politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON hopes are based on the LDs flourishing in LAB-CON margi

MikeSmithson said:

Here is a complete list of Scottish LAB held seats where the SNP is within 10%

..

In elections where Labour was headed by Gordon Brown, son of the Manse.

It is now headed by Ed Miliband, son of the Mansion.

HYUFD said:

FB It is Merkel who has been pushing austerity on the rest of the EU, she has cut spending far more than both George Bushes ever did. Even Jeb Bush admires Sweden's free school programme, a model for Michael Gove, Finland selects at 16. Hollande has imposed a 75% tax on companies paying employees more than a million euros

I don't admire everything about Germany, their anal fiscal attitudes are rather maddening to a sensible Keynesian but they do have a sense of economic democracy with workers representatives on boards etc Of course you can cherry pick individual policies from those countries that English speaking conservatives might like, but overall they are not similar in outlook to the Tories or Republicans.

Can I urge everyone to join the tory team in Clacton tomorrow.... let's stand up for principle and loyalty and kick out Carswell and bring in Rev Oswald....

This has nothing to do with my potential winnings being over £4,200 should Rev O produce his own miracle!!

FPT

Corporeal:"They trotted out arguments of X,000 votes on average to elect a Labour MP while it has to be Y,000 votes on average to elect a Tory (and cut that off before noting the much larger totals for other parties).

If you believed in the principles that lead you to FPTP then making the change didn't make sense. If you believed in the principles that lead you to that change then you should want to get rid of FPTP."

Don't agree with this at all.

The idea behind FPTP is that it elects strong governments, so the party with the most votes can get a disproportional amount of seats. When it does that it is working as intended.

The problem comes when two parties get the same amount of votes, but one party gets a load more seats due to dodgy boundaries. For some reason you won't acknowledge this problem and try and conflate it with it not being an entirely proportional system.

In other words the usual dissembling rubbish from Lib Dems that now sees them on 6% of the vote and falling.

As a UKIP supporter, I'm more than happy to say that a referendum on the EU is not, for me, the most important thing. With a top layer of Government that is willing to undermine Britain's interests, as I believe we have now, what would be gained, even if we won, by de jure freedom one oppressive supranational organisation? A country cannot make a success of independence that way -we would be bankrupt and willing to permanently surrender all sovereignty within a few years.

The truth is I would far rather be in the EU with a Prime Minister who was utterly determined for this country to be free, prosperous, and independent (of all great powers, not just the EU) than outside of it with one who wasn't. It can surely be no coincidence that Margaret Thatcher managed to win concessions from both the US and the EU during her tenure, whereas all of her predecessors have conspicuously failed to do so, with an utterly unequal relationship with both.

The most important thing for me therefore is UKIP in parliament, and in due course Government, holding the big parties to account. Neither am I sorry to say I don't want this election to leave Cameron and his cabal in place. The Conservative Party needs a genuine leader, not one with Cameron's agenda. If anyone has an issue with this, tough cheese I'm afraid. Sorry not sorry.

Douglas Carswell Verified account ‏@DouglasCarswell
Senior Conservatives in Westminster snear at folk who vote #UKIP #VaccumCleaners #parris

Roy Allen‏@Roy_Allen·14s14 seconds ago
@DouglasCarswell And maybe they sneer at people who can't spell.

CopperSulphate said:

FPT

Corporeal:"They trotted out arguments of X,000 votes on average to elect a Labour MP while it has to be Y,000 votes on average to elect a Tory (and cut that off before noting the much larger totals for other parties).

If you believed in the principles that lead you to FPTP then making the change didn't make sense. If you believed in the principles that lead you to that change then you should want to get rid of FPTP."

Don't agree with this at all.

The idea behind FPTP is that it elects strong governments, so the party with the most votes can get a disproportional amount of seats. When it does that it is working as intended.

The problem comes when two parties get the same amount of votes, but one party gets a load more seats due to dodgy boundaries. For some reason you won't acknowledge this problem and try and conflate it with it not being an entirely proportional system.

