Kippers and Yes rampers both clutching at straws, while time ticks on to their electoral doom.
Yes I sensed there was a note of weakness from Farage there. But the tories probably do syphon off some votes in areas like Grimsby and Rotherham, that could make a difference, I suppose.
Farage was answering questions from euro sceptic Tories worried Ed Miliband might get in, and said along the lines of "there's no chance of a deal with Cameron but if I were him I'd do this..."
The Tories arent going to win Thurrock. If they stood aside Labour wouldn't win it either
I reckon there will be some kind of agreement not to run too hard in certain seats on both sides
Looking back the YES score (excluding don’t knows) in ICM’s monthly Scottish polls this year have been 46%, 43%, 46%, 48%, 43%, 46% and now 43%. That looks to me like just random variation.
Are the 21% Don't Knows more likely to break for YES or for NO?
IMHO for NO - because voting to leave is a positive affirmative act. 'Don't know' is a passive indecisive nothingness.
Trend so far has been more Don't Knows go to YES than no.
Please supply evidence to support your assertion
Go and look for it yourself, I am not your dogsbody
So you are admitting that what you are asserting is your false and hopeful wishes and not the truth tested by fact.
I am saying F Off and look it up yourself,
As usual, those you are just rude and blaspheme are actually revealing to all their total ignorance about the subject, Just keep taking the pills and yoi should get better.
What this Government is chasing is not public security, it is protection from blame if anything goes wrong. Those are not the same thing. One person’s loss of freedom is everybody’s loss of freedom, one person’s loss of privacy is everybody’s loss of privacy. We must stand up for our rights and not succumb to the politics of fear. Otherwise we give those who hate our civilisation an easy victory, without a shot being fired.
After any terrorist attack The Daily Wail would be the first to blame the government.
Why are you arguing against your own privacy? Bizarre.
Your privacy operates opn the same principal now as it has always done. Content of correspondence requires a couirt order. The law going through parliament simply replaces an EU directive agreed by Labour in 2006. The fact that this is not now Europe wide is in fact to our detriment.
On the subject of UKIP surviving - you seem to miss the point that it exists as a single issue protest party and has no coherence beyond that. It has yet to be proved it can win parliamentary seats where its individual candidates rather than its loud mouthed and swaggering leader are put under the spotlight. You say you studied 19thC politics. You might be better advised to look into the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Representation Committee was formed in 1900, later that year it had 2 MPs; by 1906 it had 29. It had ministers in govt by 1915. UKIP only exist on the back of a single millionaires funding who is himself obsessed with the EU.
It is rather silly to look at the rise of Labour and identify a timescale by which UKIP's success should be measured. It was a totally different era. But what we can take from Labour's example is the long term pattern, which is that a party on the fringes finished off one of the great parties of the 19th century. The Conservative party have always been good at seeing off potential dangers of this kind by being a broad Church -assimilating popular movements and new swathes of voters -as they did in the 1980s. This is the first time they have failed to do this -deliberately in fact, in return for the entirely illusory trophy of the 'middle ground' -a no man's land between the prevailing opinions of the day, that means nothing.
Are the 21% Don't Knows more likely to break for YES or for NO?
IMHO for NO - because voting to leave is a positive affirmative act. 'Don't know' is a passive indecisive nothingness.
Trend so far has been more Don't Knows go to YES than no.
Please supply evidence to support your assertion
Go and look for it yourself, I am not your dogsbody
So you are admitting that what you are asserting is your false and hopeful wishes and not the truth tested by fact.
I am saying F Off and look it up yourself,
As usual, those you are just rude and blaspheme are actually revealing to all their total ignorance about the subject, Just keep taking the pills and yoi should get better.
Kippers and Yes rampers both clutching at straws, while time ticks on to their electoral doom.
Yes I sensed there was a note of weakness from Farage there. But the tories probably do syphon off some votes in areas like Grimsby and Rotherham, that could make a difference, I suppose.
Farage was answering questions from euro sceptic Tories worried Ed Miliband might get in, and said along the lines of "there's no chance of a deal with Cameron but if I were him I'd do this..."
The Tories arent going to win Thurrock. If they stood aside Labour wouldn't win it either
I reckon there will be some kind of agreement not to run too hard in certain seats on both sides
I reckon no deal and UKIP no MPs. Farage wants a free shot at an open goal, he is not going to get it, and UKIPs non European policies will be electoral poison in 2015. There are simply not enough euro obsessed voters to elect a UKIP MP, let alone a decisive block in Parliament.
Looking back the YES score (excluding don’t knows) in ICM’s monthly Scottish polls this year have been 46%, 43%, 46%, 48%, 43%, 46% and now 43%. That looks to me like just random variation.
Exactly what I have been saying for months , Yes is and has been toast for ages , people made their minds up ages ago and the majority did so to reject Independence . Random poll variations suggesting movement one way or the other are just that random variations from a position showing a clear No win .
Salmond has engineered a No win situation because he's failed to make the economic case. It's the economy, Eck.
The Scottish economy is better within the widr EU. It is better able to sustain the inevitable ups and downs (clearly the potential for big downs) as part of the UK. Above all how can it sustain an independent currency? Saying it would be a user of the pound or euro merely shoots the independence case in the foot. It has always and obviously been that way. Scotland is also understating the case for its defence costs. It has shipyards capable of building the entire RN, there is no work for them in an independent country. Who would design their ships. Where would they recruit and retain their officers and NCO's from? How would they maintain their airforce (Norway had 80+ fast jets and is proposing to buy the F35). They could but at what cost?
Mr. Path, I doubt that there is a sentient being on the planet who would seriously disagree with that analysis. Even our own Mr. G. agreed when I posted something similar a year or so back.
However, people like Mr. G., really do not care about that level of detail. It is independence that matters, that Scots should be taking decisions about Scotland. Short term issues such as the future of a few shipyards are too short term to be worth worrying about at this stage. I can understand that view and if I was a Scot I would probably be a holder of it.
Unfortunately, I think it entirely possible that by failing to have done the hard thinking on issues such as currency in advance the Yes people have thrown away the chance of winning. There are too few people who will vote for a leap into the unknown based on a principle and a hope. A lesson perhaps for the BOO types.
I do hope Malc G can continue to post. He does need to knock off the constant insults, (which makes him look small), but he has an interesting perspective, which would be a shame to lose!
Kippers and Yes rampers both clutching at straws, while time ticks on to their electoral doom.
Yes I sensed there was a note of weakness from Farage there. But the tories probably do syphon off some votes in areas like Grimsby and Rotherham, that could make a difference, I suppose.
Farage was answering questions from euro sceptic Tories worried Ed Miliband might get in, and said along the lines of "there's no chance of a deal with Cameron but if I were him I'd do this..."
The Tories arent going to win Thurrock. If they stood aside Labour wouldn't win it either
I reckon there will be some kind of agreement not to run too hard in certain seats on both sides
I reckon no deal and UKIP no MPs. Farage wants a free shot at an open goal, he is not going to get it, and UKIPs non European policies will be electoral poison in 2015. There are simply not enough euro obsessed voters to elect a UKIP MP, let alone a decisive block in Parliament.
After any terrorist attack The Daily Wail would be the first to blame the government.
...
...
Labour only had MPs because the Liberals took Labour under their wing. Until 1918, they didn't even have a national policy platform. Labour was in effect a majority-owned subsidiary of the Liberal Party until the later stages of WWI.
As it turned out, giving Labour so much breathing space turned out to be a gross strategic error for the Liberals - but only because they themselves split, firstly between Asquithites and LG supporters and then on the formation of the National Government, so giving Labour the main chance to become the main opposition. The Liberals' strategy had been to seek to amalgamate them within their coalition, rather at the Conservatives did with first the Liberal Unionists and later the National Liberals; a strategy that wasn't of itself fundamentally flawed.
