Mr. K, immediately prior to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, last race of the season and likely title decider. And a day before Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out. An exciting time of the year!
How am I going to play Dragon Age, Inquisition, on my iMac? sigh
Still, one must make some sacrifices to escape the ravages of Windows 8. And no, I'm not going to buy a play station.
There is one issue which will lost UKIP a ton of votes, and it's down to their Energy spokesman Roger Helmer. He's talking gobbledygook on fracking, saying no one has yet been made ill or hurt by it anywhere in the world to his knowledge. Tell him to read The Fracking Dirty Dozen.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.
Agree entirely. I hope (possibly optimistically) that their major caveat "a majority Conservative government" is their "get out of jail free" card so this nonsense can be quietly forgotten.
Meanwhile, there is work to be done on addressing the quality of some of the judgments from Strasbourg - but the Tories proposed solution is worse than the problem. As with tax avoidance the solution, and problem, is more often than not our own poorly drafted legislation,
I have lived and worked in: Gabon, Nigeria, Angola, China and the Philippines. I don't seem to remember having been in a 'freedom of movement' union with any of those. I got a work/residence permit because I had skills that were needed.
I'm in the Netherlands now - by right as an EU citizen. But only here because the job is and all the non-EU nationals in the office are here with work permits.
Mr. K, immediately prior to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, last race of the season and likely title decider. And a day before Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out. An exciting time of the year!
How am I going to play Dragon Age, Inquisition, on my iMac? sigh
Still, one must make some sacrifices to escape the ravages of Windows 8. And no, I'm not going to buy a play station.
Why on earth did you purchase/install Windows 8 in the first place? Anyway, time to go and see what reality looks like to-day...
The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.
This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.
If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.
Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?
No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.
I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.
Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.
Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?
The nasty little Englanders want to curb all our freedoms.
It might be a little bit more complicated than that
"So far the Conservatives have suffered most from the depredations of Ukip, but Farage raises an awkward issue for Labour that it has yet to acknowledge: the EU is a hybrid project. It serves the interests of social justice and global capitalism simultaneously. The EU that forces mobile phone firms to lower their roaming charges and Britain to clean up its beaches is also the EU that is giving multinationals the power to sue governments. The EU that tries to give British workers greater rights is also the EU that makes it easy for employers to play national workforces off against each other. "
Daniel Hannan is, in effect, calling both front benches in the House of Commons Liars:
The easiest way to reverse EU immigration is for us to simply have a recession.
This will make the UK much less attractive to EU migrants - who are simply here because there are more jobs at higher wages than home.
If we could engineer some kind of a crash, then they'd all go somewhere else.
Can anyone think of anything that might cause a rapid contraction in the size of the UK economy?
No! The easiest and only way to cut overwhelming immigration from the EU is to leave it, and have proper border controls.
I didn't know that you liked writing bunkum, @rcs1000.
Yes, but that would reduce my freedom to work where I like, and hire who I like.
Why don't you want me to have those freedoms?
Within the UK you would have full freedom on both items. Overseas, where you could work would depend on the immigration policies of the foreign state - the US, Canada and Australia all require work permits.
Internally, your personal freedom to hire whomever you wish from overseas would need to be balanced against the mutual freedom of all UK citizens to enjoy a socially stable and integrated nation with residents that mutually identify with one another, are in sympathy with its values, and to manage the commensurate pressures on population, development and infrastructure.
The rate of immigration is all important. Which is precisely how it should be.
Mr. K, immediately prior to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, last race of the season and likely title decider. And a day before Dragon Age: Inquisition comes out. An exciting time of the year!
How am I going to play Dragon Age, Inquisition, on my iMac? sigh
Still, one must make some sacrifices to escape the ravages of Windows 8. And no, I'm not going to buy a play station.
Why on earth did you purchase/install Windows 8 in the first place? Anyway, time to go and see what reality looks like to-day...
As usual @Innocent_Abroad gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.
And now I too have to go and do some ironing, a chore I relieve my wife of doing.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
I see it slightly differently. I care about civil liberties and individual rights. However, I don't want the ECtHR through the ECHR and the EU calling the shots on it.
And that is exactly my view of it. The whole area of human rights law has been hijacked by lawyers on the make and activist (unaccountable) judges. We need to return control of this area to UK courts and the UK parliament. This in no way undermines civil liberties or human rights - it just places it back in the proper context. Living up to our national and international obligations within the framework and control of the UK legal system.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
Controlled positive immigration of skilled workers is like a healthy diet, eating only food that is good for you
We've been binge eating junk food for a decade and it's left our working class fat and unhealthy...no to cheap fixes!!
