I'll be interested to hear how he's going to have us keep control of our borders again (given that free movement is a fundamental part of the EU), how he's going to bring back justice and home affairs (given the ECJ is a critical part of the EU and he's just signed up for the EAW), and how we're going to remove ever closer union (given that Barroso has ruled this out).
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
Are those against the HmRC getting the right for persistent non payers the right to take money from accounts also against drug dealers having their assets seized ?
Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?
Not really the same, is it? Surely the local MP is there for the taking.
Well Labour have lost 22% of their vote since 1997 so the trend supports your theory.
Probably be UKIP by 2020, next year might be too soon. I'd expect UKIP to come second there
Ed could be in real trouble soon then.
But it's an interesting one: in a Labour seat in which the vast majority of the population is white and working class, and immigration has had very little impact - a town like Doncaster, in fact - what will the UKIP message be?
Maybe they could say Barking and Dagenham was predominantly white and working class 20 years ago, look what Labour have done to it.
Labour got almost 70% there in 1997 and have lost votes at each election since. Ed managed to get them below 50% for the first time in a generation in 2010, so people seem to be waking up
Why would UKIP - a non-racist party - focus its message on race?
It was you that brought race into it, I have just anwered your trolling questions
But anyway there wouldnt be a need to focus on race, most of the latest wave of immigrants into Barking are white, and many non white Barking residents are up in arms about it, including Labour councillors who have defected to UKIP.
It's all about the pace of change in an area and the affect on the residents
"Thankfully, this is no longer a debate about race, as it was when the British National Party was stirring up the protest vote in these parts. In 2006, the BNP even won 12 seats on the council. Today, it has completely disappeared. The debate, now, is about the system.
Among white and black, Left and Right, old and young, one subject on which pretty much everyone in Barking agrees is that current levels of immigration (from Europe and elsewhere) are unsustainable."
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
Are those against the HmRC getting the right for persistent non payers the right to take money from accounts also against drug dealers having their assets seized ?
Pay your taxes.
I'm not sure what the current laws are about either thing but I'd be against suspected drug dealers having assets frozen temporarily except by court order, and a seizure should require a case to be proven in open court, with the suspect able to see and challenge the evidence allegedly supporting it. Suspected terrorism likewise.
@Carnyx Testing the Arado jet bombers and the other Luftwaffe jets must have been a breeze, few surviving maintenance notes, uncertain knowledge re life of the jet engines - hours not days - compared to flying the Me 163 rocket powered interceptor. Taking on the DH 108 Swallow after Geoffry De Haviland had been killed must have been another daunting task.
Eric Brown ought to be knighted for services to aviation.
Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?
Not really the same, is it? Surely the local MP is there for the taking.
Well Labour have lost 22% of their vote since 1997 so the trend supports your theory.
Probably be UKIP by 2020, next year might be too soon. I'd expect UKIP to come second there
Ed could be in real trouble soon then.
But it's an interesting one: in a Labour seat in which the vast majority of the population is white and working class, and immigration has had very little impact - a town like Doncaster, in fact - what will the UKIP message be?
Maybe they could say Barking and Dagenham was predominantly white and working class 20 years ago, look what Labour have done to it.
Labour got almost 70% there in 1997 and have lost votes at each election since. Ed managed to get them below 50% for the first time in a generation in 2010, so people seem to be waking up
Why would UKIP - a non-racist party - focus its message on race?
It was you that brought race into it, I have just anwered your trolling questions
But anyway there wouldnt be a need to focus on race, most of the latest wave of immigrants into Barking are white, and many non white Barking residents are up in arms about it, including Labour councillors who have defected to UKIP.
I was not trolling, I was asking a perfectly reasonable question. UKIP's primary selling point right now is immigration. But how do you build support in a white, working class Labour area where immigration has been minimal? Your solution seems to involve raising the spectre of more non-white people arriving if Labour get back in. I am not sure that would work. But it was an interesting answer.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
That works if they have kingmaker power, but even then I don't see why they'd attribute their disagreement with Con to something where the voters agree with Con, when they could easily find something where the voters disagreed with Con.
The man was a true hero (and contributor to 'Air International'. [Sorry Dr Sunil - sad, repeated jokes - Prasenanth!]
t would have been interesting to have seen the 'Shark' Me-262 against a DeHaviland Vampire. [OK; most fun seems to have been in a[n] Hawker Tempest: Auntie 'Hilda' Merkel will not allow Wee-Fr'Eck that space come EU lebensraum...!]
Entirely agree (except the obligatory Mr Salmond joke, but never mind). Many PBers will not know that he flew very many different types as a Farnborough test pilot, notably captured Axis aircraft in '45 on. My favourite Winkle Brown story is his account of landing a Vampire jet on a bouncy rubber mattress (a bright idea, or at least it seemed like it at the time, for solving the problem of landing planes on ships).
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
My 2015 forecast: foxinsoxuk the pistol is on your sideboard.
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
My 2015 forecast: foxinsoxuk the pistol is on your sideboard.
Not really the same, is it? Surely the local MP is there for the taking.
Well Labour have lost 22% of their vote since 1997 so the trend supports your theory.
Probably be UKIP by 2020, next year might be too soon. I'd expect UKIP to come second there
Maybe they could say Barking and Dagenham was predominantly white and working class 20 years ago, look what Labour have done to it.
Labour got almost 70% there in 1997 and have lost votes at each election since. Ed managed to get them below 50% for the first time in a generation in 2010, so people seem to be waking up
Why would UKIP - a non-racist party - focus its message on race?
I was not trolling, I was asking a perfectly reasonable question. UKIP's primary selling point right now is immigration. But how do you build support in a white, working class Labour area where immigration has been minimal? Your solution seems to involve raising the spectre of more non-white people arriving if Labour get back in. I am not sure that would work. But it was an interesting answer.
I know you dont have any time for me, but I will ask again, please stop insinuating I am racist
You brought up the topic of Doncaster and white working class.
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK"
Nowhere have I said anything about non white immigration, yet you say
"Your solution seems to involve raising the spectre of more non-white people arriving if Labour get back in. I am not sure that would work. But it was an interesting answer."
Aren't you clever?
You obviously take pride in pendantry, but we both know that the term "white working class" refers to British people and doesnt for the purpose of this debate usually include White Europeans who arent British, the migration of whom has rendered Barking a town in which WWC is the minority.
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
My 2015 forecast: foxinsoxuk the pistol is on your sideboard.
Are those against the HmRC getting the right for persistent non payers the right to take money from accounts also against drug dealers having their assets seized ?
"Millions receive such correspondence every year because underpayment and overpayment of tax are a “natural feature” of PAYE, according to HMRC. “It has been since the Forties and that will never change,” a spokesman said."
Are those against the HmRC getting the right for persistent non payers the right to take money from accounts also against drug dealers having their assets seized ?
Pay your taxes.
I'm not sure what the current laws are about either thing but I'd be against suspected drug dealers having assets frozen temporarily except by court order, and a seizure should require a case to be proven in open court, with the suspect able to see and challenge the evidence allegedly supporting it. Suspected terrorism likewise.
Yep TGOHF is being disingenuous by making the analogy. The current system is that the authorities have to apply to the courts for a seizure order from criminals. The system proposed by the Government for tax collection would require no court or other authority oversight. HMRC would be judge, jury and executioner.
Are those against the HmRC getting the right for persistent non payers the right to take money from accounts also against drug dealers having their assets seized ?
Pay your taxes.
They should have to apply to a court for permission. The proposal is that they just take what they want.
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
Tory loyalist once against missing the point. A conservative-led government is highly unlikely to happen.
