The inability of UKIP to make gains in these seats demonstrates that they are unable to exploit these poll ratings, something we saw again and again with the Lib Dems until they started to concentrate their efforts. What UKIP needs is Chris Rennard and I'm sure Lib Dems (well, the women anyway) would be glad to get rid of him.
In all the seats, where it was recorded, UKIP increased their vote share and in all bar one they contested (where there was a independent victor) UKIP polled vote shares in excess of its national vote share and in excess for 20%.
As for the supposed UKIP 'winnable' targets let's take the Folkestone one which I know. That ward happens to be full of leafy avenues full of large Victorian properties. Great pickings for Libdems and Tories not so much for UKIP but still they took 29%. Worth noting that UKIP took the less salubrious town centre seat next door not so long ago which suggests they may well be neck and neck with the Tories in Michael Howard's old seat.
Argyll & Bute is one of the most wide open seats in the country, effectively a 4 way marginal (the Lib Dems even get to play because they hold the seat at the moment). Given that, the SNP result is pretty impressive and quite possibly a good indicator as to which way the wind is blowing.
Personally, I think having 3 Unionist parties in the frame makes it a shoo in for the SNP who will probably not be sharing the no vote with anyone significant (there was a green candidate last time around).
The tories didn't have any choice about letting the boundary changes go, the LDs withdrew their support because everyone laughed at Clegg's ridiculously ill thought out 15 year single term elected Lords proposal. So he took the chance to ditch a proposal which would have harmed his party.
You may well think the two are not linked and you may well be right. But the LDs are the sole reason the boundary changes thing died, not the tories.
The tories didn't have any choice about letting the boundary changes go, the LDs withdrew their support because everyone laughed at Clegg's ridiculously ill thought out 15 year single term elected Lords proposal. So he took the chance to ditch a proposal which would have harmed his party.
You may well think the two are not linked and you may well be right. But the LDs are the sole reason the boundary changes thing died, not the tories.
If one were a conspiracy theorist - and I appear to be in that mood today - you might even think that Clegg came up with a deliberately rubbish proposal for House of Lords reform so that he could provoke a backbench Tory rebellion and then have a pretext for ditching the new boundaries.
Argyll & Bute is one of the most wide open seats in the country, effectively a 4 way marginal (the Lib Dems even get to play because they hold the seat at the moment). Given that, the SNP result is pretty impressive and quite possibly a good indicator as to which way the wind is blowing.
Personally, I think having 3 Unionist parties in the frame makes it a shoo in for the SNP who will probably not be sharing the no vote with anyone significant (there was a green candidate last time around).
The tories didn't have any choice about letting the boundary changes go, the LDs withdrew their support because everyone laughed at Clegg's ridiculously ill thought out 15 year single term elected Lords proposal. So he took the chance to ditch a proposal which would have harmed his party.
You may well think the two are not linked and you may well be right. But the LDs are the sole reason the boundary changes thing died, not the tories.
That said I don't think many Tory MPs were devastated that it didn't come about and I suspect more than a few were relieved.
One of the most foolish things the Tories did in the early years of the Coaltion was let the boundary changes go.
I bet that if they had agreed to the LibDems bollocking up the House of Lords in order to get the boundary changes through you'd have criticised them for that though!
Telegraph says we had angry Dave at press conference " we are not paying " (well, not yet anyway)
And we should not. Even taking the changes to GDP at face value, the time has passed and various govts have made their spending plans accordingly. If the EU payments are based on the new GPD values in future then that may be a different matter. its clear that simply making the demands as they have been is preposterous and Cameron is quite right - it show why the EU needs reform. If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
Telegraph says we had angry Dave at press conference " we are not paying " (well, not yet anyway)
And we should not. Even taking the changes to GDP at face value, the time has passed and various govts have made their spending plans accordingly. If the EU payments are based on the new GPD values in future then that may be a different matter. its clear that simply making the demands as they have been is preposterous and Cameron is quite right - it show why the EU needs reform. If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
As someone who has difficulty understanding the mentality of those who use 'angry' as a derogatory term when talking about UKIP voters, I wonder whether they also see it as a derogatory term when talking about David Cameron because he does seem to be getting angry quite a lot these days.
Today is proving to be a great day for eurosceptics. First the great EU shakedown, then the research coming out about a thousand extra laws for six less. Now this:
Angered by EU criticism of Italy’s proposed budget for 2015, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has warned that his government is “going to have some fun” publishing details of the cost of European institutions.
Glad you are on Mr. Star. As one of the very few people on here who runs a real business, how is trade? I ask because earlier in the week we had some posters, me included, who suggested that there is evidence that a downturn is coming. As someone who is actually out there making money (I hope) in the real world your view would be appreciated.
Let me assure everyone that in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, Dorset in the Construction Industry there is no downturn at all. We have turned over in the past six months what we turned over in the financial year 2012-13. All our competitors are the same. We are quoting so much, we turn down half the requests for tenders that we get. We do no advertsiing, we do not have too, companies phone us and plead with us to provide quotations as the people they normally get them from are too busy.
