Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: mjdgreg on January 23, 2013, 10:51:13 am
-
At last. An in out referendum. About bloody time. Time to rid ourselves of the shackles of the EU and to start to trade a lot more with the rest of the world. Another reason never to vote Labour ever again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282
-
There won't be a referendum, not like this anyway.
For 1 the EU won't agree to his renegotiations
For 2 he isn't getting reelected
For 3 there is no reason why he couldn't push a referendum through in this Parliament. In a free vote it would be very difficult for Labour to prevent this.
In short it's all smoke and mirrors.
-
If the EU don't agree to re-negotiations there will be a referendum in my opinion. Labour will be shooting themselves in the foot big-time if they don't offer a referendum (if they win the election). Dave has just bought himself a lot of votes with this offer and I fully expect to see a Tory majority at the next election.
-
If the EU don't agree to re-negotiations there will be a referendum in my opinion. Labour will be shooting themselves in the foot big-time if they don't offer a referendum (if they win the election). Dave has just bought himself a lot of votes with this offer and I fully expect to see a Tory majority at the next election.
There's no chance of a tory government, the economy is in too much of a mess and is not going to improve before the GE.
Not to worry, the EU is destined eventually to pull itself apart under the increasing financial pressure being put upon it.
-
the EU is destined eventually to pull itself apart under the increasing financial pressure being put upon it.
Totally agree. The sooner we are free of it the better.
-
I've said a few times the Tories would pull this one out and they've now gone and done it. It's a big problem for Ed Milliband I think given the unpopularity of Europe in this country. I think the debate needs to be had and the people allowed the voice, I'm still very much on the fence on Europe. Very pro on the free trade etc, not so hot on most of the other issues.
-
He is going to 'possibly' do this is in 5 years time!!! This isnt going to happen in other words and in the mean time it is going to cause further financial instability and uncertainty to the country! Yeah well done Dave!! Total Tosser!!
-
He is going to 'possibly' do this is in 5 years time!!! This isnt going to happen in other words and in the mean time it is going to cause further financial instability and uncertainty to the country! Yeah well done Dave!! Total Tosser!!
There is no 'possibly' about it. He will definitely do it when he gets re-elected with a Tory majority.
It is noticeable that it is the same usual suspects that predicted Armageddon when we didn't join the Euro that are spouting exactly the same claptrap about an in out referendum. Say no more.
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
-
Many Many election promises have been broken by this government already, why believe them this time?
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
That`s called being honest rather than make a pledge they know they won`t keep like Cameron
-
Many Many election promises have been broken by this government already, why believe them this time?
They are going to pass legislation this parliament to make it happen should they win the next election.
-
That`s called being honest rather than make a pledge they know they won`t keep like Cameron
It's called being incredibly stupid. No political leader with any intelligence would not leave themselves any wriggle room. Mark my words, by the time of the next election he will be offering an in out referendum as well. Its just that he will have no credibility left after what he said today. What a plonker.
-
There won't be a referendum, not like this anyway.
For 1 the EU won't agree to his renegotiations
For 2 he isn't getting reelected
For 3 there is no reason why he couldn't push a referendum through in this Parliament. In a free vote it would be very difficult for Labour to prevent this.
In short it's all smoke and mirrors.
This. What gets me is that if we have a referendum and the result is 'in' the Tory backbenchers are STILL going to bitch and moan. They will NEVER be appeased.
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
If coming out of Europe is the main point of interest among the majority of the public - why aren't UKIP in power? Me thinketh the lady protesteth overmuch.
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
Oh ffs Mick! Haven't you worked out two things yet?
1) By offering this referendum, now, so far in advance, he is now hostage to every single European country. Every time they want something all they've got to do is say 'Nope' to his demands for negotiations, or 'Nope' to his requests during those negotiations and he is gone. Gone. Blown away. FU*cked. Totally and utterly fu8cked. He must be brain dead to have said this now. That's why 'Red Ed' is more of a politician than this idiot.
Although I'm not a fan, in the slightest, of Tony Blair, he had a great comment today about the hostages he's just sold down the river.
2) We've already had a sodding referendum. We had one when we joined.
BobG
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
If coming out of Europe is the main point of interest among the majority of the public - why aren't UKIP in power? Me thinketh the lady protesteth overmuch.
If you talk about "Europe" then, you're right, everyone's eyes glaze over. However, just about every single political issue that matters to people depends on "Europe" because that's where most of our laws are made. In particular, people are realising that we can't control immigration because of "Europe"- and the spectacularly bad decisions made by the last Government.
Having said that, the "let's negotiate after 2015 and then hold a referendum" position of Cameron's is a nonsense. At the very least, he should offer an In-Out referendum within 12 months of being elected. Personally, I would say I want to hold a referendum as soon as possible and defy the Lib-Dems and Labour to vote it down. But then I'm a Euroscpetic- Cameron isn't, despite his rhetoric.
-
I'd have an in out referendum tomorrow and hope we'd vote 'out'. Given that I have to live in the real world I will wait until Cameron is re-elected and take the opportunity when it is presented. I'm confident we'd vote 'out' in 5 years anyway as Europe will be more of a basket case then than it already is now.
Whatever party is in power at the next election we'll still get a referendum. Red Ed started backtracking on his comments during PMQ's within an hour of uttering them. Labour are not stupid enough to go into the election not offering a referendum.
-
The problem with a referendum is that millions of people, and I'm probably one of them, will be voting on something they really know sweet Fanny Adams about.
How many of the great unwashed will know anything about say, the Economic ramifications it would have if we stayed in or came out. How many would simply vote out because we don't want to be "part of Europe" and have no other justification.
We really need educating about about what it means to stay in and what effect it will have on the country as whole if we come out, and dare I say The Scots need the same level of education before they vote to become Independant.