In other words the usual dissembling rubbish from Lib Dems that now sees them on 6% of the vote and falling.

1. Most of the disparity is due to differential turnout, so wouldn't get rid of that
2. That happens more dramatically outside the big 2. See when the Lib Dems were close to Labour votes and miles off in seats. But the Tories ignored that.
3. The democratic basis for fptp is local community representation, connection to natural communities. That's the argument the tories have been pushing for years. Now they want to shift to and are now undermining.

In other words you don't really understand the underlying logic.

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.

Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.

My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

corporeal said:

tlg86 said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.

I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.

When did he tell you this?

Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.

Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.

What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.

There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.

I always thought that the deal was AV referendum = boundary changes. If it was AV Referendum and Lord Reform = boundary changes, then it shows that the Tories negotiated very badly in the first place.

The Lib Dems threw a wobbly because they thought that the referendum was a mere formality, and that the Tories wouldn't fight it very hard. Whether this was based on naivety or a private understanding between Clegg and Cameron, it basically meant that they were looking for an excuse to get one back.

With Lords Reform the commitment in the Coalition Agreement was very weak. It was, I think, simply to bring forward proposals, and when Tory backbenchers indicated that they were not going to meekly allow Clegg to push through any old bollocks that he fancied, it provided a fig leaf for the Lib Dems to pursue their revenge for the AV referendum.

It's all pretty childish, but the root cause was that Clegg completely failed to win the public debate on the AV referendum and he's got nobody to blame for that but himself.

In the grand scheme of things the boundary changes really weren't that important. I think they would have been worth something like 10 seats for Cameron? Small beer really.

The commitment to Lords reform was worded identically to boundary changes. Both were to "bring forward".

So if it was fine for the Tories to drop Lords reform, the same has to apply to the boundary changes.

Theuniondivvie said:

The backlash against the SNP must be about to hit any day now.

'Nicola Sturgeon tops politician trust rating poll

The Panelbase study for the SNP found 54 per cent of people believe Ms Sturgeon - who is almost certain to succeed Alex Salmond as First Minister next month - would stand up for the country’s interests compared to 24 per cent for the Prime Minister.
A third (33 per cent) of those surveyed said they did not trust Ms Sturgeon to represent Scottish interests, giving her an overall trust rating of +21 - higher than the ratings for all of the Scottish party and Westminster leaders.
Mr Salmond is the only other leader to have a positive trust rating, with the outgoing First Minister achieving a net score of +18.
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont was given a net rating of -5 by the research while Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson had a net score of -20 and Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie scored -28.
The three Westminster leaders had lower ratings, with Nick Clegg being scored at -58 in the research.
Almost three-quarters (71 per cent) of Scots do not trust him to stand up for Scotland’s interests, compared to the 13 per cent who think he would.
Mr Cameron’s net trust rating was -41 while Labour leader Ed Miliband fared slightly better with a rating of -38.'

Below is a list of Libdems with any kind of a positive rating in Scotland.

and yet the two most trusted politicians in Scotland couldn't persuade Scots to take their word on Independence.

Funny old world.

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.

Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.

My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.

So, is Scotland a country?

Country is a very flexible term.

@corporeal - "The commitment to Lords reform was worded identically to boundary changes. Both were to "bring forward".

So if it was fine for the Tories to drop Lords reform, the same has to apply to the boundary changes."

Rubbish with knobs on.

The coalition agreement was to work together to achieve a cross party consensus on Lord’s reform, it was not to automatically vote through a half-baked system proposed by Clegg that favoured the Lib Dems and was roundly rejected by both their partners and the Opposition.

In a fit of pique, Clegg reneged on boundary reform which was part of the Agreement as a quid pro quo for a referendum on AV. – As a principle of integrity and trustworthiness; it was not Clegg’s finest hour, to put it mildly.

another_richard said:

Ultimately Charles all that amounts to is that the magic money tree gets another shaking whenever this government wants to buy votes or whenever a political problem arises or whenever one of Cameron's pet projects needs to be funded.