If your starving hungry and need some food or you'd die, then grab a KFC or whatever, but on the whole , avoid
And that is exactly my view of it. The whole area of human rights law has been hijacked by lawyers on the make and activist (unaccountable) judges. We need to return control of this area to UK courts and the UK parliament. This in no way undermines civil liberties or human rights - it just places it back in the proper context. Living up to our national and international obligations within the framework and control of the UK legal system.
Note though that the Human Rights Act passed under the last Government (which the Conservatives plan to revoke) transfers most HRA cases from Strasbourg to British courts by making the ECHR justiciable here - the idea was to make HRA cases both easier to bring and more domestically-judged. It's still possible to appeal to Strasbourg but expensive and slow.
Abolishing the HRA simply pushes cases back to Strabourg to be judged there. Obviously if the real agenda is to reduce the number of rights of individuals that's another matter, but I've not seen a list of rights that the Government would like to abolish - is there one? To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.
The sackings of Edward Garnier as SolGen and Dominic Grieve as Attorney-General does David Cameron no credit whatsoever.
The fact that Grayling's shameful actions towards prisoners, which as expected, has led to an increase in prison suicides, as foretold, shames this government, and fills me with no confidence, that they won't pander to the tabloids when it comes to dealing with my Human Rights.
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.
Agree entirely. I hope (possibly optimistically) that their major caveat "a majority Conservative government" is their "get out of jail free" card so this nonsense can be quietly forgotten.
Meanwhile, there is work to be done on addressing the quality of some of the judgments from Strasbourg - but the Tories proposed solution is worse than the problem. As with tax avoidance the solution, and problem, is more often than not our own poorly drafted legislation,
There is undoubtedly a problem with the quality of the judgments and the concept of "mission creep" by which the fundamental freedoms are constantly reinterpreted in their modern setting adding layer upon layer of "rights" that do not reflect the views of the majority. That really needs to stop because it is undemocratic.
It is right that there is a core body of rights that any minority or outcast or criminal can have whatever we think of them but these rights need to be kept within narrow parameters as they are in the Convention itself.
But reform is the answer, not withdrawal. I actually heard Yvette Cooper speaking sense on this the other day. It is embarrassing when even she can get this right and the government is heading in the wrong direction. Presumably they have not worked out the implications of the EU itself signing up to the Convention and incorporating compliance with it into the Treaties yet. This British Convention is a cul de sac.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
Controlled positive immigration of skilled workers is like a healthy diet, eating only food that is good for you
We've been binge eating junk food for a decade and it's left our working class fat and unhealthy...no to cheap fixes!!
If your starving hungry and need some food or you'd die, then grab a KFC or whatever, but on the whole , avoid
Australia was founded on controlled negative immigration and they've turned out OK.
There is one issue which will lost UKIP a ton of votes, and it's down to their Energy spokesman Roger Helmer. He's talking gobbledygook on fracking, saying no one has yet been made ill or hurt by it anywhere in the world to his knowledge. Tell him to read The Fracking Dirty Dozen.
With inflation at 1.2% there's plenty more scope for the Bank of England to use unconventional measures to help the economy to grow. We've had massive wodges of cash [QE] handed to the banks to keep the stock market high. We've had massive wodges of cash [FLS] to keep house prices high.
Could we have massive wodges of cash that find their way into normal people's pockets and make their lives a bit easier as well as supporting further growth in the economy?
'The nasty little Englanders want to curb all our freedoms'
Got any specific examples or just upset that the safety of UK citizens was given priority over the rights to a family life of a convicted Chinese criminal who is about to be deported?
And that is exactly my view of it. The whole area of human rights law has been hijacked by lawyers on the make and activist (unaccountable) judges. We need to return control of this area to UK courts and the UK parliament. This in no way undermines civil liberties or human rights - it just places it back in the proper context. Living up to our national and international obligations within the framework and control of the UK legal system.
Note though that the Human Rights Act passed under the last Government (which the Conservatives plan to revoke) transfers most HRA cases from Strasbourg to British courts by making the ECHR justiciable here - the idea was to make HRA cases both easier to bring and more domestically-judged. It's still possible to appeal to Strasbourg but expensive and slow.
Abolishing the HRA simply pushes cases back to Strabourg to be judged there. Obviously if the real agenda is to reduce the number of rights of individuals that's another matter, but I've not seen a list of rights that the Government would like to abolish - is there one? To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
But the HRA has not proved fit for purpose. And it needs reform.
The ECHR is being twisted and contorted well beyond what any of the original framers might have ever envisaged - and there are cases were the outcomes are so far out of kilter with any reasonable view of natural justice as to bring the whole system into disrepute.
The right to family life has been extended and extended to render it almost meaningless - allowing some very perverse results.
That is why the area needs proper examination and proper reform.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.
