@Jonathan - Yes, that is true, and it supports my point. Labour have made exactly the same mistake. OK, they haven't been stupid enough to sign idiotic pledges, but they have spent two years deliberately giving the very strong impression that they would not cut public spending, reform welfare, or do any of the other things which clearly have to be done and will continue to have to be done. And they have done that in the most lurid, shroud-waving language.
It really is a hostage to fortune, which is going to make it very hard to govern, especially in the event of a hung parliament or small majority.
The current Tory EU policy is the dance of the seven veils. Some are going to be very disappointed. It will make the fuss over cast iron guarantees look like nothing.
Simon Danczuck should be running Labour's campaigns - he gets it.
"...Some siren voices, notably from the activist and pundit Owen Jones, desperately want to exhume Labour’s suicidal 1983 manifesto. They want an even bigger State, to talk only to Labour’s core vote, and think that the public sector rather than business drives the economy. The enthusiasm of Owen and his troops is admirable, but time after time they fall back on failed policy prescriptions and are certainly not in touch with young voters. A recent analysis by Ipsos MORI found that people under 33 are departing from their baby-boomer forebears and value self-reliance more than being dependent on the State...
As MP for Rochdale I don’t have to look far to find big social problems. My weekly surgery is full of incredibly challenging cases but I know that the answer is not even more welfare. People often tell me on the doorstep that they think benefits are going to the wrong people and there are not enough incentives to get into work. Police officers tell me about widespread benefit fraud and have convinced me that major reform is needed.
Today’s voters want to live independent lives and not to be in hock to the State. The next general election will be won by the party that has the most convincing vision for achieving this. Labour is firmly on course to succeed and we will not be dragged into the ditch by economically illiterate voices who have nothing to say about enterprise or aspiration..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3807408.ece
A few PB Tories make fools of themselves, the caravan moves on.
Talking of fools, what did you say would be "the core of Labours economic policy" again?
Building 1.2 million houses for £100,000 each.
Chortle. You really don't have a clue.
Rather than vapidly repeating your point why not go and look at the costs of building housing by region and by size, come back with some data and we'll have a discussion. Mindlessly posting and average price for sale over and over while pointing a lot at that figure isn't helpful.
The only way to keep housing prices low is for HMG to donate spare land such as old military bases.
Now we're getting somewhere
well yes and no. A lot of the military bases tend to be in the country and in effect mean they need to be developed as a small village rather than simply housing. They'd probably work better as private developments rather than social housing since you need a transport infrastructure to get people to work and the shires don't really have one. My village has a bus once a week to take the pensioners to the post office. That's it, otherwise you need a car.
There's a very nice ex-military base in St John's Wood that will soon be redeveloped. I'm guessing its unlikely to be for affordable housing. (Where affordable housing means less than £1m for a 800 square foot, two bedroom flat)
Sounds like there is a dangerous new car bubble forming...
Telegraph:
"New car sales in Britain rose for the 16th consecutive month in June, jumping 13.4pc with a year earlier.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said new car registrations increased to 214,957.
Many buyers are returning to the market having held off on purchasing new cars, while attractive finance deals and more fuel-efficient models are also driving growth, SMMT said.
Mike Baunton, SMMT interim chief executive, said: While there are still potential challenges ahead, recent robust growth suggests that the market is on course to perform well ahead of 2012 levels.
Over the first half of the year, new car sales rose 10pc."
@stodge The whole idea of stopping the southeastward migration of wealth is nuts. The different regions aren't just in competition with each other, but with regions in the rest of the world. As a nation we should be running our profits. The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth.
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
@stodge The whole idea of stopping the southeastward migration of wealth is nuts. The different regions aren't just in competition with each other, but with regions in the rest of the world. As a nation we should be running our profits. The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth.
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
Fracking can bring prosperity for the regions - see Aberdeen.
That is if the SE based handwringing lefties will let it happen.
@stodge The whole idea of stopping the southeastward migration of wealth is nuts. The different regions aren't just in competition with each other, but with regions in the rest of the world. As a nation we should be running our profits. The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth.
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
" The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth. "
Right so as a nation we should have one big egg in one big basket ? That didn't look so clever in 2008. I prefer the german regional structure where city economies compete against each other and the risk and wealth is spread around.
@Tim "They choose to get elections spectacularly wrong instead, that's a full time job."
Labour have an 8% ish lead in mid-term. As the only major government party. Lab maj nailed on Tim? Or is 8% not all that perhaps?
Who knows with a split right wing?
Privately, the PM accepts that he must force Ukip down to five per cent if he is to stand a chance.
Perhaps the PB Tories might be more usefully educating themselves if they tackled that than hysterically posting about moves in the daily YouGov when they are in their favour
I think it is virtually impossible for UKIP to fall to 5%, unless the party implodes.
And the party - UKIP - is growing bigger every day. Watch for our Septemer conference in Westminster, where you will meet an enthusiastic party ready for action in 2014.
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
What about Dave's idea of recruiting foreign students, can't think of a better way to revitalise areas outside London than the Manchester Football Academy Campus, the Leeds Music Campus, Wigan Pier History Campus,Newcastle Engineering Academy Campus, Liverpool Shipping Academy Campus and on and on and on. Building links with China, India, Brazil and Turkey, boosting local economies, maximising British brands. I really think he might be onto something you know.
I find this rather concerning on a democratic level. http://order-order.com/2013/07/04/vote-unite/ - prepare for breezy dismissals and *move along now, nothing to see" from Labourites on here
"As far as Guido can work out, there are 146 Labour MPs who have received money from Unite either directly or to their constituency parties. They walk around Parliament wearing Unite lanyards, they have quite simply been bought by trade union lobbyists. Now Unite want 41 more MPs. While it may say Labour next to their name when you go to the ballot box, these candidates are running for Unite…"
The project consists of 12 apartment blocks and will create 133 new homes, 59 of which will be affordable housing."
Interesting. According to Prime Location, the cheapest flat on the (preferred) Eastern side of St John's Wood (where the new development will be) is £445,000 for a one bedroom flat. I'm guessing this is about 450-500 square feet. The interesting questions about the affordable housing is:
1. Is it going to be sold at prices in line with the cheapest in the area (i.e. 59 x £450k one bedroom flats), which is affordable to only to anyone earning more than £100k. 2. If it is to be sold at a discount to the prevailing market price, then how do they stop flipping? (If there is a 'must own for five year' clause, then all you will see is that all the affordable units will be rented for five years, then sold for a humungous profit.)
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
How would he show it ? Fall down and worship Nigel ? If I understand kippers correctly you won't do a deal with DC until he has a stake through his heart and is buried at a crossroads at midnight. So why whould he change to accommodate you ? Your negotiating stance is as mad as Cameron's.
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
Ukip are on course to be a defining influence at the next election - they will drive rEd Miliband to the door of no 10 Downing Street and ensure no "distracting" Euro referendum before 2020.
@stodge The whole idea of stopping the southeastward migration of wealth is nuts. The different regions aren't just in competition with each other, but with regions in the rest of the world. As a nation we should be running our profits. The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth.
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
Fracking can bring prosperity for the regions - see Aberdeen.
That is if the SE based handwringing lefties will let it happen.
Aberdeen is rich because of off-shore traditional reservoirs. If you want to see somewhere becoming rich because of tight formations and hydraulic fracturing, then look at Houston or (better) North Dakota.
@stodge The whole idea of stopping the southeastward migration of wealth is nuts. The different regions aren't just in competition with each other, but with regions in the rest of the world. As a nation we should be running our profits. The London-oriented economy is a big profit centre. We should be exploiting it for all its worth.
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
Fracking can bring prosperity for the regions - see Aberdeen.
That is if the SE based handwringing lefties will let it happen.
Aberdeen is rich because of off-shore traditional reservoirs. If you want to see somewhere becoming rich because of tight formations and hydraulic fracturing, then look at Houston or (better) North Dakota.
Indeed but they are not in the Uk. My point was - if it were not for the oil Aberdeen would be another Brechin.
The top graph is meaningless; no account has been made for weekends so your "continuous" stream is misleading. A more interesting analysis [it could be argued] would be to compare weekday-to-weekday movements.
