saintbletch

Google "Freudian slip", Bear.

Run along kids - I'll be home later to cook the dinner. The grown-ups are talking about politics here, and you'll only get bored. Daddy still loves you! x

[Consider me suitably withered] I first want to go on record to say that I am purposely missing this tit-for-tat open goal in the interests of debate. What if Cameron is seen to be seething about this, draws a line in the sand, gets support from other nations (At least the Dutch) and gets the EU to backdown? Then Cameron's buffonery (being seemingly unaware that this was happening), would be trumped by his kicking the Brussels-based bureaucrats in the balls. It shows Cameron as a strong leader, shows that he can get support in the EU and shows, perhaps most importantly, that he can influence what goes on and that his stated attempts to get reforms ahead of a referendum would be possible. But, I do take your point that if they are playing at news management, then they risk making Cameron look bad. It's a good point.

Thanks Lord Duckhunter, appreciate you taking the time to explain it. So the potential for UKIP to get seats and therefore somehow influence proceedings seems to be your position. I can understand that. What about Cameron's ascertian that a UKIP vote will lead to a Labour government which will be the only way you won't be offered a referendum on Europe (I'm assuming from your post that you would be in favour of a referendum). Does that not worry you? Will it influence you at all? Anyone else?

Having read the Telegraph article you linked to trousers, my comment earlier was made in full knowledge that it was a surcharge outside of the usual budget "adjustments". Even though this is "outside the realm" as you put it, to my mind there is no way that the UK would not have been a) aware of this process, b) aware that a group of statisticians were working on it, or c) aware of the potential timescales. Those armies of Strasbourg and Brussels-based mandarins that we hear about? Well, there'll be plenty of those sent there from the UK too, and they'll be there to protect our interests - on matters exactly such as this. I just can't see that this is the surprise that it's being painted as. And if that's the case, then I have to wonder why it has been communicated in this way, and at this time. The only two possibilities I can see is that either someone within government wants Dave to look bad (leadership challenge?), or he's fully in control of the situation and plans to use it to look more in control on Europe. Then again, I've been wrong before...once!

Anyone? I'm genuinely interested.

It certainly seems unfair, but don't read into this move that this is based on recent economic improvements. My understanding is that this is a re-evaluation of our performance since '95. It has to do with some hidden commerce that was not previously visible now being retrospectively considered - I believe.

Can I ask those who are UKIP-curious, and who could conceive of voting UKIP at the next general election, what are you looking to achieve? A message to the Tories, a message to Labour, a UKIP government, UKIP forming the minority part of a coalition, etc? Or is this just something you feel you have to do for ideological reasons? I'm intrigued as to how the Tory line of vote for Nigel, wake up with Ed will play.

That story will definitely add to the background anti-EU sentiment, but I find it difficult to believe the narrative in the Telegraph. If these sort of surcharge mechanisms exist, then the UK will have been well aware of what was likely to happen for some time. That doesn't change the rights or wrongs of the facts, but it does smell of news management to me. I'd expect Cameron to use this as a stage to showboat his anti-EU credentials on, and if I'm right then he'll refuse to pay it, and perhaps the EU will miraculously back down. A bone thrown to Cameron to help him with his issues at home? If I'm wrong, then UKIP will get a hell of a bounce on this ahead of the by-election.

Oh Toke. I thought it was so obviously dripping in irony that it would have set off a metal detector. #imusttryharder

Not so sure KRG. If I were a spin-doctor for UKIP, I would have advised them to do this. And rather than being a casual blunder by out-of-touch politicians, it may well have been orchestrated to create a fuss. It plays so well to their (or at least my perception or their) target demographic. The older voter that harps back to a time when it was our country, and where plain-speaking people could say what they wanted about who they wanted - because it was our country. [video=youtube;9j6l7Va-C7E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6l7Va-C7E The casual skirting with controversy and the resultant liberal-media furore of the calypso song will cause many to conclude that UKIP represents their views, and stands up for their point of view. Having said all that, it's difficult to stand in judgement on this if it attracts votes; that's democracy for you I suppose.

This calypso song has made me lose all of the respect that I previously had for him.

Thanks, papster. I think I've been reading too much Orwell. Oh, it's not meant to be taken literally trousers. It's just a fairy story. It couldn't happen in the real world. That about sums it up, right there.

