How does this square with Brown’s “no election” statement?
October 22nd, 2007
Will this put the election retreat back on the agenda?
The main lead in the Guardian this morning confirms how serious Labour was about going to the country in late October or early November and could provide further ammunition for the Tories as they seek to attack Brown.
For according to the paper “nearly a million pounds” was spent in the run-up compared with just £200,000 by the Tories.
The report notes that three million letters had been printed and were binned; “hundreds of thousands of pounds” had been spent polling in marginal seats; poster sites had been pre-booked and paid for and many staff had been hired.
In one instance a lorry load of office equipment had to be turned back on the Monday after Brown’s Saturday decision.
A report from Labour’s general secretary is going to the party’s national executive today. One problem for Labour is that it is still £20m in debt and this additional expenditure will add to the overall financial problems.
Interestingly the Tories also had to pre-book billboard advertising and the current EU referendum campaign was apparently devised to use the spaces that had been paid for.
In many ways this report is not really surprising. It simply underlines that an election was being considered very seriously and clearly those charged with running the campaign had to plan and that involved spending money.
A challenge for Brown is that it could call into question some of the statements he was making in the immediate aftermath of the “no election” announcement. In particular what he said at the press conference on the Monday afterwards will be subject to a lot of scrutiny.
No doubt that this will be raised at PMQs on Wednesday.
In my betting I am retaining my position as a seller of Labour seats on the spread markets. My exposure is not on the scale of earlier in the month when I had a £100 a seat commitment - so if there was a drop of 10 seats in the Labour spread I made £1000 but stood to lose the same if it went in the other direction. There hasn’t been much movement over the past week and a half but a clutch of end month polls are due in the next ten days.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Wonder whether spinners here will still try to claim Brown was never that interested in an early election.
Either that, or Brown is so used to wasting our money that he didn’t think twice over blowing a million pounds here.
Lies are Lies. Liars are liars. Shame to have a congenital one as our Prime Minister. Labour MPs must move to remove. Their credibility is now at stake. If they make us sit out two more years like this, thir Party will be finished, and rightly so.
If on the other hand, they hold up their hands and admit that Brown is a mistake, and remove him quickly, then allow the referendum, they will still be in business.
O/T Good news for the housing market - Anatole Kaletsky is now predicting a crash: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article2709694.ece
I have always suspected that the problem for Brown is that he is not as good at lying as Blair.
Blair would shout slogans while Brown rants out statistics. Statistics are easier to disprove.
Saying that, I find it hard to believe Blair would have been caught out in such a blatant lie; but then we think of the Tony Blair with years of experience in the job. Do you remember the F1 scandal in 1997? Blair was given a pass over his lie, Brown was never going to be allowed that.
I still think Brown can recover if he keeps his head down, governs and introduces some policies…wasn’t that supposed to be his strength?
I agree with Tapestry (2) - The problem is, who do we replace him with? The obvious favourite, Milliband is damaged goods now through his association with Brown. I suppose a proper leadership election wouldn’t go amiss.
I don’t like to complain but I think we’re beginning to see the problems in the desire to start so many threads. I could have sworn this topic was discussed a week ago! I suppose at least it’s not aping the newspapers and slapping “Exclusive” on it as well
6 Alex - we need a new thread, simply to cope with demands on the server, when we get to 250-300 comments. All that loading and reloading of 30,000 word discussions uses a lot of bandwidth.
This story is from the front page lead of the most influential Labour leaning quality paper and should be taken seriously.
“hundreds of thousands of pounds” had been spent polling in marginal seats;
There are so many surveys conducted for the Daily’s’ that we take polls for granted but can some one here give me a ball park figure for the cost of such a ‘poll’ from the likes of Mori, yougov etc.
Serves them right. This will have hurt Labour financially, as if the pain of looking at the polls wasn’t bad enough. Having said that, the Conservatives aren’t exactly rolling in cash, despite what Labour would like us to believe about Lord Ashcroft.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Mike, if you read last night’s thread you’ll see a lot of flaming and counter-flaming.
You promised earlier to introduce a code of conduct. Are you going to lay down some commenting rules, or have you decided not to do this?
I think the site needs broad outlines of what’s acceptable and would be grateful if you can let us know your plans on this one.
I would have said that the hostilities on this site merely reflect the depth of antipathy and the mutual loathings of politically engaged people.
Of course, I sometimes find them distasteful, but so what. I’m merely a somewhat disenchanted voter.
With any story involving money, I always assume the journo’s will have rounded up from in this case - say - £500,001. The fact that the figure just creeps over the £1m mark means that this is a non-event. I suspect it is a gross figure before nome costs are reduced / refunded / not paid. It will have cost all the parties some money.
And just to say with regards yesterday’s thread, that if all that can be found to discuss of polital import is whether the PM should attend a rugby match, people have really lost the plot about the state of the world, and politics has become a version of football.
9. Another thread starts with the usual suspects moaning about other posters. It’s really getting very tiresome.
I doubt there’s much mileage in the Guardian piece, sadly, as everyone and his dog knows already that GB is telling porkies. Everyone knows that his plans were well advanced and he was ready to go for it.
Had we all believed his denials 2 weeks ago and given him the benefit of the doubt, and then this had come out it, then it would be another matter.
Does help to add to the general “lack of trust” issue though by raising it again.
Our host seems to have been very nearly wromg BIG TIME when assuring all that there was going to be no Autumn election. GB caught stating ‘terminologicl inexactitudes’, or Mike Smithson making a poor political forecast. Which is news?
In fairness, I suppose if being nearly wrong is your biggest mistake of the year…..
15 Alternatively our host’s study of Gordon Brown’s character led him to make the right call? He wasn’t wrong, there was no autumn election. Imagine the Smithson pockets benefited from the risks taken.
So that is maybe 30,000 Labour annual memberships at £36 a time peed up against Balls’ wall of spin. I’ll bet those 30,000 are really chuffed they made the effort….
The article reinforces the view that Brown lied and undermines snowflakes assertion in the other thread that there was no evidence that Brown was in favour of an election. Well he must have been because he authorised the £1m expenditure.
Brown is “Bang to rights”.
It is not one example that will hurt him but the accumulation of many examples of the same type of thing that will eventually destroy his reputation.
He has done more damage to himself through the denial than if he had been honest.
GB didn’t so much plan for an election, as not plan for one, if he had planned for one properly, we would now be in the final stages of the campaign. The money was ground bait, thrown into the pond, to see what would rise.
One of the objections for the campaign being held in late October, was the weather, hasn’t been bad has it? In fact better than July!
9
Rules! what’s the point how could you enforce them anyway? Bit nanny state there test.
re 14 and 15. Yes - I took a biggish gamble that there would not be an early election. But I have just transferred £5000 of profit into my bank account.
I never believed that Brown had the bottle.
15 - my post at 9 mentions no posters at all. Instead it refers to the discussion.
I want to know if there will be guidelines, as Mike said there would, or not.
Yesterday Nick Palmer was called a traitor, the word scum was used of other posters, it went on and on.
As a Tory I don’t want all the good Labour posters run off, I could go to ConHome or Guido for Tory comment. The joy of PB is that it is full of multiple party posters.
18 grumpy-old-man Your point that Brown did not plan for it properly is true.
He spent more than the other parties yet had selected candidates in a lower % of his vacant seats (48% vs Conservatives 90%).
A quite remarkable level of incompetence for someone who controlled whether or not there was going to be a battle.
This is a big story in my view. Agreed nearly everyone accepts that Brown was untruthful in his “non GE” statement. No news there. But if proof emerges that Brown lied to the British public he is in big trouble.
20. Nick Palmer and his assorted chums who keep threatening to stalk off because this site has become ‘a Tory ghetto’ are simply annoyed by the fact that their party has made a fool of itself in recent weeks - something that is being reflected in the standard press and the blogosphere generally.
Dominating sites like this is a part of the propaganda war for them, and they can see they are losing that war. Don’t be deceived into thinking the motives for their constant whining are anything other than partisan.
20
If someone calls you scum or a traitor, then that reflects badly on them. If they have to resort to that sort of abuse, then they have lost the argument. Nick, I’m sure can rise above that sort of thing, as an MP he probably gets, ‘green ink’ letters on a regular basis.
22 I can normally be relied upon to take an uncompromisingly priggish high moral tone when it comes to telling lies, but surely in this case we can make an exception? What was Brown suposed to do? Calling a General Election is his equivalent of the nuclear deterrent - he has to be able to pretend that he is going to use it, even if he does not. In this case, it seems that he changed his mind about going to the country. So what? He threatened, and (for whatever reason) decided not to do it. His reasons are irrelevant. The fact that he wanted to save a bit of face is incidental; and to most voters, not having an election would be thought of as a Good Thing not a Bad Thing.
(But it is amusing to see how much money Labour have wasted! Let’s hope he does it again.)
Final Swiss Elections results: UDC/SVP 62 seats (+7); PS/SPS 43 (-9); PRD/FDP 31 (-5); Greens 20 (+7); PDC/CVP 31 (+3); PLS 4 (u/c), GLP 3 (+3); PEV 2 (-1); UDF 1 (-1); Lega 1 (u/c); PCS 1 (u/c); PST/PdA 1 (-1)
4
As I understand it, the reason why MPs will have more holidays this year and next is the fact that the next 2-3 sessions of Parliament are going to be policy lite.
Personally I think that’s a good thing. We have had so many policy changes introduced which are still unproven (see HIPS/CGT for 2 recent examples), and the NHS/MOD/Prisons/Justice etc are in such a mess - all through the impact of successive changes.. that a periood of trying to make it work is imo called for.
