I love the way that when you are losing the argument you revert to calling a view held by close to half the population 'extreme'. It just highlights everything that is wrong with you and the Tory party when it comes to your disdain for the public.
And as usual when you have completely lost the argument, you ignore my point and the evidence I provide.
One more time - I expect you'll run away now - how do your reconcile your statement upthread that "Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then. " with the two speeches I have linked to from the time?
I don't believe this is true. His cheek bone doesn't look broken and the fact the attackers are Muslim just seems too convenient.
There are things that don't quite ring true - such as taking a photo of your injury before seeking appropriate medical treatment.
But if the Police are involved (as would appear to be the case), it would be a very extreme act to inflict such an injury on yourself to try to get a few more votes.
It sounds like a dispute between neighbours rather than a political act - but we shall see.
"Police officer dismissed from Met for gross misconduct after investigation into "plebgate" row"
The body count rises.
M'Lud will be on in a tinkle to remind us all that this should not influence the verdict/judgement in The Sun/Toby Rowland vs. Mitchell defamation case.
I don't believe this is true. His cheek bone doesn't look broken and the fact the attackers are Muslim just seems too convenient.
There are things that don't quite ring true - such as taking a photo of your injury before seeking appropriate medical treatment.
But if the Police are involved (as would appear to be the case), it would be a very extreme act to inflict such an injury on yourself to try to get a few more votes.
It sounds like a dispute between neighbours rather than a political act - but we shall see.
It happens. This one turned out to be self-inflicted:
What's undeniable is that the way UKIP are being smeared is going to end with UKIPers being beaten/knifed etc.
But is that incident political or religious?
Or neighbours falling out?
One of the comments on Guido (so caveats etc).
“If these reports are correct, those who have demonised UKIP share responsibility for this…”
"Well yes, we know.
According to Noel Mathews, one of our NW coordinators up here, it’s not certain that politics were at the bottom of this, however Bobby certainly feels Labour hate played a role.
I’ve been expecting blood all the way through this – well there you are."
Thanks, yes an interesting example there regarding airlines.
Ultimately I think what I have taken from your posts is that in political positioning at least UKIP's rise could help the Conservatives. As I note, where I think I will disagree with you is that I don't think this must or indeed should mean the Conservatives become less of a Conservative Party. I think they need to recognise and deal with the anti-establishment and liberal elite challenge facing all parties and reconnect more with the country as a whole. The UKIP rise may actually help them to do this more effectively though, which would be a good thing.
My concern, being blunt about it, is that the Conservative party has on many occasions in the recent past been held to ransom by a small collection of sad obsessives who have contaminated the brand and made too large a section of the population think they were odd at best and downright unpleasant at worst.
If some of these moved off that would be a good thing.
many of us would consider that is exactly what is happening now. A small band of Cameroons holding the rest of the party to ransom over the EU question. It is clear that the majority of the party membership do not hold the pro-EU views of the leadership and yet they are being held to ransom with the threat of a Labour government if they do not support the leadership's minority position.
A majority of the membership voted for Cameron.
Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then.
Of course there is also the fact that Tory party membership has almost halved since that vote.
If they don't believe that he represents the party as a whole they can replace him.
There is no 'holding to ransom' in the Conservative party. It's very easy to trigger a ballot on Cameron's leadership.
No they cannot. There is no mechanism for the party membership to launch a leadership challenge. That can only be done by the Parliamentary party.
I didn't say it was the membership triggering the ballot. Obviously it's the MPs, but the members can put pressure on the MPs
The problem the tory leadership has is that there is a huge backlog of extreme Euro sceptics on the back benches appointed when that was the only way to get selected. This has caused a lot of problems in this Parliament and will cause even more if the tories were to win the next election with a wafer thin majority (something I still think very unlikely if no longer impossible).
What's an "extreme eurosceptic", someone who would like to replace EU membership with a trade agreement, like half the country?
In my view an extreme Eurosceptic is someone who does not look at the EU coolly and rationally and decide whether or not it is in the national interest but is instead obsessed with constitutional principles which they consider more important. It is someone who refuses to see the benefits of co-operation with our main trading partners if it impacts upon our ability to go our own way. It is someone who refuses to accept that it is an inevitable consequence of a single market that there has to be a common set of rules that can be enforced against us as well as for us in making that common market work.
The boundaries of all of these issues are a matter of legitimate debate and I for one would want them drawn differently from where they are now but the extreme Eurosceptic simply does not have a balanced view of these matters.
In my opinion of course! Feel free to continue disagreeing!
I would suggest that the extremists are the Europhiles like yourself who continue to parrot the myth that EU membership has been good for our economy and our country in spite of the growing evidence to the contrary.
It is someone who tries to pretend we can be 'in Europe not run by Europe' or that we can have any meaningful renegotiation of our terms of membership that will satisfy the large majority of the British public who are unhappy with the current relationship.
In short the Europhiles in the Tory party are fundamentally dishonest.
Thanks, yes an interesting example there regarding airlines.
Ultimately I think what I have taken from your posts is that in political positioning at least UKIP's rise could help the Conservatives. As I note, where I think I will disagree with you is that I don't think this must or indeed should mean the Conservatives become less of a Conservative Party. I think they need to recognise and deal with the anti-establishment and liberal elite challenge facing all parties and reconnect more with the country as a whole. The UKIP rise may actually help them to do this more effectively though, which would be a good thing.
My concern, being blunt about it, is that the Conservative party has on many occasions in the recent past been held to ransom by a small collection of sad obsessives who have contaminated the brand and made too large a section of the population think they were odd at best and downright unpleasant at worst.
If some of these moved off that would be a good thing.
many of us would consider that is exactly what is happening now. A small band of Cameroons holding the rest of the party to ransom over the EU question. It is clear that the majority of the party membership do not hold the pro-EU views of the leadership and yet they are being held to ransom with the threat of a Labour government if they do not support the leadership's minority position.
A majority of the membership voted for Cameron.
Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then.
