politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The first general election after the AV referendum looks s

Mr. Dave, who do you think would replace him who would do better?

Socrates said:

On topic, it's interesting that UKIP break, if they do at all, heavily for the Conservatives, while the Lib Dems break evenly for the Conservatives and Labour.

We're finally seeing the fall of the left in this country. What's particularly great is that the more they ignore the people on matters like immigration and multiculturalism, the more this will happen. Labour is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and they won't be able to import immigrants fast enough to make up for the loss of their WWC base. Though God knows they'll try.

It's the 2010 LDs who are key. Remember they made up 24% of the electorate. They split in this poll 46% to LAB 18% to CON which is appalling news for the Tories.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, who do you think would replace him who would do better?

No names come to mind, which is another mark against Mr Cameron. A good leader would have built a strong team.

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

dr_spyn said:

Sue Cameron - Vote for UKIP = let in Labour = loss of confidence from Tories.

It's more complicated now:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/

"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."

Vote UKIP in Rochester=get rid of Cameron.

Now that's an incentive!

http://markreckless.com/find-us/

Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.

The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.

Here are the cabinets of Australia and Canada:

http://images.essentialbaby.com.au/2013/09/19/4761810/Tony_wide-620x349.jpg
http://archemdis.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cab-fam-cp-5765975.jpg

It doesn't look like much of a Chinese elite to me.

Elite university student body, business elites...

http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-skilled-immigration-making-canada-a-chinese-colony

Big concern in Australia too.

anotherDave said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dave, who do you think would replace him who would do better?

No names come to mind, which is another mark against Mr Cameron. A good leader would have built a strong team.

Cameron has built a strong team, but they they have become more specialists than generalists, which perhaps was required at the time.

Also having to give posts to the LDs has stifled the natural growth of other potential leaders - another problem resulting from a coalition = more averages than superlatives. For example Cable and Davey have not lit up the lights - rather a drag on progress.

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

dr_spyn said:

Sue Cameron - Vote for UKIP = let in Labour = loss of confidence from Tories.

It's more complicated now:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/

"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."

Vote UKIP in Rochester=get rid of Cameron.

Now that's an incentive!

http://markreckless.com/find-us/

Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.

The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.

Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?

This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.

UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.

The referendum is won by "in".

Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?

Next question.

Same again, but referendum is won by "out".

Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.

Here are the cabinets of Australia and Canada:

http://images.essentialbaby.com.au/2013/09/19/4761810/Tony_wide-620x349.jpg
http://archemdis.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cab-fam-cp-5765975.jpg

It doesn't look like much of a Chinese elite to me.

Elite university student body, business elites...

http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-skilled-immigration-making-canada-a-chinese-colony

Big concern in Australia too.

Do you have some data to back that up? There didn't seem to be any in your blog link...

He seems to be suggesting that the "Asians" in Canada are a homogeneous body attempting a take over of the country.

Which seems unlikely.

Andy_Cooke said:

The amusing unpredictability of the voter in polls is here as well: there's always 1-4% of each party's supporters who, when it's expressed as 'your party vs x' actually swap to the opposing party.

Seriously, how can 4% of Labour supporters go "Who will I vote for? Labour. If only my party or the Lib Dems could win? Easy, the Lib Dems. Ah. Err. "?

On a wider view, though: FPTP vs AV. One has artificial majorities caused by lower preferences. The other, by ill-informed and blindly cast lower preferences ...

There's an interesting (repeated) study on universal morality.

As a control question they ask a question along these lines

"You are walking through the park and see a small child drowning in pool of water you know is only 1 foot deep - Is rescuing the child morally obligatory, morally permissible or morally forbidden ". 3% of interviewees go with morally forbidden.

Consider 3% above zero as either psychotic or answering in error/misunderstood question.

Speedy said:

There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:

http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Ukip-set-landslide-win-2015-election/story-23072833-detail/story.html

UKIP 48
LAB 24
CON 18
LD 6

Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent.
Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.

Voodoo poll. Charlie Elphicke is a pretty popular MP. I think it's going to very close between all three parties in Dover and Deal.

anotherDave said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

Speedy said:

It's more complicated now:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/why-rochester-matters-so-much/

"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."