@isam - Sorry, you can't close a conversation down by claiming people are accusing you of being a racist. I do not think you are. I think you are very fixated on race and identity. But that is different. If you were talking about EU immigration you should have said so. You didn't. You said B&D was white and working class 20 years ago, now look at it. How could I possibly have known that what you were saying was that it is still white and working class, but it's a different kind of white working class from other parts of Europe? That still seems a pretty ineffectual message for Doncaster, mind.
@isam - Sorry, you can't close a conversation down by claiming people are accusing you of being a racist. I do not think you are. I think you are very fixated on race and identity. But that is different. If you were talking about EU immigration you should have said so. You didn't. You said B&D was white and working class 20 years ago, now look at it. How could I possibly have known that what you were saying was that it is still white and working class, but it's a different kind of white working class from other parts of Europe? That still seems a pretty ineffectual message for Doncaster, mind.
"If Doncaster North is Miliband-land, it doesn’t feel much like it. The Labour vote here collapsed from 34,000 in 1992 to 19,000 in 2010. In Doncaster's three seats, Labour has lost 40,000 votes since 1992
Graham is nearing retirement age and has “always been Labour”. No longer. “I don't vote for them any more – I think they've let us down.” All politicians “p*ss in the same pot – they’re all being tarred now by the same brush because they've been fiddling bucks. They’re just getting an 11 per cent pay rise? I’ve had a four per cent pay rise in five years and I work 55 hours a week.”
In this year’s European elections, Graham will cast his ballot for Ukip. “I’m not Conservative – I couldn’t vote Conservative – and they’re the only party left.” Anti-Tory feeling – a quarter of all Northerners don’t know anyone who votes Conservatives – has extended to the Liberal Democrats as a result of the Coalition and cuts. This leaves Ukip ready to pounce on those who are fed up with Labour.
Graham wants “to send a message” about immigration. “They've just got to stop them at the border. Even the lads I know who are Polish, they’re worried about Romanians coming in, they don't like them.”
Such feelings are common in Doncaster. In Mr Miliband’s seat in 2010, 16.3 per cent of voters supported anti-European, anti-immigration parties – Ukip, the BNP or the English Democrats. With the BNP and English Democrats having collapsed since, Ukip should expect to mop up those voters disgusted with the “LibLabCon”."
@isam - Sorry, you can't close a conversation down by claiming people are accusing you of being a racist. I do not think you are. I think you are very fixated on race and identity. But that is different. If you were talking about EU immigration you should have said so. You didn't. You said B&D was white and working class 20 years ago, now look at it. How could I possibly have known that what you were saying was that it is still white and working class, but it's a different kind of white working class from other parts of Europe? That still seems a pretty ineffectual message for Doncaster, mind.
The article I linked to about Barking was all about EU immigration
I am not a tory loyalist. I am a LibDem, but a pro coalition one. I think the current government for all its faults was the best outcome possible in 2010. The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government. In the short term I think the LDs will be hurt by coalition, but in the longer term will be stronger. 2020 will be a good year to be a LibDem as centrists desert the Milliband regime for a sane centrist party.
Even if you rate Camerons pledge as being only 50/50 in the event of a conservative led government, it is still more likely than any of these other convoluted scenarios.
I thought Cameron was going to “renegotiate” our membership of the EU before his referendum.
Right, that gives the LibDems another angle: We are not prepared to fob off the British people with anything less than the meaningful renegotiation Mr Cameron promised them. We are not prepared to concede defeat in this negotiation with anything less than the abolition of the CAP, a single seat for the EU parliament and an end to protectionist trade policies, and we insist that he keep negotiating until he gets them, however long it may take.
The more likely Lib Dem angle is this: while we appreciate David Cameron's offer, we simply can not remain in coalition with a party that is continuing to pander to UKIP's extremism. Particularly dangerous is all the uncertainty of an EU referendum when the recovery has only just been secured. Instead, we have agreed a new deal with Labour. We will end the ongoing privatisation of the NHS, provide more rights for Generation Rent, clamp down on tax havens, and introduce a mansion tax.
Tory loyalist once against missing the point. A conservative-led government is highly unlikely to happen.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
I'm puzzled why the abduction of girls in Nigeria is causing a big stir but the same sort of thing or worse in Syria doesn't seem to bother the international community much. It's just the comparison between the two that's odd, not either one in isolation.
I am not a tory loyalist. I am a LibDem, but a pro coalition one. I think the current government for all its faults was the best outcome possible in 2010. The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government. In the short term I think the LDs will be hurt by coalition, but in the longer term will be stronger. 2020 will be a good year to be a LibDem as centrists desert the Milliband regime for a sane centrist party.
I can respect that, but I believe your problem is the "no Tory loyalist" line. LibDem MPs have voted more loyally for Tory bills than Tory MPs have. Time after time LibDem MPs campaign against a measure then quietly vote for it. The coming divorce from the Tories and relaunch of an independent party should be fun, having to campaign pro NHS and pro the poor and disadvantaged having loyally voted against them for 5 years.
The party will survive, I agree with you there. But its going to take the removal of Clegg and his acolytes and a news face unconnected with the Tories to do that. Farron thinks its him. Perhaps.
Having just come back in from a 4 mile leafleting walk here in sunny Stockton South, here are the things that frustrate those of us out spreading the word: Houses with gates Houses with several gates Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box Houses with combinations of the above
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
Having just come back in from a 4 mile leafleting walk here in sunny Stockton South, here are the things that frustrate those of us out spreading the word: Houses with gates Houses with several gates Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box Houses with combinations of the above
I'd hate to be a postman....
I agree
I did leafleting for the first time on Wednesday, and I thought how on earth do postman do this every day?
One lady left her keys in the front door so I knocked and told her, and she didnt even say thanks!
The LDs voted for coalition bills not "Tory" ones, and have shown themselves to be a disciplined party of government (the useless Vince Cable excepted).
The party is behind Clegg, the calls for defenestration come from supporters of other parties. Anyone equally disliked by the kippers and Millibandites has got it about right.
I am not a tory loyalist. I am a LibDem, but a pro coalition one. I think the current government for all its faults was the best outcome possible in 2010. The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government. In the short term I think the LDs will be hurt by coalition, but in the longer term will be stronger. 2020 will be a good year to be a LibDem as centrists desert the Milliband regime for a sane centrist party.
I can respect that, but I believe your problem is the "no Tory loyalist" line. LibDem MPs have voted more loyally for Tory bills than Tory MPs have. Time after time LibDem MPs campaign against a measure then quietly vote for it. The coming divorce from the Tories and relaunch of an independent party should be fun, having to campaign pro NHS and pro the poor and disadvantaged having loyally voted against them for 5 years.
The party will survive, I agree with you there. But its going to take the removal of Clegg and his acolytes and a news face unconnected with the Tories to do that. Farron thinks its him. Perhaps.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
I cannot say those examples please me either, although the level of whinging we occasionally see from those MPs on the Tory-Right about the impact of the LDs makes me think they have been of a help in other areas.
I voted LD in 2010 but wanted a LD-Tory Coalition (ideally with enough LD MPs that a coalition with Labour was also workable, meaning they had greater bargaining power), and though the reality of this government has been disappointing in many areas, I still much prefer the idea of a mix of two parties than one party alone.
2015 won't be an easy choice though. The Tories will likely tack hard right as much as they can out of fear to those they lost to UKIP, even more so when they lose and Cameroons lose power, Labour needed a break from government as like all parties in power for a long time they were getting increasingly arrogant and complacent, but I'm not sure if they have actually learned any lessons from their time out of office, and the LDs will probably, following a middling to extreme culling of MPs, try to become Labour-lite again like so many of their 2010 voters clearly preferred.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
Fantastic post. The lunacy of people being jailed for simply expression an opinion on a public internet message board is something that needs to be stopped urgently, yet not one of the three major parties gives a damn.