Of course there is also the fact that Tory party membership has almost halved since that vote.
If they don't believe that he represents the party as a whole they can replace him.
There is no 'holding to ransom' in the Conservative party. It's very easy to trigger a ballot on Cameron's leadership.
No they cannot. There is no mechanism for the party membership to launch a leadership challenge. That can only be done by the Parliamentary party.
I didn't say it was the membership triggering the ballot. Obviously it's the MPs, but the members can put pressure on the MPs
In which case it was a straw man argument on your part since I had specifically been referring to the membership not the MPs in my previous comments.
IIRC, both Clegg and Cameron were smokers, and always trying to kick the habit. I suspect their photo op nightmare was getting caught having a fly fag on the campaign trail.
While DC is clearly unpopular with the kippers, he does get very high approval ratings with Conservative supporters, who poll in the low to mid 30's.
I voted tory in 2010 for vey much the same reasons that you did not.
I do not feear the kippers, but while significant their support is in a minority. Like the Tea Party Republicans they prefer ideological purity to being in government. Kippers inflict their own miseries.
The problem the tory leadership has is that there is a huge backlog of extreme Euro sceptics on the back benches appointed when that was the only way to get selected. This has caused a lot of problems in this Parliament and will cause even more if the tories were to win the next election with a wafer thin majority (something I still think very unlikely if no longer impossible).
What's an "extreme eurosceptic", someone who would like to replace EU membership with a trade agreement, like half the country?
In my view an extreme Eurosceptic is someone who does not look at the EU coolly and rationally and decide whether or not it is in the national interest but is instead obsessed with constitutional principles which they consider more important. It is someone who refuses to see the benefits of co-operation with our main trading partners if it impacts upon our ability to go our own way. It is someone who refuses to accept that it is an inevitable consequence of a single market that there has to be a common set of rules that can be enforced against us as well as for us in making that common market work.
The boundaries of all of these issues are a matter of legitimate debate and I for one would want them drawn differently from where they are now but the extreme Eurosceptic simply does not have a balanced view of these matters.
In my opinion of course! Feel free to continue disagreeing!
I would suggest that the extremists are the Europhiles like yourself who continue to parrot the myth that EU membership has been good for our economy and our country in spite of the growing evidence to the contrary.
It is someone who tries to pretend we can be 'in Europe not run by Europe' or that we can have any meaningful renegotiation of our terms of membership that will satisfy the large majority of the British public who are unhappy with the current relationship.
In short the Europhiles in the Tory party are fundamentally dishonest.
The press love an opportunity to make Ed look like a weirdy goofball, and he is happy to oblige by displaying his weirdness at any moment. Anyway. He's supposed to be a modern man, Justine should be buying him flowers, my girlfriend was buying me flowers in the 90s, and I'm a right ratbag. I was so keen to get the freshest flowers for my rose that I had to stop and be photographed choking on a bacon butty. Love you, honey, but not as much as I love public humiliation. Does it matter? That all depends, the greatest disaster we never had, Neil cash in the bank Kinnock never recovered from falling in the sea, and reinforced that with his Sheffield shoutout. He was a twit. Miliband is worse, he's a walking joke, and he can't help himself but to prove it.
As for the marginals.... What did we expect? There is almost no Tory to Labour movement in the polls, and unless UKIP jump the shark, Labour must 'do something' or go backwards as swing back takes hold. The nurse might be a hard b!tch, but the electorate are going to start clinging to her regardless.
While DC is clearly unpopular with the kippers, he does get very high approval ratings with Conservative supporters, who poll in the low to mid 30's.
I voted tory in 2010 for vey much the same reasons that you did not.
I do not feear the kippers, but while significant their support is in a minority. Like the Tea Party Republicans they prefer ideological purity to being in government. Kippers inflict their own miseries.
The problem the tory leadership has is that there is a huge backlog of extreme Euro sceptics on the back benches appointed when that was the only way to get selected. This has caused a lot of problems in this Parliament and will cause even more if the tories were to win the next election with a wafer thin majority (something I still think very unlikely if no longer impossible).
What's an "extreme eurosceptic", someone who would like to replace EU membership with a trade agreement, like half the country?
In my view an extreme Eurosceptic is someone who does not look at the EU coolly and rationally and decide whether or not it is in the national interest but is instead obsessed with constitutional principles which they consider more important. It is someone who refuses to see the benefits of co-operation with our main trading partners if it impacts upon our ability to go our own way. It is someone who refuses to accept that it is an inevitable consequence of a single market that there has to be a common set of rules that can be enforced against us as well as for us in making that common market work.
The boundaries of all of these issues are a matter of legitimate debate and I for one would want them drawn differently from where they are now but the extreme Eurosceptic simply does not have a balanced view of these matters.
In my opinion of course! Feel free to continue disagreeing!
I would suggest that the extremists are the Europhiles like yourself who continue to parrot the myth that EU membership has been good for our economy and our country in spite of the growing evidence to the contrary.
It is someone who tries to pretend we can be 'in Europe not run by Europe' or that we can have any meaningful renegotiation of our terms of membership that will satisfy the large majority of the British public who are unhappy with the current relationship.
In short the Europhiles in the Tory party are fundamentally dishonest.
I don't see why moderate centre-rightness needs to mean Europhile. He definitely did advertise the fact he was on the eurosceptic side of the argument. Now he's leaking stories to the Guardian to smear actual eurosceptics as racists.
Nonsense. He never claimed to want to take us out of the EU, if that's how you define 'Eurosceptic'. He has always been clear that he wants reform, not exit.
And the idea that Cameron has been "leaking stories to the Guardian to smear actual eurosceptics as racists" is tin-foil hat crazy. Quite apart from anything else, why on earth would he, or CCHQ, choose the Guardian?
And he did lie about being a liberal too. No liberal believes the security services should grab the content of millions of private communications without any warrant or probable cause.
That is just you projecting your views on to a word. What he actually said in 2005 (second of my links) was:
The fifth big challenge is national and international security. ... And we need to look at the problems of international terrorism, and I can promise that I will never play politics with that issue, I will do what is right for the country.
