wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
True. That is one reason why both are illegal.
And yet the government have conducted scattershot searching of emails, private chats and Facebook message. They have also recorded and viewed private video messages of British citizens. Clearly the law has no bearing on the government's abilities to actually carry out these acts because there is compelling evidence saying the government have done all of these things. Ignoring the Snowden evidence is not becoming of you Richard.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
You have accepted that Dave is completely useless when it comes to Europe
Eh? I certainly haven't accepted anything of the kind. It's hardly Dave's fault that Blair and Brown gave away massive concessions for nothing in return and signed Lisbon, leaving our relationship with the EU an almost intractable mess.
and it is time for you to accept that the government are on the same plane as Labour when it comes to civil liberties and personal freedoms and responsibilities. There is no difference, we've just replaced ID cards with internet snooping.
What a ridiculous false dichotomy. Getting rid of ID Cards was an unqualified and very large step forward in protecting civil liberties. So were some of the other steps I cited - getting rid of HIPs, and ContactPoint. I'd also cite the criminalisation of squatting as a hugely important step in protecting our liberties. So the government deserves a lot of credit for those.
As regards internet snooping, the very worst you can accuse this government of is having the same postion as Labour (and, incidentally, every single other Western nation, without exception).
Has it never occurred to you that the reason all major political parties in the UK, and the governments of France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US, all have much the same policy on 'internet snooping' might be that it is actually necessary to protect their citizens from some very nasty threats?
The battle over Juncker is much more a continuation of the consolidate vs. borrow debate than an argument over personalities or democratic accountability. The BBC article makes this clear. Hollande and Renzi are prepared to back Juncker in return for getting Juncker to back a 'borrow and spend' agenda.
It is easy for us in the UK to see the success of Osborne's 'austerity' approach but France and Italy are experiencing real difficulties in finding growth.
Italy in particular is suffering:
================================ Italy -------------------------------- Period Growth million -------------------------------- Opening GDP $1,609,419
The Juncker debate: the argument over growth [Part II] [...continued]
France has not suffered as much as Italy but the recent trends are worrying. Here is another yellow box showing the difference in performance of the French economy under Sarkozy and Hollande:
================================ France -------------------------------- Period Growth million -------------------------------- Opening GDP $1,907,540
Now let's compare growth in Italy, France, Germany and the UK for the period for which Hollande has been President of France:
================================ Others vs. Hollande -------------------------------- GDP Growth 2012 Q2 - 2014 Q1 -------------------------------- Italy -2.30% France +0.85% Germany +2.00% United Kingdom +4.07% ================================
It is not Juncker that Hollande and Renzi are voting for. It is austerity they are voting against. And what is more, it is austerity that has shown itself to work.
A key problem is that Cameron is operating from a position of weakness.
If I'm in the EU, I'm hearing that Cameron's unlikely to win the next election and that he's trying to take a tough position against the EU to try and improve his domestic polling position against the upstart eurosceptic UKIP.
I imagine politicians in the EU feel strongly strongly incentivised to make him fail, so they can get a more cooperative leader in 11 months time.
And yet the government have conducted scattershot searching of emails, private chats and Facebook message. They have also recorded and viewed private video messages of British citizens. Clearly the law has no bearing on the government's abilities to actually carry out these acts because there is compelling evidence saying the government have done all of these things. Ignoring the Snowden evidence is not becoming of you Richard.
If the law has been broken (which the independent Commissioner and the Parliamentary Select Committee say isn't the case), then I condemn that. That isn't hard to understand, is it?
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
Could have been seen by anyone working for an ISP, or running the servers that the 'strip tease' data passed through on it's journey across the web too.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
I know this is getting boring, but, once again, please do not lie about me. I don't know whether those reports are true, but, if they are, the behaviour would have been illegal and I condemn it.
What I have defended is the tracking of metadata, which is necessary so that the security services know where to look more closely.
No laws were broken, there was a loophole which made it legal.
The legal profession gets paid lots of money to make laws. then find the holes in the law, Nice little earner if you are "in the club". Other professions have similar arrangements.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers.
Good God, Socrates, you can really be as nutty and kinky as a kipper at times.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
Mr NorwichMike, do you know what’s what’s happened to the UKIP/Gt Yarmouth (etc) case? Went to the Crown Court in April and I can find no more. Presumably the defendants are bailed until some unspecified time? AFAIK there’s been nothing on local news programmes lately.
wholesale snooping on the public at large looking for key words or watching people's private video chats does not help the nation keep terrorism at bay.
True. That is one reason why both would be illegal.
No.
But the law also allows the foreign secretary to sign certificates that authorise GCHQ to trawl for broad categories of information on condition that one end of the communication is outside the UK.
When MI5 think you have gone too far in eroding civil liberties, you know you've gone off the deep end.
Mr Socrates, HMG have been opening peoples' mail since time immemorial (as a certain Scottish lady famously found to her considerable cost). When telephones were invented HMG went into the business of listening to people's conversations, of course they did. The security of the state and the liberty and safety of HM subjects demanded they do so. Now we have new forms of communication and for the same reasons HMG needs to intercept and monitor them.
The issue then is not whether our communications should be subject to interception and monitoring but the system of authorisation and oversight. This was explicitly acknowledged by Teresa May in her speech the other day.
Mr Nabavi says that the present system of warrants being granted by a Secretary of state is good enough. I disagree and disagree strongly. The present system leads to warrants being granted too freely and with too few questions being asked. The issue of warrants should in my view be wholly independent of government, a high court judge would be much better.
For the monitoring of traffic (i.e. who a person communicates with rather than what they say), presently it is essentially a free for all in practice, the permission of a relatively low level staffer in the organisation that wants the information, is all that is required. This is so obviously open to abuse I am amazed that Parliament voted for it. A warrant from a magistrate would provide the necessary independent element for this level of surveillance. There also needs to be a drastic reduction of the organisations and agencies entitled to access this data (e.g. the current list includes ambulance services and the charity commission, FFS).
Get the authorisation and oversight right and the issue goes away.
True. That is why none of the main three political parties is advocating changing the law. At present, the law states that the security services cannot search the content of your communications except with specific authorisation by the Secretary of State, for a specified purpose, and under the supervision of an independent Commissioner. Pretty much everyone agrees that that is how it should remain.
Can you explain why a member of the executive, rather than the judiciary, should have the power to grant a warrant? That was a practice of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition. Would you be happy if the Secretary of State, on the application of the Security Service, had the power to grant a warrant to search a person's home, papers, or effects?
Richard, Dave is useless. He has tried to stop Junker which is fair enough, but he has not identified any alternative that he and Angie could propel to the post (ECR didn't put up a candidate), he now talks about unidentified "consequences" if they go ahead with Junker anyway. All the while he pushes the UK closer to the exit door (which some may see as desirable).
Now the debate is moving in a new direction of austerity vs debt, the Germans may indeed come to Dave's rescue but that would be an incredible piece of luck. The German's may not like it but the arithmetic is 339 for EPP+ECR+EFA, which would be enough to get a right-wing reformist into the position given that some nationalist parties will abstain on principle. And yet Dave has not identified an alternative candidate or a policy framework for his vision of Europe. Helle Thorning-Schmidt might be interested but has he sounded her out about it? No.
