The other betting implication I think is for the shadow chancellor/next chancellor position: Alistair Darling.
All predicated on a YES vote:
He is the main Labour figure of the referendum, so he will become very unpopular very quickly particularly with the SLAB faction.
His seat is going to go come 2016 so to appoint him to the (shadow) cabinet would be a nonsense.
He could lose his seat at the next GE anyway with a big SNP surge.
So I think he is less likely to be next chancellor/ScoTE than his odds currently suggest. Of course should the expected No vote happen his odds may improve slightly, but Mr Balls might breathe more easily should the Scots go it alone.
If the renegotiations do not result in better terms then the 2017 referendum, it will be on current terms. Unless the Conservatives do not form the govt.
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
Nope because the rest of the EU already know that they don't have to concede any meaningful repatriation of powers and Cameron will still go back claiming a great victory.
But your alternative - a post-treaty referendum on Lisbon - was unobtainable.
First, as I've mentioned, there was the cost.
Then there's the selling point. How would the 'no' campaign (against the treaty) have sold it? "We know the treaty is signed and we cannot alter it, but perhaps if we vote yes, other countries might listen to our concerns a bit more, even if they did not for Ireland."
It would be impossible to sell to the public. And when 'yes' won, the Europhiles would have won for another decade. A referendum should have a well-defined, simple-to-sell message on either side, similar to the Scottish Independence one, or a future EU in-or-out one. A post-Lisbon referendum on Lisbon would have been unsaleable and farcical.
So how would you have sold a post-treaty Lisbon referendum to the public and justified the vast cost?
Very simply and indeed he would have walked it. To have come to the British public with an honest assessment of the situation - that we were signed up and there was no immediate prospect of reneging, but that he wished to have a referendum to give the maximum support to a renegotiation position - would have been widely accepted by the public who were already substantially in favour of a referendum. Those arguing against it would have been seen as denying the people a chance to have their say. I have absolutely no doubt at all he would have won the vote easily.
I also have no doubt that his chances in the GE would have dramatically improved had he made that commitment instead of changing his mind in the previous October. In doing so he pretty much through away the chance of winning in 2010.
With such a result under his belt he would now been in a far better position to negotiate with the EU. Indeed he could have been conducting that negotiation long before now rather than apparently waiting until the last 18 months before a referendum when he has no chance what so ever of getting any meaningful and binding concessions from the EU.
Of course this is all predicated on Cameron actually wanting to change the position of the UK within the EU. Which clearly he does not.
Nope, totally wrong. The Trident missiles and warheads are due to remain in service for decades yet. It is the submarines that carry them that need to be replaced.
Thank you. I was misinformed but on checking you are right: with the provison that it is more or less so long as the US continues with the system, which it apparently currently intends to.
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.
What odds will you give me that there is no English independence vote between 2015 ans 2020?
Cameron's undertaking to his EU partners not to use Brexit as a threat during negotiations is an indication that the negotiations are getting serious not that he has conceded bargaining power.
Anyone familiar with international negotiations, particularly of a diplomatic nature, will know that you will never get counterparties to open up voluntarily if you hold a gun to their heads.
Such talks nearly always begin with 'talks about talks' which define the terms and conditions for negotiations. 'No preconditions' or 'a blank sheet of paper' is the cliche pften used to describe the pre-agreeement.
Of course, this doesn't mean there isn't a gun. Just that it is kept locked in a cupboard and not acknowledged as being present during the talks.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
Nope because the rest of the EU already know that they don't have to concede any meaningful repatriation of powers and Cameron will still go back claiming a great victory.
Your pre-judgement leads you to inevitable cynicism.
Another view is that the leaders of the main EU countries will recognise that survival after the Euro crisis should lead to a reappraisal of popular support for the union and a fundamental review of its structures and competencies.
No renegotiation outcome short of dissolution of the EU will satisfy those committed to Brexit, but compromise solutions which go some way towards addressing popular concerns are likely to meet with majority support.
At least Cameron is committed to a referendum and is prepared to risk the defeat of his strategy.
But you are still left with the basic problem of time. And that is what gives the lie to all Cameron's claims. Unless he has a binding commitment from all 27 other members that they can guarantee they will be able to ratify any new treaty then he is left with nothing at all. And there is no way on earth he will get that commitment before 2017. His promises in that case are worthless, even if they were genuinely meant which I don't for a second believe.
The other betting implication I think is for the shadow chancellor/next chancellor position: Alistair Darling.
No, Darling will never be shadow chancellor, not under Miliband. He's just too grey and sensible, and the poor chap would mentally disintegrate under the strain of keeping Miliband and his spangly seventies politics of zaniness in any sort of check.
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Nope, totally wrong. The Trident missiles and warheads are due to remain in service for decades yet. It is the submarines that carry them that need to be replaced.
Thank you. I was misinformed but on checking you are right: with the provison that it is more or less so long as the US continues with the system, which it apparently currently intends to.
It's never a good idea to bet against HurstLlama when it comes to military facts. He tends to be fairly knowledgeable ...
(Mind you, I might be saying that because I generally agree with him on such matters). ;-)
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The times when Scottish MPs have affected the make up of Westminster governments are surprisingly few, but you're right, I don't think a Labour majority government based on Scottish MPs can any longer be a goer with the English electorate.
There is no gun. Cameron has made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that he will never support UK withdrawal from the EU.
He has no bargaining position at all. Which is why he will get nothing from the EU either before or after 2017.
Of course there is a gun.
Germans can read UK polls as well as Britons.
And it is not just in the UK: it is in their back yard too.
It is not Cameron's position on the EU which is the gun but the threat that UK public opinion and voting patterns will move from being an irrelevant irritant to a decisive driver of policy.
