http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/eu-speech-at-bloomberg/
http://news.sky.com/story/1041728/eu-speech-a-huge-throw-of-dice-for-cameron
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9821587/Ed-Miliband-opposes-EU-vote-but-party-says-just-for-now.html
David Cameron has delivered his much-awaited speech on Britain's future in the European Union.
His pledge to offer the British people a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, has, predictably, had a mixed reaction from across the political spectrum.
There's no doubt that the speech was written with Tory Euro-sceptic MPs in mind, who have been calling for a referendum for years, as well as the growing number of Tory voters who now clearly want Britain to leave the EU and have been deserting David Cameron for UKIP in their droves.
However, despite a small poll-bounce in favour of the Tories immediately after the speech, it is clear that Mr Cameron still has a mountain to climb if he is to win a Conservative majority at the next general election in 2015.
Making a pledge to hold a referendum is one thing; implementing Britain's withdrawl from the EU is quite another.
Polls show that the majority of British people want to leave the EU now rather than later.
The circumstances surrounding Britain's last referendum in 1975 are radically removed from the terms of any subsequent vote on Europe. Then, we were voting to join a single market. Since then the powers of what is now the European Union have increased very dramatically, without the British people having a say on whether they like these arrangements or not.
However, Britain leaving the EU will be entirely dependent on negotiations to this end reaching a swift and satisfactory outcome. The voices of opposition have been quick to make themselves heard.
Nick Clegg has pointed out that the Prime Minister has sentenced this country to years of uncertainty whilst talks to secure Britain's future position take place. This has been reinforced by US President Obama suggesting that Britain should stay in the EU. And now leading economists have weighed in; suggesting that merely having a debate on the issue is damaging economic growth. http://news.sky.com/politics
So what has Labour's reaction to all this?
I have long maintained that Ed Miliband should support an in-out referendum on Europe, since it is clearly what the British people want and such a policy would certainly be a vote-winner for Labour.
However, Miliband has completely failed to grasp the political initiative and Labour's response to Cameron's pledge to hold an in-out referendum in 2017 was nothing short of a shambles.
On the one hand, at PMQs immediately following Cameron's address, Miliband appeared to rule out a referendum all together. But only a few hours later, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander contradicted his leader's position by insisting Labour had not ruled out support for a referendum, as did several other frontbench colleagues.
Labour currently has a very comfortable lead in the polls, but they have missed a golden opportunity to consolidate their position even further and show that they are really in tune with the thinking of the British people.
The Prime Minister has responded to his backbenchers in agreeing to hold a referendum and it clearly has the support of the electorate.
But with Britain teetering on the edge of a possible triple-dip recession, one has to ask whether it will be the economy and unemployment, rather than a protracted debate on Europe, which will be a greater worry for the Prime Minister in the run-up to the next election.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Monday, 7 January 2013
Strathclyde Resignation Puts Dampener On Coalition Relaunch
http://m.sky.com/skynews/article/politics/1034474
The much-publicised relaunch of the Coalition today was somewhat overshadowed by the departure of Lord Strathclyde, Leader of The House of Lords.
The veteran Tory peer, who has served on the Tory frontbench for the last 25 years, announced he was leaving the government with immediate effect to resume a career in business.
However he has made it clear how difficult it has been working with the Liberal Democrats in the Lords.
Lord Strathclyde's resignation can therefore only been seen at best, as an embarrassment to Messrs Cameron and Clegg. The Prime Minister, especially, considered him a strong ally in Cabinet.
However, the two men did their best to play up the achievements of the Coalition thus far.
Yes, they have reduced the budget deficit by half, but there was no mention of the fact that Britain was still in danger of slipping back into recession, nor that many families now face huge financial hardship, thanks to the cuts to Child Benefit.
This was, thankfully, not a repeat of the nauseating spectacle in 2010, of the two Party leaders fawning over each other in the Downing Street Rose Garden. The Prime Minister emphasised that 'this is not a marriage.'
Indeed, major policy differences remain, not least on welfare, which will no doubt be laid bare in the House of Commons during the debate this week.
Of course both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are committed, they say, to ensuring the Coalition lasts until 2015.
But what are we to make of the Deputy Prime Minister's decision to participate in regular phone-ins on LBC?
It is clearly a sign of desperation on both his and the Liberal Democrats' part, given how unpopular their decision to go into government with the Tories has been. There is a real danger of this backfiring for Nick Clegg; remember how his televised apology for supporting an increase in university tuition fees was parodied and played endlessly online?