Will UKIP survive beyond and above the political fringe? That depends on many things, two of which are how the UK's relationship with the EU develops over the next five or ten years, and whether UKIP can establish themselves as a meaningful party beyond their European context. It also requires other parties giving them enough space to prosper. It would be foolish to be too confident either way.
Yes I know about that. And the Liberals splitting is an obvious warning. But 'The Labour Party' with 29 seats existed in 1906. They had a wider platform and a firmer trade union base than UKIP have who remain funded by one obsessive millionaire.
Your remarks also point to what a wide coalition the Conservatives are (and reinforce my point that Cameron like Macmillan is a mainstream Conservative; Hesletine came from the National Liberals didn't he?) and how quite silly and ignorant it is to misrepresent them.
As far as the future - Cameron has said he does not want an ever closer union. Neither do I. The whole future resolves around Cameron - if re-elected - keeping us in the single market, out of Schengen and at arms length from the core closer union of the EU whilst protecting our financial sector and levels of inward investment. The alternative is to be in the EEA, which let's be honest is not much different except we get no votes. I do not trust Farage in doing any of this, his policy would be to walk out and get some fantasy deal afterwards - there is no guarantee of the consequences for the UK once out. Nor do I trust Miliband to do any of the above; socialists want us closer to the EU. Strangely I think only Cameron will offer a referendum. My understanding is that Farage would simply walk out. Farage will not gain power of course - his sole possibility is to hand power to Labour.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
Daily Wail have an interesting story about Farage showing the tories a glimpse of ankle in terms of a deal. 'Give us free reign in 20 seats and we'll give you the rest'
Cameron won't go for it of course. He'd far rather get hammered on his own terms.
Cameron would be an idiot to go for it.
The worst thing he could do for the Conservative Party would be to give UKIP a clear run at winning seats. If they win 1 seat it can be laughed off as a flash in the pan. If they win 5 or 10 they are here to stay.
Perhaps he should give him free reign in 20 Labour strongholds?
UKIP claim they take votes from everyone.
If the UKIP Leadership really really believe that an IN/OUT referendum on EC is THE most important goal, then the principled decision for UKIP would be to not to compete in all Conservative held seats at the GE. They can then focus on the other half of the seats and have clean hands from any accusation that they "brought in EdM". We could then see the posssibility of 10+ UKIP MPs being a block on EdM and "helping" the Conservatives.
The Farage ankle flash gives a hint at what will be agreed behind the scenes, but not publically, should the Tories find themselves a couple of points down in the New Year/early spring
Just back from Scotland and saw very few YES or NO posters either in Edinburgh region or the highlands.
Havent been to Scotland in something like 35 years and found the Scots we met to be very friendly (and the waether was very kind) and whilst I hope they stay wish them all the best if they choose to leave.
PS. Watched an intersting debate on independence on tv whilst up in the Highlands didn't catch the start so unsure of the names but there was a shouty businessman who was passionate about staying and I found the Labour woman (youth employment spokesperson?) quite impressive.
SNP really had no answers to the economic points being put other than to repeat "people say we to wee or poor....
PPS - Those of you from the Highlands live in a very special place, absolutely stunning.
I think Nigel is too open about strategy sometimes. He is naturally chatty and garrulous, and he mustn't ever lose his honesty and un-spun quality, but the public and press don't need to know stuff like 'We're going to push Labour into promising a referendum'. Because a) it means that Labour can't promise a referendum without it being seen as a defeat to UKIP b) UKIP look weaker when it doesn't happen
< As it turned out, giving Labour so much breathing space turned out to be a gross strategic error for the Liberals - but only because they themselves split, firstly between Asquithites and LG supporters and then on the formation of the National Government, so giving Labour the main chance to become the main opposition. The Liberals' strategy had been to seek to amalgamate them within their coalition, rather at the Conservatives did with first the Liberal Unionists and later the National Liberals; a strategy that wasn't of itself fundamentally flawed.
Will UKIP survive beyond and above the political fringe? That depends on many things, two of which are how the UK's relationship with the EU develops over the next five or ten years, and whether UKIP can establish themselves as a meaningful party beyond their European context. It also requires other parties giving them enough space to prosper. It would be foolish to be too confident either way.
Yes I know about that. And the Liberals splitting is an obvious warning. But 'The Labour Party' with 29 seats existed in 1906. They had a wider platform and a firmer trade union base than UKIP have who remain funded by one obsessive millionaire.
Your remarks also point to what a wide coalition the Conservatives are (and reinforce my point that Cameron like Macmillan is a mainstream Conservative; Hesletine came from the National Liberals didn't he?) and how quite silly and ignorant it is to misrepresent them.
As far as the future - Cameron has said he does not want an ever closer union. Neither do I. The whole future resolves around Cameron - if re-elected - keeping us in the single market, out of Schengen and at arms length from the core closer union of the EU whilst protecting our financial sector and levels of inward investment. The alternative is to be in the EEA, which let's be honest is not much different except we get no votes. I do not trust Farage in doing any of this, his policy would be to walk out and get some fantasy deal afterwards - there is no guarantee of the consequences for the UK once out. Nor do I trust Miliband to do any of the above; socialists want us closer to the EU. Strangely I think only Cameron will offer a referendum. My understanding is that Farage would simply walk out. Farage will not gain power of course - his sole possibility is to hand power to Labour.
UKIP now have 40,000 members. That's more than just one millionaire.
The Conservative party has been hollowed out in much of the country. Its supporters in the countryside and small to medium-sized towns have very little in common with it's supporters in the Metropolis (Labour has similar problems).
Current political circumstances don't suggest that UKIP is going to go away.
Daily Wail have an interesting story about Farage showing the tories a glimpse of ankle in terms of a deal. 'Give us free reign in 20 seats and we'll give you the rest'
Cameron won't go for it of course. He'd far rather get hammered on his own terms.
Cameron would be an idiot to go for it.
The worst thing he could do for the Conservative Party would be to give UKIP a clear run at winning seats. If they win 1 seat it can be laughed off as a flash in the pan. If they win 5 or 10 they are here to stay.
Perhaps he should give him free reign in 20 Labour strongholds?
UKIP claim they take votes from everyone.
If the UKIP Leadership really really believe that an IN/OUT referendum on EC is THE most important goal, then the principled decision for UKIP would be to not to compete in all Conservative held seats at the GE. They can then focus on the other half of the seats and have clean hands from any accusation that they "brought in EdM". We could then see the posssibility of 10+ UKIP MPs being a block on EdM and "helping" the Conservatives.
IMHO, UKIP should not run against MPs who are clearly and openly opposed to EU membership. But, everyone else is fair game.
The Farage ankle flash gives a hint at what will be agreed behind the scenes, but not publically, should the Tories find themselves a couple of points down in the New Year/early spring
Never going to happen.
More wonderful wishful thinking from "UKIP for Miliband and no referendum".....
Daily Wail have an interesting story about Farage showing the tories a glimpse of ankle in terms of a deal. 'Give us free reign in 20 seats and we'll give you the rest'
Cameron won't go for it of course. He'd far rather get hammered on his own terms.
Cameron would be an idiot to go for it.
The worst thing he could do for the Conservative Party would be to give UKIP a clear run at winning seats. If they win 1 seat it can be laughed off as a flash in the pan. If they win 5 or 10 they are here to stay.
Perhaps he should give him free reign in 20 Labour strongholds?
UKIP claim they take votes from everyone.
If the UKIP Leadership really really believe that an IN/OUT referendum on EC is THE most important goal, then the principled decision for UKIP would be to not to compete in all Conservative held seats at the GE. They can then focus on the other half of the seats and have clean hands from any accusation that they "brought in EdM". We could then see the posssibility of 10+ UKIP MPs being a block on EdM and "helping" the Conservatives.
IMHO, UKIP should not run against MPs who are clearly and openly opposed to EU membership. But, everyone else is fair game.
