Pretty neutral piece from the Guardian on Cameron's latest proposals, he seems to be trying to switch the focus to benefits...

Be interested to get your take on these proposals Phil. The in-work benefits thing seems especially harsh, and probably counterproductive, to me.

I'd say it's better than it could be. If that was the stick balanced against the carrot of allowing more people to migrate here for work it is similar to what I have written in the past as my near-open border policy idea. The funny thing is once you drill down on migrant opponents most don't dislike real migrants, it's the fictional ones that don't exist they don't like - the bogeyman who travelled here to live below the poverty line on benefits and doesn't want to work, for eg. I dont think its perfect or necessarily correct in vacuum but those policy ideas are a step in the right direction towards sensible.

As an aside a big detail always missing in these discussions is the current stupid rules limiting British citizens from marrying non-EEC citizens. They have used a hugely out of proportion financial requirement to limit overall migration which harms British citizens directly. Even the courts have said it is ridiculous and should be dropped from a salary of just under 19k to a more reasonable 13b (they can't say it because it would be playing politics but it should be zero just like the rules on marrying a British or EU citizen).

IMHO, the most interesting development in UK politics is the apparent demise of Labour in Scoltand and the new king-making ability of the SNP.

Was talking about that the other day but we weren't sure. Unless SNP can credibly threaten to not back labour then they don't have much influence even with the balance of power. I ended up arguing that SNP could back the tories but I'm not convinced. The SNP could get some things they want during contentious close votes like the Ulster Unionists did from John Major but can they really be king makers when they can only support one of the kings?

I'm not sure it's a huge deal in practice and it doesn't bother me even if it is. UKIP are more a concern, they will probably collapse in the GE but are a hugely 'interesting' development in UK politics anyway.

As Jeremy Thorpe dies this week, an opportunity to post one of the great pieces of british satire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Background for you Non-Brits watching the video above.

Not a UKipper myself but I think UKIP are here to stay. They will probably get between 6 and 12 seats in the GE but there is no need for either of us to make forecasts as all we have to do is

Why would ukip survive when all the major parties are adopting their key terrible policies and they fundamentally don't stand for anything of value?

Btw I think the green party is about to be a major force, probably upping their seats in the GE and making a lot of noise in the run up to the election.

They want ukip in the debates for ratings so by default the greens need to be there too and whoever represents them will do great job fighting the enemy where they aren't.

It will survive at least until we have a referendum, I'm fairly confident if we do the 'in' camp will win easily though you can never be sure. If its close or we vote 'out' then it already got very interesting.

I don't want to compare the SNP to ukip except in that we've seen how a one-issue type party can become a serious force. With ukip it wouldn't be a moderate force but a joining together of the racists, nasty ends of the labour/tory vote and morons who say 'anything different to this lot must be better'.

The difference is that conservatives are going to give a referendum in the next parliament if they win. Given they are closer to the idiot ukip voters than labour then there is no argument for voting ukip in anything but a lock labour seat. Splitting the vote getting labour into power and not having the referendum would be the funniest outcome possible.

If ukip can't stand for giving a referendum on leaving Europe what is their selling point? They can't roll back gay marriage, the country isn't conservative enough that America wedge issues like abortion will play, even labour is down with boot-necking the poor, they are not openly free market because it has no play and things like limiting migrant rights (which is currently illegal) is on the table for the cons.

They are just the far right win of the Conservative party and always have been. If their views have electoral capital they will be absorbed, if not then won't let them gain power. Its basically just the tea party movement in a country that doesn't have a two party lock on the electorate.

I mostly agree and I've long though it's labour who are most in danger but if the polls in a GE show ukip can win lots of tory seats then it can becomes a lot more dangerous.

I don't think ukip care much about gay marriage, abortion etc it's not that sort of extremism. It's more general resentment, can't get a house, can't get a job, pc gone mad, health and safety gone mad, barmy climate change rules ruining the economy, immigrants, foreigners etc

reminds me of that Reggie Perrin sketch:

I think labour are playing this fine as is. Ukip drawing off votes helps them. I dont think they are in danger from ukip because they only need to be seen keeping in touch with the electorate. Aim for the left of the right ward moving block.

Ukip were vocally against gay marriage and they are very small c conservative on social issues. I would bet a lot that if supporters were polled they would be revealed as extremely backwards with a significant amount against interracial marriage, in favour of ethnic cleansing (their mp recently called for it by "sending back" British people let alone good hardworking migrants), Farage himself is against equal pay for women laws and they are very backwards on equal rights for gay people such as marriage and adoption rights.

I think you miss a small but real danger.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/24...s-its-support/

45% from tories sure but
15% of ukip vote came from the lib dems and
11% from labour

Most likely they will fall back but populism can draw a lot of strength from all sides. I don't think ukip or Farage are committed to any policy re gays women etc in the sense that they will tailor them to whatever works at getting (or not losing) support.

Oh sure, the policy u-turn over privatising the NHS is a great example. But they will need a manifesto if they want to be taken seriously and this will kill a lot of their support.

How bad is Barclays bank?

This bank seems treacherous. Founded in 1690, it probably financed the war against we Freedom Lovin' Yanks as well as participating in the LIBOR scandal and funding South African Apartheid forever. Seriously, this bank seems unholy. And I say that as a confirmed and baptized atheist. I mean really, their list of scandals and ill repute is long, much longer than I mentioned. How do they still have a charter to operate?

we should be us, but don't get all British English on me....

Weird choice given the continued existence of goldman sachs.

Most likely, that's been the way things have tended to happen in the past but things change. They are very popular and the main parties are so little trusted that manifestos matter less than they used to.

Ukip's have an easy play of mimicking all the main policies and when questioned sticking to the line - 'don't believe them' which plays well because no-one does. What they don't have is many credible people to stick in front of the cameras, it's nearly all Farage. Now with the two extreme ex-tory MPs it might be worse for ukip as those two will get a lot of air time.

It's just English if you don't mind. You can call it English English if you really must

Ranking badness of banks is beyond me, sorry. Unless one of them has been slaughtering babies in the boardroom it's hard to know where to start.

The difference is that conservatives are going to give a referendum in the next parliament if they win. - by Phill

What you should have written is: The difference is that conservatives SAY are going to give a referendum in the next parliament if they win.

There's an enormous difference, and anyone who believes that Cameron's promise is a terminological inexactitude (given his previous promise which he renaged on) and who believes the most important issue is giving up membership of the EU, will think there's no point in voting Conservative.

ditto - uncontrolled immigration and the refusal of the authorities to even trace illegal immigrants and stop their benefits.

If you are referring to what Mark Reckless said about the Polish plumber then it's not quite accurate is it? He wasn't talking about 'sending British people home'. I'm no fan of UKIP, the tories or the whole anti-immigration crew but you shouldn't be this liberal or reckless with the truth.

I, too, believe that the Tories and Labour suffer a credibilty problem with what matters most to UKippers viz immigration.

I loved Russell Brand describing Nigel Farage as a 'pound shop Enoch Powell' on Question Time.

Couldn't disagree more. We do need people standing up and calling out UKIp on their hypocritical faux populist bs but it shouldn't be illiterate sounding clowns like Brand with suspect credibilities I think this only makes matters worse. On top of that, using labels like Enoch Powell or racist with a party and a politician so many people identify with and view as their only political representation feeds into their paranoid delusions, marginalisation and fears of being judged or labelled. If we want to talk UKIp sympathisers off the ledge and bring them back into the fold so to speak we can't be seen to ridicule, belittle and demonise their views and fears. If all you do is demonise a point of view then all you'll end up with are demons.