‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
PS Are the PKK still on the terrorist list? Are people allowed to fight with them against ISIS? Maybe they could have a special category like "friendly terrorist"?
They almost have a country now, they's are getting perilously close to what you mighty call "an army".
No, one or two Kippers might believe it but most of us don't. Most of us want a referendum at the earliest opportunity. We're just not prepared to throw in the whole party for the small offchance that Cameron will get in in 2015. Especially as we also care about other issues like civil liberties and immigration, which the Tories are useless on.
Mr. Charles, thanks, found it now. £4.99 for an e-book's a lot, although checking the paperback version shows it's over 1,100 pages, so at least there's some justification.
Individuals in GCHQ? Possibly, although this is the Guardian, whose write-ups, like the Daily Mail's, are invariably so tendentious, and mix up fact, speculation and misrepresentation so freely that who knows?
Luckily we have a distinguished and independent Commissioner who investigates allegations of this sort, and an all-party Select Committee which oversees the intelligence services.
I'm not aware of any suggestion from either of those that there has been systematic law-breaking.
‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
Kippers faith in their cause and the British public is touching they don't want to hold a referendum lest they lose it.
Sack up you Kippers.
Will you head off to Syria or Iraq if Ed wins in 2015?
Nah. I'm staying. It'll be fun winding up the Kippers for not giving us a referendum.
I must assume TSE that you do not wish for the UK to leave the EU. Because if you did support BOO then the calculation is very simple. If Cameron gets re - elected in 2015 then the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the next couple of decades is practically zero.
‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
Possibly. I dont think Cameron would welch on a referendum
But I think it is a bit of a strawman argument to bait UKIP voters with. Getting a referendum isn't the be all and end all for many, its not for me. Id rather get lots of UKIP MPs in parliament over the next 5-6 years and influence society that way.
Cameron has already said he would keep free movement of people even if we left the EU.. so why would I vote for him?
I know its a good arguing tactic you have as setting up a UKIP vote as illogical madness when Cameron is offering a referendum, but maybe UKIP voters aren't as motivated by that as you think... in fact you know they aren't.
What Carswell said about Camerons views on reform were what I suspected all along... The fact that he ledt a cushy life on the backbenches on the back of it says it all for me
Kippers faith in their cause and the British public is touching they don't want to hold a referendum lest they lose it.
Sack up you Kippers.
Will you head off to Syria or Iraq if Ed wins in 2015?
Nah. I'm staying. It'll be fun winding up the Kippers for not giving us a referendum.
I must assume TSE that you do not wish for the UK to leave the EU. Because if you did support BOO then the calculation is very simple. If Cameron gets re - elected in 2015 then the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the next couple of decades is practically zero.
I can see myself voting no in a referendum.
Unlike you Kippers I want a referendum pdq.
But thanks for admitting you're scared of democracy and the will of the British people
‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
No.
But, nor can I imagine Salmond advising his voters to vote Conservative, if Cameron had offered him a referendum on independence. The way to win a referendum is to maximise one's support at every level.
PS Are the PKK still on the terrorist list? Are people allowed to fight with them against ISIS? Maybe they could have a special category like "friendly terrorist"?
They almost have a country now, they's are getting perilously close to what you mighty call "an army".
The PKK and the Peshmerga are very different.
Links, please.
I believe the Turkey-PKK 'peace' deal last year was mainly done so that the PKK could release their fighters to fight in Syria under the auspices of the PYD.
Besides, since the two warring parties in the Kurdish Iraq civil war, the PUK and the KDP, both had their own 'Peshmerga' until they were combined this year, as did the Iranian Kurds, the term 'Peshmerga' is rather loose anyway.
I know its a good arguing tactic you have as setting up a UKIP vote as illogical madness when Cameron is offering a referendum, but maybe UKIP voters aren't as motivated by that as you think... in fact you know they aren't.
Indeed I do know that.
So either they have been lying, or I think more likely deluding themselves, when they pretended that the one thing they did want was a referendum, and the sooner the better.
Of course, what we now know for 100% certain is that Farage is one of the most dishonest senior politicians in the UK:
Much as the Scottish referendum will produce a No vote any EU referendum will result in a vote to stay in as long as Cameron can win a few acceptable concessions. That is really what the Booers are afraid of. My Lib Dem PPC has confided in me that he is no out and out europhile and privately supports Cammo's approach. However the party nationally probably won't countenance any public backing for the referendum.
Individuals in GCHQ? Possibly, although this is the Guardian, whose write-ups, like the Daily Mail's, are invariably so tendentious, and mix up fact, speculation and misrepresentation so freely that who knows?
Luckily we have a distinguished and independent Commissioner who investigates allegations of this sort, and an all-party Select Committee which oversees the intelligence services.
I'm not aware of any suggestion from either of those that there has been systematic law-breaking.
The media's not to be trusted but we can assume the state is keeping it all above board. Your state of servility is almost admirable.
1.8 million images collected in a six month probe. Must have been one hell of an individual. What does it say about the supervision of their individual agents that he got away with this for so long...
PS Are the PKK still on the terrorist list? Are people allowed to fight with them against ISIS? Maybe they could have a special category like "friendly terrorist"?
They almost have a country now, they's are getting perilously close to what you mighty call "an army".
It's amazing that all the people that think voting for Cameron in 2015 is the best way to leave the EU are actually people that want to stay in the EU.
Mr. Charles, thanks, found it now. £4.99 for an e-book's a lot, although checking the paperback version shows it's over 1,100 pages, so at least there's some justification.
0.5p per page, plus - just for you - and extra 10% thrown in for free.