Being so accessible to voters on radio will expose him to all kinds of abuse from an electorate clearly angry with Mr Clegg and his party for deserting them just so that he and his Party could have a small taste of power. http://news.sky.com/story/1034372/nick-clegg-signs-up-to-lbc-radio-phone-in
Can Cameron Win The Next Election?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9770710/Its-two-years-away-but-the-2015-election-is-already-lost.html
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/03/looking-to-history/
It would seem David Cameron's chances of victory in 2015 are looking increasingly slim.
If the commentators are right, there are a number of factors that have considerably altered the political landscape since the Conservatives emerged as the largest party at the 2010 General Election.
The latest opinion polls are putting UKIP in third place, ahead of the Liberal Democrats for the first time. If these results were repeated in the next election, the Tories would lose as many as 40-50 seats and almost certainly relinquish power. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257797/UKIP-surge-set-cost-Tories-51-seats--Miliband-victory-Stunning-blow-Cameron-poll-says-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html.
So is this just government mid-term blues, or something more terminal?
Political analysts are beginning to suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome and when it is The Daily Telegraph and Conservative Home that are predicting defeat for Mr Cameron in 2015, then the Prime Minister cannot afford to ignore the warnings.
The Tory Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, predictably, was very quick to dismiss the latest poll results as a temporary protest on the part of their supporters. And Mr Cameron together with his deputy, Nick Clegg, have once again staged a re-launch of the Coalition, just over half way through its five-year term.
But it may take more than warm words and sound-bites to change the way the wind is blowing.
It is looking increasingly likely that Labour will emerge at least with the largest number of seats at the next election, if not an overall majority.
So what could stand in the way of Mr Cameron winning outright in 2015?
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Paul Goodman, executive editor of Conservative Home, believes that the outcome of the next election is already decided and suggests four major reasons why Cameron will not win an overall majority.
Firstly, one can cite the Conservatives' failure to win over ethnic-minority voters. In 2010, only 16% voted for them, not much of an increase from 10% in 2001. The Prime Minister has appointed Alok Sharma MP as vice-chairman to try and encourage more more minority-support but so far this tactic has not born any fruit, with the share of the vote likely to go down next time, not up. Cameron will be mindful of the fact that several years of having Saaeda Warsi as co-Chair of the party did little to attract ethnic minority support in 2010, so it is unlikely the new vice-chairman will really make a difference. As with Mitt Romney in the US, Cameron's message has only resonated so far with white Middle England and not with the population as a whole.
It would also seem that Cameron's insistence on pushing through proposals to legalise same-sex marriage will have highly negative consequences. There was no mention of these proposals in either the Tories' or Liberal Democrats' manifestoes in 2010, or in their Coalition agreement. This has really riled those MPs on Tory right and more importantly, a large majority of the 'conservative' grass-roots. It is these voters whose support Cameron needs to retain if he is to stay in Downing Street.
The rise of UKIP is also likely have an adverse effect on the Tory vote in 2015. Whilst they may not win any seats next time, as well as now being viewed as an alternative for those wishing to see the UK leave the EU, UKIP has emerged as a voice for discontented voters unhappy with current policies on immigration and crime, not to mention those against same-sex marriage.
Farage has very shrewdly presented UKIP as the party many Tories used to vote for. Just as the formation of the SDP in the 1980s split the Labour Party and helped Margaret Thatcher to win a huge majority in 1983, UKIP is doing exactly the same to the Tory vote. And whilst no Tory big-hitter is yet to defect to UKIP, they are bound to increase their share of the vote in 2015.
The third problem for Cameron is that disunity amonst the Left of British politics is, for once, almost non-existent. And here is the big boost for Ed Miliband; traditional Liberal Democrats have deserted the party in droves since the last election and are now backing Labour. It is unlikely that Miliband will be able to convince enough Tory voters to switch directly to Labour in 2015, but he doesn't need to; if enough former Liberal Democrat voters support Miliband, then he is home and dry. Going on current poll-ratings, he will easily win a 30% share of the vote, if not more.
The fourth factor which could undermine the Conservatives' chances of outright victory is demographic. Current constituency boundaries are more likely to benefit Labour. The Tories' will need to lead Labour by seven points in 2015 to scrape even a bare majority.
So is the outcome of the next General Election already determined?