Dave was actually dealt a pretty strong hand with UKIP winning so many seats and the FN doing so well in France, but he has played it extremely poorly with veiled threats and not building a "coalition of the willing" who would want to see someone other than JCJ get the job. Absolutely horrible strategy and poor diplomacy all around. If he is hoping that Europe ignoring Britain's wishes will result in the German's being more contrite and offering reforms in return for the humiliation he is kidding himself.
No laws were broken, there was a loophole which made it legal.
In that case the loophole should either be closed, or parliament should debate whether there is any overriding national security reason why it should not be.
I am not saying everyhing is perfect or that there have not been abuses. I am saying that any such abuses should be addressed, but at the same time we do actually need to give the intelligence services the tools they need to gather intelligence, subject of course to adequate safeguards and to independent supervision. The principal tool which I know they definitely need is the ability to track metadata so they can look for patterns and connections which tell them where to look more closely.
That would I think normally be true. But the Germans are coming to the conclusion that our government is so unreliable that they are worse than useless as allies on free trade or anything else. Sure, they hope that future governments might be more willing to reach agreements and then stick to them, but the Gaullist view that the British are just a nuisance has been gaining German adherents too, entirely because of Cameron's erratic maneouvres. They genuinely can't make out what is driving him, since it's clear he doesn't actually want to withdraw and if he's trying to deflate UKIP it's not working.
That's much like what they thought about Maggie. She was a thorn in their side and a right nuisance.
The thing is, though, she still got her rebate.
The alternative approach, which Blair tried, of being extremely cooperative and actually offering up a free gift by reliniquishing part of our rebate, was an unqualified disaster. We got absolutely zilch in return.
This is not about wanting to be loved, as though the aim of British diplomacy should be to maximise the number of EU Facebook 'Likes'. Ultimately, it is going to come down to the standard diplomatic tools of bluff, blackmail and bribery.
No laws were broken, there was a loophole which made it legal.
In that case the loophole should either be closed, or parliament should debate whether there is any overriding national security reason why it should not be.
I am not saying everyhing is perfect or that there have not been abuses. I am saying that any such abuses should be addressed, but at the same time we do actually need to give the intelligence services the tools they need to gather intelligence, subject of course to adequate safeguards and to independent supervision. The principal tool which I know they definitely need is the ability to track metadata so they can look for patterns and connections which tell them where to look more closely.
Tools that anti-terrorist experts say are not necessary, leading the debate to move on from terrorism to catching paedophiles? The Home Secretary made that jump last time, and I'm sure she will again when faced with evidence from anti-terrorism experts that the charter and current oversight is not necessary to catch terrorists. Government policy is wrong here and the HS has gone native with civil servants scaring her with images of 7/7 and 9/11 so they can get all government agencies big brother level oversight of the general population. As HurstLlama says, the charities commission has access to the metadata you speak of, what counter-terrorism activities are they really involved in? How about the NHS, or local councils? Even standard old police shouldn't have access to this data unless they get permission from Parliament.
Mr Llama, I tend to agree that authorisation and oversight done better would go some of the way towards it but for some it would never go far enough. The trouble is that too many take absolutist positions on either side of the argument and the trouble is this is always going to be horribly messy. For me the essence has to be staying ahead of the threat or at least keeping up with it. I can understand the arguments on both side and whilst I tend to instinctively be averse to an over mighty and over intrusive state I'm also highly averse to ending up dead. Striking that balance gets ever increasingly difficult.
I can't see Theresa closing that loophole. She is arguing for even more surveillance powers (only a few days ago in fact)
Yes, and perhaps more powers are needed, I don't know. We as a country should have a serious debate about that - it comes down to the balance between the degree of 'snooping' which is acceptable, against the risk of some very nasty terrorist attacks and other very disagreeable stuff.
What we shouldn't do is pretend there's no trade-off.
A key problem is that Cameron is operating from a position of weakness.
If I'm in the EU, I'm hearing that Cameron's unlikely to win the next election and that he's trying to take a tough position against the EU to try and improve his domestic polling position against the upstart eurosceptic UKIP.
I imagine politicians in the EU feel strongly strongly incentivised to make him fail, so they can get a more cooperative leader in 11 months time.
And yet, ironically, in doing so they may well strengthen his hand. Europeans are rather stupid.
Another very good reason is that our independent judiciary don't allow applications to be made during their lunch hour, before 10:00 in the morning and after 4:00 in the afternoon.
An emergency application can be made to a judge in chambers I suppose, but the frequency with which this would be needed, would find most judges at best asleep, at worse 'on the job' and at worst drunk.
M'Lud takes a far too academic approach to the law. He should spend more time at El Vino wine bars.
I accept the current coalition government did some things to promote civil liberties at the start of its term. However, this was mainly to repeal previous Labour measures (such as ID cards, and 90-day detention) over which battles had already been fought in opposition, and both parties had manifesto commitments to repeal.
There is no doubt in my mind that either a coalition, or Conservative, government would have passed similar draconian measures in the aftermath of 9/11 if they had been in power during the 2001-2010 period rather than Labour. The evidence is that they've done little to check further encroachment since 2011, now that they're in power.
It's hard to conclude anything other than there's been no step-change in either attitude or approach to civil liberties by the current administration.
Government policy is wrong here and the HS has gone native with civil servants scaring her with images of 7/7 and 9/11 so they can get all government agencies big brother level oversight of the general population.
Max, those scary images are REAL. This is not scaremongering, the threat is genuine. Anyone who denies that is frankly out with the fairies.
As HurstLlama says, the charities commission has access to the metadata you speak of, what counter-terrorism activities are they really involved in? How about the NHS, or local councils? Even standard old police shouldn't have access to this data unless they get permission from Parliament.
I agree. We should tighten this up so that access is restricted to the intelligence services and specialised police.
In other words, you support it because it is convenient for the executive, as all restrictions on liberty always are. It may not be "practical" for the police to obtain a warrant to search my home, but it is a necessary protection of the liberty of the subject. I have the greatest respect for Sir Anthony May, and it is clear that he is diligently and independently performing his duties in accordance with the law. The crucial point, however, is that there remains no effective remedy for an aggrieved party to challenge the lawfulness of the warrant. The Commissioner only ever hears the government's arguments. Where a warrant is executed allowing the search of premises, its existence must be disclosed to the occupier. The occupier can then challenge its validity in the High Court by way of judicial review, and, if he succeeds, win damages. No such safeguards exist for the RIPA regime. As a result, questions will be continue to be raised about whether it is 'in accordance with the law' for the purposes of Article 8 ECHR.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think the British government should represent the British people, and advocate and fight for British interests, rather than worry about whether foreign states think it's a nuisance or not.
Perhaps I am modern enough to think that governments should represent the global interests of the people. At the moment we only have one world, which we are in the process of destroying.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think the British government should represent the British people, and advocate and fight for British interests, rather than worry about whether foreign states think it's a nuisance or not.
Quite - this "we don't want to be isolated" rubbish has never done us much good.
There will be a vote - and the HOGS bar Cameron will have to vote for the drunk that was hounded out of his own government because of corruption.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think the British government should represent the British people, and advocate and fight for British interests, rather than worry about whether foreign states think it's a nuisance or not.
Precisely the view of a great number of disenfranchised and disenchanted voters. Precisely why Cameron is doing what he is doing, and precisely why it stands to be a net gainer for him
Government policy is wrong here and the HS has gone native with civil servants scaring her with images of 7/7 and 9/11 so they can get all government agencies big brother level oversight of the general population.
