a remarkable knack for global financial statesmanship.
He was at the heart of the effort for debt forgiveness in Africa and pivotal in securing new funds for the IMF in the aftermath of the 2007-08 credit crunch.
"So it is somewhat surprising that despite his track record in Washington, the current British government has chosen to kibosh his chances of winning the now vacant job of managing director."
...
"At this year’s spring meeting in Washington, where the main talking point was who would replace Strauss-Kahn (in the days when it was anticipated he would leave to join the French presidential race), I was told by a senior official that Brown was the favoured candidate."
"There is no doubt that Brown, despite his ruined reputation at home, retains support among America’s Democratic elite. In his circle are some of America’s top economists, including Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman as well as President Obama’s former top White House adviser Lawrence Summers.
"Brown can also count on the support of the African bloc, which has clout but little voting power. He was among the architects for debt forgiveness in Africa and the Millennium Development Goals aimed at improving education and ending poverty across that continent."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1389330/Gordon-Brown-backers--beat-Tory-grudge.html
0 -
@DecrepitJohnL It was crazy to imagine the current government would support Gordon Brown to head the IMF. It would have gone against all their messaging about Labour wrecking the economy and given him a position of great influence over current British economic debate.0
-
*chortle*I'm not sure that that statement is necessarily true. We are a dualist country, and consequently international law only takes effect insofar as it is incorporated into domestic law. English law did not even recognise the sacred position of an ambassador until Parliament decreed that it should do so. It would be perfectly possible for Parliament to provide for the selective disapplication of provisions of TEU & TFEU in the United Kingdom. The question is not whether it is possible, but whether the government of the day has the political will to provoke a serious row with Brussels, Luxembourg and the member states.Mick_Pork said:Not a good day for the second rate Blair impersonator.
WorthingUKIP @WorthingUKIP 29m
95 #Tory MPs call for #EU law veto http://dailym.ai/JQLDu7 via @MailOnline but this cannot happen whilst we retain EU membership0 -
Take your point, or at least on reflection you obviously can't make a Grand Theory of Conservative Polling Scores without involving UKIP in it.another_richard said:FPT EiT:
" Maybe the way to understand British politics is like this:
- Only 30% of voters like Tebbit-style Conservatism.
- The Tories were on 30% for a decade.
- Under Cameron they did windmills and huskies and things and got another 5%.
- Then they reverted to Tebbit, so they went back to 30%. "
Well it may be an 'internationalist leftist' * thesis of events but it disintegrates on these details:
1) An examination of the 'another 5%' ** shows that they weren't voters attracted by 'windmills and huskies' but those angered by Labour's record on immigration and deindustrialisation. Most of these voters are now probably supporting UKIP.
2) The Conservatives actually did remarkably poorly in the areas where 'windmills and huskies' were said to be big issues.
3) The Conservatives haven't 'reverted to Tebbit' unless that is you think increasing overseas aid, gay marriage, continuing immigration and closing power stations are 'reverting to Tebbit'.
4) The one occasion where the Conservatives did get a boost was in the 'flounce bounce', ie when they did 'revert to Tebbit'.
* 'internationalist leftist' is my new description for the likes of yourself and Nick Palmer, it is not meant in any derogatory sense and I think you might quite like it.
** actually a 3% increase, in the circumstances of 2010 - Brown, the economy, time for a change etc - a very feeble increase.
Although I do think there's a genuine section of opinion that bought the overall one-nation-ish Cameron branding that huskies and windmills were part of, which the government has now largely dropped from their messaging, because when they do try to it, as with gay marriage, they can't take their party with them and it ends up back-firing.
PS. Like you say I don't mind "international leftist" particularly although I'd be more like "international left-libertarian".0 -
It seems that for whatever reason, Cameron doesn't actually like Mitchell very much, even assuming as most of us do that Mitchell didn't say the words attributed to him - the tensions in both directions have been evident, though somewhat obscured rather than illuminated by the whole plebgate thing. The reasons to appoint someone as Commissioner are:
1. You think they'd be very good at it
2. You want to get rid of an awkward rival
3. You want to reward a faithful friend.
Mitchell doesn't seem quite to fit any of these and I can't see Cameron risking a by-election in an election year to make it happen. Letting Ashton carry on if she's willing seems to be the low-key option that doesn't create any problems.0 -
Just the opposite. As McBride points out, any criticism from a Brown-led IMF could be laughed off. Any praise would go straight onto an election poster to undermine Miliband and Balls.antifrank said:@DecrepitJohnL It was crazy to imagine the current government would support Gordon Brown to head the IMF. It would have gone against all their messaging about Labour wrecking the economy and given him a position of great influence over current British economic debate.
