Anyway thank god No's going to win.

 

(if Danny gets to be repetitive on Labour I get to be repetitive on this referendum)

Sigh. Remarkably stupid suggestion from some Labour backbenchers about trying to make the party "tough on immigration":

 

 

Miliband is facing a backbench revolt over immigration policy as senior Labour MPs publicly warn of catastrophic consequences for the party unless he seeks constraints on the free movement of EU workers.

 

The unrestricted entry of EU citizens from eastern Europe since 2004 is hurting the "very communities that the Labour party was founded to represent", the MPs claim in an open letter published in the Observer.

 

Miliband is urged by the rebels, including two former ministers, to commit a Labour government to seeking to constrain the free movement of labour from European countries with much lower incomes than the UK, such as Romania and Bulgaria. Two million national insurance numbers have been issued to nationals from eastern European accession countries since 2004.

 

In an attempt to force Miliband's hand, the MPs claim that the "political consequences of these trends could prove catastrophic for our party unless voters can see we are intent on taking serious action".

 

The MPs' public show of frustration follows a speech by Miliband in Thurrock, Essex, last week in which he reached out to Ukip voters by claiming to understand their concerns while signalling that he would not be offering false promises of radical changes to migration policy in the EU.

 

The seven rebel MPs, who include Frank Field, Kate Hoey and John Mann, expect to attract further support within the parliamentary party over the coming weeks. They claim that the party's position as it stands is not radical enough.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/m...-mass-migration

 

Will Ed Miliband actually for once in his life take a firm stand, and say point blank that it won't be happening no matter what? Or will he do his usual by dithering for weeks with Douglas Alexander, before eventually coming out with some weak, triangulated, split-the-difference mess which doesn't satisfy anyone on either side, topped off with contradictory statements like "We won't stoop to the level of the Tories and UKIP" while simultaneously saying "people are right to be concerned if a family of Romanians move into your street or if you don't see a single white face in the town centre" and then scrabbling around for any microscopic difference which allows them to feel their position is different to the other parties'.

Edited May 31, 201411 yr by Danny

They're the few social conservatives of the party anyway.

They're the few social conservatives of the party anyway.

 

But it's not just confined to them, judging by some of the comments made by Ed Balls in recent days.

Edited June 1, 201411 yr by Danny

Ed Miliband's personal ratings now below NICK CLEGG's, for what I presume is the first time. And not because people think he's a dangerous Marxist or because they think he'll bankrupt us!!!11, but because people overwhelmingly think he's "weak", a "pushover" and "has no idea what he stands for".

 

Meanwhile, David Cameron's ratings have become pretty respectable, they're now on par with the ratings Tony Blair had in the run-up to the 2001 election.

I don't think anyone thinks his ratings are now below Clegg because he's a 'dangerous Marxist'. The people who thought that have been hating him since day 1, and he's had positive ratings since. His ratings are below Clegg because the whole affair around The Sun has fucked off the people who still backed him.

Again though, like so many things, it's not just the Sun picture itself, it's that it's fed into an overriding impression that Miliband is a spineless idiot with no principles (even people who read the Sun will still have lost respect for someone who made one of their very few principles being "standing up to the Murdoch empire" and then doing a gratuitous plug for it).

 

But I think you're right that even the Wesminster bubble are catching up with the reality that noone in the real world thinks he's left-wing. I expect the Tories to push the "weak" line exclusively from now on. In fact, far from trying to claim Labour had a tax-and-spend bombshell or whatever, I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories make a virtue out of Labour completely surrendering on spending and welfare and everything else. "If he gives in so easily when his political opponents and the press start bullying him, just imagine what he'd be like in negotiations with Putin."

Edited June 18, 201411 yr by Danny

That consistent lead is back again.

That consistent lead is back again.

 

Until the next time they start getting media attention and start annoying the hell out of everyone again with their convoluted, thinktank-developed-but-nonsensical-in-the-real-world policies (the latest example being on the railways).

Is it nonsensical in the real world to have public and private compete for a franchise on the basis of which could run the better service? I kind of thought we left the whole 'private always good/public always bad' and vice versa nonsense to the Tories and the Eoin Clarkes of the world.

In any case, the lead's back because UKIP's gone down. The big surge they had was taking away primarily from Labour - around 12/13% seems to be the line at which they start proportionally taking more Labour votes than Tory ones. I'd be surprised if they got above 13% next year. We already saw that people treated local election votes very differently to European election votes (in my constituency Labour won the local elections solidly on total votes, but lost very narrowly to Ukip), and when you take the polls of those (Ashcroft IIRC) who voted Ukip in the Europeans it was only about half who said they'd vote Ukip again in the generals. Which would bring things back to 13 or so percent...

 

(and as a personal theory, I think it's likely Ukip will get much less attention next year. The novelty's gone, and those opposed to them in the media will surely realise that not talking about Ukip is far more effective as a way of keeping them down. Just witness the last few months...)

Is it nonsensical in the real world to have public and private compete for a franchise on the basis of which could run the better service? I kind of thought we left the whole 'private always good/public always bad' and vice versa nonsense to the Tories and the Eoin Clarkes of the world.