Max, those scary images are REAL. This is not scaremongering, the threat is genuine. Anyone who denies that is frankly out with the fairies.
As HurstLlama says, the charities commission has access to the metadata you speak of, what counter-terrorism activities are they really involved in? How about the NHS, or local councils? Even standard old police shouldn't have access to this data unless they get permission from Parliament.
I agree. We should tighten this up so that access is restricted to the intelligence services and specialised police.
Like you, I don't have too much issue over metadata being searched by the intelligence services or specialised police, but that is not government policy. You, like many other Tories in denial, are projecting your idealised version of government policy over real government policy. The reality is that this government opened up access for that laundry list of agencies and departments and they have no intention of closing it, in fact the last discussion was about allowing paid access to non-government organisations and third parties like copyright protection groups which was quickly slapped down by the Lib Dems.
If anti-terrorism is the name of the game, then it should be for the spooks and special branch only, and as LIAMT says, any access from outside agencies should be under Judicial scrutiny just as a warrant for a wiretap would be. On the whole I trust our Judiciary far more than the Executive and I believe the public is also that way inclined.
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
Perhaps I am modern enough to think that governments should represent the global interests of the people. At the moment we only have one world, which we are in the process of destroying.
Don't worry, if it looks like the game is up, there will be unity in building generational starships to find another home to obliterate. For now, beer is the cheese and it's all hands on deck for party Earth.
Edit - out of interest, how will we act for the benefit of humanity? What ethical rules do we follow? Aristotles Golden Mean? Utilitarianism? The Categorical Imperative? Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Do as I say for I am your overlord and know best for you all?
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
Excellent post. As tim used to say, Dave is extremely lazy. His natural allies in Europe probably find this to be true as well. He likes chillaxing too much and hitting balls back at the Clegger.
I can't see Theresa closing that loophole. She is arguing for even more surveillance powers (only a few days ago in fact)
Yes, and perhaps more powers are needed, I don't know. We as a country should have a serious debate about that - it comes down to the balance between the degree of 'snooping' which is acceptable, against the risk of some very nasty terrorist attacks and other very disagreeable stuff.
What we shouldn't do is pretend there's no trade-off.
Furthermore with apparently untold thousands of illegal residents we should consider ID cards again.
Precisely. You have specified one of the practical reasons very well (in addition to Avery's point!).
What would be wrong with a law providing as follows in respect of section 8(1) interceptions: the interception of A's communications could be authorised by a judge for a period of up to three months. If incriminating evidence was discovered, the warrant could be disclosed to A upon his arrest for an offence. If incriminating evidence was not discovered, the warrant would be disclosed to A, allowing him to challenge it, unless compelling grounds existed for its renewal for a further three months. The executive would have nothing to fear from such a system, if, indeed, everything is done in accordance with the law. Indeed, by introducing such eminently reasonable safeguards, the legitimacy of intercepts, and their admissibility as criminal evidence, would be unquestionable.
As for @AveryLP's light-hearted point, he will know that many senior judges work far harder and for longer than members of the executive.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
They do but the question is how many of them are going to be in the 10 or so seats that UKIP are going to target, and therefore have a higher profile nationally.
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate. Whether fair or not the whole campaign became about his views and previous statements. It would be interesting to know if it was an entirely local decision to select him or whether the leadership parachuted him in. If it is the former then I would suggest the party bypass local associations in these seats and impose candidates that broaden their national appeal. if the later then they have a hopeless leadership.
Would it bother you if UKIPs leadership impose candidates in target seats?
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
What an astute post! I think he wishes the issue would just go away, doesn't have strong views himself, but recognises some members of his party do.
Mr NorwichMike, do you know what’s what’s happened to the UKIP/Gt Yarmouth (etc) case? Went to the Crown Court in April and I can find no more. Presumably the defendants are bailed until some unspecified time? AFAIK there’s been nothing on local news programmes lately.
I understand that they have had PCMH. In my brief experience of criminal justice (caseworker at the CPS) fraud cases always take a long time because they are difficult for juries and the law is complex. I don't think we will be getting a quick result unless the case is dropped.
Perhaps I am modern enough to think that governments should represent the global interests of the people. At the moment we only have one world, which we are in the process of destroying.
What are you saying? That you're an enlightened sole and it's old-fashioned to expect national governments to represent and promote the interests of their people?
I dare say there are many who would agree with you. They tend to be the ones who have very little attachment to the concept of the nation state as the primary political entity.
I agree that it's in the British national interest for humanity to act (globally) on issues that could terminally affect us all. There are international issues that necessitate cooperation, and a coordinated international response. Global climate change is one of those. The pollution of the oceans another. CFCs and the ozone layer, another still. Asteroid defence could conceivably be another future one.
However, all representative democracy starts at the national level. In all cases, national governments should answer to and be accountable to their own people.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think the British government should represent the British people, and advocate and fight for British interests, rather than worry about whether foreign states think it's a nuisance or not.
Precisely the view of a great number of disenfranchised and disenchanted voters. Precisely why Cameron is doing what he is doing, and precisely why it stands to be a net gainer for him
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
What an astute post! I think he wishes the issue would just go away, doesn't have strong views himself, but recognises some members of his party do.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate.
Newark was UKIP's best vote share result other than Eastleigh.
Max, those scary images are REAL. This is not scaremongering, the threat is genuine. Anyone who denies that is frankly out with the fairies.
What two faced rubbish. The government that is issuing shrill warnings and eroding our freedoms is the same government that will not change its immigration laws, will not change its relationship with the ECHR, will not expel hate preachers, will not take proper steps to stop radicalisation, does nothing to stop jihadists signing up to fight in Syria and then coming back at will, will not beef up our armed forces, the list goes on and on.
The notion that the government really cares about the safety of its own citizens is the worst kind of mendacious rubbish.
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I think the British government should represent the British people, and advocate and fight for British interests, rather than worry about whether foreign states think it's a nuisance or not.
Precisely the view of a great number of disenfranchised and disenchanted voters. Precisely why Cameron is doing what he is doing, and precisely why it stands to be a net gainer for him
What do you think Cameron is doing?
Hunting for votes by being seen to stand up for British interests in Europe. Or, if you prefer, tilting at windmills to win Dulcineas heart. And it will work.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate.
Newark was UKIP's best vote share result other than Eastleigh.
Yet even with the advantages of being able to concentrate all their resources on a single seat and to pick someone they presumably considered to be their best candidate, they lost handily. They have yet to achieve, in any constituency in any election whether GE or by-election, a vote share equivalent to the lowest share that returned an MP in 2010 (about 29% IIRC).
The only question is how long it takes for this to dawn on kippers and for them to repent of their decadence and vanity in wasting their vote.
The UKIP supporter is like Onan in the Bible, fruitlessly and sinfully casting his seed upon the ground.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
I know this is getting boring, but, once again, please do not lie about me. I don't know whether those reports are true, but, if they are, the behaviour would have been illegal and I condemn it.
What I have defended is the tracking of metadata, which is necessary so that the security services know where to look more closely.
If they were not true, don't you think you the government would have strenuously denied it when it came out? But their silence is deafening.
I actually disagree with your position on metadata, but if that's as far as it went I could overlook it. But the evidence is that the security services go far further than that, accessing the content of webcam conversations and email. Current government policy is to do nothing about this, and to actually grant more powers:
The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon. Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.
