politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB leadership: A three, a four or a five horse race?
Comments
-
Is this like the people who say "if X win, I'm leaving for Y"?AndyJS said:O/T:
"Secret Teacher: I'm fleeing the UK to find work-life balance
Until the government realises teaching is about more than results, we’re better off out of here"
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/06/secret-teacher-fleeing-uk-work-life-balance0 -
5 more endorsers for Burnham
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough)
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North)
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South)0 -
PLP hustings took place this afternoon0
-
The views of the Cameron loyalists is so invariable, and so straight from the party hymn book that is it approaches the point where it is easier consult conservatives.com for the current line and then scroll straight past the comment as the constant repetition of how great Dave is, how he can't put a foot wrong, and how he is going to walk of water over the EU are both tedious and plainly wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:For people like Richard N to then get all huffy because we should not say things so bluntly is infantile. What he is really saying is he doesn't like the lies being exposed.
Cast-iron Dave has form for being economical with electoral actualité, he is good at make dramatic sounding press releases which on closer inspection turn out to be worthless, anyone taking bets on his meeting his manifesto pledge on immigration, which is pretty much identical to the one he completely failed to meet last time ? As Wilde might have said "To make a immigration pledge that you no hope of meeting once might be regarded as a misfortune, to do it twice looks like carelessness."
0 -
The teacher in question has only been in her job for 1 year. No stamina. She chooses to get a high paid easy life in Arabia.AndyJS said:O/T:
"Secret Teacher: I'm fleeing the UK to find work-life balance
Until the government realises teaching is about more than results, we’re better off out of here"
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2015/jun/06/secret-teacher-fleeing-uk-work-life-balance
The job of a teacher is easier if both the pupils and their parents are supporting the teacher. Ask the teachers in private schools.
0 -
yes, shooting your own foot when the opposition isn't even in sight takes some doing.AndyJS said:Looks like Cameron has managed to produce a "crisis" for no particular reason, although it'll probably be forgotten in a few days time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11658640/David-Cameron-at-the-G7-summit-live.html0 -
That's where we differ. You see, I quite like Cameron. I'm not exactly a Cameroon, but I've said for ages he seems much better than his detractors point out (for instance the stupid "lucky general" meme). So far, I've been proved right more often than I've been proved wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:I do indeed and as I said in my reply to Luckyguy I was surprised because my attacks had not been directed at you today. I have always tried to be scrupulously straight with my postings concerning the EU and that comes off the back of more than 20 years working as s researcher for various anti-EU groups (most of whom have nothing at all to do with UKIP).
This is why I have no tolerance for the sorts of misinformation spouted by some pro EU or at least pro Cameron posters on here.
(snippety snip)
Hence the reason that once in a while I like to poke the hornets nest.
More importantly, he's offered a referendum that will give me a choice on the EU, and that's what I've wanted for years. You can argue (perhaps rightly) that he did not want a referendum, but the fact remains I'm going to get a meaningful vote.
For that, I'm thankful. It would not have happened under Labour.
If he decides to campaign for 'in', it will not mean much to me. I will try to make the decision based on information, if I can get to it through all the propaganda. ;-)0 -
The south of the Gower is demographically very different to the North. The South is mainly holiday homes and affluent commuter towns of the Swansea middle class. The North includes decaying old iron and steel towns like Gorseinon and Pontarddulais and Loughor.justin124 said:
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
The south is demographically closest to the Vale of Glamorgan (commuter towns for the Cardiff middle class). The north is demographically closest to neighbouring constituencies like Llanelli or Neath.
All I am assuming is that the South of the Gower moved electorally like the Vale of Glamorgan (UKIP +7.5 %).
The North of the Gower moved like its next door neighbours, Neath (UKIP swing + 14.2 %) or Llanelli (UKIP + 13.5 %).
That differential swing to UKIP would be enough to tip the Gower.
It is UKIP that cost Labour the Gower. Really, the Greens have nothing to do with it.0 -
What gives you the impression that 95% of the people that will vote will give two hoots about EFTA or EEA or trade treaties. If its a trade and jobs debate then IN will win, if its a "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate OUT will win.Richard_Nabavi said:
Nonsense,or at least if you think what Cameron comes back with will be 'worthless', how can you possibly prefer the 100% unknown option of leaving? There's not going to be a cast-iron Brexit plan on the table, complete with a legally-binding trade treaty with our EU friends. There's not even going to be the faintest outline of a possible trade treaty. We won't know, for example, how much freedom of movement will be incorporated into any trade treaty, or indeed if we're going to try to negotiate entry into the EEA. So, by your logic, the Out side are going to be offering something even more 'worthless' than the In side.Indigo said:The real lesson from today, as before, is whatever Cameron comes home with will be a political promise at best, and therefore worthless.
The referendum, like almost every important choice in life, is about making a decision on information about the future which by its nature cannot be certain, although the Out option is clearly the more uncertain of the two. Get used to it, that is life. It doesn't mean it's worthless, it means voters will have to make a judgement.
What we can be absolutely sure about with IN, is the EU will continue to move toward ever closer union, because that is the reason and purpose behind most of its institutions.0 -
Mr Rob.
"So is '97 the only time you've voted with the winner in that case?"
Don't forget 1974.0 -
In another world I could like Cameron as well. My dislike of him is not based on any party affiliation nor on any of the idiotic claims about snobbery or privilege. I think his economics are sound (although I give far more credit to Osborne than Cameron for that) and he made a genuine once in a generation statesmanlike decision to push through Gay marriage against the wishes of much of his party and knowing it would cause issues with the socially right wing.JosiasJessop said:
That's where we differ. You see, I quite like Cameron. I'm not exactly a Cameroon, but I've said for ages he seems much better than his detractors point out (for instance the stupid "lucky general" meme). So far, I've been proved right more often than I've been proved wrong.Richard_Tyndall said:I do indeed and as I said in my reply to Luckyguy I was surprised because my attacks had not been directed at you today. I have always tried to be scrupulously straight with my postings concerning the EU and that comes off the back of more than 20 years working as s researcher for various anti-EU groups (most of whom have nothing at all to do with UKIP).