Now all political parties are pretty much the same in that regard.

But I am someone for whom 'rebalancing the economy' and 'living within your means' are actually worthwhile ideas.

No, I advocated delaying cuts in one area and making bigger cuts in another.

The way I would see the difference in our positions is quite simple.

The UK economy is addicted to the stimulus that comes from high government spending and is ignoring the negative consequences.

You advocate cold turkey. I prefer a weaning strategy because I think the negative consequences of your approach would outweigh the benefits of dealing with the addiction quicker.

That's all it really comes down to. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good is my advice.

SimonStClare said:

@corporeal - "The commitment to Lords reform was worded identically to boundary changes. Both were to "bring forward".

So if it was fine for the Tories to drop Lords reform, the same has to apply to the boundary changes."

Rubbish with knobs on.

The coalition agreement was to work together to achieve a cross party consensus on Lord’s reform, it was not to automatically vote through a half-baked system proposed by Clegg that favoured the Lib Dems and was roundly rejected by both their partners and the Opposition.

In a fit of pique, Clegg reneged on boundary reform which was part of the Agreement as a quid pro quo for a referendum on AV. – As a principle of integrity and trustworthiness; it was not Clegg’s finest hour, to put it mildly.

Go read it. It says bring forward for both.

Utter nonsense.

The lords proposals were watered down massively with concession after concession made to the backbench tories, who finally made it clear they wouldn't support elections of any sort.

corporeal said:

tlg86 said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.

I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.

When did he tell you this?

Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.

Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.

What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.

There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.

You are too intelligent not to realise that is a lie.

The Tories promised to bring forward proposals, which they did (even though they were stupid). They were defeated on a timetabling motion at which point Nick Clegg threw his toys out of the pram (because he didn't feel the House should get to debate the reforms properly)

Ninoinoz said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Ninoinoz said:

Jonathan said:

It is interesting how the anti Tory theme holds. What makes them so consistently dislikable?

Their relish for throwing people they are supposed to represent under the nearest bus.

Latest example? Sellers of annuities.
Previous example? Social conservatives.

I can assure you, after it's happened to you, anyone but the Conservative Party is preferable.

Were the Tories really supposed to look after sellers of annuities? Or perhaps the buyers of these very poor value products? I am grateful for the latter!

And for Social Conservatives; I take it that you mean gay marriage, which becomes less remarkable by the day. It seems to make a few people happy, and has already become part of the fabric of British life.

The Conservatives are supposed to represent, amongst others, the financial interest in this country. The largest annuity industry in the world deserved a Green Paper at least, not to be crippled in an afternoon.

Similarly, changing a several thousand year institution deserved at least a mention in the manifesto or Coalition Agreement.

And demographics is a slow, but relentless, process you must remember.

Absolutely not. The Tories represent the voters of the country.

No industry, lobby or vested interest has the right to exist.

Plato said:

@oxfordsimon‌ - FPT you mentioned having both your ankles broken... IIRC that's where the expression "to be hobbled" comes from. Like being "hamstrung" is to have those tendons sliced.

Gruesome medieval stuff that's never quite died out.

Nah. Hobbling is a term from the cavalry.

Hobbles are the short chains linking horses legs allowing them to move around while restricting their movement (to short steps) so they don't wander off too far.

Theuniondivvie said:

So, is Scotland a country?

Scotland is whatever the Scots people wish it to be. Have a vote and grow a pair FFS!

corporeal said:

SimonStClare said:

@corporeal - "The commitment to Lords reform was worded identically to boundary changes. Both were to "bring forward".

So if it was fine for the Tories to drop Lords reform, the same has to apply to the boundary changes."

Rubbish with knobs on.

The coalition agreement was to work together to achieve a cross party consensus on Lord’s reform, it was not to automatically vote through a half-baked system proposed by Clegg that favoured the Lib Dems and was roundly rejected by both their partners and the Opposition.

In a fit of pique, Clegg reneged on boundary reform which was part of the Agreement as a quid pro quo for a referendum on AV. – As a principle of integrity and trustworthiness; it was not Clegg’s finest hour, to put it mildly.