Attempts by the last Labour government to take similar steps failed after huge opposition, including from the Tories.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers.
Good God, Socrates, you can really be as nutty and kinky as a kipper at times.
I'm kinky because I acknowledge people have sex lives they wish to keep private? I suppose the inevitable next stage of the authoritarians starting to access private sexually explicit material is to accuse anyone who complains as being a pervert.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate.
Newark was UKIP's best vote share result other than Eastleigh.
Yes but at the time UKIP were more popular than they have ever been, had just come of the back of winning a national election with all the momentum that that brings and were the only serious challenger to the incumbent (only they and the Conservatives did anything). If you can't win under those circumstances, when can you win.
By-elections are the life blood of small parties on the rise, and UKIP have failed every time and if you can't get it right with one election then what chance do you have when there are 650 of them.
If this Conservative think tank is right, my system for picking UKIPs successful seats will have been better than I could possibly expected, and I will make a nice few quid!
I find analysis like this quite annoying. People need to stop using one off political events like by-elections and transpose them onto the next election in order to claim that only their policies can save party x, y and z from disaster.
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
UKIP have 24 (?) MEP's of whom several are either female or BAME... no need for quotas, no need to become more like other parties
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate.
Newark was UKIP's best vote share result other than Eastleigh.
Yet even with the advantages of being able to concentrate all their resources on a single seat and to pick someone they presumably considered to be their best candidate, they lost handily. They have yet to achieve, in any constituency in any election whether GE or by-election, a vote share equivalent to the lowest share that returned an MP in 2010 (about 29% IIRC).
There are other seats that are better prospects for UKIP.
If they were not true, don't you think you the government would have strenuously denied it when it came out? But their silence is deafening.
I disagree with RN, but this is a false errand. The Intelligence Services, and the Secretary of State have a well-established "neither to confirm nor deny" policy on such matters. So the absence of a denial would be expected even if the allegations were false.
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
Cameron set out his stall in a Bloomberg speech in January 2013 - so you are really wide of the mark. He said clearly that he and he belived Britan did not want to be a part of ever closer union. This is pretty dramatic and I guess if you are a UKIPer you want to pretend he never said that. But that is what is at the heart of what he wants to negotiate.
As for doing deals and running around over Junkner - again this seems all a bit over the top from you. He is arguing against junkner and is entitled to do. Its pretty simple really. Any other more serious negotiations about our relationship with the EU are all for after the election. If people return a tory government then we will get negotiations and a referendum - if they do not then we will get Labour. Simple.
I have to smile - well guffaw really - when people talk about Cameron being all PR. Its an easy but false jibe, in my view made by people who don't have much of a better argument. But what is Farage if nothing more than a flash snake oil salesman?
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
CR
You have made some very unfounded assumptions.
The approach by the Coalition, and the Foreign Office in particular, to the role of the UK within the EU has been nothing if not systematic and carefully thought out.
This audit is now nearly three quarters completed and interim documents are available from the FCO (and departmental) websites.
The European branch of the FCO has also been thoroughly engaged in "going round all of the EU negotiating; building support; identifying blockers and ways to overcome them; doing deals; and/or laying the groundwork for them".
It is this highly evangelical, detailed, focussed and systematic process being followed by the UK which is frightening the EU mandarins. Their response is to try to isolate the UK before its programme for reform starts 'polluting' the attitudes and actions of other countries to the EU.
The Juncker debate has captured the media's attention and is being visibly led by the Prime Minister but this does not mean that Cameron's involvement is purely spontaneous and impulsive. Yes, the visibility bit is partly driven by PR needs but the whole campaign is founded on a clear if not yet fully disclosed strategy. And that strategy is first and foremost to carry out a wide ranging audit and consultation exercise upon which clear policy can be developed.
If they were not true, don't you think you the government would have strenuously denied it when it came out? But their silence is deafening.
I disagree with RN, but this is a false errand. The Intelligence Services, and the Secretary of State have a well-established "neither to confirm nor deny" policy on such matters. So the absence of a denial would be expected even if the allegations were false.
This isn't true though. There have been several occasions where the government have denied specific elements of some allegations.
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
In fact, it turns out HMG has admitted to some of this stuff:
UK intelligence service GCHQ can legally snoop on British use of Google, Facebook and web-based email without specific warrants because the firms are based abroad, the government has said.
What would be wrong with a law providing as follows in respect of section 8(1) interceptions: the interception of A's communications could be authorised by a judge for a period of up to three months. If incriminating evidence was discovered, the warrant could be disclosed to A upon his arrest for an offence. If incriminating evidence was not discovered, the warrant would be disclosed to A, allowing him to challenge it, unless compelling grounds existed for its renewal for a further three months. The executive would have nothing to fear from such a system, if, indeed, everything is done in accordance with the law. Indeed, by introducing such eminently reasonable safeguards, the legitimacy of intercepts, and their admissibility as criminal evidence, would be unquestionable.
That's an interesting post, because it goes to the heart of a major misunderstanding of the role of the intelligence services. Their job is to gather intelligence, not evidence (although of course they might, in passing, come across some evidence). For example, they might be interested in the communications of Miss A, not because they think she has committed or might potentially commit a crime, but because they know she's the girlfriend of a certain gentleman whose movements interest them because he seems to be associated with some people thought to be linked to terrorist organisations. These links can be quite tenuous: they are trying to find needles in huge global haystack, and the hard bit is knowing where to start looking.
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
Excellent post. As tim used to say, Dave is extremely lazy. His natural allies in Europe probably find this to be true as well. He likes chillaxing too much and hitting balls back at the Clegger.
Very sloppy insult to Cammo - who gets up at 5 in the morning to do his "boxes" so that he can hopefully join his wife in bed for the night. Your comment is worthy of a tabloid.
So can you please tell me what the balance of competences review found on the CAP or the common external tariff? Did it find they were a net cost or a net benefit?
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers.
Good God, Socrates, you can really be as nutty and kinky as a kipper at times.
I'm kinky because I acknowledge people have sex lives they wish to keep private? I suppose the inevitable next stage of the authoritarians starting to access private sexually explicit material is to accuse anyone who complains as being a pervert.
If you want to keep your sex life private, don't stick it on a webcam.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
I know this is getting boring, but, once again, please do not lie about me. I don't know whether those reports are true, but, if they are, the behaviour would have been illegal and I condemn it.
What I have defended is the tracking of metadata, which is necessary so that the security services know where to look more closely.
Yes I agree with you and with your other comments on related subjects. I feel that some of the points being made against your arguments are absurd. You are right they are wrong and putting words in your mouth is hardly an example of a sound argument.
That sounds like a fine system. I would even be comfortable for the intelligence services to be able to get group warrants, e.g. anyone established to be a member of ISIS, and for much longer time periods. What I am against is Theresa May's preferred policy of unlimited access to the content of emails, social media private messages, webcam conversations, and browsing habits of everyone in the country.
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
That's an interesting post, because it goes to the heart of a major misunderstanding of the role of the intelligence services. Their job is to gather intelligence, not evidence (although of course they might, in passing, come across some evidence). For example, they might be interested in the communications of Miss A, not because they think she has committed or might potentially commit a crime, but because they know she's the girlfriend of a certain gentleman whose movements interest them because he seems to be associated with some people thought to be linked to terrorist organisations. These links can be quite tenuous: they are trying to find needles in huge global haystack, and the hard bit is knowing where to start looking.