This is why I have no tolerance for the sorts of misinformation spouted by some pro EU or at least pro Cameron posters on here.
(snippety snip)
Hence the reason that once in a while I like to poke the hornets nest.
More importantly, he's offered a referendum that will give me a choice on the EU, and that's what I've wanted for years. You can argue (perhaps rightly) that he did not want a referendum, but the fact remains I'm going to get a meaningful vote.
For that, I'm thankful. It would not have happened under Labour.
If he decides to campaign for 'in', it will not mean much to me. I will try to make the decision based on information, if I can get to it through all the propaganda. ;-)
But I also know a used car salesman when I see one and on the specific issue of the EU - which for me is a make or break issue - he is consistently dishonest about what he can achieve and what he wants to achieve. This is my opinion and that of those whose views I admire such as Carswell and Hannan. He never gave himself enough time to achieve the things he claimed and now he has been reelected the list of what he wants has been so radically reduced that even the Europhiles are amazed he is asking for so little.
Were it not for his deceit on the EU I could find a lot to support Cameron over. But for me the EU is the issue which shows his true colours.0 -
But its like a scene from The Matrix, it's where Neo is being offered the red pill to take and he is deciding if he should or not. Only in this incarnation its not just one guy standing there, there is an advertising budget of several tens on millions of pounds advising him to take the pill, the walls are covered in "take the damn pill" posters, the TV has shows on all channels advising him to take the pill, or consulting the great and the good on the horrors that will occur if he doesn't take the pill. The national broadcaster wants him to take the pill etc. Its a referendum, on about as biased a playing fields as could be devised short of only having one box to tick on the paper.JosiasJessop said:More importantly, he's offered a referendum that will give me a choice on the EU, and that's what I've wanted for years. You can argue (perhaps rightly) that he did not want a referendum, but the fact remains I'm going to get a meaningful vote.
0 -
Well, you were the one who seemed to think the exact specifics of how Cameron's rengotiated package were represented would be crucially important. I agree that 95% of people will have no interest in whether the deal is justiciable at the ECJ.Indigo said:What gives you the impression that 95% of the people that will vote will give two hoots about EFTA or EEA or trade treaties. If its a trade and jobs debate then IN will win, if its a "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate OUT will win.
Your new broadbrush view is probably right, but the issue is that the "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate is exactly about the trade treaty or EEA. If we leave the EU but apply to join the EEA then there's little difference: we'll still be subject to most of the EU rules which most irk people, and we'll have virtually no more control over our borders than if we stay in the EU. Alternatively, if we decide to negotiate our own deal (which I think is a much better option, and might be the only option, given the significance of the City both to us and the the EU generally), then the same issues still arise: the In side will point out, quite rightly, that Switzerland is largely subject to the same EU rules as the EEA members - where is the guarantee we'll be able to negotiate a treaty which allows us to keep everything we want for no concessions in return?
As I have said many times, the Out side - rather than flinging accusations of lying around at anyone who disagrees with them, or who (like I've been doing for the last five years) points out these difficulties - would do far better to do some serious work on addressing these points. I'm not holding my breath, and anyway it's a bit late for the BOOers to start this work.0 -
Perdix..life for a woman in Saudi is definitely not easy..well paid maybe.. but the price is personal freedom0
-
This site is full of nobodies who've spent the last few years rubbishing Cameron. He is still PM now of a majority Conservative government and they are still nobodies
0 -
Could be on one of those military basis perhaps?richardDodd said:Perdix..life for a woman in Saudi is definitely not easy..well paid maybe.. but the price is personal freedom
0 -
Mr. Felix, that's a bit unnecessarily condescending.0
-
Hmmm. Cameron is faced with an immensely difficult situation in his party. I think you may expect too much if you think any Conservative leader, even St Margaret, would have done much differently to Cameron on the EU. In fact, he might have done more (although it is hard to tell as the EU is a different beast to the one Maggie negotiated with).Richard_Tyndall said:In another world I could like Cameron as well. My dislike of him is not based on any party affiliation nor on any of the idiotic claims about snobbery or privilege. I think his economics are sound (although I give far more credit to Osborne than Cameron for that) and he made a genuine once in a generation statesmanlike decision to push through Gay marriage against the wishes of much of his party and knowing it would cause issues with the socially right wing.
But I also know a used car salesman when I see one and on the specific issue of the EU - which for me is a make or break issue - he is consistently dishonest about what he can achieve and what he wants to achieve. This is my opinion and that of those whose views I admire such as Carswell and Hannan. He never gave himself enough time to achieve the things he claimed and now he has been reelected the list of what he wants has been so radically reduced that even the Europhiles are amazed he is asking for so little.
Were it not for his deceit on the EU I could find a lot to support Cameron over. But for me the EU is the issue which shows his true colours.
The problem is not really Cameron. It's his party. No-one can manage the Conservatives when it comes to Europe (at least when they are in power). The splits are too deep.
The only good thing is that there are fewer radical Europhiles in the party than twenty years ago.0 -
You are continuing to miss the point, if OUT go anywhere near the EEA debate, they have lost, as soon as you approach the detail, someone in the Coalition of Euroscepticism will disagree with it and the whole thing will collapse into recrimination - and anyway, its pointless.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, you were the one who seemed to think the exact specifics of how Cameron's rengotiated package were represented would be crucially important.Indigo said:What gives you the impression that 95% of the people that will vote will give two hoots about EFTA or EEA or trade treaties. If its a trade and jobs debate then IN will win, if its a "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate OUT will win.
