Coffee House

David Cameron gets bullish on European elections: but what’s his clean-up plan?

9 May 2014

9:18 AM

9 May 2014

9:18 AM

David Cameron has now decided that rather than pretend Ukip don’t exist, he’s going to attack them, and do so repeatedly. This morning on BBC Breakfast, the Prime Minister remarked that ‘we’ve seen some extraordinary statements from Ukip financial backers and candidates and I think it does go to the issue of the competence of the party: what on earth are they doing selecting people and allowing people like this to be in their party’.

[Alt-Text]


But the Prime Minister didn’t just attack the ‘people like this’ who he clearly feels prove his old theory about fruitcakes without him needing to repeat those insults. He also tried to reason with voters about whether they should have an angry moment in the European elections, or whether their vote is still important. He said:

‘But my pitch in this election is to remember: when you vote, you are sending people to run your local council, set your local council tax, you’re sending people to the European Parliament who will legislate on the regulation faced by British business and the bills paid by British taxpayers.

‘So we need the politics of the answer – we need parties that have a plan, as we have a plan in the Conservative party to deal with these things. So just sending a message or making a protest doesn’t actually achieve, I think, what people want.’

Clearly the Prime Minister feels that firstly Ukip has recently given itself enough rope to make attacking its credibility and competence seem worthwhile rather than bullying or dismissive. Perhaps he feels that some of the candidates and party figures who’ve made it into print and broadcasts will push voters beyond considering Ukip a protest vote and towards considering it an unpleasant party with racist candidates. There isn’t much evidence so far, though, that these exposés turn voters off Nigel Farage’s party. Secondly, he clearly thinks there may be some mileage in trying to persuade voters away from Ukip, rather than consigning the European election result to the great dustbin of embarrassing but rather meaningless results for an incumbent government.

Either way, his swing voter Tory MPs who I’ve been talking to over the past few weeks are keen for the PM to have a post-European election plan. They know that Downing Street is eyeing various policies on human rights reform and the like that are sitting on shelves waiting for a good day for an announcement as a means of buying off angry Tory right-wingers. But they also want a push from the troops. There are many backbenchers who have strong eurosceptic credibility as a result of rebellions (and ministers such as Andrea Leadsom too) who are pretty happy with the way the Prime Minister is behaving and who wouldn’t mind spending the days after the European result taking to the airwaves and penning op-eds arguing that the party is fine, it will recover and that everything’s on track for 2015. Their great fear, though, is that Number 10 won’t organise this kind of fightback, leaving a radio silence into which ministers with a track record of gratuitously insulting Ukip, such as Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke, can wander and wreak havoc.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Conway

    David Cameron has now decided that rather than pretend Ukip don’t exist, he’s going to attack them, and do so repeatedly.” Oh good. It’s going to be like being savaged by a sheep. Should bring in a few more votes for UKIP.

  • saffrin

    Cameron, oh what a wheeze, the man that all but lost the unlosable 2010 General Election thinks to lecture us.
    Ha, bloody ha.

  • you_kid

    If he is going to attack UKIP he must expose the UKIP fallacy of the discrimination of labour on the grounds of skill.

    • saffrin

      Wot?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …forget it, he’s rolling.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “There are many backbenchers who have strong eurosceptic credibility as a result of rebellions (and ministers such as Andrea Leadsom too) … ”

    Andrea Leadsom, “strong Eurosceptic credibility”?

    You’ve really lost the plot if you think that.

  • Robert_Eve

    Yesterday I read somewhere that UKIP are describing LibLabCon as the legacy parties.

    Love it!!

  • Smithersjones2013

    I’m starting to think that some sad little braindead troll in CCHQ drafts these articles and Izzy just puts her name to them without reading the. No self respecting journalist would write such simpering sycophantic propaganda Truly pathetic stuff especially this:

    There are many backbenchers who have strong eurosceptic credibility as a
    result of rebellions (and ministers such as Andrea Leadsom too) who are
    pretty happy with the way the Prime Minister is behaving

    That statement is a contradiction in terms.. You just cannot be Eurosceptic and happy with the man who supinely prostrated himself at the alter of ever closer union as Brussels began the annexation of Europe.

  • an ex-tory voter

    “you’re sending people to the European Parliament who will legislate on
    the regulation faced by British business and the bills paid by British
    taxpayers”

    Tell me please Mr Cameron, who is it in the European Parliament that legislates?