With such a limited sub-sample we can only attempt this with the data for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. This gives us three two-day "observations" which "show" that Labour's poll share has fallen within the Monday and Wednesday sets, whilst remaining stable during the Tuesday set.
Whether these observations are sufficient to define a trend is mute: More observations within a set would increase the confidence of any hypothesis tested. What it also does not accomodate is a 'paradigm-shift': How do we know when the YouGov polls accurately reflect the electorates realisation that "Ed is crap!"...?
Some interesting thoughts from Mr Carswell - I think he's onto something - but its at least a decade from really showing itself when it comes to politics.
"...Once folk have endless choice and self-selection over the small, trivial things – like the music they listen to – how much longer do you imagine they will be prepared to stand in line and wait for the really important things, like health care, or their kids’ education?
...But self-selection isn’t only changing attitudes towards collective public service provision. Ten, or even five, years ago, what sort of news we listened to or read about was chosen for us all...Opinion-forming was the preserve of a narrow priesthood of pundits, many of whom being intelligent, rational people, overestimated the ability of intelligent, rational people to organise human social and economic affairs.
Today, social media means we can each build our own personalised newsfeeds about the things that interest us. We no longer have to view the world through the eyes of a narrow clique of BBC producers, Guardianistas and media-types. Comment and opinion-forming have been democratised.
This might not tilt the climate of opinion in favour of one particular political party. It does, however, undermine the assumption that good governance must always and everywhere mean arranging human affairs by design. Bad news for paternalistic politicians and patronising officials. Good news for the rest of us. No wonder public attitudes have started to shift so sharply on everything from the role and size of government, to immigration and the EU." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100224515/why-digital-spells-doom-for-the-left/
@Alanbrooke You might have read to the end of my post. I'm all in favour of other regions doing well. But that's no reason to handicap London.
I did read the post and agree with the sentiment, though I'd perhaps phrase it that London can look after itself so what do the regions ( where of course the bulk of population live ) need to get themselves back on an even keel. While London has always been the major city in the UK the last 50 years have seen an imbalance creep in. Pre war the major regional cities all could hold their own. It's really been since the Thatcher era and the rise of financial services that the discrepancy has crept in and become entrenched. How to turn it back ?
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
@tim - Benign smile of empathy and sympathy - you know it's not looking very good, don't you? As oft repeated, midterm polls and Leaders' ratings provide much gaiety to the life of the political obsessive but count for plod-of-earth all as regards 2015.
I did read the post and agree with the sentiment, though I'd perhaps phrase it that London can look after itself so what do the regions ( where of course the bulk of population live ) need to get themselves back on an even keel. While London has always been the major city in the UK the last 50 years have seen an imbalance creep in. Pre war the major regional cities all could hold their own. It's really been since the Thatcher era and the rise of financial services that the discrepancy has crept in and become entrenched. How to turn it back ?
I did read the post and agree with the sentiment, though I'd perhaps phrase it that London can look after itself so what do the regions ( where of course the bulk of population live ) need to get themselves back on an even keel. While London has always been the major city in the UK the last 50 years have seen an imbalance creep in. Pre war the major regional cities all could hold their own. It's really been since the Thatcher era and the rise of financial services that the discrepancy has crept in and become entrenched. How to turn it back ?
"“Enterprise and regulatory reform Bill -The union provided significant contributions to MPs and the Shadow teams in supporting attempts to block the worst aspects of both the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the Growth and Infrastructure Bill”"
I did read the post and agree with the sentiment, though I'd perhaps phrase it that London can look after itself so what do the regions ( where of course the bulk of population live ) need to get themselves back on an even keel. While London has always been the major city in the UK the last 50 years have seen an imbalance creep in. Pre war the major regional cities all could hold their own. It's really been since the Thatcher era and the rise of financial services that the discrepancy has crept in and become entrenched. How to turn it back ?
HS2?
(RN tiptoes away quietly...)
Richard as I noted before HS2 exists solely so Londoners can get out of Birmingham faster.
There are much better things to spend £50bn on. :-)
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden Leaked UNITE own figures doc shows ONLY 1/5 of their members Vote Labour. Yet Labour are apparently happy to sign them up as Labour members!
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
I did read the post and agree with the sentiment, though I'd perhaps phrase it that London can look after itself so what do the regions ( where of course the bulk of population live ) need to get themselves back on an even keel. While London has always been the major city in the UK the last 50 years have seen an imbalance creep in. Pre war the major regional cities all could hold their own. It's really been since the Thatcher era and the rise of financial services that the discrepancy has crept in and become entrenched. How to turn it back ?
HS2?
(RN tiptoes away quietly...)
Richard as I noted before HS2 exists solely so Londoners can get out of Birmingham faster.
There are much better things to spend £50bn on. :-)
I thought the aim of HS2 was to get Man Utd fans to Old Trafford more quickly
Leaving the Euro would not make those imbalances go away
The usual IMF prescription for countries that have borrowed themselves into a hole is Default, Devalue, Reform. I fully agree that no indebted country can ever properly escape its past without deep supply side reform (including us) and genuine moves to improve competitiveness. But defaulting and walking away is an option. Ask Iceland. Actually it can be liberating - but only if the will to reform is there too. Absent that nothing will rescue the garlic zone, in or out of the Euro.
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
It doesn't look like MORI asked for past vote in 2005.
You mean the Labourites who stormed off to the LDs because of Iraq ?
Well, not really, since these people did not vote Lib Dem in 2005 - after Iraq.
Looking at the MORI analysis for 2005, the Lib Dems appeared to gain voters from a broader cross-section of the population.
MORI gave figures for past vote in 2001 in the 2005 analysis, but you can see that it doesn't tally well with the 2001 result, so not sure how reliable it is.
I don't agree that London can look after itself. Its infrastructure, though it has improved a lot in the last couple of decades, needs further work. We should be investing in our prime asset.
The regions do need more investment. I'm belatedly becoming a convert to the idea of regional assemblies, long after they have gone out of fashion. One of the things that has helped London is having a very public figure able to bang the table on London's behalf. The north-east, for example, has suffered by not having someone similar.
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
Leaving the Euro would not make those imbalances go away
The usual IMF prescription for countries that have borrowed themselves into a hole is Default, Devalue, Reform. I fully agree that no indebted country can ever properly escape its past without deep supply side reform (including us) and genuine moves to improve competitiveness. But defaulting and walking away is an option. Ask Iceland. Actually it can be liberating - but only if the will to reform is there too. Absent that nothing will rescue the garlic zone, in or out of the Euro.
Well: I'd posit that Spain is already demonstrating the clear beginnings of recovery. And Irish unemployment is now falling too. Those are the two countries which have really bitten the IMF bullet and gone through incredibly painful internal devaluations. In both countries private debt to GDP has come down sharply (from 100% to 85% in the case of Spain, and from 230% to 200% in Ireland). Both countries now run trade surpluses, and both have falling unemployment.
It's worth noting, of course, that devaluation isn't always an option. During the start of the Thatcher years, when the labour market was being liberalised, Sterling went from $2.00 to $2.45. The markets don't always let you do what you want, and if everyone wants a weaker currency to boost exports, someone is going to be disappointed.
I don't agree that London can look after itself. Its infrastructure, though it has improved a lot in the last couple of decades, needs further work. We should be investing in our prime asset.
The regions do need more investment. I'm belatedly becoming a convert to the idea of regional assemblies, long after they have gone out of fashion. One of the things that has helped London is having a very public figure able to bang the table on London's behalf. The north-east, for example, has suffered by not having someone similar.
Well if London can't look after itself then no region can. Seen from the regions I'd say the regions probably need protection from London ! What the regions need is to break the centralisation of the UK in London and have more decision making locally.
Mr. Antifrank, regional assemblies are completely ridiculous as an idea. It'll just pit region against region for Westminster spending. The kingdom of Alfred the Great should not be torn into little pieces by politicians.
Furthermore, it's a mayor you seem to want for certain major cities, not regional assemblies.
F1: Just read a horrid stat for McLaren at http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/. They've scored fewer points in this season than the first race of 2012 (37 versus 40).