0 -
It would have been insane to inflict Brown on the IMF. The only thing more bizarre would be to make Tony Blair a middle east peace envoy.
These posts should not be sinecures for inconvenient unwanted Westminster politicians.
Whatever Ashtons merits, this is an opportunity to put a Conservative voice into the commission, and not one that will be missed. It needs to be someone with a reforming agenda similar to Camerons own position. It is a position that matches a meme across europe. William Hague would be good considering his FCO experience, and would create room for a reshuffle to bring back Mitchell.antifrank said:@DecrepitJohnL It was crazy to imagine the current government would support Gordon Brown to head the IMF. It would have gone against all their messaging about Labour wrecking the economy and given him a position of great influence over current British economic debate.
0 -
Mr. L, leaving aside the daftness of supporting Brown to lead the IMF, you can't support him for the job then say "He's rubbish, you can't trust a word he says, oh and he ruined our economy which is why we thought he should be head of the IMF."0
-
@NP
Did I miss out on a Diplomacy game, I vaguely remember seeing some thing on a thread earlier in the week?0 -
I think there were some middle class leftists who did think that Cameron was genuine about 'huskies and windmills' but weren't willing to vote Conservative under any circumstances. For example OGH was very complimentary about Cameron's overseas aid policy, but he didn't vote Conservative.edmundintokyo said:
Take your point, or at least on reflection you obviously can't make a Grand Theory of Conservative Polling Scores without involving UKIP in it.
Although I do think there's a genuine section of opinion that bought the overall one-nation-ish Cameron branding that huskies and windmills were part of, which the government has now largely dropped from their messaging, because when they do try to it, as with gay marriage, they can't take their party with them and it ends up back-firing.
Now it may be argued that Cameron helped reduce anti-Conservative tactical voting among middle class leftists. Though I suspect any Lab-Lib shift had more to do with the respective views on Brown and Clegg in 2010.
I do think though that Cameron's 'huskies and windmills' persona is viewed as genuine by many 'disgruntled rightists'. The problem for the Conservatives is that they despise Cameron because of it. The two Seans are good examples here I would say.
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the 'detox' strategy that Cameron and Osborne evolved in 2005-2006. The error was it was aimed at the wrong target - it was provincial wwc voters who were Labour's weak link not middle class leftists. Why Cameron and Osborne made this error - the viewpoint of 2005's metropolitan affluence being too rarified combined with general ignorance and/or prejudice about areas outside their comfort zone is my guess - is another issue.
I think the left-libertarian would apply to you but not to Nick Palmer. He's always struck me as having a strong authoritarian streak but then he is an active politician.edmundintokyo said:
Like you say I don't mind "international leftist" particularly although I'd be more like "international left-libertarian".
0 -
Ashton-mania sweeps der Spiegel:edmundintokyo said:
Correct, it's only been the last 6 months. (But not just the Iran deal, and per the reporting she had a bigger role in that than you're giving her credit for.) Before that she was widely panned for being ineffective and low-key. She said she'd stand down (or rather mysteriously that another term wasn't possible) back in March or so when everyone was still saying she was rubbish, which is why I wonder if she'd want to stay on now that she's flavour of the month.Charles said:On the topic of false memory - where has this meme that Ashton is fantastic suddenly come from? It only seems to have appeared in the last 6 months - but all she has done is nodded through a terrible deal that Obama wanted for legacy reasons, but only the French had the balls to criticise
Ashton-mania sweeps The Telegraph (Peter Oborne):Well, let’s admit we were all completely wrong. It is now obvious that Catherine Ashton has been a success. In her unobtrusive but determined way, she can boast real achievement. Last year a peace deal was struck between Serbia and Kosovo. Nobody had thought it possible. It was a massive step towards healing ancient hatreds and building economic prosperity. It was brokered by Baroness Ashton.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100238311/we-were-all-wrong-about-baroness-ashton-she-may-save-the-iran-nuclear-talks/The word in diplomatic circles is that this diplomatic renaissance can primarily be attributed to Ashton. In recent months, she has spoken on the phone four times with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, who studied in the United States and gives the impression of being effectively pro-West.