It is the same reason that air crashes get more publicity than car crashes, the scale of the incident. BokuHaram have a record of smaller school attacks that barely made the news here.
I'm puzzled why the abduction of girls in Nigeria is causing a big stir but the same sort of thing or worse in Syria doesn't seem to bother the international community much. It's just the comparison between the two that's odd, not either one in isolation.
The LDs voted for coalition bills not "Tory" ones, and have shown themselves to be a disciplined party of government (the useless Vince Cable excepted).
The party is behind Clegg, the calls for defenestration come from supporters of other parties. Anyone equally disliked by the kippers and Millibandites has got it about right.
It may or not be right, but it won't win many votes, so it clearly isn't popular. That said, the occasional policy which the LDs stick to despite knowing full well it is not popular (eg supporting the EU), does deserve some credit, in that they know, unlike the other two, that there are limits to how far you can pretend to represent the mythic centre ground.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
Fantastic post. The lunacy of people being jailed for simply expression an opinion on a public internet message board is something that needs to be stopped urgently, yet not one of the three major parties gives a damn.
Agreed. A rather sinister streak has unfortunately continued under this government, and it does not seen likely any future government of any particular composition will be inclined to reverse that.
... I think the current government for all its faults was the best outcome possible in 2010. The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government. In the short term I think the LDs will be hurt by coalition, but in the longer term will be stronger.
Thank begeezahs we have Boots' The Chemist (and other clones). A 'Dr' who thinks that TacTom nuclear-tipped missile is a defence policy is - ahem - not too bright or too numerate...!
The LDs voted for coalition bills not "Tory" ones, and have shown themselves to be a disciplined party of government (the useless Vince Cable excepted).
The party is behind Clegg, the calls for defenestration come from supporters of other parties. Anyone equally disliked by the kippers and Millibandites has got it about right.
It may or not be right, but it won't win many votes, so it clearly isn't popular.
Its like this. The collapse in LibDem votes in local elections on an annual basis, the collapse in national polls, the increasingly likely lost deposit in any given byelection. Your voters - rather former voters - don't see them as "Coalition bills" they see them as Tory bills. Nor can you persuade them of the error of their ways by smugly insisting anyone critical of Clegg is a "supporter of other parties". Actually you have a point there. Your ex voters are now supporters of other parties. Almost ANY other party.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
Fantastic post. The lunacy of people being jailed for simply expression an opinion on a public internet message board is something that needs to be stopped urgently, yet not one of the three major parties gives a damn.
Agreed. A rather sinister streak has unfortunately continued under this government, and it does not seen likely any future government of any particular composition will be inclined to reverse that.
This is the sad thing about Britain, especially so given that many of these concepts of fundamental rights developed here. The United States is very fortunate in that they founded a new form of government right at the time there was a huge debate about this stuff. The constitution and the Bill of Rights are thus at the very centre of their national identity. Unfortunately for us we have centred it on to things like monarchy instead.
The guy that dug out Farage on QT, that @NickPalmer was praising, is the father of a former Lib Dem councillor, was married to a Lib Dem councillor, is friends with Eastleigh MP Mike Thornton
pic.twitter.com/7RecneYAz7
Charlie Bloom @chasobursledon 8 Apr 2013 #Margaret Thatcher. I'll not mourn her death. That's for her family. I'll not celebrate her life/death. It's the end of her. She was evil.
To be fair, that shouldnt stop him from saying whatever he likes on Question Time
The LDs voted for coalition bills not "Tory" ones, and have shown themselves to be a disciplined party of government (the useless Vince Cable excepted).
The party is behind Clegg, the calls for defenestration come from supporters of other parties. Anyone equally disliked by the kippers and Millibandites has got it about right.
It may or not be right, but it won't win many votes, so it clearly isn't popular.
Its like this. The collapse in LibDem votes in local elections on an annual basis, the collapse in national polls, the increasingly likely lost deposit in any given byelection. Your voters - rather former voters - don't see them as "Coalition bills" they see them as Tory bills. Nor can you persuade them of the error of their ways by smugly insisting anyone critical of Clegg is a "supporter of other parties". Actually you have a point there. Your ex voters are now supporters of other parties. Almost ANY other party.
It's not my party. I may have voted LD, but I am not a LD, if you take my meaning. I'm perfectly happy here on the fence.
I think you are right that people don't see them as Coalition bills but instead as Tory bills. That's ridiculous, and the anti-Tory vote is irrationally intense (but accepted fact - right or wrong, people are less likely to support something if they know it is a Tory policy, than if they think it is Labour or whatever), but LDs = same as Tories is the way things will go until Clegg goes, even though it is not as though he didn't run it past the party first.
Having just come back in from a 4 mile leafleting walk here in sunny Stockton South, here are the things that frustrate those of us out spreading the word: Houses with gates Houses with several gates Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box Houses with combinations of the above
I'd hate to be a postman....
Add vicious terriers on the other side of the letter box, letter boxes at ground floor level, and draft excluders that skin the back of your hand.
Just caught up with last night's HIGNFY. Interesting for the mood music - UKIP got lots of sniping but in a show hosted by David Mitchell, what was fascinating was the air of embarrassment there was about Ed Miliband. The air of "dear God, are we really supposed to get behind this guy?" was palpable.
And it's fair to say Ed's recent pronouncement about his own intelligence was not perceived as, er, intelligent....
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
Fantastic post. The lunacy of people being jailed for simply expression an opinion on a public internet message board is something that needs to be stopped urgently, yet not one of the three major parties gives a damn.
Agreed. A rather sinister streak has unfortunately continued under this government, and it does not seen likely any future government of any particular composition will be inclined to reverse that.
This is the sad thing about Britain, especially so given that many of these concepts of fundamental rights developed here. The United States is very fortunate in that they founded a new form of government right at the time there was a huge debate about this stuff. The constitution and the Bill of Rights are thus at the very centre of their national identity. Unfortunately for us we have centred it on to things like monarchy instead.
That being at the centre of their national identity doesn't seem to have stopped their government from engaging in just as sinister or even worse behaviour however.
Having just come back in from a 4 mile leafleting walk here in sunny Stockton South, here are the things that frustrate those of us out spreading the word: Houses with gates Houses with several gates Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box Houses with combinations of the above
I'd hate to be a postman....
Add vicious terriers on the other side of the letter box, letter boxes at ground floor level, and draft excluders that skin the back of your hand.
And the perennial moral dilemma - do you nick the leaflets of the guy who is leafletting 5 minutes ahead of you? ;-)
Just caught up with last night's HIGNFY. Interesting for the mood music - UKIP got lots of sniping but in a show hosted by David Mitchell, what was fascinating was the air of embarrassment there was about Ed Miliband. The air of "dear God, re we really supposed to get behind this guy?" was palpable.
And it's fair to say Ed's recent pronouncement about his own intelligence was not perceived as, er, intelligent....
I was surprised as well (also a much better HIGNFY than last week - Andy Hamilton is hilarious, and the Scottish lady pretty decent too). On a previous hosting Mitchell made a joke about arresting Tory MPs always being a good idea (rather than just saying MPs), unscripted, but seemed entirely comfortable with pretty strong mockery of the Labour leader. Not to say Cameron and Clegg avoided mockery, but I was taken aback a little at the level of scorn.
A Tory government with a small majority just isn't going to happen. Cameron knows this, Osborne knows this, even Richard Nabavi knows this. .