 

LMAO. Incoherence on the level of "it's right to pose with a copy of the Sun, and it's right to be diisgusted at someone who poses with the Sun" and "cuts are right, but cuts if they're being carried out by the Tories are wrong". One day, the past 20 years' worth of Labour politicians (and assorted thinktankists) will make a fascinating study for psychologists for the phenomenon of "narcissism of minor differences".

Edited July 17, 201411 yr by Danny

How is it incoherent to say that some private companies run things better than the state and others don't? I'm sure you don't actually think Tesco and G4S are as competent as each other just because they're both private. It's literally the entire point of competition that some companies deliver a good service and others do not. A mixed economy is pretty good evidence of that.

 

And in any case, only an absolute moron would put forward 'cuts are right but cuts if they're being carried out by the Tories are wrong' without qualification - namely, the level at which they're done.

LATEST NEWS: only full communism or full market economy workable; everything else 'incoherent'

 

(p5: sweden 'agog')

UKIP's coverage in the general election will be determined largely by Ofcom. If they are consistently fourth in the polls and have not won a by-election they will find it a lot harder to make a case for them to be treated as a major party which is likely to mean that they get minimal exposure. If they do get more exposure then it is a matter of whether that focuses on policies or just more footage (or should that be metreage to upset him?) of Farage posing with a pint in his hand.

UKIP's coverage in the general election will be determined largely by Ofcom. If they are consistently fourth in the polls and have not won a by-election they will find it a lot harder to make a case for them to be treated as a major party which is likely to mean that they get minimal exposure. If they do get more exposure then it is a matter of whether that focuses on policies or just more footage (or should that be metreage to upset him?) of Farage posing with a pint in his hand.

Was coverage balance mandated by Ofcom for the Europeans? Because if so Ukip's coverage definitely crossed the line.

How is it incoherent to say that some private companies run things better than the state and others don't? I'm sure you don't actually think Tesco and G4S are as competent as each other just because they're both private. It's literally the entire point of competition that some companies deliver a good service and others do not. A mixed economy is pretty good evidence of that.

 

And in any case, only an absolute moron would put forward 'cuts are right but cuts if they're being carried out by the Tories are wrong' without qualification - namely, the level at which they're done.

 

I have a serious question, no sarcasm intended. Why don't you join the Lib Dems? Based on your postings on this board, under Clegg they seem to have a platform which is identical to everything you want -- a belief that the "public finances" and satisfying "the markets" are the most important things, and wanting to make huge cuts only with a sadder expression on your face than George Osborne; some social-liberal stances on peripheral issues like Europe or immigration which allows you to feel more "respectable" than the dastardly Tories. I genuinely can't see anything you would disagree with them on? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Was coverage balance mandated by Ofcom for the Europeans? Because if so Ukip's coverage definitely crossed the line.

 

Here's the Ofcom review regarding major parties, stating that it considers UKIP to be a major party in regards to European Elections (excluding Scotland) , but not the General Election. As to whether their coverage went above and beyond that, I imagine we'll hear something from Ofcom on that subject in the future.

 

As far as UKIP are concerned, unless there are defections to UKIP from the Conservatives before May (possibly by some deselected candidates), I cannot see the party picking up more than a single figure amount of seats, if any at all. There's no way they'll be promoted to major party status for Westminster.

I have a serious question, no sarcasm intended. Why don't you join the Lib Dems? Based on your postings on this board, under Clegg they seem to have a platform which is identical to everything you want -- a belief that the "public finances" and satisfying "the markets" are the most important things, and wanting to make huge cuts only with a sadder expression on your face than George Osborne; some social-liberal stances on peripheral issues like Europe or immigration which allows you to feel more "respectable" than the dastardly Tories. I genuinely can't see anything you would disagree with them on? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I prefer it when people believe me when I make a promise. And for my parties to have platforms which will be roughly consistent with what they are now in three years time.

 

Snark aside, it's partly a cultural thing and partly a policy thing. I don't believe satisfying the markets is the most important thing - if I did, my position would be closer to 'cut the deficit overnight and bring in a flat tax tomorrow'. But I don't believe that large deficits should be more than a short-term solution, as unless you have the confidence of those lending the money the interest only spirals (and as I've said before, I think the Tories get away with far more than we ever could on this because of the in-built bias of those who tend to be lending the money).

 

I believe tax should play far more of a part in financing a deficit than is currently the case. I believe the UK should intervene with soldiers on the ground where crimes against humanity are occurring (although for now Labour doesn't agree with me on this one either, but the Lib Dems pioneered the art of being extremely pious about this sort of thing first). I don't believe the EU is perfect. I don't believe in free university education, and neither do I believe in charging people triple to receive a worse education. I also don't spend my time obsessing over peripheral issues or being a single-issue loon, which accounts for about 90% of the membership. I much prefer being in a party that spends its time trying to work out solutions on the issues that matter. I prefer being in a party which doesn't fight absolutely disgraceful election campaigns on a local basis (homophobia and racism still aren't dead at a local level in that party - anything they can use against you, they will).

 

That and the fucking bar charts.

I believe tax should play far more of a part in financing a deficit than is currently the case.

 

So you don't want yet more huge spending cuts? I always thought you did, but maybe I misunderstood!

 

What taxes would you raise?