Nope because the rest of the EU already know that they don't have to concede any meaningful repatriation of powers and Cameron will still go back claiming a great victory.
Your pre-judgement leads you to inevitable cynicism.
Another view is that the leaders of the main EU countries will recognise that survival after the Euro crisis should lead to a reappraisal of popular support for the union and a fundamental review of its structures and competencies.
No renegotiation outcome short of dissolution of the EU will satisfy those committed to Brexit, but compromise solutions which go some way towards addressing popular concerns are likely to meet with majority support.
At least Cameron is committed to a referendum and is prepared to risk the defeat of his strategy.
But you are still left with the basic problem of time. And that is what gives the lie to all Cameron's claims. Unless he has a binding commitment from all 27 other members that they can guarantee they will be able to ratify any new treaty then he is left with nothing at all. And there is no way on earth he will get that commitment before 2017. His promises in that case are worthless, even if they were genuinely meant which I don't for a second believe.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.
What odds will you give me that there is no English independence vote between 2015 ans 2020?
English independence is in it's infancy,just like the snp campaign,it's a gradual progress.
Made Quicker if England do not get they own parliament or assembly.
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Have you actually read the article you posted? Since when did "We haven't made the decision" become a promise?
Without the very partial quoting you of course mean,
And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."
Since when was that a promise NOT to hold a referendum after ratification?
You really don't get it do you? It's not an act. To think the Cameroons actually have the gall to act upset whenever Eurosceptics tories or kippers dare question if Cammie can be trusted.
It is of no consequence that you think there was enough wiggle room in there as an excuse not to hold it. That self-evidently wasn't the impression Hague wanted to give voters and Eurosceptic tories. But don't take my word for it, take Cameron's.
Care to tell us what the point of all that posturing was if not to fool gullible Eurosceptics into believing his pledges and promises on a referendum?
You can also have no complaints just because Cammie's latest wheeze of an EU referendum Bill is falling about his ears either. That 'master strategy' was obviously to use the Bill to try and keep Eurosceptics onside till after the EU elections, but I'm afraid it looks like he'll have to go back to the drawing board. Blame labour and the lib dems all you wish but the fact is, and always has been, that if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle stupid to posture on it for votes while fooling Eurosceptics into believing he can do it. Eventually they will start to realise they are being taken for a ride and get slightly upset.
Mr. G, it baffles me as to why Scotland would wish to leave sterling and go to the euro. However, if Scotland votes for independence that's a matter for the Scots. But a proposed currency union with the UK is another matter. I fail to see why either you or we should want it.
Depending how negotiations happen, it could occur in return for fiscal constraints and as a bargaining chip on certain matters. Disentangling a 300 year old union would require more than just a couple of years (Faslane and the carriers spring to mind).
The carriers will be pretty much finished by then. Faslane is just a base, which will probably get as much employment or more if sed as a normal naval base (most jobs associated with Trident are inevitably in US, Berkshire, Cumbria, etc., and the crews from all over the UK) and the Trident system is obsolescent so the missile storage facilities will soon be worthless as a bargaining chip, surely? And we discussed the Type 26 ships, if that is what you have in mind, on PB yesterday or the day before - with the perhaps counterintuitive conclusion that EWNI have a lot to lose if they cancel the Glasgow build of the hulls, given the added costs of moving the hull construction and the probable resulting cancellation of the Scottish orders of the EWNI-built equipment for their own Type 26s. Remember that the hulls are only a fraction of the value of the order. But as @JosiasJessop said, politics can get in the way ...
Why does Faslane make any sense as a naval base, aside for its use as a submarine base where boomers can dive deep and early, to avoid Soviet tracking? For surface ships, you'd be better using an area that is less remote and there is more potential for employment. Move the base to somewhere else on the Clyde, for instance Greenock, where it would make more sense.
Much more of an issue in my mind is the future of the relatively-little known Coulport. ;-)
It's not as if there any option to start with. Faslane has to be used simply because it's the only operational naval base left with the closure of Rosyth, Invergordon and Scapa over the decades (Rosyth as is is a dockyard rather than operational base). Greenock or somewhere like that, as you say, would be more sensible as would Rosyth, but that is a post-indy, 5-10 years down the line, sort of thing. IIRC the White Paper goes in for adding Rosyth first, which at least restores the E/W balance
Your point about Soviet tracking is a good one, come to think of it, but recalls the loss of Nimrod which I believe had a primary role of decontaminating the exit routes ...
Coulport is, as you say, a much more significant issue, which is not at all clear.
Very simply and indeed he would have walked it. To have come to the British public with an honest assessment of the situation - that we were signed up and there was no immediate prospect of reneging, but that he wished to have a referendum to give the maximum support to a renegotiation position - would have been widely accepted by the public who were already substantially in favour of a referendum. Those arguing against it would have been seen as denying the people a chance to have their say. I have absolutely no doubt at all he would have won the vote easily.
I also have no doubt that his chances in the GE would have dramatically improved had he made that commitment instead of changing his mind in the previous October. In doing so he pretty much through away the chance of winning in 2010.
With such a result under his belt he would now been in a far better position to negotiate with the EU. Indeed he could have been conducting that negotiation long before now rather than apparently waiting until the last 18 months before a referendum when he has no chance what so ever of getting any meaningful and binding concessions from the EU.
Of course this is all predicated on Cameron actually wanting to change the position of the UK within the EU. Which clearly he does not.
I'm afraid I utterly disagree. It would have been a nonsense vote, and 'no' would have lost, big-time, on a very low turnout.
You seem to be saying that it would *not* have been a vote on the Lisbon treaty, but something bigger (a referendum for maximum support on a renegotiation position), in which case all bets are off, as it's no longer a vote on the treaty, and Cameron would still not be keeping his word.
It would have been a really hard sell on a nebulous, arcane point, and the EU would just have laughed, even if 'no' won, which in my mind is very questionable.