I think they should set out clear guidelines of which MPs are suitable though -and it would be politically useful if some of them could be Labour ones too.
The Farage ankle flash gives a hint at what will be agreed behind the scenes, but not publically, should the Tories find themselves a couple of points down in the New Year/early spring
I would hope (and as a TBT - true blue tory - believe myself) that this is the corollary of the Cons tacking to the right and thus providing succour to the Kippers. If I hear that Nige is willing to make concessions, even bonkers ones, then as a TBT I would be encouraged to deal with them even less.
@malcolmg gone? I seriously doubt anyone was offended by him but of course 'tis not my site.
The problem with the medieval witch hunts was that there were not actually any witches bringing ruin on the population with nasty spells.
If there had actually been any witches bringing ruin on the population with nasty spells then a witch hunt would have been right and proper.
This scandal appears to be in the latter category and its making forecasting the next election about as practical as two blokes in a pub on 2nd September 1939 discussing the probable result of the 1942 world cup.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
Since the Iron Curtain came down, we have seen the fracture of some states (e.g Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) into separate and self-governing countries, as well as the re-found independence of the three Baltic states. So far all are surviving economically but within them the movement from a managed economy to a capitalist economy has enriched the bold and left the risk-averse poorer. However, all the countries have joined or are waiting to join the EU and even NATO - often because they feel more secure within those alliances whilst looking over their shoulder at the Russian bear.
We have yet to see a country or a part of a country declare Independence and so by so doing leave the EU and NATO. Whilst national independence is an ideal viewed by many, economic reality and security often change minds.
It is very difficult in the rapidly changing technological and global environment to project very far into the future, whilst decisions made now could have far-reaching and perhaps disastrous effects in he next 10-20 years. It would appear the Salmond has based his projections on a declining asset (N Sea energy) whilst not having other scenarios tested and in place. Yes independence is a nice feeling, but it could mean that some/many of your people will have to bIte a very hard bullet.
UKIP now have 40,000 members. That's more than just one millionaire.
The Conservative party has been hollowed out in much of the country. Its supporters in the countryside and small to medium-sized towns have very little in common with it's supporters in the Metropolis (Labour has similar problems).
Current political circumstances don't suggest that UKIP is going to go away.
You are likely right, Sean, but the splintering of the centre-right support may well mean that we end up with a Labour Government, which will be the worst option for the Conservatives and most of UKIP. I don't think that any result is nailed on at present and I doubt much will change until after the Party Conferences, after which the election campaign really swings into action.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
What's a large percentage of a very small number? Of the 'Nats' that haven't been banned, Malcolm is the only regular poster and he enjoys a rammy with the numerous pro union trolls; it's evidently reciprocated as they fall upon his posts with rather pathetic glee. The remaining few are well aware of where the debate and the fight are taking place, and you're right, it ain't here.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
Since the Iron Curtain came down, we have seen the fracture of some states (e.g Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) into separate and self-governing countries, as well as the re-found independence of the three Baltic states. So far all are surviving economically but within them the movement from a managed economy to a capitalist economy has enriched the bold and left the risk-averse poorer. However, all the countries have joined or are waiting to join the EU and even NATO - often because they feel more secure within those alliances whilst looking over their shoulder at the Russian bear.
We have yet to see a country or a part of a country declare Independence and so by so doing leave the EU and NATO. Whilst national independence is an ideal viewed by many, economic reality and security often change minds.
It is very difficult in the rapidly changing technological and global environment to project very far into the future, whilst decisions made now could have far-reaching and perhaps disastrous effects in he next 10-20 years. It would appear the Salmond has based his projections on a declining asset (N Sea energy) whilst not having other scenarios tested and in place. Yes independence is a nice feeling, but it could mean that some/many of your people will have to bIte a very hard bullet.
Only for a bit, especially if they want to comply with the 60% Maastricht debt/GDP ratio. North Sea Oil & Gas tax revenue decline will certainly require some belt tightening but in the longer term I wouldn't have thought that Salmond, or Yessirs would be worried by the teething troubles.
Of course ideally that is how they would portray it to the Scottish nation - we'll have to look after the pennies for a few years but in the end glory will be ours...FREEDOM.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
What's a large percentage of a very small number? Of the 'Nats' that haven't been banned, Malcolm is the only regular poster and he enjoys a rammy with the numerous pro union trolls; it's evidently reciprocated as they fall upon his posts with rather pathetic glee. The remaining few are well aware of where the debate and the fight are taking place, and you're right, it ain't here.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
What's a large percentage of a very small number? Of the 'Nats' that haven't been banned, Malcolm is the only regular poster and he enjoys a rammy with the numerous pro union trolls; it's evidently reciprocated as they fall upon his posts with rather pathetic glee. The remaining few are well aware of where the debate and the fight are taking place, and you're right, it ain't here.
To date about half the Nats have gone.
Which is a shame - I get that OGH doesn't want a slangfest on here because if anyone important (!) drops in to see what passes for political debate they might be put off.
But a moment's dalliance would reveal that such apparent rudeness is but another rhetorical device.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
What's a large percentage of a very small number? Of the 'Nats' that haven't been banned, Malcolm is the only regular poster and he enjoys a rammy with the numerous pro union trolls; it's evidently reciprocated as they fall upon his posts with rather pathetic glee. The remaining few are well aware of where the debate and the fight are taking place, and you're right, it ain't here.
To date about half the Nats have gone.
One by one the old codger Nats have disappeared, for one reason or another. What is interesting is that they haven't been replaced by young enthusiasts.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Maybe its just a factor of age. Most (all) of the politicians who have been named as nonces or alleged to be involved in a cover up are dead and were active in politics many years ago. If, as we have been told so often, the UKIP voter tends to be older than that for other parties it should not be a surprise that they are more inclined to remember the names of long gone politicians from the 70s and 80s.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
There's that group of people who've switched from Lib Dem to Ukip. On the surface the Parties have little in common so they may be the professional protest voters.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Maybe its just a factor of age. Most (all) of the politicians who have been named as nonces or alleged to be involved in a cover up are dead and were active in politics many years ago. If, as we have been told so often, the UKIP voter tends to be older than that for other parties it should not be a surprise that they are more inclined to remember the names of long gone politicians from the 70s and 80s.
That, too. I can remember, as a student, being warned by an agent, to steer clear of Peter Morrison.
They (SNP) are losing because they made it into a referendum about Salmond and the SNP and since the SNP is a minority in scotland they lose. Do the majority of scots favour or want to be ruled by Salmond and the SNP forever and ever? The answer is no, so they vote no.
One of the major differences between the 80s and now is that back then rent boys and young prostitutes were regarded as evil and sub human. Today there is much greater awareness that they are always victims of abuse and have usually been neglected and abused from a very early age.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
But this whole issue of scotland and wales drifting away from the rest of the country, that is I believe a consequence of not having a unified Media and Sports markets for the whole country especially for scotland. In scotland they have different newspapers and TV stations than the rest of the country and their separate sports leagues, I believe that if they read and saw the same news and entertainment as the rest of the country they will be more like the rest of the country. In wales its the same but at a smaller magnitute that is around the welsh language.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Maybe its just a factor of age. Most (all) of the politicians who have been named as nonces or alleged to be involved in a cover up are dead and were active in politics many years ago. If, as we have been told so often, the UKIP voter tends to be older than that for other parties it should not be a surprise that they are more inclined to remember the names of long gone politicians from the 70s and 80s.
Isn't that more to do with the fact that the dead can't sue for Libel?
But this whole issue of scotland and wales drifting away from the rest of the country, that is I believe a consequence of not having a unified Media and Sports markets for the whole country especially for scotland. In scotland they have different newspapers and TV stations than the rest of the country and their separate sports leagues, I believe that if they read and saw the same news and entertainment as the rest of the country they will be more like the rest of the country. In wales its the same but at a smaller magnitute that is around the welsh language.