The lords proposals were watered down massively with concession after concession made to the backbench tories, who finally made it clear they wouldn't support elections of any sort.

Having lost the AV referendum, Clegg reneged on boundary changes out of spite and on the advice of Lord Rennard. – Lets not re-write history or dress it up as anything other than what it was.

corporeal said:

Alanbrooke said:

corporeal said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Corporeal

Except that Lords reform was not dropped by the Tories, Clegg wanted to invoke the Parliament act to force it through in the summer of 2012. Labour and large elements in the Conservative party did not want to curtail debate on such an important consitutional issue.

Clegg then had a tizzy and abandoned the effort. There was the opportunity to keep the debate going and to convince the Commons of its wisdom, but that little piece of democracy did not suit him. The Labour party could have been persuaded as they were broadly in favour.

Cleggs action on this was stupid, as was the tuition fees debacle. The two biggest errors he made in government.

They wanted to filibuster it.
The tory rebels made it clear they wouldn't take elections.

Lab + LD + Most Tories is bigger than the Mark reckless faction.

Your justification is garbage.

Pfsh. Labour saw the opportunity for a good headline on divisions and aren't really committed to Lords reform.

Given the reforms Clegg propsed could you blame them ?

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.

Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.

So vote Conservative get Labour.

It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.

Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.

Or that UKIP have yet to prove themselves worthy of a positive vote. And yet to demonstrate the executive competence that is required for a serious political party (chicken & egg, I'll grant you)

OGH is very critical that the right doesn't vote tactically, while the left votes anti-Tory.

Personally I see that as the right voting for what they believe in (whether UKIP or Tory) which is a *good* thing (even if it may be less effective at winning in FPTP).

I won't vote UKIP, even though I have sympathy with some of UKIP's policies, because I don't want to see Farage anywhere near executive office.

Ridiculous circular argument. They've never been in office, so they shouldn't be voted into office. I won't bore you with Farage's CV, but he has at least held down a real world job. To prefer proven tits like Ed Balls, Chuka Ummuna, Caroline Flint etc. to be in office to Farage is indefensible from an administrative competence standpoint -utterly indefensible.

I think it's hilarious all the Conservative supporters on here this morning who would never support UKIP even to avoid the cataclysmic Labour Government that they've been warning us all of, but would expect UKIP voters to 'do the right thing' and ensure the Tories get back in. What an utter farce.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.

Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.

So vote Conservative get Labour.

It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.

Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.

Or that UKIP have yet to prove themselves worthy of a positive vote. And yet to demonstrate the executive competence that is required for a serious political party (chicken & egg, I'll grant you)

OGH is very critical that the right doesn't vote tactically, while the left votes anti-Tory.

Personally I see that as the right voting for what they believe in (whether UKIP or Tory) which is a *good* thing (even if it may be less effective at winning in FPTP).

I won't vote UKIP, even though I have sympathy with some of UKIP's policies, because I don't want to see Farage anywhere near executive office.

Ridiculous circular argument. They've never been in office, so they shouldn't be voted into office. I won't bore you with Farage's CV, but he has at least held down a real world job. To prefer proven tits like Ed Balls, Chuka Ummuna, Caroline Flint etc. to be in office to Farage is indefensible from an administrative competence standpoint -utterly indefensible.

I think it's hilarious all the Conservative supporters on here this morning who would never support UKIP even to avoid the cataclysmic Labour Government that they've been warning us all of, but would expect UKIP voters to 'do the right thing' and ensure the Tories get back in. What an utter farce.

So if EDM is PM and UKIP get 4 seats but more votes than the LDs, what is your and UKIP's strategy for 2020 and how to get a EU referendum before then?

corporeal said:

OblitusSumMe said:

tlg86 said:

corporeal said:

tlg86 said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

The Tories can't get a majority, but that's not what Dave wants anyway. He wants another coalition with the Lib Dems so he doesn't have to keep any of his promises.

I'm impressed you know Cameron's mind so well.

When did he tell you this?