And a yes win would have been disastrous to the cause of leaving the EU.
For instance: I'm fairly sure I would have voted 'no' to Lisbon. But I wouldn't have voted 'no' to such a waste of money as a post-treaty referendum. Anecdata yes, but the truth.
You can say that again. One day after a successful yes vote the tories and right wing press will claim that labour are relying on MPs from what is effectively a foreign country.
Would ed have the courage to stand down his SLAB troops if he loses in September?
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.
Welcome to the club. We've had English (etc) MPs controlling Scotland for centuries (and they could have done a much better job of things like abolishing feudal law - we didn't get that till we got our Parliament back). Right now it is the Unionist parties who like their Scottish MPs to vote on English-only matters - the SNP abstain from those (not as common as you might think given that a lot of supposedly English-only acts actually affect Scotland through the Barnett formula and the impact on the Scottish budget allocation). All complaints to the London HQs therefore - and (seriously) best of British with a new English parliament, though you'll still need to break up England into regions to avoid the same old problem of London/SE dominance.
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Have you actually read the article you posted? Since when did "We haven't made the decision" become a promise?
Without the very partial quoting you of course mean,
And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."
Since when was that a promise...
if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle ...
The other betting implication I think is for the shadow chancellor/next chancellor position: Alistair Darling.
No, Darling will never be shadow chancellor, not under Miliband. He's just too grey and sensible, and the poor chap would mentally disintegrate under the strain of keeping Miliband and his spangly seventies politics of zaniness in any sort of check.
Very simply and indeed he would have walked it. To have come to the British public with an honest assessment of the situation - that we were signed up and there was no immediate prospect of reneging, but that he wished to have a referendum to give the maximum support to a renegotiation position - would have been widely accepted by the public who were already substantially in favour of a referendum. Those arguing against it would have been seen as denying the people a chance to have their say. I have absolutely no doubt at all he would have won the vote easily.
I also have no doubt that his chances in the GE would have dramatically improved had he made that commitment instead of changing his mind in the previous October. In doing so he pretty much through away the chance of winning in 2010.
With such a result under his belt he would now been in a far better position to negotiate with the EU. Indeed he could have been conducting that negotiation long before now rather than apparently waiting until the last 18 months before a referendum when he has no chance what so ever of getting any meaningful and binding concessions from the EU.
Of course this is all predicated on Cameron actually wanting to change the position of the UK within the EU. Which clearly he does not.
I'm afraid I utterly disagree. It would have been a nonsense vote, and 'no' would have lost, big-time, on a very low turnout.
You seem to be saying that it would *not* have been a vote on the Lisbon treaty, but something bigger (a referendum for maximum support on a renegotiation position), in which case all bets are off, as it's no longer a vote on the treaty, and Cameron would still not be keeping his word.
It would have been a really hard sell on a nebulous, arcane point, and the EU would just have laughed, even if 'no' won, which in my mind is very questionable.
And a yes win would have been disastrous to the cause of leaving the EU.
For instance: I'm fairly sure I would have voted 'no' to Lisbon. But I wouldn't have voted 'no' to such a waste of money as a post-treaty referendum. Anecdata yes, but the truth.
Nope, you are putting words into my mouth. It would have been a vote on exactly what Cameron promised - the Lisbon Treaty. Any sensible person would know he could not immediately rescind the Treaty but it would have made a huge change to the relationship between the UK and the EU knowing we were members under sufferance.
Cameron failed to win the last election outright because he was rightly seen as having reneged on his promise and as a consequence was seen as no better than the rest of them. He threw away a great chance because he could not countenance anything that might be seen as a threat to British membership of the EU.
A No10 spokesman defended the decision to call out workers to Mr Cameron’s home. He said: “The power went down because there was a leaky roof. There was water around the fusebox. The engineers came to fix it, which they did.”
Dave should have mended the roof when the sun shone.
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Have you actually read the article you posted? Since when did "We haven't made the decision" become a promise?
Without the very partial quoting you of course mean,
And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."
Since when was that a promise...
if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle ...
Scotland votes YES, and then they go and vote in some SLAB anyway - bear with me on this - I think there are Scottish voters who would go with the red team should it be the devil himself on the ballot paper.
Labour has a good but not great night in England and the make up of Westminster is that Labour have 305 seats. Meanwhile the Conservatives lost their only Scottish seat to the SNP but in England and Wales have claimed 296 seats. They've made gains from the Lib Dems but lost to Labour.
The SNP has made gains but failed to batter down the SLAB stronghold where the most cling to nurse NO Labour voters are (The referendum turnout was a bit lower than expected - central belt voters still in love with Labour), they are on 20 seats.
UKIP has had a decent night too picking up 2 seats, Thanet South and North. Farage is an MP and hopes to build on his position.
Meanwhile Danny Alexander has lost his seats, the SNP even threatened to take Orkney and Shetland at one point but Carmichael held on. They've fared dreadfully in England too and have ended up with 9 seats. Faron, Clegg, Carmichael and a few others form a rump.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
What is 'bonkers' is continually repeating something that isn't true and easily disproved. Cameron did promise a referendum even after ratification.
Have you actually read the article you posted? Since when did "We haven't made the decision" become a promise?
Without the very partial quoting you of course mean,
And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."
Since when was that a promise NOT to hold a referendum after ratification?
You really don't get it do you? It's not an act. To think the Cameroons actually have the gall to act upset whenever Eurosceptics tories or kippers dare question if Cammie can be trusted.
It is of no consequence that you think there was enough wiggle room in there as an excuse not to hold it. That self-evidently wasn't the impression Hague wanted to give voters and Eurosceptic tories. But don't take my word for it, take Cameron's.