Your new broadbrush view is probably right, but the issue is that the "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate is exactly about the trade treaty or EEA. If we leave the EU but apply to join the EEA then there's little difference: we'll still be subject to most of the EU rules which most irk people, and we'll have virtually no more control over our borders than if we stay in the EU. Alternatively, if we decide to negotiate our own deal (which I think is a much better option, and might be the only option, given the significance of the City both to us and the the EU generally), then the same issues still arise: the In side will point out, quite rightly, that Switzerland is largely subject to the same EU rules as the EEA members - where the guarantee we'll negotiate a treaty which allows us to keep everything we want for no concessions in return?
As I have said many times, the Out side - rather than flinging accusations of lying around at anyone who disagrees with them, or who (like me) points out the difficulties - would do far better to do some serious work on addressing these points. I'm not holding my breath, and anyway it's a bit late to start.
The questions that OUT should place in the mind of the voters is simply "Do you want your country to be run from Westminster or Brussels" and "Do you want the UK to be in control of its own borders", and state that neither of those are possible while we are in the EU, that is it.
Most non-partisan voters wont feel the need to understand the details, they will feel it isn't their problem, they will express their view on how the world should be (since they have been asked) and its up to the politicians to make it happen.
I notice you edited this bit out. I can see why. If it becomes well known that Cameron's agreement (such as it might be) will be shot down in 10 minutes by the ECJ, he's toast.Richard_Nabavi said:I agree that 95% of people will have no interest in whether the deal is justiciable at the ECJ.
0 -
As I've said before, you 'out' people are practicing your excuses before the campaign's even begun.Indigo said:
But its like a scene from The Matrix, it's where Neo is being offered the red pill to take and he is deciding if he should or not. Only in this incarnation its not just one guy standing there, there is an advertising budget of several tens on millions of pounds advising him to take the pill, the walls are covered in "take the damn pill" posters, the TV has shows on all channels advising him to take the pill, or consulting the great and the good on the horrors that will occur if he doesn't take the pill. The national broadcaster wants him to take the pill etc. Its a referendum, on about as biased a playing fields as could be devised short of only having one box to tick on the paper.JosiasJessop said:More importantly, he's offered a referendum that will give me a choice on the EU, and that's what I've wanted for years. You can argue (perhaps rightly) that he did not want a referendum, but the fact remains I'm going to get a meaningful vote.
If you've got the right message and messengers, you can sell it. You don't even seem to be trying.0 -
OK, yes I agree with that - but I don't think they'll have the option of brushing it under the carpet. The In side will push it relentlessly as a response to the Out side saying that jobs won't be lost because we'll enter a trade treaty with the EU.Indigo said:You are continuing to miss the point, if OUT go anywhere near the EEA debate, they have lost, as soon as you approach the detail, someone in the Coalition of Euroscepticism will disagree with it and the whole thing will collapse into recrimination - and anyway, its pointless. .
I agree with your point about the Coalition of Euroscepticism. That is partly my point: since the legwork has not been done over the last three years or so, there's no coherent strategy. The In side will be able to exploit this.
0 -
You are having a laugh. If IN outspends OUT by 10 or 20 times, no one will hear the message. For the conservative party, which just won an election on the basis of targeted messaging and massive spending on advertising, targeting and social media to have the front to suggest that the amount spent by the parties wont swing the referendum result is frankly breathtaking.JosiasJessop said:
As I've said before, you 'out' people are practicing your excuses before the campaign's even begun.Indigo said:
But its like a scene from The Matrix, it's where Neo is being offered the red pill to take and he is deciding if he should or not. Only in this incarnation its not just one guy standing there, there is an advertising budget of several tens on millions of pounds advising him to take the pill, the walls are covered in "take the damn pill" posters, the TV has shows on all channels advising him to take the pill, or consulting the great and the good on the horrors that will occur if he doesn't take the pill. The national broadcaster wants him to take the pill etc. Its a referendum, on about as biased a playing fields as could be devised short of only having one box to tick on the paper.JosiasJessop said:More importantly, he's offered a referendum that will give me a choice on the EU, and that's what I've wanted for years. You can argue (perhaps rightly) that he did not want a referendum, but the fact remains I'm going to get a meaningful vote.
If you've got the right message and messengers, you can sell it. You don't even seem to be trying.0 -
But he's giving the one thing which the hardline Eurosceptics have always said they wanted - an unambiguous chance for the country to vote to leave the EU. You can hardly cry foul about his tactics to ensure that people vote the other way.Richard_Tyndall said:But I also know a used car salesman when I see one and on the specific issue of the EU - which for me is a make or break issue - he is consistently dishonest about what he can achieve and what he wants to achieve.
Richard Nabavi is 100% that if the Eurosceptics are serious they should be spending every waking moment trying to win that referendum, not obsessing about Cameron.0 -
I didn't edit it out, I edited it in!Indigo said:I notice you edited this bit out. I can see why. If it becomes well known that Cameron's agreement (such as it might be) will be shot down in 10 minutes by the ECJ, he's toast.
0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11655310/France-is-better-than-Britain-but-were-scared-to-admit-it.html
How did this get published in Her Majesty's Telegraph? Praising France, nationalised railways, and, worst of all, the metric system....
0 -
The 'out' message that would resonate most strongly with me is one I've mentioned before: "Do you want to head where they're heading?"
IMHO it's a blooming powerful message, and others I've put it to seem to agree.
(The exact wording would depend on the wording of the referendum question).0 -
It's blooming vulnerable to Cameron coming back with a 'two-speed' Europe agreement.JosiasJessop said:The 'out' message that would resonate most strongly with me is one I've mentioned before: "Do you want to head where they're heading?"
IMHO it's a blooming powerful message, and others I've put it to seem to agree.