No he doesn't.
As I have posted many times, I think the betting markets are making a serious mistake by extrapolating forward from current polling and assuming not much will change. On the historical record, this is a big error: as the excellent work by Stephen Fisher shows, the likely shifts in the year up to the election are very big (his 95% confidence limits on the Con vote share - based on polling only - are currently plus or minus 8.1%, and the probability of Con Maj is as high as 36%). A Conservative majority, or a Labour majority, remain perfectly likely. We just don't know.
In any case, your argument is typically UKIP-bonkers. To argue that Cameron can't get a majority, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him, omits the central point that if the Kippers who claim to want us to leave the EU did vote for him, he'd easily get a majority.
You live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world, arguing that the best way to get what you want is to sabotage it.
Having just come back in from a 4 mile leafleting walk here in sunny Stockton South, here are the things that frustrate those of us out spreading the word: Houses with gates Houses with several gates Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box Houses with combinations of the above
I'd hate to be a postman....
Add vicious terriers on the other side of the letter box, letter boxes at ground floor level, and draft excluders that skin the back of your hand.
And the perennial moral dilemma - do you nick the leaflets of the guy who is leafletting 5 minutes ahead of you? ;-)
Tut tut. Whatever happened to the canvasser's/leafleter's code of honour? I swear, this country's going down the pan
Odd that UKIP (apparently tearing chunks out of the wwc Labour vote according to some on here) can't put up a full slate of candidates (or anywhere near it) in Barking. Credit to the Conservatives who do seem to have a full slate while the BNP hardly have any candidates at all on a quick look.
A Tory government with a small majority just isn't going to happen. Cameron knows this, Osborne knows this, even Richard Nabavi knows this. .
No he doesn't.
As I have posted many times, I think the betting markets are making a serious mistake by extrapolating forward from current polling and assuming not much will change. On the historical record, this is a big error: as the excellent work by Stephen Fisher shows, the likely shifts in the year up to the election are very big (his 95% confidence limits on the Con vote share - based on polling only - are currently plus or minus 8.1%, and the probability of Con Maj is as high as 36%). A Conservative majority, or a Labour majority, remain perfectly likely. We just don't know.
In any case, your argument is typically UKIP-bonkers. To argue that Cameron can't get a majority, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him, omits the central point that if the Kippers who claim to want us to leave the EU did vote for him, he'd easily get a majority.
You live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world, arguing that the best way to get what you want is to sabotage it.
"To argue that Cameron can't get a majority, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him, omits the central point that if the Kippers who claim to want us to leave the EU did vote for him, he'd easily get a majority."
That seems true enough to me
The problem is geting people to vote for someone who they disagree with on practically everything isnt as straightforward as you try to suggest.
As I always say, if Nick Griffin offered to appoint a black Head of Met Police, and Mayor of London, would you criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
Odd that UKIP (apparently tearing chunks out of the wwc Labour vote according to some on here) can't put up a full slate of candidates (or anywhere near it) in Barking. Credit to the Conservatives who do seem to have a full slate while the BNP hardly have any candidates at all on a quick look.
It is the curse of tiny and/or new parties that they have very, very patchy membership numbers, so fail to put up candidates in all kinds of areas.
Just look at the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Since their collapse at the ballot boxes in 2011 their membership has melted away like snow off a dyke. They are failing to put up candidates in most by-elections.
Eg. just last week there was a local by-election in Charlie Kennedy's seat, their 2nd safest. No SLD candidate. Mind you, there wasn't a SLAB candidate either, and Caol used to be a rock-solid SLAB stronghold.
The LibDems have been a positive influence and moderating force on the government.
Witness the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the Justice and Security Act 2013, the continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, now being made subject to the jurisdiction of Luxembourg, reforms to legal aid which have ensured it is all but impossible for defendants in complex fraud cases to receive a fair trial, a more authoritarian approach to drugs... Then there are other bonkers bits of statism, including making 'emotional neglect' of a child a criminal offence, and people being imprisoned for posting things on Twitter.
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
M'Lud
I am a little confused and surprised by your opposition to the EAW proposals.
The EAW is not my specialist topic, but I understand it is a EU Framework Decision, subsequently implemented through national legislation, which harmonises the rules and procedures relating to extradition between participating countries of fugitives from criminal prosecution or custodial sentence.
I further understand that the EAW built on and replaced a number of prior treaties between the EU countries or subsets thereof. The main changes implemented by the EAW were to take the process out of diplomatic channels and to prohibit the refusal by some countries to allow extradition of their own nationals to foreign countries.
So, let's take a theoretical example of how the EAW would work in practice.
An individual convicted of a felony and sentenced to more than 12 months in jail in the UK, escapes from custody and seeks refuge in Spain. UK law enforcement authorities issue an EAW to seek the fugitive's extradition from Spain to the UK.
The fugitive then exercises rights in Spain to contest the warrant and secures a decision by Spain's highest relevant court for the extradition request to be rejected.
So we have a conflict of jurisdictions which needs resolution. Law enforcement in the UK cannot secure a court ruling from any British court which can overrule that made by the Spanish court. An agreed supranational appellate authority is needed.
So how is accepting the authority of an EU appellate court for the purposes of resolving conflicts between member states on the EAW be regarded as a surrender of sovereignty by the UK?
In the example I have set out above the UK never had, and is never reasonably likely to have, any jurisdiction over the Spanish courts (and vice versa). So there was never any 'sovereignty' to cede in the first place.
Would a UKIP government ban the Eurovision song contest as a social pollutant of the nation-state?
One can only hope so.
Surely being in the Eurovision or not is the choice of (hopefully commercial) broadcasters.
I don't believe any government should tell any independent commercially-run organisation that it can, or cannot, take part in an international singing contest.
As I always say, if Nick Griffin offered to appoint a black Head of Met Police, and Mayor of London, would you criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
That comparison is ridiculous.
If Cameron offered to provide free copies of Socialist Worker to all school children just to get Labour voters, then you might not believe it.
However Cameron has already provided a referendum for Scotland, and offering one for the EU fits into his party's mindset.
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
It is hardly extremist when all polls suggest that about half the country would vote to stay in, and 80% if better terms. Indeed the BOOers on any terms are the extreme minority.
I am happy with the record of my party in government.
I am a little confused and surprised by your opposition to the EAW proposals...
So we have a conflict of jurisdictions which needs resolution. Law enforcement in the UK cannot secure a court ruling from any British court which can overrule that made by the Spanish court. An agreed supranational appellate authority is needed...
So how is accepting the authority of an EU appellate court for the purposes of resolving conflicts between member states on the EAW be regarded as a surrender of sovereignty by the UK?
I am baffled. Please unbaffle me.
Your argument proceeds on a series of misunderstandings which need to be corrected. If we left the European Arrest Warrant, we would still have extradition arrangements with every state who are subject to the Framework Decision, pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition ("the ECE"). The ECE contains far more safeguards than the EAW, and ought to be preferred on civil liberties grounds.
There is no need and there has never been any need for a supranational authority to determine extradition cases, because no conflict of laws exists. That is because the requesting state has no jurisdiction to make an order for extradition under the ECE or EAW. Requesting states can issue an arrest warrant. It is for the authorities of the state which receives that request to determine liability to extradition and the validity of the warrant. Nobody would argue that an appeal to a supranational tribunal is needed in cases concerning extradition to and from category 2 territories such as the United States, South Africa and Australia. Indeed, such a suggestion would rightly be viewed as preposterous.
