The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
Probably about right. I'd have had it shorter than that until this summer, but the EU migrant crisis and the scenes in Calais may have had an effect (which is irrational, since the UK leaving the EU would make sod all difference to either, but voters aren't necessarily rational).
I think the EU migrant crisis will die down as a factor when the press get bored with it, but it's still a bit of a wildcard and could flare up again next year.
The UK leaving the EU wouldn't make sod all difference to the migrant crisis. Staying in the EU means they will be able to come here when they get EU passports. Immigration is already 350k a year. If we get 10% of Germany's 1.5 million a year on top of that, it will hit half a million.
Either Cameron negotiates a limit here, or we have to accept that being in the EU means we can't control non-EU migration either. We'll be entirely at the mercy of other EU nations handing out paspsorts.
Looking at those numbers the thing that strikes me is that if those saying they would vote to stay are relying upon any movement on either of the top two areas of concern being resolved by Cameron then they are going to be extremely disappointed. Changing one of the main pillars of the EU - freedom of movement - is simply not going to happen.
I do wonder why these pollsters don't try to ask questions that reflect more of what the reality will be. They should ask whether, if there is no change in the UK's relationship with the EU, no limits of EU migration and no return of powers to the UK, people would vote to remain or leave. That strikes me as being the most likely reality in 2017.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
''It's possible Cameron/May are plotting something semi-nuclear on EU migration to compensate (not sure exactly what yet) judging from their speeches and comments, and James Forsyth's analysis.''
May's aiming at the wrong target, perhaps deliberately. The immigration many people are most worried about is immigration from the Indian sub continent, North Africa and the Middle east.
May has complete power over that form of immigration, and yet they still come. Something she would like people not to know.
Turning to May, it's all very well and good saying immigration is too high etc.
But she has been Home Secretary for the past 5 years..
To be fair, this just makes the main point about BrExit. It just doesn't seem right, on a basic level, that we can't control the numbers coming into the country. It should be one of the elementary things a country should have: even if we then decided to let in more or less the same number of immigrants anyway, the option should still be in our hands.
By the way, have Wings Over Somerset complied with the law yet & filed their spending with the Electoral Commission? (since you're so keen on accurate reporting?)
For maximum accuracy we’ve made one adjustment to the Commission’s figures, because they inexplicably still exclude this site’s own spending return, which totalled £64,642 of qualifying expenditure. That sum is included in the Yes figures above.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
I keep hearing about economic risk but nobody ever elaborates on it.
''To be fair, this just makes the main point about BrExit. ''
And yet, when you ask people, they are most concerned about people coming from places we have complete power over immigration policy. And that is maybe why they are still pro-Europe. They really like having other Europeans here.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
It's Balderdash. Not that this is a "slam dunk" but I asked that question directly to the head of the ITEM club (Professor Peter Spencer) in an internal economic briefing last year.
He said no business likes uncertainty, but that it actually wouldn't be that bad and we could quite well from it.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Like I said, I like Osborne, but he seriously dented his reputation with that halving the debt nonsense.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
I'm not one of those people, I would say assuming the referendum is 2017 rather than 2016, maybe a 10% chance - the possibility of somethign blowing up which really changes the perceptions of his European colleagues and the European project in his own mind.
There is nothing, I don't think, resting on the renegotiation itself.
I'm not sure what real renegotiation is actually taking place at all.
Cameron did a grand tour in June. Since then he's focussed on trying to square Merkel, who he thinks is the solution to all his problems. Osborne has clearly been up to something EU-wise, but this is the guy who "halved the bill" (no you didn't, George) and there have been a couple of grand international summits on top where the British problem barely got a look in.
And that's about it.
Cameron said he's making "good progress" today, but then the EU say they haven't heard anything from the British "for ages". That probably means British politicians, not technocrats, and that Cameron/Osborne are stalling as there are weekly talks going on all the time:
If I were a betting man (*ahem*.. sometimes I am) I'd say there's an outline of a deal on a paper opt-out of ever-closer union in a future EU treaty (TBC) and something on extending competitiveness in the single market, probably a lot of verbal technical wrangling between officials about how QMV could be modified (with little political involvement, and no conclusion yet) and absolutely no progress at all on free movement and restricting EU migrant benefits.
It's possible Cameron/May are plotting something semi-nuclear on EU migration to compensate (not sure exactly what yet) judging from their mysterious speeches and comments today, and James Forsyth's analysis.
One thing Cameron has to be careful of is relying too much on Merkel's support in the run up to the referendum. Merkel has elections towards the end of 2017 and may not be quite so happy to be seen to be making concessions to Cameron during an election campaign.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
The hanging or burning of effigies has a long and illustrious history in Great Britain.
I believe there is even a national festival dedicated to just such things.