-
Just do what I do, vote 'out'. Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
-
Sorry Mick, having read some of your posts I would have thought you belong in the group as me
-
All you need to know is that it is the same people predicting doom and gloom if we vote 'out' that predicted exactly the same thing if we didn't join the Euro.
-
Unbelievable!!! Red Ed has just said during Prime Minister's Questions that Labour will not be offering a referendum on Europe. Talk about throwing away any chance of Labour forming the next government. He is totally incompetent and dismissive of the views of the majority of the public.
2) We've already had a sodding referendum. We had one when we joined.
BobG
So people like myself aren't entitled to say, given it happened a long time before I was even thought of?
-
It's not a question of whether you, me or anyone else should have a vote. I was attempting to point out that there has been a vote - which this, and many other threads, seemed to ignore completely. Of course, if the nature of the institution changes significantly, there is always the option to think again. which is the position we may be in now. But to pretend that this country has never ever voted on EU membership is plain wrong.
BobG
-
We had a referendum to join a common market. What we've got now is completely different. The self-serving political elite think they know what's best for us. They don't. I do. Time to get out before it's too late.
-
We had a referendum to join a common market.
Trust you, you know what you're talking about?
Ha ha ha ha.
-
The problem with a referendum is that millions of people, and I'm probably one of them, will be voting on something they really know sweet Fanny Adams about.
How many of the great unwashed will know anything about say, the Economic ramifications it would have if we stayed in or came out. How many would simply vote out because we don't want to be "part of Europe" and have no other justification.
We really need educating about about what it means to stay in and what effect it will have on the country as whole if we come out, and dare I say The Scots need the same level of education before they vote to become Independant.
And a referendum campaign would be the best means of educating people about the pros and cons of EU membership. It is too complex to cover in a General Election (in any case, only UKIP seems to have a clear policy on EU membership).
As I've said before, I'm a Eurosceptic, largely because the EU has become too bureaucratic and, crucially, too inward-looking. Cameron was right to point out today that other countries are leaving the EU behind in terms of competitiveness. Having said all that, a referendum will give some closure, because if we vote to stay in, then we need to start working properly within the frameworks of the EU.
The time of the Maastricht Treaty was, for me, the time to have a referendum. John Major flunked his chance. Had he not done so, he'd have been regarded as a great leader, rather than as the man who was humiliated by New Labour in 1997.
-
Unfortunately the vast bulk of the population are not bothered about being educated or are too thick to understand the pros and cons. You just have to look at the responses my insightful, intelligent posts get. It will probably boil down to an irrational fear of foreigners that makes the 'out' campaign win the day.
Whatever way the result is decided, I'll be pleased with an 'out' vote.
-
And how many will simply follow the Party line from which ever party they support? The education should start well before any thought of a referendum otherwise it would be meaningless and too late.
Lets face it when I lived in Doncaster up to the mid 70's Labour could have put a red ribbon around a pigs neck and it would have been voted into power, have things changed?
-
And how many will simply follow the Party line from which ever party they support? The education should start well before any thought of a referendum otherwise it would be meaningless and too late.
Lets face it when I lived in Doncaster up to the mid 70's Labour could have put a red ribbon around a pigs neck and it would have been voted into power, have things changed?
There won't be party lines during campaigning for a referendum. There wasn't for the 1975 referendum, even Cabinet Collective Responsibility was suspended so cabinet colleagues could campaign on opposite sides of the question. If any of the big three parties tried to impose party lines they'd tear themselves apart. It will be treated the same way a free vote in the Commons is, ie up to the conscience of the individual and not a party matter.
-
And how many will simply follow the Party line from which ever party they support? The education should start well before any thought of a referendum otherwise it would be meaningless and too late.
Lets face it when I lived in Doncaster up to the mid 70's Labour could have put a red ribbon around a pigs neck and it would have been voted into power, have things changed?
Have things changed? No they most certainly haven't. Despite having the worst council in the country we still end up with a Labour council. Democracy is a very flawed model in Doncaster.
-
We have never voted to join the EU. Edward Heath took us into Europe. We had a referendum to stay in or leave. :thumbdown:
-
If we had a straight campaign with actual facts, rather than political bias/scaremongering, then i am all for a referendum.
My concern is an uneducated, in european issues, electorate who are easily scared by newspapers, business leaders etc with their own agenda.
God forbid a campaign based on facts.
-
Yet another party political broadcast on behalf of the mjdgreg loves Dave party. Boring.
-
The fascinating aspect of the in/out discussion is what it means for the Consetvative party.
In the 70s/early 80s, Labour was horrendously split in Europe, between the social democratic wing who wanted to make international capitalism work, and the Socialist wing who wanted to bring it down. Wilson had no option but to hold a referendum on the EEC to try to defuse his own party tensions. That was why we had a vote in 1975.
Now the Tories are in the mirror-image position.
THEY are the ones who are hopelessly split on Europe. And THAT is the reason that Cameron has pledged a referendum. To try to defuse his own party's tensions.
In Labour's case, it didn't work. The party still tore itself apart over ideological splits.
Whatever comes from Cameron's statement yesterday, the Tories are still in a dilemma. If the Right wing wins the argument, they will split the Tory party just as the Left did to Labour in 1981. If they lose a referendum, they will still be an ideologically vociferous faction who will not let the issue drop.
Winston Churchill said that the long, slow, implacable swing of the historical pendulum was one of the themes of politics. 40 years on, the pendulum has taken Europe from being a subject that destroyed the Labour party to one which is in the process of destroying the Tories as a viable party of Government.
That is what happens when ideologues put their principles above consensus. It's going to be grand over this next few years watching the Tory Right lose the argument, then detonate the bomb at the centre of their party.
Just as happened with Thatcher 30 odd years back, Labour are very fortunate in having obsessive, self-destructive opponents.