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
How would he show it ? Fall down and worship Nigel ? If I understand kippers correctly you won't do a deal with DC until he has a stake through his heart and is buried at a crossroads at midnight. So why whould he change to accommodate you ? Your negotiating stance is as mad as Cameron's.
How could Cameron show it? How could he get UKIP voters and supporters back on-side?
Look at his attempts so far: Firstly, he tried sneering, scorn and name calling. Later, he made a wholly implausible claim that he is going to 're-negotiate' the UK's deal with the EU, which nobody, not even his wife, believes. And even that, only reluctantly and after reasonable election results for UKIP. His contortions over implicitly backing Wharton's private member's bill made Cameron look as sharp as a tennis ball.
Does Cameron have any general sympathy for UKIP's aims and frustrations? None visible.
A strong UKIP will end-play Miliband into matching Cameron's promise of a referendum before the next GE.
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
How would he show it ? Fall down and worship Nigel ? If I understand kippers correctly you won't do a deal with DC until he has a stake through his heart and is buried at a crossroads at midnight. So why whould he change to accommodate you ? Your negotiating stance is as mad as Cameron's.
How could Cameron show it? How could he get UKIP voters and supporters back on-side?
Look at his attempts so far: Firstly, he tried sneering, scorn and name calling. Later, he made a wholly implausible claim that he is going to 're-negotiate' the UK's deal with the EU, which nobody, not even his wife, believes. And even that, only reluctantly and after reasonable election results for UKIP. His contortions over implicitly backing Wharton's private member's bill made Cameron look as sharp as a tennis ball.
Does Cameron have any general sympathy for UKIP's aims and frustrations? None visible.
A strong UKIP will end-play Miliband into matching Cameron's promise of a referendum before the next GE.
so as I said, no chance of a deal, so why pretend there is ?
The 2010 Lib Dems are a curious group. Has anyone done research into how many of these guys were 2005/01 Labour voters. Might be more sticky than your average switcher.
According to the last Guardian ICM poll before the 2010 GE half of the voters Labour lost between 2005 and 2010 voted Lib Dem in 2010. However, note that this poll overstated the Lib Dem share and understated the Labour share compared to the actual result.
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
How would he show it ? Fall down and worship Nigel ? If I understand kippers correctly you won't do a deal with DC until he has a stake through his heart and is buried at a crossroads at midnight. So why whould he change to accommodate you ? Your negotiating stance is as mad as Cameron's.
How could Cameron show it? How could he get UKIP voters and supporters back on-side?
Look at his attempts so far: Firstly, he tried sneering, scorn and name calling. Later, he made a wholly implausible claim that he is going to 're-negotiate' the UK's deal with the EU, which nobody, not even his wife, believes. And even that, only reluctantly and after reasonable election results for UKIP. His contortions over implicitly backing Wharton's private member's bill made Cameron look as sharp as a tennis ball.
Does Cameron have any general sympathy for UKIP's aims and frustrations? None visible.
A strong UKIP will end-play Miliband into matching Cameron's promise of a referendum before the next GE.
so as I said, no chance of a deal, so why pretend there is ?
As soon as Mr Farage demanded Mr Cameron's head on a plate - I just thought, how silly.
I can appreciate the frustrations of many Kippers - but their strategy makes no sense. Split the vote by standing against Tories who are the only Big Party to want a referendum? And let more EU-pro MPs in?
It feels more like spurned spouse than sensible policy to me. I'm not assuming that Kippers are Tory-lite as Labour often does to the LDs - the point is that you don't shoot those who want the same-ish as you just to spite them. And there seems to be a lot of spite in the UKIP ranks against the Tories who they seem to feel owe them an apology.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Does he keep following you and then unfollowing you?
No, I'm not on twitter (I have no internet access on my phone) but in between working I flick over to politics home and whenever he tweets the message is the most inane, unoriginal rubbish. The type of stuff that is probably counter-productive and just makes Labor voters hate him more, when he should be attracting them.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP wants.
Great plan.
It's a bit of a toughie for the kippers. They can't trust anyone but need to trust someone to get a referendum. Furthermore if they do finally get one, I suspect they're not that well prepared to win the argument.
So the game plan is to engineer a Tory government, on the off-chance that (a) Cameron will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to the Tories' previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Tory government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Does he keep following you and then unfollowing you?
No, I'm not on twitter (I have no internet access on my phone) but in between working I flick over to politics home and whenever he tweets the message is the most inane, unoriginal rubbish. The type of stuff that is probably counter-productive and just makes Labor voters hate him more, when he should be attracting them.
I can't recall the last time I paid any attention to a Shapps tweet - Greg Hands is much pithier along with several other MPs. I've no animus against Mr Shapps and liked him a lot as Housing Minister.
Michael Fabricant is one of the best Tory tweeters.
When I was there recently it would be fair to say that they were not a happy bunch. A lot of negative equity and very strict controls about taking currency out of the country. They import almost everything so the collapse in the value of the kronor has really hurt them.
Oh dear = The Staggers is now against the wider UNITE stitch up.
"Labour’s troubles in Falkirk are just one symptom of a bureaucratic culture that doesn’t merely tolerate the practice of fixing by insiders and groups but institutionalises it. In Falkirk, Unite stands accused of signing up its members to Labour without them even knowing about it, in order to get its favoured candidate, Karie Murphy, selected as the prospective MP. There have also been claims that the union plotted to get the seat declared as an all-women's shortlist in order to exclude a male rival. As I have found since I joined Labour in 2010, these sorts of practices are not exceptional. They are standard, and not exclusive to the unions by any means.
Of the New Labour years, former party general secretary Peter Watt has said: "There was an understanding that controlling process meant controlling the party. Conferences, policy making and of course selections were all ruthlessly managed." However, he added, "the world moved on and the time for command and control was over."
Fixing is generally practised by classic command and control. You secure senior positions in the party apparatus and on crucial committees and use these roles to control processes and the distribution of power in your favour while blocking opponents.
This is what has happened in the European Parliament candidate selections. In London, Carole Tongue (a former deputy leader of Labour MEPs) and Anne Fairweather (who attracted the most votes from London Labour members last time) were incredibly refused even an interview with the selection panel..." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/labours-culture-fixing-goes-far-beyond-unions
It's a bit of a toughie for the kippers. They can't trust anyone but need to trust someone to get a referendum. Furthermore if they do finally get one, I suspect they're not that well prepared to win the argument.
They're not prepared at all. It's a very tricky one to win, for the same reason that Scottish independence is tricky for the SNP, namely that the other side can simply play on fears, whether justified or not. There's no consensus amongst those who want to leave the EU on what relationship with our EU friends should replace it, and this will be easy for the Stay In side to exploit. Meanwhile industry and our EU friends will be playing up the fears and uncertainty.
Above all, it strains credulity to breaking point to think Ed Miliband would risk a referendum except in circumstances where he was 100% certain of a Stay In result. Even then, why would he want to neutralise an issue which is so destructive to the Conservatives?
"As Labour Uncut has revealed, "Out of seven members of the London European candidate selection panel, five are either serving officials in the unions or have been backed by Labour Briefing – a hard left publication committed to establishing the most left-wing policy platform for the party since 1983." Of the shortlisted London candidates, only one does not profess a union background (and his agenda is much the same as the others).
But there is much more to be concerned about. As Jon Worth has written, "You had to be an insider to even know this European Parliament selection process was even happening". Labour’s East Midlands Region’s selection panel ended up selecting one of its own members, Nicki Brooks, as a candidate, apparently due to the lack of female applicants.
As might be seen with Unite’s apparent manipulations in Falkirk, Labour’s female preferences – and especially the power to declare an all-women’s shortlist (AWS) – are crucial aspects of its bureaucratic architecture that provide plentiful opportunity for party fixers and insiders.
In one selection process I was involved in, the AWS was imposed after the deadline for candidate applications closed, so local non-insider women who would not normally think of standing (and who should surely be encouraged by the process) had no idea they might have a decent chance of representing their local area. In the end, of the women shortlisted, only two came to hustings and only one of these (who was also the candidate last time) was credible. So it was effectively a shortlist of one.This is Labour Party democracy, GDR-style: more Erich Honecker than Abraham Lincoln..."