I agree. The line should be drawn at actual physical violence. I do however include spitting in that. Personally I am of the view that spitting at someone should be considered to be assault. It is a disgusting habit which, in the past, has been associated with the spread of disease. And I would hate to think what diseases some of the protesting crusties are harbouring.
Yes, physical violence and bodily fluids cross the line.
Egging, flouring, soaking, to me these are reasonably borderline activities. I'll faux outrage when the other side do it but laugh if it's my own side.
Burning or hanging effigies, absolutely fine. The Tory hypocrisy over this is stunning but not unexpected.
I'm not sure what effigy burning you are referring to. Tories as a rule don't do that.
If it's Lewes you are getting upset about, that's a largely non-party-political regional heritage event.
A bit like many Scottish events. But without the tedious whining noises. And bagpipes.
apparently it is Lewes he's getting upset about. There is no discernible difference you see between a giant caricature of a high-profile figure* made for a street carnival and bonfire night celebration versus the public hanging of "a tory" with the slogan "Class Resistance / Tories Out". None, nothing.
*previous caricatures include David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Osama Bin Laden.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Of the three though, who would you go for if you HAD to decide between them.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn was Labour’s suicide pill and George Osborne is pumping bullets into the lifeless corpse just to make sure. Osborne wants Labour moderates and he is woo-ing them with a series of centre-left policies.
... Osborne is love-bombing Labour voters and expanding the Tories’ appeal into the north, Wales and maybe even Scotland. Anecdotally, I already know a handful of lifelong Labour voters who are going Tory next time
Turning to May, it's all very well and good saying immigration is too high etc.
But she has been Home Secretary for the past 5 years..
To be fair, this just makes the main point about BrExit. It just doesn't seem right, on a basic level, that we can't control the numbers coming into the country. It should be one of the elementary things a country should have: even if we then decided to let in more or less the same number of immigrants anyway, the option should still be in our hands.
this will be the critical element. Forget the dysfunction over migrants, etc. In/out will turn on whether people are happy with membership of an organisation which requires us to give up control of our borders.
''To be fair, this just makes the main point about BrExit. ''
And yet, when you ask people, they are most concerned about people coming from places we have complete power over immigration policy. And that is maybe why they are still pro-Europe. They really like having other Europeans here.
But we don't have complete power. If someone from Afghanistan smuggles themselves into Sweden, and Sweden hands out passports willy nilly, they can come straight here. As it stands, non-EU immigration to the UK is substantially in the hands of other EU governments.
What politics is showing us at the moment is that the Tories ARE the centre-ground - both the Party and its voters.
YouGov last week said the public consider the Tories currently to be more right-wing than at any point since 2002.
You luv your you gov don't you - they haven't changed their methodology since the election - Com Res have. either way none of us can cherry pick the polls which agree with our prejudices.
''It's possible Cameron/May are plotting something semi-nuclear on EU migration to compensate (not sure exactly what yet) judging from their speeches and comments, and James Forsyth's analysis.''
May's aiming at the wrong target, perhaps deliberately. The immigration many people are most worried about is immigration from the Indian sub continent, North Africa and the Middle east.
May has complete power over that form of immigration, and yet they still come. Something she would like people not to know.
Not that it's a choice but I think if most people were to pick from the sort of mass immigration the UK had from eastern Europe from c.2004 to c.2010 and the sort of mass immigration that Germany will have from 2014-TBC it wouldn't be a hard choice.
Turning my usual argument on its head, I actually *liked* some of it: being served my morning latte at the railway station by a smiling and stunningly beautiful Latvian blonde in early 20s rather than a crusty old resentful and grumbling British battleaxe in her late 60s was a breath of fresh air. If we'd had a tens of thousands of them rotating through each year, I wouldn't have minded.
But we've had hundreds of thousands from right across the world, and seem unable to discriminate. The volume, rate, scale and physical and social impact overall has been (and is) too high - and it must be brought back under control.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Like I said, I like Osborne, but he seriously dented his reputation with that halving the debt nonsense.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
I can see Boris doing an Ashcroft if he doesn't get what he wants.
There's something innately childish about him - and also a bit nasty. I've never felt the same way about him since reading (many years ago) that he helped a friend with an address to allow an associate to beat someone up.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Like I said, I like Osborne, but he seriously dented his reputation with that halving the debt nonsense.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
I can see Boris doing an Ashcroft if he doesn't get what he wants.
There's something innately childish about him - and also a bit nasty. I've never felt the same way about him since reading (many years ago) that he helped a friend with an address to allow an associate to beat someone up.
I get the impression that he's one of those people that just wants to be at the centre of things and loved as "one of the boys" in whatever group he's currently in, while taunting those outside the group. If he was running for office in France, he would be extolling the benefits of dirigism and mocking les Rosbifs.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Like I said, I like Osborne, but he seriously dented his reputation with that halving the debt nonsense.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
I can see Boris doing an Ashcroft if he doesn't get what he wants.