No, one or two Kippers might believe it but most of us don't. Most of us want a referendum at the earliest opportunity. We're just not prepared to throw in the whole party for the small offchance that Cameron will get in in 2015. Especially as we also care about other issues like civil liberties and immigration, which the Tories are useless on.
Not only that but now that UKIP has a realistic chance of sending some representatives to Westminster the more MP's we get the more likely UKIP can directly influence the further developments on the EU whoever is in Downing Street.
Now is not the time to waste our votes on a party whose policy on the EU begins " IN EUROPE"
I know its a good arguing tactic you have as setting up a UKIP vote as illogical madness when Cameron is offering a referendum, but maybe UKIP voters aren't as motivated by that as you think... in fact you know they aren't.
Indeed I do know that.
So either they have been lying, or I think more likely deluding themselves, when they pretended that the one thing they did want was a referendum, and the sooner the better.
Of course, what we now know for 100% certain is that Farage is one of the most dishonest senior politicians in the UK:
Can you point to either a UKIP politician, or a UKIP supporter on here, that says an EU referendum is the "one thing they want". It is one of the things we want, but not the only thing.
I know its a good arguing tactic you have as setting up a UKIP vote as illogical madness when Cameron is offering a referendum, but maybe UKIP voters aren't as motivated by that as you think... in fact you know they aren't.
Indeed I do know that.
So either they have been lying, or I think more likely deluding themselves, when they pretended that the one thing they did want was a referendum, and the sooner the better.
Of course, what we now know for 100% certain is that Farage is one of the most dishonest senior politicians in the UK:
The media's not to be trusted but we can assume the state is keeping it all above board. Your state of servility is almost admirable.
1.8 million images collected in a six month probe. Must have been one hell of an individual. What does it say about the supervision of their individual agents that he got away with this for so long...
Well, maybe it was legal. If it wasn't legal it won't have been a single individual, but a group within GCHQ who broke the law. I don't know which, and nor do you.
However, 1.8 million images is hardly a surprise either way. Stick a computer on a network and collect images, and you'll soon have huge numbers. Would it better if it were 100,000?
I note you continue to ignore my main point, though. There is a massive difference in scale of damage to your civil liberties between having a computer store something about you which it shouldn't store - which you don't even know about - and having your statehood revoked.
If it wasn't legal it won't have been a single individual, but a group within GCHQ who broke the law. I don't know which, and nor do you.
No, because the policy of mass government spying and precisely what privacies we do or do not have is decided in secret by government without any public debate on where the right boundaries lie. That's not just illiberal, it's undemocratic.
However, 1.8 million images is hardly a surprise either way. Stick a computer on a network and collect images, and you'll soon have huge numbers. Would it better if it were 100,000?
Of course. 100,000 abuses of privacy would be less bad then 1.8 million.
I note you continue to ignore my main point, though. There is a massive difference in scale of scandal between having a computer store something about you which it shouldn't store - which you don't even know about - and having your statehood revoked.
You really do lack a sense of perspective.
Perspective deals with context. The people who are risking having their passports taken away are those secretly smuggling themselves into terrorist-controlled territory without a good reason why. The people who are having their personal communications spied on have done absolutely zero wrong. If you can't understand this difference you really do lack a sense of perspective.
In a sane world not warped by mad rightwing politics, the high influx of people to the UK, being sustained by the Tory led coalition, would be regarded as a positive by the chancellor. And probably secretly it is - it confirms the relative strength of the UK econmy versus the rest of Europe right now.
But the Tories couldn't be Tories without cravenly pandering to their foreign owned tabloid supporters, so they cannot champion that message. The irony is quite funny, except for the damage it does to the economy and to a public debate that sees too many people in low immigration towns like Clacton obsessing in the "immigratrion is bad" fairy story.
I can't see Labour only getting aboout 3% more than they did in 2010. They had been in government for 13 years, after a major banking crash. Labour will probably get a significant number of tactical votes from Lib Dems and I think some of the lost votes due to Iraq will come back to them. IMO Labour will score around 34% of the vote, with the Tories about the same. Lib Dems will do better than currently predicted at around 16%, with UKIP on around 10%. On the basis of Con/Lab at 34%, LD 16%, this would give you approx Con 270, Lab 316, Lib Dems 37. I predict UKIP winning about 3 or 4 seats, from the Tories.
That's got to have been one of the quickest climbdowns I've ever seen on pb!
It's not a climbdown at all. I don't know if the law was broken. Neither do you. All you are going on is a Guardian article. The difference is that I sensibly know the limits of what I know, whereas you don't.
We have what looks to me like a good, independent mechanism for overseeing the security services to ensure they remain within the law, as democratically determined by parliament. You persist in ignoring this.
If you have knowledge of illegal activity other than what you read in the Guardian (which I imagine the Commissioner already gets copies of), I suggest you send it to him.
Grahame Morris, a Labour MP, asks if British citizens serving in the Israeli Defence Force would be treated in the same way as Britons fighting for Isis.
Cameron says he does not accept that. Israel was protecting itself from terrorist attack, he says. Morris will regret making that comment, he says.
In a sane world not warped by mad rightwing politics, the high influx of people to the UK, being sustained by the Tory led coalition, would be regarded as a positive by the chancellor. And probably secretly it is - it confirms the relative strength of the UK econmy versus the rest of Europe right now.
But the Tories couldn't be Tories without cravenly pandering to their foreign owned tabloid supporters, so they cannot champion that message. The irony is quite funny, except for the damage it does to the economy and to a public debate that sees too many people in low immigration towns like Clacton obsessing in the "immigratrion is bad" fairy story.