There is a more fundamental problem however with the government's plan to give the Court of Justice jurisdiction in extradition cases. The Court of Justice would be able to override British legislation to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision. Parliament has just legislated, for example, to allow the District Judge (or in Scotland, the sheriff) to order a person's discharge where extradition to a category 1 territory would be disproportionate. No such proportionality test exists in the Framework Decision. It would thus be open to the Court of Justice to strike down the proportionality test. The limited safeguards under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 would thus be subject to constant erosion. At present, the courts treat the Extradition Act 2003 like any other statute.
In any event, we should be incredibly wary of ceding any further jurisdiction to such a political court.
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
2-3-5 is best for Cons/Lab, and worst for UKIP.
For that reason, I suspect it won't fly. UKIP has every justification for asking to be treated as well as the LibDems, and I think it will be very hard to exclude the LibDems from the main leaders debate, given they have 60-odd MPs.
I suspect we'll end up without debates this time around - because: (a) Ed isn't a great debater, (b) Cameron won't want to give the oxygen of publicity to UKIP, (c) including UKIP (assuming they have no seats) and not the Greens will be very difficult.
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
I didn't think that you could bend the knee any lower and doff your forelock any quicker in your blind devotion to Cameron and all thing turquoise. But you can!
You just can't admit that Cammo is frit, When alls said and done you brown-nose his bum.
As I always say, if Nick Griffin offered to appoint a black Head of Met Police, and Mayor of London, would you criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
That comparison is ridiculous.
If Cameron offered to provide free copies of Socialist Worker to all school children just to get Labour voters, then you might not believe it.
However Cameron has already provided a referendum for Scotland, and offering one for the EU fits into his party's mindset.
I am not saying I dont believe he will offer a referendum, I mean that even if Nick Griffin was sincere in a promise to install a black Head of Met and Mayor of London, I dont think black people should be criticised for not voting BNP.
Cameron, as a PM with a majority could still legislate to allow open borders/freedom of movement/mass immigration from the EU even if we were not part of it,as well as any other metropolitan luvvie policies that take his fancy. He could still run the country exactly as he does now, which is the polar opposite of how UKIP voters want it run.
At the moment he has the cover of EU membership as an excuse, but whats to say he would be any different when we are out?
Just as Nick Griffin could appoint the people I have said, but still pass laws to repatriate black people to the countries of their grandparents, or whatever it is the BNP want.. and black people would have voted for it
I am a little confused and surprised by your opposition to the EAW proposals...
So we have a conflict of jurisdictions which needs resolution. Law enforcement in the UK cannot secure a court ruling from any British court which can overrule that made by the Spanish court. An agreed supranational appellate authority is needed...
So how is accepting the authority of an EU appellate court for the purposes of resolving conflicts between member states on the EAW be regarded as a surrender of sovereignty by the UK?
I am baffled. Please unbaffle me.
Your argument proceeds on a series of misunderstandings which need to be corrected. If we left the European Arrest Warrant, we would still have extradition arrangements with every state who are subject to the Framework Decision, pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition ("the ECE"). The ECE contains far more safeguards than the EAW, and ought to be preferred on civil liberties grounds.
There is no need and there has never been any need for a supranational authority to determine extradition cases, because no conflict of laws exists. That is because the requesting state has no jurisdiction to make an order for extradition under the ECE or EAW. Requesting states can issue an arrest warrant. It is for the authorities of the state which receives that request to determine liability to extradition and the validity of the warrant. Nobody would argue that an appeal to a supranational tribunal is needed in cases concerning extradition to and from category 2 territories such as the United States, South Africa and Australia. Indeed, such a suggestion would rightly be viewed as preposterous.
There is a more fundamental problem however with the government's plan to give the Court of Justice jurisdiction in extradition cases. The Court of Justice would be able to override British legislation to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision. Parliament has just legislated, for example, to allow the District Judge (or in Scotland, the sheriff) to order a person's discharge where extradition to a category 1 territory would be disproportionate. No such proportionality test exists in the Framework Decision. It would thus be open to the Court of Justice to strike down the proportionality test. The limited safeguards under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 would thus be subject to constant erosion. At present, the courts treat the Extradition Act 2003 like any other statute.
In any event, we should be incredibly wary of ceding any further jurisdiction to such a political court.
How do you feel about our - allegedly rather one-sided - extradition treaty with the US?
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
I didn't think that you could bend the knee any lower and doff your forelock any quicker in your blind devotion to Cameron and all thing turquoise. But you can!
You just can't admit that Cammo is frit, When alls said and done you brown-nose his bum.
Change the word 'Cameron' for 'Farage' and that sums up the relationship between Nigel and the Kippers.
Was the poem originally written for your deity and the Newark By Election?
Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK. If UKIP is really serious about going after the Labour vote it should surely make a real effort there with a high profile candidate. Perhaps even the Nigemeister himself - after all, the locals must feel horribly betrayed by their sitting MP. We should expect a massive switch to UKIP next year, shouldn't we?
Lab have got away with what they've been doing to the original working class population by not doing it everywhere at once - one manor at a time per town/city.
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
I don't think that is a distinction. He wants to avoid having the debates as they were as he thinks he would do better in a different format (which if that is what he wants then reports have been lying about how he did not want them to overshadow the campaigns - instead he wants them to overshadow the campaigns in his preferred way), which is the same as saying he wants to avoid them as they are proposed (as was).
To me it still doesn't fit anyway. The only two who have a chance to be PM may be Cameron and Milband, but it does not follow that the choice people must make is purely between the two, and even if we say that it is, what Clegg and Farage have to say (less so the others due to less nationwide impact) in response to both Cameron and Milband, and with them, may influence whether people are willing to vote for Cameron or Miliband, or for someone else which might favour Cameron or Miliband.
Trying to present our system as strictly two party and everyone else as irrelevant is the dream of the big two, they yearn for the destruction of the LDs for that very reason (quite aside from disagreeing with them politically, they see them purely as taking votes which rightfully belong to them) but it is not a genuine or fair reflection fo how things are.
O/T an #equalityfacts hash tag is running on Twitter this afternoon. Funniest I've seen so far - "Eastenders setting to be renamed as Halalbert square. #equalityfacts
And of course, if we do end up with 3:3:3, David Camreron can point out that he sought a format that would include Nigel Farage, but it was vetoed by others.
I expect that was the real point of this proposal.
2, 4, 7 is the way to go (SNP and Plaid Cymru being the final two). But since no one will much like that, it won't happen.
I expect we'll either get 3:3:3 or nothing.
But SNP won't be part of Britain in 2015...
You mean Scotland ...
Well, the Coalition keep saying that Indy Day of 24 March 2016 as suggested by the SNP is not realistic. Mr Hammond (MoD) was saying only the other day it'd take ten years to sort out Trident.
But NB also that that date allows for a one year postponement of the UKGE of 2015, precisely timed for a dissolution of Parliament the moment Mr Cameron gets back from the Castle Esplanade, and the usual purdah. .
How do you feel about our - allegedly rather one-sided - extradition treaty with the US?
Sir Scott Baker found that the US-UK extradition treaty does not operate in an unbalanced manner and that there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and the reasonable suspicion test (see A Review of the United Kingdom's Extradition Arrangements (30 September 2011), p. 331). No one has come up with a convincing argument to the contrary. It is true that until 26 April 2007 when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, the United Kingdom was obliged to provide prima facie evidence to secure extradition from the United States, but the reverse was not the case (p. 236). That anomaly has been rectified, and was the Labour government's fault for implementing the provisions of 2003 Treaty before ratification.