The sackings of Edward Garnier as SolGen and Dominic Grieve as Attorney-General does David Cameron no credit whatsoever.
The fact that Grayling's shameful actions towards prisoners, which as expected, has led to an increase in prison suicides, as foretold, shames this government, and fills me with no confidence, that they won't pander to the tabloids when it comes to dealing with my Human Rights.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
That's a great analogy. As is Hannan's example of going into negotiations to buy a car by saying you're determined to buy from the dealer no matter what.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
Dominic Grieve isn't the only Tory angered by this.
Nope he isn't. Grayling is an over promoted fool and the fact that Cameron has bent his way on this rather than holding the Grieve line is very disappointing.
The sackings of Edward Garnier as SolGen and Dominic Grieve as Attorney-General does David Cameron no credit whatsoever.
The fact that Grayling's shameful actions towards prisoners, which as expected, has led to an increase in prison suicides, as foretold, shames this government, and fills me with no confidence, that they won't pander to the tabloids when it comes to dealing with my Human Rights.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
That's a great analogy. As is Hannan's example of going into negotiations to buy a car by saying you're determined to buy from the dealer no matter what.
Been meaning to ask you Socrates-the-unwise: do you think George R.R. Martin should be prosecuted?
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
Controlled positive immigration of skilled workers is like a healthy diet, eating only food that is good for you
We've been binge eating junk food for a decade and it's left our working class fat and unhealthy...no to cheap fixes!!
If your starving hungry and need some food or you'd die, then grab a KFC or whatever, but on the whole , avoid
Australia was founded on controlled negative immigration and they've turned out OK.
Really? Ask the people who were there before the immigrants how they feel about it
I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how all the legal arguements work but the Tories outline of how their Bill of RIghts would work is here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/03_10_14_humanrights.pdf . So out of these changes which are the ones that are a problem?
- Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation
- Clarify the Convention rights, to reflect a proper balance between rights and responsibilities.
- Break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
- End the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to force the UK to change the law.
- Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. I
- Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.
- We will amend the Ministerial Code to remove any ambiguity in the current rules about the duty of Ministers to follow the will of Parliament in the UK.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned much on here but the Conservative idea of the open primary is an interesting one. British politics is littered with transatlantic crossing failures, clearly no reference to James Cracknell. On this occasion the postal ballot is probably wise. Supposing, for a moment, that the 'Constituency' does opt for Cracknell it's certainly going to raise the heat in the kitchen.
Despite being gimmicky it's a brave move by Cameron and does engender the whole idea of a local MP fighting for his or her constituents: Carswell being a good example as it happens.
I wonder if in twenty years we may look back and wonder how MPs were ever chosen by any other method?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2 mins2 minutes ago Labour will NOT be joining Hague's Cabinet cttee on EVEL. Source: "We need proper reform, not a closed shop stitch up in a Cabinet room"
Labour stumble into the bear trap...
No one cares.
urmm can we quote that as the Labour attitude on it come May 2014? I'd imagine Gordon Brown and Salmond would blow a gasket if that phrase was uttered about further Scottish devolution. If Labour want to make it official that they cannot be arsed about England that is fine by me -after all there is only 50 million people live in it
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
Brent crude is falling, so much so that my £50+ bet at y/e is looking in danger. If Brent crude falls, pump prices drop, the cost of moving food around the country drops and I'm of the mind that everything drops.
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.
Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.
What an exceIIent idea, especiaIIy since so many CyberNuts are based outside ScotIand.
WiII they be standing in Derby?
Or Corby They can be like the Irish Nationalist MP in Liverpool.
Morning all and am interested that apart from OGH anyone still admits to being a 2010 LibDem voter.
Very interesting on Twitter, the YESNP, 45 or whatever they are calling themselves today appear to be considering standing in English seats at the GE. Would really throw the cat among the debate canaries.
What an exceIIent idea, especiaIIy since so many CyberNuts are based outside ScotIand.
WiII they be standing in Derby?
Or Corby They can be like the Irish Nationalist MP in Liverpool.
It would seem strange that the SNP want to stand in England (presumably to get native Scots living there to vote for them?) when they denied those Scots a vote in the referendum
Understaffed the prisons, which led to mock lock up time.
Bizarrely banned books being sent into prisoners.
Pandered to the tabloids, over TVs in cells. Ignored decades worth of evidence, that TVs in cells reduce the suicide attempts.
Simple truth is, you leave prisoners in cells for longer, it increases the chances of suicide.
Banning books does seem ridiculous - who on earth asked for that one?, I can't imagine even the most right wing of right wing Daily Mail columnists (Hitchens, Heffer, Letts etc) wanting a ban on books.