In a sane world not warped by mad leftwing politics, people would be smart enough to realise something can be the effect of a positive thing (a recovering UK economy) while being the cause of other negative effects (lack of housing, school places, doctors appointments, community breakdown etc).
Incidentally, what about low immigration towns like Rotherham. Are people there stupid to obsess over the "immigration is bad" story?
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
Oh, and this bit from BenM's story shows there's plenty of rationalism about too:
"All else held constant, natives are more likely to oppose further immigration inflows to the UK if they live in regions where more immigrants are unemployed and unskilled. "
Didn't that nice Mr Clegg tell us that the EAW was needed in order to catch terrorists and paedophiles who fled abroad to escape justice?
Unclear why it's being used against these rather desperate parents. Whatever the ins and outs at the moment the parents are being prevented from being with their dying son and he is being deprived of the comfort of being with his parents. That is cruel.
What happens if he dies within the next 72 hours?
There seems to be a lack of humanity here by officialdom which is worrying.
Oh, and this bit from BenM's story shows there's plenty of rationalism about too:
"All else held constant, natives are more likely to oppose further immigration inflows to the UK if they live in regions where more immigrants are unemployed and unskilled. "
Didn't that nice Mr Clegg tell us that the EAW was needed in order to catch terrorists and paedophiles who fled abroad to escape justice?
Unclear why it's being used against these rather desperate parents. Whatever the ins and outs at the moment the parents are being prevented from being with their dying son and he is being deprived of the comfort of being with his parents. That is cruel.
What happens if he dies within the next 72 hours?
There seems to be a lack of humanity here by officialdom which is worrying.
Just a bit.. they are inferring that the parents dont have their childrens best interests at heart
Who could have predicted something like this a few years ago?
"For 21-year-old Ben Phillips, a £12,000 windfall is less than a minute away – six seconds, to be precise.
All he needs to do is upload a clip filmed on his smartphone to the social media platform Vine. If he mentions a product or brand, that company will pay him thousands of pounds.
Now the Cardiff local (pictured, above) gets paid up to £2,000 for each second of promoted video he uploads."
That's got to have been one of the quickest climbdowns I've ever seen on pb!
It's not a climbdown at all. I don't know if the law was broken. Neither do you. All you are going on is a Guardian article. The difference is that I sensibly know the limits of what I know, whereas you don't.
We have what looks to me like a good, independent mechanism for overseeing the security services to ensure they remain within the law, as democratically determined by parliament. You persist in ignoring this.
If you have knowledge of illegal activity other than what you read in the Guardian (which I imagine the Commissioner already gets copies of), I suggest you send it to him.
You can't even admit whether it's legal or illegal because the whole thing is clouded in secrecy! You dismiss newspaper reports of wrongdoing as untrustworthy, while having complete faith in the political elite doing the right thing, even when they won't admit what it actually is they are doing or not doing. This is even the case in areas like spying on webcam content that you think is wrong. It's amazing. You don't base your apologism for the security state on any information - you do it on blind faith in the state. This is the same state covered up the torture of the Mau Mau and the killings on Bloody Sunday, for God's sake.
And if you really think parliament is independent of the executive then you have absolutely no knowledge of how parliamentary governance works.
Natalie Bennett has been re-elected as leader of the Green Party of England and Wales for two more years (she was unopposed but there was a RON option).
Didn't that nice Mr Clegg tell us that the EAW was needed in order to catch terrorists and paedophiles who fled abroad to escape justice?
Unclear why it's being used against these rather desperate parents. Whatever the ins and outs at the moment the parents are being prevented from being with their dying son and he is being deprived of the comfort of being with his parents. That is cruel.
What happens if he dies within the next 72 hours?
There seems to be a lack of humanity here by officialdom which is worrying.
Yes, it's shocking barbarism.
Their child is dying. How about some tea and sympathy?
I'm sure malcolm will be delighted (or not) to learn that the 'Yes shop burnt down by No supporters' was in fact:
- Not a 'Yes' shop - but an empty shop with Yes stickers on it - It was a bin outside the shop that was set alight and - Not even the Yes stickers on the shop suffered damage.
I'm sure he'll be rushing to criticise those who spread such false and malicious rumours....or not...
Unionists trying to hide the truth no doubt, bet there was singing and smoke damage at least. Next you will eb saying the posters were there illegally.
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
He may come to wish he had, don't you think?
Perhaps, but not as much as if he had given up on the chance.
Mr. Jessop, that Labour clown shames the noble name of Morris. What an arse.
Mr. JS, reminds me of the ancient Chinese saying (oft-quoted in Three Kingdoms, I think): don't worry about officials, except those who officiate over you.
‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
No.
But, nor can I imagine Salmond advising his voters to vote Conservative, if Cameron had offered him a referendum on independence. The way to win a referendum is to maximise one's support at every level.
He could not pay them to vote Tory in any case even if he wanted.
In a sane world not warped by mad rightwing politics, the high influx of people to the UK, being sustained by the Tory led coalition, would be regarded as a positive by the chancellor. And probably secretly it is - it confirms the relative strength of the UK econmy versus the rest of Europe right now.
But the Tories couldn't be Tories without cravenly pandering to their foreign owned tabloid supporters, so they cannot champion that message. The irony is quite funny, except for the damage it does to the economy and to a public debate that sees too many people in low immigration towns like Clacton obsessing in the "immigratrion is bad" fairy story.
Indeed. And with Lynton they're becoming even more barmy, trying to out-kip the kippers.
Unfortunately for the Tories - and Rightwing politics in general - that strategy is only giving the Kippers even more momentum, and splitting the Right.
Which of course is great news for Labour and the sane centre/left of British politics.