My own view is that the Intelligence Services, or at least insofar as they operate within the United Kingdom, should be abolished. It has never been convincingly explained why different rules about the gathering of "intelligence" should apply when the word "terrorism" is mentioned. The police constantly gather "intelligence" about criminal suspects, their associates and family members, but it must be for the purposes of a specific investigation and is subject to proper safeguards which the Intelligence Services have been exempted from by law.
The most difficult seat in the UK to predict is....Argyll & Bute. pic.twitter.com/bqWjtgMlm4
SNP 6/4 Lab 2/1 LD 3/1 Con 7/1 Kip 100/1
Not sure who it'll be, but I'll happily lay Labour there at 2-1.
The ones I'm least sure of my views on are Fife North East and Portsmouth South. Both look chaotic.
I have £3 on the Conservatives in Fife NE at 16-1. That seemed like a good small punt on an unpredictable seat.
Portsmouth South is very tricky - Lib Dem hold based off the strength in urban SW seats shown in the Ashcroft marginal and LE results though ?
Portsmouth South has 2 problems for the LD, one of them is called Mike Hancock, the other is called the shipyards. However because almost half the population there is under the age of 35, a quarter of them students (LD not very popular with students), I would say its between Labour and the LD.
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
What an astute post! I think he wishes the issue would just go away, doesn't have strong views himself, but recognises some members of his party do.
That's it. I understand your and Richard T's and Casino's view - you want a list of changes and if they're not forthcoming you want to withdraw: in your and RT's view you want to withdraw anyway because you don't think they'd happen. It's not my view, but it's logical and coherent. And Casino's approach would be well-understood by people like Merkel, who would be up for at least some sort of deal.
But Cameron approaches it the other way round - he sees the need to appear forthright and independent, so from time to time he takes a stand on something random that's come up (Eurobanking, Juncker) and tells the media he's being bravely defiant. But there isn't anything in particular that he's been pressing for on a consistent basis, so the "allies" feel there isn't anything to engage with.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers.
Good God, Socrates, you can really be as nutty and kinky as a kipper at times.
I'm kinky because I acknowledge people have sex lives they wish to keep private? I suppose the inevitable next stage of the authoritarians starting to access private sexually explicit material is to accuse anyone who complains as being a pervert.
If you want to keep your sex life private, don't stick it on a webcam.
Evidently that's the case as it is right now, but I don't see why law abiding people should not be allowed to communicate private information electronically and to expect for it to be kept private.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers. This is the "limited state" that David Cameron, Theresa May and Richard Nabavi believe in.
I know this is getting boring, but, once again, please do not lie about me. I don't know whether those reports are true, but, if they are, the behaviour would have been illegal and I condemn it.
What I have defended is the tracking of metadata, which is necessary so that the security services know where to look more closely.
Yes I agree with you and with your other comments on related subjects. I feel that some of the points being made against your arguments are absurd. You are right they are wrong and putting words in your mouth is hardly an example of a sound argument.
I apologise if I ever attribute a view to Richard he does not have, but it can be difficult to establish his precise position, as he defends government policy without saying where he disagrees with it, and then gets upset when we assume he supports government policy.
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
Cameron set out his stall in a Bloomberg speech in January 2013 - so you are really wide of the mark. He said clearly that he and he belived Britan did not want to be a part of ever closer union. This is pretty dramatic and I guess if you are a UKIPer you want to pretend he never said that. But that is what is at the heart of what he wants to negotiate.
As for doing deals and running around over Junkner - again this seems all a bit over the top from you. He is arguing against junkner and is entitled to do. Its pretty simple really. Any other more serious negotiations about our relationship with the EU are all for after the election. If people return a tory government then we will get negotiations and a referendum - if they do not then we will get Labour. Simple.
I have to smile - well guffaw really - when people talk about Cameron being all PR. Its an easy but false jibe, in my view made by people who don't have much of a better argument. But what is Farage if nothing more than a flash snake oil salesman?
I wasn't talking about Farage or UKIP. I was talking about Cameron.
You clearly believe that he means what he says and have faith he will action it. I do not. I used to, and events proved to me otherwise. People who know him well have said the same thing about him for years.
The ones delivering the substance in this coalition government are doing so almost entirely autonomously from No.10.
That's it. I understand your and Richard T's and Casino's view - you want a list of changes and if they're not forthcoming you want to withdraw: in your and RT's view you want to withdraw anyway because you don't think they'd happen. It's not my view, but it's logical and coherent. And Casino's approach would be well-understood by people like Merkel, who would be up for at least some sort of deal.
But Cameron approaches it the other way round - he sees the need to appear forthright and independent, so from time to time he takes a stand on something random that's come up (Eurobanking, Juncker) and tells the media he's being bravely defiant. But there isn't anything in particular that he's been pressing for on a consistent basis, so the "allies" feel there isn't anything to engage with.
His problem is that in order to have any progress, he needs a clear position on what he wants back. But he can't say what he actually wants to get back, because when the EU inevitably turns him down, it will then be clear we didn't get much back. So his policy is to say he wants stuff back, but can't say what, and then whatever bones the EU throws him can be presented as a triumph.
Precisely. You have specified one of the practical reasons very well (in addition to Avery's point!).
What would be wrong with a law providing as follows in respect of section 8(1) interceptions: the interception of A's communications could be authorised by a judge for a period of up to three months. If incriminating evidence was discovered, the warrant could be disclosed to A upon his arrest for an offence. If incriminating evidence was not discovered, the warrant would be disclosed to A, allowing him to challenge it, unless compelling grounds existed for its renewal for a further three months. The executive would have nothing to fear from such a system, if, indeed, everything is done in accordance with the law. Indeed, by introducing such eminently reasonable safeguards, the legitimacy of intercepts, and their admissibility as criminal evidence, would be unquestionable.
As for @AveryLP's light-hearted point, he will know that many senior judges work far harder and for longer than members of the executive.
That really would be a bad idea Mr Town. Interceptions are used for the gathering of intelligence and not evidence (information gained from an intercept cannot even be used as evidence as I am sure you know). Disclosure to a subject that he/she has been the subject of an interception warrant would compromise the operation for which the warrant was obtained in the first place.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam images, including substantial quantities of sexually explicit material, from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.
So any wife giving her husband a strip tease over a webcam because he's working away from home could well have been seen by dozens of GCHQ workers.
Good God, Socrates, you can really be as nutty and kinky as a kipper at times.
I'm kinky because I acknowledge people have sex lives they wish to keep private? I suppose the inevitable next stage of the authoritarians starting to access private sexually explicit material is to accuse anyone who complains as being a pervert.
If you want to keep your sex life private, don't stick it on a webcam.
Evidently that's the case as it is right now, but I don't see why law abiding people should not be allowed to communicate private information electronically and to expect for it to be kept private.
Don't be so grumpy Socrates. Working at GCHQ must be excessively boring, a bit of frissance for the pore devils who have trawl thro the stuff they have to look at is a just an unexpected bonus.
From Mark Senior: The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
Mark Senior, I disagree with your Boston assessment, UKIP got 52% in the euro's there and is consistently the most strongest UKIP area for years as shown in the locals and in past general elections. UKIP starts with 10% of the vote plus 5% from BNP, even if the Newark example applies UKIP starts at 15% and the winning post is 40% so they only need 25% extra and the average UKIP increase in by-elections since its surge is 21%, so it can be done.