    My understanding is that all legislation is created by the European Commission and it’s executive. The European Parliament has no power to block, modify or repeal any legislation against the will of the Commission.

    The European Commission is an unelected body over which the electorate has no power either directly via the election of it’s officers, or indirectly via the MEPs it has elected but who hold no sway over The Commission.

    Tell me Mr Cameron, is this really the kind of “democracy” which you as a “Conservative” are in all conscience reccommending to the people of this nation?

  • Blazeaway

    Just one council by-election yesterday:

    Con 48% (-4%)
    UKIP 28.5% (+28.5%)
    Lab 22% (-7%)
    LD 1.5% (-17.5%)

  • alabenn

    Cameron has problems with his backbenchers, Miliband has problems with his core supporters.
    Any election that gives UKIP a higher rating than the two major parties, is of great significance, it indicates the time for one of them may be drawing to a close, Labour would be the logical casualty as it is now basically a party that tries to represent several divergent and in one case irreconcilable views, the progressives and Muslims can not carry on dodging each others hard line views, homosexuality and women are but two massive gulfs, to think otherwise is infantile in the extreme. in all probability if Miliband does not win in 2015, Labour itself will disintegrate.

    • Smithersjones2013

      Labour would be the logical casualty as it is now basically a party that
      tries to represent several divergent and in one case irreconcilable
      views,

      Whilst I certainly see the logic of your argument the problem is that increasingly other than occasionally seeming like a sad caricature of Labour Party, the Tories represent absolutely nothing at all except their own opaque vested interests. They are a divided broken divided dysfunctional hollowed out shell of a party. Imagine the rotting remains of a crab shell stranded on the beach. That’s the Tory party. At least Milliband as deranged as he is represents a certain faction of society.

      If a party is to collapse after defeat I think the Tory party is far more likely to collapse than Labour

      • alabenn

        The Labour core is made up of sections of people with varying differences, some like the large sect that is Muslim differ wildly from the others.
        The Tory core are virtually of the same mind except for few fanatical Euro federalists, the rotting remains are the very few at the top, the shell is still there, it just needs to put a body in it that represents the party, it will still be around when the types represented by the likes of Cameron, Patten and Grieve are gone.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          The contemporary Left is always going to be composed of fragmented grievance groups. That’s their natural state. It’s conservatives who have to have a reasonable settlement, in order to survive, and so it’s likely to be the party of the Camerloons that will implode, and be replaced.

          • alabenn

            I can see your point, but just to read Hookslaws wriggling as he transfers his loyalties to what would be a really Eurosceptic party leadership would be priceless, but he will stay loyal.
            That is one of the reasons I do not think the Conservative party will disintegrate.
            Labour are held together now by separate interests that have nothing in common, in ten years the Muslims who are gaining in size will not tolerate the likes of Miliband and co, they will move or take over, either way Labour is dead in the water, just a matter of time before it slips under.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Lab can only implode as a reaction to the Cameroons implosion and a conservative revival through UKIP. Lab can survive anything except that, but that conservative revival will inevitably strip them of support, and bring on their own implosion. Other than that, they can carry on as before.

              But the Cameroon implosion is coming. The Kippers will never relent. Never. Populist movements never do, until their organizing ideals are addressed proper. ‘Til then, it’s a cage match for them. Two walk in, one walks out. You can tell that the LibLabCon understand this, too, and this is why they are fighting back so viscerally and savagely. They know their world will be basically destroyed, when that implosion occurs.

  • Chris Quin

    Here’s a strategy for the Tory party, after the Euro election thrashing that they are now going to receive.

    1. Dump Cameron
    2. Declare support for leaving the EU.
    3. Hold a EU In-Out referendum alongside the General Election
    4. Renegotiate if we opt to stay in. (which we won’t)

    • Tony Quintus

      and how exactly would you propose to pass referendum legislation without an overall majority?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        If it doesn’t pass, then hold the GE on those terms.

        • Tony Quintus

          It wont pass, cameron knows it wont pass, every MP, for or against, knows it wont pass. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have siad they’d three line whip in opposition to it, why put legislation forward just to make yourself look weaker?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            The above strategy is to advance party politics, after the May 22 wipeout.

            It involves taking a tougher line on the EUSSR, unlike Dave’s rollover.

            That means you offer up that tough line, put it to a vote, and then politic against those who go against your strategy.

            You don’t look “weak” when you fight. You may lose, but the Camerluvvies are set to lose anyway, come 2015. And they’ll look “weak” doing so, on current course .