0 -
Its also begging the question, he has no idea who on this site are nobodies and who are somebodies, no body who is anybody (NPXMP accepted) is going to go public about it here!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, that's a bit unnecessarily condescending.
0 -
Without a treaty...williamglenn said:
It's blooming vulnerable to Cameron coming back with a 'two-speed' Europe agreement.JosiasJessop said:The 'out' message that would resonate most strongly with me is one I've mentioned before: "Do you want to head where they're heading?"
IMHO it's a blooming powerful message, and others I've put it to seem to agree.
Not only that, he was already turned it down
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11658810/David-Camerons-has-finally-confirmed-that-he-is-pro-European-and-wants-us-to-stay-in.htmlJacques Delors emerged from retirement to propose a “privileged partnership” for Britain, based on free movement of goods and services but not political integration. Guy Verhofstadt, the federalist Euro-liberal leader, made a similar offer, calling it “associate membership”.
His EU counterparts get the message very clearly. No serious concessions are being sought. All they are being asked to do is play along with a charade, to feign annoyance, to talk of “tough negotiations”, to tell British journalists that something had to be dragged out of them.0 -
For me, the key argument is the following.Indigo said:
You are continuing to miss the point, if OUT go anywhere near the EEA debate, they have lost, as soon as you approach the detail, someone in the Coalition of Euroscepticism will disagree with it and the whole thing will collapse into recrimination - and anyway, its pointless.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, you were the one who seemed to think the exact specifics of how Cameron's rengotiated package were represented would be crucially important.Indigo said:What gives you the impression that 95% of the people that will vote will give two hoots about EFTA or EEA or trade treaties. If its a trade and jobs debate then IN will win, if its a "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate OUT will win.
Your new broadbrush view is probably right, but the issue is that the "who governs Britain" or "Who controls our borders" debate is exactly about the trade treaty or EEA. If we leave the EU but apply to join the EEA then there's little difference: we'll still be subject to most of the EU rules which most irk people, and we'll have virtually no more control over our borders than if we stay in the EU. Alternatively, if we decide to negotiate our own deal (which I think is a much better option, and might be the only option, given the significance of the City both to us and the the EU generally), then the same issues still arise: the In side will point out, quite rightly, that Switzerland is largely subject to the same EU rules as the EEA members - where the guarantee we'll negotiate a treaty which allows us to keep everything we want for no concessions in return?
As I have said many times, the Out side - rather than flinging accusations of lying around at anyone who disagrees with them, or who (like me) points out the difficulties - would do far better to do some serious work on addressing these points. I'm not holding my breath, and anyway it's a bit late to start.
The questions that OUT should place in the mind of the voters is simply "Do you want your country to be run from Westminster or Brussels" and "Do you want the UK to be in control of its own borders", and state that neither of those are possible while we are in the EU, that is it.
Most non-partisan voters wont feel the need to understand the details, they will feel it isn't their problem, they will express their view on how the world should be (since they have been asked) and its up to the politicians to make it happen.
If we don't at least register a sizeable minority for 'out' we will not get another chance; the juggernaut will be totally out of control, therefore to vote 'out' is the only socially responsible thing to do.
0 -
I fear it may already be too late - three wasted years, if todays in/out poll is to be believed.williamglenn said:
Richard Nabavi is 100% [correct] that if the Eurosceptics are serious they should be spending every waking moment trying to win that referendum, not obsessing about Cameron.Richard_Tyndall said:But I also know a used car salesman when I see one and on the specific issue of the EU - which for me is a make or break issue - he is consistently dishonest about what he can achieve and what he wants to achieve.
0 -
It's clickbait, that's how.RobD said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11655310/France-is-better-than-Britain-but-were-scared-to-admit-it.html
How did this get published in Her Majesty's Telegraph? Praising France, nationalised railways, and, worst of all, the metric system....
0 -
And you're here trolling those nobodies, making you effectively the parasitic grub on the underbelly of nobody. Well done you.felix said:This site is full of nobodies who've spent the last few years rubbishing Cameron. He is still PM now of a majority Conservative government and they are still nobodies
0 -
Dupe
0 -
I put it to you that had the Greens not stood Labour would have won Gower - likewise with the other 7 seats I have referred to.YBarddCwsc said:
The south of the Gower is demographically very different to the North. The South is mainly holiday homes and affluent commuter towns of the Swansea middle class. The North includes decaying old iron and steel towns like Gorseinon and Pontarddulais and Loughor.justin124 said:
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
The south is demographically closest to the Vale of Glamorgan (commuter towns for the Cardiff middle class). The north is demographically closest to neighbouring constituencies like Llanelli or Neath.
All I am assuming is that the South of the Gower moved electorally like the Vale of Glamorgan (UKIP +7.5 %).
The North of the Gower moved like its next door neighbours, Neath (UKIP swing + 14.2 %) or Llanelli (UKIP + 13.5 %).
That differential swing to UKIP would be enough to tip the Gower.
It is UKIP that cost Labour the Gower. Really, the Greens have nothing to do with it.0 -
As I think I might have said below (a case of baby brain!), this is one thing (or one of the things) that might convince me to stay in. But I'd need to be convinced that it was not open to the EU changing things further, and that'd be a difficult task given their past actions.williamglenn said:
It's blooming vulnerable to Cameron coming back with a 'two-speed' Europe agreement.JosiasJessop said:The 'out' message that would resonate most strongly with me is one I've mentioned before: "Do you want to head where they're heading?"
IMHO it's a blooming powerful message, and others I've put it to seem to agree.
Frankly, I don't trust them.