Which is entirely consistent with what he this government is doing. I believe you take the view the intelligence services should not have the powers they say they need to protect us, even if that means innocent British citizens might be killed from time to time. It's a respectable, if very much minority, view, but it's not one Cameron has ever given any indication of holding.
In other words: the charge that he is a 'fraud' is just bonkers. He has been entirely consistent. You just happen to disagree with some aspects of what he has consistently said.
Personally I tend to agree with his positions on most issues, and certainly on the major ones. That's one reason why I joined the Conservative Party after he became leader, and I am pleased that he has been so consistent.
While DC is clearly unpopular with the kippers, he does get very high approval ratings with Conservative supporters, who poll in the low to mid 30's.
I voted tory in 2010 for vey much the same reasons that you did not.
I do not feear the kippers, but while significant their support is in a minority. Like the Tea Party Republicans they prefer ideological purity to being in government. Kippers inflict their own miseries.
The problem the tory leadership has is that there is a huge backlog of extreme Euro sceptics on the back benches appointed when that was the only way to get selected. This has caused a lot of problems in this Parliament and will cause even more if the tories were to win the next election with a wafer thin majority (something I still think very unlikely if no longer impossible).
What's an "extreme eurosceptic", someone who would like to replace EU membership with a trade agreement, like half the country?
In my view an extreme Eurosceptic is someone who does not look at the EU coolly and rationally and decide whether or not it is in the national interest but is instead obsessed with constitutional principles which they consider more important. It is someone who refuses to see the benefits of co-operation with our main trading partners if it impacts upon our ability to go our own way. It is someone who refuses to accept that it is an inevitable consequence of a single market that there has to be a common set of rules that can be enforced against us as well as for us in making that common market work.
The boundaries of all of these issues are a matter of legitimate debate and I for one would want them drawn differently from where they are now but the extreme Eurosceptic simply does not have a balanced view of these matters.
In my opinion of course! Feel free to continue disagreeing!
I would suggest that the extremists are the Europhiles like yourself who continue to parrot the myth that EU membership has been good for our economy and our country in spite of the growing evidence to the contrary.
It is someone who tries to pretend we can be 'in Europe not run by Europe' or that we can have any meaningful renegotiation of our terms of membership that will satisfy the large majority of the British public who are unhappy with the current relationship.
In short the Europhiles in the Tory party are fundamentally dishonest.
Top reply Mr Tyndall.
UKIP support was 3% at the 2010 election, 22% at the 2013 local elections, and is predicted to be >30% at tomorrow's EU Parliament elections.
Given a choice, I will always opt for a sausage sandwich rather than bacon. No issues over nasty bits of rind, or the situation where you don't properly bite through the slice of bacon and it ends up flapping out of your mouth like a tongue.
Oh, and always brown sauce on a sausage sandwich (just in case Danny Baker is reading the site this morning!).
I love the way that when you are losing the argument you revert to calling a view held by close to half the population 'extreme'. It just highlights everything that is wrong with you and the Tory party when it comes to your disdain for the public.
And as usual when you have completely lost the argument, you ignore my point and the evidence I provide.
One more time - I expect you'll run away now - how do your reconcile your statement upthread that "Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then. " with the two speeches I have linked to from the time?
I don't have to 'reconcile' them. Prior to 2005 Cameron was in favour of withdrawal from the CFP. Two years after his election he ditched that policy resulting in the resignation of the Scottish Tory Fisheries spokesman. He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue. Cameron made such great play about opting out of the EU crime and policing measures and is now in the process of accepting all the significant measures in a way that will give the EU more rather than less power over the police and criminal justice systems than they had before.
Of course I don't expect a party fanatic like yourself to accept that your leader is a mendacious misanthrope who distrusts his fellow countrymen so much that he resorts to lies and deceit to get himself elected but that is the reality of the man who you fawn over.
How long before Ed is forced to indulge his pig habit in ever greasier back street cafés? Will the press uncover his bacon pusher before the cholesterol takes hold? Are Labour using 'coffee and a Danish' meetings to cover up a more sinister addiction to streaky in the great leader? His bacon might get cut with luncheon meat, or Haslet. Something must be done.
many of us would consider that is exactly what is happening now. A small band of Cameroons holding the rest of the party to ransom over the EU question. It is clear that the majority of the party membership do not hold the pro-EU views of the leadership and yet they are being held to ransom with the threat of a Labour government if they do not support the leadership's minority position.
A majority of the membership voted for Cameron.
Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then.
Of course there is also the fact that Tory party membership has almost halved since that vote.
If they don't believe that he represents the party as a whole they can replace him.
There is no 'holding to ransom' in the Conservative party. It's very easy to trigger a ballot on Cameron's leadership.
No they cannot. There is no mechanism for the party membership to launch a leadership challenge. That can only be done by the Parliamentary party.
I didn't say it was the membership triggering the ballot. Obviously it's the MPs, but the members can put pressure on the MPs
In which case it was a straw man argument on your part since I had specifically been referring to the membership not the MPs in my previous comments.
Nope. You want it to be.
If the membership is unhappy they can put pressure on their respective MPs. If sufficient members are unhappy and they are sufficiently persuasive then enough MPs would write to Graham Brady and trigger a ballot.
The fact is that Cameron is broadly eurosceptic, but of a more moderate nature than your virulent approach. And the majority of the party, whether MPs or normal members, are comfortable with that.
You wish it were otherwise, but it is isn't. In fact you are one of the obsessives that I had in mind downthread, but decided not to name. Which explains why you are a member of UKIP rather than making a rationale assessment of the situation and calculating how best to achieve your objectives.
He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue.
You are sounding completely mad, I'm afraid. They are not letting matters rest: they are planning a renegotiation and a referendum by the end of 2017.
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
I did the Euro prediction thing yesterday. From memory I think I went:
Lab 25% Ukip 25% Con 19% Green 10% Lib Dem 8%
Sitting on the fence as ever.