-
BST- I can see how you can draw historical parallels between Labour from the mid-70s and the Tories now, but I think the current Conservative party is a different animal now to Labour in those times. Labour really was split down the middle, between the Bennites (anti-EU, Unilateralist and wanting to pursue old-school Socialist econonic policies) and the Social Democrats (pro-EU, Multilateralist and favouring a mixed economy). The Europhiles in the Tory party these days are a small group of grandees (Clarke, Heseltine, Howe) who get lots of coverage but who have little influence within the party- particularly at grass-roots level. I would hazard a guess that if we do have an In-Out Referendum on the EU (a very big IF, btw), there will be very few paid-up Tories on the In platform.
The other point to bear in mind about Labour in the 70s and 80s is where their support was going. Increasingly they were losing votes to the right- to the Liberals (to the Tories in some cases) and from the early 80s increasingly to the SDP. In the current situation, the Tories are haemorraging support not to the left, but to the right, i.e. UKIP. Take out shifts between Conservative and UKIP in the polls, and the Tory vote is actually holding up well. The main difference in voting intentions is that large numbers who voted Lib Dem in 2010 have moved over to Labour.
So I doubt Cameron's stance on the EU referendum will do the Tories more harm than good- in fact, quite the opposite. Although I'm not sure it will be enough to give them a chance of victory in 2015. They'll need movement on the economy for that, and as each quarter's GDP figures go by, that looks less and less likely.
-
TRB
Good points and a good discussion but (as you'd expect) I don't agree!
A few points of difference:
1) I agree that the Euro-PHILE wing of the Tory party is a rump. No question (and see below...). But the Euro-PRAGMATIST part is not. There is a (slim) majority among MPs who see that we need a pragmatic approach to Europe. Take the rough with the smooth for the greater overall good. They are fundamentally at odds with the more-or-less "out at any costs" Right wing of the Tory party. And that is where the cleavage point is.
I probably over-stated the ideological aspect of the Labour 70s/80s split last night (after a few too many single malts with a business associate...). There was an out-at-all-costs left wing, a in-at-all-costs right wing and a big pragmatic centre.
In both Labour's case in the 70s and the Tories' case now, the pragmatists are not the most vociferous.
2) (See above) Where is the Euro-PHILE wing of the Tory party? It has evaporated as the party has lurched right-ward. The Tories won't be haemorraging votes from the centre over Europe. They have ALREADY done that in their 20-year slow motion car crash on the subject. They have gone to the Right and vacated the centre ground.
That is why Cameron (who understands their existential problem but can't resolve it) couldn't win a majority in 2010 in THE most propitious circumstances imaginable.
The Tories have a very, very big long term credibility issue. They don't realise that parties that lurch away from the centre generally lose in this country. The Tory Right is seduced by memories of Thatcher winning by moving to the right. But they forget that she would never have won big and consistently had Labour not committed suicide by vacating the centre.
Labour now HAS the centre-left, courtesy of Clegg's naïveté. The Tories cannot and will not win by going right-wards. But it may be the only thing Cameron can do to keep his position and delay the incipient schism.
-
The big problem for the Tories is the number of votes that are going to UKIP. This is what has forced Cameron to risk offering a referendum.
As it is I don't think there is any chance of a Tory government in 2015, we'll be In a quintuple dip by then.
I don't think the Euro and the EU is going to survive in its current guise though, and that is going to put the issue to bed. There's just too much debt, it's going to tear it apart, Spain and Italy are too big to bail and they aren't going to be able to solve that problem.
-
RD
The Euro crisis is dead easy to solve. But it'll take a German election in Sept before it can be done.
What needs to happen is for Germany to accept that the corollary of monetary union is that the debt of one part is the debt of all. They HAVE to allow the ECB to have the power to underwrite the debt. Do that and the debt problem vanishes. (As an existential crisis for the Euro).
Germany's problem is that they have peddled a story that the Med countries are feckless wasters who deserve their medicine. That is a wonderful morality tale, but it is shit economics. But it is what the German people want to hear, and it would be suicide for Merkl to go against that before the election.
Once their election is out of the way, there might be a bit more pragmatism.
-
I just doubt in the end the German public will accept what is required. Interesting quotes from the German newspapers today, Cameron was received very well in them.
-
RD.
I take your point. They have been peddled a lie for 5 years and the real action that is required will go down like a shit supper. But sooner or later, the BIG crisis will come, and German politicians will have no choice.
Hopefully, it comes soon after September. No better time for politicians to do unpopular things than after they have won an election.
-
They HAVE to allow the ECB to have the power to underwrite the debt.
I think thats a recipe for disaster.
I mean, the ECB cant even pick a cricket team to beat the Indians
-
I think thats a recipe for disaster.
I mean, the ECB cant even pick a cricket team to beat the Indians
lol. At least I get your joke Rob. Not a bad effort at all. You may have to explain it to the others though.
-
Labour now HAS the centre-left, courtesy of Clegg's naïveté. The Tories cannot and will not win by going right-wards. But it may be the only thing Cameron can do to keep his position and delay the incipient schism.
Two points: most of the Tory Euro-Pragmatists share the same position as Cameron. They believe that some new settlement with the EU can be negotiated that allows the UK to regain some powers and reduce the interference from the centre that we currently experience. However, I think they will be sadly disappointed.
For once, Nick Clegg was right when he said this:
"Either it is basically a bit symbolic - so you tweak the working time directive and a social law here or an environmental law there that everybody will agree with so, in which case, what is the fuss all about?
"Or you are going to do something which I think is wholly implausible which is basically totally rewrite the rules to benefit us and disadvantage everybody else which is clearly not going to be agreed to."