            • Tony Quintus

              You look weak when you try pointless things, you opponents use it against you because you are “wasting parliament’s time instead of concentrating on…” or you are “playing politics for votes with an issue you cannot pass”
              And as for the May 22 wipeout, I’ll bet you a pound to a penny that the Tories actually INCREASE their number of councillors.
              And if you think that the Tories are on course to lose in 2015 you haven’t been watching the likely voter polling, I’ll go double or quits on the Conservatives still being the largest party post 2015, just big enough to make it impossible for even a rainbow coalition to force Cameron from Downing street, if the Scottish referendum is a resounding “No!” (more than 15% gap) he might even squeak a tiny majority.

              • Chris Quin

                Thank you Viceroy for taking up the argument. My ideas are somewhat contingent on the outcomes of the EU poll and even the Scottish vote (which could change the numbers in Westminster). Even if an EU Referendum were voted down the subsequent GE would be a de facto In-Out vote. I really don’t know where Quintus gets his optimism about the Tory prospects, but time will tell.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Again, you don’t look weak when you fight. Call Me Dave is going to look weak 12.0 months from now, when his head is mounted on a spike because he followed your strategy and not this one.

                The opponents can say whatever they want, as can you. If you notice, they’re all bouncing like ping pong balls right now over UKIP. They look weak. UKIP doesn’t even have an MP, and they’re manipulating these muppets… all of them… all of LibLabCon. Take a lesson.

                I’ll be glad to take your bet on Camerluvvie councilors. And if you go down to the oddsmakers today, you’ll get good odds on that and your predictions on 2015. The Camerluvvies are finished all around, and the bettors know it, even if you don’t.

  • @PhilKean1

    .

    Anyone curious as to why Clegg and other committed Europhiles felt unthreatened by Cameron’s renegotiation / referendum strategy –

    – should read this – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10817899/Nick-Clegg-ridicules-David-Camerons-mild-and-minor-EU-clawback.html

    .

  • Raddiy

    It was interesting on BBC News this morning when Cameron was asked outright whether UKIP were a racist party.

    He waffled, he obfuscated, and said they have questionable characters, blah, blah blah, but the reality was he refused to answer the question, which clearly confirms what we already knew, that he still considers UKIP racist, and also that all their supporters are racist.
    However he needs to try and get them to vote for him, so he prefers to hide his contempt for the millions that support UKIP behind a curtain of deceit.

    It reminded me of his so called apology for the “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racist ” phrase the last time he tried to ingratiate himself with UKIP supporters. This of course wasn’t an apology at all, just a tactic between ignoring us, and getting the kiddies in CCHQ to dig up dirt on us. He didn’t apologise, , and his continued contempt for UKIP and all its supporters shines through like a beacon.

    He thinks we are the lowest of the low, beneath contempt, the dog crap that he needs to scrape of his shoe. I’ll leave it to this disabled UKIP supporter in Swansea, who illustrated perfectly the average KIpper feelings towards numpties from the left who insult us, or tossers who lead the Conservative party who insult us.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/01/Two-fingers-to-protestors-ukip-woman

    • Tony Quintus

      I don’t see how you can argue against being labelled as racist when your candidates keep espousing racist views. More than 50% of the electorate thinks that UKIP is a racist party or attracts those with racist viewpoints, it is the majority opinion.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        Let’s see your data backing up that claim.

        • Tony Quintus

          It was a yougov poll for the Sun on Sunday last weekend. 27% Ukip is racist, 35% not racist but attracts those with a racist viepoint, total 52%, which is a majority of the electorate.

          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-ahead-in-european-polls-despite-most-people-thinking-the-party-contains-racists-9321612.html
          Claim, backed up.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            No, not really. The contention is that UKIP is a racist party, and 73% of those polled say they are not, and the 27% would be you luvvies as we know.

            You’d have to poll of the other parties to make your claim stick to the contrary.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Claim not backed up with data, in other words.

              • Tony Quintus

                Are you even reading my posts? I claimed that a majority, ie more then 50%, thought that UKIP were racist or attracted racists, which is borne out by the data I have pointed you to. It corresponds to the data because I had that exact poll in mind when I wrote the post.
                Once again the deluded Kippers refuse to acknowledge facts in front of their face and make up their own version of reality instead, just as Saint Nigel did again today regarding Cameron’s promise of a referendum on Lisbon.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You can claim whatever you’d like, lad. The 27% who say UKIP is racist is merely you and the rest of the luvvies. The other 73% don’t agree with that assertion.