But on the other hand, a genuine two-speed Europe would 'solve' many of the issues I'd have with the EU, if it was truly possible.0 -
Cameron is seen by some on here as a used car salesman..Miliband would not even have risen to that level..how lucky we all are.0
-
Cameron is faced with a situation of his own making. He could have chosen to be far tougher with the EU, making demands for real concessions that would make a real difference but which had the far higher risk of being rejected outright and so resulting in an OUT. He would have had the support of the vast majority of Tories both MPs and supporters as the party is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic. As I said well before the election he could have set a date for a referendum for the end of the next Parliament so that there would be the real prospect of substantive renegotiation and treaty change.JosiasJessop said:
Hmmm. Cameron is faced with an immensely difficult situation in his party. I think you may expect too much if you think any Conservative leader, even St Margaret, would have done much differently to Cameron on the EU. In fact, he might have done more (although it is hard to tell as the EU is a different beast to the one Maggie negotiated with).Richard_Tyndall said:In another world I could like Cameron as well. My dislike of him is not based on any party affiliation nor on any of the idiotic claims about snobbery or privilege. I think his economics are sound (although I give far more credit to Osborne than Cameron for that) and he made a genuine once in a generation statesmanlike decision to push through Gay marriage against the wishes of much of his party and knowing it would cause issues with the socially right wing.
But I also know a used car salesman when I see one and on the specific issue of the EU - which for me is a make or break issue - he is consistently dishonest about what he can achieve and what he wants to achieve. This is my opinion and that of those whose views I admire such as Carswell and Hannan. He never gave himself enough time to achieve the things he claimed and now he has been reelected the list of what he wants has been so radically reduced that even the Europhiles are amazed he is asking for so little.
Were it not for his deceit on the EU I could find a lot to support Cameron over. But for me the EU is the issue which shows his true colours.
The problem is not really Cameron. It's his party. No-one can manage the Conservatives when it comes to Europe (at least when they are in power). The splits are too deep.
The only good thing is that there are fewer radical Europhiles in the party than twenty years ago.
But he chose instead to go for almost no changes at all to our relationship and no possibility of any enforceable agreement that would be protected against reinterpretation by the ECJ. He did so because he will not risk the slightest possibility that we might reject the EU. He was forced by the existence of UKIP to hold a vote in the first place, did so begrudgingly and now will do all he can to make sure we remain committed members of the EU.0 -
And you're responding to the grubLuckyguy1983 said:
And you're here trolling those nobodies, making you effectively the parasitic grub on the underbelly of nobody. Well done you.felix said:This site is full of nobodies who've spent the last few years rubbishing Cameron. He is still PM now of a majority Conservative government and they are still nobodies
0 -
SimonStClare Yet In/Yes still under 60% on both questions answered even on that poll0
-
If the Conservative party was really as Eurosceptic as you claim then today's headlines would have been very different. True, it's not as bad for him as it was for Major, but it's still split.Richard_Tyndall said:Cameron is faced with a situation of his own making. He could have chosen to be far tougher with the EU, making demands for real concessions that would make a real difference but which had the far higher risk of being rejected outright and so resulting in an OUT. He would have had the support of the vast majority of Tories both MPs and supporters as the party is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic. As I said well before the election he could have set a date for a referendum for the end of the next Parliament so that there would be the real prospect of substantive renegotiation and treaty change.
But he chose instead to go for almost no changes at all to our relationship and no possibility of any enforceable agreement that would be protected against reinterpretation by the ECJ. He did so because he will not risk the slightest possibility that we might reject the EU. He was forced by the existence of UKIP to hold a vote in the first place, did so begrudgingly and now will do all he can to make sure we remain committed members of the EU.
I'd feel worse about it if there was more of a delay - it'd be more kicking into the long grass like the Airports Commission - something Cameron does neet criticising for.0 -
The only condescension on here comes from the Cameron critics. It's like the Labour haters of Blair - a group of losers revelling in being hard done by and retreating to the comforts of permanent opposition while being true to the 'cause '.Indigo said:
Its also begging the question, he has no idea who on this site are nobodies and who are somebodies, no body who is anybody (NPXMP accepted) is going to go public about it here!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, that's a bit unnecessarily condescending.
0 -
Fiona McTaggart is challenging Vaz for Home Affairs chairmanships
New nominations for Select Committee Chairs submitted compared to Friday's update include
Daniel Kawczynski for Foreign Affairs and Philip Lee for Science and Technology0 -
I'm a nobody and proud of it. ;-)Indigo said:
Its also begging the question, he has no idea who on this site are nobodies and who are somebodies, no body who is anybody (NPXMP accepted) is going to go public about it here!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, that's a bit unnecessarily condescending.
I don't even have a job. You must all hate me.0 -
great factoid from Taxpayers Alliance.
There are 2.2m more GP registrations than there are people in the country.0 -
Evening Mr HYUFD, - Must admit I’ve slightly lost track wrt the referendum - Is there a minimum vote based on turn out, as in Scotland 1979, or would 51% suffice?HYUFD said:SimonStClare Yet In/Yes still under 60% on both questions answered even on that poll
0 -
WRT the EU ref, there is no way that No win in it if arguing all the micro details, they need to push the 'there is no status quo option' and 'the best people to run Britain are the British'. Furthermore if out mashes the YeSNP buttons that alone could potentially get it there as Out is starting with a higher base and much less emotional attachment to the thing that we may leave.
However I can't steer just how potent the 'no status quo' argument is, I doubt that more than one in three of us want more integration.
In regards to making sure that Cameron's concessions are permanent - make it so that if it is struck down/retired without something else, endorsed in a referendum, the protocols for leaving are automatically initiated.0 -
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
I put it to you that if my auntie had had balls she'd have been my uncle.justin124 said:
I put it to you that had the Greens not stood Labour would have won Gower - likewise with the other 7 seats I have referred to.YBarddCwsc said:
The south of the Gower is demographically very different to the North. The South is mainly holiday homes and affluent commuter towns of the Swansea middle class. The North includes decaying old iron and steel towns like Gorseinon and Pontarddulais and Loughor.justin124 said:
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
The south is demographically closest to the Vale of Glamorgan (commuter towns for the Cardiff middle class). The north is demographically closest to neighbouring constituencies like Llanelli or Neath.