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
Brent crude is falling, so much so that my £50+ bet at y/e is looking in danger. If Brent crude falls, pump prices drop, the cost of moving food around the country drops and I'm of the mind that everything drops.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
That's a great analogy. As is Hannan's example of going into negotiations to buy a car by saying you're determined to buy from the dealer no matter what.
Well, except Cameron isn't the one who makes the final decision about whether or not to buy a car. The analogy only holds if the people he's negotiating with think he has some incredible persuasive power over the British people. Seeing how poorly the three main parties did in persuading people to reject the truly ludicrous prospect of Scottish independence, it's hard to see why we'd expect them to do much better with the EU.
I think a better analogy would be that Cameron would be playing good cop to the voting public's bad cop. "Listen, Brussels, I understand. I just want to help you. But my partner here... if you don't give him something, I don't know how much longer I'm going to be able to keep him under control."
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned much on here but the Conservative idea of the open primary is an interesting one. British politics is littered with transatlantic crossing failures, clearly no reference to James Cracknell. On this occasion the postal ballot is probably wise. Supposing, for a moment, that the 'Constituency' does opt for Cracknell it's certainly going to raise the heat in the kitchen.
Despite being gimmicky it's a brave move by Cameron and does engender the whole idea of a local MP fighting for his or her constituents: Carswell being a good example as it happens.
I wonder if in twenty years we may look back and wonder how MPs were ever chosen by any other method?
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
UKIP - 2012 local elections "In the May 2012 local elections, UKIP ... put up 691 candidates in around 2500 local council election contests. Their average % vote share (weighted according to total votes cast) was 13%.
Considering the regions where there was reasonable coverage - where UKIP put up over 100 candidates - UKIP’s average vote share was 14% in Yorkshire, 10% in the North West 15% in the South East and 16% in the Eastern region."
antifrank and David Herdson are right - this poll is not terribly useful because it prompts for the issues. Quite apart from anything else, you could get very different answers by using slightly different categories. For example, if you included 'The Economy' as an issue (which they didn't), I expect you'd get quite a lot of people going for that as the key issue. You'd get different results again if, instead of offering all three of 'The Economy', 'The Deficit' and 'Jobs/Prices/Wages', you offered just 'The Economy'. So it's not very meaningful.
Having said that, it IS meaningful in the way in which Mike has presented it, i.e. in the difference between the responses for different parties' supporters. It's not really a surprise, though, that Kippers are worried about immigration and LibDems about the NHS. I'm not sure this tells us much that we didn't already know.
I always thought that the optimum amount of Carbon Dioxide for most plants was something like twice our natural atmospheric level. That's why it is common practice in enclosed commercial growing areas to generate additional Carbon Dioxide for the plants. You get more quicker growth, so plants using more can not be a shock to any half educated scientist.
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
What do you mean "just because the rate of inflation is crashing"? It's half of the equation.
And if things get cheaper now, they get cheaper now and that is what people notice, unless they live in Hampstead and only spend £70 on the weekly shop anyway.
Understaffed the prisons, which led to mock lock up time.
Bizarrely banned books being sent into prisoners.
Pandered to the tabloids, over TVs in cells. Ignored decades worth of evidence, that TVs in cells reduce the suicide attempts.
Simple truth is, you leave prisoners in cells for longer, it increases the chances of suicide.
Banning books does seem ridiculous - who on earth asked for that one?, I can't imagine even the most right wing of right wing Daily Mail columnists (Hitchens, Heffer, Letts etc) wanting a ban on books.
The book ban was all about the circulation of drugs. Moving drugs around in prison can be hard. The most common route is to cut pages out of books and use the library / book scheme as a conduit for packages of narcotics in the hollowed out books. Not sure how effective the book ban has been on limiting the availability of hard drugs in prison - but if you want to know the answer on 'why the hell ban books?' - well now you know.
OGH "but it is not going to cause many 2010 LD switchers to return to their allegiance."
The Conservatives do not want this to happen. It would be better if these voters went somewhere else such as the Greens or SNP etc and even a minority to UKIP. According to the above the LD voters have a higher interest in Govt deficit than UKIP voters. Those can be attracted to the Conservatives
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
Brent crude is falling, so much so that my £50+ bet at y/e is looking in danger. If Brent crude falls, pump prices drop, the cost of moving food around the country drops and I'm of the mind that everything drops.
Deflation beckons !
In a paper money system?
Lower prices is to be welcomed, however brief it lasts.
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
Brent crude is falling, so much so that my £50+ bet at y/e is looking in danger. If Brent crude falls, pump prices drop, the cost of moving food around the country drops and I'm of the mind that everything drops.
Deflation beckons !