Ashton was the one who came up with the idea of bringing Zarif together with representatives of the P5+1, the international group in charge of negotiating with Iran about its nuclear program that is made up of Germany and the five permanent member states on the UN Security Council -- China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. As a result, the often quarrelling group has embraced Ashton as its chief negotiator.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catherine-ashton-excells-in-western-talks-on-iran-nuclear-program-a-925514.html
Ok, so she's personally responsible for a deal so crap that even John Kerry wanted to throw up and had to be ordered to toe the line.0 -
More accurately, they can't beat the longstanding deal that a French candidate gets the IMF, while and American gets the World Bank. Brown never had a chance, regardless of what his supporters were whispering in Brummer's earsDecrepitJohnL said:
Daily Mail:Charles said:
That's not how I remember it at all. I recall Brown desperately pushing for the job, but it was always going to go to a Frenchie. Osborne, by jumping early to back Lagarde, possibly got some credit for something else? Do you have some evidence of this "even broader international consensus"?DecrepitJohnL said:
In 2010 there was an even broader international consensus that Gordon Brown should get the IMF job, though I suppose as 2015 looms, government ministers will have less interest in blocking appointments on party political grounds.edmundintokyo said:PS I keep banging on about the Ashton thing but are we sure there's a vacancy to be filled here? If the other member states say, "Everyone thinks the British High Representative is doing an excellent job, she's in the middle of negotiations with Iran and we'd like her to serve another term", is Cameron really going to say, "No, I insist that we sack her so that we can use the British slot to give some non-job to a loyal party hack I owe a favour to"?
"Brown has backers - but they can't beat a Tory grudge
By ALEX BRUMMER
UPDATED: 10:53, 21 May 2011
"So it is somewhat surprising that despite his track record in Washington, the current British government has chosen to kibosh his chances of winning the now vacant job of managing director."
[snip]
... ...
"At this year’s spring meeting in Washington, where the main talking point was who would replace Strauss-Kahn (in the days when it was anticipated he would leave to join the French presidential race), I was told by a senior official that Brown was the favoured candidate."
"There is no doubt that Brown, despite his ruined reputation at home, retains support among America’s Democratic elite. In his circle are some of America’s top economists, including Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman as well as President Obama’s former top White House adviser Lawrence Summers.
"Brown can also count on the support of the African bloc, which has clout but little voting power. He was among the architects for debt forgiveness in Africa and the Millennium Development Goals aimed at improving education and ending poverty across that continent."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1389330/Gordon-Brown-backers--beat-Tory-grudge.html0 -
There was never a consensus that Brown should have been given the IMF job - rather the opposite. If he had been appointed it would have been like placing an alcoholic in charge of a distillery. Surely we all know that he should be permanently kept away from money of any kind. I'd be quite surprised if Mrs Brown allowed him more than an allowance.0
-
I'm not sure that that statement is necessarily true. We are a dualist country, and consequently international law only takes effect insofar as it is incorporated into domestic law. English law did not even recognise the sacred position of an ambassador until Parliament decreed that it should do so. It would be perfectly possible for Parliament to provide for the selective disapplication of provisions of TEU & TFEU in the United Kingdom. The question is not whether it is possible, but whether the government of the day has the political will to provoke a serious row with Brussels, Luxembourg and the member states.Life_ina_market_town said:
*chortle*Mick_Pork said:Not a good day for the second rate Blair impersonator.
WorthingUKIP @WorthingUKIP 29m
95 #Tory MPs call for #EU law veto http://dailym.ai/JQLDu7 via @MailOnline but this cannot happen whilst we retain EU membership
There may be a theoretical basis for that but on a practical level the kipper has it right as the number 10 spokesman was forced to point out himself."But if individual national parliaments regularly and unilaterally overturned EU laws the Single Market wouldn't work, and even a Swiss-style free trade deal with the EU wouldn't be possible."
Doesn't sound to me like Cameron is prepared to make it a 'red line' for renegotiations.
Far from it.
I also somehow doubt that's going to satisfy Cammie's eternally disgruntled eurosceptics but then again even I didn't expect them to start running about like headless chickens over the EU quite this early. The EU election campaign hasn't even really started yet after all. I can only presume they are feeling less than happy after it looks like they've been sold yet another pup by the Cameroons. Namely the EU referendum Bill which is now looking less than certain to say the least.0 -
The Government wouldn't have expected any praise from a Brown-led IMF. They could otherwise reasonably hope for independent backing at difficult times which would have been far more useful.DecrepitJohnL said:
Just the opposite. As McBride points out, any criticism from a Brown-led IMF could be laughed off. Any praise would go straight onto an election poster to undermine Miliband and Balls.antifrank said:@DecrepitJohnL It was crazy to imagine the current government would support Gordon Brown to head the IMF. It would have gone against all their messaging about Labour wrecking the economy and given him a position of great influence over current British economic debate.