Cameron, like most of today's politicians, only cares about his career. A repeat of the 2010 result would suit him nicely as he could blame them for not having an EU referendum.

Looking back it's clear that the Tories gave the Lib Dems everything they wanted. The main priority for the Tories was to be in power even though they'd achieve very little.

What did it for me was the boundary changes. I know they wouldn't make much difference but it's the principle. The Lib Dems reneged on a deal and got away with it because they knew that the Tories are desperate to stay in power.

There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords.

I always thought that the deal was AV referendum = boundary changes. If it was AV Referendum and Lord Reform = boundary changes, then it shows that the Tories negotiated very badly in the first place.

The Lib Dems threw a wobbly because they thought that the referendum was a mere formality, and that the Tories wouldn't fight it very hard. Whether this was based on naivety or a private understanding between Clegg and Cameron, it basically meant that they were looking for an excuse to get one back.

With Lords Reform the commitment in the Coalition Agreement was very weak. It was, I think, simply to bring forward proposals, and when Tory backbenchers indicated that they were not going to meekly allow Clegg to push through any old bollocks that he fancied, it provided a fig leaf for the Lib Dems to pursue their revenge for the AV referendum.

It's all pretty childish, but the root cause was that Clegg completely failed to win the public debate on the AV referendum and he's got nobody to blame for that but himself.

In the grand scheme of things the boundary changes really weren't that important. I think they would have been worth something like 10 seats for Cameron? Small beer really.

The commitment to Lords reform was worded identically to boundary changes. Both were to "bring forward".

So if it was fine for the Tories to drop Lords reform, the same has to apply to the boundary changes.

Cameron supported Lords reform and whipped (I think) the vote.

Clegg broke his word.

corporeal said:

foxinsoxuk said:

@Corporeal

Except that Lords reform was not dropped by the Tories, Clegg wanted to invoke the Parliament act to force it through in the summer of 2012. Labour and large elements in the Conservative party did not want to curtail debate on such an important consitutional issue.

Clegg then had a tizzy and abandoned the effort. There was the opportunity to keep the debate going and to convince the Commons of its wisdom, but that little piece of democracy did not suit him. The Labour party could have been persuaded as they were broadly in favour.

Cleggs action on this was stupid, as was the tuition fees debacle. The two biggest errors he made in government.

They wanted to filibuster it.
The tory rebels made it clear they wouldn't take elections.

There was plenty that needed discussion, it was inappropriate to attempt to use the Parliament Act.

If fundamental Constitutional reform is envisaged, it needs extensive debate.

FluffyThoughts said:

:Question:

And without looking at Wiki:

Are "Countries" based upon Count-doms? Are not Kingdoms the correct definition we are seeking to salve Th'UD...?

The Saxons had Shires and the Norman French had areas owned/administered by a Count.

FrankBooth said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

I live in Dundee West. It has been a safe Labour seat for a long time and I have had no hesitation in voting tory, recognising it is a wasted vote but wanting to register my view.

Next time around it looks distinctly marginal, in fact I would say on current polling the SNP are favourites to take it. I really don't want that and am contemplating voting tactically for the first time in my life.

Are you really planning on voting Labour so as to elect another SLAB MP to vote for higher taxes and fewer services in England ? SNP MPs, to their credit, abstain on English issues.

If so you're going to have pride of place on my list of pro-Labour establishment Tories.

The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country. Labour merely damage it, sometimes severely, sometimes in trivial ways. I would of course prefer a Tory but barring a zombie apocalypse of epic proportions that would look a tad unlikely.

If Labour were safe, as they were in 2010, I would vote for what I believe in but I am between Scylla and Charybdis here.

Wouldn't voting SNP increase the chances of Dave staying in Downing Street?

There is no particular reason for you to read my posts but if you had you would realise that this is not my first priority.

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

@Luckyguy1983

What concessions do you believe Thatcher got from the US?