Sorry to tell you but this is a losing entry. Allowing for the Nats, etc winning approx 6%, you are around 7% short of a 100% total.
There wasn't any Nat figure for the prediction contest.
Er ..... no Sunil there wasn't, but one has to allow for the notional % the Nats will win in order to arrive at the % vote for each of the parties which were included ..... geddit?
If the membership is unhappy they can put pressure on their respective MPs. If sufficient members are unhappy and they are sufficiently persuasive then enough MPs would write to Graham Brady and trigger a ballot.
The fact is that Cameron is broadly eurosceptic, but of a more moderate nature than your virulent approach. And the majority of the party, whether MPs or normal members, are comfortable with that.
You wish it were otherwise, but it is isn't. In fact you are one of the obsessives that I had in mind downthread, but decided not to name. Which explains why you are a member of UKIP rather than making a rationale assessment of the situation and calculating how best to achieve your objectives.
In what way is ceding more power to the EU 'Eurosceptic'? That is oen hell of a strange dictionary you are reading from Charles.
It would take a heart of stone not to find it amusing that a bunch of plod try to get into playing politics to protect police jobs, the end result being that a significant number, er, lose their jobs. And presumably their pensions?
"Plebgate" was one the PBTories got right. Bad smell about it all from very early on.
Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 6m Police Federation delegate to Theresa May: “I have never had such an attack and a personal kicking [as your speech].
Joey Jones @joeyjonessky 6m Police officer saying Home Sec is guilty of "bullying" the Fed itself, and politicising the argument.
He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue.
You are sound completely mad, I'm afraid. They are not letting matters rest: they are planning a renegotiation and a referendum by the end of 2017.
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional. And hopefully on Sunday you will be reflecting on how badly Cameron has misjudged the mood of the electorate.
Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 6m Police Federation delegate to Theresa May: “I have never had such an attack and a personal kicking [as your speech].
Joey Jones @joeyjonessky 6m Police officer saying Home Sec is guilty of "bullying" the Fed itself, and politicising the argument.
Mwahahahaha, go and catch some criminals you ridiculous plods
I did the Euro prediction thing yesterday. From memory I think I went:
Lab 25% Ukip 25% Con 19% Green 10% Lib Dem 8%
Sitting on the fence as ever.
Sorry to tell you but this is a losing entry. Allowing for the Nats, etc winning approx 6%, you are around 7% short of a 100% total.
There wasn't any Nat figure for the prediction contest.
Er ..... no Sunil there wasn't, but one has to allow for the notional % the Nats will win in order to arrive at the % vote for each of the parties which were included ..... geddit?
Aren't you a Doctor?
Maybe he did allow for it, just by a different method than you or I did
"England and Wales's Police Federation will stop getting public funding from August, Home Secretary Theresa May says"
Oh good - If the Police Federation can afford to build a brand new £26m HQ with en-suite hotel, 11 grace and favour apartments, a swimming pool, luxury bar and a state of the art gym, they certainly do not need public money. - nothing to do with their overt politicisation!
He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue.
You are sound completely mad, I'm afraid. They are not letting matters rest: they are planning a renegotiation and a referendum by the end of 2017.
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional. And hopefully on Sunday you will be reflecting on how badly Cameron has misjudged the mood of the electorate.
Given that you and fellow Kippers think waiting for a white knight to lead the Con party into a referendum in 2022 is a rationale plan I think you are on shaky ground here..
Why were the Police Federation, a trade union when all is said and done, receiving public money in the first place?
My understanding is that quite a number of police officers were and are allowed to carry out duties for the Federation whilst being in the employ of the Police, that is having their wages paid from the public purse. Whatever one's views about the rights or wrongs of this (which seems endemic in public services) isn't that enough?
Regarding Plebgate - I can assure you as a northern type that cops fitting people up isn't exactly a shocking revelation. Go ask a miner. Or scouser. The shock is that the victim was a Tory - it's usually normal working people on the receiving end.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
I did the Euro prediction thing yesterday. From memory I think I went:
Lab 25% Ukip 25% Con 19% Green 10% Lib Dem 8%
Sitting on the fence as ever.
Sorry to tell you but this is a losing entry. Allowing for the Nats, etc winning approx 6%, you are around 7% short of a 100% total.
The top 5 parties in the 2009 elections received an aggregate 82.2% of the vote, compared to 87% in this @FrankBooth prediction.
I don't think that is unreasonable.
For comparison, the aggregate total of the top 5 parties in the overall average of the prediction competition is 91.34%, which I think will prove to be too high, and yet is still nearly three percentage points below your own implied prediction.
On a lighter note - The much lauded (on here anyway) French railways have bought hundreds of new trains that are too wide and don't fit into the stations. Hundreds of millions of Euros are now having to be spent modifying the stations.
He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue.
You are sound completely mad, I'm afraid. They are not letting matters rest: they are planning a renegotiation and a referendum by the end of 2017.
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional. And hopefully on Sunday you will be reflecting on how badly Cameron has misjudged the mood of the electorate.
Given that you and fellow Kippers think waiting for a white knight to lead the Con party into a referendum in 2022 is a rationale plan I think you are on shaky ground here..
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU. That in itself is justification enough to desire his removal.
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional. And hopefully on Sunday you will be reflecting on how badly Cameron has misjudged the mood of the electorate.
I blame about 100,000 UKIP voters in 2010 who prevented the Tories getting a working majority. If they had elected a Tory Govt. you would have had just cause to belly-ache that there hadn't been a renegotiation and referendum by the next election.
UKIP - taking heavy-calibre weaponry to their own feet since 2010....
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional.
I know you are struggling, so it's probably a waste of my time to try to explain coalition politics to you.
I am not struggling at all. Cowardly Cameron is very happy to hide behind Lib Dem skirts on this as it matches his own personal views. Your excuses are repetitive and tedious and no more believable than they were a year ago.
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU.