0 -
They should be charged as well, if our students cannot study for free in England then their students should not be allowed to sponge of us. Eck will know exactly what the position is that is for sure.Easterross said:
Clearly someone hasn't explained to Eck that IF Scotland gets to join the EU,as rumpUK would be a separate member state, students from it would be entitled to free university places as with students from other EU countries at present. Of course for at least several years an independent Scotland would be outside the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Speaking of the EU, apparently it's SNP policy, should independence occur, to continue charging the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) tuition fees. Unsurprisingly, everyone whose last name isn't a type of fish (apologies to Augustus Carp) disagrees:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-256994090 -
@FoxinSox
You did indeed miss out on the new Diplomacy game, Doc. Not surprising though from the time Mr Fletcher announced the game to the time it was full was about 30 minutes, which must be some sort of record.
He has offered to set up another game is there is demand, which there might well be. Lucian Fletcher is your man to talk to.
0 -
If there doesn't need to be a by-election then there won't be. Mitchell can be given something else by the chumocracy and unless Mitchell starts demanding something very soon (pretty unlikely) it can certainly wait.0
-
MD , that is bollocks, how do we fund English education from a fixed budget set by London. More like anti-Scottish. Whingers south of the border spend most of their time whining about how Scots and most people in the world are not nice to them. Time they got a backbone, had a look in the mirror and got rid of the insecurity, or maybe stop whinging even.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Easterross, well, quite. It doesn't take someone from south of the border to see it also looks rather anti-English (or Welsh/Northern Irish).
0 -
Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
Very Good Post. THIS is the reason the tories are flatlining and Fargle is smiling. Thatcher gained their votes in 79-87 (white van man, Basildon man) and wonanother_richard said:
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the 'detox' strategy that Cameron and Osborne evolved in 2005-2006. The error was it was aimed at the wrong target - it was provincial wwc voters who were Labour's weak link not middle class leftists.
The Wets were aghast at Thatcher, a lower middle class grocers daughter, and the prospect of some of the lower orders actually gaining power and heaven forfend even taking over the party. The current government are Uber-Wets and consider they being the upper orders know best.another_richard said:
Why Cameron and Osborne made this error - the viewpoint of 2005's metropolitan affluence being too rarified combined with general ignorance and/or prejudice about areas outside their comfort zone is my guess - is another issue.
The Tories will go the way of the UUP soon and for the same reason. The UUP crashed because when it came to the crunch their voters didn't trust their elite on matters of the gravest national importance; that would adversly impact their lifestyles if the wrong decision was made, so voted for a grassroots alternative formed from the working and lower middle class, who, whatever reservations they may have had about them and some of their more hardline members, when the chips were down they did trust on grave matters to implement a solution that benefitted the people, not just the elite. Lack of trust of the elite to act in the interest of the people was the key.
A respectable party actually run by the working and lower middle class and implementing their views is also incredibly dangerous to Labour which has largely eliminated the members influence since New Labour, but still allows the union barons to disproportionally influence them; like aristocratic landowners and industrialists influence the tories. (I speak as a union member opted out of the political fund, fed up with my Union wasting money on political campaigns and Cuban solidarity rubbish etc. rather than day to day member support which they let us down badly on a while back)
To have any chance of survival in the long term, Labour and the Tories need to reform so that the partv membership actually gets to decide and/or influence policy, as is the case with the Lib Dems and UKIP.
0 -
The point is that rUK students would have the same access to free university places as other EU countries and Scots.
The rules are that EU students get the same rights as locals.
There are a couple of ways that an independent Scotland could charge English students. One would be to not join the EU, another would be to charge all students including Scots.
Free education for English students would not be a bad deal though for independent Scotland as a number would stay on in Scotland as permenant migrants, thereby repaying the Scottish taxpayer.malcolmg said:
They should be charged as well, if our students cannot study for free in England then their students should not be allowed to sponge of us. Eck will know exactly what the position is that is for sure.Easterross said:
Clearly someone hasn't explained to Eck that IF Scotland gets to join the EU,as rumpUK would be a separate member state, students from it would be entitled to free university places as with students from other EU countries at present. Of course for at least several years an independent Scotland would be outside the EU.Morris_Dancer said:Speaking of the EU, apparently it's SNP policy, should independence occur, to continue charging the English (and Welsh/Northern Irish) tuition fees. Unsurprisingly, everyone whose last name isn't a type of fish (apologies to Augustus Carp) disagrees:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-256994090 -
Or they could whine to Putin then they could shriek witlessly about how Independence looks rather anti-Russian to them.malcolmg said:
MD , that is bollocks, how do we fund English education from a fixed budget set by London. More like anti-Scottish. Whingers south of the border spend most of their time whining about how Scots and most people in the world are not nice to them. Time they got a backbone, had a look in the mirror and got rid of the insecurity, or maybe stop whinging even.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Easterross, well, quite. It doesn't take someone from south of the border to see it also looks rather anti-English (or Welsh/Northern Irish).