Their cooperation in the Falklands conflict, which according to her autobiography was very hard won, because they wanted the junta to remain in power. Nowadays they make pronouncements about 'talks' with the Argentinians (what is there to talk about?), even though the Argentinians are their determined opponents, and we are their most loyal (farcically so) ally.

The US approach to the Falklands right now is to go along with the occasional OAS call for talks, rather than unnecessarily offend a Western democracy, while not requiring the UK to make any actual concessions.

The US approach to all matters concerning the UK is that of a bank offering a fantastic rate of interest to new account openers, but nothing to those who already have accounts. In a purely utilitarian sense, it's actually quite sensible. The good will of a people who are currently against them is worth far more than the friendship of a people who are already firmly in their pocket. This is why, like a bank customer, our attitude to the US must fundamentally change. We need a leadership that sees itself as leading an independent country, that could conceivably align itself with BRICS on some issues against the US. We do ourselves no favours with our current 'US deputy' policy.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.

Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.

So vote Conservative get Labour.

It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.

Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.

Or that UKIP have yet to prove themselves worthy of a positive vote. And yet to demonstrate the executive competence that is required for a serious political party (chicken & egg, I'll grant you)

OGH is very critical that the right doesn't vote tactically, while the left votes anti-Tory.

Personally I see that as the right voting for what they believe in (whether UKIP or Tory) which is a *good* thing (even if it may be less effective at winning in FPTP).

I won't vote UKIP, even though I have sympathy with some of UKIP's policies, because I don't want to see Farage anywhere near executive office.

Ridiculous circular argument. They've never been in office, so they shouldn't be voted into office. I won't bore you with Farage's CV, but he has at least held down a real world job. To prefer proven tits like Ed Balls, Chuka Ummuna, Caroline Flint etc. to be in office to Farage is indefensible from an administrative competence standpoint -utterly indefensible.

I think it's hilarious all the Conservative supporters on here this morning who would never support UKIP even to avoid the cataclysmic Labour Government that they've been warning us all of, but would expect UKIP voters to 'do the right thing' and ensure the Tories get back in. What an utter farce.

I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.

My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.

I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.

(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)

corporeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.

Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.

My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.

So, is Scotland a country?

Country is a very flexible term.

Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.

In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.

Anyone who doesn't understand why the Tories are LOATHED listen to Michael Gove on Any Questions on why we should abandon the ECHR. Quite amusing as his contribution is greeted with a silence so intense you can almost hear it!.

Charles said:

I give you its chicken & egg, but something that you can address through finding the right candidates.

My judgement is that Farage personally doesn't have what it takes to be an effective minister (his job in the City was as an LME trader, which doesn't give you any executive experience whatsoever). So that rules out the party he leads as one that I could support.

I do not believe that Ummuna, Flint, etc would be/were good ministers. Balls was an effective minister, and would be a credible CofE. I just disagree with his policies. So I won't for them either.

(Not that this matters in the constituency where I live - safe Tory)

We have a Prime Minister who has no experience other than some PR work (I've worked with PR companies and I doubt he was a very good one), and who according to insiders, simply sees his job as that of an 'uber-commentator' taking to the airwaves Blair style to sum up the thoughts of the nation. Whilst I find the past 5 years a wasted opportunity to have put the country back on its feet, I don't deny that it has avoided collapse. If Cameron can run the country this way, then (your characterisation of) Farage can certainly run a minor department. Even one of his speeches or interviews demonstrates more nous than many of the current crop.

@corporeal

'There was the small matter on the Tories reneging first on an elected Lords'

Clegg lied about boundary changes just as he lied about tuition fees,get over it.

'As Clegg put it, “The one thing I’m not prepared to do is to be the last leader of the Lib Dems.” We can therefore be rationally certain that even if the elected Lords Bill had gone through, the Liberal Democrats would have found a means to block the boundary changes for which they had already voted.'

Theuniondivvie said:

corporeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DavidL said:

The SNP are a continuing and real threat to the existence of my country.

Well done on your honesty in admitting you don't think of Scotland as a country. So many of your proudScotbut cohort prefer to fudge the issue.