With the economy also yet to show any signs of recovery, Mr Cameron's days at Number 10 may very well be numbered.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2013/01/03/looking-to-history/
It would seem David Cameron's chances of victory in 2015 are looking increasingly slim.
If the commentators are right, there are a number of factors that have considerably altered the political landscape since the Conservatives emerged as the largest party at the 2010 General Election.
The latest opinion polls are putting UKIP in third place, ahead of the Liberal Democrats for the first time. If these results were repeated in the next election, the Tories would lose as many as 40-50 seats and almost certainly relinquish power. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257797/UKIP-surge-set-cost-Tories-51-seats--Miliband-victory-Stunning-blow-Cameron-poll-says-hell-lost-dozens-MPs-Labour-landslide.html.
So is this just government mid-term blues, or something more terminal?
Political analysts are beginning to suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome and when it is The Daily Telegraph and Conservative Home that are predicting defeat for Mr Cameron in 2015, then the Prime Minister cannot afford to ignore the warnings.
The Tory Party Chairman, Grant Shapps, predictably, was very quick to dismiss the latest poll results as a temporary protest on the part of their supporters. And Mr Cameron together with his deputy, Nick Clegg, have once again staged a re-launch of the Coalition, just over half way through its five-year term.
But it may take more than warm words and sound-bites to change the way the wind is blowing.
It is looking increasingly likely that Labour will emerge at least with the largest number of seats at the next election, if not an overall majority.
So what could stand in the way of Mr Cameron winning outright in 2015?
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Paul Goodman, executive editor of Conservative Home, believes that the outcome of the next election is already decided and suggests four major reasons why Cameron will not win an overall majority.
Firstly, one can cite the Conservatives' failure to win over ethnic-minority voters. In 2010, only 16% voted for them, not much of an increase from 10% in 2001. The Prime Minister has appointed Alok Sharma MP as vice-chairman to try and encourage more more minority-support but so far this tactic has not born any fruit, with the share of the vote likely to go down next time, not up. Cameron will be mindful of the fact that several years of having Saaeda Warsi as co-Chair of the party did little to attract ethnic minority support in 2010, so it is unlikely the new vice-chairman will really make a difference. As with Mitt Romney in the US, Cameron's message has only resonated so far with white Middle England and not with the population as a whole.
It would also seem that Cameron's insistence on pushing through proposals to legalise same-sex marriage will have highly negative consequences. There was no mention of these proposals in either the Tories' or Liberal Democrats' manifestoes in 2010, or in their Coalition agreement. This has really riled those MPs on Tory right and more importantly, a large majority of the 'conservative' grass-roots. It is these voters whose support Cameron needs to retain if he is to stay in Downing Street.
The rise of UKIP is also likely have an adverse effect on the Tory vote in 2015. Whilst they may not win any seats next time, as well as now being viewed as an alternative for those wishing to see the UK leave the EU, UKIP has emerged as a voice for discontented voters unhappy with current policies on immigration and crime, not to mention those against same-sex marriage.
Farage has very shrewdly presented UKIP as the party many Tories used to vote for. Just as the formation of the SDP in the 1980s split the Labour Party and helped Margaret Thatcher to win a huge majority in 1983, UKIP is doing exactly the same to the Tory vote. And whilst no Tory big-hitter is yet to defect to UKIP, they are bound to increase their share of the vote in 2015.
The third problem for Cameron is that disunity amonst the Left of British politics is, for once, almost non-existent. And here is the big boost for Ed Miliband; traditional Liberal Democrats have deserted the party in droves since the last election and are now backing Labour. It is unlikely that Miliband will be able to convince enough Tory voters to switch directly to Labour in 2015, but he doesn't need to; if enough former Liberal Democrat voters support Miliband, then he is home and dry. Going on current poll-ratings, he will easily win a 30% share of the vote, if not more.
The fourth factor which could undermine the Conservatives' chances of outright victory is demographic. Current constituency boundaries are more likely to benefit Labour. The Tories' will need to lead Labour by seven points in 2015 to scrape even a bare majority.
So is the outcome of the next General Election already determined?
With the economy also yet to show any signs of recovery, Mr Cameron's days at Number 10 may very well be numbered.
Friday, 4 January 2013
Plebgate: Did PM Leave Mitchell Out To Dry?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/plebgate-andrew-mitchells-camp-turns-its-guns-on-david-cameron-8429559.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgxN_cHmdnU&feature=g-crec-f&list=FL2ymvZ08BCNBu9utNKZFoPA
http://www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-row-exclusive-cctv-video-footage
It all looked like an open-and-shut case in September.