All I am assuming is that the South of the Gower moved electorally like the Vale of Glamorgan (UKIP +7.5 %).
The North of the Gower moved like its next door neighbours, Neath (UKIP swing + 14.2 %) or Llanelli (UKIP + 13.5 %).
That differential swing to UKIP would be enough to tip the Gower.
It is UKIP that cost Labour the Gower. Really, the Greens have nothing to do with it.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you assume you know what other people's votes mean. It is exactly like those people who argue that Cameron only got 37% so most people don't agree with him - without reflecting on whether the nature of the voting maybe alters the results. Nobody knows what support the government enjoys.
It's a bit like those BBC reporters claiming from the scene of some election that this "was a vote against..." followed by the insertion of something that the vote wasn't actually about, as though they have a window into the reason for every vote cast.0 -
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
Well, if we are going to ignore the fact it is pretty rude to do it while someone is speaking, newspapers make a lot of noise, unless the pages are not turned.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%0
-
The EU referendum is shaping into another battle between Cameron and the Tory party.
The Tories got their wish of 2015 being a repeat of 1992, now they have to reap the consequences in reliving the events after the 1992 election.0 -
Mr. G, depends on the computer game.
The multiple potential uses of electronic devices makes it harder to judge, though, whereas a newspaper is always a newspaper [except when it's a fish and chip wrapper, of course].
That's one reason why so many lady readers have started buying raunchy tales since the advent of e-books.0 -
Rob, Not if you are an expert at turning pages. If they can use ipads then newspapers should be no issue.RobD said:
Well, if we are going to ignore the fact it is pretty rude to do it while someone is speaking, newspapers make a lot of noise, unless the pages are not turned.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
PS: Having listened to some of the drivel in Westminster you would need something to stop you going crazy or falling asleep.0 -
The patient register is inflated, especially in the University cities. It's generally because students end up being registered at two locations, and often forget to de-register when they leave, something which I was guilty of.taffys said:great factoid from Taxpayers Alliance.
There are 2.2m more GP registrations than there are people in the country.0 -
Reading a paper during a debate in the HOC,for which you are paid handsomely to attend, is amazingly rude to all the other members in the chamber..basic manners which even a SNP member should not find too difficult to understand...if you want to read a paper.. go outside.0
-
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
He's responding to a post made on Friday, having spent 2 days slumped unconscious over a Bucky soaked keyboard.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
I was disappointed not to be called a turnipsaddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
0 -
Bet most of Labour and Tories were in the bar in the first place.richardDodd said:Reading a paper during a debate in the HOC,for which you are paid handsomely to attend, is amazingly rude to all the other members in the chamber..basic manners which even a SNP member should not find too difficult to understand...if you want to read a paper.. go outside.
0 -
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known nobodies; there are people we know are nobodies. We also know there are known somebodies; that is to say we know there are some people we know are somebodies. But there are also unknown nobodies – the ones we don't know are nobodies. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.Indigo said:
Its also begging the question, he has no idea who on this site are nobodies and who are somebodies, no body who is anybody (NPXMP accepted) is going to go public about it here!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Felix, that's a bit unnecessarily condescending.
0 -
Christ, I've just seen Liz Kendall's interview yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItOPhu8noY
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.0 -
Rob, You are on the "not so bad boys list" so will not receive that accolade very often.RobD said:
I was disappointed not to be called a turnipsaddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
MD, For most MP's it would need to be very simple games, from what you see most of them are not the sharpest tools in the box.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. G, depends on the computer game.
The multiple potential uses of electronic devices makes it harder to judge, though, whereas a newspaper is always a newspaper [except when it's a fish and chip wrapper, of course].
That's one reason why so many lady readers have started buying raunchy tales since the advent of e-books.0 -
She looks OKDanny565 said:Christ, I've just seen Liz Kendall's interview yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItOPhu8noY
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU. 0 -
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.0 -
Malcolm earlier.saddened said:
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2viHVZtZFVA0 -
Mr. G, sometimes blunt tools are needed. Hard to drive in a nail with a scalpel
0 -
LOL, stick to playing with dolls. Obviously a spotty youth who has no clue whatsoever. Some day you will learn that adults with responsible jobs don't drink during work. Trying to compare me to a sad spotty youth like yourself is pretty pathetic even for you. Go forth and multiply.saddened said:
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
Malc.. The SNP need time to get used to the House of Commons.. The sort of behaviour they might think is ok isn't acceptable in the HOC.. Its disrespectful. Its like using your phone when you are a guest for dinner.. You just DONT.malcolmg said:
Bet most of Labour and Tories were in the bar in the first place.richardDodd said:Reading a paper during a debate in the HOC,for which you are paid handsomely to attend, is amazingly rude to all the other members in the chamber..basic manners which even a SNP member should not find too difficult to understand...if you want to read a paper.. go outside.
0 -
Privatise the motorways and nationalise the railwaysRobD said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11655310/France-is-better-than-Britain-but-were-scared-to-admit-it.html
How did this get published in Her Majesty's Telegraph? Praising France, nationalised railways, and, worst of all, the metric system.... ? 0 -
MG Which is where you go if you have no input in the debate or wish to read a paper..as the speaker put is so politely.. the chamber is not the reading room of a local library.0
-
I keep hearing that the Tory Party membership is Eurosceptic these days. Is there any possibility that Constituency Parties might threaten sitting MPs with deselection unless they suport an "OUT" vote - or am I getting needlessly worried?0
-
I do agree but the same should apply to ipads, phones , etc, it should be all or nothing.SquareRoot said:
Malc.. The SNP need time to get used to the House of Commons.. The sort of behaviour they might think is ok isn't acceptable in the HOC.. Its disrespectful. Its like using your phone when you are a guest for dinner.. You just DONT.malcolmg said:
Bet most of Labour and Tories were in the bar in the first place.richardDodd said:Reading a paper during a debate in the HOC,for which you are paid handsomely to attend, is amazingly rude to all the other members in the chamber..basic manners which even a SNP member should not find too difficult to understand...if you want to read a paper.. go outside.