                  Now, if you have other rhetorical tricks to play, you’ll have to back them up with additional polling including the other major parties. You haven’t.

                  Claim not backed up, in other words.

  • kyalami

    “we need parties that have a plan, as we have a plan in the Conservative party to deal with these things.”

    We’ve had enough of planning around here. 500 houses around our village has swelled to almost 800 under “the plan”. When it comes to planning, incredibly, my village was better off under Labour. I can’t believe I wrote that, but it’s true.

  • HookesLaw

    Attack UKIP? Unthinkable! Does everyone not know that the sun shines out of Saint Nigel’s backside? I thought everyone knew that he relies not on a teleprompter but tablets of stone.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Whatever you might say about him he is infinitely more entertaining and agreeable to listen to than Cameron.

      • telemachus

        And the moral dimension?

        • Colonel Mustard

          I’ll leave the moral judgements to partisans like you who conflate politics and morality for cynical party advantage. There is absolutely no point discussing an imaginary “moral dimension” with people who start from a position of asserting their moral (and intellectual) superiority just because they vote Labour.

        • Raddiy

          I think your moral compass long ago went awry and started pointing back to front.

          People like you who defend the paedophile supporting Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt, and the Labour party in government that included people like Jack Straw, who funded the kiddy fiddlers in P.I.E, on the basis of nothing more than tribal party loyalty, are as guilty as they are.

          To have the gall to use the term moral dimension, when you obviously live in some sort of fifth dimensional moral vacuum is chutzpah by the skipload.

          • Alexsandr

            there is the other moral dimension in that 5 labour MP’s went to jail for expenses fraud. And Jaqui Smith and Bob Ainsworth et al should have gone with them.
            Labour were as bent as a nine shilling note.

    • Denis_Cooper

      How can we know whether or not the sun shines out of Farage’s backside when deceitful scumbags like your party chairman insist on standing in the way to block our view?

      Are you proud of his performance on Question Time last night, doing his best to cover up the embarrassing fact that the final decision on the Pfizer bid for AstraZeneca will be taken by the European Commission, and then helping three others to shout down Farage when he pointed that out?

  • Blindsideflanker

    “waiting for a good day for an announcement as a means of buying off angry Tory right-wingers.”

    Dream on, there is a default setting for the Cameron Conservatives, and that is to define themselves against their own party and support. While the gullible back benchers think a bit of red meat will be thrown to them for all the grief they have had to swallow , Cameron goes and rubs their noses in it again. Women in combat roles is not going to be something that is going to go down well in Conservative constituency offices.

    If there is any strategy I can see in it, it is that Cameron has set himself up as the abusive husband to the Conservative party, and the wife becomes really appreciative when he stops beating up on her.

    • http://mrsdbliss.blogspot.com/ MrsDBliss

      Fantastic analogy, and so well fitting in the context of the proposal for women in combat roles. It’s not that I deny that some women are able to carry the weight if an average man (although they will not be able to compete with the physically best men), nor that they would wish to, or that they have had front line duties which bring them into danger. However as we erode the expectation that women are not as capable in terms of violence as men, especially in sustaining themselves under it, we undermine the understanding that men are physically superior to women and therefore shouldn’t abuse this. As with everything, it will become the norm despite not being physically justified.

      • Blindsideflanker

        A Governments first duty is the security of the nation. Hammond seeking to put women in combat roles, as he has himself has said because its an equality signal, is to use our nation’s defence as politically correct posturing to gain some electoral ground in an area , women’s votes, where the pollsters say Cameron is behind on.

        So the Conservatives are using our nation’s security as a bit of politically correct posturing.

        Meanwhile, while Cameron’s lot are obsessed with equality issues, a Russian aircraft carrier task force steams down the English channel. shadowed by 5% of the Royal Navy, one little frigate.

        • telemachus

          For the sake of JC
          The approval of women for frontline combat will be judged on the same criteria applied to the men
          Israel is a perfect example of the value of women in the combat role
          Paternalistic misogyny has no place in modern Britain

          • Colonel Mustard

            Why is it that whenever socialists encounter dissent they apply pejorative made-up silly labels like “paternalistic misogyny” and assert that it has “no place in modern Britain”.