You can't even admit whether it's legal or illegal because the whole thing is clouded in secrecy! You dismiss newspaper reports of wrongdoing as untrustworthy, while having complete faith in the political elite doing the right thing, even when they won't admit what it actually is they are doing or not doing. This is even the case in areas like spying on webcam content that you think is wrong. It's amazing. You don't base your apologism for the security state on any information - you do it on blind faith in the state. This is the same state covered up the torture of the Mau Mau and the killings on Bloody Sunday, for God's sake.
And if you really think parliament is independent of the executive then you have absolutely no knowledge of how parliamentary governance works.
Well, have you any better ideas? I most certainly do not have blind faith in the state, but we currently have supervision by an independent Commissioner, who is a very respected Judge and whose independence and probity have not, as far as I know, ever been doubted, and a cross-party Select Committee which is most certainly independent of the executive. Can you come up with a better way of overseeing the secret services (the clue to the difficulty is in the word 'secret')?
We also have a free and independent press, which still plays an important part despite the best efforts of Hacked Off and Ed Miliband to submit it to state-approved supervision.
Note the reference to Ken Livingstone being, as ever, on the wrong side of the issue.
At last Labour politicians are standing up for people like us... in a few years the lemmings who vote for them no matter what might rumble whats been happening as well
Mr. Llama, I'd baulk at buying an e-book costing that much unless it were pretty damned sizeable.
Working in dollars (that's how pricing is set, for both Smashwords and Amazon) it's $7.98, which is either near or over the 70% royalty threshold (I think, haven't checked it for a while) for Amazon, which is also a consideration.
Kippers faith in their cause and the British public is touching they don't want to hold a referendum lest they lose it.
Sack up you Kippers.
Will you head off to Syria or Iraq if Ed wins in 2015?
Nah. I'm staying. It'll be fun winding up the Kippers for not giving us a referendum.
I must assume TSE that you do not wish for the UK to leave the EU. Because if you did support BOO then the calculation is very simple. If Cameron gets re - elected in 2015 then the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the next couple of decades is practically zero.
I can see myself voting no in a referendum.
Unlike you Kippers I want a referendum pdq.
But thanks for admitting you're scared of democracy and the will of the British people
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
It has always been clear (although it has taken some like Carswell a while to realise it) that Cameron will simply not allow the UK to leave the EU. He can and will make sure that the public is thoroughly misled about what he has achieved in any spurious renegotiation and will then use fear to ensure the vote goes the right way. If you want a referendum for its own sake then by all means support Cameron. If you actually want to leave the EU then you need to look at alternative strategies because the one you are pinning your hopes on is a dead end.
Nothing in that column argues for a limit on free movement of labour.
There was me thinking the clue was in the headline. And as an example this closing statement - ''The EU of today is very different from the EU of 30 years ago. We need to face the fact that free movement has become a trigger for vast population movements caused by huge disparities in income. That is extracting talent out of countries that need to retain their best people and placing pressure on communities. It is time for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.''
Your statement is preposterous. But it is a typical baseless anti Cameron statement bereft of logic and which stands the facts on their head. 'Free movement of labour' has limits even now. There have always been transitional arrangements and we have our problems because Labour ignored them and we became the only destination in Europe after 2004. Also the rules are to go to a job not to search for a job. So the logic behind some change is sound and there is nothing at all against the principle in modifying the rules.
Any agreement with the EU if we left would have to involve free movement of Labour and membership of the single market. The result would be very little different to now and even less different from any new agreement we could negotiate from within.
The new entrant countries will gain in prosperity over time, they will retain their own workers and we will export our added value goods to them. If we leave we will only export entire indistries to them.
By the way not sure if this has been mentioned yet but received this notification today.
"Today, nominations open for the position of UKIP Party Leader as Nigel Farage MEP's four-year term is due to end on November 5.
Nominations close on Monday, September 15 at 5pm with the counting of the votes to take place on Thursday, October 23.
Two hustings are currently scheduled, one at the Annual Conference in Doncaster and the other in London at a time and place to be determined.
Any candidate wishing to stand for the position of UKIP Party Leader must be a member of the Party in good standing and should contact the Returning Officer ********** for further information.
All paid-up members in good standing of at least six months membership will be eligible to vote."
My thought is 10 out of 10 for democratic accountability but did no one actually consider when setting this up last time (I believe this is a relatively new initiative) that 4 years was going to be in the lead up to the GE and the party would be mad to change leader at that point.
Actually scrap that. I suspect they did consider that and that is why it is happening now. It makes Farage basically a shoe in which is probably the whole point.
Kippers faith in their cause and the British public is touching they don't want to hold a referendum lest they lose it.
Sack up you Kippers.
Will you head off to Syria or Iraq if Ed wins in 2015?
Nah. I'm staying. It'll be fun winding up the Kippers for not giving us a referendum.
I must assume TSE that you do not wish for the UK to leave the EU. Because if you did support BOO then the calculation is very simple. If Cameron gets re - elected in 2015 then the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the next couple of decades is practically zero.
I can see myself voting no in a referendum.
Unlike you Kippers I want a referendum pdq.
But thanks for admitting you're scared of democracy and the will of the British people
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
That you think the people cannot recognise the no doubt superficial changes that would be offered in any argument against leaving, and would in essence be fooled, suggests you don't think the people are intelligent enough to understand that, or that they are not as anti-EU as you want them to be, as they would accept the superficial changes.
I don't care if Cameron lies constantly (or rather whoever is PM by the time we finally have a referendum) about it - plenty of the media are on board now, so UKIP cannot whinge about the mainstream media denying them a voice or some such comment, they can make the argument that he and others are lying.