0 -
Angry turps drinkers are not really best placed to hand out advice, you strange, caricature of a chippy jock.malcolmg said:
LOL, stick to playing with dolls. Obviously a spotty youth who has no clue whatsoever. Some day you will learn that adults with responsible jobs don't drink during work. Trying to compare me to a sad spotty youth like yourself is pretty pathetic even for you. Go forth and multiply.saddened said:
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
The poor guy has not mastered troughing yet and so has no tax payer funded ipads etc , and people are berating him for only being able to read a paper. Typical troughers, just scared it catches on and they are not allowed multiple TV's , ipads , iphones , laptops, etc.richardDodd said:MG Which is where you go if you have no input in the debate or wish to read a paper..as the speaker put is so politely.. the chamber is not the reading room of a local library.
0 -
Dave's honeymoon didn't last long, that "clarification" is a bit embarrassing. The perils of governing with a tiny majority might be hitting home. And this is only the start.
0 -
I might be way out on a limb here, but I kinda feel Yvette has the beating of her even in the looks stakes!Sunil_Prasannan said:
She looks OKDanny565 said:Christ, I've just seen Liz Kendall's interview yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItOPhu8noY
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.0 -
cuckoosaddened said:
Angry turps drinkers are not really best placed to hand out advice, you strange, caricature of a chippy jock.malcolmg said:
LOL, stick to playing with dolls. Obviously a spotty youth who has no clue whatsoever. Some day you will learn that adults with responsible jobs don't drink during work. Trying to compare me to a sad spotty youth like yourself is pretty pathetic even for you. Go forth and multiply.saddened said:
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
She has changed her voice and speech delivery quite markedly, like you I don't believe she comes across to well, much work to do. Cooper looks a better option.Danny565 said:Christ, I've just seen Liz Kendall's interview yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItOPhu8noY
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.
0 -
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.0 -
Only those in a Govt role. The other europhiles can keep quiet.Disraeli said:I keep hearing that the Tory Party membership is Eurosceptic these days. Is there any possibility that Constituency Parties might threaten sitting MPs with deselection unless they suport an "OUT" vote - or am I getting needlessly worried?
My guess on the make up of the current Conservative MPs are:-
50% Eurosceptic
35% Persuadable by Cameron
15% Europhiles
0 -
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.0 -
You are talking about a really tiny effect in a complex seat where there was a swirl of other much more important things going on.justin124 said:
I put it to you that had the Greens not stood Labour would have won Gower - likewise with the other 7 seats I have referred to.YBarddCwsc said:
The south of the Gower is demographically very different to the North. The South is mainly holiday homes and affluent commuter towns of the Swansea middle class. The North includes decaying old iron and steel towns like Gorseinon and Pontarddulais and Loughor.justin124 said:
I cannot accept your point re- Gower. We really have no idea as to how supporters of the OMRLP would have voted in the absence of their own candidate or indeed as to how many of them would have voted at all. The Greens polled 1161 votes and it is very difficult not to believe that Labour would have gained more than the required 27 votes had this candidate not been on the ballot paper - indeed I suggest that Labour would very likely have held on here by circa 500 votes. The fact that UKIP also probably hit Labour here does not affect that issue at all - though I accept that in Wales the boost to UKIP appears to have been disproportionately at Labour's expense.
The south is demographically closest to the Vale of Glamorgan (commuter towns for the Cardiff middle class). The north is demographically closest to neighbouring constituencies like Llanelli or Neath.
All I am assuming is that the South of the Gower moved electorally like the Vale of Glamorgan (UKIP +7.5 %).
The North of the Gower moved like its next door neighbours, Neath (UKIP swing + 14.2 %) or Llanelli (UKIP + 13.5 %).
That differential swing to UKIP would be enough to tip the Gower.
It is UKIP that cost Labour the Gower. Really, the Greens have nothing to do with it.
If Martin Caton had not stood down, then Labour would probably have retained the seat.
The Tory candidate had tried to win the seat three times before, each time chipping away at the majority. If Byron Davies had not been so well suited to the seat, and if he had not persevered again and again, then Labour would probably have retained the seat.
If UKIP had not stood -- and the differential effect I pointed to will be worth a few thousand votes -- then Labour would probably have retained the seat.
Out of all these things, I think the UKIP effect was the most important, but it just brought forward the inevitable.
The seat is demographically tending Tory anyhow. The Northern part of the Gower, the depressed Western Valley towns like Gorseinon, are depopulating. The Southern part is not.
The seat would have fallen to the Tories anyhow in 2020, if it hadn’t fallen in 2015 (assuming no boundary changes).
0 -
I can see that point of view but Yvette's legs look a bit chunky, perhaps she should hit the road like Liz.Danny565 said:
I might be way out on a limb here, but I kinda feel Yvette has the beating of her even in the looks stakes!Sunil_Prasannan said:
She looks OKDanny565 said:Christ, I've just seen Liz Kendall's interview yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zItOPhu8noY
She reminds me of a particularly patronising primary-school teacher, especially when she starts going on about how outrageous it would be to possibly leave the EU.0 -
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.0 -
Not really. Since he didn't say what the newspapers claimed he said, it's got nothing to do with a honeymoon or the majority - just the media being silly (not that that is a surprise).Jonathan said:Dave's honeymoon didn't last long, that "clarification" is a bit embarrassing. The perils of governing with a tiny majority might be hitting home. And this is only the start.