That directly contradicts what Farage said this morning on the Today programme. According to him, UKIP really do want a referendum in the next parliament, in fact are desperate for one and would do a deal with the devil to get one.
He and his coterie consistently pushed the line prior to 2010 that they would 'not let matters rest' regarding the Lisbon treaty. They have done absolutely nothing since then on the issue.
You are sound completely mad, I'm afraid. They are not letting matters rest: they are planning a renegotiation and a referendum by the end of 2017.
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
How is waiting until after the next election which they probably won't win 'not letting matters rest'? You are delusional. And hopefully on Sunday you will be reflecting on how badly Cameron has misjudged the mood of the electorate.
Given that you and fellow Kippers think waiting for a white knight to lead the Con party into a referendum in 2022 is a rationale plan I think you are on shaky ground here..
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU. That in itself is justification enough to desire his removal.
Kippers on course to win the EU elections under the dastardly Cameron - why doesn't he use his magic wizard dust he has saved for 2017 to bend the referendum.
Mr. Mark, indeed. UKIP's approach to General Elections can be described charitably as naive, and more accurately as counter-productive to the point of stupidity.
I am not struggling at all. Cowardly Cameron is very happy to hide behind Lib Dem skirts on this as it matches his own personal views. Your excuses are repetitive and tedious and no more believable than they were a year ago.
My views are consistent, so apologies if they are repetitive. As you will remember, I have been saying exactly the same thing since before the last election. In particular, we had a disagreement about the outcome of a referendum, and we have a bet on it. You now seem to accept I was right and that you will lose the bet if there is a referendum in the next parliament.
So, yes, I am happy to plead guilty to the charge of being consistently right.
"England and Wales's Police Federation will stop getting public funding from August, Home Secretary Theresa May says"
Oh good - If the Police Federation can afford to build a brand new £26m HQ with en-suite hotel, 11 grace and favour apartments, a swimming pool, luxury bar and a state of the art gym, they certainly do not need public money. - nothing to do with their overt politicisation!
They're sitting on a cash pile of £70 million too.
Regarding Plebgate - I can assure you as a northern type that cops fitting people up isn't exactly a shocking revelation. Go ask a miner. Or scouser. The shock is that the victim was a Tory - it's usually normal working people on the receiving end.
The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was a Tory measure, designed precisely to limit opportunities for police stitch-ups.
Just for Richard Nabavi, a forthright view on the European Arrest Warrant:
“The Home Secretary would have to say, I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it.’"
and again
‘There certainly should be expeditious extradition arrangements between European countries but we should not get rid of fundamental protections. The House should include a backstop power for the Home Secretary in the Bill and then we should see what the European Court makes of it. We should not lie down meekly because Ministers signed things away in Europe without thinking them through and say that we have to go along with them with no further debate.’
Both are of course quotes from one David Cameron. The man who not only now agrees we should be part of the EAW but has accepted that the ECJ rather than British courts should have jurisdiction in the final decision over EAW disputes.
I don't see why moderate centre-rightness needs to mean Europhile. He definitely did advertise the fact he was on the eurosceptic side of the argument. Now he's leaking stories to the Guardian to smear actual eurosceptics as racists.
Nonsense. He never claimed to want to take us out of the EU, if that's how you define 'Eurosceptic'. He has always been clear that he wants reform, not exit.
And the idea that Cameron has been "leaking stories to the Guardian to smear actual eurosceptics as racists" is tin-foil hat crazy. Quite apart from anything else, why on earth would he, or CCHQ, choose the Guardian?
Because it gives them cover. It was reported in Private Eye just the other week. Here's is Hitchens answering some of your questions:
And he did lie about being a liberal too. No liberal believes the security services should grab the content of millions of private communications without any warrant or probable cause.
That is just you projecting your views on to a word. What he actually said in 2005 (second of my links) was:
The fifth big challenge is national and international security. ... And we need to look at the problems of international terrorism, and I can promise that I will never play politics with that issue, I will do what is right for the country.
Which is entirely consistent with what he this government is doing. I believe you take the view the intelligence services should not have the powers they say they need to protect us, even if that means innocent British citizens might be killed from time to time. It's a respectable, if very much minority, view, but it's not one Cameron has ever given any indication of holding.
Do you have any evidence at all that stealing content from people's private conversations has saved lives? You are entitled to believe that if the intelligence services request a power then it should be given, without any balance given to concerns about privacy and liberty. But you're certainly not a liberal if you do that. Didn't they want ID cards too? Why are ID cards an unacceptable infringement of people's privacy, but government employees viewing pictures of husbands and wives in states of undress in private webcam conversations acceptable? Because one is Tory policy and one is not. That's why.
Kippers may poll 30% of a 35% turnout. About 10% of the electorate, and many of those polled are explicitly planning to return to other parties in 2010.
Kippers are a very vocal minority, but remain a small minority, much like the Tea Party in the States.
Personally I am not troubled by their own self-marginalisation, they alienate themselves.
While DC is clearly unpopular with the kippers, he does get very high approval ratings with Conservative supporters, who poll in the low to mid 30's.
I voted tory in 2010 for vey much the same reasons that you did not.
I do not feear the kippers, but while significant their support is in a minority. Like the Tea Party Republicans they prefer ideological purity to being in government. Kippers inflict their own miseries.
The problem the tory leadership has is that there is a huge backlog of extreme Euro sceptics on the back benches appointed when that was the only way to get selected. This has caused a lot of problems in this Parliament and will cause even more if the tories were to win the next election with a wafer thin majority (something I still think very unlikely if no longer impossible).
What's an "extreme eurosceptic", someone who would like to replace EU membership with a trade agreement, like half the country?
The boundaries of all of these issues are a matter of legitimate debate and I for one would want them drawn differently from where they are now but the extreme Eurosceptic simply does not have a balanced view of these matters.
In my opinion of course! Feel free to continue disagreeing!
I would suggest that the extremists are the Europhiles like yourself who continue to parrot the myth that EU membership has been good for our economy and our country in spite of the growing evidence to the contrary.