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
If you want to bet against UKIP winning a Westminster seat in 2015, Ladbrokes are currently offering 11/8.
But there isn't anything in particular that he's been pressing for on a consistent basis, so the "allies" feel there isn't anything to engage with.
If you or our EU friends think that, then you haven't been paying attention. Here's a reasonable non-partisan assessment of what he is pressing for and why he has chosen the tactics he has:
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
I agree they have no chance there. I was just making the point that the only place they had a very impressive result is an area they can't win next year - even without the split they are not going to overturn a 12,000 majority (16,000 over the previous UKIP candidate).
For those who didn't follow the link to the FCO's EU Competences website, here is a high level agenda for the audit. The role of the FCO within the government is to co-ordinate a multi-departmental involvement. Each topic covered will be led by the Department which has responsibility for the policy area covered. The department is noted below each topic heading.
Semester 1 Autumn 2012 to Summer 2013.
1 Single market report Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
2 Taxation report HM Treasury
3 Animal health and welfare and food safety report Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
4 Health report Department of Health
5 Development cooperation and humanitarian aid report Department for International Development
6 Foreign policy report Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Semester 2 Spring 2013 to Winter 2013.
7 Single Market: Free Movement of Goods HM Revenue and Customs
8 Asylum and Non-EU Migration Home Office
9 Trade and Investment Department for Business Innovation and Skills
10 Environment and Climate Change Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
11 Transport Department for Transport
12 Research and Development Department for Business Innovation and Skills
13 Culture, Tourism and Sport Department for Culture, Media and Sport
14 Civil Judicial Cooperation Ministry of Justice
15 Single Market: Free Movement of Persons. Home Office
Semester 3 Autumn 2013 to Summer 2014.
16 Single Market: Services Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
17 Single Market - Financial Services and the Free Movement of Capital HM Treasury
18 EU Budget HM Treasury
19 Cohesion Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
20 Social and Employment Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
21 Agriculture Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
22 Fisheries Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
23 Competition and Consumer Policy Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
24 Energy Department of Energy and Climate Change
25 Fundamental Rights Ministry of Justice
Semester 4 Spring 2014 to Autumn 2014.
26 Economic and monetary policy HM Treasury
27 Police and Criminal Justice Home Office
28 Information rights Ministry of Justice
29 Education, vocational training and youth Department for Education
30 Enlargement Foreign and Commonwealth Office
31 Voting, consular and statistics Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Justice
32 Subsidiarity and proportionality Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Thanet South Boston & Skegness Folkestone & Hythe Thanet North Great Yarmouth Great Grimsby Hartlepool Rotherham Dudley North Walsall North Camborne & Redruth Devon North Torbay Castle Point Bognor Regis & Littlehampton Harlow Worthing East & Shoreham
The trouble with Cameron and the EU is: he does very little for a long time, and then, when his advisors identify an opportunity for some good press by picking a fight over something, he suddenly jumps on it. He did it with the EU fiscal pact, and will presumably do it with Juncker as well (expect he'll lose the battle, but hopes to do so "courageously" and "honourably")
....
....
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
What an astute post! I think he wishes the issue would just go away, doesn't have strong views himself, but recognises some members of his party do.
....
But Cameron approaches it the other way round - he sees the need to appear forthright and independent, so from time to time he takes a stand on something random that's come up (Eurobanking, Juncker) and tells the media he's being bravely defiant. But there isn't anything in particular that he's been pressing for on a consistent basis, so the "allies" feel there isn't anything to engage with.
Cameron laid out his position in a Newspaper article in March 2014 ... ''And although it would not be a very smart negotiating tactic to lay all Britain’s cards on the table at the outset, I know people want more detail about the specific changes we will seek. So I can confirm today that tackling these concerns will be at the heart of our approach.
Let me set out some of the key ones. Powers flowing away from Brussels, not always to it. National parliaments able to work together to block unwanted European legislation. Businesses liberated from red tape and benefiting from the strength of the EU’s own market – the biggest and wealthiest on the planet – to open up greater free trade with North America and Asia. Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions, including the ECHR. Free movement to take up work, not free benefits. Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the Continent.
And dealing properly with the concept of “ever closer union”, enshrined in the treaty, to which every EU country now has to sign up. It may appeal to some countries. But it is not right for Britain, and we must ensure we are no longer subject to it. ''
It seems to me that as the rest of Europe if they wish will be drawn into a close union we, the UK, will be more like Norway in the EEA. If we have a Conservative government that is.
Comments
The interesting thing will be what seats UKIP target at the next election. The lesson that they should take from Newark is that they have to select the right candidates for these seats (there candidate in Great Yarmouth has issues) and for a party like UKIP they will need to impose those candidates centrally.
For the election as a whole those candidates are going to be the face of the party so to maximise their electoral fortunes nationally and locally they will have to be the Diane James' rather than the Rodger Helmer's (basically female and ethnic candidates). Unfortunately that would require playing the game and becoming more like the other parties - How many UKIPers on the board would scream with anguish if the leadership started doing this?
As regards internet snooping, the very worst you can accuse this government of is having the same postion as Labour (and, incidentally, every single other Western nation, without exception).
Has it never occurred to you that the reason all major political parties in the UK, and the governments of France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US, all have much the same policy on 'internet snooping' might be that it is actually necessary to protect their citizens from some very nasty threats?
It is easy for us in the UK to see the success of Osborne's 'austerity' approach but France and Italy are experiencing real difficulties in finding growth.
Italy in particular is suffering: [to be continued]
[...continued]
France has not suffered as much as Italy but the recent trends are worrying. Here is another yellow box showing the difference in performance of the French economy under Sarkozy and Hollande: Now let's compare growth in Italy, France, Germany and the UK for the period for which Hollande has been President of France: It is not Juncker that Hollande and Renzi are voting for. It is austerity they are voting against. And what is more, it is austerity that has shown itself to work.
If I'm in the EU, I'm hearing that Cameron's unlikely to win the next election and that he's trying to take a tough position against the EU to try and improve his domestic polling position against the upstart eurosceptic UKIP.
I imagine politicians in the EU feel strongly strongly incentivised to make him fail, so they can get a more cooperative leader in 11 months time.
Who would you trust more?
What I have defended is the tracking of metadata, which is necessary so that the security services know where to look more closely.
No laws were broken, there was a loophole which made it legal.
The legal profession gets paid lots of money to make laws. then find the holes in the law, Nice little earner if you are "in the club".
Other professions have similar arrangements.
Janice Atkinson, Suzanne Evans, Diane James, Jane Collins, the girl who was on QT recently whose name I forget... all of them are high ranking kippers, as are mixed race economic spokesman Steven Woolfe and Asian Amjad whatisname!
AFAIK there’s been nothing on local news programmes lately.
The issue then is not whether our communications should be subject to interception and monitoring but the system of authorisation and oversight. This was explicitly acknowledged by Teresa May in her speech the other day.
Mr Nabavi says that the present system of warrants being granted by a Secretary of state is good enough. I disagree and disagree strongly. The present system leads to warrants being granted too freely and with too few questions being asked. The issue of warrants should in my view be wholly independent of government, a high court judge would be much better.
For the monitoring of traffic (i.e. who a person communicates with rather than what they say), presently it is essentially a free for all in practice, the permission of a relatively low level staffer in the organisation that wants the information, is all that is required. This is so obviously open to abuse I am amazed that Parliament voted for it. A warrant from a magistrate would provide the necessary independent element for this level of surveillance. There also needs to be a drastic reduction of the organisations and agencies entitled to access this data (e.g. the current list includes ambulance services and the charity commission, FFS).