In fact, he may have understimated the challenge that those who want to renegoatiate face. The commission will argue that changes to social legslation, or the working time directive, will give certain countries an advantage within the Single Market and as a result these changes will either not happen or will be watered down. In actual fact, there are two options for the UK- either we accept the reality of an ever closer union controlled from Brussels, or we decide that it isn't for us and it is time to make our own way in the world. That is why we need a referendum.
Secondly, and on the question of domestic politics, it occurs to me that Labour holds all the cards. Only two things could lose a winning hand for them. The first is an economic turnaround, which seems highly unlikely. The second is that Ed Miliband may be unable to convince people that he is a suitable Prime Minister for difficult times. That second point seems to me to be Cameron's only hope. At least his speech this week on Europe may rally his party behind him and convince enough floating voters that he has something to offer.
-
Good post TRB and I fully agree on your analysis of Clegg's assessment.
Thing is though, assuming Cameron did win in 15, then only be able to get a few symbolic changes in Euro discussions, he would still put this forward as being sufficiently significant to warrant an "In" vote.
Cameron and the Tory EuroPragmatists believe that we would be in very deep shit if we left the EU. Cameron doesn't in any way really believe that we should leave if the current terms of our relationship with Europe are not seriously changed. But he wants to APPEAR to believe that. He wants to pander to the skeptics, saying "I agree that the current situation in unsupportable. I will change it to make it acceptable."
But he has given the most colossal hostage to fortune. He HOPES that his gambit results in a GE win in 15, and that he can so change the UK's relationship with Europe that he comes home a conquering hero and scores a stunning victory in the referendum. But it is much more likely that he would get only a few scraps of compromise [1], he claims that these are significant, but his bluff is called by the Right and we vote to leave the EU. He ends up being viewed by history as a weak, foolish PM who stumblingly took the country in a direction he never wanted to, bullied and overwhelmed by his Right wing.
[1] After all, why should the rest of the EU allow us the benefits of the single market, without us also playing on a level field on things like environmental, health and safety or social standards? They will, quite rightly, tell us to b*llocks.
-
Cameron will have to recommend a 'Yes' vote, or he'll appear incompetant and a useless negotiator. This is regardless of whether he actually achieves anything of any substance whatsoever. If he came back and recommended a 'No' vote, he'll in effect be saying 'I'm so crap I can't even recommend what I've negotiated' and he'll look like a lame duck PM and if he didn't resign himself he'd get knifed in the back double quick.
If he recommends 'Yes' and then goes on to lose the referendum, he'll have to resign. No Prime Minister can survive such a massive rejection of his recommendation.
Problem is...who'd get the job. Presumably Cabinet collective responsibility will be suspended as for the last referendum so that individual Cabinet members can campaign on opposite sides of the question - anybody else who campaigned 'Yes' will automatically be out of the race. Surely no-one in the party can seriously back Gideon. Hague might get another go (surely the only one with enough broad support), depending on what side he eventually falls down on in the campaign, he could go with 'Yes' out of loyalty to Cameron but he's equally as likely to go 'No' because that's what he really believes.
The real danger for the Tories is that they'd be in a similar position to the one they were in in 1997 - having to elect a leader when several of the natural choices can't stand: in 1997 they'd lost their seats; after a referendum all those who backed 'Yes' will automatically be out of the race. The problem for the country is that unlike 1997 they won't be electing an Opposition Leader, they'd be picking a Prime Minister. God knows who we'd end up with.
The really interesting thing will be seeing what Boris does...if he wants to be PM then he needs to get back into Parliament at the next election and then campaign 'No'...watch this space..!
-
Although the Mail tends not to be required reading on here, there is an interesting article on how Cameron's position re. Europe is very similar to Harold Wilson's in 1974-5.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268426/Beware-ghost-slippery-Harold-David-Camerons-European-referendum-speech-hailed-masterstroke-weve-before.html
The key effect of Wilson's support for renegotiation and then a referendum was to swing Eurosceptic votes behind Labour in the 1974 General Elections (remember Enoch Powell's call to vote Labour for a referendum). Maybe Cameron is hoping for a similar effect.
-
In today's polls the Tories are only 7% behind Labour. That is a pathetic effort on Labour's part. Given the state of the economy they should be at least 20% ahead. Mark my words. The Tories will win the next election with Boris as the new PM and we will vote to leave Europe.
-
But the economy is booming, there is no recession, all the dead wood companies have gone and we are going to have massive interest rate rises and deflation next week - I know because you have been posting it for the past year. And its all Labours fault anyway. And Labour are going to keep us in Europe which is the only thing people care about. So why are they ahead in the polls?
-
But the economy is booming, there is no recession, all the dead wood companies have gone and we are going to have massive interest rate rises and deflation next week - I know because you have been posting it for the past year. And its all Labours fault anyway. And Labour are going to keep us in Europe which is the only thing people care about. So why are they ahead in the polls?
Where have I ever said that the economy is booming, that there is no recession (though technically we are not currently in recession) and that all the dead wood companies have gone? I have never said that we are going to have massive interest rate rise and deflation next week. What planet are you on?
Here's a brief summary of what I have actually said. Interest rates should rise to get rid of the dead wood and zombie companies in the economy (there's still plenty to go at). The housing bubble would also deflate more quickly. Savers would be rewarded for being prudent and lax borrowers would be punished for their profligacy.
Borrowing should be cut savagely and we should start to live within our means. Taxes should be cut as the government are crap at using the money wisely. I should be installed as the benevolent dictator of the country as I'd soon get things sorted out.
Labour should never ever be voted back into power because they always and I mean always leave the economy in a total mess after a period of government. We should also pull out of Europe.
I'm sure there's plenty more I've said but your analysis is so far off the mark as to be totally laughable. You must try and read what I say a bit more closely. Maybe a hypnotist could help to open up your closed leftie mind.