*laughs*
-1 -
Mr. Beds, UKIP needs to get some focus and decide the principles which will guide its views on things like immigration, niqab/burkha banning/restrictions, taxation, a general approach to spending and so on.
It may have the potential to usurp the Conservatives but it needs to put in place strong foundations now.0 -
There must be an election in May because calamity Clegg's back to his comically ineffectual differentiation posturing.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m
.@nick_clegg on EU immigration: "UKIP and Tories locked in deadly embrace with each other - it’s a real race to the bottom” @JPonpolitics0 -
UKIP though does not look like the sort of party you describe. They may do well with provincial WWC voters; but are Farage, Bloom, James, and the Lord who was leader before Farage WWC? Ditto their funders, who seem to be disgruntled Tory millionaires.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
Very Good Post. THIS is the reason the tories are flatlining and Fargle is smiling. Thatcher gained their votes in 79-87 (white van man, Basildon man) and wonanother_richard said:
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the 'detox' strategy that Cameron and Osborne evolved in 2005-2006. The error was it was aimed at the wrong target - it was provincial wwc voters who were Labour's weak link not middle class leftists.
The Wets were aghast at Thatcher, a lower middle class grocers daughter, and the prospect of some of the lower orders actually gaining power and heaven forfend even taking over the party. The current government are Uber-Wets and consider they being the upper orders know best.another_richard said:
Why Cameron and Osborne made this error - the viewpoint of 2005's metropolitan affluence being too rarified combined with general ignorance and/or prejudice about areas outside their comfort zone is my guess - is another issue.
The Tories will go the way of the UUP soon and for the same reason. The UUP crashed because when it came to the crunch their voters didn't trust their elite on matters of the gravest national importance; that would adversly impact their lifestyles if the wrong decision was made, so voted for a grassroots alternative formed from the working and lower middle class, who, whatever reservations they may have had about them and some of their more hardline members, when the chips were down they did trust on grave matters to implement a solution that benefitted the people, not just the elite. Lack of trust of the elite to act in the interest of the people was the key.
A respectable party actually run by the working and lower middle class and implementing their views is also incredibly dangerous to Labour which has largely eliminated the members influence since New Labour, but still allows the union barons to disproportionally influence them; like aristocratic landowners and industrialists influence the tories. (I speak as a union member opted out of the political fund, fed up with my Union wasting money on political campaigns and Cuban solidarity rubbish etc. rather than day to day member support which they let us down badly on a while back)
To have any chance of survival in the long term, Labour and the Tories need to reform so that the partv membership actually gets to decide and/or influence policy, as is the case with the Lib Dems and UKIP.0 -
I'm sure you are right, whether they will succeed or not, who knows.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Beds, UKIP needs to get some focus and decide the principles which will guide its views on things like immigration, niqab/burkha banning/restrictions, taxation, a general approach to spending and so on.
It may have the potential to usurp the Conservatives but it needs to put in place strong foundations now.
They have already given people like me hope, just by achieving what they have to date, because for the first time in many years (at least since IDS was defenestrated), I feel that there is a respectable party I can vote for without a nagging doubt that I am just being thrown a few bones by a liberal leadership to keep me onside. (I'm not a member by the way)
0 -
You have your wish. There are elections in May.Mick_Pork said:There must be an election in May because calamity Clegg's back to his comically ineffectual differentiation posturing.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m
.@nick_clegg on EU immigration: "UKIP and Tories locked in deadly embrace with each other - it’s a real race to the bottom” @JPonpolitics
0 -
Firstly, I find it highly unlikely that Baroness Ashton has turned competent. Is this the same woman who missed important meetings because she needed to catch her train home for the weekend? Who was regarded as a joke by her fellow Commissioners? Who was completely ignored in relation to Syria just last year?
So what is going on? I suspect that many tories are aware of how deeply divided the party is on the EU and how difficult an appointment is going to be. A Commissioner requires to swear an oath on taking office promising to work for the good of the EU and to disregard the interests of their native country. What sort of a sceptic could give such an oath? If, on the other hand, Cameron chooses a non sceptic he faces serious dissatisfaction in the party and the risk of another fillip for UKIP with everyone questioning once again his commitment to an in out referendum etc.