It is someone who tries to pretend we can be 'in Europe not run by Europe' or that we can have any meaningful renegotiation of our terms of membership that will satisfy the large majority of the British public who are unhappy with the current relationship.
In short the Europhiles in the Tory party are fundamentally dishonest.
Top reply Mr Tyndall.
UKIP support was 3% at the 2010 election, 22% at the 2013 local elections, and is predicted to be >30% at tomorrow's EU Parliament elections.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
UKIP's last public meeting of this campaign was in Eastleigh, a 2015 UKIP target seat.
I am not struggling at all. Cowardly Cameron is very happy to hide behind Lib Dem skirts on this as it matches his own personal views. Your excuses are repetitive and tedious and no more believable than they were a year ago.
My views are consistent, so apologies if they are repetitive. As you will remember, I have been saying exactly the same thing since before the last election. In particular, we had a disagreement about the outcome of a referendum, and we have a bet on it. You now seem to accept I was right and that you will lose the bet if there is a referendum in the next parliament.
So, yes, I am happy to plead guilty to the charge of being consistently right.
Yes you will probably win that one. My mistake was to underestimate just what a complete lying scumbag Cameron would turn out to be. You obviously had a better handle on that.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
So that they both can be associated with the glow of victory ?
On a lighter note - The much lauded (on here anyway) French railways have bought hundreds of new trains that are too wide and don't fit into the stations. Hundreds of millions of Euros are now having to be spent modifying the stations.
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU.
That directly contradicts what Farage said this morning on the Today programme. According to him, UKIP really do want a referendum in the next parliament, in fact are desperate for one and would do a deal with the devil to get one.
It's all getting very confusing.
As i have stated often in the past, Farage and I have differing views on many issues. Unlike you I do not consider uncritical sycophancy to a leader to be an asset.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
UKIP's last public meeting of this campaign was in Eastleigh, a 2015 UKIP target seat.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
So that they both can be associated with the glow of victory ?
Kippers may poll 30% of a 35% turnout. About 10% of the electorate, and many of those polled are explicitly planning to return to other parties in 2010.
Kippers are a very vocal minority, but remain a small minority, much like the Tea Party in the States.
A far bigger minority than the Party of In, however.
"England and Wales's Police Federation will stop getting public funding from August, Home Secretary Theresa May says"
Oh good - If the Police Federation can afford to build a brand new £26m HQ with en-suite hotel, 11 grace and favour apartments, a swimming pool, luxury bar and a state of the art gym, they certainly do not need public money. - nothing to do with their overt politicisation!
They're sitting on a cash pile of £70 million too.
Betting post: David Cameron and Boris Johnson appeared at the Newark by-election. If there was any significant chance of the Tories not winning this seat, neither would have been seen there and risk being tainted with failure. You can get 4/9 with Stan James.
If there isn't a significant chance of the Conservatives losing there, why are they sending two of their stars there, rather than to a 2015 marginal seat?
Erm, because the by-election is in Newark?
Which you consider to be a non-contest. There are plenty of Conservative target seats to be courted.
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU.
That directly contradicts what Farage said this morning on the Today programme. According to him, UKIP really do want a referendum in the next parliament, in fact are desperate for one and would do a deal with the devil to get one.
It's all getting very confusing.
As i have stated often in the past, Farage and I have differing views on many issues. Unlike you I do not consider uncritical sycophancy to a leader to be an asset.
But do you disagree with Farage on this one? It is rather important, isn't it?
Do you have any evidence at all that stealing content from people's private conversations has saved lives? You are entitled to believe that if the intelligence services request a power then it should be given, without any balance given to concerns about privacy and liberty. But you're certainly not a liberal if you do that.
You seem to have missed the point. I wasn't on this occasion, arguing about the merits of Cameron's position, I was merely pointing out that he has been consistent.
As to the substantial point, yes of course there is plenty of evidence that security services can sometimes thwart terrorist attacks through intelligence gathering. No sane person - not even, I believe, Alan Rusbridger - disagrees with that. The question is where exactly the balance between civil liberties and protection against terrorist attacks and other dangers should be drawn. You are at one extreme on that position, which as I said is a respectable view, but not one widely held. There is a very good reason why governments throughout Western democracies want those powers of which you disapprove; it's not because they are all fascist crooks, it's because they've all been briefed on the risks.
That's not to say that there haven't been abuses by the security services. Getting the oversight right is an important but tricky thing to do.
Still, they got Abu Hamza. You approve of that, I believe.
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU.
That directly contradicts what Farage said this morning on the Today programme. According to him, UKIP really do want a referendum in the next parliament, in fact are desperate for one and would do a deal with the devil to get one.
It's all getting very confusing.
As i have stated often in the past, Farage and I have differing views on many issues. Unlike you I do not consider uncritical sycophancy to a leader to be an asset.
But do you disagree with Farage on this one? It is rather important, isn't it?
I agree with the fact that we want a referendum as soon as possible. I disagree with the idea that (if this is what Farage contends) it will be won as long as Cameron is still Prime Minister. But I am not sure Farage is actually saying that.
A referendum under a Labour government with a Tory party campaigning for Out will be a hell of a lot more winnable than one under a Tory government with Labour support for staying in.
A £4.5m fraud trial halted due to disputes over legal aid cuts has been restarted after the court of appeal ruled that the defendants could receive a fair trial.
The ruling is a setback for the prime minister's brother, Alexander Cameron QC, who represented the men but will come as a relief to the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.
"England and Wales's Police Federation will stop getting public funding from August, Home Secretary Theresa May says"
Oh good - If the Police Federation can afford to build a brand new £26m HQ with en-suite hotel, 11 grace and favour apartments, a swimming pool, luxury bar and a state of the art gym, they certainly do not need public money. - nothing to do with their overt politicisation!
They're sitting on a cash pile of £70 million too.
In what way is ceding more power to the EU 'Eurosceptic'? That is oen hell of a strange dictionary you are reading from Charles.