Care to tell us what the point of all that posturing was if not to fool gullible Eurosceptics into believing his pledges and promises on a referendum?
You can also have no complaints just because Cammie's latest wheeze of an EU referendum Bill is falling about his ears either. That 'master strategy' was obviously to use the Bill to try and keep Eurosceptics onside till after the EU elections, but I'm afraid it looks like he'll have to go back to the drawing board. Blame labour and the lib dems all you wish but the fact is, and always has been, that if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle stupid to posture on it for votes while fooling Eurosceptics into believing he can do it. Eventually they will start to realise they are being taken for a ride and get slightly upset.
What is sad is that when the Tories have lost the next election the Cameroons will still be on here swearing he was misunderstood and how the Eurosceptics who had been bitten so may times before by the Tories should have given him just one more chance.
Actually no, of course they will be on here spitting bile because they were horribly betrayed and we should all have been forced to vote for Cameron as the one true leader of the Right.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.
Welcome to the club. We've had English (etc) MPs controlling Scotland for centuries (and they could have done a much better job of things like abolishing feudal law - we didn't get that till we got our Parliament back). Right now it is the Unionist parties who like their Scottish MPs to vote on English-only matters - the SNP abstain from those (not as common as you might think given that a lot of supposedly English-only acts actually affect Scotland through the Barnett formula and the impact on the Scottish budget allocation). All complaints to the London HQs therefore - and (seriously) best of British with a new English parliament, though you'll still need to break up England into regions to avoid the same old problem of London/SE dominance.
@Carnyx,If you have seen my post on here before on Scotland independence,then you will know I have being a supporter of the snp and it's aims for years and I can't argue in what you have posted except the bit about breaking England up into regions ;-)
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
You can say that again. One day after a successful yes vote the tories and right wing press will claim that labour are relying on MPs from what is effectively a foreign country.
Would ed have the courage to stand down his SLAB troops if he loses in September?
Presumably, they will say that the Coalition is doing the same - and the Cabinet.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house.
You may not be surprised to discover that there likely many thousands in that same situation who no doubt wished for such speedy and timely response.
As with all his other amusing photo-ops and PR blunders, revealing if nothing else.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
No, SO.
He was simply the most senior person to have water around his fusebox.
If there was water around the fusebox at Windsor Castle, SSE would have gone there first.
Anti Conservative story appearing in the Labour Mirror is hardly news though. Might be more damaging if it appears in Mail online, all the same it is a nonsense story though feeds into the out of touch narrative I'd agree with that.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
The mind boggles. Please leave the lib dems out of this for all our sakes.
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
Nope, you are putting words into my mouth. It would have been a vote on exactly what Cameron promised - the Lisbon Treaty. Any sensible person would know he could not immediately rescind the Treaty but it would have made a huge change to the relationship between the UK and the EU knowing we were members under sufferance.
Cameron failed to win the last election outright because he was rightly seen as having reneged on his promise and as a consequence was seen as no better than the rest of them. He threw away a great chance because he could not countenance anything that might be seen as a threat to British membership of the EU.
But it wouldn't have been a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, which had already been signed! You are talking about a very different referendum that used Lisbon as an excuse.
The Irish no vote on Lisbon hardly caused a huge change in the relationship between the EU and Ireland, did it? And that was much more important to the EU as it was holding up business. What happened? A few minor alterations and another forced referendum. The EU would take little notice of a post-Lisbon Lisbon referendum - in fact, they'd be laughing, even if 'no' won.
You are desperate for a referendum - any referendum - on Europe, even stupid ones. You'd be much better thinking up a political strategy that would get you a sensible and winnable referendum that would fulfil your aims of leaving the EU. That might be UKIP. But it sure as heck isn't Lisbon after the signing.
Any post-signing referendum on Lisbon would have been a farce and, in most scenarios, counter-productive to your aims.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
No, SO.
He was simply the most senior person to have water around his fusebox.
If there was water around the fusebox at Windsor Castle, SSE would have gone there first.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house.
You may not be surprised to discover that there likely many thousands in that same situation who no doubt wished for such speedy and timely response.
As with all his other amusing photo-ops and PR blunders, revealing if nothing else.
Far be it from me to leap to Cameron's defence but would it not be a reasonable position to suggest that the Prime Minister being without electricity at his home might be considered a security risk?
Of course the Mirror want to trivialise it but I can quite see how the PM might be prioritised under those circumstances.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
No, SO.
He was simply the most senior person to have water around his fusebox.
If there was water around the fusebox at Windsor Castle, SSE would have gone there first.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
Anti Conservative story appearing in the Labour Mirror is hardly news though. Might be more damaging if it appears in Mail online, all the same it is a nonsense story though feeds into the out of touch narrative I'd agree with that.
Scotland votes YES, and then they go and vote in some SLAB anyway - bear with me on this - I think there are Scottish voters who would go with the red team should it be the devil himself on the ballot paper.
Labour has a good but not great night in England and the make up of Westminster is that Labour have 305 seats. Meanwhile the Conservatives lost their only Scottish seat to the SNP but in England and Wales have claimed 296 seats. They've made gains from the Lib Dems but lost to Labour.
The SNP has made gains but failed to batter down the SLAB stronghold where the most cling to nurse NO Labour voters are (The referendum turnout was a bit lower than expected - central belt voters still in love with Labour), they are on 20 seats.
UKIP has had a decent night too picking up 2 seats, Thanet South and North. Farage is an MP and hopes to build on his position.
Meanwhile Danny Alexander has lost his seats, the SNP even threatened to take Orkney and Shetland at one point but Carmichael held on. They've fared dreadfully in England too and have ended up with 9 seats. Faron, Clegg, Carmichael and a few others form a rump.
18 NI MPs.
Which Goverment is formed in this scenario ?