So does Cameron duck the question and simply renew Baroness Ashton (assuming she wants it anyway)? No. A European Commissioner is probably the closest a UK PM has to appointing a Supreme Court Justice in the US. It is the opportunity to insert someone whose views you believe to be compatible into the highest chamber where they will continue to have influence even after the appointer has left office. No politician can turn down such an opportunity.
So who? Mitchell might be a possibility but I agree with those who say there is going to be ongoing baggage from the absurd Plebgate affair. Also by associating himself so closely with Davies and other trouble makers he will have won few friends in Downing Street.
My guess would be William Hague. Hague is a heavy hitter but has said many times he has no ambitions to become leader again. He knows the leaders and other key players well from his attendance at meetings of the the EU Foreign Ministers and gets on well with the French. If Britain really is going to renegotiate a revisal of the treaties having someone like him on the inside is likely to make finding a workable compromise far easier. The other member states would appreciate Britain nominating someone of such seniority and it is likely he would get an important portfolio. I think he is the logical choice.0 -
Indeed, however no party will be or ever be just working class. I personally would consider myself lower middle class. The key is whether the party is democratic and has policies guided by the wishes of the membership or whether policy is dictated from above and the members are just there to applaud. As has become the case with Labour and has always been the case with the Tories (with the members one significant right - to choose their candidate - eviscerated under Cameron)foxinsoxuk said:UKIP though does not look like the sort of party you describe. They may do well with provincial WWC voters; but are Farage, Bloom, James, and the Lord who was leader before Farage WWC? Ditto their funders, who seem to be disgruntled Tory millionaires.
For exactly the same reason I don't expect the next election to be the bloodbath for the libdems many people think.
0 -
You have your wish. There are elections in May.JackW said:Mick_Pork said:There must be an election in May because calamity Clegg's back to his comically ineffectual differentiation posturing.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m
.@nick_clegg on EU immigration: "UKIP and Tories locked in deadly embrace with each other - it’s a real race to the bottom” @JPonpolitics
Too early in the morning for you to spot irony Jacky? Never mind. I'm sure your arse will wake you up properly soon enough.
0 -
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
OT is Aitken's book on Thatcher any good? I'm looking for a page-turner wih insights; I'm not researching for a thesis on our former Prime Minister.0
-
Best not let OGH see this one - he might have a Porterhouse blue:
A free school in Newham, East London, gets the save number of pupils into Oxbridge as a£32k a year public school:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100254017/free-schools-oxbridge-triumph/0 -
Mick_Pork said:
You have your wish. There are elections in May.JackW said:Mick_Pork said:There must be an election in May because calamity Clegg's back to his comically ineffectual differentiation posturing.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 3m
.@nick_clegg on EU immigration: "UKIP and Tories locked in deadly embrace with each other - it’s a real race to the bottom” @JPonpolitics
Too early in the morning for you to spot irony Jacky? Never mind. I'm sure your arse will wake you up properly soon enough.
Too early in the morning for you to spot irony Porky? Never mind. I'm sure you'll properly grasp your arse from your elbow soon enough.
0 -
Britain isn't really going to renegotiate a revision of the treaties.DavidL said:If Britain really is going to renegotiate a revisal of the treaties having someone like him on the inside is likely to make finding a workable compromise far easier.
0 -
To charge all students in Scotland fees; then have some sort of grant system would perhaps be workeable. The grants could not be restricted to Scottish universities though. Scots could have their grants applied to any EU course including rUK.
Its rather like EU laws on benefits. There is no requirement for recpricocity, just that EU residents get the same treatment as domestic residents.malcolmg said:
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
Leaving the spinning to one side, surely this shows the farce that is Oxbridge admission.HurstLlama said:Best not let OGH see this one - he might have a Porterhouse blue:
A free school in Newham, East London, gets the save number of pupils into Oxbridge as a£32k a year public school:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100254017/free-schools-oxbridge-triumph/
0 -
Might be a good way of knocking Ukip down a few pegs. I don't think they'd win in Sutton Coldfield and then the Tories can be relieved to say Ukip can't even win in Tory seats0
-
You can be sure there is a way round it , the fair and proper way would be for English students to pay and the people would not accept anything less. Any Scottish government that paid out would not last long.foxinsoxuk said:To charge all students in Scotland fees; then have some sort of grant system would perhaps be workeable. The grants could not be restricted to Scottish universities though. Scots could have their grants applied to any EU course including rUK.