-
There is a underlying problem with this Government though Mick and with this Tory party in its current state.
After 3 Labour terms, the Recession and the Credit Crunch under Brown, the Iraq inquiry shaming Tony Blair etc., had it been any other Tory leader before 1997 and the Conservatives would have won a landslide. This country in the 20th century (despite being a dominant working class voting population) voted Tory more than any other party, even after Attlee proud Welfare State they preferred Churchill, after Eden's failure at the Suez crisis and Labour still couldn't take advantage. But why then? After the country was in a mess once again did David Cameron not win a majority? My only guess is that he (unlike any other Tory leader in the last 60 years) wasn't public schooled, we just can't relate to him, and the same can be said for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.
The good news however is that the Tory's are clinical when it comes to disposing of bad leaders, even dear old Maggie got the knife in the back when they felt she had lost her touch. Labour on the other hand will give a poor leader 10 years before even dreaming of getting rid. The country (at present) don't want Cameron or Miliband as the PM in 2015, but one or the other will be in No.10, and for that reason I don't see the next election giving us a different government, unfortunately. The Lib Dems will lose between 5-13 seats (including gains) Labour will get a gain of about 10-15 but the Tories will probably hold on to most seats. I still think between the Tories and the Lib Dems that they will have enough to continue this coalition because as much as Labour are ahead in the polls I can't see the country believing in Ed Miliband, he just isn't ready to be Leader and he should be head and shoulders above Cameron in the polls if truth be told.
All Europe is, is just another way of the Tories softening us up for an Election, and they always do that well, expect lower taxes in about 15 months. He should give Scotland a referendum as well, its a win-win scenario, if Scotland leave the UK Labour lose a lot of seats in the house and the Tories probably win another election...
-
You talk a lot of sense. For Labour to win the next election they should be doing much better than they are now. If I were Cameron I'd actively encourage Scottish independence as that would really damage Labour. If the Tories had more working class people heading up the party Labour would be finished.
-
The good news however is that the Tory's are clinical when it comes to disposing of bad leaders, even dear old Maggie got the knife in the back when they felt she had lost her touch. Labour on the other hand will give a poor leader 10 years before even dreaming of getting rid. The country (at present) don't want Cameron or Miliband as the PM in 2015, but one or the other will be in No.10, and for that reason I don't see the next election giving us a different government, unfortunately. The Lib Dems will lose between 5-13 seats (including gains) Labour will get a gain of about 10-15 but the Tories will probably hold on to most seats. I still think between the Tories and the Lib Dems that they will have enough to continue this coalition because as much as Labour are ahead in the polls I can't see the country believing in Ed Miliband, he just isn't ready to be Leader and he should be head and shoulders above Cameron in the polls if truth be told.
A couple of historical thoughts from a grizzled old head Crofty.
Back in the mid 1970s, a Labour Govt was wallowing in interminable economic problems. They weren't entirely to blame for this - they'd inherited a pretty awful situation. But their policies did little to make things better. We seemed stuck in a long-term slump.
Labour's leader, Jim Callaghan was a consumate performer. He had an air of confidence, even arrogance about him. He LOOKED like a Prime Minister. By contrast, the Tories were floundering. They had got rid of a bluff, uncomfortable and un-telegenic leader in Heath. But the person they had replaced him with was struggling to be seen as Prime Ministerial material. Maggie Thatcher looked weird. She had a strange habit of sucking her bottom lip in as she spoke, as though she was trying to stop herself gobbing. She sounded weird. Her voice was grating, unpleasant and hectoric.
In an option poll in November 1978, the Tories were behind Labour. They had been ahead of Labour for a brief period in 1976 after Labour had the embarrassment of having to go to the IMF for a loan to bay our bills. But even then, the Tories rarely had the sort of leads that labour currently has over this Govt. In that 1978 poll most Tory supporters said that they would prefer Ted Heath as leader, rather than Thatcher. And a huge majority of voters said that they preferred Callaghan to Thatcher as PM, and that Thatcher simply didn't come across as Prime Minister material.
And yet, within 6 months, Thatcher won a General Election and stayed in power for 11 years.
Funny int it? Anyone who says that Labour cannot win in 2015 because they have a weird looking leader, or because they are not sufficiently far ahead in the polls simply doesn't know their recent history.
-
If I were Cameron I'd actively encourage Scottish independence as that would really damage Labour.
And how long do you think he'd last as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party after he did?
-
And how long do you think he'd last as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party after he did?
A lot longer than if he didn't do it. Labour would lose 41 MPs and the Tories would only lose 1. It's a no-brainer. I'm amazed he can't work that one out. He also needs to pull us out of Europe.
If he did these two things he would cement his leadership of the party and go down in history as our greatest ever peace time leader. Labour would be finished (thank God).
-
And how long do you think he'd last as the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party after he did?
A lot longer than if he didn't do it. Labour would lose 41 MPs and the Tories would only lose 1. It's a no-brainer. I'm amazed he can't work that one out. He also needs to pull us out of Europe.
If he did these two things he would cement his leadership of the party and go down in history as our greatest ever peace time leader. Labour would be finished (thank God).
You've just got to admire Mick when he tries to bareface it while spouting pure ignorance.
-
I can't understand why anyone in England would be bothered if Scotland went independent. If only it had happened many years ago, we wouldn't have ended up with that numpty Gordon Brown ruining the country.
Also it's well known that most Scots don't care too much for the English. When Braveheart was on in Scottish cinemas the crowd were leaping from their seats cheering when the English were getting a good kicking. Quite right too given the appalling way England have treated the Scots over the centuries.
-
Neither would we have the 1st generation Scots descendent David Cameron either presumably?
Nor will we have north sea oil, hydroelectricity, naval bases & airfields, a British Army, a British Olympic team - or anything British at all.