(Not that I expect any real improvement. I listened to Dawn Prim.. and she was helpless.. or is that hopless? If she’s a rising star)
22. Augustus. I’d be inclined to give him a bit of slack on this if he had been caught on the hop in a wide ranging interview. But he KNEW that he would be asked this question. He had the weekend to prepare a plausible response. The best one I have heard suggested goes along the lines of “Sure we considered it and if the polls had stayed where they were we might have gone for it.” But his chosen response demonstrated both a lack of honesty and a lack of judgment.
23: This is ‘a X or Y ghetto’ is the mating call of the Partisanus Uselessi.
On the topic, if the non election cost Labour £1 million then I wonder how much it cost the country.
26- What is really surprising is the huge scores of the UDC/SVP in francophone cantons, especially Genève and Valais. Especially if you have ever listened Blocher talk in French with the heaviest swizzer deutsh accent in the world…
23
We shouldn’t lose a sense of proportion here. In the overall scheme of things, sites like this one and others are very enjoyable. For someone like me, who lives an isolated life, in the sticks, (through choice) a chance to enjoy some political banter.
The next election however will not be decided, on what is said on this site or the others.
Interesting comment in the Telegraph, will a retrospective referendum become Conservative policy at the next GE. I know I’ve just poked the, ‘Beast of Bodmin Moor’ with a very large stick.
http://tinyurl.com/3xx8br
22/28 - and it does show that this episode hasn’t died the death even now. Which is something else Brown would have hoped.
In itself, it ain’t significant enough, but as usual it’s just yet another nibble away at the pillar of confidence in the government. Especially one that self-proclaims its economic competence
19 - Mike, congratulations on your winning bet, I’m sure a win of that scale makes any nervous moments when the price on a 2007 election hit 1/2 all the sweeter…
29: This is a politician’s ghetto. But it is a valuable resource for any voter who entertains the delusion that party politics is beneficial.
That a massive amount of money was spent comes as no surprise to most of us, the question is, does it come as a surprise to the labour posters who were adamant that it was the media who wanted an election and Brown never thought about it?
If it isn’t then they were deliberately spinning (which is unconscionable) but if it is then Brown’s trustworthiness regards his own supporters takes a big hit. The latter may well affect poll figures as you should never lie to your own side, at the very least.
Test
I entirely agree. One particular problem sems to be discussion of the EU. Some posters buy into the Sun line that ‘hundreds of years of history’ will disappear if Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero Waldner are replaced by say Carl Bildt or that Socrates, the current EU President, who serves for six months, is replaced by say Jean Claude Juncker who would serve for two and a half years. As the Sun put it ‘this is a danger equal to the danger from the Nazis in 1940′.
When people buy into that kind of thinking they consider British patriots who believe in the EU like Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten, as despicable scum and traitors. And they feel entirely free to carry that venom onto this site. The anger with which any even moderately pro EU comment is received by a good many posters on this site is quite remarkable.
In fairness, I should add that they are not the only ones who behave like this. One particular LD poster appears here, it seems, purely for the purpose of delivering one line insults aimed at Tory posters.
I hope Mike will make it clear that he will issue yellow cards for egregious abuse of fellow posters and, sadly, that if that doesn’t work, suspensions will have to be considered. It is perfectly possible to engage in vigorous debate here without indulging in such behaviour.
Personally I think a ban on smileys would be nice, too! However, some posters here would be bereft without recourse to two or three smileys every other post post so I suppose I’m doomed to disappointment!
I would be grateful for a comment from Mike. If he considers there’s no problem, like everyone else, I’ll have to accept his ruling.
31 - No!! I get rapidly bored with more talk of Europe, frankly I want a referendum just so that it ceases to become much of an issue.
35. I’m worried about how Snowflake will cope with the shock. Anymore of this and she’ll be voting for the Lib Dems again.
this really is rehashing an old story on a quiet newsday and there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the figures in any case. I know it suits the various tory cheerleaders / brown loathers on here to use this to keep up the the labour bashing comments, but all it illustrates is what was well known ie that the Labour party machine was the main proponent of an early election. Various full time officials were urging Brown to go early as they could see a big financial advantage for the party ( these are the guys responsible for sorting out the big debt and an early election would have been comparatively cheap and would have largely nullified any monetary advantage the tories had ). Consequently they were the ones making the most detailed preparations as they believed they had won the argument and also had the most notice of the supposed strategy. Unfortunately they hadn’t understood that Brown’s preferred timing from the beginning had been May 2008 and with all the overexcitement in Bournemouth this had been rather lost sight of with the consequent mess the following weekend and the effective ruling out of an election until 2009. All this has been rather done to death in the past 2 weeks, I would have thought that the results in Poland and Switzerland were more interesting or even the Clegg/Huhne contest though that could hardly be described as interesting.
36 Well, I have my views on Hesseltine, Hurd et al, but the problem with ranting on a blog is that, in the long run, nobody wants to read it.
FWIW, I don’t think this Treaty amounts to the end of hundreds of years of self-government. I just see it as another turn of the ratchet, away from indpendence and towards supranationalism, and away from democracy towards oligarchy.
39. Yes - how dare Mike publish a lead article which might be construed as being negative for Labour, especially when there was something of major UK interest like the Swiss election to comment on.
Really this is getting too much. Perhaps some of the serial moaners should actually carry out their threats to ‘disappear’, if they dislike things here so much.
36. Agree with you about the smiley - though I think Jack W should be allowed an exemption from any ban.
Another thread on the Swiss election would be interesting. The SVP seem to have done what almost any radical Right party finds impossible - to maintain its support after going into government. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Flanders seem to be the parts of Europe where the radical Right is both popular, and competent. Do they have anything in common?
An analysis of a crucial debate between the GOP contenders last night in Florida. At last Thompson hit his stride but then others did well, too. The funniest line came from McCain. Woodstock came up and he cracked that he wasn’t able to attend beacuse he’d been ‘tied up’. He was a POW at the time.
It brought the house down.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/21/423073.aspx
O/T. Anyone think Lewis Hamilton is now a good Lay bet for BBC Sports Personality of the Year? Currently 1.29 to Buy and 1.32 to Lay.
43 - “Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Flanders seem to be the parts of Europe where the radical Right is both popular, and competent. Do they have anything in common?”
Yes they do: North African immigration. Switzerland is a special case, however, in that the flood of labour inward migration it has seen over the past couple of years has been white, skilled and German. Voting SVP is also a risk-free option in that political change at the federal level in Switzerland is glacial and radical change impossible. So I wouldn’t read too much into yesterday’s results.
The main reason for (marginally) rising disquiet is immigration by people with a virtually common culture, which - together with globalisation pressures - is capping wage growth and reducing domestic opportunities for previously protected professions. The new government’s policy on labour-market openness won’t change.
Michael Caine who I always had down as a working class Tory, now describes himself, as both a, ‘communist and a nazi’ hmmmm must mean something.
http://tinyurl.com/33u2wb
31 - “Interesting comment in the Telegraph, will a retrospective referendum become Conservative policy at the next GE?”
No, because that would spoil something beautiful for the Tories. They have a perfect storm right here. Cameron gets to attack Brown for six months for “bottling” both an election and a referendum. He also gets to feed his party’s eurosceptical beast well before an election campaign that he wants to focus on public-service funding and quality. Once it’s done, he promises to honour a ratified international treaty (and maintain increasingly important alliances with France and Germany) but promise the British people will never again be refused a referendum - another risk-free promise we won’t see another EU treaty for a long, long time.
47 - it means he’s an idiot.
I have to say that to a lot of us this is no surprise. Of course there was going to be an early election, if the polls were good, and of course the Conservatives were going to get a bounce after their conference so you would have needed bottle to call one. Brown didn’t and most of us know why that was.
What is new is that we have more evidence to throw in the faces of the poor deluded souls who still trust Gordon Brown, and they have more reasons to doubt. It will cause them some more angst.
What would be quite funny is if the polls are all over the place, some showing that maybe Gordon could have won his own majority. That would cause even more rucktions in Labour.
Re 19, Mike Smithson, “I never believed that Brown had the bottle.”
Neither did I.
47
‘What’s it all about Alfie’
re 25, Augustus Carp “(But it is amusing to see how much money Labour have wasted! Let’s hope he does it again.)”
I wonder if there will be speculation in May?
47 - of course, the actual article says nothing of the sort. Just says he hates snobs. Including the words “communist” and “Nazi” in a lighthearted comment doesn’t actually mean he is one (or both).
I always had him down as Old Labour myself.
52 - not with the Tories stubbornly ahead in the polls there won’t….
Simon Carr in the Independent
“We saw something new in Parliament, last week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he had always been going to change the rules on inheritance tax, and that his decision had nothing to do with the Tories’ announcement at their conference. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can confidently say that this is a lie.
That’s new. Tony Blair was often called a liar, but you’d be very hard put to recall anything of his so cut and dried that it could be called a lie (no letters, please). Textually, he was a master. And when the facts went against him he would say: “my information at the time was…”.
But Alistair Darling is not so well provided for. A cool, calculated lie on the floor of the House. And we take it without indignation, or even surprise.
That’s a mistake. Because this is new territory.”
The non-election matters because of what it has shown - from Gordon’s denial of the obvious through to the PBR/CSR. Biggest mistake was losing the media - they are now looking sceptically at the government and trying to find other instances - like the non-release of MRSA report blaming too few hospital beds. That, if true, is much more dangerous as it may have cost lives.