Vote UKIP in Rochester=get rid of Cameron.

Now that's an incentive!

http://markreckless.com/find-us/

Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.

The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.

Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?

There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.

The second, and bigger, problem is that it's such an uncertain process. Why rock the boat if the possible outcomes are mostly worse than not doing so, and there's no real way to be sure of securing anything better? (FWIW, I don't think there is a better option but let's assume we're in the mind of an MP who does think so). Dumping Cameron is easy enough; replacing him with someone better and without splitting the party apart in the process rather harder.

Actually, dumping Cameron isn't necessarily that easy. It's not sufficient to gain 46 MPs to sign anonymous letters, you then have to win the vote of no confidence - or at least, get close enough to make Cameron's leadership untenable - which is a different prospect. Even if malcontents can raise 46 letters, there's a good chance that they'll fail at the second hurdle and replace a moderately strong Cameron leading a relatively united party with a weak Cameron leading a split one. They have to consider that prospect before embarking on the project. Messy coups are nearly always damaging for all involved, whether on not they achieve their primary objective.

CD13 - A long time a ago, when AIDS first broke on the scene, I was shown the effort to HIV proof the lab at the Middlesex. The Coulter Counters had been fitted with small pieces of perspex. As I looked at them I thought - they are going to kill everbody in the room, I will stay clear - and I moved back and cut my hand on a broken glass vial.

Richard Benyon ‏@RichardBenyonMP Oct 11
Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"

PAW,

Many years ago, when working with monkey blood and tissues,we were concerned about virus transmission - particularly Marburg which had just been discovered. We used home made glove cabinets with extraction. Perfect in theory, but the human element was always the problem, no matter how good the theoretical protection.

rcs1000 said:

This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.

UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.

The referendum is won by "in".

Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?

Next question.

Same again, but referendum is won by "out".

Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?

Not sure about the first instance. A yes to stay in would prove UKIP a failure if they had actually been in a position in government to influence the outcome and had still lost. I would envisage a rapid fracturing of the party. That said, given that the EU will continue its process of ever closer union whatever the UK does, I would suggest that under those circumstances there would still be an active and growing movement for withdrawal.

In the second instance I cannot see UKIP in its current form having any value or reason after a successful withdrawal. Unless it was willing to change and fill a gap in the market by becoming a properly Libertarian party (with the consequent initial drop in support I suspect that would entail) then it would just be like any other party - frankly pointless.

anotherDave said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

Now that's an incentive!

http://markreckless.com/find-us/

Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.

The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.

Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?

There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.

The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.

They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?

Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.

Protests happen at by-elections when the government of the country isn't up for grabs. That's not to dismiss those protests - they are real and concerns need to be listened to - but people can and do vote differently when different things are at stake. Check out the Ribble Valley by-election in 1991, for example. Indeed, I expect the 1992 parallel may get more than the odd outing from Tory strategists in coming months.

That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

david_herdson said:

anotherDave said:

Now that's an incentive!

http://markreckless.com/find-us/

Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.

The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.

Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?

There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.

The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.

They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?

Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.

That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.

Not true. "When in a hole, stop digging" is reason enough.

If Conservative MPs think the strategy being pursued by Mr Cameron is loser, there is nothing to be lost in sacking him.

MikeSmithson said:

It's the 2010 LDs who are key. Remember they made up 24% of the electorate. They split in this poll 46% to LAB 18% to CON which is appalling news for the Tories.

Many of those voters are already factored in to the Labour headline voting intention, so you have to be careful not to double-count them.

So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?

The guy is certifiably bonkers.

Richard_Nabavi said:

So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?

The guy is certifiably bonkers.

If he doesn't get a referendum in 2015, he will facilitate a government that will never offer one, instead of one that would.

Awesome

audreyanne said:

maaarsh said:

Richard Benyon ‏@RichardBenyonMP Oct 11
Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"

Love it!

It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.

audreyanne said:

maaarsh said:

Richard Benyon ‏@RichardBenyonMP Oct 11
Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"

Love it!

It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.

Without wishing to be rude, Audreyanne, but you are sounding more like Edwina Currie the more posts you make.
Ps I'm thinking of changing my user name to John Major!