Get the authorisation and oversight right and the issue goes away.
Now the debate is moving in a new direction of austerity vs debt, the Germans may indeed come to Dave's rescue but that would be an incredible piece of luck. The German's may not like it but the arithmetic is 339 for EPP+ECR+EFA, which would be enough to get a right-wing reformist into the position given that some nationalist parties will abstain on principle. And yet Dave has not identified an alternative candidate or a policy framework for his vision of Europe. Helle Thorning-Schmidt might be interested but has he sounded her out about it? No.
Dave was actually dealt a pretty strong hand with UKIP winning so many seats and the FN doing so well in France, but he has played it extremely poorly with veiled threats and not building a "coalition of the willing" who would want to see someone other than JCJ get the job. Absolutely horrible strategy and poor diplomacy all around. If he is hoping that Europe ignoring Britain's wishes will result in the German's being more contrite and offering reforms in return for the humiliation he is kidding himself.
I am not saying everyhing is perfect or that there have not been abuses. I am saying that any such abuses should be addressed, but at the same time we do actually need to give the intelligence services the tools they need to gather intelligence, subject of course to adequate safeguards and to independent supervision. The principal tool which I know they definitely need is the ability to track metadata so they can look for patterns and connections which tell them where to look more closely.
Bluff, blackmail, bribery and bullying
I would point out to you, though, that the power is overseen by the Interception of Information Commissioner, a former judge
http://www.iocco-uk.info/
http://www.iocco-uk.info/sections.asp?pageID=37§ionID=5&type=blog
I can't see Theresa closing that loophole. She is arguing for even more surveillance powers (only a few days ago in fact)
"Why did Theresa May change speech on MI5 snooping powers?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10925601/Why-did-Theresa-May-change-speech-on-MI5-snooping-powers.html
What we shouldn't do is pretend there's no trade-off.
Europeans are rather stupid.
An emergency application can be made to a judge in chambers I suppose, but the frequency with which this would be needed, would find most judges at best asleep, at worse 'on the job' and at worst drunk.
M'Lud takes a far too academic approach to the law. He should spend more time at El Vino
wine bars.
There is no doubt in my mind that either a coalition, or Conservative, government would have passed similar draconian measures in the aftermath of 9/11 if they had been in power during the 2001-2010 period rather than Labour. The evidence is that they've done little to check further encroachment since 2011, now that they're in power.
It's hard to conclude anything other than there's been no step-change in either attitude or approach to civil liberties by the current administration.
Someone could offer a referendum on whether or not we want to be spied on?
I've replied to your message with details of the secret pub and it's secret landlord ;-)
Perhaps I am modern enough to think that governments should represent the global interests of the people.
At the moment we only have one world, which we are in the process of destroying.
There will be a vote - and the HOGS bar Cameron will have to vote for the drunk that was hounded out of his own government because of corruption.
Yay for the EU.
If anti-terrorism is the name of the game, then it should be for the spooks and special branch only, and as LIAMT says, any access from outside agencies should be under Judicial scrutiny just as a warrant for a wiretap would be. On the whole I trust our Judiciary far more than the Executive and I believe the public is also that way inclined.
That's why his EU so-called "allies" are confused. It seems weird and random. But they can't work him out, because there's nothing to work out. It's because he's not really sure what he wants (other than staying in power) and because he's not principles-led, he follows the path of least resistance in Everything He Does.
What he should have already done is work-out a carefully thought through shopping list of repatriations from the EU, mapping them in a table of current costs, against UK benefits, probability of success and annotating the key stakeholders he needs to convince. He should then have briefed and led all his team, and, together with the Foreign Secretary/junior ministers, now be going round all of the EU negotiating, building support, identifiers blockers and ways to overcome them. Doing deals, and/or laying the groundwork for them.
But he hasn't done any of that. Because the man is all about PR, not substance. This is why no-one trusts him.
For now, beer is the cheese and it's all hands on deck for party Earth.
Edit - out of interest, how will we act for the benefit of humanity? What ethical rules do we follow?
Aristotles Golden Mean?
Utilitarianism?
The Categorical Imperative?
Christianity?
Islam?
Buddhism?
Do as I say for I am your overlord and know best for you all?
As for @AveryLP's light-hearted point, he will know that many senior judges work far harder and for longer than members of the executive.
Will we get a place in the "PB ark" Woolie?
The fundamental mistake UKIP made in Newark was the candidate. Whether fair or not the whole campaign became about his views and previous statements. It would be interesting to know if it was an entirely local decision to select him or whether the leadership parachuted him in. If it is the former then I would suggest the party bypass local associations in these seats and impose candidates that broaden their national appeal. if the later then they have a hopeless leadership.
Would it bother you if UKIPs leadership impose candidates in target seats?
We are destined to become universal cancer.
I dare say there are many who would agree with you. They tend to be the ones who have very little attachment to the concept of the nation state as the primary political entity.
I agree that it's in the British national interest for humanity to act (globally) on issues that could terminally affect us all. There are international issues that necessitate cooperation, and a coordinated international response. Global climate change is one of those. The pollution of the oceans another. CFCs and the ozone layer, another still. Asteroid defence could conceivably be another future one.
However, all representative democracy starts at the national level. In all cases, national governments should answer to and be accountable to their own people.
Truly an inspirational dream for mankind to follow!
What two faced rubbish. The government that is issuing shrill warnings and eroding our freedoms is the same government that will not change its immigration laws, will not change its relationship with the ECHR, will not expel hate preachers, will not take proper steps to stop radicalisation, does nothing to stop jihadists signing up to fight in Syria and then coming back at will, will not beef up our armed forces, the list goes on and on.
The notion that the government really cares about the safety of its own citizens is the worst kind of mendacious rubbish.
Or, if you prefer, tilting at windmills to win Dulcineas heart.
And it will work.
The only question is how long it takes for this to dawn on kippers and for them to repent of their decadence and vanity in wasting their vote.
The UKIP supporter is like Onan in the Bible, fruitlessly and sinfully casting his seed upon the ground.
I actually disagree with your position on metadata, but if that's as far as it went I could overlook it. But the evidence is that the security services go far further than that, accessing the content of webcam conversations and email. Current government policy is to do nothing about this, and to actually grant more powers:
The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon. Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.
Attempts by the last Labour government to take similar steps failed after huge opposition, including from the Tories.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
You are quite simply in denial about what the party you support is doing in power.
The most difficult seat in the UK to predict is....Argyll & Bute. pic.twitter.com/bqWjtgMlm4
SNP 6/4
Lab 2/1
LD 3/1
Con 7/1
Kip 100/1
By-elections are the life blood of small parties on the rise, and UKIP have failed every time and if you can't get it right with one election then what chance do you have when there are 650 of them.
http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/
He said clearly that he and he belived Britan did not want to be a part of ever closer union. This is pretty dramatic and I guess if you are a UKIPer you want to pretend he never said that.
But that is what is at the heart of what he wants to negotiate.
As for doing deals and running around over Junkner - again this seems all a bit over the top from you. He is arguing against junkner and is entitled to do. Its pretty simple really.
Any other more serious negotiations about our relationship with the EU are all for after the election. If people return a tory government then we will get negotiations and a referendum - if they do not then we will get Labour. Simple.