They claim that the final straw for the military was a rally at which Morsi was encouraging supporters to go and fight a holy war in Syria against Assad. Actually seems quite a credible explanation to me and one that again reflects the destabilising effect Syria is having on the whole Middle East.
Cameron has seriously backed off supplying arms after recent incidents like the priest and the boy but the Sunnis are completely up for the fight and will supply the arms. The concerns that he and Hague had about the radicalisation effect of the conflict seem ever more valid even if their solution was optimistic bordering on naive.
Universal Credit: "The chart shows the difference between the current and planned systems for a couple with two children, and a rent of £100 a week....For this family, if their rent were to be £130 they would simultaneously be eligible for universal credit and the higher tax rate (40%)."
I suppose this is what happens when you have a low wage, high rent economy. The government has to subsidise companies by supplementing wages.
Will a Chancellor rename the higher income tax rate to be the middle income tax rate?
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP wants.
Great plan.
It's a bit of a toughie for the kippers. They can't trust anyone but need to trust someone to get a referendum. Furthermore if they do finally get one, I suspect they're not that well prepared to win the argument.
The stronger UIKP is, the more likely we are to get a referendum from whoever.
Your point about not being that well organised to actually win a referndum is fair.
I, and nearly all UKIP activists, believe that it is not possible to do a deal with Cameron. However, he could it much more attractive for our marginal voters to vote Tory, if he handled it differently. That he doesn't bother merely re-enforces our view that Cameron is being totally cynical, and has no interest in our concerns.
"I'd like to add one bugbear of mine to this list. When is the BBC going to invite a Right-wing comedian to appear on Question Time? No episode is complete without some trendy, right-on comic attacking the government. Why not invite some right-of-centre entertainers as well? Better yet, have a few scientists on instead. In the past two-and-a-half years, Question Time has featured more reality show contestants than scientists, according to this graph.
If I have to watch ex-Socialist Workers' Party member Mark Steel droning on about the "Tory cuts" one more time I think I might throw a brick at the television."
And from the Guardian's associated commentary...
"Since the last general election 13 comedians have appeared on Question Time, and Russell Brand will make it 14 next week. The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times. The "dragons" of Dragons' Den have appeared 4 times between them. Scientists have appeared just twice. Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice has been on as many times as all scientists or science writers put together.
I may have missed one somewhere, but as far as I can tell the last guest from the world of science to appear on Question Time was Professor Colin Blakemore, way back in November 2011. One blogger, Callum Hackett, went through a year's worth of episodes up to last May, counting appearances by profession. Only one scientist had appeared in all that time.
In the year since he wrote that post, no more have surfaced. Brian Cox the actor is far more likely to appear than Brian Cox the professor. Literary performance artist James Delingpole is more likely to appear than any meteorologist. Peter Hitchens is far more likely to appear than any expert on drugs or addiction - as his his nemesis, Russell Brand. A man who infamously claimed that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion" is more likely to appear than any expert on criminology or sexual health. When the e-mails of climate scientists were hacked, this is the show that brought on Marcus Brigstocke to defend them against the conspiracy theories of Melanie Phillips.
Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet … attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform. It was Question Time that taught me I should be careful when doing my work on the Facebook.
It's a bit of a toughie for the kippers. They can't trust anyone but need to trust someone to get a referendum. Furthermore if they do finally get one, I suspect they're not that well prepared to win the argument.
They're not prepared at all. It's a very tricky one to win, for the same reason that Scottish independence is tricky for the SNP, namely that the other side can simply play on fears, whether justified or not. There's no consensus amongst those who want to leave the EU on what relationship with our EU friends should replace it, and this will be easy for the Stay In side to exploit. Meanwhile industry and our EU friends will be playing up the fears and uncertainty.
Above all, it strains credulity to breaking point to think Ed Miliband would risk a referendum except in circumstances where he was 100% certain of a Stay In result. Even then, why would he want to neutralise an issue which is so destructive to the Conservatives?
The Nat parallel is a good one. I think they and certainly the Unionist side were surprised when the SNP scraped a majority. Then suddenly haviing campaigned for 30 odd years for a vote the Nats looked in the file marked indy arguments and saw it was empty. We've had 2 dire years of non-campaigning with the Nats making things up which don't stand scrutiny and the Unionists running end of the world stories and we're pretty much where we started.
I suspect the kippers are in a similar place using politics as entertainment as their main vote winner. It's fun to watch but would I really want Farage across the table to van Rompuy negotiating our terms of exit ? Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
Indeed but they are not in the Uk. My point was - if it were not for the oil Aberdeen would be another Brechin.
Not really. You are comparing apples and pears there.
Aberdeen is, and always has been, an important regional centre. Brechin has never been that (unless perhaps you take account of its ecclesiastical role in the pre-Reformation period).
Eg. Aberdeen is home to one of the oldest universities in the world, and is the 3rd largest city in the country.
If it were not for the oil, Aberdeen would be another Ayr. Except much bigger.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP wants.
Great plan.
It's a bit of a toughie for the kippers. They can't trust anyone but need to trust someone to get a referendum. Furthermore if they do finally get one, I suspect they're not that well prepared to win the argument.
The stronger UIKP is, the more likely we are to get a referendum from whoever.
Your point about not being that well organised to actually win a referndum is fair.
I, and nearly all UKIP activists, believe that it is not possible to do a deal with Cameron. However, he could it much more attractive for our marginal voters to vote Tory, if he handled it differently. That he doesn't bother merely re-enforces our view that Cameron is being totally cynical, and has no interest in our concerns.
well that's an honest assessment, but of course none of the other political parties share your concerns and some are strongly against them. For the record I think Cameron has played loose on the referendum pledge. However given you have a small chance of picking up GE seats I can't help but think you are in danger of playing the man at elections and losing the ball in the process.
For a PM whose USP is his political astuteness, Cameron is poor at handling other parties, especially UKIP. This is reflected by the unpleasant language he uses. He admits to needing to 'force' UKIP support to below 5%. Force? What's that about?
He has promised a 're-negotiation' with the EU, while admitting that he will recommend staying in whatever. Thus, he adopts a totally unbelievable approach to the EU. Then he is disappointed and hurt when nobody believes him.
Cameron's problem with UKIP supporters is partly that they don't like him, partly that they don't trust him, but the killer emotion is that they don't respect him.
You kippers are such sensitive souls ;-)
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
How would he show it ? Fall down and worship Nigel ? If I understand kippers correctly you won't do a deal with DC until he has a stake through his heart and is buried at a crossroads at midnight. So why whould he change to accommodate you ? Your negotiating stance is as mad as Cameron's.
How could Cameron show it? How could he get UKIP voters and supporters back on-side?
Look at his attempts so far: Firstly, he tried sneering, scorn and name calling. Later, he made a wholly implausible claim that he is going to 're-negotiate' the UK's deal with the EU, which nobody, not even his wife, believes. And even that, only reluctantly and after reasonable election results for UKIP. His contortions over implicitly backing Wharton's private member's bill made Cameron look as sharp as a tennis ball.
Does Cameron have any general sympathy for UKIP's aims and frustrations? None visible.
A strong UKIP will end-play Miliband into matching Cameron's promise of a referendum before the next GE.
so as I said, no chance of a deal, so why pretend there is ?
As soon as Mr Farage demanded Mr Cameron's head on a plate - I just thought, how silly.
I can appreciate the frustrations of many Kippers - but their strategy makes no sense. Split the vote by standing against Tories who are the only Big Party to want a referendum? And let more EU-pro MPs in?
It feels more like spurned spouse than sensible policy to me. I'm not assuming that Kippers are Tory-lite as Labour often does to the LDs - the point is that you don't shoot those who want the same-ish as you just to spite them. And there seems to be a lot of spite in the UKIP ranks against the Tories who they seem to feel owe them an apology.
Its not about spite. And I've no interest in defending Farage's more outlandish quotes, accurate or otherwise.
It is simpler than that: the stronger any organisation is, the closer it will get to achieving its goals.
In practical terms, UKIP is prepared to do any deal which helps the UK to quit the EU. These deals can't be negotiated in public. But good deals can only be done from strength, not weakness.