Socrates said:

It's not on offer with a Cameron-led Conservative party, but get rid of Cameron and it's possible.

So it's just a personal vendetta against David Cameron.

Well, that's obvious enough from many of those who post here.

Socrates said:

There's not a chance in hell of a Conservative-majority government.

There is, actually, but that is irrelevant to the bet, because it would be void if there's not a majority.

Danny565 said:

Why on earth would the Tories want to oust Cameron? Virtually every piece of polling evidence shows he's more popular than his party, even among UKIP supporters.

A lot of people don't think he can win, even if they like him. In such a circumstance, even if it does not appear someone else would do better, many might be willing to try it as you can never be certain how well a new leader would do. That said, even if polling says Cameron is an asset, a large number of people within the Tories don't appear to want to win with his type of leader, and getting rid of him is more important than winning. Which I actually find encouraging in an odd way, that party members of any party would not just want to win at any cost.

SimonStClare said:

Evening all.

BBC - Anti-IS protest stops M4 traffic on Second Severn Crossing

Gwent Police said a group of people in about 10 cars campaigning against the militant group stopped in the middle lane.

Does anyone else find this form of protest an utterly bizarre choice..?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29589776

Yes and no. Sure it makes little sense and will just irritate people, but on the other hand, I'm now hearing about it because of the form their protest took.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?

Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.

However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.

For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.

And destroy any chance UKIP have of taking Labour votes.

A brilliant strategy to box UKIP into a right wing tiny corner. That'll finish them off in double quick time.

Socrates said:

For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.

No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.

The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:

- Referendum in 2017, as proposed
- Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash
- Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side

That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.

On topic, we should organize an unofficial jungle primary a week or two before the actual election. Everybody votes their first choice, the results are announced then come the actual election everybody has proper information about who the straight choice is between.

It would be like AV for countries too superstitious to actually enact AV.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?

Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.

However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.

For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.

There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.

As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.

Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.

isam said:

The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?

Yes, in order to get what they claim to want, a referendum on leaving the EU.

Not hard to understand, surely?

If they want something other than a referendum, then what would any deal be about? Livery on trains?

Socrates said:

You mean like "no top down reorganisation of the NHS"?

Actually the NHS reorganisation was in the manifesto, in reasonable detail.

But you know that already.

The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego.

that may be true but the conservatives have to work out how they have allowed him to get so strong

Blummin' voters eh?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories.

What platform? It keeps changing. We know the 2010 manifesto was drivel - everyone agrees on that. Will the 2015 manifesto also be drivel? Who knows?

Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.

"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."

http://www.ukip.org/louise_bours_standing_up_for_the_nhs

taffys said:

that may be true but the conservatives have to work out how they have allowed him to get so strong

Blummin' voters eh?

It's part of a wider trend in much of Europe and in the US, the rise of anti-establishment parties. I'm not sure anyone really understands it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?

Yes, in order to get what they claim to want, a referendum on leaving the EU.

Not hard to understand, surely?

If they want something other than a referendum, then what would any deal be about? Livery on trains?

Ooh hello touchy!

I was only seeing what the deal was no need to get thy knickers in a twist

Disband the party and hope Cameron gets re elected and hold a referendum.. What if Miliband wins though? Lots ( most ) Ukip voters won't vote conservative

manofkent2014 said:

david_herdson said:

manofkent2014 said:

perdix said:

rcs1000 said:

This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.

UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.

The referendum is won by "in".

Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?

Next question.

Same again, but referendum is won by "out".

Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?

To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.

UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.

And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?

And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?

Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?

Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...

You said it not me.....

The House of Lords will never block Bills that have been explicitly pledged in the manifesto (and the in-out referendum will be corner-stage in 2015 unlike 2010). Back to the Dummies guide to procedure for you.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.

"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."

http://www.ukip.org/louise_bours_standing_up_for_the_nhs

Quite so.

And what did they propose in 2010?

- Key NHS services put out to tender, with charities and businesses taking franchises on key services with fixed budgets

- Introduce Health Credit Vouchers, allowing people to opt-out of the NHS if they want private insurance

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm