We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.
What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?
Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
Because we live in a democracy
Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.
Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.
I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
Removing Don't Knows', 61% in favour of Staying In. Why should anyone be scared of a referendum. Unless it's those that don't want to look like Salmond.
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Nick Robinson @bbcnickrobinson “If we change rules on freedom of movement today, tomorrow others will try to change the freedom of movement of capital.” @JunckerEU to BBC
Anyone know how Cameron's renegotiation plans are going?
We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.
What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?
Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
Because we live in a democracy
Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.
Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.
I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
Removing Don't Knows', 61% in favour of Staying In. Why should anyone be scared of a referendum. Unless it's those that don't want to look like Salmond.
Salmond is braver than Farage - he accepted the offer from Cameron and fronted up.
Of course as mentioned the EU is a bit of a side issue to Kippers these days.
UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.
Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?
If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.
No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
Fair enough.
But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.
I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?
That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
Because to the majority of the populace, anyone working in The City is considered a member of the 'elite'. In the same way that everyone employed in banking and finance is lumped in with the 'evil ones who wrecked the economy'.
Have you ever met anyone who works in the City? Very often they have brothers who run a market stall down Roman Road, same thing just bigger numbers.
Yes, many friends. And they're just as likely to be the sons and daughters of 'Toffs' as barrow boys and taxi drivers.
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
Incorrect - it should be played night and day from now until the election - it's absolute gold.
Oh sorry, I mean you want the kind of society where it depends what colour you are as to whether you can sing in a particular accent
Regarding the song, I agree, if I was a Tory I would have downloaded 50 copies/started a facebook group to try and get it to No1.. I haven't heard it but, unless it was bait to lure PC wonks to embarrass themselves by ripping into it on racial grounds, it was a ridiculous idea to associate with
I was reading today of how one of the eastern legions doing battle (over a couple of days) with Vitellius, on behalf of Vespasian, turned at dawn to greet the sun (as was their way). Other legions in both armies thought they were greeting reinforcements. Vespasian's men fought the harder, and Vitellius' gave way and were defeated.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.
What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?
Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
Because we live in a democracy
Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.
Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.
I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
Removing Don't Knows', 61% in favour of Staying In. Why should anyone be scared of a referendum. Unless it's those that don't want to look like Salmond.
Ask Mike. He is the one person on here so far today who had said we shouldn't have one. Perhaps because he realises that one poorly interpreted poll is no evidence that people would support the EU in the actual vote. Again note that only 14% support what would be the reality after an 'in' victory.
Mr. 2014, they 'would' but they aren't going to win and are likely to stop the Conservatives winning either, helping the pro-EU cause.
Cameron doesn't try to force one through now for two reasons: 1) it explicitly was not in the 2010 manifesto [the media tried to cause a splitstorm by banging on about that at a pre-election Conservative conference] 2) it is not in the Coalition Agreement and he does not have a majority
Nor was the Coalition agreement in the manifesto or the bombing of Libya (generically) or same sex marriage but that didn't stop him from doing them now did it?
Are you seriously suggesting that if something is in the national interest it can only be acted upon if its in a party manifesto (the same manifesto that when commitments are not undertaken we are told are not binding) or in some inter party agreement? Whether or not he has a majority it is his duty as Prime Minister to attempt to do what is in the country's interests (as he did with Syria) and let the people judge who is right or wrong if Parliament decides not to back him.
Not only that a referendum bill for 2017 was won last week and it went through without anyone voting against it. We cannot be certain how an earlier referendum bill would have panned out. The Tories didn't even try to put one through because their leadership no real desire for one and didn't want the hassle. The reason why Cameron eventually proposed a referendum was purely out of self-interest.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
And cause a house price crash affecting every one else?
One reason interest rates are 0.5% has been to keep house prices up and negative equity and repossessions off the table.
Find a way of forcing house prices down and electoral disaster awaits.
Mucking about with the market will hit too many ordinary people as collateral damage.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
Doesn't the polling say roughly 50% of Kippers who expressed a preference said Miliband?
It seems rather obvious to me that people who say they aren't voting for the Conservative party after they did so and got Cameron as PM, don't feel happy with Cameron as PM
Any idea what % didn't express a preference?
it was an Ashcroft poll quite recently, I don't remember exactly when, but the gist was that people who intended to vote UKIP didn't seem to care whether Cameron or Miliband was PM post 2015
I still believe many of those who claim not have a preference will plump for Cameron over UKIP-Miliband
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
By putting a tax across the board on landlords like this ( and I do see where you are coming from) would mean landlords putting up the rent for tenants to compensate and in fact it would become a tenant tax . Its not as if renters as a whole could argue as there is a shortage of properties
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
56% Stay In is a little lower than the final result would be, but in the right ballpark.
The Kippers have given up any pretence of making a serious case and are just turning into a general moan machine, Serious BOOers like Dan Hannan are tearing their hair out.
Of course the tragedy is that it didn't have to be like this. The time to get this right was before signing Lisbon, but unfortuntely we were lumbered with a Labour government who recklessly or deliberately threw away the opportunity. We are left with Cameron's approach as the best of a bad job.
Genuine legal question: Do we need a referendum to leave? We didn't need any referendums since 1973 to get where to we are now! If Lisbon, Maastricht etc can be passed into law without a referendum then they can be repealed. Could an incoming PM Farage simply pass a Get The Hell Out Of Dodge Act?
Is it codified in British law what international treaty commitments / pooling of sovereignty require a UK referendum? Is there a 'this kind of shit needs a referendum Act'? If Yes, then the ratification of eg Lisbon was illegal. If No then we can just leave.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
By putting a tax across the board on landlords like this ( and I do see where you are coming from) would mean landlords putting up the rent for tenants to compensate and in fact it would become a tenant tax . Its not as if renters as a whole could argue as there is a shortage of properties
A 3% tax on the value of second properties and removal of the mortgage interest tax break. Make it uncompetitive for money to be deployed in housing vs equity markets. There is far too much money locked up in housing which is economically unproductive.
UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.
Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?
If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.
No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
Fair enough.
But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.
I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?
That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
Because to the majority of the populace, anyone working in The City is considered a member of the 'elite'. In the same way that everyone employed in banking and finance is lumped in with the 'evil ones who wrecked the economy'.
Have you ever met anyone who works in the City? Very often they have brothers who run a market stall down Roman Road, same thing just bigger numbers.
Yes, many friends. And they're just as likely to be the sons and daughters of 'Toffs' as barrow boys and taxi drivers.
So now you are saying the sons and daughters of barrow boys and taxi drivers are part of the elite?
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
Easy tiger. Be assured not being Labour in the years following 2002-2010 is about as good a recommendation as it is possible to have.
There has been a lot of rebalancing of the economy which is not so much a flagship policy as a righting of some quite serious wrongs (I talk here about political philosophies - Labour: big state, Cons: smaller state) so that is what a lot of Cons voters hoped would happen.
GO, despite @Alanbrooke's many many criticisms has had to tread a careful path between so-called "austerity" (of course there has been none) and stimulation. IMO he couldn't have stimulated before he had convinced the market he could be fiscally responsible (although others differ on this). He has then had to rebalance the economy away from the state in favour of the private sector. This also has had do be done in stages.
To date has not been the time for "big ideas". With luck that will come although I am very alive to the accusation that Dave has not got a particular big idea in his head and has flip-flopped on so many previous policies.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
And they were right. It is/was crap.
I suspect it was put out for a "bit of fun" and it spiralled out of control publicity wise.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
Doesn't the polling say roughly 50% of Kippers who expressed a preference said Miliband?
It seems rather obvious to me that people who say they aren't voting for the Conservative party after they did so and got Cameron as PM, don't feel happy with Cameron as PM
Any idea what % didn't express a preference?
it was an Ashcroft poll quite recently, I don't remember exactly when, but the gist was that people who intended to vote UKIP didn't seem to care whether Cameron or Miliband was PM post 2015
I still believe many of those who claim not have a preference will plump for Cameron over UKIP-Miliband
We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.
What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?
Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
Because we live in a democracy
Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.
Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.
I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
Removing Don't Knows', 61% in favour of Staying In. Why should anyone be scared of a referendum. Unless it's those that don't want to look like Salmond.
Ask Mike. He is the one person on here so far today who had said we shouldn't have one. Perhaps because he realises that one poorly interpreted poll is no evidence that people would support the EU in the actual vote. Again note that only 14% support what would be the reality after an 'in' victory.
Referenda are pretty much a waste of time and money, we usually end up with the status quo.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
The arrogance of the well off kippers wishing 5 years of economic pain Labour style on the rest of us just to advance their party is startling - and the main reason I would never even tactically vote for them.
True. Farage once said he would do a deal with any party that brought about a referendum. Now there is one of the two major parties guaranteeing it within 27 months, Farage is working against them winning. But this flipping in main policy principles is similar to UKIPs flip from wanting a privatised NHS to a socialist NHS.
Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.
If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?
UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.
Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.
At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.
Mr Dancer,
UKIP would have a referendum in months. If a referendum is so important to national interests then why doesn't Dave attempt to force on through before the general election? Why did he instead use a cheap Brownite triangulation trick of timing it for 2017 effectively attempting to extort the votes of those who generally oppose his party just to get a referendum. If that wasn't a clear case of putting party before country what is?
Manokent2014. Cameron can't "force through" a referendum before the general election because he doesn't have the votes in parliament to do it. Labour and the LibDums would vote against holding a referendum. Are you ignorant or just trying to make a kipper point?
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
You realise all those 'bastard landlords' would likely turf out tenants and sell up if if they lost money on rental property? Assuming they didn't just hike up the rent to cover the cost of course.
So you'd end up with more homeless, and higher costs for those with roofs over their heads. It's a winner Max!
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
By putting a tax across the board on landlords like this ( and I do see where you are coming from) would mean landlords putting up the rent for tenants to compensate and in fact it would become a tenant tax . Its not as if renters as a whole could argue as there is a shortage of properties
A 3% tax on the value of second properties and removal of the mortgage interest tax break. Make it uncompetitive for money to be deployed in housing vs equity markets. There is far too much money locked up in housing which is economically unproductive.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
And cause a house price crash affecting every one else?
One reason interest rates are 0.5% has been to keep house prices up and negative equity and repossessions off the table.
Find a way of forcing house prices down and electoral disaster awaits.
Mucking about with the market will hit too many ordinary people as collateral damage.
If people live in those homes how does any fall in prices really effect people. A housing crash isn't exactly going to see interest rates rise so mortgages remain affordable. What it does do is to allow millions who are currently renting to get onto the housing ladder with smaller deposits and lower prices in general. Expensive housing serves no one but the chancellor who can claim an economic recovery and bastard landlords who are able to thieve money from young people trapped in the rental sector because of prices that have been pushed up by their parent's generation who's selfishness knows no bounds.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
You realise all those 'bastard landlords' would likely turf out tenants and sell up if if they lost money on rental property?
We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.
What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?
Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
Because we live in a democracy
Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.
Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.
I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
Removing Don't Knows', 61% in favour of Staying In. Why should anyone be scared of a referendum. Unless it's those that don't want to look like Salmond.
Ask Mike. He is the one person on here so far today who had said we shouldn't have one. Perhaps because he realises that one poorly interpreted poll is no evidence that people would support the EU in the actual vote. Again note that only 14% support what would be the reality after an 'in' victory.
Referenda are pretty much a waste of time and money, we usually end up with the status quo.
Safe seats are a waste of time and money. An opinion poll 3 months before the GE would allow 300+ seats to be uncontested with no change to the result.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
In which seats will a vote for UKIP, rather than the Conservatives, help to make PM Miliband happen?
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
There are a bunch of Lib Dem seats where Labour, or the Conservatives, are a poor third, so a vote for UKIP instead of the Conservatives won't make PM Miliband happen - it might even make PM Miliband less likely.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
So how many seats are left in which you can reasonably make a case that a right-wing UKIP-inclined voter should vote for the Tories to stop Miliband? It's not very many. And even in those seats a "tactical" vote may be wasted, because the national swing might be so large that even a tactical vote can't prevent Labour from taking the seat - say in Broxtowe - or the national swing might be so small that Labour would fall short without any UKIP tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)
Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings, Philip isn't an English King's name King Arthur would just seem odd.
So he's left with King George.
I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.
I give you King Mohammed I.
About time we had a Henry?
Emperor Sunil of the Commonwealth of ALL English speaking Peoples and Territories.
Swedish navy: 'We hate the fact something is in our waters'
Is Sweden having a nervous breakdown?
Keeps their hand in doesn't it? It's not as if they have done much ,even neutral in WW2
Great headline - the hunt for Reds in October!!
They have a large military with nothing to do. They're absolutely loving this.
"Lars, lets see how well these new depth charges work!"
I don't think the Swedish military is up to much these days they have had massive defence cuts. One of the reasons this sub hunt is causing them so many problems is that they got rid of all their ASW helicopters in 2008 and their navy has neither the assets nor kit to go sub hunting in shallow coastal waters dotted with islands.
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Swedish navy: 'We hate the fact something is in our waters'
Is Sweden having a nervous breakdown?
Keeps their hand in doesn't it? It's not as if they have done much ,even neutral in WW2
Great headline - the hunt for Reds in October!!
They have a large military with nothing to do. They're absolutely loving this.
"Lars, lets see how well these new depth charges work!"
I don't think the Swedish military is up to much these days they have had massive defence cuts. One of the reasons this sub hunt is causing them so many problems is that they got rid of all their ASW helicopters in 2008 and their navy has neither the assets nor kit to go sub hunting in shallow coastal waters dotted with islands.
I did not know that. I thought they were still huge defense spenders, with funky stealth ships, etc. Must be some regrets given the belligerents to their east.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
In which seats will a vote for UKIP, rather than the Conservatives, help to make PM Miliband happen?
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
There are a bunch of Lib Dem seats where Labour, or the Conservatives, are a poor third, so a vote for UKIP instead of the Conservatives won't make PM Miliband happen - it might even make PM Miliband less likely.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
So how many seats are left in which you can reasonably make a case that a right-wing UKIP-inclined voter should vote for the Tories to stop Miliband? It's not very many. And even in those seats a "tactical" vote may be wasted, because the national swing might be so large that even a tactical vote can't prevent Labour from taking the seat - say in Broxtowe - or the national swing might be so small that Labour would fall short without any UKIP tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
Off the top of my head, wasn't a vote for UKIP in Morley & Outwood a good way of getting Ed Balls elected?
How many marginals did the Tories lose by less than the UKIP vote?
I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)
Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings, Philip isn't an English King's name King Arthur would just seem odd.
So he's left with King George.
I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.
I give you King Mohammed I.
About time we had a Henry?
@JackW would get grumpy if we had a real King Henry IX
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2 hrs2 hours ago #Conservatives vote-share at GB by-elections since GE2010. Won Newark, runners-up 5 times, with only one lost deposit
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2 hrs2 hours ago Decrease in #Conservatives vote-% at GB by-elections vs. GE2010 for each seat. Only party to lose vote % in all seats
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
In which seats will a vote for UKIP, rather than the Conservatives, help to make PM Miliband happen?
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
Off the top of my head, wasn't a vote for UKIP in Morley & Outwood a good way of getting Ed Balls elected?
How many marginals did the Tories lose by less than the UKIP vote?
At Heywood, UKIP lost because 617 people voted Tory or stayed at home!
Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.
If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?
UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.
Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.
At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.
Mr Dancer,
UKIP would have a referendum in months. If a referendum is so important to national interests then why doesn't Dave attempt to force on through before the general election? Why did he instead use a cheap Brownite triangulation trick of timing it for 2017 effectively attempting to extort the votes of those who generally oppose his party just to get a referendum. If that wasn't a clear case of putting party before country what is?
Manokent2014. Cameron can't "force through" a referendum before the general election because he doesn't have the votes in parliament to do it. Labour and the LibDums would vote against holding a referendum. Are you ignorant or just trying to make a kipper point?
Putting aside the hilarity of you of all Tories accusing others of ignorance how do you know how it would have turned out? Cameron has never seriously attempted to win a referendum for this Parliament. Who knows how things would have turned out? Who knows how the parties would have reacted in the full glare of a real vote on a real referendum as opposed to some pigs might fly offer of jam tomorrow. Perhaps he would have lost it but at least then he would have had far more Eurosceptic credibility than he has now. Reality is he has never wanted a referendum and was only forced into it out of self-interest.
Now I appreciate your Mystic Meg impersonation purely on an aesthetic level but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe people can foretell accurately the outcome of such events.
@JamesTapsfield: Kippers claim moral high ground vs Red Cross... brave move: "We regret British RC think it's their place to put politics over saving lives"
I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)
Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings, Philip isn't an English King's name King Arthur would just seem odd.
So he's left with King George.
I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
I think it will be some time before there is another King Edward. King James could also be problematic.
I'm sort of surprised that they went for William, given the awkward history with that name. It might be time to start using a few different names.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Well it might put it to bed for you, but I don't agree with a word of what you have said.. seems a very old fashioned way of thinking to think of black people as immigrants or that black/white cant overlap without causing offence
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
You realise all those 'bastard landlords' would likely turf out tenants and sell up if if they lost money on rental property?
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
There were rumours that Charles wasn't too keen on a name that hasn't had the best of histories, one king having been executed and the other having a particular reputation as a ladies' man, though presumably his parents were aware of that history when they gave him at and weren't that bothered. In any case, there's plenty to be said against the first four Georges that could make that name less than ideal.
I'm less than convinced about his grandmother requesting it as a tribute to her husband as (1) he was known as Bertie (i.e. Albert) to his family, and (2) had she been that keen, couldn't she have exerted some influence in 1948 when it mattered?
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
Should we boycott Sting/The Police because he sings with a quasi-Jamaican accent?
The party that wants to eliminate international aid speaks....
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 2m2 minutes ago Uh-oh. Ukip chair Steve Crowther: "We regret the British Red Cross think it's their place to put politics over saving peoples' lives"
In which seats will a vote for UKIP, rather than the Conservatives, help to make PM Miliband happen?
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
There are a bunch of Lib Dem seats where Labour, or the Conservatives, are a poor third, so a vote for UKIP instead of the Conservatives won't make PM Miliband happen - it might even make PM Miliband less likely.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
So how many seats are left in which you can reasonably make a case that a right-wing UKIP-inclined voter should vote for the Tories to stop Miliband? It's not very many. And even in those seats a "tactical" vote may be wasted, because the national swing might be so large that even a tactical vote can't prevent Labour from taking the seat - say in Broxtowe - or the national swing might be so small that Labour would fall short without any UKIP tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
Off the top of my head, wasn't a vote for UKIP in Morley & Outwood a good way of getting Ed Balls elected?
How many marginals did the Tories lose by less than the UKIP vote?
It didn't stop Cameron becoming PM, though, and it didn't lead to Brown remaining as PM. That is my point.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
You realise all those 'bastard landlords' would likely turf out tenants and sell up if if they lost money on rental property?
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
His choice of course, but assuming he ever becomes King, he'll always undoubtedly be known to his subjects as Charles. Reminds me of the Royals' failed attempt to re-name Kate at the time of her wedding to William as the more formal sounding and poshed-up version "Catherine". Snobbery or what!
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Sorry do you really think landlords are going to pay this tax?
It will be merely added on to the rent of the tenants
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
You realise all those 'bastard landlords' would likely turf out tenants and sell up if if they lost money on rental property?
That's the point.
How much would prices need to fall?
Does it matter?
Well, it does, if you're hoping to make property more affordable for those evicted tenants.
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
We could go on all day like this couldn't we?! Unlike James Kelly, I am willing to agree to disagree.
You can go on thinking its sung in an English accent and that UKIP voters will split for Cameron without me pulling you up
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Well it might put it to bed for you, but I don't agree with a word of what you have said.. seems a very old fashioned way of thinking to think of black people as immigrants or that black/white cant overlap without causing offence
Yes. A lot has changed down the years and London (let's not start that one again) has made some amazing strides in integration.
But the fact remains that discrimination across the country, in the shires, etc, where there has been a large influx of immigrants (of any colour), still exists to quite a large degree. That is where the song is being interpreted in such a way.
Sam what is the breakdown of London/non-London UKIP support?
(Edit: actually that is a slur on the shires, although no doubt the phenomenon exists - let's just say that we are not all as happy a family as you, perhaps a more enlightened, inner city Kipper, believes)
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
There were rumours that Charles wasn't too keen on a name that hasn't had the best of histories, one king having been executed and the other having a particular reputation as a ladies' man, though presumably his parents were aware of that history when they gave him at and weren't that bothered. In any case, there's plenty to be said against the first four Georges that could make that name less than ideal.
I'm less than convinced about his grandmother requesting it as a tribute to her husband as (1) he was known as Bertie (i.e. Albert) to his family, and (2) had she been that keen, couldn't she have exerted some influence in 1948 when it mattered?
Charlie also wanted to be 'Defender of the Faiths' instead of 'Defender of the Faith'. As 'taffys' has written, "how different and frightening all this is" to many...
Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.
If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?
UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.
Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.
At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.
Mr Dancer,
UKIP would have a referendum in months. If a referendum is so important to national interests then why doesn't Dave attempt to force on through before the general election? Why did he instead use a cheap Brownite triangulation trick of timing it for 2017 effectively attempting to extort the votes of those who generally oppose his party just to get a referendum. If that wasn't a clear case of putting party before country what is?
How exactly would UKIP 'have a referendum in months'?
Cameron has already been bitten once by appearing to offer a referendum when it wasn't entirely within his control and then seeing events mess it up for him. I cannot imagine he is keen to repeat the experience.
A Tory majority government can guarantee that a bill will clear parliament by 2017 with absolute certainty. Indeed, it can guarantee it by the summer of 2016, just about. It cannot guarantee it any earlier as the Lords could block it. Note that the Salisbury Convention is just that, and that if they feel strongly enough about something, they can vote it down, manifesto commitment or not. Whether they'd be wise to do so, or likely to do so, is beside the point. They can do so and it would be foolhardy to ignore that fact.
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
There were rumours that Charles wasn't too keen on a name that hasn't had the best of histories, one king having been executed and the other having a particular reputation as a ladies' man,
Ladies' man? Remind me how Charles and Di's marriage broke down?
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
[snipped for space]
I'm less than convinced about his grandmother requesting it as a tribute to her husband as (1) he was known as Bertie (i.e. Albert) to his family, and (2) had she been that keen, couldn't she have exerted some influence in 1948 when it mattered?
Good points well made - I suspect the PoW will surprise us all with his eventual title. #Brian?.
A substantial house price fall would cause a recession.
If this was such a great idea, why didn't Brown do it in 2008?
Because too many ordinary people would get clobbered. What's more, its Generation Rent that will be inheriting these assets in due course.
Rising hose prices lead to [most] people's feel good factor improving, which in turn leads to incumbent governing parties being re-elected as we will discover next May.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Well it might put it to bed for you, but I don't agree with a word of what you have said.. seems a very old fashioned way of thinking to think of black people as immigrants or that black/white cant overlap without causing offence
Yes. A lot has changed down the years and London (let's not start that one again) has made some amazing strides in integration.
But the fact remains that discrimination across the country, in the shires, etc, where there has been a large influx of immigrants (of any colour), still exists to quite a large degree. That is where the song is being interpreted in such a way.
Sam what is the breakdown of London/non-London UKIP support?
(Edit: actually that is a slur on the shires, although no doubt the phenomenon exists - let's just say that we are not all as happy a family as you, perhaps a more enlightened, inner city Kipper, believes)
The only discrimination I am aware of is that against indigenous people when they apply for jobs or university places. Can you please provide examples for your assertion, although I personally believe the people of this country should be prioritised and given preference?
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
There were rumours that Charles wasn't too keen on a name that hasn't had the best of histories, one king having been executed and the other having a particular reputation as a ladies' man,
Ladies' man? Remind me how Charles and Di's marriage broke down?
I'm not sure that was universally seen as a positive development.
Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?
Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?
Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
In which seats will a vote for UKIP, rather than the Conservatives, help to make PM Miliband happen?
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
Off the top of my head, wasn't a vote for UKIP in Morley & Outwood a good way of getting Ed Balls elected?
How many marginals did the Tories lose by less than the UKIP vote?
At Heywood, UKIP lost because 617 people voted Tory or stayed at home!
Yes, I think that may have killed off the 'vote UkIP get Ed' meme for a bit.
The last couple of days have been dominated by Tories on here slagging off the Mike Read song due to the Jamaican twang & smearing by association re the Polish MEP joining the EU group... then chief PC wonk Chuka Umunna says exactly the same thing the next day
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Well it might put it to bed for you, but I don't agree with a word of what you have said.. seems a very old fashioned way of thinking to think of black people as immigrants or that black/white cant overlap without causing offence
Yes. A lot has changed down the years and London (let's not start that one again) has made some amazing strides in integration.
But the fact remains that discrimination across the country, in the shires, etc, where there has been a large influx of immigrants (of any colour), still exists to quite a large degree. That is where the song is being interpreted in such a way.
Sam what is the breakdown of London/non-London UKIP support?
(Edit: actually that is a slur on the shires, although no doubt the phenomenon exists - let's just say that we are not all as happy a family as you, perhaps a more enlightened, inner city Kipper, believes)
The only discrimination I am aware of is that against indigenous people when they apply for jobs or university places. Can you please provide examples for your assertion, although I personally believe the people of this country should be prioritised and given preference?
You are not aware of any discrimination against indigenous people when they apply for jobs or university places.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Sorry do you really think landlords are going to pay this tax?
It will be merely added on to the rent of the tenants
If landlords could charge their tenants enough extra to cover that tax why would they not already be doing so?
Actually, most of the comments I read from Tories on here were slagging off the Mike Read song because it was crap, not because of the accent!
Really? Hmm I wouldn't agree
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
Quite - I was slagging it off because I thought it harked back to the bad old days of racial stereotypes.
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
Well it might put it to bed for you, but I don't agree with a word of what you have said.. seems a very old fashioned way of thinking to think of black people as immigrants or that black/white cant overlap without causing offence
Yes. A lot has changed down the years and London (let's not start that one again) has made some amazing strides in integration.
But the fact remains that discrimination across the country, in the shires, etc, where there has been a large influx of immigrants (of any colour), still exists to quite a large degree. That is where the song is being interpreted in such a way.
Sam what is the breakdown of London/non-London UKIP support?
(Edit: actually that is a slur on the shires, although no doubt the phenomenon exists - let's just say that we are not all as happy a family as you, perhaps a more enlightened, inner city Kipper, believes)
The only discrimination I am aware of is that against indigenous people when they apply for jobs or university places. Can you please provide examples for your assertion, although I personally believe the people of this country should be prioritised and given preference?
You are not aware of any discrimination against indigenous people when they apply for jobs or university places.
Please do explain why I should lose out for a job or university place to a less qualified candidate just because this is my own country?
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
There were rumours that Charles wasn't too keen on a name that hasn't had the best of histories, one king having been executed and the other having a particular reputation as a ladies' man, though presumably his parents were aware of that history when they gave him at and weren't that bothered. In any case, there's plenty to be said against the first four Georges that could make that name less than ideal.
I'm less than convinced about his grandmother requesting it as a tribute to her husband as (1) he was known as Bertie (i.e. Albert) to his family, and (2) had she been that keen, couldn't she have exerted some influence in 1948 when it mattered?
Charlie also wanted to be 'Defender of the Faiths' instead of 'Defender of the Faith'. As 'taffys' has written, "how different and frightening all this is" to many...
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
Should we boycott Sting/The Police because he sings with a quasi-Jamaican accent?
Obviously not, and I haven't proposed boycotting Mike Read.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Sorry do you really think landlords are going to pay this tax?
It will be merely added on to the rent of the tenants
If landlords could charge their tenants enough extra to cover that tax why would they not already be doing so?
Because currently none wants to be the first to raise their prices. The moment something like that tax goes on they know all other landlords will do the same. My landlord is positively salivating for example at the thought of milibrands rent rise cap because he believes he will be able to put the rent up every year by that cap rate because all other landlords in the area will do exactly the same whereas now he doesnt raise the rent every year until a fair proportion of others have done so. It is simple human nature at work if landlords have a fair rent rise specified by the powers that be they will shrug and stick it on top
UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.
Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?
If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.
No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
Fair enough.
But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.
I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
From public school to City is a pretty standard journey made by members of the elite. Throw in a seat on the political gravy train and you could not get more mainstream elite than Nigel Farage.
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
We could go on all day like this couldn't we?! Unlike James Kelly, I am willing to agree to disagree.
You can go on thinking its sung in an English accent and that UKIP voters will split for Cameron without me pulling you up
It sounds like you don't want the job as Kipper James Kelly!
In addition (meant to write it before but itchy trigger finger )
Most landlords have a percentage profit per year aim. Generally costs + 5-10% around here, put the costs up and they still want a return on that. The tax otherwise means they make no profit on it so to their mind its a no brainer
Good, that mean McLaren will start getting better. Just as Williams bounced back after he left...
I know a couple of engineers who will be popping the champagne corks tonight. The cursed reign of St Michael is over ...
It would be interesting, once the dust has settled and events have become history (in F1 terms, probably a decade or so) to look at Michael's career and work out why his impressive stint at Jordan turned to dust at Williams and McLaren. Was it just bad luck at joining those two companies as they were on the downturn, or did he just flatter to deceive at Jordan and was, in fact, sh*t.
Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.
If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?
UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.
Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.
At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.