The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times.
Question Time is like doing a jigsaw - a pointless way to pass the time until you die!
Indeed but they are not in the Uk. My point was - if it were not for the oil Aberdeen would be another Brechin.
Not really. You are comparing apples and pears there.
Aberdeen is, and always has been, an important regional centre. Brechin has never been that (unless perhaps you take account of its ecclesiastical role in the pre-Reformation period).
Eg. Aberdeen is home to one of the oldest universities in the world, and is the 3rd largest city in the country.
If it were not for the oil, Aberdeen would be another Ayr. Except much bigger.
Can we agree that Furry boot town would be smaller if it were not for oil ?
Blackpool's prosperity could increase if it embraces fracking - however the forces of ludditism my prevent it.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
"A Labour councillor is potentially in breach of his council's code of conduct after refusing to work with a resident he discovered is now a UKIP candidate"
The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times.
Question Time is like doing a jigsaw - a pointless way to pass the time until you die!
When I look back at political discussions in the 70s/80s they are head and shoulders above what we are dished out now.
That Andrew Neil and StraightTalk was binned despite being the ONLY long form intv prog spoke volumes. I hate hate hate his stupid show after BBCQT - its like the The One Show for nerds at 23:30. And the moronic guests - jeez.
'The stronger UIKP is, the more likely we are to get a referendum from whoever.'
But when UKIP gets the offer of a referendum, they then manage to find a range of excuses to reject it.
'I, and nearly all UKIP activists, believe that it is not possible to do a deal with Cameron. However, he could it much more attractive for our marginal voters to vote Tory, if he handled it differently. That he doesn't bother merely re-enforces our view that Cameron is being totally cynical, and has no interest in our concerns.'
Could it be that UKIP are nervous about losing a referendum,which would not only end the EU as an issue for a generation but also probably be the demise of UKIP.,hence their delaying tactics.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6/7% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
Spot on!
I was reading the comments on ConHome yesterday (Andrew Lilico's piece) and the first comment was some guy - apropos of nothing in the Lilico article - railing at the injustices of UK2013, at immigration, at schools as 'holding cells for children' etc etc. A proper, Daily Mash satirical rant. Apparently the guy who wrote it is 20. I was thinking WTF? It must be a hoax, surely. But then reading the other comments I realised it wasn't. Some people are actually that angry.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
What evidence is there that the Cons care ? Cameron has gone out of his way to annoy many of his traditional voters and lost their support as a result. Idiot politics.
The best chance he has is Lynton Crosby ; not his dogwhistling anti lefty nonsense but the straightforward advice to the PM that firing an AK47 at his feet 24/7 might not be a good idea. Any improvement in blue polling can be attributed to getting a sense of real world priorities back, but it could be too little too late.
We should learn to live without the Middle East's energy as far as we can and leave well alone. Far too much blood and treasure wasted there already.
We should certainly got on with fracking and nuclear as soon as possible. This is not just an economic issue but one of national security. We should certainly not follow up the lunacies of Iraq and Afghanistan with military intervention.
But you are being completely naive to think we can "leave well alone". We are already seeing new waves of asylum seekers from the conflicts. This is inevitable as these countries become ever more dangerous. How long before the Lebanon and Jordon crack under the immense strains they are suffering?
We see the attraction of extremists with the glamour of guns radicalising our domestic population. We see a culture that treats women in a disgraceful way becoming ever more influential. And we see the few bastions of secularism under seige.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6/7% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
Spot on!
I was reading the comments on ConHome yesterday (Andrew Lilico's piece) and the first comment was some guy - apropos of nothing in the Lilico article - railing at the injustices of UK2013, at immigration, at schools as 'holding cells for children' etc etc. A proper, Daily Mash satirical rant. Apparently the guy who wrote it is 20. I was thinking WTF? It must be a hoax, surely. But then reading the other comments I realised it wasn't. Some people are actually that angry.
The comments in the DT are more angry - even Cameron's head on a plate wouldn't be good enough for most of them, its quite unhinged and I say that as someone who has some sympathy.
Frankly, these bombastic folks are really off-putting to more moderate types like me. Perhaps more moderate voices from the Kippers would help to balance things out - as it is, these posters are making UKIP look like a very angry, anti-gay, women should be at home, anti-everything bar what they want mob. A stereotype if ever there was one.
In London, they have won 2 selections (Foxcroft and West) and lost 2 (Bermondsey and Enfield North). In North West, they have won Chester and lost Bury North, Manchester Withington, Warrington South, Weaver Vale, Wirral West. In SE, they won Kemptwon and lost Hove. In SW, they won Plymouth and lost Bristol South. In West Midlands, they won North Warwickshire, Halesowen, Wolverhampton SW and lost Yardley In Yorkshire, they have lost Hallam.
In some cases, I would suggest the outcome is more due to the candidate rather than the union support (Foxcroft, West, the 2 former MPs in Wolverhampton and Warwickshire, Platts in Kemptwon)
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
What evidence is there that the Cons care ? Cameron has gone out of his way to annoy many of his traditional voters and lost their support as a result. Idiot politics.
The best chance he has is Lynton Crosby ; not his dogwhistling anti lefty nonsense but the straightforward advice to the PM that firing an AK47 at his feet 24/7 might not be a good idea. Any improvement in blue polling can be attributed to getting a sense of real world priorities back, but it could be too little too late.
this is partly my point. Cons=>UKIP switchers, by definition have Cons sympathies. They are kicking the cat because their boss was beastly to them.
Lynton Crosby gets this and has rowed back early on the swivel-eyed narrative. Look at @david_kendrick1's posts. All the kippers want is a bit of love and they are the Cons' for the taking.
I don' t think it is too late, though. I think the polls are saying that there is a real chance of a Cons win. The challenge Cam faces is that if they do, will he prove to have an iron or blancmange fist in the velvet glove.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6/7% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
Spot on!
I was reading the comments on ConHome yesterday (Andrew Lilico's piece) and the first comment was some guy - apropos of nothing in the Lilico article - railing at the injustices of UK2013, at immigration, at schools as 'holding cells for children' etc etc. A proper, Daily Mash satirical rant. Apparently the guy who wrote it is 20. I was thinking WTF? It must be a hoax, surely. But then reading the other comments I realised it wasn't. Some people are actually that angry.
The comments in the DT are more angry - even Cameron's head on a plate wouldn't be good enough for most of them, its quite unhinged and I say that as someone who has some sympathy.
Frankly, these bombastic folks are really off-putting to more moderate types like me. Perhaps more moderate voices from the Kippers would help to balance things out - as it is, these posters are making UKIP look like a very angry, anti-gay, women should be at home, anti-everything bar what they want mob. A stereotype if ever there was one.
Agreed. But I think the Millwall tendancy ('nobody likes us, we don't care') in UKIP activists is dying out. UKIP meetings are getting as boring as all the other parties' meetings.
Casually insulting UKIP is still acceptable, however---"4-6% of them will 'sulkily' vote UKIP even at the GE", for example.
And while a few UKIP councillors will find themselves out-of-their-depth---virtually none of our councillors have ever done anthing similar before---most will do a competent and concientious job. That'll help next year.
It was Lynton Crosbys advice that led Cameron to talk up immigration and Europe earlier this year, giving UKIP a boost. You pander to these people and you can never win, they'll always want more.
That this transparent truth had been overlooked until recently shows that they must have put something in the water in Slough 30 years ago.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
What evidence is there that the Cons care ? Cameron has gone out of his way to annoy many of his traditional voters and lost their support as a result. Idiot politics.
The best chance he has is Lynton Crosby ; not his dogwhistling anti lefty nonsense but the straightforward advice to the PM that firing an AK47 at his feet 24/7 might not be a good idea. Any improvement in blue polling can be attributed to getting a sense of real world priorities back, but it could be too little too late.
this is partly my point. Cons=>UKIP switchers, by definition have Cons sympathies. They are kicking the cat because their boss was beastly to them.
Lynton Crosby gets this and has rowed back early on the swivel-eyed narrative. Look at @david_kendrick1's posts. All the kippers want is a bit of love and they are the Cons' for the taking.
I don' t think it is too late, though. I think the polls are saying that there is a real chance of a Cons win. The challenge Cam faces is that if they do, will he prove to have an iron or blancmange fist in the velvet glove.
hmmm. colour me skeptical. The problem isn't just the Con to Ukip, it's also the Con stay at home\NOTA. Lovebombing kippers isn't going to get Cameron re-elected, though it may help. Cameron's issues include remoteness, poor party management, no feel for life outside the SE and no interest in the economy. It will suddenly dawn on him in the last week of the campaign that he's going to need the white van man vote in the North and Midlands to win and then you'll be telling me how good he is when his back's to the wall.
@david_kendrick1 - So the game plan is to engineer a Labour government, on the off-chance that (a) Miliband will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to Labour's previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Labour government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
A referendum has become a totemic rather than actual demand. It signifies their dislike of modern "society" whether that be immigration, the EU, windfarms, unsolicited sales calls or England's failure to win and retain the World Cup.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
What evidence is there that the Cons care ? Cameron has gone out of his way to annoy many of his traditional voters and lost their support as a result. Idiot politics.
The best chance he has is Lynton Crosby ; not his dogwhistling anti lefty nonsense but the straightforward advice to the PM that firing an AK47 at his feet 24/7 might not be a good idea. Any improvement in blue polling can be attributed to getting a sense of real world priorities back, but it could be too little too late.
this is partly my point. Cons=>UKIP switchers, by definition have Cons sympathies. They are kicking the cat because their boss was beastly to them.
Lynton Crosby gets this and has rowed back early on the swivel-eyed narrative. Look at @david_kendrick1's posts. All the kippers want is a bit of love and they are the Cons' for the taking.
I don' t think it is too late, though. I think the polls are saying that there is a real chance of a Cons win. The challenge Cam faces is that if they do, will he prove to have an iron or blancmange fist in the velvet glove.
hmmm. colour me skeptical. The problem isn't just the Con to Ukip, it's also the Con stay at home\NOTA. Lovebombing kippers isn't going to get Cameron re-elected, though it may help. Cameron's issues include remoteness, poor party management, no feel for life outside the SE and no interest in the economy. It will suddenly dawn on him in the last week of the campaign that he's going to need the white van man vote in the North and Midlands to win and then you'll be telling me how good he is when his back's to the wall.
I won't unless he turns out to be.
I am far from Cameron's biggest fan and borderline a critic but he has played a difficult hand moderately when it was easier to have played it badly.
He has been atrociously advised dear lord no more OEs please and I agree with your prognosis re. North/Midlands, etc. But it is not too late as long as the change is made now.
It was Lynton Crosbys advice that led Cameron to talk up immigration and Europe earlier this year, giving UKIP a boost. You pander to these people and you can never win, they'll always want more.
Look at Dave today realising what a fool he's been over foreign students, destroying growth just to please xenophobia who can never be bought off. He's done the same with the UKIP/Tory right Euro obsessives, moving further and further towards them
tim, I try to make a distinction between actively pushing spin and needless screw ups. Crosby perhaps has stopped the latter.
Comments
US gym teacher wears same top for year book for 40 years.
"...Some siren voices, notably from the activist and pundit Owen Jones, desperately want to exhume Labour’s suicidal 1983 manifesto. They want an even bigger State, to talk only to Labour’s core vote, and think that the public sector rather than business drives the economy. The enthusiasm of Owen and his troops is admirable, but time after time they fall back on failed policy prescriptions and are certainly not in touch with young voters. A recent analysis by Ipsos MORI found that people under 33 are departing from their baby-boomer forebears and value self-reliance more than being dependent on the State...
As MP for Rochdale I don’t have to look far to find big social problems. My weekly surgery is full of incredibly challenging cases but I know that the answer is not even more welfare. People often tell me on the doorstep that they think benefits are going to the wrong people and there are not enough incentives to get into work. Police officers tell me about widespread benefit fraud and have convinced me that major reform is needed.
Today’s voters want to live independent lives and not to be in hock to the State. The next general election will be won by the party that has the most convincing vision for achieving this. Labour is firmly on course to succeed and we will not be dragged into the ditch by economically illiterate voices who have nothing to say about enterprise or aspiration..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3807408.ece
http://www.mcaslan.co.uk/news/jmp-s-st-john-s-wood-barracks-gets-planning-permission
"Westminster Council has approved John McAslan + Partners’ proposals to redevelop St John’s Wood Barracks, London.
The project consists of 12 apartment blocks and will create 133 new homes, 59 of which will be affordable housing."
'Do I get £15k in change then?'
That was 5 years ago and excluded the cost of land, so your probably out of pocket by at least £50,000.
Telegraph:
"New car sales in Britain rose for the 16th consecutive month in June, jumping 13.4pc with a year earlier.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said new car registrations increased to 214,957.
Many buyers are returning to the market having held off on purchasing new cars, while attractive finance deals and more fuel-efficient models are also driving growth, SMMT said.
Mike Baunton, SMMT interim chief executive, said:
While there are still potential challenges ahead, recent robust growth suggests that the market is on course to perform well ahead of 2012 levels.
Over the first half of the year, new car sales rose 10pc."
The correct question is not "how do we stop the southeastward migration of wealth?" but "what can we do to help struggling regions turn themselves around?" These are very different questions.
Keep 'em coming, Henry.
Fracking can bring prosperity for the regions - see Aberdeen.
That is if the SE based handwringing lefties will let it happen.
Right so as a nation we should have one big egg in one big basket ? That didn't look so clever in 2008. I prefer the german regional structure where city economies compete against each other and the risk and wealth is spread around.
If you want to think so. A strong UKIP will mean we'll be given a referendum whoever wins the next GE.
Cameron clearly misunderstands this: he needs UKIP voters much more than they need him. But he has had an odd way of showing that he 'gets it'.
Does it demonstrate the superiority of Parliamentary government, as opposed to a Presidential system?
If Morsi had been a Prime Minister then his party might have been persuaded by the protests to replace him. There is greater potential for compromise.
As Morsi was a President, his electoral mandate was personal, and so there is little potential for compromise between his supporters and opponents.
What percentage of your constituency's population are foreigners?
"As far as Guido can work out, there are 146 Labour MPs who have received money from Unite either directly or to their constituency parties. They walk around Parliament wearing Unite lanyards, they have quite simply been bought by trade union lobbyists. Now Unite want 41 more MPs. While it may say Labour next to their name when you go to the ballot box, these candidates are running for Unite…"
1. Is it going to be sold at prices in line with the cheapest in the area (i.e. 59 x £450k one bedroom flats), which is affordable to only to anyone earning more than £100k.
2. If it is to be sold at a discount to the prevailing market price, then how do they stop flipping? (If there is a 'must own for five year' clause, then all you will see is that all the affordable units will be rented for five years, then sold for a humungous profit.)
The top graph is meaningless; no account has been made for weekends so your "continuous" stream is misleading. A more interesting analysis [it could be argued] would be to compare weekday-to-weekday movements.
With such a limited sub-sample we can only attempt this with the data for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. This gives us three two-day "observations" which "show" that Labour's poll share has fallen within the Monday and Wednesday sets, whilst remaining stable during the Tuesday set.
Whether these observations are sufficient to define a trend is mute: More observations within a set would increase the confidence of any hypothesis tested. What it also does not accomodate is a 'paradigm-shift': How do we know when the YouGov polls accurately reflect the electorates realisation that "Ed is crap!"...?
"...Once folk have endless choice and self-selection over the small, trivial things – like the music they listen to – how much longer do you imagine they will be prepared to stand in line and wait for the really important things, like health care, or their kids’ education?
...But self-selection isn’t only changing attitudes towards collective public service provision. Ten, or even five, years ago, what sort of news we listened to or read about was chosen for us all...Opinion-forming was the preserve of a narrow priesthood of pundits, many of whom being intelligent, rational people, overestimated the ability of intelligent, rational people to organise human social and economic affairs.
Today, social media means we can each build our own personalised newsfeeds about the things that interest us. We no longer have to view the world through the eyes of a narrow clique of BBC producers, Guardianistas and media-types. Comment and opinion-forming have been democratised.