Brent Crude - $88.89 at the moment, which at 1.59729 is £55.65. Down $1.32 from yesterday.
Btw what was Salmond going on about on Radio 4 this morning objecting to the interviewer using the word 'separation'. He was babbling on about how it is apparently banned in the House of Commons and so the BBC should not use it either. Very weird and sounded like he was going a bit 'bodmin'
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
But does it do that? My understanding (which could be wrong) is that any judgement the British courts make in contradiction to the ECHR could just be escalated to the ECHR anyway.
I always thought that the optimum amount of Carbon Dioxide for most plants was something like twice our natural atmospheric level. That's why it is common practice in enclosed commercial growing areas to generate additional Carbon Dioxide for the plants. You get more quicker growth, so plants using more can not be a shock to any half educated scientist.
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by some in the Conservative Party anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
I always thought that the optimum amount of Carbon Dioxide for most plants was something like twice our natural atmospheric level. That's why it is common practice in enclosed commercial growing areas to generate additional Carbon Dioxide for the plants. You get more quicker growth, so plants using more can not be a shock to any half educated scientist.
its not about the amount used, its about the amount contained within plant material, within the leaves but before it gets to the chloroplasts where it is assimilated.
Doesn't change much about the action required to avoid damaging climate change. It should improve the accuracy of the models, presumably.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
It doesn’t always appear that "the clear intention of Parliament" is in fact clear! And you have commented on the potential problems around “normal meaning”.
Understaffed the prisons, which led to mock lock up time.
Bizarrely banned books being sent into prisoners.
Pandered to the tabloids, over TVs in cells. Ignored decades worth of evidence, that TVs in cells reduce the suicide attempts.
Simple truth is, you leave prisoners in cells for longer, it increases the chances of suicide.
Tv's are still in cells but pay TV is not.
I know. But those with freeview in poor reception areas effectively have no TV.
I don't think many people can stomach the fact that they cannot afford to have pay TV but prisoners get it . On this Grayling was right
Sky TV was provided for free to the taxpayer, it was paid for by the prisoners.
That was the tragedy of it. </blockquote
If that is the case then I am not sure people could stomach the fact that SKY allow prisoners to view it without charge but don't provide it free for people who happen to respect the law and not end up in prison
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
When I was at uni in 2010-11 we had a debate about the votes for prisoners thing... Of course it was 12 vs 1... One of the arguments put forward was that it was unfair on prisoners that were innocent!!
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Understaffed the prisons, which led to mock lock up time.
Bizarrely banned books being sent into prisoners.
Pandered to the tabloids, over TVs in cells. Ignored decades worth of evidence, that TVs in cells reduce the suicide attempts.
Simple truth is, you leave prisoners in cells for longer, it increases the chances of suicide.
Tv's are still in cells but pay TV is not.
I know. But those with freeview in poor reception areas effectively have no TV.
I don't think many people can stomach the fact that they cannot afford to have pay TV but prisoners get it . On this Grayling was right
Sky TV was provided for free to the taxpayer, it was paid for by the prisoners.
Something that the tabloid hysteria neglected to mention.
It's not a surprise when you realise just how much of the Conservative Party agenda is dictated by tabloid newspapers.
I can hardly think TSE is whiter than white on this though given his opening gambit on this debate was 'TV's are not in cells anymore' which is clearly not true
"JUDGES yesterday struck a huge blow for ‘common sense’ by ruling a dangerous Chinese robber could be booted out of the UK even though he has two young children living here.
MPs said they hoped the ruling marked a landmark moment in the battle to end the rampant abuse of Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the right to a so-called family life.
It is the first case to come to light since Theresa May changed the law earlier this year to state that Article 8 should apply only in the most ‘exceptional cases’.
The Chinese immigrant – a failed asylum seeker suspected of involvement in two similar crimes – carried out the terrifying robbery in London in 2010 to try to pay off a £200,000 debt."
If he's FAILED asylum then why the hell is he here in the first place ?
If they can find him to get him to court they can find him to get him out of the country.
Because he appealed under Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act.
Is "Labour's Human Rights Act" the official Conservative spin line to be used on pb a hundred times a day until CCHQ's next tweet?
The Tories voted in favour of it.
The two people I least trust to look after my human rights are Theresa May and Chris Grayling both nasty authoritarians following in the great tradition of David Blunkett and Jack Straw.
The former Tory A-G Dominic Grieve is right to be angered by this piece of nuttiness by his party.
I am genuinely puzzled by the Conservative parties anger at the European Convention on Human Rights. A document principally written by an English Conservative Lawyer to introduce English jurisprudence to the continent.
Red herring, what matters is today, not who wrote what when and why.
It's about judges creatively reinterpreting laws to then impose their ideology, effectively writing laws, the creation of which is the job of parliament.