Mr Dancer,
UKIP would have a referendum in months. If a referendum is so important to national interests then why doesn't Dave attempt to force on through before the general election? Why did he instead use a cheap Brownite triangulation trick of timing it for 2017 effectively attempting to extort the votes of those who generally oppose his party just to get a referendum. If that wasn't a clear case of putting party before country what is?
Because there are a large number of people who will buy an argument that the EU can and will be reformed.
To maximise the chances of an "out" vote it is necessary to prove objectively that this argument is inaccurate.
I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?
A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.
Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?
Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
I'd like to point out that, despite no doubt being considered a "Cameroon", I had no problem with Mike Read's song (apart from it being rubbish) and wasn't offended by it on my or anyone else's behalf. I just said that I didn't think 10cc had sung in a "Readesque accent". I still don't think so, despite the strong rejection of my thought by kippers who seemed to take offence (in a Nat like way) at it.
Oh I wouldn't know what you were!
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
I'd say it's sung in a reggae style, rather than in a "comedy" Jamaican accent like that used by Mike Read
Should we boycott Sting/The Police because he sings with a quasi-Jamaican accent?
Obviously not, and I haven't proposed boycotting Mike Read.
Wonder if Alan Partridge is based on Mike Read.
To be not even the most famous Mike Reid and end up on Radio Berkshire
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
By putting a tax across the board on landlords like this ( and I do see where you are coming from) would mean landlords putting up the rent for tenants to compensate and in fact it would become a tenant tax . Its not as if renters as a whole could argue as there is a shortage of properties
A 3% tax on the value of second properties and removal of the mortgage interest tax break. Make it uncompetitive for money to be deployed in housing vs equity markets. There is far too much money locked up in housing which is economically unproductive.
You don't want to go down the route of changing the debt interest rules for one type of investment. Can of worms.
Just charge a annual property tax, say 1%, on all homes.
Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
His grandmother's request, I believe, as a tribute to her husband
Not heard that version before. - several years ago the Times ran a story that Charles was contemplating ruling as George VII, but it was strongly refuted at the time IMRC.
Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
By putting a tax across the board on landlords like this ( and I do see where you are coming from) would mean landlords putting up the rent for tenants to compensate and in fact it would become a tenant tax . Its not as if renters as a whole could argue as there is a shortage of properties
A 3% tax on the value of second properties and removal of the mortgage interest tax break. Make it uncompetitive for money to be deployed in housing vs equity markets. There is far too much money locked up in housing which is economically unproductive.
You don't want to go down the route of changing the debt interest rules for one type of investment. Can of worms.
Just charge a annual property tax, say 1%, on all homes.
The key word here is 'homes', not investments.
Do you seriously think people have that amount of cash available? Or are you proposing tax cuts elsewhere?
Someone with a relatively modest house (not a 'mansion') in the South East worth say £500,000 would have to find an extra £5000 a year. Good luck with that idea.
I feel this is an insult to my intelligence. UKIP has not put people off being eurosceptic - the rise of UKIP forced Cameron to offer 'renegotiation'. That means there is another dimension to it when persuading people to leave or stay. It doesnt mean people all of a sudden are happy with the status quo.
I support UKIP at the moment, but if we got a significant amount of powers back even I would think twice.
There is one thing I cannot stand, and that is a loaded question in order to fuel propaganda. Look into the details and people will not vote to stay in the EU in its current form. That has not changed. About 1/3 of people want out regardless, 1/3 want in regardless and about 1/3 want to see what Cameron comes up with. The amount of diehard support against or for has not changed.
All that has changed is Camerons new 'deal', which has temporarily shown raised support for the EU, provided he is successful (which he wont be), and Camerons 'deal' came about because of UKIP. A poll that shows results based on a hypothetical situation which may not even happen cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is able to put two and two together.
This is nothing about UKIP directly putting people off the notion of us leaving. If it wasnt for UKIP Cameron would have ignored the subject completely. The devil is in the details people.
I think the reason is (as I proposed in an earlier thread) that people are pissed off and (rightly in my opinion) feel betrayed, but also inherently risk averse. Therefore, they are minded to stay in the institution, but elect politicians who are anti, who they can trust to fight tooth and nail. The same in Scotland with SNP and the UK with UKIP. Also explains UKIP's success in the euros. There's some sense in this. I still think we must (and will) leave the EU, but for now, getting UKIP in the door is more important, to make the argument for doing so.
I agree Luckyguy1983. Cameron does not do anything unless pushed, and UKIP has been vital for that. I think the way the media (and supposedly impartial people) spin the sudden support for the EU is dishonest. The ratio of euroscepticism to europhile has not changed in the last ten years - but the potential response to combating EU missing creep has divided into the out camp and the negotiation camp, making the 'out' numbers look higher than they really are.
I would love a European community where nation states have the final say in terms of what happens regarding their borders and laws, and if the EU was to accept that then I would of course vote to stay in. It is great that we can work together on global issues and trade, but the unelected eurocrats have to realise that all the countries have different needs, different circumstances, different population densities, different landscapes, food production (the list goes on). Europe is a wonderful patchwork quilt of different, unique nations and long may that continue. I pesonally believe that the term 'eurosceptic' is demeaning. I like to think of it as 'EUsceptic'. Europe is a wonderful continent.
It just beggars belief that things like free movement remains the 'core' of the EU project, when it is a totally beast now. Huge variances in GDP per capita and differences in economic performance causes unbalanced movement which has a huge effect on countries - who should be allowed to manage it to suit their situation.
Free movement should not equal free for all movement, and Britain should not simply be the economic lifeboat for club med and club ex soviet.
Migration from Spain needs controlling, but it doesn't need stopping. If or when their economy picks up, we could then ease the controls to suit. It is just common sense really. Personally I love Spain, it is one of my favorite countries in Europe, but the volume has to be managed.
Lets face it, support for the EU will not be 50%+ if free movement remains in its current form. Only UKIP have pushed the agenda for this.
The fact alot of EU bigwigs seem so entrenched and reluctant to address this makes one come to the conclusion that the united states of Europe really is their ultimate goal. Even if they play the long game first by mixing countries up for a few decades until people get used to it.