Not sure about that. I would say that with the utter dominance of Sky the football market in particular is more integrated than it has ever been. Before sky we used to watch Sportscene which in the last segment of the program would show relatively brief highlights from the match of the day in England. Now during the season I can see whole English matches most nights of the week. The effect on Scottish football has been fairly devastating but football is certainly not driving us apart.
One of the major differences between the 80s and now is that back then rent boys and young prostitutes were regarded as evil and sub human. Today there is much greater awareness that they are always victims of abuse and have usually been neglected and abused from a very early age.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
Yes, I can see that. I remember reading a novel at the time, about a German army officer who gets sent to the Eastern front, to die honourably, after being caught with a 14 year old rent boy. The protagonist can't understand the fuss, given that the boy was "steeped in evil."
One of the major differences between the 80s and now is that back then rent boys and young prostitutes were regarded as evil and sub human. Today there is much greater awareness that they are always victims of abuse and have usually been neglected and abused from a very early age.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
I am not sure that rent boys were ever considered subhuman, but mores have changed.
Bearing in mind how few of the public can name any current politicians other than the Prime Minister, I am not surprised by the lack of knowledge of politicians of the eighties. Cyril Smith was a larger than life character, but the rest are forgotten men.
One of the major differences between the 80s and now is that back then rent boys and young prostitutes were regarded as evil and sub human. Today there is much greater awareness that they are always victims of abuse and have usually been neglected and abused from a very early age.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
Yes, I can see that. I remember reading a novel at the time, about a German army officer who gets sent to the Eastern front, to die honourably, after being caught with a 14 year old rent boy. The protagonist can't understand the fuss, given that the boy was "steeped in evil."
My guess (and hope to be honest) is that in 20 years time we will look back in similar bewilderment at the way society today regards and responds to those with drug addictions. There is of course a major overlap with those in the sex industry.
But this whole issue of scotland and wales drifting away from the rest of the country, that is I believe a consequence of not having a unified Media and Sports markets for the whole country especially for scotland. In scotland they have different newspapers and TV stations than the rest of the country and their separate sports leagues, I believe that if they read and saw the same news and entertainment as the rest of the country they will be more like the rest of the country. In wales its the same but at a smaller magnitute that is around the welsh language.
Not sure about that. I would say that with the utter dominance of Sky the football market in particular is more integrated than it has ever been. Before sky we used to watch Sportscene which in the last segment of the program would show relatively brief highlights from the match of the day in England. Now during the season I can see whole English matches most nights of the week. The effect on Scottish football has been fairly devastating but football is certainly not driving us apart.
Well its different having Rangers and Celtic in the premier league, so is if the Scotsman is replaced by the Times, BBC Scotland by the BBC, STV with ITV and so forth.
But this whole issue of scotland and wales drifting away from the rest of the country, that is I believe a consequence of not having a unified Media and Sports markets for the whole country especially for scotland. In scotland they have different newspapers and TV stations than the rest of the country and their separate sports leagues, I believe that if they read and saw the same news and entertainment as the rest of the country they will be more like the rest of the country. In wales its the same but at a smaller magnitute that is around the welsh language.
Not sure about that. I would say that with the utter dominance of Sky the football market in particular is more integrated than it has ever been. Before sky we used to watch Sportscene which in the last segment of the program would show relatively brief highlights from the match of the day in England. Now during the season I can see whole English matches most nights of the week. The effect on Scottish football has been fairly devastating but football is certainly not driving us apart.
Well its different having Rangers and Celtic in the premier league, so is if the Scotsman is replaced by the Times, BBC Scotland by the BBC, STV with ITV and so forth.
Or really, them all being replaced by (or in some cases migrating to) the internet.
To put it in trendily meaningless jargon, the internet is both the arrival and the end of monoculture (I joke, but that kind of makes sense in my head).
@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which you speak.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
I suspect that, in GEs, the absolute maximum vote for a UKIP style manifesto is around 20-25%. The Tories approached that (I think they were c. 32%) in 2001 and 2005, but still had some loyalty support from the centre-right.
So the best that UKIP can do is hurt the cause of the right.
Even if they were to take all the current UKIP support (c. 12%), and let's say 2/3 of the current Tory support (+22%), they would still only be where the Tories are currently.
Sometimes you need to appreciate the strategic lie of the ground. The British people, as a whole, are moderate, tolerant and forward looking. UKIP appeals to a minority.
@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which you speak.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
People underestimate just how much the Liberal fall was down to organisational failure of the party itself.
"... the best novel ever written, The Count of Monte Cristo"
Certainly one of the best, but only if read in the original - some of the English translations leave a lot to be desired. However, it does depend on your criteria of what constitutes a good novel.
Frederick Forsythe's "Odessa File" had me riveted, once I started reading it I didn't leave my chair until I had finished it, even though I ran out of cigarettes about two thirds of the way through. His "Day of the Jackal" had the same effect, though this time I was prepared and laid in extras stocks of fags before I opened the book. James Clavell's "Shogun" was another marathon read, though his other books (with the possible exception of Tai-Pan) never quite gripped in the same way. For me though the ultimate in page turners was Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". Happily, that book arrived on the Friday, and so was waiting for me when I got home from work, and Herself was away for the weekend, the cats got fed but that was about all.
Some will say that such authors as Forsythe, Clavell, Clancy are trivia, the modern day opium of the masses and that great novels are from great people that nobody normal actually reads. Hardy, Trollop, Dostoyevsky, Dickens and all the rest. Yeah, well literature is just some poncy snob, who probably hasn't read the books anyway, telling the masses that they are wrong, ignorant and sad.
I think England have run out of time in the Test despite an excellent effort from Broad this morning. It's a shame. Jimmy's efforts deserved to be remembered with a victory.
@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which you speak.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
People underestimate just how much the Liberal fall was down to organisational failure of the party itself.
There were lots of contributing factors, but don't forget that the loss of the Liberal Unionists took most of the money and much of the organisational structure with them
One of the major differences between the 80s and now is that back then rent boys and young prostitutes were regarded as evil and sub human. Today there is much greater awareness that they are always victims of abuse and have usually been neglected and abused from a very early age.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
I am not sure that rent boys were ever considered subhuman, but mores have changed.
I certainly think there was no conception of them as 'victims' in any sense - they were seen as perverts who had knowingly engaged on a lucrative career, sometimes ensnaring a 'happily married man' (sic).
Its interesting that today the Labour Mirror has taken a party political approach (relying on the testimony of someone not selected for a safe seat), when it appears likely that all three parties had MPs and others up to no good (and its a Labour Peer whose office and home have been searched by the Police):
My money is on the North Koreans, and with a clean sheet too.
Back in the real world: Germany should win tonight, but the Argies can park the bus fairly effectively. It doesn't look a goalfest. I am going 2:0 to Germany. Jr forecast these two finalists back in June with the Argies winning 2:1.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which you speak.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
People underestimate just how much the Liberal fall was down to organisational failure of the party itself.
There were lots of contributing factors, but don't forget that the loss of the Liberal Unionists took most of the money and much of the organisational structure with them
The Liberal Unionists? Are you sure? I'd disagree on that point.
I'd place organisational failure of the Liberal party as a primary factor, but the Liberal Unionist departure wouldn't be up there.
@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which you speak.
There have been multiple attempts to set up a right wing challenger to the Conservatives. Not one of them has survived.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
I suspect that, in GEs, the absolute maximum vote for a UKIP style manifesto is around 20-25%. The Tories approached that (I think they were c. 32%) in 2001 and 2005, but still had some loyalty support from the centre-right.
So the best that UKIP can do is hurt the cause of the right.
Even if they were to take all the current UKIP support (c. 12%), and let's say 2/3 of the current Tory support (+22%), they would still only be where the Tories are currently.