I've been lead to believe that the HRA is effectively baked in to the Scotland Act so even if the Tories were to abolish the HRA and introduce a "British" Bill of Rights it wouldn't apply to Scotland. Is this the case?
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
I’ve posted before over my puzzlement over “open primaries”. I care much less about who the Tory candidate is where I live than I do over the fact that if they are successful they will sit on the Tory benches, and, generally, give support to whoever is Leader at the time.
As I’ve said before, given that fact I’d be tempted to vote for the most outrageous candidate, on the grounds that they might lose and I’d see someone more sympathetic to my views .... Labour, LD (I know, I know) ....... be elected.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
are you having a bet on Labour?
I did when the poll came out, and they have massively drifted since!
I've backed all three parties and laid them back etc so it's not a tip from me as such, but if labour did win I'd wonder why I didn't have more on...
Common view is that the conservatives are more likely to beat ukip than labour are to beat the conservatives isn't it? Despite the poll saying otherwise
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
There may be some anti UKIP voting by Lib Dems but I think most Labour supporters would .if anything, tactically vote UKIP to beat a Tory
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
It doesn’t always appear that "the clear intention of Parliament" is in fact clear! And you have commented on the potential problems around “normal meaning”.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
When I was at uni in 2010-11 we had a debate about the votes for prisoners thing... Of course it was 12 vs 1... One of the arguments put forward was that it was unfair on prisoners that were innocent!!
As if that would be their biggest grievance!!
It's absolutely bat-shit crazy bonkers. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I could understand it if the judgement were to the effect that being able to vote is a fundamental human right, and therefore all prisoners should have the vote; that at least would be an arguable position. But saying that it's a fundamental human right for some prisoners, and not others, based on some completely arbitrary criterion such as the length of sentence, is utterly ludicrous. If it's a human right for a prisoner serving three months, why not for one serving nine months? And if it's OK for parliament to specify a cut-off at 6 months, why is not OK for parliament to specify the cut-off at zero months?
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
It doesn’t always appear that "the clear intention of Parliament" is in fact clear! And you have commented on the potential problems around “normal meaning”.
Regarding Rochester and Strood, the most striking thing about the only opinion poll we have is that labour were a lot closer to the Tories than the Tories were to ukip... Yet they are any price you like to win, and labour apparently aren't going to try
Ukip 40 Con 31 Lab 25
You are likely to see anti-UKIP tactical voting by LAB and LD supporters.
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
Very interesting on the local women point. UKIP definitely have a female achilles heel.
For the last two years every by-election opinion poll has overstated the Labour share of the vote, and 9 out of 10 of the European election ones too so I think you're right: Labour have no real prospect at R&S imho Isam. Especially when you remember that opinion poll was taken before the Tories had even selected their candidate. Plus they will throw the kitchen sink at this one if they think they can hold it.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
Rising real wages, strongly correlated with the governing party's polling.
Over a decent period maybe. In 6 months and just because the rate of inflation is crashing? I don't think so.
Brent crude is falling, so much so that my £50+ bet at y/e is looking in danger. If Brent crude falls, pump prices drop, the cost of moving food around the country drops and I'm of the mind that everything drops.
Deflation beckons !
Brent Crude - $88.89 at the moment, which at 1.59729 is £55.65. Down $1.32 from yesterday.
How much has the price of oil fallen since the independence referendum? That would have been iScotland's lifeblood. Shows the risks in very stark terms.
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
When I was at uni in 2010-11 we had a debate about the votes for prisoners thing... Of course it was 12 vs 1... One of the arguments put forward was that it was unfair on prisoners that were innocent!!
As if that would be their biggest grievance!!
Do you not find it worrying that a government could strip the votes from it's political opponents by jailing them on minor charges for the duration of an election.
JonathanD, I thought laws had always been rewritten through interpretation. Strange though it may seem, even laws reviewed by Conservative dominated Select Committees don’t always get it right!
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
It doesn’t always appear that "the clear intention of Parliament" is in fact clear! And you have commented on the potential problems around “normal meaning”.
It isn't hard.
Dangerous Dogs Act?
Lets abolish parliament then if laws are too hard to understand, in fact let's not have laws.
We seem not to have had problems so far, and if needs be parliament can clarify.
To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
It wouldn't. The point is to free us from the worst effects of the bonkers interpretations of the ECHR, such as the ludicrous judgements on votes for prisoners.
When I was at uni in 2010-11 we had a debate about the votes for prisoners thing... Of course it was 12 vs 1... One of the arguments put forward was that it was unfair on prisoners that were innocent!!
As if that would be their biggest grievance!!