There's something innately childish about him - and also a bit nasty. I've never felt the same way about him since reading (many years ago) that he helped a friend with an address to allow an associate to beat someone up.
Darius Guppy, bitter man and crook. Are you sure Johnson supplied the journalist's address? He's always denied it.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Like I said, I like Osborne, but he seriously dented his reputation with that halving the debt nonsense.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
I can see Boris doing an Ashcroft if he doesn't get what he wants.
There's something innately childish about him - and also a bit nasty. I've never felt the same way about him since reading (many years ago) that he helped a friend with an address to allow an associate to beat someone up.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
Yep. I see we paid the bill in full a couple of weeks ago. No 'halving' that the Cameroon loyalists on here claimed we would be paying.
The polls on EU membership seem all over the place. Is public opinion volatile or are some polls simply wrong? Right now it's hard to tell.
Whatever the answer, come the eve of the vote they'll all be within a few percentage points of each other!
You may be right. But the Leave camp is looking very short on politicians who are going to speak to the undecided. Co-opting Lord Lawson was a coup but they will need more than that if they are going to persuade the public that voting Leave is an option that sensible people could take.
The UK and Germany are now running the EU, intellectually and economically, with France demoted to the second rank. So it now makes sense from a Tory and patriotic standpoint to be pro-EU.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Of the three though, who would you go for if you HAD to decide between them.
Oh Lord, what a choice.
I'd go for whoever I thought wouldn't surrender socio-cultural Conservativism (i.e. EU-scepticism/controlled immigration/family& community and sanity on identity politics) to UKIP, or take the lesser of two evils at the time.
The UK and Germany are now running the EU, intellectually and economically, with France demoted to the second rank. So it now makes sense from a Tory and patriotic standpoint to be pro-EU.
You mean like when France and Germany decided to use the EFSF to bail out Greece against an explicit agreement with the Brits not to do so, and we had to meekly submit?
Nicola Sturgeon’s government has awarded a lucrative £320m contract to supply all Scotland’s schools, hospitals and councils with water to the private firm Anglian Water after months of delay.
Five days after postponing a decision for the third time, the Scottish government revealed that Anglian Water had substantially outbid the publicly owned company Scottish Water, despite ministers’ repeated efforts to grant the latter extra time.
I notice that lots of people are rubbishing this poll - indeed it may be wrong but it's surely better to wait for others before making such silly comments. For the last few weeks the EU has had a very bad press [ and rightly so] - this poll is especially interesting in the light of the fact that the worst of the bad press has eased off somewhat over the last fortnight.
My own gut tells me that if Cameron gets any kind of deal he'll win the referendum handsomely and enrage the right-wingers who shout louder in the party than most Tory voters do from outside. Maybe not such a bad thing. They need reminding constantly that when a party strays too much from the centre it has to rely on people like those outside the CPC right now.
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
I don't trust Osborne, Boris or May.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Of the three though, who would you go for if you HAD to decide between them.
I'd be careful looking for advice, pb is going through a silly overanalyzed to death phase. Mixed with a delusion that it has mind reading powers.
The polls on EU membership seem all over the place. Is public opinion volatile or are some polls simply wrong? Right now it's hard to tell.
Whatever the answer, come the eve of the vote they'll all be within a few percentage points of each other!
Quite. Why, after the nonsense we saw on the run-up to the GE, anyone pays any attention to polls as a serious indicator of anything is beyond me. The polling companies were exposed as a bunch of shysters who will manipulate data or withhold results if they do feel it suits their purposes.
Nicola Sturgeon’s government has awarded a lucrative £320m contract to supply all Scotland’s schools, hospitals and councils with water to the private firm Anglian Water after months of delay.
Five days after postponing a decision for the third time, the Scottish government revealed that Anglian Water had substantially outbid the publicly owned company Scottish Water, despite ministers’ repeated efforts to grant the latter extra time.
Has the "hanging Tory effigy" story been discussed here already, or something?
To me it is astonishing.
The hanging or burning of effigies has a long and illustrious history in Great Britain.
I believe there is even a national festival dedicated to just such things.
I agree. The line should be drawn at actual physical violence. I do however include spitting in that. Personally I am of the view that spitting at someone should be considered to be assault. It is a disgusting habit which, in the past, has been associated with the spread of disease. And I would hate to think what diseases some of the protesting crusties are harbouring.
Yes, physical violence and bodily fluids cross the line.
Egging, flouring, soaking, to me these are reasonably borderline activities. I'll faux outrage when the other side do it but laugh if it's my own side.
Burning or hanging effigies, absolutely fine. The Tory hypocrisy over this is stunning but not unexpected.
That seems fair. Burn me in effigy all your like. Mind you, throw stuff or spit on me - I'd lay out anyone who did that.