Sometimes you need to appreciate the strategic lie of the ground. The British people, as a whole, are moderate, tolerant and forward looking. UKIP appeals to a minority.
The last time the tories where right wing was 1990 and centrer right 2005, so UKIP hurting the Tories doesn't hurt the right since the Tories are a centrish party (yes they have right wing elements but those dont set the party agenda). The position of the Conservatives today is exactly the same as New Labour and with trying to please the center they have annoyed their base which is drifting to another party.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Some will say that such authors as Forsythe, Clavell, Clancy are trivia, the modern day opium of the masses and that great novels are from great people that nobody normal actually reads. Hardy, Trollop, Dostoyevsky, Dickens and all the rest. Yeah, well literature is just some poncy snob, who probably hasn't read the books anyway, telling the masses that they are wrong, ignorant and sad.
I couldn't agree more although I'm more of a Tom Knox man myself.
"... the best novel ever written, The Count of Monte Cristo"
Certainly one of the best, but only if read in the original - some of the English translations leave a lot to be desired. However, it does depend on your criteria of what constitutes a good novel.
Frederick Forsythe's "Odessa File" had me riveted, once I started reading it I didn't leave my chair until I had finished it, even though I ran out of cigarettes about two thirds of the way through. His "Day of the Jackal" had the same effect, though this time I was prepared and laid in extras stocks of fags before I opened the book. James Clavell's "Shogun" was another marathon read, though his other books (with the possible exception of Tai-Pan) never quite gripped in the same way. For me though the ultimate in page turners was Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". Happily, that book arrived on the Friday, and so was waiting for me when I got home from work, and Herself was away for the weekend, the cats got fed but that was about all.
Some will say that such authors as Forsythe, Clavell, Clancy are trivia, the modern day opium of the masses and that great novels are from great people that nobody normal actually reads. Hardy, Trollop, Dostoyevsky, Dickens and all the rest. Yeah, well literature is just some poncy snob, who probably hasn't read the books anyway, telling the masses that they are wrong, ignorant and sad.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
The Liberal Unionists? Are you sure? I'd disagree on that point.
I'd place organisational failure of the Liberal party as a primary factor, but the Liberal Unionist departure wouldn't be up there.
Admittedly they were slightly earlier (1880s/1890s but that's when the rot really started, and arguably part of the reason why the Liberals felt the need to do a deal with Labour)
The Cavendish family provides oodles of money and local organisation in the northern parts of the midlands. Joe Chamberlain and his sons delivered Birmingham.
This is from Wiki, for what it's worth:
The political impact of the Liberal Unionist breakaway marked the end of the long nineteenth century domination by the Liberal party of the British political scene. From 1830 to 1886 the Liberals (the name the Whigs, Radicals and Peelites accepted as their political label after 1859) had been managed to become almost the party of permanent government with just a couple of Conservative interludes. After 1886 it was the Conservatives who enjoyed this position and they received a huge boost with their electoral and political alliance with a party of disaffected Liberals.
Though not numerous, the Liberal Unionists boasted having within their ranks the vast bulk of the old Whig aristocracy as represented by the stolid Duke of Devonshire. ... The Duke of Devonshire's political partner, the 'radical imperialist' Joseph Chamberlain was from a very different background, a businessman and a Unitarian. ... Though the Liberal Unionist party disappeared as a separate organisation in 1912, the Chamberlain legacy helped keep the industrial powerhouse of Birmingham from returning to the Liberal party and would only be changed once more in 1945 in the Labour Party electoral landslide of that year. It also remained a profound influence on Chamberlain's sons Austen and Neville Chamberlain, who, when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party and thus became Prime Minister in 1937, told an audience how proud he was of his Liberal Unionist roots. This isn't surprising. Neither Neville or Austen actually stood for Parliament as a Conservative candidate — their local political association in Birmingham (the local Conservative and Liberal Unionist associations merged in 1919) preferred to call themselves Unionist rather than Conservative during this time
I think the English media did something similar in 1966.
Unfortunately since then no one has thought such a story would be remotely credible.
Difficult to tell if it's a North Korean fake or a fake North Korean fake, really!
That thought occurred to me, especially when I spotted the Hyundai advertising half way through the clip - I don't think that would have featured had it been genuinely North Korean.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
He was asked if he had evidence. He said he didn't.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time.
So the whistle blower refused to provide any evidence beyond his unsubstantiated word?
Then the failure to act is quite understandable, though morally right.
The basic problem is that fi all that's needed to launch an investigation is one person's allegation, it's too easy for anyone to get an investigation started, perhaps out of a simple grudge, perhaps for political reasons.
Preventing people from crying wolf without impeding the genuine whistle blowers is not a trivial problem, but it has to be addressed. For example, one obvious measure would be to make false allegations a criminal offence, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying wouldn't be easy, and the fear of being dragged into court would discourage genuine whistle blowers.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
He was a witness to a crime, whether that is evidence or not depends if there are other credible witnesses too. Morrison, I mentioned him yesterday because I went through all the sex scandals of the Thatcher era, however he is not the yesterday's alledged by the Sunday People minister who clearly say that the alledged person was a minister in 1982 and 1986 and considered a rising star in 1982. However since Tebbit said that they heard rumours about Morrison so probably did Thatcher. There is no question now that this was flying around in the 80's, but whether there was obstruction of justice and a cover up by the Tories.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time.
So the whistle blower refused to provide any evidence beyond his unsubstantiated word?
Then the failure to act is quite understandable, though morally right.
The basic problem is that fi all that's needed to launch an investigation is one person's allegation, it's too easy for anyone to get an investigation started, perhaps out of a simple grudge, perhaps for political reasons.
Preventing people from crying wolf without impeding the genuine whistle blowers is not a trivial problem, but it has to be addressed. For example, one obvious measure would be to make false allegations a criminal offence, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying wouldn't be easy, and the fear of being dragged into court would discourage genuine whistle blowers.
I was wondering about that today re: libel laws (there was a good article in the Spectator about it).
Perhaps "a reasonable belief, after due and careful enquiry" or some such phrasing affording the accuser a safe harbor with the consequence that they couldn't be sued for malicious falsehood, or that (in the case of libel) their potential liability was capped.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
He was a witness to a crime, whether that is evidence or not depends if there are other credible witnesses too. Morrison, I mentioned him yesterday because I went through all the sex scandals of the Thatcher era, however he is not the yesterday's alledged by the Sunday People minister who clearly say that the alledged person was a minister in 1982 and 1986 and considered a rising star in 1982. However since Tebbit said that they heard rumours about Morrison so probably did Thatcher. There is no question now that this was flying around in the 80's, but whether there was abstruction of justice and a cover up by the Tories.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
What's the point of any abused child telling someone about it then?
I understand there are such things as false accusations, but it seems the Tories on here don't believe any of the claims against Tories, but link to articles that smear labour
Mr. Isam, being a witness or a victim of a crime makes your testimony evidence. If you're just making up or regurgitating rumours that's an allegation without evidence.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
He was asked if he had evidence. He said he didn't.
What did you expect the civil servant to do?
He said it would emerge, and I reckon it will soon
Norman Tebbit gave the game away last week
The tone used by the civil servant implies he wants the matter to go no further rather than be investigated
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
What's the point of any abused child telling someone about it then?
I understand there are such things as false accusations, but it seems the Tories on here don't believe any of the claims against Tories, but link to articles that smear labour
An abused child is a victim, and is entitled to be taken seriously, but this "whistleblower" has it seems no evidence such as names of abused children.
There needs to be some grounds for investigation, not just a statement that "evidence will emerge in time"!
I am not a Tory, and never was a Thatcher fan, but just wanting an investigation based on facts!
I think the English media did something similar in 1966.
Unfortunately since then no one has thought such a story would be remotely credible.
Difficult to tell if it's a North Korean fake or a fake North Korean fake, really!