Its rather like EU laws on benefits. There is no requirement for recpricocity, just that EU residents get the same treatment as domestic residents.malcolmg said:
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
In what respects are Oxbridge admissions a farce?DecrepitJohnL said:Leaving the spinning to one side, surely this shows the farce that is Oxbridge admission.
0 -
The posters on UK Polling Report seem to put LD 2015 losses <20 seats.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
For exactly the same reason I don't expect the next election to be the bloodbath for the libdems many people think.foxinsoxuk said:UKIP though does not look like the sort of party you describe. They may do well with provincial WWC voters; but are Farage, Bloom, James, and the Lord who was leader before Farage WWC? Ditto their funders, who seem to be disgruntled Tory millionaires.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/
I don't see how that can be right. LD prospects seem to hinge on the Conservatives suffering the same loss of support in 2015 as the LDs, and that just doesn't seem likely.
0 -
This is indeed unlikely, but the obvious explanation is that she wasn't incompetent in the first place. Working all hours is often a sign of ineffective time management or trying to impress people about how hard you work. Sue Cameron blames the criticism on sexism, but some of it may just be the combination of low-key style and a low-powered CV.DavidL said:Firstly, I find it highly unlikely that Baroness Ashton has turned competent. Is this the same woman who missed important meetings because she needed to catch her train home for the weekend? Who was regarded as a joke by her fellow Commissioners? Who was completely ignored in relation to Syria just last year?
0 -
Of couse it is a problem with Oxbridge. Clearly the sons and daughters of Newham are not of the same calibre as the Milfield old boys.
They should know their place, cap in hand at the rich mans gate.DecrepitJohnL said:
Leaving the spinning to one side, surely this shows the farce that is Oxbridge admission.HurstLlama said:Best not let OGH see this one - he might have a Porterhouse blue:
A free school in Newham, East London, gets the save number of pupils into Oxbridge as a£32k a year public school:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100254017/free-schools-oxbridge-triumph/0 -
That the school makes so much difference, presumably by prepping for interviews, and choice of subject and college (and there may be a parallel here with grade inflation, where at least some of it can be put down to more careful and professional exam test rehearsal).Life_ina_market_town said:
In what respects are Oxbridge admissions a farce?DecrepitJohnL said:Leaving the spinning to one side, surely this shows the farce that is Oxbridge admission.
0 -
An indy Scotland in the EU would have to treat rUK the same as other EU countries in respect of university admissions.
I think that being so anti English students is unwise. The SNP is not anti immigrant, and English graduates of Scottish universities are quite likely to be a source of skilled immigrants who would integrate well into Scottish society, as many have done in the past.
Surely you are not suggesting that the Scottish electorate is anti-English?malcolmg said:
You can be sure there is a way round it , the fair and proper way would be for English students to pay and the people would not accept anything less. Any Scottish government that paid out would not last long.foxinsoxuk said:To charge all students in Scotland fees; then have some sort of grant system would perhaps be workeable. The grants could not be restricted to Scottish universities though. Scots could have their grants applied to any EU course including rUK.
Its rather like EU laws on benefits. There is no requirement for recpricocity, just that EU residents get the same treatment as domestic residents.malcolmg said:
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
Number of Ukip candidates standing in the 4 Sutton wards in 2012? Zero
Will interesting to see how they do this May0 -
Is there really any evidence for that? The University of Bristol, for example, admits a considerably lower proportion of undergraduates from state schools than Oxford.DecrepitJohnL said:That the school makes so much difference, presumably by prepping for interviews, and choice of subject and college (and there may be a parallel here with grade inflation, where at least some of it can be put down to more careful and professional exam test rehearsal).
0 -
I see Nick Clegg repeated his "three million jobs depend on the EU" lie on the BBC again today, and again was unchallenged. This is the problem on the EU debate: eurosceptics get entrapped with things like Labour plants in the audience and quotes from the Rivers of Blood speech, while europhiles get a free pass for completely bogus claims.0
-
Certainly not and in fact quite the opposite, I am suggesting that whilst England would charge Scottish students it would not be fair or proper for Scotland to fund English students.foxinsoxuk said:An indy Scotland in the EU would have to treat rUK the same as other EU countries in respect of university admissions.
I think that being so anti English students is unwise. The SNP is not anti immigrant, and English graduates of Scottish universities are quite likely to be a source of skilled immigrants who would integrate well into Scottish society, as many have done in the past.