The newly-promoted Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell was accused of swearing at the police and calling them 'plebs'; he was branded a complete embarassment to David Cameron's more open and accessible Tory Party.
Now CCTV footage has emerged that shows that Mr Mitchell did not engage in any tirade with the police at the gates of Downing Street that day. And more disturbingly, contrary to the account given by the police on duty, there were not, as previously stated, several bystanders at the gates who witnessed the whole incident.
Of course an enquiry into the affair is yet to take place, but Mr Mitchell's supporters have accused the Prime Minister of not standing by him and basically looking on as the ex-Chief Whip hanged out to dry.
Whatever side of the political fence one is on, the scenario of an innocent man being stitched up by the police is absolutely appalling. Yes, officers are angry with the Coalition at proposals to cut police numbers, but that is absolutely no reason to deliberately ruin the reputation and career of a hard-working cabinet minister.
Very significantly the whole episode throws the spotlight squarely on the Prime Minister.
According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has known about the footage that would undoubtedly undermine the police's version of events, for at least three months.
What does that say about the integrity of this government? And indeed all those who were so quick to make political capital out of Mr Mitchell's predicament?
Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately jumped on the bandwagon, using the platform of PMQs to directly accuse Mr Mitchell of using the word 'plebs'.
In my opinion, should any enquiry completely clear Mr Mitchell of any wrong doing, Mr Miliband should immediately apologise to him, as should those in the Police Federation who so hastily called for the Chief Whip to be sacked.
Perhaps with hindsight, Mr Mitchell's decision to stay away from the Tory Party Conference, was a mistake. It simply made him look guilty. But after all, there is a world of difference between muttering 'I thought you guys were supposed to f...king help us' and shouting at the police that 'you're all f...king plebs' and 'you should know your.. place'.
If the enquiry officially clears Mr Mitchell, then I and all those commentators and politicians who called for his sacking owe him a huge apology.
Mr Mitchell should then in my view, immediately be re-instated as a Cabinet Minister.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgxN_cHmdnU&feature=g-crec-f&list=FL2ymvZ08BCNBu9utNKZFoPA
http://www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-row-exclusive-cctv-video-footage
It all looked like an open-and-shut case in September.
The newly-promoted Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell was accused of swearing at the police and calling them 'plebs'; he was branded a complete embarassment to David Cameron's more open and accessible Tory Party.
Now CCTV footage has emerged that shows that Mr Mitchell did not engage in any tirade with the police at the gates of Downing Street that day. And more disturbingly, contrary to the account given by the police on duty, there were not, as previously stated, several bystanders at the gates who witnessed the whole incident.
Of course an enquiry into the affair is yet to take place, but Mr Mitchell's supporters have accused the Prime Minister of not standing by him and basically looking on as the ex-Chief Whip hanged out to dry.
Whatever side of the political fence one is on, the scenario of an innocent man being stitched up by the police is absolutely appalling. Yes, officers are angry with the Coalition at proposals to cut police numbers, but that is absolutely no reason to deliberately ruin the reputation and career of a hard-working cabinet minister.
Very significantly the whole episode throws the spotlight squarely on the Prime Minister.
According to the Independent, Mr Cameron has known about the footage that would undoubtedly undermine the police's version of events, for at least three months.
What does that say about the integrity of this government? And indeed all those who were so quick to make political capital out of Mr Mitchell's predicament?
Labour leader Ed Miliband immediately jumped on the bandwagon, using the platform of PMQs to directly accuse Mr Mitchell of using the word 'plebs'.
In my opinion, should any enquiry completely clear Mr Mitchell of any wrong doing, Mr Miliband should immediately apologise to him, as should those in the Police Federation who so hastily called for the Chief Whip to be sacked.
Perhaps with hindsight, Mr Mitchell's decision to stay away from the Tory Party Conference, was a mistake. It simply made him look guilty. But after all, there is a world of difference between muttering 'I thought you guys were supposed to f...king help us' and shouting at the police that 'you're all f...king plebs' and 'you should know your.. place'.
If the enquiry officially clears Mr Mitchell, then I and all those commentators and politicians who called for his sacking owe him a huge apology.
Mr Mitchell should then in my view, immediately be re-instated as a Cabinet Minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)