In theory Camerons idea of renegotiation is the perfect solution, it sounds like wonderful best of both worlds, but in practice he will never get the reforms that people want, hence that opinion poll being worth less than the paper it is printed on. Yet the media spin it as a sudden rush of support for the EU all because UKIP are putting them off being eurosceptic!
It is all about Camerons response to the rise in euroscepticism, trying sell us the fallacy that he can keep people on board whilst giving them what they want in terms of returned powers. It just wont happen.
Comments
“If we change rules on freedom of movement today, tomorrow others will try to change the freedom of movement of capital.” @JunckerEU to BBC
Anyone know how Cameron's renegotiation plans are going?
Of course as mentioned the EU is a bit of a side issue to Kippers these days.
Regarding the song, I agree, if I was a Tory I would have downloaded 50 copies/started a facebook group to try and get it to No1.. I haven't heard it but, unless it was bait to lure PC wonks to embarrass themselves by ripping into it on racial grounds, it was a ridiculous idea to associate with
I was reading today of how one of the eastern legions doing battle (over a couple of days) with Vitellius, on behalf of Vespasian, turned at dawn to greet the sun (as was their way). Other legions in both armies thought they were greeting reinforcements. Vespasian's men fought the harder, and Vitellius' gave way and were defeated.
"Lars, lets see how well these new depth charges work!"
Are you seriously suggesting that if something is in the national interest it can only be acted upon if its in a party manifesto (the same manifesto that when commitments are not undertaken we are told are not binding) or in some inter party agreement? Whether or not he has a majority it is his duty as Prime Minister to attempt to do what is in the country's interests (as he did with Syria) and let the people judge who is right or wrong if Parliament decides not to back him.
Not only that a referendum bill for 2017 was won last week and it went through without anyone voting against it. We cannot be certain how an earlier referendum bill would have panned out. The Tories didn't even try to put one through because their leadership no real desire for one and didn't want the hassle. The reason why Cameron eventually proposed a referendum was purely out of self-interest.
One reason interest rates are 0.5% has been to keep house prices up and negative equity and repossessions off the table.
Find a way of forcing house prices down and electoral disaster awaits.
Mucking about with the market will hit too many ordinary people as collateral damage.
I didn't take offence at all, I just have listened to that 10cc song probably over 100 times as their Greatest Hits was an LP my folks had when I was a kid, and I always took it they were affecting Jamaican accents... they don't sing in that accent in any of the other songs on the album
EDIT (about the comments, I agree about the song)
You may want to go away and rethink this one.
There has been a lot of rebalancing of the economy which is not so much a flagship policy as a righting of some quite serious wrongs (I talk here about political philosophies - Labour: big state, Cons: smaller state) so that is what a lot of Cons voters hoped would happen.
GO, despite @Alanbrooke's many many criticisms has had to tread a careful path between so-called "austerity" (of course there has been none) and stimulation. IMO he couldn't have stimulated before he had convinced the market he could be fiscally responsible (although others differ on this). He has then had to rebalance the economy away from the state in favour of the private sector. This also has had do be done in stages.
To date has not been the time for "big ideas". With luck that will come although I am very alive to the accusation that Dave has not got a particular big idea in his head and has flip-flopped on so many previous policies.
Are you ignorant or just trying to make a kipper point?
So you'd end up with more homeless, and higher costs for those with roofs over their heads. It's a winner Max!
Red Cross turns down Ukip's offer of proceeds of withdrawn #ukipcalypso song, citing 'proud history of helping refugees and asylum seekers'
Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.
UKIP are the only party in England with a realistic chance of winning seats off Labour. So that's 258 Labour-held seats where a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen - indeed it makes PM Miliband less likely.
Given that Labour are already giving up on seats they held in 2005, there is sod all chance of them winning seats that the Tories held in 2005, so that's at least another 200 seats in which a vote for UKIP won't make PM Miliband happen.
There are a bunch of Lib Dem seats where Labour, or the Conservatives, are a poor third, so a vote for UKIP instead of the Conservatives won't make PM Miliband happen - it might even make PM Miliband less likely.
Even among the Con-Lab marginals from 2010, that are on Labour's target list to win in 2015, there are a number of seats where UKIP have a better chance of stopping Labour than the Conservatives, such as Thurrock, Waveney, South Thanet, etc. So a vote for UKIP in these seats makes PM Miliband less likely.
So how many seats are left in which you can reasonably make a case that a right-wing UKIP-inclined voter should vote for the Tories to stop Miliband? It's not very many. And even in those seats a "tactical" vote may be wasted, because the national swing might be so large that even a tactical vote can't prevent Labour from taking the seat - say in Broxtowe - or the national swing might be so small that Labour would fall short without any UKIP tactical votes for the Conservatives - say in Reading West.
There's probably only about twenty seats where you could genuinely say that a vote for UKIP rather than the Conservatives would make PM Miliband more likely, and then it would only be in the specific scenario where Labour are only marginally ahead of the Tories on seats, rather than behind, or well ahead. Seats like Kingswood, Erewash and Bury North.
About 3% of the total number of constituencies, in about the 1-in-4 chance [at most] that the Parliament is on a knife-edge.
Oh, and I suppose you will be arguing for a UKIP vote in Rotherham, Heywood & Middleton, Eastleigh, Great Grimsby, etc, where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote against an EU referendum?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/20/driver-runs-over-two-canadian-soldiers-outside-montreal-police-shoot-and-kill-driver-after-high-speed-chase/
And to put this to bed once and for all, the difference between a white person blacking up and singing a calypso song and UB40 singing Ivory Madonna is one of power.
The white indigenous population has power over immigrants both socially, economically and politically. Hence to make fun of immigrants cannot be seen as equivalent because of the power imbalance. Because the immigrants can't do anything about it. And hence it is at least bullying or demonising "the other" and at worst...
If Mike Read were to fly to Kingston Jamaica and sing his song then there would be a different power dynamic.