This might not tilt the climate of opinion in favour of one particular political party. It does, however, undermine the assumption that good governance must always and everywhere mean arranging human affairs by design. Bad news for paternalistic politicians and patronising officials. Good news for the rest of us. No wonder public attitudes have started to shift so sharply on everything from the role and size of government, to immigration and the EU." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100224515/why-digital-spells-doom-for-the-left/
It doesn't look like MORI asked for past vote in 2005.
Optimistic - if Neil believed in figures and data he wouldn't vote Green would he ?
(RN tiptoes away quietly...)
(Sunil dives for cover)
CDU/CSU: 40.8%
SPD: 25.0%
Green: 13.5%
Linke: 7.3%
FDP: 4.8%
Others: 8.6%
CDU/CSU/FDP: 45.6%
SPD/Green/Linke: 45.8%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-labour-falkirk-controversy-explained-2013070474801
"“Enterprise and regulatory reform Bill -The union provided significant contributions to MPs and the Shadow teams in supporting attempts to block the worst aspects of both the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the Growth and Infrastructure Bill”"
There are much better things to spend £50bn on. :-)
Leaked UNITE own figures doc shows ONLY 1/5 of their members Vote Labour. Yet Labour are apparently happy to sign them up as Labour members!
This is all very amusing for anoraks.
How is the German UKIP doing?
The Lib Dem vote share increased by 3.7 percentage points in Conservative gains in 2005, where the Labour share declined by 11.3 percentage points.
Leaving the Euro would not make those imbalances go away
The usual IMF prescription for countries that have borrowed themselves into a hole is Default, Devalue, Reform. I fully agree that no indebted country can ever properly escape its past without deep supply side reform (including us) and genuine moves to improve competitiveness. But defaulting and walking away is an option. Ask Iceland. Actually it can be liberating - but only if the will to reform is there too. Absent that nothing will rescue the garlic zone, in or out of the Euro.
AfD have been getting 2-3% in most polls, the same as the Pirates.
Looking at the MORI analysis for 2005, the Lib Dems appeared to gain voters from a broader cross-section of the population.
MORI gave figures for past vote in 2001 in the 2005 analysis, but you can see that it doesn't tally well with the 2001 result, so not sure how reliable it is.
The regions do need more investment. I'm belatedly becoming a convert to the idea of regional assemblies, long after they have gone out of fashion. One of the things that has helped London is having a very public figure able to bang the table on London's behalf. The north-east, for example, has suffered by not having someone similar.
It's worth noting, of course, that devaluation isn't always an option. During the start of the Thatcher years, when the labour market was being liberalised, Sterling went from $2.00 to $2.45. The markets don't always let you do what you want, and if everyone wants a weaker currency to boost exports, someone is going to be disappointed.
Furthermore, it's a mayor you seem to want for certain major cities, not regional assemblies.
F1: Just read a horrid stat for McLaren at http://thewptformula.wordpress.com/. They've scored fewer points in this season than the first race of 2012 (37 versus 40).
Look at his attempts so far: Firstly, he tried sneering, scorn and name calling. Later, he made a wholly implausible claim that he is going to 're-negotiate' the UK's deal with the EU, which nobody, not even his wife, believes. And even that, only reluctantly and after reasonable election results for UKIP. His contortions over implicitly backing Wharton's private member's bill made Cameron look as sharp as a tennis ball.
Does Cameron have any general sympathy for UKIP's aims and frustrations? None visible.
A strong UKIP will end-play Miliband into matching Cameron's promise of a referendum before the next GE.
If you wanted to, you could aggregate the results from several pre-election Guardian ICM polls and see how robust that is.
I can appreciate the frustrations of many Kippers - but their strategy makes no sense. Split the vote by standing against Tories who are the only Big Party to want a referendum? And let more EU-pro MPs in?
It feels more like spurned spouse than sensible policy to me. I'm not assuming that Kippers are Tory-lite as Labour often does to the LDs - the point is that you don't shoot those who want the same-ish as you just to spite them. And there seems to be a lot of spite in the UKIP ranks against the Tories who they seem to feel owe them an apology.
Great plan.
I suppose he has to do it.
Here's the latest:
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/statuses/352717890430042113
So the game plan is to engineer a Tory government, on the off-chance that (a) Cameron will promise a referendum, and (b) that he'll actually deliver it, in stark contrast to the Tories' previous record. If that all works, you might get a referendum, but with no renegotiations or reform of the EU, a referendum which you'll then lose. The end result will be that we are left with the Europhiles taking the referendum as a mandate for ever-closer union, and a Tory government which will move Britain in precisely the opposite direction to every single thing UKIP supporters want.
Great plan.
Michael Fabricant is one of the best Tory tweeters.
Tories? Labour? What's the difference? Both led by metropolitan pro-EU elites!!
"Labour’s troubles in Falkirk are just one symptom of a bureaucratic culture that doesn’t merely tolerate the practice of fixing by insiders and groups but institutionalises it. In Falkirk, Unite stands accused of signing up its members to Labour without them even knowing about it, in order to get its favoured candidate, Karie Murphy, selected as the prospective MP. There have also been claims that the union plotted to get the seat declared as an all-women's shortlist in order to exclude a male rival. As I have found since I joined Labour in 2010, these sorts of practices are not exceptional. They are standard, and not exclusive to the unions by any means.
Of the New Labour years, former party general secretary Peter Watt has said: "There was an understanding that controlling process meant controlling the party. Conferences, policy making and of course selections were all ruthlessly managed." However, he added, "the world moved on and the time for command and control was over."
Fixing is generally practised by classic command and control. You secure senior positions in the party apparatus and on crucial committees and use these roles to control processes and the distribution of power in your favour while blocking opponents.
This is what has happened in the European Parliament candidate selections. In London, Carole Tongue (a former deputy leader of Labour MEPs) and Anne Fairweather (who attracted the most votes from London Labour members last time) were incredibly refused even an interview with the selection panel..." http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/labours-culture-fixing-goes-far-beyond-unions
*Nothing to see here, move along now*
They are way too boring to actually go my nose!
My nose is the preserve of psychedelia and Sunday's spent with a crash helmet on.
Above all, it strains credulity to breaking point to think Ed Miliband would risk a referendum except in circumstances where he was 100% certain of a Stay In result. Even then, why would he want to neutralise an issue which is so destructive to the Conservatives?
"As Labour Uncut has revealed, "Out of seven members of the London European candidate selection panel, five are either serving officials in the unions or have been backed by Labour Briefing – a hard left publication committed to establishing the most left-wing policy platform for the party since 1983." Of the shortlisted London candidates, only one does not profess a union background (and his agenda is much the same as the others).
But there is much more to be concerned about. As Jon Worth has written, "You had to be an insider to even know this European Parliament selection process was even happening". Labour’s East Midlands Region’s selection panel ended up selecting one of its own members, Nicki Brooks, as a candidate, apparently due to the lack of female applicants.
As might be seen with Unite’s apparent manipulations in Falkirk, Labour’s female preferences – and especially the power to declare an all-women’s shortlist (AWS) – are crucial aspects of its bureaucratic architecture that provide plentiful opportunity for party fixers and insiders.
In one selection process I was involved in, the AWS was imposed after the deadline for candidate applications closed, so local non-insider women who would not normally think of standing (and who should surely be encouraged by the process) had no idea they might have a decent chance of representing their local area. In the end, of the women shortlisted, only two came to hustings and only one of these (who was also the candidate last time) was credible. So it was effectively a shortlist of one.This is Labour Party democracy, GDR-style: more Erich Honecker than Abraham Lincoln..."
They claim that the final straw for the military was a rally at which Morsi was encouraging supporters to go and fight a holy war in Syria against Assad. Actually seems quite a credible explanation to me and one that again reflects the destabilising effect Syria is having on the whole Middle East.
Cameron has seriously backed off supplying arms after recent incidents like the priest and the boy but the Sunnis are completely up for the fight and will supply the arms. The concerns that he and Hague had about the radicalisation effect of the conflict seem ever more valid even if their solution was optimistic bordering on naive.
No good is going to come of this.
I suppose this is what happens when you have a low wage, high rent economy. The government has to subsidise companies by supplementing wages.