In the period 2004 to 2011, the United States made 130 extradition requests, and the United Kingdom surrendered 73 persons to the United States (56%). In the same period, the United Kingdom made 54 requests for extradition, and the United States surrendered 38 people (70%). Furthermore, the Treaty was only in force as respects surrenders to the United Kingdom after 2007. The United States never refused an extradition request in that period. The United Kingdom refused to extradite in seven cases (figures from p. 472). It will be clear that if anything the treaty has worked to the United Kingdom's advantage. Mrs May's disgraceful refusal to extradite McKinnon is probably the worst abuse that has occurred since 2003.
As for objections to the American judicial system, that is an argument for not having an extradition treaty at all. In any event, I would rather face justice in an American court than be hauled before some Napoleonic tribunal on the Continent!
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
2-3-5 is best for Cons/Lab, and worst for UKIP.
For that reason, I suspect it won't fly. UKIP has every justification for asking to be treated as well as the LibDems, and I think it will be very hard to exclude the LibDems from the main leaders debate, given they have 60-odd MPs.
I suspect we'll end up without debates this time around - because: (a) Ed isn't a great debater, (b) Cameron won't want to give the oxygen of publicity to UKIP, (c) including UKIP (assuming they have no seats) and not the Greens will be very difficult.
So: my money is on no debates.
The broadcasters should just do debates with all of the big four parties. If Cameron and Miliband don't want to turn up, then give them an empty chair. Miliband would certainly come, and, if he does, Cameron will too.
A Tory government with a small majority just isn't going to happen. Cameron knows this, Osborne knows this, even Richard Nabavi knows this. .
No he doesn't.
As I have posted many times, I think the betting markets are making a serious mistake by extrapolating forward from current polling and assuming not much will change. On the historical record, this is a big error: as the excellent work by Stephen Fisher shows, the likely shifts in the year up to the election are very big (his 95% confidence limits on the Con vote share - based on polling only - are currently plus or minus 8.1%, and the probability of Con Maj is as high as 36%). A Conservative majority, or a Labour majority, remain perfectly likely. We just don't know.
In any case, your argument is typically UKIP-bonkers. To argue that Cameron can't get a majority, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him, omits the central point that if the Kippers who claim to want us to leave the EU did vote for him, he'd easily get a majority.
You live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world, arguing that the best way to get what you want is to sabotage it.
If you believe there's a one third chance the Tories will get an absolute majority, then I'm happy to bet with you at those odds. The idea that the Tories will be scoring in the 40s is ludicrous. Somehow I'm sure you won't put your money where your mouth is.
And if the Tories that want us to leave the EU voted for UKIP - the only party that actually supports that principle and won't try and rig the vote in the other direction - Farage would easily get a majority, so that works both ways.
The best way of getting what I want is to vote for the only party who are making those views on the national stage. UKIP supporters withdrawing their support so Cameron can get most seats and yet fail to become PM, emasculating UKIP in the process, is blatant absurdity. Only die-hard Tory loyalists fail to see this.
On topic: For once I disagree with the excellent David H. I don't think Cameron wants to avoid the debates, I think he wants to debate one-for-one against Ed M, as the two potential PMs: the choice the country has to make, after all, is which of the two they want.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
I didn't think that you could bend the knee any lower and doff your forelock any quicker in your blind devotion to Cameron and all thing turquoise. But you can!
You just can't admit that Cammo is frit, When alls said and done you brown-nose his bum.
Change the word 'Cameron' for 'Farage' and that sums up the relationship between Nigel and the Kippers.
Was the poem originally written for your deity and the Newark By Election?
Mr. Socrates, I wouldn't be a supporter of that. Do we want media organisations dictating the approach to campaigning in an election?
They wouldn't be dictating anything except their own events. I would certainly strongly support the role of the media in demanding that politicians face questions from the public.
Is the robber taxman law an EU directive? I was assuming after Cyprus they'd want all the provinces signed up for a cash grab law ready for the next euro-crisis.
"In terms of Facebook fans, UKIP outperformed all the mainstream political parties put together by a factor of five.
The analysis reveals that UKIP added 41,000 Facebook followers over the past month, while the other major parties lumped together only managed to add 8,000 between them."
The ECE contains far more safeguards than the EAW, and ought to be preferred on civil liberties grounds.
A different argument and one not relevant to the "surrender of sovereignty" issue.
What you are saying is that the government should not opt back in to the EAW because the predecessor and still valid convention is to be preferred.
I am open to arguments on this basis but it is not the issue we are debating.
There is no need and there has never been any need for a supranational authority to determine extradition cases, because no conflict of laws exists.
All parties to the EAW agreement (or any other extradition agreement/treaty) expect their counterparties to operate in accordance with the provisions of such multilateral agreement. It makes sense and improves the implementation of law and justice, even if it were not absolutely necessary, to have a body which can review the facts of individual cases and rule on whether such provisions have been observed. I am not persuaded such an argument is "preposterous".
I am also not persuaded by your argument that requesting states have no interests in how "liability to extradition and the validity of the warrant" is determined because they have no power themselves to make an order for extradition. Both parties have an interest which might be protected, in the last resort, by a supranational appellate authority.
The Court of Justice would be able to override British legislation to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision.
What you are suggesting is that an individual state which is a participant in the EAW arrangements may wish to enact legislation which adds to or varies the prior multinational agreement.
Insofar as such additional legislation does not undermine or frustrate the provisions of the multilateral agreement, I see no reason to prevent this.
However if a country, say, introduced additional legislation which prevented the EAW applying to their own nationals then this would negate the purpose of entering into the multi-lateral agreement in the first place.
If a country adopts a multilateral agreement it must comply with its basic provisions. Any additional provisions added unilaterally should not be in conflict with the multilateral agreement.
Having a supra-national body to determine compliance with the multilateral agreement and whether additional national legislation is in conflict makes sense to me. It is not a matter of allowing Johnny Foreigner to overrule UK law, but allowing an international agreement to be internationally arbitrated.
Comments
http://electionleaflets.org/leaflets/full/24128d03-a91f-43fb-9b74-65dd8addea9d/
I'll be interested to hear how he's going to have us keep control of our borders again (given that free movement is a fundamental part of the EU), how he's going to bring back justice and home affairs (given the ECJ is a critical part of the EU and he's just signed up for the EAW), and how we're going to remove ever closer union (given that Barroso has ruled this out).
Pay your taxes.
But anyway there wouldnt be a need to focus on race, most of the latest wave of immigrants into Barking are white, and many non white Barking residents are up in arms about it, including Labour councillors who have defected to UKIP.
It's all about the pace of change in an area and the affect on the residents
"Thankfully, this is no longer a debate about race, as it was when the British National Party was stirring up the protest vote in these parts. In 2006, the BNP even won 12 seats on the council. Today, it has completely disappeared. The debate, now, is about the system.
Among white and black, Left and Right, old and young, one subject on which pretty much everyone in Barking agrees is that current levels of immigration (from Europe and elsewhere) are unsustainable."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597454/We-Residents-deprived-borough-speak-predicted-Britain-need-Manchester-absorb-immigration.html
Eric Brown ought to be knighted for services to aviation.
http://bgr.com/2014/05/09/fcc-net-neutrality-controversy/
Which reminds me, David Cameron's government is opposing net neutrality too.
My 2015 forecast: UKippers crying in their beer.
You brought up the topic of Doncaster and white working class.
"Doncaster is one of the whitest and most working class constituencies in the UK"
Nowhere have I said anything about non white immigration, yet you say
"Your solution seems to involve raising the spectre of more non-white people arriving if Labour get back in. I am not sure that would work. But it was an interesting answer."
Aren't you clever?
You obviously take pride in pendantry, but we both know that the term "white working class" refers to British people and doesnt for the purpose of this debate usually include White Europeans who arent British, the migration of whom has rendered Barking a town in which WWC is the minority.