It's absolutely bat-shit crazy bonkers. It makes absolutely no sense at all. I could understand it if the judgement were to the effect that being able to vote is a fundamental human right, and therefore all prisoners should have the vote; that at least would be an arguable position. But saying that it's a fundamental human right for some prisoners, and not others, based on some completely arbitrary criterion such as the length of sentence, is utterly ludicrous. If it's a human right for a prisoner serving three months, why not for one serving nine months? And if it's OK for parliament to specify a cut-off at 6 months, why is not OK for parliament to specify the cut-off at zero months?
yes it does seem a political judgement and not a legal one in that there is no legal logic to it. Presumably it is done so nobody can say the courts want ,for instance, Jihadi John to have a vote if he is captured
Ladbrokes open betting on who'll win the CON R&S postal primary 4/6 @KellyTolhurst 11/10 @anna_firth
How do you bet on this one? Bothe are local councillors. Are there any PBers with local knowledge?
I see that Anna Firth is a barrister and "mother of 3"
Mike for this and for the GE can you keep an eye on gender splits amongst the parties? I think this could be very significant, esp. re UKIP. Women matter more than men in elections. Debate
p.s. the last part is just being playful. What really does matter is if we see large gender voting pattern differences.
Comments
Interesting.
Still, one must make some sacrifices to escape the ravages of Windows 8.
And no, I'm not going to buy a play station.
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/sack-roger-helmer-ukips-policies-are.html
Meanwhile, there is work to be done on addressing the quality of some of the judgments from Strasbourg - but the Tories proposed solution is worse than the problem. As with tax avoidance the solution, and problem, is more often than not our own poorly drafted legislation,
I'm in the Netherlands now - by right as an EU citizen. But only here because the job is and all the non-EU nationals in the office are here with work permits.
Internally, your personal freedom to hire whomever you wish from overseas would need to be balanced against the mutual freedom of all UK citizens to enjoy a socially stable and integrated nation with residents that mutually identify with one another, are in sympathy with its values, and to manage the commensurate pressures on population, development and infrastructure.
The rate of immigration is all important. Which is precisely how it should be.
And now I too have to go and do some ironing, a chore I relieve my wife of doing.
Uncontrolled immigration of unskilled workers is like feeding your kids on junk food and when they get fat and spotty saying "well they can't just not eat they'd starve without it" as if there wasn't a sensible option
Controlled positive immigration of skilled workers is like a healthy diet, eating only food that is good for you
We've been binge eating junk food for a decade and it's left our working class fat and unhealthy...no to cheap fixes!!
If your starving hungry and need some food or you'd die, then grab a KFC or whatever, but on the whole , avoid
Abolishing the HRA simply pushes cases back to Strabourg to be judged there. Obviously if the real agenda is to reduce the number of rights of individuals that's another matter, but I've not seen a list of rights that the Government would like to abolish - is there one? To put it another way, how would the new British human rights act differ in content from the rights in the ECHR?
The fact that Grayling's shameful actions towards prisoners, which as expected, has led to an increase in prison suicides, as foretold, shames this government, and fills me with no confidence, that they won't pander to the tabloids when it comes to dealing with my Human Rights.
It is right that there is a core body of rights that any minority or outcast or criminal can have whatever we think of them but these rights need to be kept within narrow parameters as they are in the Convention itself.
But reform is the answer, not withdrawal. I actually heard Yvette Cooper speaking sense on this the other day. It is embarrassing when even she can get this right and the government is heading in the wrong direction. Presumably they have not worked out the implications of the EU itself signing up to the Convention and incorporating compliance with it into the Treaties yet. This British Convention is a cul de sac.
Could we have massive wodges of cash that find their way into normal people's pockets and make their lives a bit easier as well as supporting further growth in the economy?
'The nasty little Englanders want to curb all our freedoms'
Got any specific examples or just upset that the safety of UK citizens was given priority over the rights to a family life of a convicted Chinese criminal who is about to be deported?
The ECHR is being twisted and contorted well beyond what any of the original framers might have ever envisaged - and there are cases were the outcomes are so far out of kilter with any reasonable view of natural justice as to bring the whole system into disrepute.
The right to family life has been extended and extended to render it almost meaningless - allowing some very perverse results.
That is why the area needs proper examination and proper reform.
- Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation
- Clarify the Convention rights, to reflect a proper balance between rights and
responsibilities.
- Break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
- End the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to force the UK to change the law.
- Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. I
- Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.
- We will amend the Ministerial Code to remove any ambiguity in the current rules about
the duty of Ministers to follow the will of Parliament in the UK.
Despite being gimmicky it's a brave move by Cameron and does engender the whole idea of a local MP fighting for his or her constituents: Carswell being a good example as it happens.