-
Oh bless them yet another U turn.
Perhaps its about time they thought out the policies rather than trying just push a brainwave through
-
The good news however is that the Tory's are clinical when it comes to disposing of bad leaders, even dear old Maggie got the knife in the back when they felt she had lost her touch. Labour on the other hand will give a poor leader 10 years before even dreaming of getting rid. The country (at present) don't want Cameron or Miliband as the PM in 2015, but one or the other will be in No.10, and for that reason I don't see the next election giving us a different government, unfortunately. The Lib Dems will lose between 5-13 seats (including gains) Labour will get a gain of about 10-15 but the Tories will probably hold on to most seats. I still think between the Tories and the Lib Dems that they will have enough to continue this coalition because as much as Labour are ahead in the polls I can't see the country believing in Ed Miliband, he just isn't ready to be Leader and he should be head and shoulders above Cameron in the polls if truth be told.
A couple of historical thoughts from a grizzled old head Crofty.
Back in the mid 1970s, a Labour Govt was wallowing in interminable economic problems. They weren't entirely to blame for this - they'd inherited a pretty awful situation. But their policies did little to make things better. We seemed stuck in a long-term slump.
Labour's leader, Jim Callaghan was a consumate performer. He had an air of confidence, even arrogance about him. He LOOKED like a Prime Minister. By contrast, the Tories were floundering. They had got rid of a bluff, uncomfortable and un-telegenic leader in Heath. But the person they had replaced him with was struggling to be seen as Prime Ministerial material. Maggie Thatcher looked weird. She had a strange habit of sucking her bottom lip in as she spoke, as though she was trying to stop herself gobbing. She sounded weird. Her voice was grating, unpleasant and hectoric.
In an option poll in November 1978, the Tories were behind Labour. They had been ahead of Labour for a brief period in 1976 after Labour had the embarrassment of having to go to the IMF for a loan to bay our bills. But even then, the Tories rarely had the sort of leads that labour currently has over this Govt. In that 1978 poll most Tory supporters said that they would prefer Ted Heath as leader, rather than Thatcher. And a huge majority of voters said that they preferred Callaghan to Thatcher as PM, and that Thatcher simply didn't come across as Prime Minister material.
And yet, within 6 months, Thatcher won a General Election and stayed in power for 11 years.
Funny int it? Anyone who says that Labour cannot win in 2015 because they have a weird looking leader, or because they are not sufficiently far ahead in the polls simply doesn't know their recent history.
I do know my recent history on this one Billy, but there are a few things you forget to mention here.
Similar to Gordon Brown, Callaghan was expected to call the general election for the autumn of 1978 where Labour was ahead in the polls, (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979)) and the economy was looking okay, not great but okay, and as you say the Tories were struggling with Thatcher as Leader and she herself never even considered becoming Prime Minister. Callaghan holding the election for a year finished off what we come to call (Old Labour) as you know better than I do, as Jim sang he was waiting in the church, it was the 'Winter of Discontent' that brought about Thatcherism.
The public sector was hit hard with strikes ranging from children's hospitals to railways and even gravediggers in Liverpool refusing to bury the dead, allowing for 300 bodies to remain un-buried and Livepool council even considered taking them out to sea.
London and the other huge cities saw rubbish piled in the streets, rotting. Callaghan's Government was grounding to a halt, not made much better by the Daily Mail and the Sun twisting Callaghan's words as he came back from the international summit on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe to put on the front page Callaghan 'saying' "Crisis? What Crisis?". That did no favor to his image. It had became chaos and a direct challenge to the government of the day, although I wouldn't have called it a revolution or an attempt to overthrow. But nevertheless that is what happened, as you know, Billy.
Its also worthy to note at this point that by the time it had ended Mrs Thatcher was looking a pretty better catch than Good'ol Jim. The referendum of devolution in Scotland proved too much a failure and the Scottish Nationalists had no right to continue supporting Labour or the Government. The Liberals were facing the embarrassment of Thorpe following his trial. The Parliament couldn't wait for an election and Callaghan was sure he would lose the election when, on March 28th 1979, the Government lost by a single vote after a coalition of the Tories, Liberals and the Scottish Nationalists.
James Callaghan became the first PM to ask Queen Elizabeth II for a dissolution of Parliament because his government had lost the vote in the Commons. As I have said all the time when talking about Mrs T. She was successful in achieving the most radical change since Attlee's government, but she was lucky. This happened all in the 6 months you miss, and I don't think for one second that Cameron could survive something as bad as the Winter of Discontent. Nor if the Lib Dems goes against them. Maybe the country will vote Ed Miliband as PM, and maybe he may be as radical as Mrs Thatcher and be a success. But I don't think we should judge that on merely the 1978/79 era that shaped British Politics for the next 30 years.
Its also worth adding that even as PM Maggie was voted the most unpopular PM since polling began. But was it her the country voted for in 79, or was it for the Conservatives? Who the British (dominantly working class) public voted for more than any other party in the 20th century.
-
What a surprise. Billy forgetting to mention a few things. Well I never.
-
What a surprise. Billy forgetting to mention a few things. Well I never.
It must have slipped your notice as well eh? or you could n`t find anything via google to contradict him!
-
I can find so much to contradict him that I'd be here all night. I believe I have previously totally destroyed any credibility he may have once had so do not feel the need to do it again. I'm sure all you leftie readers of this forum are secretly laughing behind his back and just pretending you still take him seriously.
-
Cam and company are making this country a joke - the latest crackpot idea being a bedroom tax that'll mean more kids in care not foster homes.
I see they've backtracked on the changes to the GCSE system. It's almost like they need the daily mail to make their policies for them. Now how could that be?
BTW I'm not suggesting you all vote Labour, the lesser of the two evils, but if that's the only choice then there's not a choice.