You won't believe this, but oddly enough, I have, trousers. If you're living comfortably, then I'll begin... We were sailing on board the SS Allegory at time we noticed that we had sprung a leak. Some of the steerage passengers had reported getting their feet wet, although others on higher decks said that they hadn't noticed anything - other than a increased smell coming up from steerage. A number of us passengers came forward with plans as to how the hull could be fixed. Given my superior breeding and education, I stepped boldly forward and told everyone not to worry, and promised that if I was given the task of fixing the SS Allegory, I would mend the holes in the hull as quickly as possible so that we could resume cruising the oceans of the world with a happy complement of less smelly passengers. I was careful to explain to anyone that would listen that the repair job would take a long time, and that with the storm still raging all around us, it would an be arduous journey. I stressed that these holes in the hull didn't happen by accident, but instead had been drilled in the bottom of the boat on purpose, by risk-takers looking for an easier way to catch fish. I also reminded the other passengers that the evil captain of the boat at the time had simply watched these risk-takers without trying to stop them. So we took a vote - that in years to come would become known as the Great Boat-Fixing Election. Whilst others also wanted the job, those other candidates either had no experience of captaining a boat, or were related to that mad Cap'n Gordon who turned a "blind eye" to all those holes being drilled! So with a mandate secured, and the responsibility well and truly shifted from those that actually drilled the holes to those that let them be drilled, I took charge. Surveying the scene, I recognised that there were a couple of strategies that could be employed to secure the buoyancy of the vessel. 1) I could mend the holes in the hull so that the boat could better support the weight of the people inside, or 2) I could lighten the load in the boat. Option 1) didn't sound very palatable at all. You see, if we were really serious about actually wanting to mend the holes in the hull and pump out all of the water, then it would cause decades of wet feet for everyone - even those that voted for me! That wasn't going to happen. So option 2) it was. I'd lighten the 'load'. So, who to jettison? I looked around the boat and realised that there was a strange, three-way correlation. It appeared that those that weighed the most, also had the least wealth and didn't vote for me in the Great Boat-Fixing Election. Whilst it was clear that we were all in the boat together, it was also clear that some of us were more in the boat together than others. So we threw the less wealthy and less able into the sea with a big-hearted, big-societal promise that we'd come back for them once we'd fixed the leaks. I told the wealthy people left on board that they had to pull their weight too. I set them the task of starting to bail out the water. Obviously, I wouldn't ask them to do this themselves, that wouldn't have been at all fitting. No, I asked them to set their servants the task of bailing out the boat. The more servants they could employ, the more water they could remove from the boat. I also pointed out that they could probably pay their servants less now, as, to be honest, there weren't many other jobs on offer. So at this point, we'd managed to chuck the poorer and less able individuals into the sea, but we weren't actually any closer to mending the holes in the hull. However, the knowledge that others had been thrown out of the boat, helped those wealthier passengers in the boat to somehow feel relatively more secure, relatively more wealthy, less likely to get their feet wet, and most importantly - more likely to vote for me in the next Great Boat-Fixing Election. With the water volume increasing, but with the water level lowered by the Archimedean ejection of the poor and less able, I realised that I could even start to drill more holes in the hull to allow the wealthy to continue to fish through the bottom of the hull. Amazingly, I'd been captain for about 4 years by this time, and people still believed that I cared about the water level despite the fact that it continued to rise. Lol. Seriously, I'll run that by you again. I drilled more holes in the bottom of that boat, and yet managed to convince people that the level of the water was important to me. You couldn't make it up. I don't know how I sleep at night. (rhet.) Getting people to believe that I cared about the the water deficit was an important piece of propaganda for me to spread, because not everyone left in the boat felt completely comfortable about seeing their fellow humans bobbing up and down in the open sea. For those still inside the boat that had a conscience, it was important to give them a flag to wave; an explanation that they could trot out, and so I made them repeat time and time again that we must reduce the water deficit (the rate at which the boat was still filling with water) so that we can someday get back to "the way things were". And it worked, those wealthy people still in the boat wave that flag today, telling everyone who will listen that despite the fact that we've thrown some of our fellow travellers out of the boat, and despite the fact that the water level is still rising, and despite the fact that I've drilled more holes in the bottom of the boat, and despite the fact that I've committed to drilling even more holes in the bottom of the boat if I win the next Great Boat-Fixing Election, that we're only doing this to make the boat better for everyone. The moral of this story? Well, it's two-fold I guess. Firstly, don't trust a word I say - these are ideological holes, not fiscal ones. Secondly, if you're in the boat sitting comfortably with dry feet whilst staring at people in trouble in the ocean, and you don't feel compelled to throw them a life vest, then you're a ****. Toke's a ****.

Paris beats London again. I've been saying for years that we need to erect an 80 foot tall green butt-plug in London. In other news I've got a couple of Putin-Plugs on eBay. Let me know if anyone's interested - only used once.

Great post, sandwichsaint. You've managed to summarise my position on a number of these issues too, along with some nice ideas on how to 'fix' the problem. Having sat through the Eastleigh by-election where UKIP made it a #1 target and the Lib Dems did everything they could to defend the seat, I don't envy you the experience you're about to go through in Thanet South. NF? Nice!