I think the British people, if given the choice, would vote to leave because they want to leave, regardless of the arguments Cameron or others make. That is why they have not been given the chance yet. I'm not saying anyone in UKIP should vote for Cameron in 2015 to make sure they get their referendum - it probably wouldn't help, and in any case many in UKIP would regard that as a step too far even if it did - but that UKIP think so little of their own persuasiveness, even in the face of recent popularity, to the point that they cannot fight a referendum campaign unless everyone else (or at least the sitting PM) is doing the campaigning for OUT for them, is depressing as hell.
In 2005, David Cameron MP voted for a reasoned amendment on the second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (which introduced control orders). It was that
This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because it contains excessive powers in relation to requirements on a person to remain at a particular place when such powers are not presently necessary; gives to the Executive powers that should be exercised by the judiciary; allows decisions to be made on an insufficient standard of proof; fails to address the need to bring terrorists to trial on the basis of all evidence available; and thus wrongly infringes the right to liberty of the individual. [HC Deb, 23 Feb 2005, cols 434-438]
Today, as Prime Minister, he announces the reintroduction of control orders, by amendments to their slightly re-branded and watered-down form. There is no conclusion to be drawn other than that the man is a base charlatan of the lowest kind.
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
Wow. What a low opinion you have of the UK electorate.
No I have a low opinion of the politicians. I do not hold to the idea that people get the politicians they deserve. I just believe that people in power are generally well placed to deceive the electorate and will do so should the need or opportunity arise.
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
Nothing in that column argues for a limit on free movement of labour.
There was me thinking the clue was in the headline. And as an example this closing statement - ''The EU of today is very different from the EU of 30 years ago. We need to face the fact that free movement has become a trigger for vast population movements caused by huge disparities in income. That is extracting talent out of countries that need to retain their best people and placing pressure on communities. It is time for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.''
Your statement is preposterous. But it is a typical baseless anti Cameron statement bereft of logic and which stands the facts on their head. 'Free movement of labour' has limits even now. There have always been transitional arrangements and we have our problems because Labour ignored them and we became the only destination in Europe after 2004. Also the rules are to go to a job not to search for a job. So the logic behind some change is sound and there is nothing at all against the principle in modifying the rules.
Any agreement with the EU if we left would have to involve free movement of Labour and membership of the single market. The result would be very little different to now and even less different from any new agreement we could negotiate from within.
The new entrant countries will gain in prosperity over time, they will retain their own workers and we will export our added value goods to them. If we leave we will only export entire indistries to them.
Utterly wrong from start to finish. I assume you were one of those also claiming that if we didn't join the Euro then we would lose all our industry. Your claims now are as stupid as those claims were then.
Once again Cameron 'needs' more legislation, something keep some of his side on grounds that something must done rather than making use of existing laws.
That you think the people cannot recognise the no doubt superficial changes that would be offered in any argument against leaving, and would in essence be fooled, suggests you don't think the people are intelligent enough to understand that, or that they are not as anti-EU as you want them to be, as they would accept the superficial changes.
I don't care if Cameron lies constantly (or rather whoever is PM by the time we finally have a referendum) about it - plenty of the media are on board now, so UKIP cannot whinge about the mainstream media denying them a voice or some such comment, they can make the argument that he and others are lying.
I think the British people, if given the choice, would vote to leave because they want to leave, regardless of the arguments Cameron or others make. That is why they have not been given the chance yet. I'm not saying anyone in UKIP should vote for Cameron in 2015 to make sure they get their referendum - it probably wouldn't help, and in any case many in UKIP would regard that as a step too far even if it did - but that UKIP think so little of their own persuasiveness, even in the face of recent popularity, to the point that they cannot fight a referendum campaign unless everyone else (or at least the sitting PM) is doing the campaigning for OUT for them, is depressing as hell.
It strikes me as a rather shallow attitude to believe that the people would vote to leave simply because they have already made up their minds irrespective of the arguments put to them by politicians.
The referendum in 1975 clearly shows us that if your lie is big enough then people will believe it.
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
Wow. What a low opinion you have of the UK electorate.
No I have a low opinion of the politicians. I do not hold to the idea that people get the politicians they deserve. I just believe that people in power are generally well placed to deceive the electorate and will do so should the need or opportunity arise.
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
The fact is, human nature being what it is people pay more respect to people in positions of power.
If Cameron gets a majority, which will be on the back on of people switching back to Conservative from UKIP, the conclusion will be drawn that even people who flirted with UKIP eventually see sense and vote for Dave. He will be able to say "I always said I would try to keep us in, and these people voted for me on that platform".
He just wants power, as Carswell said, and will make any spurious claim to deceive people into voting him back in
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
God almighty, why do clever people play ignorant?
Isnt it obvious that people on positions of power get to control the media, what gets heard and what gets smothered? Look at the cases dominating the news...
If you were camapaigning for Fracking to be stopped, would you rather vote for a party you fundamentally disagreed with & who were pro Fracking, because they were promising a referendum, or get as many Green MPS into the Commons to make your position stronger before a referendum?
"Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in."
You seem obsessed with everyone being a liar or telling lies. Do you ever wonder whether maybe you have a problem?
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
God almighty, why do clever people play ignorant?
Isnt it obvious that people on positions of power get to control the media, what gets heard and what gets smothered? Look at the cases dominating the news...
If you were camapaigning for Fracking to be stopped, would you rather vote for a party you fundamentally disagreed with & who were pro Fracking, because they were promising a referendum, or get as many Green MPS into the Commons to make your position stronger before a referendum?
I believe the people of the UK should have a referendum on membership of the EU so I'm voting for a party that believes in giving one to them.
"Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in."
You seem obsessed with everyone being a liar or telling lies. Do you ever wonder whether maybe you have a problem?