That thought occurred to me, especially when I spotted the Hyundai advertising half way through the clip - I don't think that would have featured had it been genuinely North Korean.
I think that's genuine footage (possibly edited not to reveal the teams) of the copacabana beach. Possibly the NK would have gone further and edited it out, of course.
Cashed out for a loss of £31 on the test. Was half hoping I'd get back from my bike ride to see India 300-9 or something like that but it'll be a draw now.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Looks like classic tactics to shut up people who know unpleasant truths about senior people
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
He was a witness to a crime, whether that is evidence or not depends if there are other credible witnesses too. Morrison, I mentioned him yesterday because I went through all the sex scandals of the Thatcher era, however he is not the yesterday's alledged by the Sunday People minister who clearly say that the alledged person was a minister in 1982 and 1986 and considered a rising star in 1982. However since Tebbit said that they heard rumours about Morrison so probably did Thatcher. There is no question now that this was flying around in the 80's, but whether there was abstruction of justice and a cover up by the Tories.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
Politics actually, if you where a rising party member would you go to the police and risk ruin for your party or go to your party first to try and deal with it internally far away from the press?
Also the destruction of files in 1996 by the Major government would point to a possible cover up again for political reasons, imagine if all those dossiers and files had fallen to the hands of Blair.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
He was a witness to a crime, whether that is evidence or not depends if there are other credible witnesses too. Morrison, I mentioned him yesterday because I went through all the sex scandals of the Thatcher era, however he is not the yesterday's alledged by the Sunday People minister who clearly say that the alledged person was a minister in 1982 and 1986 and considered a rising star in 1982. However since Tebbit said that they heard rumours about Morrison so probably did Thatcher. There is no question now that this was flying around in the 80's, but whether there was abstruction of justice and a cover up by the Tories.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
Politics actually, if you where a rising party member would you go to the police and risk ruin for your party or go to your party first to try and deal with it internally far away from the press?
Also the destruction of files in 1996 by the Major government would point to a possible cover up again for political reasons, imagine if all those dossiers and files had fallen to the hands of Blair.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
However it displeases me when those allegations are made after the people accused are dead. From all of them named so far only Rolf Harris is still alive. Did anyone have the guts to go to the press and the police while they where alive or did the police and the press refused to investigate while they where alive?
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
The online version of the mirror talks of two witnesses related to three (IIRC) MPs who they won't name involved in incidents that happened at these parties.
It seems to me they're just trying to establish that these parties at Dolphin Square and Conferences existed.
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
There were lots of contributing factors, but don't forget that the loss of the Liberal Unionists took most of the money and much of the organisational structure with them
The Liberal Unionists? Are you sure? I'd disagree on that point.
I'd place organisational failure of the Liberal party as a primary factor, but the Liberal Unionist departure wouldn't be up there.
Admittedly they were slightly earlier (1880s/1890s but that's when the rot really started, and arguably part of the reason why the Liberals felt the need to do a deal with Labour)
The Cavendish family provides oodles of money and local organisation in the northern parts of the midlands. Joe Chamberlain and his sons delivered Birmingham.
Correlation vs causation in terms of end of an era. The movement of the Liberal Unionists wasn't the primary cause of that either, but rather the result and symptom of larger factors.
Prior to the secret ballot coming in 1872 pretty much all votes were Liberal or Conservative (indeed in the earlier 19th century it's essentially a pre-democracy era that makes comparisons more difficult). The secret ballot led to the emergence of other parties, particularly in Ireland that changed the scene of British politics dramatically.
Prior to that the Liberals had dominated Ireland (with rare exceptions) for the latter half of the 19th century (compare the Irish repeal group which first competed with then allied with the Liberal party in Ireland). If they'd opposed Irish Home Rule to keep hold of the Liberal Unionists they'd have lost support elsewhere.
Take the 1906 election. The Liberal party won it with a massive majority and were getting donations in faster than they could spend them. They made hundreds of thousands (millions in todays money) of profit on that election alone. Equally they still had plenty of support elsewhere in terms of money and organisation.
It's not really credible to declare after 1886 the Conservatives were the natural party of government, they were in office for 20 years-ish, followed by 10 years of Liberal government that only ended due to a Liberal party split. That that split led to further Conservative dominance is not down to the Liberal Unionists.
The Liberal Unionist shift (Chamberlain's belief in Tariff reform meant it was coming for a variety of reasons) was a blow but it was a symptom of other things rather than a cause, and not the start of the 'rot' in any meaningful sense.
However it displeases me when those allegations are made after the people accused are dead. From all of them named so far only Rolf Harris is still alive. Did anyone have the guts to go to the press and the police while they where alive or did the police and the press refused to investigate while they where alive?
The Cyril Smith case involved lots of people coming forward over many years with investigations being actively prevented.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
Politics actually, if you where a rising party member would you go to the police and risk ruin for your party or go to your party first to try and deal with it internally far away from the press?
Also the destruction of files in 1996 by the Major government would point to a possible cover up again for political reasons, imagine if all those dossiers and files had fallen to the hands of Blair.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
I'm asking what would anyone in that position do and i'm not expecting a straight answer since publicly saying the police first is acceptable, but whether you would do it we will never know if you are not in the same position. The public answer is of course the police, the logical one would be your party boss or superior.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
Politics actually, if you where a rising party member would you go to the police and risk ruin for your party or go to your party first to try and deal with it internally far away from the press?
Also the destruction of files in 1996 by the Major government would point to a possible cover up again for political reasons, imagine if all those dossiers and files had fallen to the hands of Blair.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
I'm asking what would anyone in that position do and i'm not expecting a straight answer since publicly saying the police first is acceptable, but whether you would do it we will never know if you are not in the same position. The public answer is of course the police, the logical one would be your party boss or superior.
As the allegations concerned the high ups in the party, I would not start there.
Nonetheless if I did and was given the brush off, I would take my dossier to the police.
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
It's just an example of how people generally don't want reputation damage to the institution they're a part of - which is what leads to all this.
As Tebbitt admitted on last weeks Marr show
It's weird how the Tories on here are still denying it, when one of the top people has admitted it
It's natural people don't like to believe it.
Child abuse is an odd because it's one of the most serious crimes and yet gets covered up a lot because most people can't stand even thinking about it.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
Really? It sounds to me that the "whistleblower" had no evidence at all, so was just spreading rumours.
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
If he was a witness to a crime then that is evidence!
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
PoliticsBlair.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
I'm asking what would anyone in that position do and i'm not expecting a straight answer since publicly saying the police first is acceptable, but whether you would do it we will never know if you are not in the same position. The public answer is of course the police, the logical one would be your party boss or superior.
As the allegations concerned the high ups in the party, I would not start there.
Nonetheless if I did and was given the brush off, I would take my dossier to the police.
Not 30 years later to a tabloid paper.
What if the dossier was already given to the party boses and then destroyed, what would the police have to investigate especially with the government breathing down their necks? There are now many cases in which the authorities did not do their job because of government pressure.
That is one reason why all of this is coming out now, its because the people involved are now far away from power.
Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia and drugging of underage boys is best investigated internally by a party rather than by the police?
It's just an example of how people generally don't want reputation damage to the institution they're a part of - which is what leads to all this.
As Tebbitt admitted on last weeks Marr show
It's weird how the Tories on here are still denying it, when one of the top people has admitted it
Which Tories on here are denying it?
All I have seen is a call for an evidence based investigation, rather than stories about unnamed individuals or the dead.
Hysteria is no way to get to the truth.
Jimmy Savile fans refused to believe it at first I suppose. I didn't want to hear it about Rolf Harris.
What I am saying is that child abuse is ridiculously difficult to prove, most often because it is committed by someone in a position of authority, and the phrase 'this conversation is finished' to a junior employee who reports of hearing of abuse by a senior employee, because he can't prove it, doesn't inspire confidence, in the current climate.
Especially when people in very high places at the time have admitted the cover up happened because protecting the establishment was seen as more important.