0 -
Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.0 -
I'd view it as similar to the Over 55 age breakdown from a few threads ago.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Only those in a Govt role. The other europhiles can keep quiet.Disraeli said:I keep hearing that the Tory Party membership is Eurosceptic these days. Is there any possibility that Constituency Parties might threaten sitting MPs with deselection unless they suport an "OUT" vote - or am I getting needlessly worried?
My guess on the make up of the current Conservative MPs are:-
50% Eurosceptic
35% Persuadable by Cameron
15% Europhiles
15% Definite In (Europhiles)
70% Persuadable (leaning in or out)
15% Definite Out (Eurosceptics)0 -
MG If the SNP desire to look like boorish prats then reading a newspaper in the chamber during a debate is the way to go..apparently this is not proving too difficult a task.0
-
Loser, lost the independence vote, no influence in Westminster, no wonder you're on industrial quantities of turps.malcolmg said:
cuckoosaddened said:
Angry turps drinkers are not really best placed to hand out advice, you strange, caricature of a chippy jock.malcolmg said:
LOL, stick to playing with dolls. Obviously a spotty youth who has no clue whatsoever. Some day you will learn that adults with responsible jobs don't drink during work. Trying to compare me to a sad spotty youth like yourself is pretty pathetic even for you. Go forth and multiply.saddened said:
You need to start later in the day, or take more water in it. You are one step away from shouting at imaginary demons in the street.malcolmg said:
Early for you to be out from under your rock , thought cockroachs were scared of the light.saddened said:
Bit early to be sucking down the brasso isn't it? You big Jessie.malcolmg said:
Yes you can listen and use an ipad , ie reading and poking it with your fingers , but reading a newspaper, crime against the crown. Get a life you halfwit, reading a paper is better than playing computer games.RobD said:
"That hand-held electronic devices (not laptops) may be used in the Chamber, provided that they are silent, and used in a way that does not impair decorum; that Members making speeches in the Chamber or in committee may refer to electronic devices in place of paper speaking notes; and that electronic devices, including laptops, may be used silently in committee meetings, including select committees."kle4 said:
I didn't realise that was not allowed - shows disrespect I suppose - what's the rule on iPads?AndyJS said:Bercow just told off an SNP member for reading a newspaper during a debate.
Not sure if that covers using iPads. Reading a newspaper (or an Ipad for that matter) is bloody rude, given that you are supposed to be there to listen.0 -
Referenda do settle things. Look at the Australian republic movement (dead in the water), look at Quebec independence (dead after the second failure).Jonathan said:
Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.0 -
And just think we are only a month after the election and the government is getting stuck in the european quicksand.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.
If it's that bad now just how bad will it be once the honeymoon is over?0 -
Speedy Though an Out vote over 40% would keep the issue alive0
-
Talking about Canada, Labour needs to learn 2 things from their last election:Philip_Thompson said:
Referenda do settle things. Look at the Australian republic movement (dead in the water), look at Quebec independence (dead after the second failure).Jonathan said:
Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.
1. BQ Collapse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaDl7tb13v8
2. Use of internet applications for an accurate live GE campaign picture (a fascinating example):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS61WGx7PMI0 -
This is not remotely comparable in terms of political dynamics to the independence referendum in Scotland.Jonathan said:
Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.
The fact that their are voices from the Out side already raising the spectre of having a second go in a few years if they don't get what they want just highlights their profound failure so far.
Eurosceptics on the right have for much of the last 25 years feverishly worked to make the Conservatives unelectable and if the final result of the referendum is a solid Yes they will need to reflect very seriously on what they have done with their political lives.0 -
Of course some of us put principle and country before party. Something too many Tories seem to have forgotten.williamglenn said:
This is not remotely comparable in terms of political dynamics to the independence referendum in Scotland.Jonathan said:
Referenda do not settle things. Look at Scotland. Look at the SDP. The fun is only just beginning.Philip_Thompson said:
No we don't. In hindsight had Major put Maastricht to a referendum it would have allowed the public to decide, that is what is happening now. We're not having to destroy ourselves because the debate is just within the party - the debate is taken out to the whole country instead.Speedy said:
You wanted 1992, you got 1992.Philip_Thompson said:
There won't be a civil war. The vast bulk of the Tory party, both MPs and public, are realists.Speedy said:
It doesn't matter, IN will win because Cameron will be for IN and will drag half of the Tory party towards the Labour and LD position of IN.HYUFD said:SstClare I don't think so, ICM last week had No over 40%
The Tory backbenchers may never forgive Cameron for keeping Britain in the EU like they never forgave Major, but Cameron has always usually governed with the support of Labour and LD MP's rather than his backbenchers so that won't be much of a change, unless they are many Tory by-elections that risk his majority or the Tory civil war gives UKIP a second gust of wind.
Major had a split in large part because the sceptics viewed Major's actions as illegitimate. Much has been made about the fact that the public hasn't had a say since Wilson's day. That line disappears the day of the vote. The vast bulk of the Tory party, whether they're supporters of staying in or leaving, will accept the result of the referendum whichever way it goes.
It isn't Tories who are the sort to deface war memorials just because there is a vote we don't like the result of.
After the referendum, we move on. Major never got to a point where he could move on.
The fact that their are voices from the Out side already raising the spectre of having a second go in a few years if they don't get what they want just highlights their profound failure so far.
Eurosceptics on the right have for much of the last 25 years feverishly worked to make the Conservatives unelectable and if the final result of the referendum is a solid Yes they will need to reflect very seriously on what they have done with their political lives.0 -
Poor old Jonathon and Speedy.. Their own party is so utterly fecked, leaderless and rudderless with leadership candidates attacking each other, and they best they can do is throw sand.
Its precisely because Labour are not offering any form of opposition that the media is fiulling the gap and trying to find anything to make a story.
Of course Dave should have been clearer about what it meant, but its not going to have massive repercussions however the media try to spin the "split" story.0