How many marginals did the Tories lose by less than the UKIP vote?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 2 hrs2 hours ago
#Conservatives vote-share at GB by-elections since GE2010. Won Newark, runners-up 5 times, with only one lost deposit
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/524921176775479296
Decrease in #Conservatives vote-% at GB by-elections vs. GE2010 for each seat. Only party to lose vote % in all seats
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/524921950226116609
Now I appreciate your Mystic Meg impersonation purely on an aesthetic level but that doesn't change the fact that I don't believe people can foretell accurately the outcome of such events.
@JamesTapsfield: Kippers claim moral high ground vs Red Cross... brave move: "We regret British RC think it's their place to put politics over saving lives"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XrGqoISd-do
I'm sort of surprised that they went for William, given the awkward history with that name. It might be time to start using a few different names.
I'm less than convinced about his grandmother requesting it as a tribute to her husband as (1) he was known as Bertie (i.e. Albert) to his family, and (2) had she been that keen, couldn't she have exerted some influence in 1948 when it mattered?
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 2m2 minutes ago
Uh-oh. Ukip chair Steve Crowther: "We regret the British Red Cross think it's their place to put politics over saving peoples' lives"
Snobbery or what!
It will be merely added on to the rent of the tenants
You can go on thinking its sung in an English accent and that UKIP voters will split for Cameron without me pulling you up
But the fact remains that discrimination across the country, in the shires, etc, where there has been a large influx of immigrants (of any colour), still exists to quite a large degree. That is where the song is being interpreted in such a way.
Sam what is the breakdown of London/non-London UKIP support?
(Edit: actually that is a slur on the shires, although no doubt the phenomenon exists - let's just say that we are not all as happy a family as you, perhaps a more enlightened, inner city Kipper, believes)
If this was such a great idea, why didn't Brown let it run in 2008?
Because too many ordinary people would get clobbered. What's more, its Generation Rent that will be inheriting these assets in due course.
The most recent results are:-
Yougov 41/40 In
Ashcroft 41/41
TNS 41/49 Out
Opinium 37/48 Out
Survation 39/47 Out
Com Res 36/43 Out.
MORI is the outlier. Back in May they had 54/37 In.
http://croydon.greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/10/22/croydon-green-party-announces-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/
Central: Esther Sutton
North: Shasha Khan
South: Peter Underwood
Next he´ll be selling laptops.
Casualties reported.
In addition (meant to write it before but itchy trigger finger
Most landlords have a percentage profit per year aim. Generally costs + 5-10% around here, put the costs up and they still want a return on that. The tax otherwise means they make no profit on it so to their mind its a no brainer
It would be interesting, once the dust has settled and events have become history (in F1 terms, probably a decade or so) to look at Michael's career and work out why his impressive stint at Jordan turned to dust at Williams and McLaren. Was it just bad luck at joining those two companies as they were on the downturn, or did he just flatter to deceive at Jordan and was, in fact, sh*t.
To maximise the chances of an "out" vote it is necessary to prove objectively that this argument is inaccurate.
Anyway, the hereditary peers are elected. *innocent face*
To be not even the most famous Mike Reid and end up on Radio Berkshire
Glittering career!!
Just charge a annual property tax, say 1%, on all homes.
Sorry, ma'am. Thought it was public.
Do you seriously think people have that amount of cash available? Or are you proposing tax cuts elsewhere?
Someone with a relatively modest house (not a 'mansion') in the South East worth say £500,000 would have to find an extra £5000 a year. Good luck with that idea.
I support UKIP at the moment, but if we got a significant amount of powers back even I would think twice.
There is one thing I cannot stand, and that is a loaded question in order to fuel propaganda. Look into the details and people will not vote to stay in the EU in its current form. That has not changed. About 1/3 of people want out regardless, 1/3 want in regardless and about 1/3 want to see what Cameron comes up with. The amount of diehard support against or for has not changed.
All that has changed is Camerons new 'deal', which has temporarily shown raised support for the EU, provided he is successful (which he wont be), and Camerons 'deal' came about because of UKIP. A poll that shows results based on a hypothetical situation which may not even happen cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is able to put two and two together.
This is nothing about UKIP directly putting people off the notion of us leaving. If it wasnt for UKIP Cameron would have ignored the subject completely. The devil is in the details people.
I would love a European community where nation states have the final say in terms of what happens regarding their borders and laws, and if the EU was to accept that then I would of course vote to stay in. It is great that we can work together on global issues and trade, but the unelected eurocrats have to realise that all the countries have different needs, different circumstances, different population densities, different landscapes, food production (the list goes on). Europe is a wonderful patchwork quilt of different, unique nations and long may that continue. I pesonally believe that the term 'eurosceptic' is demeaning. I like to think of it as 'EUsceptic'. Europe is a wonderful continent.
It just beggars belief that things like free movement remains the 'core' of the EU project, when it is a totally beast now. Huge variances in GDP per capita and differences in economic performance causes unbalanced movement which has a huge effect on countries - who should be allowed to manage it to suit their situation.
Free movement should not equal free for all movement, and Britain should not simply be the economic lifeboat for club med and club ex soviet.
Migration from Spain needs controlling, but it doesn't need stopping. If or when their economy picks up, we could then ease the controls to suit. It is just common sense really. Personally I love Spain, it is one of my favorite countries in Europe, but the volume has to be managed.
Lets face it, support for the EU will not be 50%+ if free movement remains in its current form. Only UKIP have pushed the agenda for this.
The fact alot of EU bigwigs seem so entrenched and reluctant to address this makes one come to the conclusion that the united states of Europe really is their ultimate goal. Even if they play the long game first by mixing countries up for a few decades until people get used to it.
In theory Camerons idea of renegotiation is the perfect solution, it sounds like wonderful best of both worlds, but in practice he will never get the reforms that people want, hence that opinion poll being worth less than the paper it is printed on. Yet the media spin it as a sudden rush of support for the EU all because UKIP are putting them off being eurosceptic!
It is all about Camerons response to the rise in euroscepticism, trying sell us the fallacy that he can keep people on board whilst giving them what they want in terms of returned powers. It just wont happen.