Comments
The Tories arent going to win Thurrock. If they stood aside Labour wouldn't win it either
I reckon there will be some kind of agreement not to run too hard in certain seats on both sides
:NOTE-this-is-not-a-comment-on-site-moderation:
However, people like Mr. G., really do not care about that level of detail. It is independence that matters, that Scots should be taking decisions about Scotland. Short term issues such as the future of a few shipyards are too short term to be worth worrying about at this stage. I can understand that view and if I was a Scot I would probably be a holder of it.
Unfortunately, I think it entirely possible that by failing to have done the hard thinking on issues such as currency in advance the Yes people have thrown away the chance of winning. There are too few people who will vote for a leap into the unknown based on a principle and a hope. A lesson perhaps for the BOO types.
But 'The Labour Party' with 29 seats existed in 1906. They had a wider platform and a firmer trade union base than UKIP have who remain funded by one obsessive millionaire.
Your remarks also point to what a wide coalition the Conservatives are (and reinforce my point that Cameron like Macmillan is a mainstream Conservative; Hesletine came from the National Liberals didn't he?) and how quite silly and ignorant it is to misrepresent them.
As far as the future - Cameron has said he does not want an ever closer union. Neither do I. The whole future resolves around Cameron - if re-elected - keeping us in the single market, out of Schengen and at arms length from the core closer union of the EU whilst protecting our financial sector and levels of inward investment. The alternative is to be in the EEA, which let's be honest is not much different except we get no votes.
I do not trust Farage in doing any of this, his policy would be to walk out and get some fantasy deal afterwards - there is no guarantee of the consequences for the UK once out.
Nor do I trust Miliband to do any of the above; socialists want us closer to the EU.
Strangely I think only Cameron will offer a referendum. My understanding is that Farage would simply walk out. Farage will not gain power of course - his sole possibility is to hand power to Labour.
Havent been to Scotland in something like 35 years and found the Scots we met to be very friendly (and the waether was very kind) and whilst I hope they stay wish them all the best if they choose to leave.
PS. Watched an intersting debate on independence on tv whilst up in the Highlands didn't catch the start so unsure of the names but there was a shouty businessman who was passionate about staying and I found the Labour woman (youth employment spokesperson?) quite impressive.
SNP really had no answers to the economic points being put other than to repeat "people say we to wee or poor....
PPS - Those of you from the Highlands live in a very special place, absolutely stunning.
a) it means that Labour can't promise a referendum without it being seen as a defeat to UKIP
b) UKIP look weaker when it doesn't happen
The Conservative party has been hollowed out in much of the country. Its supporters in the countryside and small to medium-sized towns have very little in common with it's supporters in the Metropolis (Labour has similar problems).
Current political circumstances don't suggest that UKIP is going to go away.
More wonderful wishful thinking from "UKIP for Miliband and no referendum".....
@malcolmg gone? I seriously doubt anyone was offended by him but of course 'tis not my site.
If there had actually been any witches bringing ruin on the population with nasty spells then a witch hunt would have been right and proper.
This scandal appears to be in the latter category and its making forecasting the next election about as practical as two blokes in a pub on 2nd September 1939 discussing the probable result of the 1942 world cup.
We have yet to see a country or a part of a country declare Independence and so by so doing leave the EU and NATO. Whilst national independence is an ideal viewed by many, economic reality and security often change minds.
It is very difficult in the rapidly changing technological and global environment to project very far into the future, whilst decisions made now could have far-reaching and perhaps disastrous effects in he next 10-20 years. It would appear the Salmond has based his projections on a declining asset (N Sea energy) whilst not having other scenarios tested and in place. Yes independence is a nice feeling, but it could mean that some/many of your people will have to bIte a very hard bullet.
The Conservative party has been hollowed out in much of the country. Its supporters in the countryside and small to medium-sized towns have very little in common with it's supporters in the Metropolis (Labour has similar problems).
Current political circumstances don't suggest that UKIP is going to go away.
You are likely right, Sean, but the splintering of the centre-right support may well mean that we end up with a Labour Government, which will be the worst option for the Conservatives and most of UKIP. I don't think that any result is nailed on at present and I doubt much will change until after the Party Conferences, after which the election campaign really swings into action.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Of course ideally that is how they would portray it to the Scottish nation - we'll have to look after the pennies for a few years but in the end glory will be ours...FREEDOM.
Something like that.
But a moment's dalliance would reveal that such apparent rudeness is but another rhetorical device.
In addition to general fact of the allegation, there is potentially more trouble with Baroness Butler-Sloss continuing as head of inquiry.
A great film, not in any small part because it inspired me to read the best novel ever written, The Count of Monte Cristo
Do the majority of scots favour or want to be ruled by Salmond and the SNP forever and ever? The answer is no, so they vote no.
This focus on the victim puts those using them in a very different light to what was thought at the time. Their conduct is now regarded as disgusting and perverted rather than morally reprehensible. I think it is this change in the moral standard that makes it almost believable that some of this was covered up or given little weight at the time. It simply was not thought about in the way we now think about it.
In scotland they have different newspapers and TV stations than the rest of the country and their separate sports leagues, I believe that if they read and saw the same news and entertainment as the rest of the country they will be more like the rest of the country.
In wales its the same but at a smaller magnitute that is around the welsh language.
Bearing in mind how few of the public can name any current politicians other than the Prime Minister, I am not surprised by the lack of knowledge of politicians of the eighties. Cyril Smith was a larger than life character, but the rest are forgotten men.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488481/EXCLUSIVE-MP-daughter-sexually-abused
To put it in trendily meaningless jargon, the internet is both the arrival and the end of monoculture (I joke, but that kind of makes sense in my head).
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
I suspect that, in GEs, the absolute maximum vote for a UKIP style manifesto is around 20-25%. The Tories approached that (I think they were c. 32%) in 2001 and 2005, but still had some loyalty support from the centre-right.
So the best that UKIP can do is hurt the cause of the right.
Even if they were to take all the current UKIP support (c. 12%), and let's say 2/3 of the current Tory support (+22%), they would still only be where the Tories are currently.
Sometimes you need to appreciate the strategic lie of the ground. The British people, as a whole, are moderate, tolerant and forward looking. UKIP appeals to a minority.
Certainly one of the best, but only if read in the original - some of the English translations leave a lot to be desired. However, it does depend on your criteria of what constitutes a good novel.
Frederick Forsythe's "Odessa File" had me riveted, once I started reading it I didn't leave my chair until I had finished it, even though I ran out of cigarettes about two thirds of the way through. His "Day of the Jackal" had the same effect, though this time I was prepared and laid in extras stocks of fags before I opened the book. James Clavell's "Shogun" was another marathon read, though his other books (with the possible exception of Tai-Pan) never quite gripped in the same way. For me though the ultimate in page turners was Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". Happily, that book arrived on the Friday, and so was waiting for me when I got home from work, and Herself was away for the weekend, the cats got fed but that was about all.
Some will say that such authors as Forsythe, Clavell, Clancy are trivia, the modern day opium of the masses and that great novels are from great people that nobody normal actually reads. Hardy, Trollop, Dostoyevsky, Dickens and all the rest. Yeah, well literature is just some poncy snob, who probably hasn't read the books anyway, telling the masses that they are wrong, ignorant and sad.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/north-korea-is-telling-its-citizens-that-their-team-is-in-the-world-cup-final/
Complete with video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJoRZOK18Fg
Surprising claim by the Pope:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28282050
Its interesting that today the Labour Mirror has taken a party political approach (relying on the testimony of someone not selected for a safe seat), when it appears likely that all three parties had MPs and others up to no good (and its a Labour Peer whose office and home have been searched by the Police):
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172
Back in the real world: Germany should win tonight, but the Argies can park the bus fairly effectively. It doesn't look a goalfest. I am going 2:0 to Germany. Jr forecast these two finalists back in June with the Argies winning 2:1.