My country is the United Kingdom. That does not stop me being Scottish. As you may have noted this is the view of the majority.

So, is Scotland a country?

Country is a very flexible term.

Of course, however the statement 'my country is the United Kingdom' is unequivocal, 'my countries are the UK and Scotland' much less so.

In general many of the problems before and after the referendum stem from vague and imprecise language. Country, nation, state, federalism, home rule & devomax are all terms bandied about by fools & knaves who have no desire to actually define their meanings.

So where in your precise scheme does the EU fit in? It is not a country, yet its powers have been proven in court to be supreme over national parliaments. And your party's policy was not only to negotiate Scotland's way back in, but to deny the people of Scotland a referendum on continued membership. No knavish equivocation please.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alanbrooke said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The backlash against the SNP must be about to hit any day now.

'Nicola Sturgeon tops politician trust rating poll

The Panelbase study for the SNP found 54 per cent of people believe Ms Sturgeon - who is almost certain to succeed Alex Salmond as First Minister next month - would stand up for the country’s interests compared to 24 per cent for the Prime Minister.
A third (33 per cent) of those surveyed said they did not trust Ms Sturgeon to represent Scottish interests, giving her an overall trust rating of +21 - higher than the ratings for all of the Scottish party and Westminster leaders.
Mr Salmond is the only other leader to have a positive trust rating, with the outgoing First Minister achieving a net score of +18.
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont was given a net rating of -5 by the research while Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson had a net score of -20 and Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie scored -28.
The three Westminster leaders had lower ratings, with Nick Clegg being scored at -58 in the research.
Almost three-quarters (71 per cent) of Scots do not trust him to stand up for Scotland’s interests, compared to the 13 per cent who think he would.
Mr Cameron’s net trust rating was -41 while Labour leader Ed Miliband fared slightly better with a rating of -38.'

Below is a list of Libdems with any kind of a positive rating in Scotland.

and yet the two most trusted politicians in Scotland couldn't persuade Scots to take their word on Independence.

Funny old world.

It is indeed.
Obviously after the Orange Order & assorted fascists & racists threatened to decamp to England on a Yes vote, many Scots thought the neighbourly thing to do was vote No.

or maybe the twaddle twins just overestimated their hand.

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 Of course Obama opposed the 2003 Iraq War, Cameron supported it

I don't understand what this relates to? (Sorry me being dense)

numbertwelve said:

I've come more and more round to a way of thinking that it makes little sense having elections by universal suffer age to the House of Lords. The more sensible option seems to me to be an indirect election a bit like the French Senate, with local authorities (all of the UK has them) electing members to the second chamber, with staggered elections (perhaps in thirds), for about 3/4 of the house. Then make the final 25% independent cross benchers appointed for life by a cross-party committee who have expertise in science/business/education/whatever.

Retains a 'specialist' element, allows for greater local influence, enhances the importance of local elections, makes it incredibly difficult for one party to have a majority in the House, boosts democratic legitimacy without undermining the primacy of the Commons, and the Parliament Act's retention can quite easily be justified.

It seems to me incredibly unnecessary to have direct elections when the apparatus is already there to create a system between two extremes.

I think such a system is far better than what was proposed.

corporeal said:

Charles said:

Cameron supported Lords reform and whipped (I think) the vote.

Clegg broke his word.

The coalition agreement was between parties, not Clegg and Cameron. Cameron whipped it and couldn't deliver the votes. The Conservatives failed to keep their word.

Indeed by opposing elections outright the Tory rebels were going against their own manifesto.

Given the reforms Clegg propsed could you blame them ?

The proposals were the way they were to get opponents on side. They were a long way from the Lib Dem proposals.

The phrase "bring forward" was used precisely because Cameron couldn't deliver 100% of his party and knew it.

Clegg actively militated against boundary reform.

He is an untrustworthy partner - that means that any future coalition negotiations will be that much more difficult.

That was his choice. And it will have consequences.

Financier said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Two revealing posts this week were from Eagles re the SYPCC byelection and Richard Nabavi re the Heywood & Middleton byelection.