Get some chainmail armour .
-
I'm sure all you leftie readers of this forum are secretly laughing behind his back and just pretending you still take him seriously.
BST certainly has me shaking my head in despair. For the life of me I cannot understand why someone of his knowledge and intelligence rises to your nonsensical twaddle. I applaud you, however, for drawing out the reactions you seek. As wind-up merchants go you seem to know what buttons to press.
In the event you genuinely believe in the contents of your posts, and you are passionate about them, then why not challenge BST to a verbal debate? I would pay a fiver to see it. Maybe invite a couple of counsellors. Your team of Thatcherites, against BST’s team with left of centre views. You might even raise a few quid for the VSC.
-
I was just about to reply to Crofty but see that Don has (just about) done it for me. If you study the social situation in the country before an election where there is a change of government 9 times out of 10 the public are voting against the previous government - rather than for the one that comes in.
-
Crofty.
You are right in everything you say. 100%.
That doesn't change the central tenet of my point. Which is that people who say that Labour cannot win in 2015 because a) Miliband is much less popular than Cameron and/or b) Labour should be further ahead in the polls at this point in the Parliament cannot call on a perfect historical record to back up their claims.
I KNOW the Winter of Discontent was a key issue in Thatcher winning. And that is irrelevant. There are unique circumstances in EVERY Parliament and EVERY Election. There is an enormous one in this current Parliament and it will be a bigger issue by far in the General Election of 2015 than even the Winter of Discontent was. That is that, for the first time in 30-odd years, the centre-left in British politics is not divided. Every since the Gang of Four sulked off in 81/82 to form the SDP, the centre-left vote has been split. That meant that the Tories could claim power with historically low vote share in General Elections.
That will not happen in 2015. Anyone left-leaning now knows that a vote for the Lib Dems can put the Tories in power. So, if you are left-leaning, why take the chance?
That was a blindingly obvious outcome of the coalition (and if I were a smug t**t, I'd point you in the direction of a post of mine from May 2010 predicting exactly that outcome). It is the reason why Labour's poll figures have been astonishingly consistent in the mid-to-low 40s% for over two years. That is the result of daft t**ts who voted LD in 2010 realising what they did and coming back to their political home. They are not going to change their minds. Their minds are set already.
So, for the Tories to win in 15, they are going to have to poll somewhere significantly higher than 40%.
And NOW we get to the nub of the argument. The Tories have only got >40% in opinion polls for three brief periods in the last 22 years, since they knifed Thatcher. Once was for 18 months either side of the 1992 Election, in the euphoria of booting Thatcher out, until Black Weds f**ked them over. Once was for 9 months or so at the very depths of the 2008/09 Great Recession and Brown's manifold bungling of everything he touched. And once was for 6 months after the 2010 Election.
So, apart from brief honeymoons and a recession of historic proportions, the Tories have not hit 40% in the polls for a generation. So why should we expect them to do in in 2015, after presiding over a perma-slump?
THAT is why Labour can, and most likely WILL win in 2015.
-
I'm sure all you leftie readers of this forum are secretly laughing behind his back and just pretending you still take him seriously.
BST certainly has me shaking my head in despair. For the life of me I cannot understand why someone of his knowledge and intelligence rises to your nonsensical twaddle. I applaud you, however, for drawing out the reactions you seek. As wind-up merchants go you seem to know what buttons to press.
In the event you genuinely believe in the contents of your posts, and you are passionate about them, then why not challenge BST to a verbal debate? I would pay a fiver to see it. Maybe invite a couple of counsellors. Your team of Thatcherites, against BST’s team with left of centre views. You might even raise a few quid for the VSC.
Scriptman. I DON'T reply to Mick. Not for a while now. I gave up on him a few months ago when it was clear that he was mentally unstable.
Apparently, from what people tell me, he replies to my posts, but he doesn't seem to realise that I have had him on ignore for a good while now.
Life's too short.
-
Crofty.
You are right in everything you say. 100%.
That doesn't change the central tenet of my point. Which is that people who say that Labour cannot win in 2015 because a) Miliband is much less popular than Cameron and/or b) Labour should be further ahead in the polls at this point in the Parliament cannot call on a perfect historical record to back up their claims.
I KNOW the Winter of Discontent was a key issue in Thatcher winning. And that is irrelevant. There are unique circumstances in EVERY Parliament and EVERY Election. There is an enormous one in this current Parliament and it will be a bigger issue by far in the General Election of 2015 than even the Winter of Discontent was. That is that, for the first time in 30-odd years, the centre-left in British politics is not divided. Every since the Gang of Four sulked off in 81/82 to form the SDP, the centre-left vote has been split. That meant that the Tories could claim power with historically low vote share in General Elections.
That will not happen in 2015. Anyone left-leaning now knows that a vote for the Lib Dems can put the Tories in power. So, if you are left-leaning, why take the chance?
That was a blindingly obvious outcome of the coalition (and if I were a smug t**t, I'd point you in the direction of a post of mine from May 2010 predicting exactly that outcome). It is the reason why Labour's poll figures have been astonishingly consistent in the mid-to-low 40s% for over two years. That is the result of daft t**ts who voted LD in 2010 realising what they did and coming back to their political home. They are not going to change their minds. Their minds are set already.
So, for the Tories to win in 15, they are going to have to poll somewhere significantly higher than 40%.
And NOW we get to the nub of the argument. The Tories have only got >40% in opinion polls for three brief periods in the last 22 years, since they knifed Thatcher. Once was for 18 months either side of the 1992 Election, in the euphoria of booting Thatcher out, until Black Weds f**ked them over. Once was for 9 months or so at the very depths of the 2008/09 Great Recession and Brown's manifold bungling of everything he touched. And once was for 6 months after the 2010 Election.