“The civil servant told me ‘I’ve been made aware of your letter and the very serious allegations in there. Can you substantiate any of the claims?’ I told him I was flagging up things I had seen.......
“I was asked if there was any evidence and I told him it would emerge in time. The civil servant then said ‘What you’ve said is extremely libelous and slanderous. This meeting is finished’.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172#ixzz37Lt2mQb4
Unfortunately since then no one has thought such a story would be remotely credible.
I'd place organisational failure of the Liberal party as a primary factor, but the Liberal Unionist departure wouldn't be up there.
The position of the Conservatives today is exactly the same as New Labour and with trying to please the center they have annoyed their base which is drifting to another party.
I would have thought many child abuse victims would remember being spoken to in similar terms
Also from the article you link to
"Her former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison has already been named in connection with a probe into the Bryn Estyn children’s home in Wrexham where Jimmy Savile allegedly molested boys.
Mrs Thatcher lobbied for Savile to be given a knighthood and he visited her at Chequers on at least 11 occasions."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172#ixzz37LzASF6y
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
I couldn't agree more although I'm more of a Tom Knox man myself.
The Robin Buss translation is the best I've read
Allegations without evidence are worse than useless, they just discredit everybody.
The Cavendish family provides oodles of money and local organisation in the northern parts of the midlands. Joe Chamberlain and his sons delivered Birmingham.
This is from Wiki, for what it's worth:
The political impact of the Liberal Unionist breakaway marked the end of the long nineteenth century domination by the Liberal party of the British political scene. From 1830 to 1886 the Liberals (the name the Whigs, Radicals and Peelites accepted as their political label after 1859) had been managed to become almost the party of permanent government with just a couple of Conservative interludes. After 1886 it was the Conservatives who enjoyed this position and they received a huge boost with their electoral and political alliance with a party of disaffected Liberals.
Though not numerous, the Liberal Unionists boasted having within their ranks the vast bulk of the old Whig aristocracy as represented by the stolid Duke of Devonshire. ... The Duke of Devonshire's political partner, the 'radical imperialist' Joseph Chamberlain was from a very different background, a businessman and a Unitarian. ... Though the Liberal Unionist party disappeared as a separate organisation in 1912, the Chamberlain legacy helped keep the industrial powerhouse of Birmingham from returning to the Liberal party and would only be changed once more in 1945 in the Labour Party electoral landslide of that year. It also remained a profound influence on Chamberlain's sons Austen and Neville Chamberlain, who, when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party and thus became Prime Minister in 1937, told an audience how proud he was of his Liberal Unionist roots. This isn't surprising. Neither Neville or Austen actually stood for Parliament as a Conservative candidate — their local political association in Birmingham (the local Conservative and Liberal Unionist associations merged in 1919) preferred to call themselves Unionist rather than Conservative during this time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Unionist_Party
What did you expect the civil servant to do?
Then the failure to act is quite understandable, though morally right.
The basic problem is that fi all that's needed to launch an investigation is one person's allegation, it's too easy for anyone to get an investigation started, perhaps out of a simple grudge, perhaps for political reasons.
Preventing people from crying wolf without impeding the genuine whistle blowers is not a trivial problem, but it has to be addressed. For example, one obvious measure would be to make false allegations a criminal offence, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying wouldn't be easy, and the fear of being dragged into court would discourage genuine whistle blowers.
Morrison, I mentioned him yesterday because I went through all the sex scandals of the Thatcher era, however he is not the yesterday's alledged by the Sunday People minister who clearly say that the alledged person was a minister in 1982 and 1986 and considered a rising star in 1982.
However since Tebbit said that they heard rumours about Morrison so probably did Thatcher.
There is no question now that this was flying around in the 80's, but whether there was obstruction of justice and a cover up by the Tories.
This will be a blow to Thatcher's legacy.
Perhaps "a reasonable belief, after due and careful enquiry" or some such phrasing affording the accuser a safe harbor with the consequence that they couldn't be sued for malicious falsehood, or that (in the case of libel) their potential liability was capped.
Of course, the correct place to report a crime is to the police, not to a civil service.
But it all sounds just like scurrilous rumour to me.
I understand there are such things as false accusations, but it seems the Tories on here don't believe any of the claims against Tories, but link to articles that smear labour
Norman Tebbit gave the game away last week
The tone used by the civil servant implies he wants the matter to go no further rather than be investigated
"Sir the female PE teacher keeps touching me where I don't want to be touched"
HM"have you any evidence to substantiate this claim"
Girl " no but it will become obvious, she does it to others too"
HM "What you have said us extremely slanderous. this conversation is finished"
There needs to be some grounds for investigation, not just a statement that "evidence will emerge in time"!
I am not a Tory, and never was a Thatcher fan, but just wanting an investigation based on facts!
http://static1.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/a_scale_large/4900-8/photos/1402688903-first-day-of-world-cup-matches-at-copacabana-beach_4999218.jpg
Also the destruction of files in 1996 by the Major government would point to a possible cover up again for political reasons, imagine if all those dossiers and files had fallen to the hands of Blair.
From all of them named so far only Rolf Harris is still alive.
Did anyone have the guts to go to the press and the police while they where alive or did the police and the press refused to investigate while they where alive?
It seems to me they're just trying to establish that these parties at Dolphin Square and Conferences existed.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-child-abuse-whistleblower-margaret-3849172#ixzz37Lt2mQb4
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
Correlation vs causation in terms of end of an era. The movement of the Liberal Unionists wasn't the primary cause of that either, but rather the result and symptom of larger factors.
Prior to the secret ballot coming in 1872 pretty much all votes were Liberal or Conservative (indeed in the earlier 19th century it's essentially a pre-democracy era that makes comparisons more difficult). The secret ballot led to the emergence of other parties, particularly in Ireland that changed the scene of British politics dramatically.
Prior to that the Liberals had dominated Ireland (with rare exceptions) for the latter half of the 19th century (compare the Irish repeal group which first competed with then allied with the Liberal party in Ireland). If they'd opposed Irish Home Rule to keep hold of the Liberal Unionists they'd have lost support elsewhere.
Take the 1906 election. The Liberal party won it with a massive majority and were getting donations in faster than they could spend them. They made hundreds of thousands (millions in todays money) of profit on that election alone. Equally they still had plenty of support elsewhere in terms of money and organisation.
It's not really credible to declare after 1886 the Conservatives were the natural party of government, they were in office for 20 years-ish, followed by 10 years of Liberal government that only ended due to a Liberal party split. That that split led to further Conservative dominance is not down to the Liberal Unionists.
The Liberal Unionist shift (Chamberlain's belief in Tariff reform meant it was coming for a variety of reasons) was a blow but it was a symptom of other things rather than a cause, and not the start of the 'rot' in any meaningful sense.
Ireland meant much much more than Birmingham.
The public answer is of course the police, the logical one would be your party boss or superior.
It's weird how the Tories on here are still denying it, when one of the top people has admitted it
Nonetheless if I did and was given the brush off, I would take my dossier to the police.
Not 30 years later to a tabloid paper.
Child abuse is an odd because it's one of the most serious crimes and yet gets covered up a lot because most people can't stand even thinking about it.
All I have seen is a call for an evidence based investigation, rather than stories about unnamed individuals or the dead.
Hysteria is no way to get to the truth.
There are now many cases in which the authorities did not do their job because of government pressure.
That is one reason why all of this is coming out now, its because the people involved are now far away from power.
What I am saying is that child abuse is ridiculously difficult to prove, most often because it is committed by someone in a position of authority, and the phrase 'this conversation is finished' to a junior employee who reports of hearing of abuse by a senior employee, because he can't prove it, doesn't inspire confidence, in the current climate.
Especially when people in very high places at the time have admitted the cover up happened because protecting the establishment was seen as more important.