By way of comparison, also, the latest ICM poll, Remain 45% to Leave 38%, had Conservative voters evenly divided on 41% Remain, 42% Leave. UKIP voters were of course, overwhelmingly in favour of Leave.
There's been talk of an Ipsos Mori poll showing a very big swing towards Leave, (but leaving Remain just ahead) but I haven't seen any details on their website.
You might prefer a government which wastes £40m of public money making a political statement.
I'll vote for a government that puts value for money first.
Becuase the SNP only wasted £26m of public money making a political statement?
I've not seen you campaigning to stop any further General Elections saving us £15m every 4 or 5 years. Laughable hypocrisy from the resident rent-a-quote loony.
Laughable hypocrisy from the resident rent-a-quote loony.
Quite
it leaves the Scottish National party government open to charges of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Sturgeon, the first minister and SNP leader, had campaigned heavily against increasing privatisation of the public sector in England during the referendum campaign and the general election, particularly in the NHS. Now all Scottish hospitals will buy their water and waste water services from the privatised utility, as well as nearly 100 other public sector bodies, including all universities and colleges.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
I think the economic claims of both "In" and "Out" are massively overstated. Britain will not lose 3 million jobs if we leave the EU. Nor, if we leave, will Britain sign a Free Trade Agreement with China that allows British firms to sell free of tariffs to the Chinese.
In fact, our terms of trade would change very little in the event of "Out". We would still (almost certainly) sign-up to TTIP. We would almost certainly sign a deal with the EU that would be very similar to those which the Swiss and the Norwegians have (and therefore we would still be net contributors, albeit to a more modest level. And more importantly, we'd get to choose whether we had farm subsidies, and if so, how much).
The most likely negative consequences of an "Out" vote would be in the 3-4 year period when it wasn't clear what our ongoing relationship with the EU was going to be. During this period, I would expect foreign investment flows into the UK would be limited by political uncertainty. But not doing something because there would be a period of uncertainty is a silly reason.
Nicola Sturgeon’s government has awarded a lucrative £320m contract to supply all Scotland’s schools, hospitals and councils with water to the private firm Anglian Water after months of delay.
Five days after postponing a decision for the third time, the Scottish government revealed that Anglian Water had substantially outbid the publicly owned company Scottish Water, despite ministers’ repeated efforts to grant the latter extra time.
Verbal and visual statements should be protected under freedom of speech, even vile and objectionable statements (unless they are a direct incitement to violence).
I can't get excited about a hanging effigy. And faux outrage detracts from genuinely unacceptable actions. I agree, the line is physical attacks, including bodily fluids. To me, spitting is far more egregious than egging.
Had no idea how the Liberals were doing in Wales. From this the picture is even more dire than in Scotland. Two seats in Scotland could be the only seats they hold in any devolved perliament/assembly after May.
By way of comparison, also, the latest ICM poll, Remain 45% to Leave 38%, had Conservative voters evenly divided on 41% Remain, 42% Leave. UKIP voters were of course, overwhelmingly in favour of Leave.
There's been talk of an Ipsos Mori poll showing a very big swing towards Leave, (but leaving Remain just ahead) but I haven't seen any details on their website.
Thanks. The gap in these companies results is bizarre.
Laughable hypocrisy from the resident rent-a-quote loony.
Quite
it leaves the Scottish National party government open to charges of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Sturgeon, the first minister and SNP leader, had campaigned heavily against increasing privatisation of the public sector in England during the referendum campaign and the general election, particularly in the NHS. Now all Scottish hospitals will buy their water and waste water services from the privatised utility, as well as nearly 100 other public sector bodies, including all universities and colleges.
Haha, let's forget your quoting Severin Carrell which immediately undermines the entire thing, concentrate on how nothing is being privatised. A purchased service, which was always a purchased service is going to be a purchased service for the best possible price.
Nicola Sturgeon’s government has awarded a lucrative £320m contract to supply all Scotland’s schools, hospitals and councils with water to the private firm Anglian Water after months of delay.
Five days after postponing a decision for the third time, the Scottish government revealed that Anglian Water had substantially outbid the publicly owned company Scottish Water, despite ministers’ repeated efforts to grant the latter extra time.
Nicola Sturgeon’s government has awarded a lucrative £320m contract to supply all Scotland’s schools, hospitals and councils with water to the private firm Anglian Water after months of delay.
Five days after postponing a decision for the third time, the Scottish government revealed that Anglian Water had substantially outbid the publicly owned company Scottish Water, despite ministers’ repeated efforts to grant the latter extra time.
You might prefer a government which wastes £40m of public money making a political statement.
I'll vote for a government that puts value for money first.
Hugely embarrassing for the Nats from a symbolic point of view, obviously.
Saving millions is not embarrassing from any point of view.