So, apart from brief honeymoons and a recession of historic proportions, the Tories have not hit 40% in the polls for a generation. So why should we expect them to do in in 2015, after presiding over a perma-slump?
THAT is why Labour can, and most likely WILL win in 2015.
I agree with a lot of that, in general, but I still think Ed Miliband will be a stumbling block. There just isn't something right with the leaders of today, taken straight out of Oxford/Cambridge and be made as researchers, working in the treasury etc., As I said previously, any other leader in the history of the Conservative party would have won a landslide in 2010 but Cameron never and I believe the reason was him.
At present I still think we are heading for a hung Parliament, but we'll be in a better position to predict in a years time...
-
I agree with a lot of that, in general, but I still think Ed Miliband will be a stumbling block. There just isn't something right with the leaders of today, taken straight out of Oxford/Cambridge and be made as researchers, working in the treasury etc., As I said previously, any other leader in the history of the Conservative party would have won a landslide in 2010 but Cameron never and I believe the reason was him.
At present I still think we are heading for a hung Parliament, but we'll be in a better position to predict in a years time...
Heath? Major? IDS? Hague? Howard? Home? The Tory party have had some rank bad leaders and Cameron is no worse than that list.
I understand where you are coming from about 2010 Crofty, but I think you are missing the big historical trend that I pointed out in the previous post. Over the past 20-25 years, the Tories have become a party that is not a credible party of Government. I don't know what it was that they did (I have my own theories, but I don't know if they are correct) but the truth of that opinion is there in their poll figures for the past 20-odd years.
They failed to win in 2010 not because Cameron is shit (although he is). If they'd had David Davies, they would have faired no better. They failed to win a majority because they have become a party that cannot command enough support to win a majority.
Labour, on the other hand, within 4 months of a catastrophic election defeat in 2010, had bounced back to >40% poll figures. And they've stayed there ever since. Rock solid. Which is why I do not see anything on the horizon that will bring Labour's vote share down before 2015. And equally, I see nothing to bring the Tories up from 32-33% where they are now, to 43-45% that they need to win in 15.
-
Not sure anyone will agree but I think Hague was the right leader for the wrong election. He came across to me as a bit of a warrior leader when he was about - exactly what I felt the Tories lacked 3 years ago.
Just my opinion, like.
-
BST certainly has me shaking my head in despair. For the life of me I cannot understand why someone of his knowledge and intelligence rises to your nonsensical twaddle. I applaud you, however, for drawing out the reactions you seek. As wind-up merchants go you seem to know what buttons to press.
In the event you genuinely believe in the contents of your posts, and you are passionate about them, then why not challenge BST to a verbal debate? I would pay a fiver to see it. Maybe invite a couple of counsellors. Your team of Thatcherites, against BST’s team with left of centre views. You might even raise a few quid for the VSC.
I'll have you know that I believe everything I post. I defy you to come up with anything I have stated that can be described as nonsensical twaddle. I am not a WUM. I seem to wind people up and hence get that description purely because I espouse an ultra right wing view. Obviously that doesn't go down well on a far left forum.
I blame Billy for this in the main. I agree with you that he is intelligent and feel that all the less intelligent members of the forum have been swayed by his arguments because they think that he must be right because he is more intelligent than what they are.
Unfortunately for him I have come along with my superior intellect and have totally destroyed all of his arguments and made the man look daft. Unfortunately his followers now secretly feel that he has led them up the garden path but don't want to admit it because they are afraid of losing face. I can live with that.
As to your request, I hereby challenge Billy to a debate. I will handle my side of things totally on my own. He can have as many lefties as he wants to support him. That's a good idea of yours for a couple of counsellors to be on hand. He will certainly need them after the drubbing he receives from me.
-
Since you joined this forum, mjdgreg, you have consistently not replied to posts that have proven your facts false and your arguments floored. At other times, when people have pointed out your incorrect facts, your stupid replies of "I'm glad you spotted my purposeful mistake" have become tedius, and your attempts to present yourself as unbiased and not a tory have made you look simply stupid at times.
You have copied more articles word-for-word from other websites than anyone can shake a number of sticks at.
BST is ignoring you because you're a prat and a WUM. Simple as.
-
I challenge you to find 10 facts that have been proved false. Shouldn't be too hard out of the 100's of posts I've made. I doubt you'll get anywhere near that number. In fact I bet you don't even try because you know you are spouting total rubbish.
As for your assertion that I don't reply to posts that is totally laughable. i am far and away the best person on this forum for answering everything that is thrown at me. Again, i challenge you to find 10 examples. I wouldn't bother if I were you because you won't be able to.
-
They failed to win in 2010 not because Cameron is shit (although he is). If they'd had David Davies, they would have faired no better. They failed to win a majority because they have become a party that cannot command enough support to win a majority.
The reason the Tories can't command enough support to win a majority is because Labour borrowed and spent so much money creating a dependency culture that far too many people would be worse off with a Tory government. A Tory revival is being held back because of the public sector ‘stranglehold’, which means any party that seeks to reduce the size of the state struggles to make progress.
I hope Labour do win the next election. There will be such an economic melt-down that they won't last 12 months. Then the Tories will get straight back in and Labour will be out of power for a generation.
-
I challenge you to find 10 facts that have been proved false. Shouldn't be too hard out of the 100's of posts I've made. I doubt you'll get anywhere near that number. In fact I bet you don't even try because you know you are spouting total rubbish.
As for your assertion that I don't reply to posts that is totally laughable. i am far and away the best person on this forum for answering everything that is thrown at me. Again, i challenge you to find 10 examples. I wouldn't bother if I were you because you won't be able to.
Here`s a whole thread. started by you and so many questions asked, but you`ve refused to reply
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=237124.0
In fact I`ll bump it back on to the first page so you and others can`t miss it