Can we try and debate like grown ups and leave aside cheap smears?
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
God almighty, why do clever people play ignorant?
Isnt it obvious that people on positions of power get to control the media, what gets heard and what gets smothered? Look at the cases dominating the news...
If you were camapaigning for Fracking to be stopped, would you rather vote for a party you fundamentally disagreed with & who were pro Fracking, because they were promising a referendum, or get as many Green MPS into the Commons to make your position stronger before a referendum?
"Remember back to your early teachings, Anakin. All those who gain power are afraid to lose it. Even the Jedi."
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
I certainly do not think the UK should leave without a referendum. It is far too large a constitutional change for that to be the case.
What I do know is that if Cameron gets his way then in 2017 he will be calling a referendum on the basis that he and all the other main party leaders want to stay in and he will have it in his power to make the case that what he has negotiated is sufficient of a change to have us vote to remain in the EU.
Now clearly given that he has no way on earth of making that claim honestly because he simply hasn't enough time between now and 2017 to negotiate anything substantial that would be binding on the EU after the referendum. so we already know he is planning to deceive the electorate with what he has won back.
Do you disagree with that? Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? That is the basic question all those arguing for Cameron's referendum need to ask.
If the answer is yes then perhaps you can outline how that can happen (bearing in mind it would need a treaty change ratified by all the other EU member states)
If the answer is no then why should anyone who wants to leave believe that Cameron is playing honest broker here?
"Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in."
You seem obsessed with everyone being a liar or telling lies. Do you ever wonder whether maybe you have a problem?
Roger you really are in no position to comment on other's ethics given that you have always shown yourself to be utterly bereft of any morals or principles what so ever.
Now let the adults get back to actually debating the issues and crawl back to your fizzy French pop.
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
Wow. What a low opinion you have of the UK electorate.
No I have a low opinion of the politicians. I do not hold to the idea that people get the politicians they deserve. I just believe that people in power are generally well placed to deceive the electorate and will do so should the need or opportunity arise.
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
He just wants power, as Carswell said, and will make any spurious claim to deceive people into voting him back in
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
He could always try explaining to the electorate why they cant be trusted with a vote yet.
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
As I said to Neil the question is not some hypothetical as to whether you believe Cameron will be honest in the future but whether it is actually possible for him to achieve anything meaningful even if he starts negotiations tomorrow morning.
Anything he can achieve will be meaningless if it is not actually signed sealed and delivered before the referendum. For the sorts of things that most people would consider red lines that means treaty changes.
Do you honestly contend that we will have a treaty change done and dusted including ratification before 2017?
Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
He could always try explaining to the electorate why they cant be trusted with a vote yet.
Do you believe Carswell was being dishonest when he said that Cameron had made it clear he would only negotiate the bare minimum to fool the public into getting him a yes vote?
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
Wow. What a low opinion you have of the UK electorate.
No I have a low opinion of the politicians. I do not hold to the idea that people get the politicians they deserve. I just believe that people in power are generally well placed to deceive the electorate and will do so should the need or opportunity arise.
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
He just wants power, as Carswell said, and will make any spurious claim to deceive people into voting him back in
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
I think it's perfectly reasonable to distrust a man who makes a "cast iron guarantee" which he subsequently breaks. Don't you?
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Comments
‘My fellow columnist Tim Montgomerie could not have been more wrong when he wrote in yesterday’s Times Red Box blog that “Ukip voters don’t believe that the Tory leader is serious about the referendum”. The “let’s-get-out-now” brigade in British politics have a very different fear. They fear that Mr Cameron would indeed hold his referendum and win it.’
The Kippers here are already admitting that.
The curious thing is that that exactly what I was arguing before the election. Of course I was attacked by the usual suspects (but I did manage to set up a bet with Richard T, which will be very profitable if we do get a referendum).
The only point where Matthew Parris is perhaps slightly wrong is that it doesn't matter when the referendum is held; the Yes side will lose it.
That is why renegotiation is so important, although I do agree that it's an excellent idea to pretend that the Yes side might win.
No, one or two Kippers might believe it but most of us don't. Most of us want a referendum at the earliest opportunity. We're just not prepared to throw in the whole party for the small offchance that Cameron will get in in 2015. Especially as we also care about other issues like civil liberties and immigration, which the Tories are useless on.
Individuals in GCHQ? Possibly, although this is the Guardian, whose write-ups, like the Daily Mail's, are invariably so tendentious, and mix up fact, speculation and misrepresentation so freely that who knows?
Luckily we have a distinguished and independent Commissioner who investigates allegations of this sort, and an all-party Select Committee which oversees the intelligence services.
I'm not aware of any suggestion from either of those that there has been systematic law-breaking.
Can you imagine SNP winning in 2011, Cameron offering a referendum, and Salmond turning around and saying: "You know what, "No" are leading in our polling, can we wait a bit?".
But I think it is a bit of a strawman argument to bait UKIP voters with. Getting a referendum isn't the be all and end all for many, its not for me. Id rather get lots of UKIP MPs in parliament over the next 5-6 years and influence society that way.
Cameron has already said he would keep free movement of people even if we left the EU.. so why would I vote for him?
I know its a good arguing tactic you have as setting up a UKIP vote as illogical madness when Cameron is offering a referendum, but maybe UKIP voters aren't as motivated by that as you think... in fact you know they aren't.
What Carswell said about Camerons views on reform were what I suspected all along... The fact that he ledt a cushy life on the backbenches on the back of it says it all for me
Unlike you Kippers I want a referendum pdq.