The services remain public services, they simply changed to a cheaper supplier. Damn good job by the SNP.
It's just the SNP reaping the benefits of having created a private market in water and waste supply. The success of which demonstrates that it is possible to create effective private markets in areas which had been dominated by state-owned and operated enterprises.
Also for Milibandites, it demonstrates (if I understand correctly) how state-owned actors in private markets will struggle against private-owned actors.
I guess these are the brillient headlines we will see in the Nat onal tomorrow after this amazing deal
FEARS were mounting last night that ministers were preparing to hand a £350 million contract to supply water to Scotland’s schools, hospitals, prisons and Government offices to an English private water company.
What politics is showing us at the moment is that the Tories ARE the centre-ground - both the Party and its voters.
YouGov last week said the public consider the Tories currently to be more right-wing than at any point since 2002.
You luv your you gov don't you - they haven't changed their methodology since the election - Com Res have. either way none of us can cherry pick the polls which agree with our prejudices.
This is the yougov that consistently overestimated Labour support in the run up to the election? Why am I not surprised. I suppose Labour will be regarded now as a centre-left party. Yougov's methodology is fatally flawed and it is becoming a panderer to the socialist far left - echoing their beliefs, rather than those of the nation generally. My advice: ignore it completely.
Had no idea how the Liberals were doing in Wales. From this the picture is even more dire than in Scotland. Two seats in Scotland could be the only seats they hold in any devolved perliament/assembly after May.
Assuming they hold on to two in Scotland.
I would struggle to see them losing *both* of their top-up seats in the London Assembly (assuming that counts as a devolved assembly)
Hard to see how May can be a realistic runner to replace Cameron when she has failed spectacularly by her own measure as Home Sec, esp when immigration is the number one issue of concern for voters
I guess these are the brillient headlines we will see in the Nat onal tomorrow after this amazing deal
FEARS were mounting last night that ministers were preparing to hand a £350 million contract to supply water to Scotland’s schools, hospitals, prisons and Government offices to an English private water company.
Not just any private company - but ANGLIAN water - ENGLAND is derived from ANGLE - so it's the ENGLISH TOP HAT PINSTRIPE WESTMONSTER water company that will be stealing the profits, beating the workers etc.
Hard to see how May can be a realistic runner to replace Cameron when she has failed spectacularly by her own measure as Home Sec, esp when immigration is the number one issue of concern for voters
She has a pretty good excuse as regards the first term - the LibDems. If she is able to bring in some substantive new measures in the next year or so to back up her words, she could turn this issue to her advantage.
The key thing in terms of the betting will be who makes it to the final two. If May does, then everything will depend on who her opponent is.
This bastard taking diversity to the extreme. But thats what happens when our government panders to these swine. The fact that this is a female bastard doesn't alter the facts.
Bahar Mustafa is a tedious oaf of a person, and yet I'm not happy to see someone arrested over such a thing. Being axed from her job [because of its particular nature] would seem more fitting. It's important that freedom of speech is as broad as possible*, even when the messages sent are ones one personally dislikes.
*Freedom of speech but axed from her job might seem inconsistent, but a diversity officer tweeting about killing all white men is inappropriate.
You can tell that times are grim for the left when commentisfree is reduced to peddling dreams of impending financial crashes to cheer up its readership:
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
I think the economic claims of both "In" and "Out" are massively overstated. Britain will not lose 3 million jobs if we leave the EU. Nor, if we leave, will Britain sign a Free Trade Agreement with China that allows British firms to sell free of tariffs to the Chinese.
In fact, our terms of trade would change very little in the event of "Out". We would still (almost certainly) sign-up to TTIP. We would almost certainly sign a deal with the EU that would be very similar to those which the Swiss and the Norwegians have (and therefore we would still be net contributors, albeit to a more modest level. And more importantly, we'd get to choose whether we had farm subsidies, and if so, how much).
The most likely negative consequences of an "Out" vote would be in the 3-4 year period when it wasn't clear what our ongoing relationship with the EU was going to be. During this period, I would expect foreign investment flows into the UK would be limited by political uncertainty. But not doing something because there would be a period of uncertainty is a silly reason.
Bahar Mustafa is a tedious oaf of a person, and yet I'm not happy to see someone arrested over such a thing. Being axed from her job [because of its particular nature] would seem more fitting. It's important that freedom of speech is as broad as possible*, even when the messages sent are ones one personally dislikes.
*Freedom of speech but axed from her job might seem inconsistent, but a diversity officer tweeting about killing all white men is inappropriate.
I think it's reasonable to limit freedom of speech when it's a direct incitement to violent action. "White men are evil and deserve to die" should be legally acceptable. "Kill all white men" should not.