52 - Marr effectively bounced him into ruling out May.
This does indicate just how dangerous this is to play this sort of game. In many ways, the most worrying thing for Labour supporters must be, not Brown calling off the whole thing, but allowing the party to commit itself so throughly based on polling figures at the most unpresentative time of the year and with no new policies to put before the electorate.
Re 54, Bob “52 - not with the Tories stubbornly ahead in the polls there won’t…. ;-)”
You never know when Ed balls is on their team!
conservatives are now just 44 pounds away from being equall to labour at 3.25 on betfair for an overall majority. Im sure one of the many tory posters on here cant resist taking it just to wind up the labour posters for a few hours
‘there can be absolutely no doubt that, had it not been for the post Blackpool polls, this weekend would have been the first phase of the GE campaign.’ I don’t think that squares with saying you never believed GB would have the bottle to call one, Mike.
Like everyone else on this site and like all political commentators you changed your mind.
Nothing wrong with that.
Re 56, Tangent/observer “52 - Marr effectively bounced him into ruling out May.”
Well, in June there was no need for an early election at all, so forgive me if I don’t bank on that
“This does indicate just how dangerous this is to play this sort of game. In many ways, the most worrying thing for Labour supporters must be, not Brown calling off the whole thing, but allowing the party to commit itself so throughly based on polling figures at the most unpresentative time of the year and with no new policies to put before the electorate.”
I agree, and it was always going to be thus, which begs the question why the speculation?
Whoever thought it was a good time for an election can’t have any political experience.
Re 59, Blue Moon, “Like everyone else on this site and like all political commentators you changed your mind.
Nothing wrong with that. ”
I didn’t! (Though I came close!
)
Benedict Don’t provoke me into a site search!
Whoever thought it was a good time for an election can’t have any political experience.
Possibly - or alternatively only have experience of a period where Labour has been able to manipulate the media pretty much at will, and the Tories have been unable to put up any kind of resistance. Living in this period has generated a supreme arrogance and ‘born to rule’ mentality among Labour apparatchiks.
63 Both are true I think. The surprising thing is that Brown himself apparently did not see the car crash coming - after all he has long experience, a lot of which was in opposition.
40 Sean Fear.
No it is a change of oligarchy. A Tory oligarchy ruled for 100 years with the tasit assent of the public. We are changing to a European oligarchy with equally tasit assent - as evinced by the low status of the European issue in the popular conciousness DESPITE the best efforts of the top selling mass market newspaper
Politics as we know it is dead - like many other things. The nation state is dead in Europe, as the Saxon state died in 1066. Curiously though the regions live
65 Eh?
66 Indeed. One might argue that a Tory (and Liberal) oligarchy ruled up to 1918, but not subsequently.
[36] As moderator of another site, I know all about the Smileyistas and the Anti-Smileyistas - it’s one debate which can’t be settled democratically IMHO
[40] Sean, if I thought the EU was the only - or even the main - oligrachic threat to democracy, I’d be cheering the Beast of Bodmin Moor to the echo. But it isn’t. For a market system to work (in the sense of providing in the real world the benefits economic theory assigns to it) the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action. A nation-state the size of Britain isn’t necessarily big enough to do so in to-day’s world.
In reality, we have and will go on having a multi-speed Europe in which cultural factors will predominate over economic ones. We may yet come to see this clearly if there is an economic crash of the size which I and others fear - in my case, because we have economy based on speculation not genuine economic activity (a practice supported by all three main parties) and I have sufficient belief in “liberal” economics to think that this is unsustainable. In such a crash, the Pound may come to be scapegoated on all sides and we could find ourselves facing a choice between the dollar and the euro. That would go to a referendum, and people would vote on cultural affiliation (i.e. language vs geography), not the economic arguments - whatever they might be at the time.
[68] My apologies for the incompetent proof-reading at this end ):
26. How will this affect the make-up of the 7-member Swiss cabinet?
The Radicals and the Christian Democrats have the same number of seats in parliament. Clearly they can’t both be entitled to 2 seats, so they ought to have one each.
Applying De Hondt to the election result, the SVP could claim a third cabinet member, or will the Greens be allowed into the cosy club?
“For a market system to work (in the sense of providing in the real world the benefits economic theory assigns to it) the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action. ”
I think that’s a fair comment. Big companies will always be tempted to obtain favours from governments in order to stifle competition.
“A nation-state the size of Britain isn’t necessarily big enough to do so in to-day’s world. ”
Well, if you have the fifth largest economy in the World, I’d say you’re big enough to do so.
The Polish Liberals will fall short of an overall majority but can easily form a Government. Likely impact:
Withdrawal of 500 Polish troops from Iraq;
Giving up the opt out from the Charter of Rights in the reform Treaty
Preparing for the earliest possible entry date into the Euro
Tax cuts to tempt Polish emigrants home
I’m not sure whether Poland will have a referendum on the Reform Treaty but it seems unlikely that GB can count on them to scupper it, if indeed that is what he wants.
That leaves the Irish referendum likely in May/June 2008 and a possible Danish referendum. In addition I’m not sure about the position of the Czech republic.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071022/ts_afp/polandvote_071022084110;_ylt=AldEBNwNF.7WSl.ycW8LVueFOrgF
Maybe we need Custom Smileys
the inbuilt tendency to monopoly has constantly to be countered by political action.
Old Marxists never die, it seems…they simply reinvent themselves as apostles of World Government…
73. At the risk of getting banned by the anti-smiley puritans….
:) 
:) 
Even Tony Parsons in the Mirror, hitherto an ardent Brownite, now wants a referendum:
http://tinyurl.com/ywl5bb
The amount of press hostility to Brown on this has surprised me. It is, if anything, even fiercer than in 2004. The difference this time it seems to come from columnists and pundits as much as editorials.
The other difference this time is that there is no election in the offing, so Brown can win through.
But even if Brown does win through, and executes his referendum betrayal, he is gonna engender an enormous amount of anger, even loathing, from the commentariat. I don’t think this will all magically disappear in 2009.
76. Hopefully he will though
[74] Henri, I gave up Marxism when I discovered it didn’t prevent wrinkles… actually, it’s far too right-wing for my liking…
If you think this site is rude, go down to October 19th
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
BTW this is a farewell - I am not sure I want anyone to know that I read this!!
Good times for some people in the US; real estate bargain hunters for foreclosed properties. It’s an ill wind…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/22auction.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Brown may very well be wrong on this, but …
The commentariat - the vibrant, throbbing centre of British political thought or a bunch of useless, self-regarding gobshites who have never done a useful days work in their lives? Discuss.
80. Oh dear - hell hath no fury, it seems….
OT, but I see Salmond is doing with vigour what we all expected him to do. Now it’s his anti-Trident-mongering:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7054543.stm
He’s out-stunting Gordon at the moment. How much more before the pro-union majority in the Assembly forces a confidence vote and a new election?
Would have thought Labour fancied its chances now Gordo was in charge nationally…
81 No fury at all, just a genuine question. Honest!
On the one hand they - can - be a good read.
On the other, they don’t often have much experience outside politicohackland to make a contribution that is as insightful as it is vocal.
At least seant gets out and about.
71. Being fifth biggest economy is no protection. We may be fifth, but in the sense that Everton or Spurs are fifth.The issue is which economic block you are in - US / Canada or Europe or another. That is the size you have to be to compete if you are an advance mass economy.
It is the combination of “advanced” and “mass” that is crucial. Small niche economies with low overheads can prosper in niche markets - Singapore. Large mass economies with low wage costs can equally survive and prosper - the candidates for this are obvious - India & China. Being “advanced” and “mass” means you must have scale in order to run the business (or in this case economy)
Being stuck in the middle market - not niche and not mass is a disasterous positioning. If you want to see an analogy in the UK it is WHSmith in the High Street. Large business, but stuck in the middle - out priced by Tesco and Amazon and out ranged by Waterstones and Amazon, yet the second biggest book retailer in the UK. That is what being 5th and outside the EU means
82 - It’s a parliament, not an assembly.
And everyone is too broke to go through another election so soon.
oops - the 82 at 88 should be 85 (if that makes sense)
87 I don’t see the World economy as being divided up into competing blocs, though.
It’s similar to arguments of one hundred years ago, that there was really no future for any country outside one of the big Empires of the day, but it turned out not to be so.
test and Blue Moon at 20/36 etc: Thank you. Casino Royale has now directly called me a traitor twice, and seems to think it’s funny. I don’t take the subject of treason as lightly as he does (which seems odd as he poses as a patriot), and I don’t intend to tolerate it. jeff and seanT can interpret it as winning the argument, Yokel can shrug and say OK, shut up and go - that’s their privilege.
We’ve been going round and round this issue for too long. Either posters are allowed to abuse each other or they’re not. If they are, I’m off. That doesn’t have to be a big deal - I’m a minor piece on a big chessboard, some people are happier uncontradicted, and if the site is increasingly Labour-free that’s how some like it. Moreover, there’s a libertarian case for letting people sound off as much as they like. Go for it, have fun, and don’t send me a postcard. I’ll probably wander off to Anthony Wells’ site or the Let’s Be Sensible site.
Conversely, if contributors are not allowed to abuse each other, can we have it clearly stated and enforced, please? If seanT can manage to abuse ideas instead of people, as he’s perfectly reasonably done for the last few days, so can everyone else. And I’ll try to stop whinging about Tory gloatfests - I think they show themselves in a poor light when they do their “X is an idiot, we’re gonna win” stuff, but that’s not something Mike can easily moderate.
85 - The pro-union parties will aim to give Salmond enough rope to hange himself first. The SNP, by themselves, could block an election as things stand and force a unionist grand coalition. There won’t be a move until just before or after the next GE, and it’ll depend on a lot of factors, such as SNP popularity at the time.
90 SF we used to obsess about “ownership” and some still do. This is erroneous. Just because a robber capitalist (to be pejorative) is english, does not make him any less a robber capitalist who will ship his products from any country where it is cheaper. Ownership is rapidly heading eastwards anyway
The key is that your market is attractive to businesses desiring to sell. It is the only true protection. Highly competitive but that is life. In appraising any market, the size of it is number one consideration. It is why you want to be in a block with common rules.
82. Aren’t the Lib Dems opposed to Trident? Salmond could find common ground on that one.
As for Brown’s woes, the media reaction has shocked me aswell. I think there is a lack of faith in people like Balls - discussed in length yesterday - and so journalist wonde what sort of man Brown must be. Brown treats politics like he’s at war, dividing everyone into friends and enemies. His ‘age of consensus act’ has already worn thin. He’s happy for people with gravitas like Ashdown to be in the cabinet - so long as they are not rivals.
I do laugh at all those Brownites who hated John Reid because he couldn’t get on with Brown. Rather forgetting that Blair, Mandelson, Cook, Blunkett and Clarke couldn’t get on with him either. He just can’t deal with people who disagree with him.
Nick thank you for that post. Mike Smithson promised to introduce a code of conduct and since has neither done nor said anything about it. At the very least as a courtesy, I think he needs to announce if he’s going through with it or reneging on his promise, referendum-style.
Without some rules for decency I will join Nick.
Francis calling posters scum, Colin W using the grossest sexual language and writing about killing Conservatives, we do not need that. PB’s USP was the back and forth between Sean Fear, Mark Senior, Tressage, Nick Palmer, Roger, Witan and other intelligent posters across the political spectrum. I’m off if the Labour posters can be insulted with impunity, and then Sean T will say he’s “won the debate” again, etc, because people don’t choose to be insulted on what is meant to be a part of our leisure time. In my view, the actual MPs who post here, Nick Palmer and Stewart Jackson, offer something other posters cannot - an inside view - Jack W’s rudeness to Stewart and the various darts thrown at Nick churlishy drive away experience I like to benefit from.
91 - I agree. I used to learn a lot on this site but it’s becoming less by the day. And anti-EU obsessives seem to dominate the threads - whatever the subject!
Nick Palmer ” Either posters are allowed to abuse each other or they’re not. If they are, I’m off. ”
But it is OK to call me a liar and for you to say you feel free to abuse posters using aliases?
One more point Sean F. All of this is at the margins.
So people will trade with UK - 60m people is a good market. However we, as we are a mature economy running at close to full employment, with limited inflation,will grow at 2-3% a year. We do not have the unused capacity of China or India growing at 10%. This means that marginal losses to other markets count.
Businesses and economies don’t stand still, they either go up or down. The fixed costs of running the economy don’t reduce if it goes into decline - see the early 80’s. MrsT never cut the % of GDP going to the State by more than a smidgeon.
We are driven back to being in a block, and that block being as big as it can be while retaining a degree of homogenaity
In what post did Nick call you a liar?
Nick already corrected himself on the abuse of multiple names, but it is cowardly to get another name to fling an insult so that opprobrium doesn’t land on your main chat name. Scallywag was the ultimate example of this.
(Whilst I’ve had two names I’ve only ever had one at a time)
94 - No the Liberal Democrats are not opposed to Trident renewal, in the same way they didn’t oppose the Iraq War in principle but only without Chirac’s support. The party took the third way: halving the number of warheads and delaying a decision on renewal till 2014.
On the subject of abusive language on this blog, I think we all have a good reason to keep ourselves civil… the danger of libel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging
“The next move was to apply for a court order requiring him to reveal the identities of “Halfpint” and the other fans behind what the club’s lawyers described as a “sustained campaign of vilification”. Fans made serious allegations against the club’s chairman, Dave Allen, and directors and shareholders.
The club’s lawyers asked the judge, Richard Parkes QC, to order disclosure about the identity of 11 fans.
But the judge decided some fans, whose postings were merely “abusive” or likely to be understood as jokes, should keep their anonymity.
The judge ordered that three fans whose postings might “reasonably be understood to allege greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness and dishonest behaviour”, should be unmasked. Their right to maintain their anonymity and express themselves freely was outweighed by the directors’ entitlement to take action to protect their reputation, he said. ”
It’s right here in print, people: insults are OK, but nobody had better allege ‘greed, selfishness, untrustworthiness or dishonest behaviour’ on the part of anyone else, lest they incur the wrath of the courts! Not that I have any idea what place such allegations would have on a political blog… ahem.
Does anyone else think it’s about time for reform of our libel laws?
Mike Smithson promised to introduce a code of conduct and since has neither done nor said anything about it.
Mike S presumably has other things to do - not least keeping the site itself running. It’s a shame if he has to spend less time on looking for the site and more time babysitting us; moderation is an intensive and tiresome task. While I can understand your ire and Nick’s, why not simply ignore posts you find personally offensive, and reply to those that are sensible and intelligent? Otherwise, if any new regime clamps down on a particular set of posters, we’ll have some claiming their like-minded faction has “won” which only prolongs the pointlessness. Posts, like these, about the site itself, are very off-putting to the new and occaisonal poster who comes here, and the less we see of them the better.
95. Goodness yet another dig at Mike, and in addition you seem to have made a case for excluding about half the regular posters there. Your preference list seems a little odd though - how can you seriously refer to Roger as an ‘intelligent poster’ and at the same time have a go at Jack W?
Why not set up your own site called ‘we want to discuss serious politics.com’, limiting membership to yourself, Nick and a handful of other chosen ones. That’s the end point of all this. I’m sure it would be a thrilling read.
93 But you are talking about two entirely different things. Being part of a trading bloc is what most people want from EU membership.
If the claimed benefits of ever closer union are as described by its proponents then why would they care if GB was part of them or not? In fact logically it would be better for other countries if GB was specifically excluded.
Are they saying that we would be better off if we had a purely trading relationship and that this isn’t “fair”? The only reason Europe as a nation makes sense is if it can operate as an autarky - it can’t. Therefore the only sensible path is a common approach to WTO negotiations and an acceptance that political union is a matter for individual states.
Test - right.
Just scimming past all the tosh to get the good stuff is a waste of time. In this instance the libertarian arguement does not hold.
Let’s face it chaps and chapesses, is this a private club with rules we all adhere to or a rant line. There are loads of the latter, Sky advertise their rant line daily, but this is a jewel that operates to a different set of rules. But rules they are.
Can Mike please moderate all posts that are about posts, posters and posting? If anything is gonna drive people away, it’s this endless narcissism and self-obsession.
You know, Viz magazine used to make a joke about people always saying “Viz isn’t funny as it used to be” - they actually put it on the masthead - Viz Magazine: Not As Funny As It Used To Be.
Perhaps Mike S could put a similar note at the top of this site “Welcome to Political Betting: A Site in Decline”
Come on guys. Dance or get out the disco. Enuff already!
I’m off to the Groucho for lunch. If I bump into Roger I shall roundly abuse his ideas without actually calling him a knob, as per the new rules. Which I think shows admirable restraint.
106 Too right, it’s a bit of anal gazing. Seant may play fast and loose with terms like traitor, but he does have a bit of integrity and his rhetoric makes you think (which is about the highest praise I think you can give anyone). I can’t bear the tribal point scorers who appear to have no neurological connection between their brain and mouth.
Kingbongo - you can’t have the economics without the politics. This is generally true, not just in the case of the EU. Markets are legislated for not naturally created. There is no such thing as perfect competition.
You can only have the UK system if you conquor Europe, otherwise you have to deal and work with the others. If you are in a minority you either have to like it or lump it. Lumping it would be a disater - see posts above
108. and posts passim….
Nice to see the pro-European ‘case’ expounded in all its simplistic naivety, and at such great length.
Echoing earlier comments; Brown has actually been fairly lucky regarding the news agenda. Despite the Graun’s front page, various other stories have effectively killed off the direct impact of the election story for now. What Brown needs to project now, in the run-up to the Queen’s Speech and afterwards, is the image of a strong, capable adminsitrator with the right blend of continuity and change to keep the anti-Blair people onside without frightening the horses. He’s going to find this increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as the Parliament goes on, so rebuilding trust and goodwill when he has a chance of regaining the agenda is vital.
109. Quite. The argument that you have to have political union if you want a free trade agreement, or an economic bloc, is ludicrous.
Canada and America have NAFTA. Yet I don’t see America legislating for Canadian tourism, or telling Canadians how many migrants to let in, or demanding a say in Canada’s foreign policy, or seeking a share of Canadian fisheries.. etc etc
The fact is Europhiles want Federalism and Union as an end in itself - to create a superpower made up of quasi-autonomous states. They want this because they think Europe would be a force for good in the world, and because they simply like power, and because they think they would get to run this very elitist and bureacratic entity.
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t have these goals. Good luck to ‘em.
But they should admit what they after, stop hiding behind lies and cant, and ask the people their permission. That’s all. If the people vote Yes then I for one would be glad to say goodbye to these tedious arguments.
108. Too true. The people who invoke Switzerland & Norway as paragons of how to exist in free trade agreement with the EU but are not part of it, conveniently forget that to have free trade with the EU they have to comply with EU rules anyway. So UKIPs modus operandi is that outside the EU, we’d have to apply by rules that we have no control over if we still wanted free trade with the EU. It’s bizarre.
Oh & in my opinion/belief as a pro-European, I believe that those who are scared of a European Superstate are missing the point once again. The EU is a partnership, somthing that is completely new & when it reaches it’s final form will not resemble any entity that has come before. I hope when that does come into being it will be with a commission that is no more than a civil service & where the parliament has far more power sharing it with the council of ministers assembled from the heads of government as now.
Test post 220 8th October
On the same day he said ” I can be as rude as I like to pseudonyms”.
He has not withdrawn either remark.
112. Fair enough. Then come out and tell the people where you think Europe is “going” - what the whole point of the project actually is - and then let THEM decide.
Stop trying to create your “superstate/partnership” by stealth.
This is what gets eurosceptics so angry. And justifiably.
113. He did indeed qualify his remark about pseudonyms, either on that thread or the next.
I still can’t work out how to search PB, but he did.
In any event, the ball is now in Mike’s court. Either he puts down rules of conduct or Nick is leaving. I would be disappointed if he valued an MP’s input so little, but accept it as his decision. It’s his site. Equally, I don’t want to be part of something where Colin W’s posts about people’s mother’s and calling public servants (who have devoted their entire lives to the betterment of this country as they see it) traitors is allowed by the admin.
Yet again, a thread about Brown’s election spending turns into a dialogue of the deaf about the European Union.
I agree with Nick Palmer above. Anyone who has actually been involved in politics at either a local or national level should know that mutual respect for each others opinions is the only decent way to conduct yourself. I have councillor friends who are Lib Dems, Labour & Conservatives.
I’ve fought 3 GE campaigns and on the whole I’ve got on well with all of my opponents (even those that I didn’t like I never resorted to any sort of abuse and nor did I receive any).
In particular I’d single out Gwyn Prosser MP and Stephen Timms MP as being very plesant people to deal with. I’ve enjoyed the company candidates from all parties that I have met.
We all have different ideas about where we want our ward/council/country/world to go and what we think works best. We don’t always agree, in fact we rarely do.
Resorting to bad language and insults is the bloggers equivalent of throwing a punch.
If you are members of a political party then really your opinions reflect on your party.
I would go so far a bad insults and bad language (even when losely disguised with ***)
I know that many will not agree with me, probably including my old councillor colleague ColinW, but I do agree that the quality of debate has gone down hill over the last few weeks in particular.
117. correction to above typo..
would go so far TO BAN insults and bad language (even when losely disguised with ***)
116. But before that it degenerated into yet another endless whine about the site ‘going downhill’…a whine which shows no signs of ending.
Perhaps the whiners’ secret plan is to bore everyone else to death so that they get the site to themselves?
108 thanks for your thoughts, but I think you miss the fundamental point. However, as you believe Markets are not naturally created but are legislated for it will be fruitless to try and persuade you of the emptiness of your assertions. Only a socialist could write that sentence and believe it to be true.
The EU can have as much or as little political union as it likes. To claim you either have to ‘conquer’ Europe or accept everything decided by civil servants in Belgium is a fallacy. Since the 50’s the aim has always been to bring peace to Europe via poltical union. A noble ambition but grand claims about economic improvement have always been empty.
Personally I believe we could allow all sorts of state subsidies and ‘economic champions’. If French taxpayers are stupid enough to pour their money into trying to run an electricity company and the upshot is they compete in the UK and I get cheap electricity paid for by the French, why would I worry? UK capital can then be directed into more prfitable activities.
Long post and my apologies but the idea that economic disaster awaits any country not signed up to the European Self Induced Poverty program is laughably insecure.
My predictions.
2/9 Mike issues some guidelines on site behaviour in the next few days.
1/7 Either Sean T or Tyson once again announce their intention to blog less on PBC, before the end of this calendar year. Evens the double.
The point about a single market - any market - is that it has rules. We imposed rules on Scotland in 1707. It has accountancy rules, intellectual copyright rules, fraud rules and these rules are multiplying.
It shows how little you EU sceptics know, that you think it is just about buying and selling. The rules may be complicated or they may be like the Wild West, but there are rules. The rules can be decided by perpetual state to state negotiation or buy a single authority. You takes your pick. State to state cannot (by definition) have a unified set of rules, as Sweden v Norway would be different to UK v Italy. You are left with a single authority for a single market. EU v USA block is not a single market because it is in effect state to state
If you chuck in globalisation you guys really are Knut (as his name should be spelt)
Oh and any referendum about “out” or “in” I am absolutely confident of winning just the same as in 75.
114. It’s going to a point where countries co-operate on issues of common interest but keep governing themselves on areas they don’t want to share responsibilities on. I can’t say exactly where things will end up as I’m not psychic, I know to what extent I would like things to go to but I’m not in a position to implement my vision. I don’t think anyone knows what’s really going to happen, it’s an organic process.
I don’t think that anything that goes on in intergovernmental conferences is by stealth, if they are trying to be stealthy they are doing a terrible job about it seeing as we have the Mail & the Sun screaming about it. Oh & by the way, in case you hadn’t noticed, we’re already in partnership with 26 other countries, that’s how the EU works.
95: If Nick and test want somewhere else to post…
Seriously, there is a fine line and with Mike’s traffic it would be one that was impossible to hold. UKPollingReport used to have only relatively serious and non-partisan discussion without me doing anything, it stated to deteriorate a couple of months ago and I’ve had to spend a load of time moderating and laying the law down.
With the number of posts Mike gets I would not have been able to do that - or at least, not moderate it all AND have a life. When I do there is a serious downside as well, one, it doesn’t create a nice atmostphere, two, you inevitably end up alienating some of the good, helpful, positive posters who leave, while at the same time the swivel-eyed loons ignore whatever rules you put down.
You want to improve things, Mike can’t do it alone. Everyone needs to restrain themselves and not rise to the bait of those who don’t.
91. NickP.
I’m not endeavouring to abuse *you* personally Nick. I’m not interested in insulting you for the sake of it. But I don’t take back a single word of what I said. I couldn’t care less if you’re offended or not. It’s what I think. I’d rather bruise a Labour MPs ego, than stroke it and disguise what I think.
This is a very, VERY serious issue. You seem not to recognise it. You are in a highly priviledged position as an MP. You are our elected representative. Elected to represent us. The powers you have to pass legislation have been lent to you, they are not yours to give away. You have no right to do so. And you certainly have no mandate.
This is not raising taxes, increasing benefits, passing equality legislation, or anything else like that. It’s not British domestic legislation that can be repealed. This is about surrendering further vetoes and powers to a foreign body, which could pass laws against the interests of this country, without our consent, and continue to do so in future, without a treaty - AFTER you explicitly promised a referendum on the surrender of such powers to the British people in your 2005 manifesto.
Your “excuse” on why a referendum treaty is now not needed is laughable.
Hence, I consider your party (and you for not opposing it’s line, as Gisela Stuart and Kate Hoey have bravely done) a traitor.
If people want to ban me for saying it, fine, I’ll pack my bags. I couldn’t care less.
This issue is too important for me to say anything else Nick and I am ashamed at how *you* and your party is acting over it.
Test If Nick Palmer did modify his position in regard people using pseudonyms I did not see it. As the original remark was clearly directed towards me then perhaps he might have directed the ‘modification’ in the same direction.
By the next day I had put the whole thing to one side and ignored it, why bother. But these posts from NP threatening to leave the site because of abuse raised the issue again for me.
I don’t want him to stop posting anymore than any of the other sane people here of whatever opinion. I must admit to feeling that the now fairly frequent threats from him to leave the site either for good or for a while have gone on a little too long.
If he means it why not just stop posting? Why the fairly frequent threats to do so?
126. Good question. Presumably he doesn’t post here purely for fun, or he would have carried through on his threats long ago. He must have another reason for trying so hard to bounce Mike into muzzling other posters. For me it looks like a crude attempt to alter the political balance of the site in a pro-Labour direction.
It’s not British domestic legislation that can be repealed.
It could be - if we chose to leave. If we choose to leave, then we can unilaterally choose to denounce the Treaties and repeal the European COmmunities Act 1972 with all its amendments. It may not technically be reocgnised under EU law, but there is nothing practical the EU or its members could do about it.
125. I’ve seen a lot of people complaining how the European TreatyStution would enact new powers to take away various vague parts of our sovereignty, but I’ve never seen someone explain what those powers actually are. For the benefit of the ignorant, could you please explain exactly *what* vetoes and powers Britain would surrender under the new treaty?
Markets are not legislated for.
Markets - I mean every market - has a legislative framework. Once you nationalise something, protect something, require auditing standards, require labelling and health standards, subsidise something,introduce anti- monopoly legislation (particularly that), control the currency even via a Bank - the list is endless. It is rule number 1 in GCSE Economics - there is no perfect competition
Even if it is the Wild West what happens is the participants invent a common set of rules - Guilds in the middle ages for instance
It follows for a single market there are only two options. One very powerful economy bullies the others into submitting to its rules (we used to do this in China in the 19th century. This is what you are proposing as the other EU states by and large do not want our approach or there is an agreement where you win some or you lose some. There is no other way.
You guys would be better understanding the much more important relationship which is the essentially imperial one the European masses have with the rest of the world
113: witan - yes, I was wrong to say I could be as rude as I liked to people using pseudonyms, and if we have a rule against abuse of course it covers that too (as I said on an earlier thread, but you may have missed it). I said that a post quoting me was a lie, and in my opinion it was. You can say anything you like about my posts - I just draw the line if you start on me personally (which to be fair you never have).
But the idea of a ‘we want to discuss serious politics’ site where posters aren’t allowed to abuse each other or swear sounds pretty good to me, and on a site like that I’d be happy to discuss policies too, which I’ve never felt I wanted to do here. If anyone wants to set one up (just no time to run a site myself) let me know and I’ll migrate. There must be room on the internet for both a site for that and a site like this has become, dominated by people boasting and swearing and chucking things at each other?
125 The destiny of this country is entirely in the hands of the British people.
It is patent nonsense to suggest that this country is in anyway being taken over by Europe.
If we don’t like the way the rest of Europe want to govern themselves, we can elect a British government to take us out of Europe.
Witan,
Because when Nick raised it, Mike Smithson answered as follows: “Fair points have been made, and on my return to PB I will be laying down a code of conduct. Abuse will not be tolerated.” (I paraphrase)
OK, so Nick waited until Mike’s return. But after several days and gentle nudges for the code of conduct, it’s not forthcoming.
I think it’s perfectly fair for Nick and I and others to ask, will there or won’t there be one, as promised.
It *is* Mike Smithson’s site. I fully recognize he’d be well within his rights to backtrack and say on reflection he cannot moderate it or whatever. But he told us this would happen on his return. So Nick is (I guess) patiently waiting, and now after quite a long delay is just asking yes or no. No need to leave until it’s been made clear that there will NOT be a code of conduct that’s enforced.
I like posting on a site that MPs frequent and getting a horse’s mouth view of politics is something I find valuable. I care more for Nick’s opinions than (say) jeff’s. If he wouldn’t want to stay and be an Aunt Sally for a wave of abusive posters then I would leave as well.
I love politics, and I think people in political life who are doing rather than teaching deserve some respect. Again, I bitterly oppose everything Nick stands for politically. I support Anna Soubry for Broxtowe without reservation and with enthusiasm. It’s just that I don’t think being a political opponent means no courtesy
131. people boasting and swearing and chucking things at each other
You forgot to mention carping, complaining and grandstanding in that list.
131 - Nick, a policy discussion site would be interesting but it (1) if it was any good, you’d be nuts if you didn’t charge for it and (2) pb.com never pretended to be that site.
In fact, the only discussion we should have here about the Reform Treaty is about how to make money out of it. Will there be a referendum? No. If there is (there won’t be), who’d win? The rest is piss and wind.
129. From Openeurope’s guide to the treaty:
“A self-amending treaty for the first time The new version of the Constitutional Treaty re-introduces the proposals from the Constitution which would make the treaty self-amending for the first time. Article 33 (which contains both IV-444 and IV-445 of the old Constitution) would allow EU leaders to change the treaties incrementally, without the need for a new treaty.
At present, the treaties on which the EU is based can be amended only by the convening of an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) such as the one that agreed the EU Constitution. Any amendments must be agreed unanimously by all governments and then ratified in the member states according to their Constitutional traditions, i.e. by referendum or by parliamentary vote (Article 48 TEU).
However, Article 33 (2) TEU of the new treaty allows the Council to vote by unanimity to change any of the text of part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (basically all the detail of the treaties). Such a change would have to be ratified by each country in line with its Constitutional requirements (so a bill or a statutory instrument in the UK).
Article 33 (3) TEU of the new treaty allows the Council to move to majority voting in any of the remaining areas covered by unanimity, (including foreign policy, but excluding defence).
However, in this case the change would not need to be ratified by national parliaments. There is a provision that says that if a parliament does complain within six months then such a proposal won’t go through. But the presumption would be reversed. Unless the Government allows parliament time to vote against something
(something the executive has signed up to, after all) then it goes through automatically.
This would undermine the role of parliament in controlling treaty changes. It would mean a shift of power towards the EU’s leaders and away from national parliaments.”
re 95. I do this site as a hobby and have a full-time job. I’ve just returned from an exhausting trip to Canada and the north west US and am still jet-lagged.
Steps have already been taken against some of the more unacceptable posters.
I notice that there is a time period when the problems occur - after about 9pm in the evening. Perhaps we ought to find a way of giving everybody breath tests before they can post or impose a curfew!
I’ll be publishing something in more detail in the next day or two. In the meantime posters who go over the top might find that their contributions go into the moderation box.
125 You are wrong to call an individual a traitor, which is a serious charge up there with murder, on the specious grounds you put. The Reform Treaty does not provide for for an irretrievable loss of sovereignty or nationhood as, unlike for example the Act of Union, there is a clause to leave the European Union. It is not being imposed on the UK without the consent of Parliament and the Monarch.
I have very serious reservations on the Reform Treaty which I believe should be put to the British people either in an election or in a referendum. I think that those who are afraid to put their arguments before the electorate are behaving badly and will be punished by that electorate. But it is not treason.
136. No time to post a reply now, but thanks for the info.
The debate on rules on here is not anal. I suspect if the site continues to grow, we will have these spasms and then move on
Putting existing posters who are abusive on the 1 hour wait would be a good wheeze, as the instant gratification is what many of them seem to be about.
137. Mike. I previously referred to this as the 9 pm lagershed.
“Jack W’s rudeness to Stewart and the various darts thrown at Nick churlishy drive away experience I like to benefit from.
by Test October 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
91 - I agree. I used to learn a lot on this site but it’s becoming less by the day. And anti-EU obsessives seem to dominate the threads - whatever the subject! ”
I have to say I agree with these 2 points I don’t read the comments nearly as much as I used to (it was daily for months, maybe years) because it’s just far less pleasant and informative.
I’d go further and say there is a needless aggression in posts from the likes of Casino Royale, Witan, sometimes SeanT that really does cloud their argument and makes any interesting observations impossible.
I also disagree with CR at 125. If you want to make a personal attack on Nick Palmer then write to him. Otherwise keep your opinions on whether Labour MPs are traitors for not backing a referendum far more general and less personal. I personally think it’s an irrelevant/dead issue but your rudeness is surely intolerable?
88: “It’s a parliament, not an assembly.”
Parliament is at Westminster. It’s an Assembly in my book. I don’t much care what the Scotland Act says. And the devolved executive is just that, not a “Scottish Government”. How long before Salmond starts styling himself “Scottish Prime Minister”?
(It’s an interesting thought if Scotland had made it to the Rugby World Cup Final - no, do stay with me - and whether Brown and Salmond would have been fighting outside the stadium to be let in as Scotland’s formal representative. As Brown was for England…)
131. Excellent idea.
Perhaps the rest of us can get back to discussing “political betting” here….
On the sidelines (haven’t posted for a couple of years now due to the difficulty in distilling the good from the bad)
Is pro-European now another way of saying anti-American? There is all this talk of a political elite taking our powers away - which is true - but perhaps we misunderstand their motives. A large proportion of people in Europe now believe that the only antidote to American Consumer Capitalism is to remove the Liberty and Democratic rights of its citizens. That if you give people the right to choose, they will go for the most dumbed-down American culture.
What we have to do is make the alternative case. That we can preserve freedoms and democracy and not be like America. A proper Education system focused on producing people with enquiring minds, not consumers, is what we need.
Parliament is at Westminster. It’s an Assembly in my book. I don’t much care what the Scotland Act says. And the devolved executive is just that, not a “Scottish Government”. How long before Salmond starts styling himself “Scottish Prime Minister”?
The old Stormont arrangments, however, allowed for a PM and a Parliament (indeed, a two-chamber Parliament). But then, the old Stormont had more theoretical power than Holyrood does - with less incentive to actually use it.
Casino Royale
Yes but the UK can veto such moves on its own and any decision would be subject to ratification by the UK Parliament.
Welcome back, Mike, and sorry to hassle you. I’ll look forward to the more detailed guidance. The Creatures of the Night used to gather in the evening, but they’ve spread through the day, as a glance at yesterday’s thread will show.
140. I wonder what the definition of ‘abusive’ will be? How about the McPherson style ‘any comment which is considered abusive by any person’?
Even if this is not adopted straight away, the pressure for it to be adopted (in one form or another) will remain. Banning expletives is easy and everyone can understand that. But beyond that it becomes highly subjective and risks forcing Mike into making judgements that might be considered partisan…which is I suspect exactly what some of the moaners want.
Ant/Ted:
Couldn’t care less what you think about what I’ve said. It’s my view and I’m sticking by it. It isn’t a personal attack on just Nick. I think the same of ALL MPs who’ve betrayed their electorates in the same manner - mainly Labour.
Treason is betraying ones people to a foreign power. That is what is being done. That is why I used the words I did.
I’m not going to kow-tow to Nick Palmer just because he’s an MP and some of you are in awe of him.
Forget it.
Mike can ban me for it if he likes. It’s his call.
Treason is betraying ones people to a foreign power.
This is not how treason is defined, however. Nick is not adhering to the Sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in this realm or elsewhere. Using it the wider political sense is both inflammatory and devalues the use of the word.
46 stjohn - No, mainly, because there isn’t a sufficiently strong alternative, although the second half of his season certainly fell away somewhat. I also feel he’ll probably gain some support as a result of his team mate’s reported petulance.
Quite amusing to watch the Beeb’s one hour special on Lewis’ life and career last night - obviously timed to coincide with his assumed moment of triumph. I imagine there was some very intense 11th hour editing of this programme.
£3,000,000 spent and something far worse than zero achieved. That’s something Brown got used to doing every day as Chancellor. Why should he change now?
147 May I make a request for free speech on pb.com.
* No to pre-publishing censorship!
* Yes to clear and transparent rules and consequences imposed AFTER posting.
It is in the best liberal traditions of the UK.
wikipedia on treason… The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French!
Note Also in 1351 Act a treasonable offence:
if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices …
George Osbourne needs keep clear of A. Darling!
I think we need to distinguish between the “lagershed” issue, which is probably moderatable, and the possible desire in some quarters to “colonise” the site with propaganda for a particular viewpoint - the EU treaty seems to be in the forefront now, but it’s quite possible that another issue entirely, such as abortion, may have the same effect in future - which I don’t think is.
If I felt that I had been gravely libelled - and Nick Palmer MP certainly has been - I would ask Mike to let me have the e-mail address of the culprit and I would write directly to them saying that if they did it again I would seek a public apology. If they refused, I’d post the correspondence on here.
Perhaps Mike Smithson could say whether or not he would support that approach.
[140] That approach won’t work. We have to sustain the distinction between giving offence and taking it - otherwise I could say that I’m offended by the lot of you and demand the site close. But it is hard to sustain in practice, I agree. Many years ago, I achieved a real-life “H M Bateman moment” by asking in a shop stewards’ meeting whether we were going to take all allegations of sexual harassment seriously, or only those made by members whom we as shop stewards considered to be sane.
Mike Smithson: Re Post 147
Please will you have a word with Mr Palmer about his derogatory generalisation ‘Creatures of the Night’.
In one post he objects to personal attacks on his good self and the Labour Party and in the next he launches a personal attack on those who he opposes.
Is it your policy that MP’s or Labour supporters are allowed to abuse people as they feel fit whilst claiming some divine protection from abuse or do you wish the site to return to a more civilised debate?
149: What Labour are doing is stupid, dishonest, and cowardly but does not fit any legal definition of treason I know of. Palmer stood before the voters and promised something than now by weazel words he’s trying to get out of.
The shocking thing about this isn’t Brown’s £1 million spending - his Union chums will bail that out sooner or later - but the £3 million plus that our local authorities have had to spend in election preparations. Perhaps the LGA should bill the Labour Party for a refund?
See more:
http://www.iainlindley.co.uk/2007/10/22/what-cost-to-the-taxpayer/
There’s not much politics on here today, it’s all infighting!
Can the relevant individuals not just take a few deep breaths, abstain from posting for a day if need be, and then come back all refreshed and chilled out? Surely we’re all grown up enough not to need to spend time debating a set of rules on how to conduct ourselves?!
It’s getting like a playground on here!
I might have to start doing some work during office hours if this continues…
About the EU (sorry…):
An interesting point raised at the end Casino Royale’s post at 136 which I don’t think gets enough of an airing in discussions, which tend to end up getting put in nationalistic terms, Britain vs Europe, Us vs Them, etc:
One of the things that moving powers to the EU does (or doing deciding more things by international treaties, for that matter) is move power from legislatures to executives - in our case, from parliament to the cabinet / PM.
This is partly a matter of necessity; If you’ve got to get a whole bunch of countries agreeing with each other, it’s not practical for parliament to be able to amend and revise everything that’s been negotiated - because that will mean unpicking an agreement delicately crafted to satisfy x constituency in Poland without unduly upsetting y constituency in Italy. It also means it’s easier for the executive to get away with blaming things they wanted to do on other leaders.
Confronted with that problem, different people are coming up with radically opposed solutions. Some people say that means that we need to put the EU on a proper democratic footing - more power to the parliament, less obscure decision making, a federal structure so we know who’s responsible for what, etc. Other people are saying since the EU has this massive gaping democracy deficit, so we shouldn’t transfer any more power to it.
Having pro-democracy people divided like this works out great for the executives on both sides. Theoretically Euro-friendly governments can strengthen themselves at the expense of parliament by painting their opponents as xenophobes, while Euro-sceptic governments can block democratizing the EU on the grounds that it takes power away from the nation state.
Prime Ministers of both sides are trying to screw us, and our humble non-cabinet parliamentarians, so they can have more power for themselves. We shouldn’t fall for it - we need to hold back the power transferred until the EU democratizes, as well as putting a proper democracy in place for the inevitable decisions that are going to be taken together (either in the EU or in international treaties).
OK, I hope now we’ve got that cleared up we can all be friends and no-one will have to call anyone else a traitor or get anybody banned. Unless Gordon Brown or Margaret Thatcher start posting, in which case everybody can lay into them together.
Thanks for clarifying Mike.
156 - Shows you are new here. That magic (and accurate) moniker was the handiwork of the illustrious Peter the Punter.
157 Every party that has ever won any election anywhere has gone back on some of its pre-election promises - quite often in a much more naked way than the issue of the European Treaty. Anyone who takes every single word of any party political manifesto at face value is much too naive IMO.
Nick - don’t go. we value your contributions. However, don’t mlstake the anger on here as the usual vitriol from terminally tedious Europhobes. The 2005 Manifesto pledge on a referendum stands. Maybe Labour shouldn’t have made it, but you did. I’m surprlsed you don’t see how clear-cut the issue is - or how damaglng it will become.
162: Not that new but….. thanks for letting me know!
159. I will take your advice on board Bob.
The more Nick protests his innocence and complains, the more I dig my heels in. It makes me even more p1ssed off and aggressive. This is exacerbated by the group of high-horse monkeys who come to his defence on how “improper” and “rude” it all is.
I don’t care what you think. Nick is voting to take even more of my powers as a citizen away from me after promising a referendum. Hence, he has betrayed me.
My opinion of Nick P has dropped dramatically (as I’m sure his has of me) I now view him as nothing more than a typical, lowly, careerist Labour stooge - without the career. I used to think he was different. Now I just think he’s unrefreshingly dishonest, evasive and untrustworthy.
I will passionately cheer the night he loses his seat in Broxtowe and gets his comeuppance. Possibly more than the defeat of any other. And I will raise a glass to his defeat.
For the time being, I will sign off before I truly blow my top.
Casino out.
166 I am as unhappy about this proposed Treaty as anyone, but this site won’t continue if we engage in personalised criticism of other posters.
You can get all you want of that on Usenet.
As one of this site’s readers I can tell you that WE will go somewhere else if the posters continuously write about themselves and not politics!
What I genuinely can’t understand is the “Red Lines, Handbrakes, etc” line being taken at the moment. I am am no Euro nutter, but it just seems a bit odd to me as a phrase.
Do they honestly think people who want a referendum will say “hang on they’ve got a handbrake, it’s all right”. What the hell is a handbrake anyway, except an emergency device that can be used for executing some amazing impressive u-turns.
Interesting arbitrage opportunity on the various Al Gore markets.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/interesting-artbitrage-opportunity/
166 Casino Royale: “Nick is voting to take even more of my powers as a citizen away from me after promising a referendum. Hence, he has betrayed me.”
Nonsense! You have a vote. You can vote Nick and his party out of office. You can vote in a British government that will reverse these amendments or even withdraw from Europe.
Stop scaremongering and try to contribute something sensible. For instance, what powers *exactly* do you think you are losing?
166 - well that’s not the sort of post that’s going to have Nick P MP hurring back, is it? You might be right with 90% of what you say in 166 but the one para which is just blatant abuse of Nick and his career is uncalled for in my view.
Anyway, I’m not getting involved.
“How does this square with Brown’s “no election” statement?”
It doesn’t, but it also shows that the Conservatives are more fiscally prudent than Labour having spent a fifth of that 1 million in preparation.
I see some interesting market movements for the GOP nomination. Thompson quite a drifter and both McCain and Huckabee shortening.
160: Interesting and worthy post but it does miss certain considerations. In particular you do not consider the matter of representation.
In a nation state such as the UK I am one voice amongst say 45-50 million. In the European Union I am one voice in say 500 million. My voice is 10 times less potent and my representative much further divorced from the life I lead. The likely result is that I and every other individual in Europe has far less democratic control over their lives.
Now if we consider the number of representatives in the relevant Parliaments. Currently there is one representative in the UK parliament for every 90,000 English based voters. I believe that is too greater number for an MP to deal with and hence I support an English Assembly to reduce the ratio to something closer to that of Scotland and Wales (which when including National Assembly members is around 1 representative in either assembly or parliament for every 30,000 people).
In the EU Parliament there is one representative for approximately 683,000 people.
Even if the EU Parliament was sovereign within the EU which it is not and we were free to vote for whatever European party we wanted it’s still a lousy deal for the voter.
There is no way one elected representative can represent nearly 700,000 people. In democratic terms it is completely unworkable and as such is not democratic and never will be.
Now you might say that we increase the number of representatives but we would need something like 7,500 representatives to bring it down to what I would consider a reasonable level of representation but of course that would be totally unmanageable as well.
The direction the EU is going in will result in the people of Europe being disenfranchised and the power that was once dispersed amongst the nations and their electorates being concentrated in a small political and intellectual elite.
That is not democracy.
175. It works in India rather well with one for every 2,066,421 people (approximately).
As for Casino at 166. Oh dear.
BTW, for everyone interested in the EU treaty - which seems to be most of the people here, judging from this and recent threads - you may note that our PM is giving a statement on it in the Commons at this very minute. Updates, no doubt, to follow…
jsfl @ 175.
no it is not democracy … but then neither is Westminster.
I am often surprised at the faith eurosceptics seem to have in our current system (not particularly directed at you jsfl)
175. Indeed it is not. Nor is it meant to be. The whole point of the EU, from the very start, has been to curb democracy and transfer power to a technocratic, transnational bureaucracy. Everything else is window dressing.