Surely you are not suggesting that the Scottish electorate is anti-English?malcolmg said:
You can be sure there is a way round it , the fair and proper way would be for English students to pay and the people would not accept anything less. Any Scottish government that paid out would not last long.foxinsoxuk said:To charge all students in Scotland fees; then have some sort of grant system would perhaps be workeable. The grants could not be restricted to Scottish universities though. Scots could have their grants applied to any EU course including rUK.
Its rather like EU laws on benefits. There is no requirement for recpricocity, just that EU residents get the same treatment as domestic residents.malcolmg said:
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
That the school makes a difference? Presumably that is the whole point of Young's piece.Life_ina_market_town said:
Is there really any evidence for that? The University of Bristol, for example, admits a considerably lower proportion of undergraduates from state schools than Oxford.DecrepitJohnL said:That the school makes so much difference, presumably by prepping for interviews, and choice of subject and college (and there may be a parallel here with grade inflation, where at least some of it can be put down to more careful and professional exam test rehearsal).
When I am elected dictator for life by a grateful populace, my first decree will be that university access is decided by a lottery amongst all those who meet whatever is deemed the minimum A-level requirement. As well as being fair, it would also save a great deal of time and money: no interviews or travel required as it would take a computer about ten minutes once the exam results are known, and academics can get on with curing cancer or deciphering the Dead Sea scrolls.0 -
I agree. I left the Labour party because of the increasing disconnect between the leadership and the membership, and in particular NHS privatisation and war mongering in Iraq.
All parties have a disconnect between members and voters. The LD membership voted for the coalition agreement that lost it half its voters for example. Parties do seem to find it nessecary to rein in their activists in order to appeal to a wider voter base. I think that both Labour and Conservatives have overdone this.
UKIP seems to me to be a rather ramshacke band that changes policy on the hoof in pusuit cheap populism to back a right wing agenda. It may evolve a more cohenent policy platform or collapse due to internal contradictions. I suspect the latter myself.Paul_Mid_Beds said:
Indeed, however no party will be or ever be just working class. I personally would consider myself lower middle class. The key is whether the party is democratic and has policies guided by the wishes of the membership or whether policy is dictated from above and the members are just there to applaud. As has become the case with Labour and has always been the case with the Tories (with the members one significant right - to choose their candidate - eviscerated under Cameron)foxinsoxuk said:UKIP though does not look like the sort of party you describe. They may do well with provincial WWC voters; but are Farage, Bloom, James, and the Lord who was leader before Farage WWC? Ditto their funders, who seem to be disgruntled Tory millionaires.
For exactly the same reason I don't expect the next election to be the bloodbath for the libdems many people think.0 -
Why should English students be treated differently from other EU students? Romanians could study free but a Berwick lad could not? I am glad it makes sense to you, it makes no sense to me!malcolmg said:
Certainly not and in fact quite the opposite, I am suggesting that whilst England would charge Scottish students it would not be fair or proper for Scotland to fund English students.foxinsoxuk said:An indy Scotland in the EU would have to treat rUK the same as other EU countries in respect of university admissions.
I think that being so anti English students is unwise. The SNP is not anti immigrant, and English graduates of Scottish universities are quite likely to be a source of skilled immigrants who would integrate well into Scottish society, as many have done in the past.
Surely you are not suggesting that the Scottish electorate is anti-English?malcolmg said:
You can be sure there is a way round it , the fair and proper way would be for English students to pay and the people would not accept anything less. Any Scottish government that paid out would not last long.foxinsoxuk said:To charge all students in Scotland fees; then have some sort of grant system would perhaps be workeable. The grants could not be restricted to Scottish universities though. Scots could have their grants applied to any EU course including rUK.
Its rather like EU laws on benefits. There is no requirement for recpricocity, just that EU residents get the same treatment as domestic residents.malcolmg said:
MD, I do not think so , EU law is that reciprocal education between member states apply. If England charges £9K a year then Scotland would be happy to reciprocate. Very simple. Also worst case Scotland just charges and gives Scottish students £9K a year study fees. What will not happen is that English students will be allowed to sponge off us whilst they charge Scottish students.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, if you're arguing (assuming independence occurs) for all EU (non-Scots) students to pay fees or for all EU students not to pay fees, that's a valid perspective (not sure if the former would be workable, but it is coherent).
Post-independence, arguing that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should pay tuition fees but neither the Scots nor anyone else in the EU should [again, assuming EU membership as per the SNP's desire] is just incoherent, inconsistent and indefensible.0 -
Liberal compassion killed Mark Duggan
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2537775/The-police-didnt-kill-Mark-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html0