I guess these are the brillient headlines we will see in the Nat onal tomorrow after this amazing deal
FEARS were mounting last night that ministers were preparing to hand a £350 million contract to supply water to Scotland’s schools, hospitals, prisons and Government offices to an English private water company.
Not just any private company - but ANGLIAN water - ENGLAND is derived from ANGLE - so it's the ENGLISH TOP HAT PINSTRIPE WESTMONSTER water company that will be stealing the profits, beating the workers etc.
I bet it's owned and run by TORIES too, ones who in the eyes of rabid Nats, filter the water through sheets and blankets stolen from poor old people and the cots of babies.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
I think the economic claims of both "In" and "Out" are massively overstated. Britain will not lose 3 million jobs if we leave the EU. Nor, if we leave, will Britain sign a Free Trade Agreement with China that allows British firms to sell free of tariffs to the Chinese.
In fact, our terms of trade would change very little in the event of "Out". We would still (almost certainly) sign-up to TTIP. We would almost certainly sign a deal with the EU that would be very similar to those which the Swiss and the Norwegians have (and therefore we would still be net contributors, albeit to a more modest level. And more importantly, we'd get to choose whether we had farm subsidies, and if so, how much).
The most likely negative consequences of an "Out" vote would be in the 3-4 year period when it wasn't clear what our ongoing relationship with the EU was going to be. During this period, I would expect foreign investment flows into the UK would be limited by political uncertainty. But not doing something because there would be a period of uncertainty is a silly reason.
But what about Scotland demanding a new Indy Ref in we leave the EU?
You can tell that times are grim for the left when commentisfree is reduced to peddling dreams of impending financial crashes to cheer up its readership:
Hard to see how May can be a realistic runner to replace Cameron when she has failed spectacularly by her own measure as Home Sec, esp when immigration is the number one issue of concern for voters
She has a pretty good excuse as regards the first term - the LibDems. If she is able to bring in some substantive new measures in the next year or so to back up her words, she could turn this issue to her advantage.
The key thing in terms of the betting will be who makes it to the final two. If May does, then everything will depend on who her opponent is.
May v BoJo... May? May v Osbo... Osbo? May v Javid... ??
"Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
Bahar Mustafa is a tedious oaf of a person, and yet I'm not happy to see someone arrested over such a thing. Being axed from her job [because of its particular nature] would seem more fitting. It's important that freedom of speech is as broad as possible*, even when the messages sent are ones one personally dislikes.
*Freedom of speech but axed from her job might seem inconsistent, but a diversity officer tweeting about killing all white men is inappropriate.
I think it's reasonable to limit freedom of speech when it's a direct incitement to violent action. "White men are evil and deserve to die" should be legally acceptable. "Kill all white men" should not.
I doubt if it was meant literally. It's called "punching up" which roughly means that a member of an "oppressed" group is entitled to be as abusive as they like about an "oppressor" group. It doesn't mean she really wants to kill white men. She just wants to express her loathing for them.
This bastard taking diversity to the extreme. But thats what happens when our government panders to these swine. The fact that this is a female bastard doesn't alter the facts.
The University of East Anglia has also banned the sombrero:
"Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
And ain't that the truth?
There is an element of truth completely covered by the rash and unthinking way in which Mustafa goes about her business.
Mr. Royale, if that's the defence she deserves to lose.
I'm all in favour of broad boundaries, especially for comedy, but saying women can never be sexist and non-whites can never be racist is palpable nonsense.
Bahar Mustafa is a tedious oaf of a person, and yet I'm not happy to see someone arrested over such a thing. Being axed from her job [because of its particular nature] would seem more fitting. It's important that freedom of speech is as broad as possible*, even when the messages sent are ones one personally dislikes.
*Freedom of speech but axed from her job might seem inconsistent, but a diversity officer tweeting about killing all white men is inappropriate.
I think it's reasonable to limit freedom of speech when it's a direct incitement to violent action. "White men are evil and deserve to die" should be legally acceptable. "Kill all white men" should not.
On that basis the Elizabethans would have locked up Shakespeare for having an actor say "let's kill all the lawyers".
I think Mr Dancer has got the appropriate course of action spot on.
Just back from my weekly visit to Manchester. I saw the abusive, foul-mouthed, great unwashed outside the conservative conference. What an appallying bunch they are.
I don't understand why the police have set it up like they have. The delegates must have felt like they were "walking the plan."
I'm not sure Fraser Nelson (The Spectator) appreciated being called a "child killer" and other unmentionable things.
The kind of attitude the screaming Eagles talks of is why UKIP couldn't just stand aside and let the Tories have the votes they got as Richard Nabavi likes to suggest they should have. Cameron as PM holds massive sway over the referendum result, simply because many conservatives will blindly do whatever he recommends...I would like to see odds on him recommending to leave from people suggesting he may do so....
1) Conservatives won't blindly follow Cameron on this.