So in future they can take the taxes even though they are not owed. What a great system you are supporting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10654501/Why-wont-HMRC-pay-up-for-tax-blunders.html
"Millions receive such correspondence every year because underpayment and overpayment of tax are a “natural feature” of PAYE, according to HMRC. “It has been since the Forties and that will never change,” a spokesman said."
Remember if you don't vote Labour you are racist.
Is this real? Read the small print - parody account.
Graham is nearing retirement age and has “always been Labour”. No longer. “I don't vote for them any more – I think they've let us down.” All politicians “p*ss in the same pot – they’re all being tarred now by the same brush because they've been fiddling bucks. They’re just getting an 11 per cent pay rise? I’ve had a four per cent pay rise in five years and I work 55 hours a week.”
In this year’s European elections, Graham will cast his ballot for Ukip. “I’m not Conservative – I couldn’t vote Conservative – and they’re the only party left.” Anti-Tory feeling – a quarter of all Northerners don’t know anyone who votes Conservatives – has extended to the Liberal Democrats as a result of the Coalition and cuts. This leaves Ukip ready to pounce on those who are fed up with Labour.
Graham wants “to send a message” about immigration. “They've just got to stop them at the border. Even the lads I know who are Polish, they’re worried about Romanians coming in, they don't like them.”
Such feelings are common in Doncaster. In Mr Miliband’s seat in 2010, 16.3 per cent of voters supported anti-European, anti-immigration parties – Ukip, the BNP or the English Democrats. With the BNP and English Democrats having collapsed since, Ukip should expect to mop up those voters disgusted with the “LibLabCon”."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100254439/why-labour-should-be-terrified-of-ukip-2/
Just how have the Liberal Democrats moderated Tory authoritarianism?
I'm puzzled why the abduction of girls in Nigeria is causing a big stir but the same sort of thing or worse in Syria doesn't seem to bother the international community much. It's just the comparison between the two that's odd, not either one in isolation.
The party will survive, I agree with you there. But its going to take the removal of Clegg and his acolytes and a news face unconnected with the Tories to do that. Farron thinks its him. Perhaps.
Vote 2014 - Europe
11.00pm - 3.00am BBC ONE
Presented by David Dimbleby
Houses with gates
Houses with several gates
Houses with violently strong springs on their letter box
Houses with aggressive comb devices on their letter box
Houses with combinations of the above
I'd hate to be a postman....
And also by moderating Tory europhobia, the LDs have kept Britain in Europe. A Tory majority government in 2010 would have had a referendum by now...
I did leafleting for the first time on Wednesday, and I thought how on earth do postman do this every day?
One lady left her keys in the front door so I knocked and told her, and she didnt even say thanks!
The party is behind Clegg, the calls for defenestration come from supporters of other parties. Anyone equally disliked by the kippers and Millibandites has got it about right.
A "Stringbag" or a 'Geoff-Hoon EH101 Merlin (Stingray/Sea-Skua combo)' against Putin's "St Peter the Great": Which solution would you choose...?
I voted LD in 2010 but wanted a LD-Tory Coalition (ideally with enough LD MPs that a coalition with Labour was also workable, meaning they had greater bargaining power), and though the reality of this government has been disappointing in many areas, I still much prefer the idea of a mix of two parties than one party alone.
2015 won't be an easy choice though. The Tories will likely tack hard right as much as they can out of fear to those they lost to UKIP, even more so when they lose and Cameroons lose power, Labour needed a break from government as like all parties in power for a long time they were getting increasingly arrogant and complacent, but I'm not sure if they have actually learned any lessons from their time out of office, and the LDs will probably, following a middling to extreme culling of MPs, try to become Labour-lite again like so many of their 2010 voters clearly preferred.
There were some great tales, some true but then politicians may be telling them.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Count-Your-Support-Canvassing/dp/0091662508
pic.twitter.com/7RecneYAz7
Charlie Bloom @chasobursledon 8 Apr 2013
#Margaret Thatcher. I'll not mourn her death. That's for her family. I'll not celebrate her life/death. It's the end of her. She was evil.
To be fair, that shouldnt stop him from saying whatever he likes on Question Time
I think you are right that people don't see them as Coalition bills but instead as Tory bills. That's ridiculous, and the anti-Tory vote is irrationally intense (but accepted fact - right or wrong, people are less likely to support something if they know it is a Tory policy, than if they think it is Labour or whatever), but LDs = same as Tories is the way things will go until Clegg goes, even though it is not as though he didn't run it past the party first.
And it's fair to say Ed's recent pronouncement about his own intelligence was not perceived as, er, intelligent....
As I have posted many times, I think the betting markets are making a serious mistake by extrapolating forward from current polling and assuming not much will change. On the historical record, this is a big error: as the excellent work by Stephen Fisher shows, the likely shifts in the year up to the election are very big (his 95% confidence limits on the Con vote share - based on polling only - are currently plus or minus 8.1%, and the probability of Con Maj is as high as 36%). A Conservative majority, or a Labour majority, remain perfectly likely. We just don't know.
In any case, your argument is typically UKIP-bonkers. To argue that Cameron can't get a majority, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him, omits the central point that if the Kippers who claim to want us to leave the EU did vote for him, he'd easily get a majority.
You live in an Alice-in-Wonderland world, arguing that the best way to get what you want is to sabotage it.
That seems true enough to me
The problem is geting people to vote for someone who they disagree with on practically everything isnt as straightforward as you try to suggest.
As I always say, if Nick Griffin offered to appoint a black Head of Met Police, and Mayor of London, would you criticise Doreen Lawrence for not voting BNP?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10816463/Russian-aircraft-carrier-sails-into-English-Channel.html
I am a little confused and surprised by your opposition to the EAW proposals.
The EAW is not my specialist topic, but I understand it is a EU Framework Decision, subsequently implemented through national legislation, which harmonises the rules and procedures relating to extradition between participating countries of fugitives from criminal prosecution or custodial sentence.
I further understand that the EAW built on and replaced a number of prior treaties between the EU countries or subsets thereof. The main changes implemented by the EAW were to take the process out of diplomatic channels and to prohibit the refusal by some countries to allow extradition of their own nationals to foreign countries.
So, let's take a theoretical example of how the EAW would work in practice.
An individual convicted of a felony and sentenced to more than 12 months in jail in the UK, escapes from custody and seeks refuge in Spain. UK law enforcement authorities issue an EAW to seek the fugitive's extradition from Spain to the UK.
The fugitive then exercises rights in Spain to contest the warrant and secures a decision by Spain's highest relevant court for the extradition request to be rejected.
So we have a conflict of jurisdictions which needs resolution. Law enforcement in the UK cannot secure a court ruling from any British court which can overrule that made by the Spanish court. An agreed supranational appellate authority is needed.
So how is accepting the authority of an EU appellate court for the purposes of resolving conflicts between member states on the EAW be regarded as a surrender of sovereignty by the UK?
In the example I have set out above the UK never had, and is never reasonably likely to have, any jurisdiction over the Spanish courts (and vice versa). So there was never any 'sovereignty' to cede in the first place.
I am baffled. Please unbaffle me.
I don't believe any government should tell any independent commercially-run organisation that it can, or cannot, take part in an international singing contest.
If Cameron offered to provide free copies of Socialist Worker to all school children just to get Labour voters, then you might not believe it.
However Cameron has already provided a referendum for Scotland, and offering one for the EU fits into his party's mindset.