Labour, with a self-denying ordinance for Scottish MPs not to vote.
That gives them 305/590 seats: a 20 seat majority.
Tim Shipman (Mail) @ShippersUnbound 2 mins Digby Jones says he thinks Balls will use the same arguments to put top tax rate up to '55 or 60' pence in the pound if Labour win
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
(a) this was a debate about regions, not cities. A separate parliament for a city doesn't make sense (b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
As an aside, does anyone have links to recent UK polling on EU membership?
Cheers in advance.
The latest I have seen is from November which was a yougov poll. This was the first poll for many months that showed in and out equal. Almost all previous polls since 2011 had shown out ahead.
Annoyingly yougov ask a second question on what the answer would be if Cameron recommended we stay in after 'renegotiation' but fail to ask what the answer would be if the renegotiations failed.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
As an aside, does anyone have links to recent UK polling on EU membership?
Cheers in advance.
The latest I have seen is from November which was a yougov poll. This was the first poll for many months that showed in and out equal. Almost all previous polls since 2011 had shown out ahead.
Annoyingly yougov ask a second question on what the answer would be if Cameron recommended we stay in after 'renegotiation' but fail to ask what the answer would be if the renegotiations failed.
Thanks.
On a sidenote, I find the 6% of UKIP voters who'd want to stay in the EU intriguing. It would be interesting to see if this percentage increases, as it might be a sign that UKIP's offer is becoming about more than just Europe.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
Er no. The referendum to leave the EU, if it is being held in 2017, would be long before anyone would have had the chance to ratify any new treaty. There is no way on earth that Cameron would have any binding decisions on even developing a new treaty by the time of his planned referendum.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
LOL, what planet do you live on. The terrorist cell headquartered in Cameron's back garden noticed that the TV had gone off , what luck a power cut , let us attack immediately before SSE are ordered to drop everything to get round here pronto as Dave was enjoying "The Sound of Music".
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Lol, did the water get into all their mobiles and satellite phones as well. In any case what difference would it make , they have plenty of other turkeys, just as useless , that could take over.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
Cameron has to work to the UK parliamentary timetable.
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Sorry but that is about as meaningless as Cameron's referendum promise.
It's very simple. A new Treaty is proposed. Either the UK ratifies it, or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
In the event that this treaty could be magically agreed and signed by 2017 it would obviously be overwhelmingly likely that it would subsequently die unratified, so what you seem to be suggesting is that the voters would get two choices, "in" and "out", and having voted "in", they would get "out".
Cameron doesn't need a new Treaty to achieve legal renegotiation. Directive 2004/38/EC, for example, lays down the real framework for free movement, such as the period of an unqualified right to reside, the conditions placed on residence thereafter, and the extent to which EU non-discrimination law determines immigrants' right to benefits.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Haha well he managed to phone the electricity company alright!
A boost for Salmond, but ICM leans YES in referendum polls. For instance, a February 2011 ICM poll just 4 months before polling in the AV referendum had Yes and NO tied on 37% and ICM did not give NO a lead until April 2011
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
Lol, weren't you saying the referendum was a done deal for No only yesterday?
Since the Act of Union was signed between England and Scotland, shouldn't England get to vote in the referendum as well?
No.
If E&W wanted they would be perfectly at liberty to have a separate vote to dissolve the Union. But they don't get to vote in the Scots' referendum.
(DevoMax is a different topic, because that is a change in the terms of a partnership rather than one of the partners deciding to exit the arrangement)
Even if Scotland vote's to stay in the union,this isn't over.
What if labour get in power in 2015 with Scottish MP's voting powers on only England matters,the call for a English parliament/assembly will get louder,it might go as far as give England a independence vote.
The Pandora's box is now open.
Welcome to the club. We've had English (etc) MPs controlling Scotland for centuries (and they could have done a much better job of things like abolishing feudal law - we didn't get that till we got our Parliament back). Right now it is the Unionist parties who like their Scottish MPs to vote on English-only matters - the SNP abstain from those (not as common as you might think given that a lot of supposedly English-only acts actually affect Scotland through the Barnett formula and the impact on the Scottish budget allocation). All complaints to the London HQs therefore - and (seriously) best of British with a new English parliament, though you'll still need to break up England into regions to avoid the same old problem of London/SE dominance.
@Carnyx,If you have seen my post on here before on Scotland independence,then you will know I have being a supporter of the snp and it's aims for years and I can't argue in what you have posted except the bit about breaking England up into regions ;-)
Quite (and it is not mu personal view about the return of the Heptarchy so much as a practical observation). I have sometimes wondered if there was more discussion in Scotland about the reform of the English polity than there was in England, in recent months. The SNP reputedly thought seriously about putting up candidates in English seats, I've seen it said, but I'm not sure if this was true, or if it was true, whether this was a pro-reform ticket, at the time, still within the UK context, before the SNP got their impossible majority and the referendum came along.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 7 mins CON voter splut on the Ed Balls plan to bring back the 50% tax rate for top earners 40% Agree 33% Disagree @Survation Mail on Sunday
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Note: phones *do* run on electricity; however they are powered from the exchange and not the subscriber's home. It's quite a complex system nowadays.
A pure semi-educated guess on the secure comms question: any encryption / decryption system would probably require more voltage and current than is present on a phone line. I'd therefore expect it to have mains and/or battery power as well.
We'd need someone who knows more about the likes of STU-III, if they can actually talk. ;-)
But I could well be wrong on that. Telephony can be weird and counter-intuitive ...
I can certainly envisage much greater support for a high level of devolved rule in territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country and in London too.
Which "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country"? Most of the regions have a (generalising) rural/urban split between the Tories and Labour. If you are talking about carving out powers for the conurbations, then why did they all vote against the chance to have local Mayors?