2) Cameron will recommend staying In. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of him recommending Out.
What it comes down to is that, both for Cameron and for a very large proportion of Conservative voters, membership of the EU is seen as an economic necessity. There's lots about it that they don't like, but on balance the idea of leaving doesn't seem a serious option. In any case leaving wouldn't necessarily free the country from the things about the EU which people don't like, so why take the economic risk?
But what is the economic risk? We are net contributors.
I don't see Leave or Remain making more than a marginal economic difference either way.
For me, the reasons for leaving are political.
I think the economic claims of both "In" and "Out" are massively overstated. Britain will not lose 3 million jobs if we leave the EU. Nor, if we leave, will Britain sign a Free Trade Agreement with China that allows British firms to sell free of tariffs to the Chinese.
In fact, our terms of trade would change very little in the event of "Out". We would still (almost certainly) sign-up to TTIP. We would almost certainly sign a deal with the EU that would be very similar to those which the Swiss and the Norwegians have (and therefore we would still be net contributors, albeit to a more modest level. And more importantly, we'd get to choose whether we had farm subsidies, and if so, how much).
The most likely negative consequences of an "Out" vote would be in the 3-4 year period when it wasn't clear what our ongoing relationship with the EU was going to be. During this period, I would expect foreign investment flows into the UK would be limited by political uncertainty. But not doing something because there would be a period of uncertainty is a silly reason.
But what about Scotland demanding a new Indy Ref in we leave the EU?
You can tell that times are grim for the left when commentisfree is reduced to peddling dreams of impending financial crashes to cheer up its readership:
We do look to be heading for some very choppy waters. I have big worries about equity markets in most places. I fear there is going to be real turmoil over an extended period. And I don't think that the UK is that well insulated form events elsewhere, at all. In fact, we could be very badly exposed.
"Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
And ain't that the truth?
You know, I kind of get that the "#killallwhitemen' hashtag is humour, and I wouldn't charge someone for using it.
But that paragraph about 'structures of privilege' is just appalling, scary drivel.
They behead them this way. They behead them that way. The Arab muslim mentality is that of the subnormal. No normal society would act in this way in the 21st century.
Comments
The "halving of the bill" is the biggest black mark I have on Osborne. I think he's done a great job as chancellor, but I really don't like that sort of dishonest pitch to voters and it means I don't trust him much on future EU issues.
The referendum gives people a chance to voice their support or disapproval.
Either Cameron negotiates a limit here, or we have to accept that being in the EU means we can't control non-EU migration either. We'll be entirely at the mercy of other EU nations handing out paspsorts.
I do wonder why these pollsters don't try to ask questions that reflect more of what the reality will be. They should ask whether, if there is no change in the UK's relationship with the EU, no limits of EU migration and no return of powers to the UK, people would vote to remain or leave. That strikes me as being the most likely reality in 2017.
I do try not to be cynical but I also don't want to be a sucker.
Tory voters more pro-EU than even the LD ones is the clue to how junk this poll is.
May's aiming at the wrong target, perhaps deliberately. The immigration many people are most worried about is immigration from the Indian sub continent, North Africa and the Middle east.
May has complete power over that form of immigration, and yet they still come. Something she would like people not to know.
For maximum accuracy we’ve made one adjustment to the Commission’s figures, because they inexplicably still exclude this site’s own spending return, which totalled £64,642 of qualifying expenditure. That sum is included in the Yes figures above.
Isn't the explanation quite simple?
He submitted them late (and broke the law)?
Such a rebel!
And yet, when you ask people, they are most concerned about people coming from places we have complete power over immigration policy. And that is maybe why they are still pro-Europe. They really like having other Europeans here.
He said no business likes uncertainty, but that it actually wouldn't be that bad and we could quite well from it.
I've come to the conclusion that Boris is only out for himself. He has no loyalty to the Conservative party or even conservatism as a philosophy. The way he is trying to embarrass the sitting Chancellor of his party as a way to bolster his own leadership prospects is very unappealing. I wouldn't want to be in a party led by Boris.
May talks a good talk, but she has actually see immigration rise on her watch and she even handed over powers to the EU that infringed traditional legal protections, so I'm really not keen.
Of the big beasts, Hammond looks by far the best leader. Principled and solidly getting on with the job without a fuss.
There is no discernible difference you see between a giant caricature of a high-profile figure* made for a street carnival and bonfire night celebration versus the public hanging of "a tory" with the slogan "Class Resistance / Tories Out". None, nothing.
*previous caricatures include David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Osama Bin Laden.
Edit: which of course it always has done.
Turning my usual argument on its head, I actually *liked* some of it: being served my morning latte at the railway station by a smiling and stunningly beautiful Latvian blonde in early 20s rather than a crusty old resentful and grumbling British battleaxe in her late 60s was a breath of fresh air. If we'd had a tens of thousands of them rotating through each year, I wouldn't have minded.