I wonder if in twenty years we may look back and wonder how MPs were ever chosen by any other method?
If Labour want to make it official that they cannot be arsed about England that is fine by me -after all there is only 50 million people live in it
Bizarrely banned books being sent into prisoners.
Pandered to the tabloids, over TVs in cells. Ignored decades worth of evidence, that TVs in cells reduce the suicide attempts.
Simple truth is, you leave prisoners in cells for longer, it increases the chances of suicide.
Or Corby
They can be like the Irish Nationalist MP in Liverpool.
I think a better analogy would be that Cameron would be playing good cop to the voting public's bad cop. "Listen, Brussels, I understand. I just want to help you. But my partner here... if you don't give him something, I don't know how much longer I'm going to be able to keep him under control."
Maybe the Tories were right to abandon it as a campaign theme in favour of unfunded tax cuts after all.
So the full text on that comment is:
"Prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’. In future, the
UK courts will interpret legislation based upon its normal meaning and the clear intention of
Parliament, rather than having to stretch its meaning to comply with Strasbourg case-law. "
I'm not sure what 'normal meaning' means but other than that what are the issues with this idea?
"In the May 2012 local elections, UKIP ... put up 691 candidates in around 2500 local council election contests. Their average % vote share (weighted according to total votes cast) was 13%.
Considering the regions where there was reasonable coverage - where UKIP put up over 100 candidates - UKIP’s average vote share was 14% in Yorkshire, 10% in the North West 15% in the South East and 16% in the Eastern region."
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2012/10/04/will-some-other-party-decide-general-election-2015
Having said that, it IS meaningful in the way in which Mike has presented it, i.e. in the difference between the responses for different parties' supporters. It's not really a surprise, though, that Kippers are worried about immigration and LibDems about the NHS. I'm not sure this tells us much that we didn't already know.
(Edit didn't realise Cracknell is out of the running.)
And if things get cheaper now, they get cheaper now and that is what people notice, unless they live in Hampstead and only spend £70 on the weekly shop anyway.
The Conservatives do not want this to happen. It would be better if these voters went somewhere else such as the Greens or SNP etc and even a minority to UKIP. According to the above the LD voters have a higher interest in Govt deficit than UKIP voters. Those can be attracted to the Conservatives
Lower prices is to be welcomed, however brief it lasts.
Very weird and sounded like he was going a bit 'bodmin'
Something that the tabloid hysteria neglected to mention.
Doesn't change much about the action required to avoid damaging climate change. It should improve the accuracy of the models, presumably.
Ukip 40
Con 31
Lab 25
Incidentally, watched the first part of Gotham last night. Better than I expected (not hugely into Batman).
As if that would be their biggest grievance!!
It's about judges creatively reinterpreting laws to then impose their ideology, effectively writing laws, the creation of which is the job of parliament.
http://buchanan.org/blog/judicial-dictatorship-7010
I notice that the all postal ballot CON primary will be between two women CON councillors from the area. Interesting to see how that shapes out.
I still think the value bet is on CON at anything longer than 6/4.
As I’ve said before, given that fact I’d be tempted to vote for the most outrageous candidate, on the grounds that they might lose and I’d see someone more sympathetic to my views .... Labour, LD (I know, I know) ....... be elected.
I've backed all three parties and laid them back etc so it's not a tip from me as such, but if labour did win I'd wonder why I didn't have more on...
Common view is that the conservatives are more likely to beat ukip than labour are to beat the conservatives isn't it? Despite the poll saying otherwise
Anyone want to price up labour to bt the Tories?
It was more terminology on my part.
In the private prisons where Sky was provided by the contractor for free to the prisons, to meet the providing in cell TVs.
Having a TV only with freeview in area with poor freeview reception is effectively having no TV at all.
For the last two years every by-election opinion poll has overstated the Labour share of the vote, and 9 out of 10 of the European election ones too so I think you're right: Labour have no real prospect at R&S imho Isam. Especially when you remember that opinion poll was taken before the Tories had even selected their candidate. Plus they will throw the kitchen sink at this one if they think they can hold it.
As a Conservative I would probably vote Labour to keep out UKIP. I hate them.
I remember some very nasty restrictions on prisoners using outside medical treatment.
4/6 @KellyTolhurst
11/10 @anna_firth
How do you bet on this one? Bothe are local councillors. Are there any PBers with local knowledge?
I see that Anna Firth is a barrister and "mother of 3"
We seem not to have had problems so far, and if needs be parliament can clarify.
Presumably it is done so nobody can say the courts want ,for instance, Jihadi John to have a vote if he is captured
twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/521686245622423552
twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/521955978561220608
p.s. the last part is just being playful. What really does matter is if we see large gender voting pattern differences.