Eurosceptic = looking at each proposal scepitcally and making a decision about whether, or balance, it is in the UK's national interests to accept it or not.
There are clearly area where it makes sense to co-operate and equally clearly area it doesn't. (And, yes, many of the areas of co-operation could be achieved on aty basis). That's why the decision on whether to stay or go is finely balanced - and why I'd like to see if Cameron can renegotiate before I make an irreocable decision
"...the public generally agree with Nigel Farage’s own assessment that UKIP is being victimised by “a political class” and “their mates in the media”. The majority (54%) of British adults agree with his statement"
We have no idea what will happen in the future beyond the fact that with Cameron in charge of the Tory party we will never leave the EU.
That directly contradicts what Farage said this morning on the Today programme. According to him, UKIP really do want a referendum in the next parliament, in fact are desperate for one and would do a deal with the devil to get one.
It's all getting very confusing.
As i have stated often in the past, Farage and I have differing views on many issues. Unlike you I do not consider uncritical sycophancy to a leader to be an asset.
But do you disagree with Farage on this one? It is rather important, isn't it?
A referendum under a Labour government
Arf. Did you hear Nick Robinson's thoughts on the probability of this, on the Today programme?
"...the public generally agree with Nigel Farage’s own assessment that UKIP is being victimised by “a political class” and “their mates in the media”. The majority (54%) of British adults agree with his statement"
Still, they got Abu Hamza. You approve of that, I believe.
Goodness, what do you want, a medal?
The speedy expulsion of Hamsa, his family and contacts at a low cost to the tax payer should have been within the power of any government that thinks its first duty is to protect its ordinary and tax paying citizens.
The government failed on all those counts - though admittedly some of the reasons were not their fault.
Comments
"Police officer dismissed from Met for gross misconduct after investigation into "plebgate" row"
The body count rises.
One more time - I expect you'll run away now - how do your reconcile your statement upthread that "Yep and that was when he was pushing Eurosceptic agenda. He has changed his tune since then. " with the two speeches I have linked to from the time?
But if the Police are involved (as would appear to be the case), it would be a very extreme act to inflict such an injury on yourself to try to get a few more votes.
It sounds like a dispute between neighbours rather than a political act - but we shall see.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/b-carved-in-mccain-supporters-face
“If these reports are correct, those who have demonised UKIP share responsibility for this…”
"Well yes, we know.
According to Noel Mathews, one of our NW coordinators up here, it’s not certain that politics were at the bottom of this, however Bobby certainly feels Labour hate played a role.
I’ve been expecting blood all the way through this – well there you are."
FrankFisher
Lab 25%
Ukip 25%
Con 19%
Green 10%
Lib Dem 8%
Sitting on the fence as ever.
Off/topic:
My broadband speed has just increased by a factor of 80. Just shows how slow it was before.
I voted tory in 2010 for vey much the same reasons that you did not.
I do not feear the kippers, but while significant their support is in a minority. Like the Tea Party Republicans they prefer ideological purity to being in government. Kippers inflict their own miseries.
I was so keen to get the freshest flowers for my rose that I had to stop and be photographed choking on a bacon butty. Love you, honey, but not as much as I love public humiliation.
Does it matter? That all depends, the greatest disaster we never had, Neil cash in the bank Kinnock never recovered from falling in the sea, and reinforced that with his Sheffield shoutout. He was a twit. Miliband is worse, he's a walking joke, and he can't help himself but to prove it.
As for the marginals.... What did we expect? There is almost no Tory to Labour movement in the polls, and unless UKIP jump the shark, Labour must 'do something' or go backwards as swing back takes hold. The nurse might be a hard b!tch, but the electorate are going to start clinging to her regardless.
And the idea that Cameron has been "leaking stories to the Guardian to smear actual eurosceptics as racists" is tin-foil hat crazy. Quite apart from anything else, why on earth would he, or CCHQ, choose the Guardian? That is just you projecting your views on to a word. What he actually said in 2005 (second of my links) was:
The fifth big challenge is national and international security.
...
And we need to look at the problems of international terrorism, and I can promise that I will never play politics with that issue, I will do what is right for the country.
Which is entirely consistent with what he this government is doing. I believe you take the view the intelligence services should not have the powers they say they need to protect us, even if that means innocent British citizens might be killed from time to time. It's a respectable, if very much minority, view, but it's not one Cameron has ever given any indication of holding.
In other words: the charge that he is a 'fraud' is just bonkers. He has been entirely consistent. You just happen to disagree with some aspects of what he has consistently said.
Personally I tend to agree with his positions on most issues, and certainly on the major ones. That's one reason why I joined the Conservative Party after he became leader, and I am pleased that he has been so consistent.
Of course I don't expect a party fanatic like yourself to accept that your leader is a mendacious misanthrope who distrusts his fellow countrymen so much that he resorts to lies and deceit to get himself elected but that is the reality of the man who you fawn over.
UKIP Candidate ‘Stabbed By Labour Supporters’
http://order-order.com/2014/05/21/ukip-candidate-stabbed-by-labour-supporters/
Will the press uncover his bacon pusher before the cholesterol takes hold? Are Labour using 'coffee and a Danish' meetings to cover up a more sinister addiction to streaky in the great leader?
His bacon might get cut with luncheon meat, or Haslet. Something must be done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27504422
If you really are so blind as not to accept that completely obvious point, I don't think I can help.
Er ..... no Sunil there wasn't, but one has to allow for the notional % the Nats will win in order to arrive at the % vote for each of the parties which were included ..... geddit?
Aren't you a Doctor?
"Plebgate" was one the PBTories got right. Bad smell about it all from very early on.
Twitter
PoliticsHome @politicshome 6m
Police Federation delegate to Theresa May: “I have never had such an attack and a personal kicking [as your speech].
Joey Jones @joeyjonessky 6m
Police officer saying Home Sec is guilty of "bullying" the Fed itself, and politicising the argument.