But thanks for admitting you're scared of democracy and the will of the British people
But, nor can I imagine Salmond advising his voters to vote Conservative, if Cameron had offered him a referendum on independence. The way to win a referendum is to maximise one's support at every level.
I believe the Turkey-PKK 'peace' deal last year was mainly done so that the PKK could release their fighters to fight in Syria under the auspices of the PYD.
Besides, since the two warring parties in the Kurdish Iraq civil war, the PUK and the KDP, both had their own 'Peshmerga' until they were combined this year, as did the Iranian Kurds, the term 'Peshmerga' is rather loose anyway.
They had Labour ahead by 19 seats four days ago. Quite a big change.
Edit-Just seen they had a data error.
So either they have been lying, or I think more likely deluding themselves, when they pretended that the one thing they did want was a referendum, and the sooner the better.
Of course, what we now know for 100% certain is that Farage is one of the most dishonest senior politicians in the UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-would-do-a-deal-with-the-devil-to-get-eu-referendum-9407651.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29019238
1.8 million images collected in a six month probe. Must have been one hell of an individual. What does it say about the supervision of their individual agents that he got away with this for so long...
It's amazing that all the people that think voting for Cameron in 2015 is the best way to leave the EU are actually people that want to stay in the EU.
Bargain, ain't it!
Now is not the time to waste our votes on a party whose policy on the EU begins " IN EUROPE"
What he does is suggest something that sounds Eurosceptic, but knows wont be allowed by EU law, in order to win Eurosceptic votes... very transparent
However, 1.8 million images is hardly a surprise either way. Stick a computer on a network and collect images, and you'll soon have huge numbers. Would it better if it were 100,000?
I note you continue to ignore my main point, though. There is a massive difference in scale of damage to your civil liberties between having a computer store something about you which it shouldn't store - which you don't even know about - and having your statehood revoked.
You really do lack a sense of perspective.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/add36222-56be-11e3-ab12-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz31VDjOEy4
@jdportes · 8h
"Policy makers caught between (+ve) actual impacts & perceived (-ve) impacts of immigration". http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/mind-the-gap-immigration/ … @yvonmarkaki summary
In a sane world not warped by mad rightwing politics, the high influx of people to the UK, being sustained by the Tory led coalition, would be regarded as a positive by the chancellor. And probably secretly it is - it confirms the relative strength of the UK econmy versus the rest of Europe right now.
But the Tories couldn't be Tories without cravenly pandering to their foreign owned tabloid supporters, so they cannot champion that message. The irony is quite funny, except for the damage it does to the economy and to a public debate that sees too many people in low immigration towns like Clacton obsessing in the "immigratrion is bad" fairy story.
We have what looks to me like a good, independent mechanism for overseeing the security services to ensure they remain within the law, as democratically determined by parliament. You persist in ignoring this.
If you have knowledge of illegal activity other than what you read in the Guardian (which I imagine the Commissioner already gets copies of), I suggest you send it to him.
Incidentally, what about low immigration towns like Rotherham. Are people there stupid to obsess over the "immigration is bad" story?
"All else held constant, natives are more likely to oppose further immigration inflows to the UK if they live in regions where more immigrants are unemployed and unskilled. "
Unclear why it's being used against these rather desperate parents. Whatever the ins and outs at the moment the parents are being prevented from being with their dying son and he is being deprived of the comfort of being with his parents. That is cruel.
What happens if he dies within the next 72 hours?
There seems to be a lack of humanity here by officialdom which is worrying.
Who could have predicted something like this a few years ago?
"For 21-year-old Ben Phillips, a £12,000 windfall is less than a minute away – six seconds, to be precise.
All he needs to do is upload a clip filmed on his smartphone to the social media platform Vine. If he mentions a product or brand, that company will pay him thousands of pounds.
Now the Cardiff local (pictured, above) gets paid up to £2,000 for each second of promoted video he uploads."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11049015/Britains-social-media-stars-making-2000-a-second.html
EDIT
.. & Cameron didn't knock the idea
"Sex education should start at seven, Lib Dems say":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28934047
And if you really think parliament is independent of the executive then you have absolutely no knowledge of how parliamentary governance works.
Officialdom has always been a bit like that, but it seems to be getting worse.
Yay.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100027989/what-went-wrong-with-conservative-party-modernisation/
Their child is dying. How about some tea and sympathy?
Perhaps, but not as much as if he had given up on the chance.
Mr. JS, reminds me of the ancient Chinese saying (oft-quoted in Three Kingdoms, I think):
don't worry about officials, except those who officiate over you.
Note the reference to Ken Livingstone being, as ever, on the wrong side of the issue.
"Telegraph readers can't be trusted to leave sane, non racist comments beneath articles about Rotherham scandal."
Neither can their writers....
Unfortunately for the Tories - and Rightwing politics in general - that strategy is only giving the Kippers even more momentum, and splitting the Right.
Which of course is great news for Labour and the sane centre/left of British politics.
We also have a free and independent press, which still plays an important part despite the best efforts of Hacked Off and Ed Miliband to submit it to state-approved supervision.
" £4.99 for an e-book's a lot"
No, it isn't. Really, it isn't. When a glass of beer costs the best part of four quid paying a fiver for many hours of entertainment is not expensive.
Working in dollars (that's how pricing is set, for both Smashwords and Amazon) it's $7.98, which is either near or over the 70% royalty threshold (I think, haven't checked it for a while) for Amazon, which is also a consideration.
Clacton poll out tomorrow
"Full disclosure - author from Forfar!"
East Fife 4-Forfar 5
Thurrock MP stands... following in the UKIP policy.... too late JDP!
"They are a tax on NHS treatment"
Hmmm...