Clearly, though, the LibDems would not accept being relegated to the also-rans, so I think this 2-3-5 format is designed to address that. Even so, I'm not sure the LibDems will be happy with it, but at least it puts them amongst the top three and distinct from the Greens and UKIP with 1 and 0 MPs respectively. And it is true that the LibDems are in government now and may well be in government after 2015, so there is a defensible argument as to why they should be treated more seriously than the two parties which, so far at least, have not managed to get parliamentary clout.
I'm also not sure that Ofcom would rule the format as out of order. The 'major parties' get the most exposure, the minor parties less.
I am happy with the record of my party in government.
There is no need and there has never been any need for a supranational authority to determine extradition cases, because no conflict of laws exists. That is because the requesting state has no jurisdiction to make an order for extradition under the ECE or EAW. Requesting states can issue an arrest warrant. It is for the authorities of the state which receives that request to determine liability to extradition and the validity of the warrant. Nobody would argue that an appeal to a supranational tribunal is needed in cases concerning extradition to and from category 2 territories such as the United States, South Africa and Australia. Indeed, such a suggestion would rightly be viewed as preposterous.
There is a more fundamental problem however with the government's plan to give the Court of Justice jurisdiction in extradition cases. The Court of Justice would be able to override British legislation to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision. Parliament has just legislated, for example, to allow the District Judge (or in Scotland, the sheriff) to order a person's discharge where extradition to a category 1 territory would be disproportionate. No such proportionality test exists in the Framework Decision. It would thus be open to the Court of Justice to strike down the proportionality test. The limited safeguards under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 would thus be subject to constant erosion. At present, the courts treat the Extradition Act 2003 like any other statute.
In any event, we should be incredibly wary of ceding any further jurisdiction to such a political court.
For that reason, I suspect it won't fly. UKIP has every justification for asking to be treated as well as the LibDems, and I think it will be very hard to exclude the LibDems from the main leaders debate, given they have 60-odd MPs.
I suspect we'll end up without debates this time around - because: (a) Ed isn't a great debater, (b) Cameron won't want to give the oxygen of publicity to UKIP, (c) including UKIP (assuming they have no seats) and not the Greens will be very difficult.
So: my money is on no debates.
You just can't admit
that Cammo is frit,
When alls said and done
you brown-nose his bum.
Cameron, as a PM with a majority could still legislate to allow open borders/freedom of movement/mass immigration from the EU even if we were not part of it,as well as any other metropolitan luvvie policies that take his fancy. He could still run the country exactly as he does now, which is the polar opposite of how UKIP voters want it run.
At the moment he has the cover of EU membership as an excuse, but whats to say he would be any different when we are out?
Just as Nick Griffin could appoint the people I have said, but still pass laws to repatriate black people to the countries of their grandparents, or whatever it is the BNP want.. and black people would have voted for it
The "party of in" is hoping to to win one or two MEPs.
Was the poem originally written for your deity and the Newark By Election?
I expect we'll either get 3:3:3 or nothing.
To me it still doesn't fit anyway. The only two who have a chance to be PM may be Cameron and Milband, but it does not follow that the choice people must make is purely between the two, and even if we say that it is, what Clegg and Farage have to say (less so the others due to less nationwide impact) in response to both Cameron and Milband, and with them, may influence whether people are willing to vote for Cameron or Miliband, or for someone else which might favour Cameron or Miliband.
Trying to present our system as strictly two party and everyone else as irrelevant is the dream of the big two, they yearn for the destruction of the LDs for that very reason (quite aside from disagreeing with them politically, they see them purely as taking votes which rightfully belong to them) but it is not a genuine or fair reflection fo how things are.
Race could be intriguing in Spain. Shame qualifying went quite the way it did. Writing the pre-race piece now but tips may be awhile.
http://www.louisehaigh.org.uk/
Funniest I've seen so far - "Eastenders setting to be renamed as Halalbert square. #equalityfacts
I expect that was the real point of this proposal.
Well, the Coalition keep saying that Indy Day of 24 March 2016 as suggested by the SNP is not realistic. Mr Hammond (MoD) was saying only the other day it'd take ten years to sort out Trident.
But NB also that that date allows for a one year postponement of the UKGE of 2015, precisely timed for a dissolution of Parliament the moment Mr Cameron gets back from the Castle Esplanade, and the usual purdah. .
In the period 2004 to 2011, the United States made 130 extradition requests, and the United Kingdom surrendered 73 persons to the United States (56%). In the same period, the United Kingdom made 54 requests for extradition, and the United States surrendered 38 people (70%). Furthermore, the Treaty was only in force as respects surrenders to the United Kingdom after 2007. The United States never refused an extradition request in that period. The United Kingdom refused to extradite in seven cases (figures from p. 472). It will be clear that if anything the treaty has worked to the United Kingdom's advantage. Mrs May's disgraceful refusal to extradite McKinnon is probably the worst abuse that has occurred since 2003.
As for objections to the American judicial system, that is an argument for not having an extradition treaty at all. In any event, I would rather face justice in an American court than be hauled before some Napoleonic tribunal on the Continent!
Just seems odd that I'm offered that option...
And if the Tories that want us to leave the EU voted for UKIP - the only party that actually supports that principle and won't try and rig the vote in the other direction - Farage would easily get a majority, so that works both ways.
The best way of getting what I want is to vote for the only party who are making those views on the national stage. UKIP supporters withdrawing their support so Cameron can get most seats and yet fail to become PM, emasculating UKIP in the process, is blatant absurdity. Only die-hard Tory loyalists fail to see this.
The debates are ruinously awful anyway, and even supporters must accept the inherent problems (which are substantial) of the worm, if nothing else.
"In terms of Facebook fans, UKIP outperformed all the mainstream political parties put together by a factor of five.
The analysis reveals that UKIP added 41,000 Facebook followers over the past month, while the other major parties lumped together only managed to add 8,000 between them."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/10/UKIP-social-media-trounces-other-parties
The ECE contains far more safeguards than the EAW, and ought to be preferred on civil liberties grounds.
A different argument and one not relevant to the "surrender of sovereignty" issue.
What you are saying is that the government should not opt back in to the EAW because the predecessor and still valid convention is to be preferred.
I am open to arguments on this basis but it is not the issue we are debating.
There is no need and there has never been any need for a supranational authority to determine extradition cases, because no conflict of laws exists.
All parties to the EAW agreement (or any other extradition agreement/treaty) expect their counterparties to operate in accordance with the provisions of such multilateral agreement. It makes sense and improves the implementation of law and justice, even if it were not absolutely necessary, to have a body which can review the facts of individual cases and rule on whether such provisions have been observed. I am not persuaded such an argument is "preposterous".
I am also not persuaded by your argument that requesting states have no interests in how "liability to extradition and the validity of the warrant" is determined because they have no power themselves to make an order for extradition. Both parties have an interest which might be protected, in the last resort, by a supranational appellate authority.
The Court of Justice would be able to override British legislation to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision.
What you are suggesting is that an individual state which is a participant in the EAW arrangements may wish to enact legislation which adds to or varies the prior multinational agreement.
Insofar as such additional legislation does not undermine or frustrate the provisions of the multilateral agreement, I see no reason to prevent this.
However if a country, say, introduced additional legislation which prevented the EAW applying to their own nationals then this would negate the purpose of entering into the multi-lateral agreement in the first place.
If a country adopts a multilateral agreement it must comply with its basic provisions. Any additional provisions added unilaterally should not be in conflict with the multilateral agreement.
Having a supra-national body to determine compliance with the multilateral agreement and whether additional national legislation is in conflict makes sense to me. It is not a matter of allowing Johnny Foreigner to overrule UK law, but allowing an international agreement to be internationally arbitrated.