Will a Chancellor rename the higher income tax rate to be the middle income tax rate?
Your point about not being that well organised to actually win a referndum is fair.
I, and nearly all UKIP activists, believe that it is not possible to do a deal with Cameron. However, he could it much more attractive for our marginal voters to vote Tory, if he handled it differently. That he doesn't bother merely re-enforces our view that Cameron is being totally cynical, and has no interest in our concerns.
We should learn to live without the Middle East's energy as far as we can and leave well alone. Far too much blood and treasure wasted there already.
"I'd like to add one bugbear of mine to this list. When is the BBC going to invite a Right-wing comedian to appear on Question Time? No episode is complete without some trendy, right-on comic attacking the government. Why not invite some right-of-centre entertainers as well? Better yet, have a few scientists on instead. In the past two-and-a-half years, Question Time has featured more reality show contestants than scientists, according to this graph.
If I have to watch ex-Socialist Workers' Party member Mark Steel droning on about the "Tory cuts" one more time I think I might throw a brick at the television."
And from the Guardian's associated commentary...
"Since the last general election 13 comedians have appeared on Question Time, and Russell Brand will make it 14 next week. The ubiquitous Nigel Farage, leader of a protest party with zero MPs and a manifesto comprised entirely of bits of old Jeremy Clarkson jokes, has been on 8 times. The "dragons" of Dragons' Den have appeared 4 times between them. Scientists have appeared just twice. Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice has been on as many times as all scientists or science writers put together.
I may have missed one somewhere, but as far as I can tell the last guest from the world of science to appear on Question Time was Professor Colin Blakemore, way back in November 2011. One blogger, Callum Hackett, went through a year's worth of episodes up to last May, counting appearances by profession. Only one scientist had appeared in all that time.
In the year since he wrote that post, no more have surfaced. Brian Cox the actor is far more likely to appear than Brian Cox the professor. Literary performance artist James Delingpole is more likely to appear than any meteorologist. Peter Hitchens is far more likely to appear than any expert on drugs or addiction - as his his nemesis, Russell Brand. A man who infamously claimed that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion" is more likely to appear than any expert on criminology or sexual health. When the e-mails of climate scientists were hacked, this is the show that brought on Marcus Brigstocke to defend them against the conspiracy theories of Melanie Phillips.
Question Time is, in short, a pretty miserable failure when it comes to informed debate. The bulk of panellists are drawn from the same upper-middle-class, upper-middle-aged pot of journalists, lawyers and politicians, and are often profoundly ignorant on topics outside of that narrow culture. Science, sex, the internet … attempts to tackle anything outside their world result in bewildering exchanges that confuse more often than they inform. It was Question Time that taught me I should be careful when doing my work on the Facebook.
I suspect the kippers are in a similar place using politics as entertainment as their main vote winner. It's fun to watch but would I really want Farage across the table to van Rompuy negotiating our terms of exit ? Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.
Not really. You are comparing apples and pears there.
Aberdeen is, and always has been, an important regional centre. Brechin has never been that (unless perhaps you take account of its ecclesiastical role in the pre-Reformation period).
Eg. Aberdeen is home to one of the oldest universities in the world, and is the 3rd largest city in the country.
If it were not for the oil, Aberdeen would be another Ayr. Except much bigger.
It is simpler than that: the stronger any organisation is, the closer it will get to achieving its goals.
In practical terms, UKIP is prepared to do any deal which helps the UK to quit the EU. These deals can't be negotiated in public. But good deals can only be done from strength, not weakness.
Blackpool's prosperity could increase if it embraces fracking - however the forces of ludditism my prevent it.
They don't really care about it (oh they would like one but actually it is just one item on the list). What they really want is to give someone who cares a bloody nose. Labour doesn't care so that leaves the Cons.
But of the approx. 12-14% of them at the moment, at least half will return to the Cons in GE15 leaving a core 4-6% sulking all the way to the ballot box come the day. And of those, some will be former Lab supporters.
I am guessing that Lab=>UKIP switchers are younger than Cons=>UKIP switchers.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3909/labour_councillor_under_fire_after_refusing_to_assist_ukip_member_resident
"A Labour councillor is potentially in breach of his council's code of conduct after refusing to work with a resident he discovered is now a UKIP candidate"
That Andrew Neil and StraightTalk was binned despite being the ONLY long form intv prog spoke volumes. I hate hate hate his stupid show after BBCQT - its like the The One Show for nerds at 23:30. And the moronic guests - jeez.
'The stronger UIKP is, the more likely we are to get a referendum from whoever.'
But when UKIP gets the offer of a referendum, they then manage to find a range of excuses to reject it.
'I, and nearly all UKIP activists, believe that it is not possible to do a deal with Cameron. However, he could it much more attractive for our marginal voters to vote Tory, if he handled it differently. That he doesn't bother merely re-enforces our view that Cameron is being totally cynical, and has no interest in our concerns.'
Could it be that UKIP are nervous about losing a referendum,which would not only end the EU as an issue for a generation but also probably be the demise of UKIP.,hence their delaying tactics.
As they say in the US '$hit or get off the pot'.
I was reading the comments on ConHome yesterday (Andrew Lilico's piece) and the first comment was some guy - apropos of nothing in the Lilico article - railing at the injustices of UK2013, at immigration, at schools as 'holding cells for children' etc etc. A proper, Daily Mash satirical rant. Apparently the guy who wrote it is 20. I was thinking WTF? It must be a hoax, surely. But then reading the other comments I realised it wasn't. Some people are actually that angry.
The best chance he has is Lynton Crosby ; not his dogwhistling anti lefty nonsense but the straightforward advice to the PM that firing an AK47 at his feet 24/7 might not be a good idea. Any improvement in blue polling can be attributed to getting a sense of real world priorities back, but it could be too little too late.
But you are being completely naive to think we can "leave well alone". We are already seeing new waves of asylum seekers from the conflicts. This is inevitable as these countries become ever more dangerous. How long before the Lebanon and Jordon crack under the immense strains they are suffering?
We see the attraction of extremists with the glamour of guns radicalising our domestic population. We see a culture that treats women in a disgraceful way becoming ever more influential. And we see the few bastions of secularism under seige.
Frankly, these bombastic folks are really off-putting to more moderate types like me. Perhaps more moderate voices from the Kippers would help to balance things out - as it is, these posters are making UKIP look like a very angry, anti-gay, women should be at home, anti-everything bar what they want mob. A stereotype if ever there was one.
In London, they have won 2 selections (Foxcroft and West) and lost 2 (Bermondsey and Enfield North).
In North West, they have won Chester and lost Bury North, Manchester Withington, Warrington South, Weaver Vale, Wirral West.
In SE, they won Kemptwon and lost Hove.
In SW, they won Plymouth and lost Bristol South.
In West Midlands, they won North Warwickshire, Halesowen, Wolverhampton SW and lost Yardley
In Yorkshire, they have lost Hallam.
In some cases, I would suggest the outcome is more due to the candidate rather than the union support (Foxcroft, West, the 2 former MPs in Wolverhampton and Warwickshire, Platts in Kemptwon)
Lynton Crosby gets this and has rowed back early on the swivel-eyed narrative. Look at @david_kendrick1's posts. All the kippers want is a bit of love and they are the Cons' for the taking.
I don' t think it is too late, though. I think the polls are saying that there is a real chance of a Cons win. The challenge Cam faces is that if they do, will he prove to have an iron or blancmange fist in the velvet glove.
'You pander to these people and you can never win, they'll always want more'
You'd have thought Red would have learn't that lesson before letting Unite take over the Labour party.
Casually insulting UKIP is still acceptable, however---"4-6% of them will 'sulkily' vote UKIP even at the GE", for example.
And while a few UKIP councillors will find themselves out-of-their-depth---virtually none of our councillors have ever done anthing similar before---most will do a competent and concientious job. That'll help next year.
I am far from Cameron's biggest fan and borderline a critic but he has played a difficult hand moderately when it was easier to have played it badly.
He has been atrociously advised dear lord no more OEs please and I agree with your prognosis re. North/Midlands, etc. But it is not too late as long as the change is made now.