Where have I heard that before??!!!
twitter.com/AndrewMcMorrin/status/506414302723833857/photo/1
It has always been clear (although it has taken some like Carswell a while to realise it) that Cameron will simply not allow the UK to leave the EU. He can and will make sure that the public is thoroughly misled about what he has achieved in any spurious renegotiation and will then use fear to ensure the vote goes the right way. If you want a referendum for its own sake then by all means support Cameron. If you actually want to leave the EU then you need to look at alternative strategies because the one you are pinning your hopes on is a dead end.
And as an example this closing statement -
''The EU of today is very different from the EU of 30 years ago. We need to face the fact that free movement has become a trigger for vast population movements caused by huge disparities in income. That is extracting talent out of countries that need to retain their best people and placing pressure on communities. It is time for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.''
Your statement is preposterous. But it is a typical baseless anti Cameron statement bereft of logic and which stands the facts on their head.
'Free movement of labour' has limits even now. There have always been transitional arrangements and we have our problems because Labour ignored them and we became the only destination in Europe after 2004. Also the rules are to go to a job not to search for a job. So the logic behind some change is sound and there is nothing at all against the principle in modifying the rules.
Any agreement with the EU if we left would have to involve free movement of Labour and membership of the single market. The result would be very little different to now and even less different from any new agreement we could negotiate from within.
The new entrant countries will gain in prosperity over time, they will retain their own workers and we will export our added value goods to them. If we leave we will only export entire indistries to them.
"Today, nominations open for the position of UKIP Party Leader as Nigel Farage MEP's four-year term is due to end on November 5.
Nominations close on Monday, September 15 at 5pm with the counting of the votes to take place on Thursday, October 23.
Two hustings are currently scheduled, one at the Annual Conference in Doncaster and the other in London at a time and place to be determined.
Any candidate wishing to stand for the position of UKIP Party Leader must be a member of the Party in good standing and should contact the Returning Officer ********** for further information.
All paid-up members in good standing of at least six months membership will be eligible to vote."
My thought is 10 out of 10 for democratic accountability but did no one actually consider when setting this up last time (I believe this is a relatively new initiative) that 4 years was going to be in the lead up to the GE and the party would be mad to change leader at that point.
Actually scrap that. I suspect they did consider that and that is why it is happening now. It makes Farage basically a shoe in which is probably the whole point.
I don't care if Cameron lies constantly (or rather whoever is PM by the time we finally have a referendum) about it - plenty of the media are on board now, so UKIP cannot whinge about the mainstream media denying them a voice or some such comment, they can make the argument that he and others are lying.
I think the British people, if given the choice, would vote to leave because they want to leave, regardless of the arguments Cameron or others make. That is why they have not been given the chance yet. I'm not saying anyone in UKIP should vote for Cameron in 2015 to make sure they get their referendum - it probably wouldn't help, and in any case many in UKIP would regard that as a step too far even if it did - but that UKIP think so little of their own persuasiveness, even in the face of recent popularity, to the point that they cannot fight a referendum campaign unless everyone else (or at least the sitting PM) is doing the campaigning for OUT for them, is depressing as hell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
"Only with a new hub airport will Britain truly take off
It’s madness to reopen the debate about a third runway at Heathrow. A new site is the answer"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11066917/Only-with-a-new-hub-airport-will-Britain-truly-take-off.html
The referendum in 1975 clearly shows us that if your lie is big enough then people will believe it.
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
My poll in Clacton will be out tomorrow... Sign up at Lord Ashcroft Polls to get the results straight to your inbox: http://bit.ly/17zmETt "
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
If Cameron gets a majority, which will be on the back on of people switching back to Conservative from UKIP, the conclusion will be drawn that even people who flirted with UKIP eventually see sense and vote for Dave. He will be able to say "I always said I would try to keep us in, and these people voted for me on that platform".
He just wants power, as Carswell said, and will make any spurious claim to deceive people into voting him back in
Isnt it obvious that people on positions of power get to control the media, what gets heard and what gets smothered? Look at the cases dominating the news...
If you were camapaigning for Fracking to be stopped, would you rather vote for a party you fundamentally disagreed with & who were pro Fracking, because they were promising a referendum, or get as many Green MPS into the Commons to make your position stronger before a referendum?
"Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in."
You seem obsessed with everyone being a liar or telling lies. Do you ever wonder whether maybe you have a problem?
What I do know is that if Cameron gets his way then in 2017 he will be calling a referendum on the basis that he and all the other main party leaders want to stay in and he will have it in his power to make the case that what he has negotiated is sufficient of a change to have us vote to remain in the EU.
Now clearly given that he has no way on earth of making that claim honestly because he simply hasn't enough time between now and 2017 to negotiate anything substantial that would be binding on the EU after the referendum. so we already know he is planning to deceive the electorate with what he has won back.
Do you disagree with that? Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? That is the basic question all those arguing for Cameron's referendum need to ask.
If the answer is yes then perhaps you can outline how that can happen (bearing in mind it would need a treaty change ratified by all the other EU member states)
If the answer is no then why should anyone who wants to leave believe that Cameron is playing honest broker here?
Now let the adults get back to actually debating the issues and crawl back to your fizzy French pop.
"Can we try and debate like grown ups and leave aside cheap smears?"
Sorry but every other post from him is calling someone or other a liar. If he was interesting or funny it might be OK but he's just boorish.
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
Anything he can achieve will be meaningless if it is not actually signed sealed and delivered before the referendum. For the sorts of things that most people would consider red lines that means treaty changes.
Do you honestly contend that we will have a treaty change done and dusted including ratification before 2017?
Anything else can and will be reneged upon.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/stephen-twigg-apologises-after-mistakenly-7693284
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.