I can't see the speech being anything other than an advanced exercise in can kicking and dithering.

The delays have made it a farce; they are hardly the mark of a clear sighted and sure footed leader, more like someone cornered.

After establishing a reputation as Mr. Slippery, "red meat" means action taken before the GE, no one would take a promise post dated until after the election seriously. Some of the Tory faithful (the ones who go through all sorts of contortions to insist there was no Cast Iron Promise) seem to be expecting the speech that will blow UKIP out of the water, so they will probably be disappointed. The rise in support for UKIP isn't all about the EU anyway. There's two and a half years to the GE and that's a long time to sustain trust which has so often been abused, and persist with policies which have left many incandescent with rage.

My expectation is not so much red meat as dead meat and that it will be a definite marker in the demise of the Conservative party as a wishy washy Westminster consensus thing.

Cameron is hanged if he says anything decisive, hanged if he waffles - he is bound to upset someone. At least he won't have to deliver if he plumps for jam tomorrow - vague assurances for after the 2015 general election.

I don't believe that the recent YouGov Sunday Times poll will have an impact. YouGov has a method of online polling that I personally find suspect (although muppet journalists will fall over themselves to report it unthinkingly). My quick impressions are:

* the poll is deliberately weighted against those that don't vote for major parties. Much of the public is non party political and more inclined to take an interest in issues.

'Voting for others' was over 6% of the sample, but then under-weighted by nearly 80% down to 1.3%.

* some of its implications don't pass a comnmon sense test - that Labour will have a runaway victory in the European Parliament elections, but UKIP might get beaten by the LDs looks fantasy. It is also hard to see as representative that only 59% want a referendum on the EU, with 21% against.

* in my mind, the poll over-weights Labour and LD supporters who are more likely to be pro-EU.

* questions with wording like 'party leader trusted to look after Britan's interest in Europe' and 'best deal' are leading, and rather disingenous, given that no powers will be returned and that any process of trying to obtain concessions would be acrimonious.

As for the scenario with 'Britain's interests now protected', hardly surprising that it gets a majority.

Regardless of whether YouGov President Peter Kellner (married to Labour/EU bigwig Cathy Ashton) was personally involved, I find the process not to be objective. We can draw our own conclusions.

That question is quite telling in quite a few ways. Firstly to answer that in the affirmative they have to believe that a renegotiation is possible and as such have sourced their opinion from what many of us see as an ignorant or malign mainstream press. That in turn might lead people to raise an eyebrow at the validity of the answers top the remaining questions on the topic.

Which in turn leads me to question whether the purpose of the poll is to contribute the "social proofing" exercise to assist voters in coming to the "right" decision.

It is a feature of politics that speeches are pre-announced, leaked, or generally in the news before they happen. I get the impression that Cameron wants a relationship with the EU that already has a name. It is called the EEA.
If his weak and mythical position on Norway fax democracy can be undermined then he is left arguing to be in the EEA. The name and purpose of this organization is similar to the EEC that most people were keen to join all those years ago. It should be possible to win a referendum if this became a generally understood idea.

Paul Routledge in that rag The Mirror

Why Europe could spell the end for David Cameron

http://www.mirror.co.uk/...rope-could-spell-1542568

It is interesting that most of the comments have been removed by the Mirror staff.