            Just because Israel does it doesn’t mean we have to.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              It is what they do. Honesty and Socialism simply do not mix because the whole ‘philosophy’ is a hotchpotch of lies, paradox and sanctimony. I have to admit, “paternalistic misogyny” is a perfect example of the kind of phrase which sucks in the naive and stupid and leads them to believe that there is substance where only a dishonest facade actually exists.

          • Blindsideflanker

            I gather that Israel has found having women in the front line was not a success and has moved them to support roles.

            As for judging women to the same criteria, what criteria would that be, like the Fire service who have lowered the physical criteria to ensure some women can pass it?

            I believe only two women have ever passed the Royal Marines trials, and I might be wrong on that.

            But it is not just passing a physical test that is important, it is how a platoon can function as a fighting unit. Having women in them will change the dynamics, and I don’t believe that will be for the good of their effectiveness.

            • telemachus

              Women currently make up 3% of the IDF’s combat soldiers

              *

              A combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a highly operational force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. The unit undergoes training like any combat infantry. The IDF commando K9 unit, Oketz, also drafts females as elite combat soldiers.

          • Alexsandr

            tell that to muslims

        • Tony Quintus

          Not quite “one little frigate” a billion dollar air defence destroyer capable of shooting down every plane on the carrier, a Billion pound 21st century warship.
          Your defence opinion is even worse than the Daily Mail’s, and that is saying something.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Of course the origin of the policy is the EU again.

      Mixed Message 1a:- Women are equal to men in every way and should fight in the front line

      Mixed Message 1b:- Women are vulnerable to male violence and must have special protection

      No male soldier should have to face the daunting moral dilemma and consequences of having to kill a female combatant, especially in close combat. It’s bad enough to have to kill another man. But of course the idiot politicians pushing this will never have to face that situation themselves.

      And once again the boundaries that shape civilisation are eroded.

      • Blindsideflanker

        I gather they have already said that the male macho culture will have to go accommodate women’s sensibilities. So the very thing that makes a military unit a fighting unit is to be done away with.

        • Colonel Mustard

          The macho culture is relatively recent. It was never that apparent in the “old Army” where the professionalism was often more understated than the discipline and macho posturing was never the done thing. It seemed to become more prevalent after the Falklands, perhaps influenced by American film/tv where every soldier is “special forces hero” and lets you know it.

          But all our institutions are now in the hands of the same centralised “progressive agenda” including the Armed Forces.

        • Conway

          Are they going to adjust the selection requirements (fitness, strength, etc) to lower the bar? Will there be quotas?

      • Tony Quintus

        Wait, you are worried about creating a challenging situation FOR THE ENEMY?

        • Colonel Mustard

          Don’t be stupid. In a war you are THE ENEMY to the other side…

    • Hello

      “Dream on, there is a default setting for the Cameron Conservatives, and that is to define themselves against their own party and support”

      And by “their own party and support” you mean “you”? You have a new party now, it’s called Ukip.

  • well_chuffed

    Wow , Cameron starts to think he is credible , another delusion to add to the list.

  • Blindsideflanker

    Question Time last night showed how irrelevant Cameron’s Conservative party has become. For once it was a reasonable program, and that was because of Farrage was there to put the other political view, and while a real political debate was being made by Farrage , Grant Shapps was sitting on the end looking at a complete loss and an uttter irrelevance. Occasionally Shapps got the chance to parrot his party line, before the debate switched back to the real politics.

    • John Dalton

      I could not agree more. Shapps is weak at the best of times but last night he was reduced to petulant objections from the side-lines. Last night’s programme was all about Farage who dealt with the sustained attacks from the other parties and the audience (biased? Question Time??) with punchy and compelling responses.

      The fact is whether it’s Cameron, the MSM, the Spec, the BBC – they can’t disguise their outrage over the fact that we plebs finaly have a champion (Farage) who will stand up and fight for true conservative values – and that the more they try to bully, supress, smear and belittle Farage and UKIP, the more they betray their contempt for true conservative values and the more supporters they drive in UKIP’s direction. They play the man and not the ball and their arrogance will come back to destroy them.

      • Hello

        Suppress?! Huh?! All everyone seems to do is talk about bloody Ukip, a party that gets 14% of the vote on a good day. That’s one in seven people. The other six are forced to listen to you congratulate yourselves on your lack of achievements.