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
(a) this was a debate about regions, not cities. A separate parliament for a city doesn't make sense (b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Sorry, didn't realise that this was about regions and/or separate parliaments. I thought it was about territorially homogenous Labour areas. However, in the same way that England votes Tory, the North East and the North West vote Labour. If you are arguing that there are parts of both the NE and NW that vote Tory,. I agree; but then there are big parts of England that vote Labour. I believe that in an rUK there will be much more pressure from such regions for their wishes to be accommodated. And that sooner rather than later this will happen.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
They have just brought in John Barrowman , did his panto bit and insulted Alex Salmond, Better Together think it is awesome. Think I just might be wavering.
"Thousands left with no electricity as workers rushed to David Cameron's house so he could watch TV
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
There was water around the fusebox.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
I am sure he must have been the only one with water around his fusebox.
Would there have been any security implications from a prolonged power failure?
LOL, what planet do you live on. The terrorist cell headquartered in Cameron's back garden noticed that the TV had gone off , what luck a power cut , let us attack immediately before SSE are ordered to drop everything to get round here pronto as Dave was enjoying "The Sound of Music".
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
Haha.. dear Lord
Another well considered and meaningful reply ... ;-)
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for.
Excellent. If the most obsequious Cameroonian spinners weren't trying to rubbish it then PB might cease to be the comically out of touch place where Osbrowne's omnishambles was hailed as a triumph by the PB tories.
So if I'm reading the thread right Mick thinks the ICM represents a trend and Richard thinks it's noise. The next ICM should settle this - If Mick is right the lead will keep shrinking, and if Richard is right it will grow as it reverts to the mean. Maybe you guys could bet on it? FWIW I'd rather be on Richard's side of that one.
A boost for Salmond, but ICM leans YES in referendum polls. For instance, a February 2011 ICM poll just 4 months before polling in the AV referendum had Yes and NO tied on 37%
Yeah, but it's all about the trend with individual pollsters isn't it? ICM shows the gap between Yes and No falling from 17% on its previous poll to 7% currently. And as OGH point out, they were closest to the final AV result.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
LOL, probably has a strowger exchange chugging away in the dining room , keeping him in touch with all those important people he needs to talk to about those nasty terrorists who want to harm him. You should be on the stage or in a museum.
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
I suspect that the computers providing secure internet communications do.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
Haha well he managed to phone the electricity company alright!
Are you seriously suggesting that the PM should be without power - and therefore largely out of secure contact with Downing Street?
Ive not suggested anything!
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Well, technically phones do run on electricity - they're just not powered from the subscriber's end. ;-)
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
Haha.. dear Lord
Another well considered and meaningful reply ... ;-)
Meanwhile the Mail does some heroic digging in the internals to demonstrate why what appears to be a popular move - the 50p tax rate - is a bad idea for Labour......
Does the highest tax rate really matter as the mega earners have trusts and squirrel funds offshore, which tells me they often really pay less pro rata than your average bloke in the street.
Strange the Mail quoted by Carlotta above bring the subject up with a straight face.
The owner uses offshore trusts so hardly a role model for paying all his tax in the UK.
Good friend of Cameron so no issue there one would imagine, let's ping all those bedroom tax avoiders first as a priority.
Its also worth noting that where Scottish youngsters have actually taken part in Mock Indy Referendums in the last year, the results have resoundingly favoured NO vote.
On topic: I think scepticism on this poll is called for. If the effect is entirely due to a small sample of youngsters, scaled up because they couldn't find many bothered enough to give an opinion, the change may not be statistically significant.
This poll should be seen as a useful wake up to those who wish to see Scotland remain as part of the U.K. The emotional reasons for remaining have been underplayed by the No team and Darling while admirable in certain ways wouldn't exactly win many awards at RADA. Time to reinforce the campaign with a few big names from both inside and outside politics and Cameron needs to get involved. Anyone who think the Tories would in any way benefit short or long term from a Yes vote needs their head examined. Cammo would certainly lose the 2015 GE after a Yes vote and be remembered in history as the disastrous one term PM who lost the Union and in all likelihood irrevocably split his own party. The fact that kippers like R Tyndall are so supportive of Scots independence says it all - their aim is to destroy the centrist pro EU consensus, destroy Cameron and realign the centre right.
That really is an idiotic posting and smacks of desperation.
My support for Scots independence has nothing to do with my UKIP membership nor my dislike for Cameron beyond the fact that both causes are informed by the same intellectual root - that of a Libertarian belief in extremely small/limited government and the right of self determination.
I have long argued on here that the Anti-EU pro Unionist position advocated by many - including the UKIP leadership - is incoherent since the same arguments against membership of the EU should apply to the Union.
I know you are desperate for some grand conspiracy here but the simple fact is that my pro Scots Independence position, whilst internally consistent with my beliefs, is at odds with most other UKIP members and the UKIP leadership.
I think you need to go back and think that one through again.
Comments
All predicated on a YES vote:
He is the main Labour figure of the referendum, so he will become very unpopular very quickly particularly with the SLAB faction.
His seat is going to go come 2016 so to appoint him to the (shadow) cabinet would be a nonsense.
He could lose his seat at the next GE anyway with a big SNP surge.
So I think he is less likely to be next chancellor/ScoTE than his odds currently suggest. Of course should the expected No vote happen his odds may improve slightly, but Mr Balls might breathe more easily should the Scots go it alone.
I also have no doubt that his chances in the GE would have dramatically improved had he made that commitment instead of changing his mind in the previous October. In doing so he pretty much through away the chance of winning in 2010.
With such a result under his belt he would now been in a far better position to negotiate with the EU. Indeed he could have been conducting that negotiation long before now rather than apparently waiting until the last 18 months before a referendum when he has no chance what so ever of getting any meaningful and binding concessions from the EU.