Both said they would vote Conservative (Eagles in reality, RN hypothetically) rather than UKIP.

So vote Conservative get Labour.

It is increasingly apparent that establishment Tories who loudly demand that everyone votes for them in order to defeat Labour do not regard defeating Labour as important if it requires them to vote UKIP.

Establishment Tories and establishment Labour are in a symbiotic relationship. Both require fear of the other to motivate their supporters and both dread most of all the rise of another party, at present UKIP, which removes this fear and so spoils their cozy relationship.

Or that UKIP have yet to prove themselves worthy of a positive vote. And yet to demonstrate the executive competence that is required for a serious political party (chicken & egg, I'll grant you)

OGH is very critical that the right doesn't vote tactically, while the left votes anti-Tory.

Personally I see that as the right voting for what they believe in (whether UKIP or Tory) which is a *good* thing (even if it may be less effective at winning in FPTP).

I won't vote UKIP, even though I have sympathy with some of UKIP's policies, because I don't want to see Farage anywhere near executive office.

Ridiculous circular argument. They've never been in office, so they shouldn't be voted into office. I won't bore you with Farage's CV, but he has at least held down a real world job. To prefer proven tits like Ed Balls, Chuka Ummuna, Caroline Flint etc. to be in office to Farage is indefensible from an administrative competence standpoint -utterly indefensible.

I think it's hilarious all the Conservative supporters on here this morning who would never support UKIP even to avoid the cataclysmic Labour Government that they've been warning us all of, but would expect UKIP voters to 'do the right thing' and ensure the Tories get back in. What an utter farce.

So if EDM is PM and UKIP get 4 seats but more votes than the LDs, what is your and UKIP's strategy for 2020 and how to get a EU referendum before then?

As I said in my earlier post, in my opinion it's more important for UKIP to gain a bulkhead in the Commons than it is for a referendum to happen in 2017. Sorry if you don't like that. That said, I'm optimistic UKIP could win considerably more than 4 seats. Don't forget, a month or so ago people were predicting no seats. I don't like to count my chickens, but hopefully Carswell is in the bag, so are you really only predicting 3 UKIP gains?

Luckyguy1983 The idea that the US is always led by leaders who are more interventionist abroad than the UK, on the whole yes, but not at the moment, it was Sarkozy and Cameron who dragged Obama into Libya for example. In 1990 it was Margaret Thatcher who told Bush Senior 'not to go wobbly' in Gulf War 1, it was Blair who dragged Clinton into Kosovo

Charles said:

He is an untrustworthy partner

And so, on the same basis, is the parliamentary Conservative party then (indeed I suspect that an inspection of their voting record would show them to be less trustworthy).

Plato said:

"That's all it really comes down to. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good is my advice. "

What a lovely aphorism - I will nick it for use elsewhere if I may, Sir?

Charles said:

another_richard said:

Ultimately Charles all that amounts to is that the magic money tree gets another shaking whenever this government wants to buy votes or whenever a political problem arises or whenever one of Cameron's pet projects needs to be funded.

Now all political parties are pretty much the same in that regard.

But I am someone for whom 'rebalancing the economy' and 'living within your means' are actually worthwhile ideas.

No, I advocated delaying cuts in one area and making bigger cuts in another.

The way I would see the difference in our positions is quite simple.

The UK economy is addicted to the stimulus that comes from high government spending and is ignoring the negative consequences.

You advocate cold turkey. I prefer a weaning strategy because I think the negative consequences of your approach would outweigh the benefits of dealing with the addiction quicker.

That's all it really comes down to. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good is my advice.

Feel free. I doubt Voltaire will mind that much.

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Anyone who doesn't understand why the Tories are LOATHED listen to Michael Gove on Any Questions on why we should abandon the ECHR. Quite amusing as his contribution is greeted with a silence so intense you can almost hear it!.

42% of the voters have a favourable opinion of the Conservatives, compared to 50% for Labour. That's a difference, but not a huge one.

So we go to the tie-breaker question: Ed Miliband or David Cameron?