        • alabenn

          But if they have another good day where it is 38%, that is more than any party at the 2010 election.
          Your simplistic response does not address why they are capturing so much of the news programme.
          You can keep repeating this childish mantra, before 2010 the Lib Dems were irrelevant, a minor itch on the body politic,
          The SNP were irrelevant until Westminster give the Scots their own parliament, that was only a few years ago.
          It is time you came up with something substantial instead of your tedious wittering, which is as lacking in the depth you ascribe to UKIP.

          • telemachus

            You know well that the EU elections are ripe for protest voting
            The EU Parliament(as opposed to the Council of Ministers) is not relevant to day to day UK life
            Come May 7 ’15 the public will grasp the importance of their say in the future of Britain, forget Europe and seek fairness and reasonableness

            • Colonel Mustard

              Those who seek “fairness and reasonableness” won’t find it in the warmed-up leftover of Michael Foot’s 1970s mixed with the frightful stench of Brown’s New Labour has beens.

              You haven’t got a clue.

          • Hello

            38% in the EU elections, dear boy. It’s not quite the same thing, is it?

            • alabenn

              I did not mention the EU elections, my comment was alluding to the 2010 and 2015, elections.

              As to getting 38% in the EU elections, elections are real opinion polls, polls that actually reveal something, even if they are for a talking shop.

      • Blindsideflanker

        I felt it was a really interesting program for it showed how the political tectonic plates had shifted. The real political debate was no longer between any of the lot who reside in the Westminster bubble, it was between them and Farrage. We have two party politics again, the Westminster party and Ukip.

        • telemachus

          I think it showed that the future of British politics was assured with Chuka Umunna as an emerging potential Prime Minister

          *

          The voice of reason

          *

          Q: Does the UK need to come out of the EU to stop the flow of immigrants coming to the UK?

          Chuka Umunna says we have come through a difficult period as a country. We are facing challenges. But pulling out of the EU is not going to help.

          And blaming “the other” is not going to help.

          Q: You have seen the net migration figures. They are roughly the same as the population of Southampton. Is that acceptable?

          Umunna says he would like to see the number come down. But many Britons work abroad, he says.

          • Colonel Mustard

            The voice of slippery weasel words more like. Anyone who envisages the future with that sharp-suited careerist as PM as anything more than spin and deception is sadly deluding themselves.

            But you put the tee eye tee in “tribalist”.

            • Blindsideflanker

              Indeed it was a slippery weasel performance by Umunna. All the dark hints of ‘other’, ‘we must mind our language’ etc was pure Orwellian langue used to attempt to censor the debate Labour don’t want.

              • telemachus

                1059pm
                Chuka Umunna says the tone of the debate has become ugly. When Nigel Farage complains about people not speaking English on trains, that does not help.

                • saffrin

                  The debate becomes ugly when you suggest an immigrant as a Prime Minister.
                  Read your posts historically, you are an example of how low Labour has sunk.

          • WatTylersGhost

            My liberal Missus looked at QT and said “he’s on the telly again” thinking Chuka was Sajiv Javid. My 18 yr old lad sarcastically gave her a hard time, “so mum, they all look the same do they? take your liberal racism elsewhere”.
            They might not look the same but certainly LibLabCon all sound the same.

          • Penny

            What has “many Britons work abroad” got to do with anything much? There has always been movement of working people across Europe. It wasn’t all made possible by the EU.

          • Smithersjones2013

            My god Chukka is as bad at spinning as our poor little izzy. And he’s suppose to be the ‘future’ of the Labour Party? ROFLMAO

            • Alexandrovich

              Loved it when Nigel looked him straight in the eye and said
              “You’re either lying or you’re pig-ignorant.”

          • saffrin

            a) failed to answer the qusetion.
            b) failed to answer the question.

    • telemachus

      Farage is a one horse show

      Even on Pfizer he managed to twist back to Europe
      *
      “Nigel Farage says it won’t be the government that decides this. The other politicians have been coming out with weasel lies. When Vince Cable was pushed in the debate by John Redwood, he admitted the ultimate decision would be taken by the European Commission.”
      At least Chuka gave reasoned answers to the questions

      • Will Rees

        Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the legal position, because it seems to me that, under the law the previous Government introduced, Ministers were going to stay out of all these decisions, which would be trusted to an independent body; and that, under the 2004 European Union merger regulation that they signed up to, this is clearly a concentration that falls to be determined by Brussels regulation, not by this elected House of Commons. I therefore find it very surprising that the Opposition are demanding the Secretary of State to intervene, when he might end up in an illegal position if he tried to do so.