Of course this is all predicated on Cameron actually wanting to change the position of the UK within the EU. Which clearly he does not.
44-No, 37-Yes, 19-DK.
Just because.
An rUK changes everything. Decisions made, votes held prior to the break-up of the UK tell us nothing about what happens afterwards.
(Mind you, I might be saying that because I generally agree with him on such matters). ;-)
Of course there will be a mismatch with the EU.
But it is better to take a temperature reading on a planned date than wait 'til the patient either dies or recovers.
Made Quicker if England do not get they own parliament or assembly.
Without the very partial quoting you of course mean, Since when was that a promise NOT to hold a referendum after ratification?
You really don't get it do you? It's not an act. To think the Cameroons actually have the gall to act upset whenever Eurosceptics tories or kippers dare question if Cammie can be trusted.
It is of no consequence that you think there was enough wiggle room in there as an excuse not to hold it. That self-evidently wasn't the impression Hague wanted to give voters and Eurosceptic tories. But don't take my word for it, take Cameron's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JReyGsdOA
Care to tell us what the point of all that posturing was if not to fool gullible Eurosceptics into believing his pledges and promises on a referendum?
You can also have no complaints just because Cammie's latest wheeze of an EU referendum Bill is falling about his ears either. That 'master strategy' was obviously to use the Bill to try and keep Eurosceptics onside till after the EU elections, but I'm afraid it looks like he'll have to go back to the drawing board. Blame labour and the lib dems all you wish but the fact is, and always has been, that if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle stupid to posture on it for votes while fooling Eurosceptics into believing he can do it. Eventually they will start to realise they are being taken for a ride and get slightly upset.
That is about as meaningful as you can get in current circumstances.
Do you want every t dotted and i crossed (sic: Farage orthography) before a referendum can be held?
Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett)
26/01/2014 12:04
Well at least @Nigel_Farage has a sense of humour #UKIPweather pic.twitter.com/vyzKJn8kLV
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546165/Engineers-sent-David-Camerons-house-fix-power-suffered-blackout.html
Your point about Soviet tracking is a good one, come to think of it, but recalls the loss of Nimrod which I believe had a primary role of decontaminating the exit routes ...
Coulport is, as you say, a much more significant issue, which is not at all clear.
You seem to be saying that it would *not* have been a vote on the Lisbon treaty, but something bigger (a referendum for maximum support on a renegotiation position), in which case all bets are off, as it's no longer a vote on the treaty, and Cameron would still not be keeping his word.
It would have been a really hard sell on a nebulous, arcane point, and the EU would just have laughed, even if 'no' won, which in my mind is very questionable.
And a yes win would have been disastrous to the cause of leaving the EU.
For instance: I'm fairly sure I would have voted 'no' to Lisbon. But I wouldn't have voted 'no' to such a waste of money as a post-treaty referendum. Anecdata yes, but the truth.
You can say that again. One day after a successful yes vote the tories and right wing press will claim that labour are relying on MPs from what is effectively a foreign country.
Would ed have the courage to stand down his SLAB troops if he loses in September?
lol
if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle ...
Mmmmm. Delicious, Pork.
Cameron failed to win the last election outright because he was rightly seen as having reneged on his promise and as a consequence was seen as no better than the rest of them. He threw away a great chance because he could not countenance anything that might be seen as a threat to British membership of the EU.
Dave should have mended the roof when the sun shone.
Scotland votes YES, and then they go and vote in some SLAB anyway - bear with me on this - I think there are Scottish voters who would go with the red team should it be the devil himself on the ballot paper.
Labour has a good but not great night in England and the make up of Westminster is that Labour have 305 seats.
Meanwhile the Conservatives lost their only Scottish seat to the SNP but in England and Wales have claimed 296 seats. They've made gains from the Lib Dems but lost to Labour.
The SNP has made gains but failed to batter down the SLAB stronghold where the most cling to nurse NO Labour voters are (The referendum turnout was a bit lower than expected - central belt voters still in love with Labour), they are on 20 seats.
UKIP has had a decent night too picking up 2 seats, Thanet South and North. Farage is an MP and hopes to build on his position.
Meanwhile Danny Alexander has lost his seats, the SNP even threatened to take Orkney and Shetland at one point but Carmichael held on. They've fared dreadfully in England too and have ended up with 9 seats. Faron, Clegg, Carmichael and a few others form a rump.
18 NI MPs.
Which Goverment is formed in this scenario ?
PM was watching The Sound of Music as blackout began as workers rushed to get his power back online - meanwhile families suffering floods were left in the dark"
Out of touch fop.
You really don't get it do you? It's not an act. To think the Cameroons actually have the gall to act upset whenever Eurosceptics tories or kippers dare question if Cammie can be trusted.
It is of no consequence that you think there was enough wiggle room in there as an excuse not to hold it. That self-evidently wasn't the impression Hague wanted to give voters and Eurosceptic tories. But don't take my word for it, take Cameron's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JReyGsdOA
Care to tell us what the point of all that posturing was if not to fool gullible Eurosceptics into believing his pledges and promises on a referendum?
You can also have no complaints just because Cammie's latest wheeze of an EU referendum Bill is falling about his ears either. That 'master strategy' was obviously to use the Bill to try and keep Eurosceptics onside till after the EU elections, but I'm afraid it looks like he'll have to go back to the drawing board. Blame labour and the lib dems all you wish but the fact is, and always has been, that if Cammie can't be certain he can do something then it's more than a trifle stupid to posture on it for votes while fooling Eurosceptics into believing he can do it. Eventually they will start to realise they are being taken for a ride and get slightly upset.
What is sad is that when the Tories have lost the next election the Cameroons will still be on here swearing he was misunderstood and how the Eurosceptics who had been bitten so may times before by the Tories should have given him just one more chance.