176. Having been to India for a short period and seen how different the two societies are, I think your perception of what works well and mine may be significantly different.
174 Huckabee has been doing well in the recent debates, and comes across as personable, which probably gives him favourable press. In a flawed field, he could do OK.
The thing I can’t get my head around is how short the odds on Hillary are. I mean she should be favourite for the nomination, nad the Democrat should be favoured to win, but Hillary 1/2 with Hills for the Presidency and the first priamry three months off ?
175 JSFL my point has always been that once you get into the millions, nobody has any input, be it 45 million or 450 million. It is why I have found the loss of sovereignty arguement so pointless.
We are swapping one oligarchy for another. Under which will the rest of muy life be more empowered - EU or UK is the issue? As the level of personnal affluence is the biggest key to empowerement in the individualist society of thew 21st century it has to be the EU. In this sense it is democratising
178. I do not have ‘faith’ in our current system. I believe that radical changes need to be made as I inferred to in my post. However I see no reason to elaborate on my views of UK democracy when the topic under discussion is the EU.
Suffice to say of the two systems, I believe the smaller national system is far preferable (warts and all) to one where the individual has no voice at all.
Once we are rid of the threat of an EU dictatorship we can then get down to sorting out our own democracy.
182 I don’t agree. The EU oligarchy is that bit more remote. We can at least vote out a British government. We cannot vote out those who govern us at EU level.
182. What sophistry! democracy is now redefined by the Euro-fanatics as equivalent to financial affluence. Even if the EU did improve your living standards - a big if - that is the kind of argument used by the Communist dictatorship in China, or by the Latin American Juntas of the 1970s.
Ted Heath was a big fan of China, wasn’t he?
184 In a safe parliamentary seat you have about as much de facto influence over the colour of the Westminster parliament as you do on EU commissioners.
182. That is your opinion. I do not believe it is the case.
181. Paul M. Mike put Huckabee up as a lively outsider a few months back and I have had a couple of small bets on him so I’m quite pleased to read your comments.
180. I see. So what you’re saying is that India can cope with a democratic society & european societies can’t. It’s all so clear now, the mother of parliaments needs a dictator to save her from herself!
175 jsfl. “The direction the EU is going in will result in the people of Europe being disenfranchised and the power that was once dispersed amongst the nations and their electorates being concentrated in a small political and intellectual elite.”
Sorry this is just scaremongering based on the standard myth that the EU is undemocratic. It is about time that this myth was challenged.
The Council of Ministers drives the EU, and the new Treaty strengthens its dominance. The members of the Council are the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED representatives of the member states. They decide what to do, and the Commission then frames a law to enact the appropriate legislation.
The problem with the process is not so much a lack of democracy, as the tedious horse-trading which has to go on to get good deals. This slows everything down, but is ultimately for the good. Sometimes, a country may stand to come out badly in a piece of legislation, but can be given something else in compensation, so that a good law is not blocked.
The EU is not some anti-democratic plot. It is 27 countries, of which 26 are working together to maximize their impact on the world stage for the benefit of all. The rogue state who isn’t of course is . . . . . .France! Great country (I would say that being part French), but not team players. Part of the rejection of the Constitution by the French was the fact that they realised that the EU wasn’t France’s toy to play with any more.
Having said all this in the defence of the EU, it may surprise you to learn that I DO want a referendum on the Treaty in the UK. I think that we need to have a serious national debate on this to settle it once and for all, and to know exactly what the real options are for the future of the country. We were promised one by all of the parties, and renaming the Constitution as a “Treaty” as device for getting round this is a disgraceful example of political expediency.
If you a pro-EU and think that the end justifies the means on this, then imagine if the circumstances were reversed. Imagine if a government were elected on a promise to apply to become the 51st state of the USA, but only after a referendum. However, once in power they used a form of words to pretend that they were not really jooning as a state (maybe calling it a “partnership” or something), and denied you a referendum. How would you as a pre-European feel? Pretty gutted, I suspect. That is why I feel for Seant, and the other passionate eurosceptics.
186 One vote out of several million makes no difference. You can, however, if you are interested, get involved in a UK political party, lobby MPs, etc. And a plurality of the population can remove a failing government.
Once power is transferred upwards to an EU level, you get the same people in power regardless of what a plurality thinks.
183 I might agree but how does that affect the odds or spreads?
My view is that Brown is wrong to proceed without a referendum because he does not have sufficient credit with the electorate, as a result of the botched election, IHT and loss of media support. It is likely IMO that a parliamentary session dominated by the reform treaty will damage Labour further, especially if the opposition make hay on Education, Health, Iraq, Afghanistan, Crime etc. at same time.
The general reaction to Brown’s appearance at World Cup IMHO confirms that he has been damaged and also that he lacks the sure footedness necessary to recover in the short/medium term.
Getting the Treaty through will be as it was with Maastricht a pyrrhic victory. I’d expect this to be reflected in forward views of Labour’s chances and also that a 2010 election will become more likely than a 2009 one as the EU elections will remind voters of Labour’s con trick and make them less likely to vote for Brown.
186 Jonathan I sometimes get despondent on this whole safe seats thing, (no more so than when St Helens Labour party were forced to take Woodward) , but then you read on here about the likes of Peter Golds, who through sheer hard work and old fashioned street politics has managed to get himself elected as a Tory councillor in the East End of London and I have to be encouraged that nowhere is ever truly safe. I hope there are a lot more Peter Golds out there of all parties, as it is essential for our democracy.
185
yep! got a couple of Pandas as a present, think he was on some kind of retainer from the Chinese government hence his PR for them.
Strange that Tories are so critical of Heath now, outside Conservative clubs back in the 70’s there used to be a poster of Heath, with the caption, ‘Ted Heath man of integrity’ Of course Blair is already a non-person.
If only we could turn the clock on ten years, wonder what test will be saying about Cameron then, he’s bound to fall short of expectations, seant will probably leading a campaign to have Cameron burnt at the stake for not taking us out of the EU.
193. Yes, Peter’s done a great job. I would say that *at local electoral level* there’s no such thing as a safe seat, at any rate, if the incumbent just takes it for granted, and the challenger works really hard.
194 From 1972 onwards, Heath’s popularity with Conservatives went steadily downhill. I remember watching a clip of news footage from 1974, of an interview of Conservative members, in which one commented, to general approval, that if Wilson offered you a bus ride to Westminster, you might end up in Waterloo - but with Heath, the bus wouldn’t even get out of the garage.
195 Each week people are elected to councils with the support of less than 10% of those entitled to vote. If you can be bothered and work hard a small team can win a council seat. That’s only down to the total and abject failiure of mainstream politics to engage the electorate.
181&188 - Me too! I bought Huck as something of a saver, having previously backed Brownback as a complete outsider, I’ve never fancied any of the short priced candidates and still feel this is wide open.
stjohn - remember, remember the third of November, it’s Villa vs Derby - are you giving me a two goal start for a score?
190. Disraeli: Please do not misrepresent what I said by interpreting it in a manner convenient to your argument. This is not about plots and conspiracies.
Other than your support for a referendum, we will have to agree to differ. I do not believe in centralisation of power or anything else for that matter. There is a threshold beyond which centralisation loses all its advantages (I believe we are already suffering from this nationally).
The supposed economies and advantages tend to disappear rapidly and are replaced by waste, inconsistency, incompetence, confused and insufficient communication and eventually failure.
That is what I believe is in store for this country if it continues to shackle itself to the EU.
I believe in devolved responsibility and accountability and greater democracy. The EU is the antithesis of this. So instead of embracing EU federalism we should be heading in the opposite direction…..
183. Well I guess it diminishes my chances of getting what I want from 50,000,000-1 to 500,000,000-1. Not bads odd really do you think???
;o)
Surely the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
Can we have a pb referendum on the “referendum”? I propose nobody should post on this subject until Mike features it again. How about some more betting posts and getting some good natured humour back into the site?
Oops! Ted post 200 was in response to yours at 192
spot on agingjb!
one of the first rules of human geography is that all lines lie!
Anyone know when the next polls are due.
All this talk about the EU doesn’t alter the fact that hardly anyone actually cares about it. Apart from a few politicos and journalists most people are hardly aware that it exists let alone care what is in the treaties.
197
“. That’s only down to the total and abject failiure of mainstream politics to engage the electorate”
I would argue its due to the success of mainstream politicians - of ALL parties - in centralising evrything.
(Imo Mrs Thatcher should have let the Liverpool City Council go bust as a terrible lesson for Militant).
With everything centralised and local councillors ooperating to far higher levels of probity (rules that is ) than MPs, and with little to influence, I am surprised so many cadidates stand..
202.Well the next thread is already up, and its about betting on whether Brown will have to have - a referendum.
Re 63, Blue Moon, “Benedict Don’t provoke me into a site search!”
Consider yourself provoked, and not only that but you can look at my blog also.
Re 74, Jonathan, “:?: The next lib Dem leader (after elected)”
Re 83, Jonathan, “The commentariat - the vibrant, throbbing centre of British political thought or a bunch of useless, self-regarding gobshites who have never done a useful days work in their lives? Discuss.”
Or:
The Labour Party - the vibrant, throbbing centre of British political thought or a bunch of useless, self-regarding gobshites who have never done a useful days work in their lives? Discuss.
?
Re 116, Mister Chip, “Yet again, a thread about Brown’s election spending turns into a dialogue of the deaf about the European Union.”
Pardon? Speak up man, I can’t quite hear you