        The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): It is precisely because of the legal position that I have been studiously neutral on this matter. It is fair to say that there are elements of ambiguity—it is not absolutely clear—but the main position is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described it: under the legislation we inherited from the Labour party, Ministers do not engage with decisions except in three very specific areas of public interest.

        So Fargae was being straight, and Chuka was lieing through his teeth

        • Blindsideflanker

          Well said, the Westminster bubble, at best delude themselves, worst lie, about the true level of Brussels control over us. And what was truly appalling of Umunna was not only that he lied to the public, but when Farrage attempted to point out that Westminster had no powers on this and they had been given over to Brussels, he talked over and interrupted Farrage.

        • telemachus

          “Mr Cable suggested he could yet impose a public interest test to block the move”

          *

          “Mr Miliband said Labour would back the government if it chose to widen the public interest test to include science and research and development

          He asked Mr Cameron: “Is he ruling out or ruling in the public interest test on this matter?
          We could make it happen. If he does not do it now everyone will know he was a
          cheerleader for the deal.”

          *

          “We could make it happen”
          Chuka was correct

          • Will Rees

            Mr Umanna said he was there and the exchange as taken from Hansard didn’t happen. Mr Umanna ridiculed the notion that a merger taking place under the 2004 EU merger regulation is anything to do with the EU – you yourself call that twisting it back to the issue of EUrope.

          • Blindsideflanker

            God you exhibit a frightening level of obsequious acceptance of anything Labour politicians says. Have you been lobotomised of all independent thought?

            As has been pointed out , and as John Redwood established in the House of Commons, we no longer have the sovereignty to settle such a matter, Labour, your Government, gave that power away.

            What don’t you understand about that ?

          • Denis_Cooper

            Do you actually read your copy of the Guardian?

            Even there it says that the final decision on this rests with the European Commission, which Ummuna not only deliberately failed to mention – just like Shapps and Lucas and Williams – but then tried to stop Farage pointing out – just like Shapps and Lucas and Williams.

      • Denis_Cooper

        “Even on Pfizer he managed to twist back to Europe”

        So you join Chuka Ummana as somebody who is either deliberately lying to deceive people or is pig ignorant; which is it?

        • Inverted Meniscus

          Both. The perfect blend of dishonesty and ignorance.

      • saffrin

        While Nigel Farage stated the truth.

      • Alexandrovich

        And Nigel said to Umunna
        “You’re either lying or you’re pig-ignorant.”
        You see, that’s called straight-talking, a good antidote to mealy mouthed ‘reasoning’.

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    So will he explain his EU plan, in terms of what his MEPs will do and stand up for? His leaflets don’t, at least as delivered here. This is not a proper democratic election unless the political parties and the media treat it as one. We have no idea what any of them will do in europe, everything we get is about domestic politics. This is merely another round of preparation for 2015.

    What are his policies for the EP? What difference will it make if the EP doesn’t initiate legislation or provide a proper forum for debate? And is not covered by our media?

    What are the aims of the EU? What does a future Europe look like if they achieve their aims? Why has any discussion on Europe just become as entrenched as the Somme?

    Am I alone in being completely fed up with the triviality of the posts here as well as the shallowness of the analysis?

    • Will Rees

      First thing MEPs will do is vote on who is in the new Commission which they need to do by a majority. It is quite likely that they will claim democratic mandate and push their own names forward.

      The election addresses you received through the post are a cut out and keep guide to what got them their mandate. At least the Labour one isn’t about stopping a Mr Clagg getting chocolate biscuit crumbs. Nearly, but not quite.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      No, you are not alone. This appears an issue-free intramural contest, at least from the Cameroon perspective.

      “We win, they lose, you all get whatever we think best for you.”

    • Conway

      What are the aims of the EU? What does a future Europe look like if they achieve their aims?” To get rid of “evil” national sovereignty by establishing a “federal union of the peoples”. It’s written on the walls of the EU parliament building. Everything they do is directed towards this end, but they have proceeded by stealth until recently because they know that it isn’t what the peoples of Europe want. Now, however, Viviane Reding has come out and stated that the United States of Europe should be in place by 2020. Not that you will be asked to consent to it, of course.

  • http://mrsdbliss.blogspot.com/ MrsDBliss

    Mmmm, yet he thought people like. Maria Miller should continue with her role?

    • telemachus

      I would be more concerned that he subsequently caved in to the press who had it in for Miller

Close