And the kippers are worried about Cameron's liberal credentials!
I'm a biochemist, BTW, not a 'doctor' doctor
Oh good - If the Police Federation can afford to build a brand new £26m HQ with en-suite hotel, 11 grace and favour apartments, a swimming pool, luxury bar and a state of the art gym, they certainly do not need public money. - nothing to do with their overt politicisation!
I don't think that is unreasonable.
My understanding is that quite a number of police officers were and are allowed to carry out duties for the Federation whilst being in the employ of the Police, that is having their wages paid from the public purse. Whatever one's views about the rights or wrongs of this (which seems endemic in public services) isn't that enough?
What a weird world we live in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10845789/French-rail-company-order-2000-trains-too-wide-for-platforms.html
UKIP - taking heavy-calibre weaponry to their own feet since 2010....
It's all getting very confusing.
So, yes, I am happy to plead guilty to the charge of being consistently right.
“The Home Secretary would have to say, I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it.’"
and again
‘There certainly should be expeditious extradition arrangements between European countries but we should not get rid of fundamental protections. The House should include a backstop power for the Home Secretary in the Bill and then we should see what the European Court makes of it. We should not lie down meekly because Ministers signed things away in Europe without thinking them through and say that we have to go along with them with no further debate.’
Both are of course quotes from one David Cameron. The man who not only now agrees we should be part of the EAW but has accepted that the ECJ rather than British courts should have jurisdiction in the final decision over EAW disputes.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/begging-the-guardian-ukip-and-car-crashes.html That is just you projecting your views on to a word. What he actually said in 2005 (second of my links) was:
The fifth big challenge is national and international security.
...
And we need to look at the problems of international terrorism, and I can promise that I will never play politics with that issue, I will do what is right for the country.
Which is entirely consistent with what he this government is doing. I believe you take the view the intelligence services should not have the powers they say they need to protect us, even if that means innocent British citizens might be killed from time to time. It's a respectable, if very much minority, view, but it's not one Cameron has ever given any indication of holding.
Do you have any evidence at all that stealing content from people's private conversations has saved lives? You are entitled to believe that if the intelligence services request a power then it should be given, without any balance given to concerns about privacy and liberty. But you're certainly not a liberal if you do that. Didn't they want ID cards too? Why are ID cards an unacceptable infringement of people's privacy, but government employees viewing pictures of husbands and wives in states of undress in private webcam conversations acceptable? Because one is Tory policy and one is not. That's why.
"A policewoman has become the fourth officer to be sacked over press leaks related to the "plebgate" affair.
A Metropolitan Police panel found PC Susan Johnson had breached standards of professional behaviour in relation to honesty and integrity.
PCs Gillian Weatherley, Keith Wallis and James Glanville had already been sacked for gross misconduct."
http://www.retfordtimes.co.uk/Boris-Johnson-David-Cameron-tour-Newark-market/story-21119369-detail/story.html
"On the visit to Newark, Mr Johnson also stated that he would not be contesting the Louth seat at next year's General election.
He said: "I'm not standing - I am committed to being Mayor of London." "
Kippers are a very vocal minority, but remain a small minority, much like the Tea Party in the States.
Personally I am not troubled by their own self-marginalisation, they alienate themselves.
UKIP's last public meeting of this campaign was in Eastleigh, a 2015 UKIP target seat.
£70 million ? Are you sure ? Was £6.8m in 2012 according to these accounts.
The £26m HQ figure looks correct hough looking through that lot..
Twenty one thousand tweets have been sent to date.
This is my favourite:
Felicity Morse @FelicityMorse
#WhyImVotingUkip David Cameron didn't wish me happy birthday
"Top 21 reasons" here: http://bzfd.it/1lPkuo8
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/conservative-targets/
As to the substantial point, yes of course there is plenty of evidence that security services can sometimes thwart terrorist attacks through intelligence gathering. No sane person - not even, I believe, Alan Rusbridger - disagrees with that. The question is where exactly the balance between civil liberties and protection against terrorist attacks and other dangers should be drawn. You are at one extreme on that position, which as I said is a respectable view, but not one widely held. There is a very good reason why governments throughout Western democracies want those powers of which you disapprove; it's not because they are all fascist crooks, it's because they've all been briefed on the risks.
That's not to say that there haven't been abuses by the security services. Getting the oversight right is an important but tricky thing to do.
Still, they got Abu Hamza. You approve of that, I believe.
A referendum under a Labour government with a Tory party campaigning for Out will be a hell of a lot more winnable than one under a Tory government with Labour support for staying in.
A £4.5m fraud trial halted due to disputes over legal aid cuts has been restarted after the court of appeal ruled that the defendants could receive a fair trial.
The ruling is a setback for the prime minister's brother, Alexander Cameron QC, who represented the men but will come as a relief to the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/may/21/fraud-trial-legal-aid-ruling-overturned-appeal-court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10835150/Police-officers-should-be-refunded-Federation-fees-MPs-say.html
That's not quite the same is it.
In what way is ceding more power to the EU 'Eurosceptic'? That is oen hell of a strange dictionary you are reading from Charles.
Eurosceptic = looking at each proposal scepitcally and making a decision about whether, or balance, it is in the UK's national interests to accept it or not.
There are clearly area where it makes sense to co-operate and equally clearly area it doesn't. (And, yes, many of the areas of co-operation could be achieved on aty basis). That's why the decision on whether to stay or go is finely balanced - and why I'd like to see if Cameron can renegotiate before I make an irreocable decision
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/20/voters-think-media-more-biased-against-UKIP/
I wonder how many of people will vote UKIP just to spite Westminster & media?
The Romanovs should return to their country of origin
But doesn't O'Flynn have any mates in the media?
Goodness, what do you want, a medal?
The speedy expulsion of Hamsa, his family and contacts at a low cost to the tax payer should have been within the power of any government that thinks its first duty is to protect its ordinary and tax paying citizens.
The government failed on all those counts - though admittedly some of the reasons were not their fault.