Actually no, of course they will be on here spitting bile because they were horribly betrayed and we should all have been forced to vote for Cameron as the one true leader of the Right.
They don't get it now and they won't get it then.
I'd want engineers out to if that was the case in my house. Non story, the Mirror will be preaching to the choir on this one anyhow.
Of course. But you have informed us that there are certain "territorially homogenous Labour-voting parts of the country". I don't believe there are, and I don't believe there will be in the event of rUK.
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
As with all his other amusing photo-ops and PR blunders, revealing if nothing else.
He was simply the most senior person to have water around his fusebox.
If there was water around the fusebox at Windsor Castle, SSE would have gone there first.
Now go light your candle!
Perhaps you can back up your argument?
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, for example. They vote Labour in the same way as "England" votes Tory.
The Irish no vote on Lisbon hardly caused a huge change in the relationship between the EU and Ireland, did it? And that was much more important to the EU as it was holding up business. What happened? A few minor alterations and another forced referendum. The EU would take little notice of a post-Lisbon Lisbon referendum - in fact, they'd be laughing, even if 'no' won.
You are desperate for a referendum - any referendum - on Europe, even stupid ones. You'd be much better thinking up a political strategy that would get you a sensible and winnable referendum that would fulfil your aims of leaving the EU. That might be UKIP. But it sure as heck isn't Lisbon after the signing.
Any post-signing referendum on Lisbon would have been a farce and, in most scenarios, counter-productive to your aims.
All IMO, obviously.
If it doesn't then the UK exits*. If another country doesn't ratify the Treaty after the UK has ratified it, then it is the usual discussion - presumably a renegotiation/re-vote with a decision having to be made and justified in the UK whether the changes are sufficient enough to warrant a re-vote (very unlikely based on past precedent).
The more difficult decision (which is a non-negligible probability) is that discussions are ongoing. Depending on how close they are to a resolution, Cameron may seek to delay the referendum by a few months, with a clear explanation of why. If they are ongoing with no obvious end, it's not clear what they will do. Overall, my guess is though that they will aim for a very rapid stitch up with Germany and then try to force that through the other 25 so they can try to get a deal by 2017.
* Unless the renegotiate/re-vote option is pursued, which is quite possible IMHO
Of course the Mirror want to trivialise it but I can quite see how the PM might be prioritised under those circumstances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25901814
Are you suggesting phones run on electricity?
Cheers in advance.
That gives them 305/590 seats: a 20 seat majority.
Digby Jones says he thinks Balls will use the same arguments to put top tax rate up to '55 or 60' pence in the pound if Labour win
(a) this was a debate about regions, not cities. A separate parliament for a city doesn't make sense
(b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Also, there might be a PBX or similar to allow multiple lines - it depends on the setup, and I doubt that's the case in a house. If they did have a PBX, it should be on a UPS and have a backup basic subscriber line.
But there might well be other security tech that does rely on mains, and any battery backup UPS or similar might only give limited time. Alarms and sensors; that sort of thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/12/european-union-referendum-poll_n_4259327.html
Annoyingly yougov ask a second question on what the answer would be if Cameron recommended we stay in after 'renegotiation' but fail to ask what the answer would be if the renegotiations failed.
Phones don't - but I don't have a view on secure phones (is there some kind of separate device that scrambles the communication or is it combined into the phone itself?)
On a sidenote, I find the 6% of UKIP voters who'd want to stay in the EU intriguing. It would be interesting to see if this percentage increases, as it might be a sign that UKIP's offer is becoming about more than just Europe.
Adjective: An inbreed excuse from the flanks of the IRA/UDA who try to blame England for millennia of Pictish/Celtic moranity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
Don't panic!
CON voter splut on the Ed Balls plan to bring back the 50% tax rate for top earners
40% Agree
33% Disagree
@Survation Mail on Sunday
Cue 10,000 posts. Or not.
A pure semi-educated guess on the secure comms question: any encryption / decryption system would probably require more voltage and current than is present on a phone line. I'd therefore expect it to have mains and/or battery power as well.
We'd need someone who knows more about the likes of STU-III, if they can actually talk. ;-)
But I could well be wrong on that. Telephony can be weird and counter-intuitive ...
(b) why did they vote against mayors when offered?
Sorry, didn't realise that this was about regions and/or separate parliaments. I thought it was about territorially homogenous Labour areas. However, in the same way that England votes Tory, the North East and the North West vote Labour. If you are arguing that there are parts of both the NE and NW that vote Tory,. I agree; but then there are big parts of England that vote Labour. I believe that in an rUK there will be much more pressure from such regions for their wishes to be accommodated. And that sooner rather than later this will happen.
Does the highest tax rate really matter as the mega earners have trusts and squirrel funds offshore, which tells me they often really pay less pro rata than your average bloke in the street.
Strange the Mail quoted by Carlotta above bring the subject up with a straight face.
The owner uses offshore trusts so hardly a role model for paying all his tax in the UK.
Good friend of Cameron so no issue there one would imagine, let's ping all those bedroom tax avoiders first as a priority.
twitter.com/SkyPolly/status/427285667240894464/photo/1
twitter.com/SkyPolly/status/427285667240894464/photo/1
My support for Scots independence has nothing to do with my UKIP membership nor my dislike for Cameron beyond the fact that both causes are informed by the same intellectual root - that of a Libertarian belief in extremely small/limited government and the right of self determination.
I have long argued on here that the Anti-EU pro Unionist position advocated by many - including the UKIP leadership - is incoherent since the same arguments against membership of the EU should apply to the Union.
I know you are desperate for some grand conspiracy here but the simple fact is that my pro Scots Independence position, whilst internally consistent with my beliefs, is at odds with most other UKIP members and the UKIP leadership.
I think you need to go back and think that one through again.