I can't fault the logic Lord Duckhunter, but I feel that it is the adoption of this position that has left us with some ridiculously low electoral turnouts and a pretty disengaged electorate. Our politicians haven't helped in doing all they can to engender cynicism and distrust from 'illegal' wars to expense scandals. Looking at engagement and turnout, you'd have to say that our electoral system is broken or at least pretty badly bent out of shape. I agree wholeheartedly with the democratic process, and completely support the concept that if we're not happy with our lot, then it is up to us as individuals to do the research, reach a position and exercise suffrage - or even stand ourselves. It shoulds be better. It should be as you suggest above. But right now, it isn't. My argument is that we should do all we can to positively change this, and I feel that for all their obvious faults, TV debates engage people in a way that osmosis doesn't. During the Scottish referendum, my kids and I (as well as my son's Italian girlfriend) sat and watched one of the debates. I tried to help by explaining the details of the positions as I saw them, and in answering their questions. This worked well for them in gaining a better understanding of the issues at hand. I'd readily concede that this might not be the normal way these debates are consumed, and I'd also say that Darling's "performance" in the second debate risked overly-influencing voters in a way that should be left to the issues alone, but then I look at the result and realise that the Scot's didn't rely upon Darling's dithering alone to form their opinion. Was it the politician who claimed for a duck house on his expenses? Forgive the flippancy KingdomCome, and you are of course correct in the strictest sense, but consider that for some the decision to be "uninformed" may have been a positive one caused by a deep distrust of politicians and the political process. What is more dangerous I wonder, allowing an 18 year old with a ballot paper in their hand to place an X somewhere at random, or giving them an idea of where the politicians stand on things that might affect them first?

There's something in this Whitey, but it sort of presupposes that the rest of the population is glued to Question Time, Sunday Politics, The Times, Radio 4, etc. If they're not, then politicians are not reaching their electorate, and the electorate is completely ignorant of the parties that want to represent them. Our politicians and press have to find a way to get through. I originally wasn't a big fan as it seems to dumb-down the debate, and also risks rolling up a potential lifetime of political analysis into a series of X-Factor-style game shows with a very big prize. But I just don't see any alternative to reaching younger/less engaged voters. It's relatively new here, and it's an ongoing process so we surely have to credit the electorate with enough intelligence to be able to learn from what they've seen in previous campagins? Clegg's personal ratings across the debates he's involved in will tell us if we are learning I guess, and I'd expect Farage to get a big, positive bounce this time that will probably even out next time round.

It's still quite a view Whitey, and for most of them their view is mainly Wighty.

Ah folly, you've been caught in the web I spun. I wasn't born shoreside my friend. Actually, I answered your original question disingenuously; or at least I didn't give you all the details. Both my mate and I were born away from the shore, but even within the same socioeconomic situation we can look at others and feel they're 'different'; tracks within tracks. And so it was between my mate and my Dad. We largely abided by the law whereas my mate's family largely didn't. That, and the landing ****ing incident was all it took. Uncle Francis was an allegorical adornment that I hoped would make you feel that I was talking personally. By the way did you know that in Portsmouth, Gosport is known as Turk Town? How else did you think Turkish got his name? It's either his Gosport roots, or he's named himself after a homoerotic gym manoeuvre. It seems even Portsmouth looks down on Gosport.

...and that's why I "forum-heart" you papster. By the way, I know you and Mrs pap where coming down to stay in a couple of weeks, but something's come up. I'll get back to you with some new dates...

Ah it's all relative Flyd-owl. I often describe Gosport as being like Rio, or any of the other truly great boroughs of the world that see one population leading two very different lives based on the location of their birth. There is a line on the map that winds lazily around the peninsular a few hundred yards (more in some places) back from the coast and the wonderful views of the Solent. If you're fortunate enough to have been born shore-side of that line, then you would have gone to the better school(s), will have been raised in a spacious and well-appointed home, will likely have been brought up with the sort of cash in the family that allows you to raise your horizons above the now to plan where you want to be, and will likely have been taken to the opera in London by your Uncle Francis at least twice a year - on your birthday and his. Then there is the other side of the line. If fate turned the river card at the occasion of your birth that confined you to a life away from the shore, then you were likely brought up with very little comforts, would have spent most of your youth in back alleys kicking anything round or with DNA, would probably have gone to any number of the average-to-bad schools that failed to bring out and develop your latent talent, would have been exposed to happiness-proxies like gangs, drink and drugs, would have grown up to hear that more than a few of your acquaintances had died due to a frankly unbelievable, Wire-like ghettoisation of heroin territories, but if you were lucky you were loved by your family and made many life-long friendships. So you see Gosport and Rio have a great deal in common. Oh, and the Gosport Mardi Gras is quite something to behold.

Sorry Halo, your reply slipped, unlubricated under my radar. Oh, Halo, you've used a tin open to set free a bunch of tube-shaped creatures here... If you're addressing me formally, and using my TMS given name, then I'd prefer saintbletch. If you're using a diminutive form, then I'd prefer Bletch. On the whole and in general usage, I'd prefer that you use camelCase and call me saintBletch*. Glad that you haven't really gone mental mate, and that it was only the Wightian 'shrooms that made it look like your jacket did up at the back. *Not really, just wanted to get a reference to camel case into my reply. In fact on balance, I think I prefer FW Dolly's Balti Stench**. Art imitating life? **To be clear, it's his use of the term "Balti Stench" I prefer. I'm in no way saying that I prefer his balti stench to, well, anything really.

Would that be nictitate, burpy? ...and despite my self-constructed reputation for having the brain the size of a largish planet, I had to Google that - "blink synonyms". So we could say that Wurzel would have nictitated if his optician had micturated in his eye... ...and not nictitation in a coy, come-hither sort-of-a-way, but more nictitation in a **** me, somebody just pissed in my eye, get me to casualty sort-of-a-way.