I have to smile - well guffaw really - when people talk about Cameron being all PR. Its an easy but false jibe, in my view made by people who don't have much of a better argument. But what is Farage if nothing more than a flash snake oil salesman?
"have a well-established "neither to confirm nor deny" policy on such matters"
The public should have them under surveillance till we know what they are up to!
As deluded as the posters on here who think UKIP will get 0-5%, they are predicting 50 seats in the comment section !
You have made some very unfounded assumptions.
The approach by the Coalition, and the Foreign Office in particular, to the role of the UK within the EU has been nothing if not systematic and carefully thought out.
In 2012, the Foreign Office launched a formal process, "The Review of the Balance of the EU's Competences". Its scope and timetable is set out here: https://www.gov.uk/review-of-the-balance-of-competences.
This audit is now nearly three quarters completed and interim documents are available from the FCO (and departmental) websites.
The European branch of the FCO has also been thoroughly engaged in "going round all of the EU negotiating; building support; identifying blockers and ways to overcome them; doing deals; and/or laying the groundwork for them".
It is this highly evangelical, detailed, focussed and systematic process being followed by the UK which is frightening the EU mandarins. Their response is to try to isolate the UK before its programme for reform starts 'polluting' the attitudes and actions of other countries to the EU.
The Juncker debate has captured the media's attention and is being visibly led by the Prime Minister but this does not mean that Cameron's involvement is purely spontaneous and impulsive. Yes, the visibility bit is partly driven by PR needs but the whole campaign is founded on a clear if not yet fully disclosed strategy. And that strategy is first and foremost to carry out a wide ranging audit and consultation exercise upon which clear policy can be developed.
You do Cameron much injustice.
http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse-fly
UK intelligence service GCHQ can legally snoop on British use of Google, Facebook and web-based email without specific warrants because the firms are based abroad, the government has said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27887639
That also puts to rest the idea that the government doesn't comment on such things.
So can you please tell me what the balance of competences review found on the CAP or the common external tariff? Did it find they were a net cost or a net benefit?
Portsmouth South is very tricky - Lib Dem hold based off the strength in urban SW seats shown in the Ashcroft marginal and LE results though ?
That sounds like a fine system. I would even be comfortable for the intelligence services to be able to get group warrants, e.g. anyone established to be a member of ISIS, and for much longer time periods. What I am against is Theresa May's preferred policy of unlimited access to the content of emails, social media private messages, webcam conversations, and browsing habits of everyone in the country.
http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
http://www.fabians.org.uk/election-2014-the-numbers/
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
However because almost half the population there is under the age of 35, a quarter of them students (LD not very popular with students), I would say its between Labour and the LD.
But Cameron approaches it the other way round - he sees the need to appear forthright and independent, so from time to time he takes a stand on something random that's come up (Eurobanking, Juncker) and tells the media he's being bravely defiant. But there isn't anything in particular that he's been pressing for on a consistent basis, so the "allies" feel there isn't anything to engage with.
You clearly believe that he means what he says and have faith he will action it. I do not. I used to, and events proved to me otherwise. People who know him well have said the same thing about him for years.
The ones delivering the substance in this coalition government are doing so almost entirely autonomously from No.10.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9247761/the-real-god-wars/
The only one of those examples that are impressive is Boston and Skegness, and the sitting MP has a 12,000 majority.
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
Mark Senior, I disagree with your Boston assessment, UKIP got 52% in the euro's there and is consistently the most strongest UKIP area for years as shown in the locals and in past general elections. UKIP starts with 10% of the vote plus 5% from BNP, even if the Newark example applies UKIP starts at 15% and the winning post is 40% so they only need 25% extra and the average UKIP increase in by-elections since its surge is 21%, so it can be done.
Plus Mark Simmons is not exactly popular with the local conservative party:
http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/mp-should-be-worried-about-ukip-says-council-leader-1-6084122
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/ukip-to-win-a-seat
http://www.policyreview.eu/camerons-eu-reform-agenda-laid-bare/
The rest of the leads are terribly small to really think they are going to take those seats. I would imagine there are loads of seats the conservatives 'won' in 2009 that they didn't take a year later.
Boston/Skegness is a zero chance for UKIP . As the local party has split in 2 there will be 2 competing UKIP candidates at the next GE .
I agree they have no chance there. I was just making the point that the only place they had a very impressive result is an area they can't win next year - even without the split they are not going to overturn a 12,000 majority (16,000 over the previous UKIP candidate).
Semester 1
Autumn 2012 to Summer 2013.
1 Single market report
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
2 Taxation report
HM Treasury
3 Animal health and welfare and food safety report
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
4 Health report
Department of Health
5 Development cooperation and humanitarian aid report
Department for International Development
6 Foreign policy report
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Semester 2
Spring 2013 to Winter 2013.
7 Single Market: Free Movement of Goods
HM Revenue and Customs
8 Asylum and Non-EU Migration
Home Office
9 Trade and Investment
Department for Business Innovation and Skills
10 Environment and Climate Change
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
11 Transport
Department for Transport
12 Research and Development
Department for Business Innovation and Skills
13 Culture, Tourism and Sport
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
14 Civil Judicial Cooperation
Ministry of Justice
15 Single Market: Free Movement of Persons.
Home Office
Semester 3
Autumn 2013 to Summer 2014.
16 Single Market: Services
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
17 Single Market - Financial Services and the Free Movement of Capital
HM Treasury
18 EU Budget
HM Treasury
19 Cohesion
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
20 Social and Employment
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
21 Agriculture
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
22 Fisheries
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
23 Competition and Consumer Policy
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
24 Energy
Department of Energy and Climate Change
25 Fundamental Rights
Ministry of Justice
Semester 4
Spring 2014 to Autumn 2014.
26 Economic and monetary policy
HM Treasury
27 Police and Criminal Justice
Home Office
28 Information rights
Ministry of Justice
29 Education, vocational training and youth
Department for Education
30 Enlargement
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
31 Voting, consular and statistics
Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Justice
32 Subsidiarity and proportionality
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Thanet South
Boston & Skegness
Folkestone & Hythe
Thanet North
Great Yarmouth
Great Grimsby
Hartlepool
Rotherham
Dudley North
Walsall North
Camborne & Redruth
Devon North
Torbay
Castle Point
Bognor Regis & Littlehampton
Harlow
Worthing East & Shoreham
''And although it would not be a very smart negotiating tactic to lay all Britain’s cards on the table at the outset, I know people want more detail about the specific changes we will seek. So I can confirm today that tackling these concerns will be at the heart of our approach.
Let me set out some of the key ones. Powers flowing away from Brussels, not always to it. National parliaments able to work together to block unwanted European legislation. Businesses liberated from red tape and benefiting from the strength of the EU’s own market – the biggest and wealthiest on the planet – to open up greater free trade with North America and Asia. Our police forces and justice systems able to protect British citizens, unencumbered by unnecessary interference from the European institutions, including the ECHR. Free movement to take up work, not free benefits. Support for the continued enlargement of the EU to new members but with new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the Continent.
And dealing properly with the concept of “ever closer union”, enshrined in the treaty, to which every EU country now has to sign up. It may appeal to some countries. But it is not right for Britain, and we must ensure we are no longer subject to it. ''
It seems to me that as the rest of Europe if they wish will be drawn into a close union we, the UK, will be more like Norway in the EEA. If we have a Conservative government that is.