But we've had hundreds of thousands from right across the world, and seem unable to discriminate. The volume, rate, scale and physical and social impact overall has been (and is) too high - and it must be brought back under control.
There's something innately childish about him - and also a bit nasty. I've never felt the same way about him since reading (many years ago) that he helped a friend with an address to allow an associate to beat someone up.
I think when voters talk about immigration they actually mean people who are already here and are already British citizens, such as radical muslims.
The sort who smash up the cars of neighbours who don;t want to be muslims any more.
I'd go for whoever I thought wouldn't surrender socio-cultural Conservativism (i.e. EU-scepticism/controlled immigration/family& community and sanity on identity politics) to UKIP, or take the lesser of two evils at the time.
My own gut tells me that if Cameron gets any kind of deal he'll win the referendum handsomely and enrage the right-wingers who shout louder in the party than most Tory voters do from outside. Maybe not such a bad thing. They need reminding constantly that when a party strays too much from the centre it has to rely on people like those outside the CPC right now.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/10/05/the-electoral-state-of-the-parties-4-the-liberal-democrats-3/
I'll vote for a government that puts value for money first.
There's been talk of an Ipsos Mori poll showing a very big swing towards Leave, (but leaving Remain just ahead) but I haven't seen any details on their website.
The want to keep the Tories in Manchester?
Guess the conference must have been effective.
In fact, our terms of trade would change very little in the event of "Out". We would still (almost certainly) sign-up to TTIP. We would almost certainly sign a deal with the EU that would be very similar to those which the Swiss and the Norwegians have (and therefore we would still be net contributors, albeit to a more modest level. And more importantly, we'd get to choose whether we had farm subsidies, and if so, how much).
The most likely negative consequences of an "Out" vote would be in the 3-4 year period when it wasn't clear what our ongoing relationship with the EU was going to be. During this period, I would expect foreign investment flows into the UK would be limited by political uncertainty. But not doing something because there would be a period of uncertainty is a silly reason.
I can't get excited about a hanging effigy. And faux outrage detracts from genuinely unacceptable actions. I agree, the line is physical attacks, including bodily fluids. To me, spitting is far more egregious than egging.
Assuming they hold on to two in Scotland.
Result!.
The services remain public services, they simply changed to a cheaper supplier. Damn good job by the SNP.
Yup, that's exactly the result the SNP have been touting.
Nicola will be cheered to the rafters for this one...
Also for Milibandites, it demonstrates (if I understand correctly) how state-owned actors in private markets will struggle against private-owned actors.
Student diversity officer who tweeted 'kill all white men' is charged http://t.co/VLEgqM443j http://t.co/saniKdqCrh
Surely not.
Not just any private company - but ANGLIAN water - ENGLAND is derived from ANGLE - so it's the ENGLISH TOP HAT PINSTRIPE WESTMONSTER water company that will be stealing the profits, beating the workers etc.
Interesting #CPC15 Gove's liberal Prison speech got a full standing ovation, May's tough immigration talk didn't.
The key thing in terms of the betting will be who makes it to the final two. If May does, then everything will depend on who her opponent is.
Bahar Mustafa is a tedious oaf of a person, and yet I'm not happy to see someone arrested over such a thing. Being axed from her job [because of its particular nature] would seem more fitting. It's important that freedom of speech is as broad as possible*, even when the messages sent are ones one personally dislikes.
*Freedom of speech but axed from her job might seem inconsistent, but a diversity officer tweeting about killing all white men is inappropriate.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/october-2017-crash-george-osborne-uk-global-economy
If it looks rogue, smells rogue and feels rogue then it is rogue.
I bet it's owned and run by TORIES too, ones who in the eyes of rabid Nats, filter the water through sheets and blankets stolen from poor old people and the cots of babies.
May v Osbo... Osbo?
May v Javid... ??
Sarcasm, taking the piss, satire, parody etc can be hard to detect online. I believe that's the defence made when this first hit headlines.
"Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."
And ain't that the truth?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/uea-student-union-bans-racist-sombreros
I'm all in favour of broad boundaries, especially for comedy, but saying women can never be sexist and non-whites can never be racist is palpable nonsense.
I think Mr Dancer has got the appropriate course of action spot on.
Bile reflux disorder is a symptom of some pretty nasty issues...
I don't understand why the police have set it up like they have. The delegates must have felt like they were "walking the plan."
I'm not sure Fraser Nelson (The Spectator) appreciated being called a "child killer" and other unmentionable things.
But that paragraph about 'structures of privilege' is just appalling, scary drivel.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/05/report-syrian-christians-cry-jesus-isis-mass-beheading/
They behead them this way. They behead them that way. The Arab muslim mentality is that of the subnormal. No normal society would act in this way in the 21st century.