I read the wage statistics showing very low wage growth with incredulity. Wages in construction in the South of England are increasing by far more than the offical statisitics say. People are being head hunted at all times by Construction Firms. We just had a very average spark leave us to work at heathrow, just as a bog standard spark, £19.63 per hour, Foreman are on £25 per hour + . We have had to give 10%+ pay rises to our lads to stop them being tempted by the offers they are getting. I have never known it like this.
We now have 10 Apprentices on, in 2011 we had 2. There is even competition for apprentices. We offered one lad a job and he already had 2 two other offers, he was a school leaver. He joined us, but only because we were offering the bast salary!
All of which makes me think that this 'low wage' recovery is just anti govt propaganda. And of course if we were simply reliant on home grown labour we would be having massive inflation, high interest rates and lower real standards of living. It shows the result of mass hysteria.
If by some chance David Cameron were to win the next election, one of the consolations will be the amusement caused by watching his most dedicated rightwing detractors trying to explain either why he won or (more likely) persuading themselves that he hadn't really won at all.
Even more amusing will be their reaction to having what they asked for actually happen in 2017.
Lucky we don't have quisling Farage running the country - he would have handed over the cash no questions asked
"Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said Britain would have no choice but to pay the money. “Of course he will pay up," he said. "These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do.""
Telegraph says we had angry Dave at press conference " we are not paying " (well, not yet anyway)
And we should not. Even taking the changes to GDP at face value, the time has passed and various govts have made their spending plans accordingly. If the EU payments are based on the new GPD values in future then that may be a different matter. its clear that simply making the demands as they have been is preposterous and Cameron is quite right - it show why the EU needs reform. If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
I thought the argument was that there was no point in withdrawing because we would end up in the EEA type relationship (according to some) and the EEA (being a transitional organisation toward EU membership) wasn't much different from the EU and therefore all the EU rules would apply but we wouldn't have any influence on the decision. Now given that the EEA is nursery school for the EU and the only countries stuck in it long term are those such as Norway whose electorates oppose the EU why would we bother with it? Surely it would be best to make a clean break and adopt an arrangement with the EU tailored to meet our and their specific needs and not some one size fits all agreement that is only intended to be a transitional phase of joining the EU?
PS I forgot to mention we are already members of the EEA by default. To be solely in the EEA would require invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty
Argyll & Bute is one of the most wide open seats in the country, effectively a 4 way marginal (the Lib Dems even get to play because they hold the seat at the moment). Given that, the SNP result is pretty impressive and quite possibly a good indicator as to which way the wind is blowing.
Personally, I think having 3 Unionist parties in the frame makes it a shoo in for the SNP who will probably not be sharing the no vote with anyone significant (there was a green candidate last time around).
I'd place the outcome in order of likelihood
1. SNP 2. LD 3. Con 4. Lab
with 3 and 4 a good deal less likely than 1 or 2.
I can see the Lib Dems coming 4th personally. They are not polling near the giddy heights they are in England up here.
The tories didn't have any choice about letting the boundary changes go, the LDs withdrew their support because everyone laughed at Clegg's ridiculously ill thought out 15 year single term elected Lords proposal. So he took the chance to ditch a proposal which would have harmed his party.
You may well think the two are not linked and you may well be right. But the LDs are the sole reason the boundary changes thing died, not the tories.
Even as a non Tory I agree with your analysis on this. As far as I am concerned the Lib Dems broke the coalition agreement by refusing to back the boundary changes whilst the Tories had stuck to their side of the agreement on allowing a referendum on constitutional reform. I do not believe any blame for the failure of the boundary reforms can lie at the feet of Cameron.
Lucky we don't have quisling Farage running the country - he would have handed over the cash no questions asked
"Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said Britain would have no choice but to pay the money. “Of course he will pay up," he said. "These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do.""
Why do bother with such nonsense. Of course Farage wouldn't pay up because he would take us out of the EU and therefore would have no obligation to pay.
So, do the results suggest we're at peak Kipper or is it more likely that UKIP just hasn't yet become very good at FPTP elections, particularly those at council level? (Yes, Clacton, Heywood, Rochester etc - but one was a defeat and two were chosen battles, one of which has yet to finish).
FWIW, I think UKIP has plenty of scope to improve further, though as the other parties wake up to the threat, it'll become harder for them to do so.
As an aside, becoming too good at FPTP elections holds risks too in that it becomes impossible to break out of the enclaves you create for yourself and become perpetually doomed to at best middle-party status.
One of our resident kippers (I forget which, apologies) astutely noted yesterday that the quality of UKIP candidates at council level is particularly poor even by comparison with the more established parties. That may have something to do with the results that they get at that level.
The quality of some of the UKIP MEPs is also suspect - even after being especially selected by Farage. Bours and that duffer on Daily Politics today espousing socialism....
"....But at some point during her ascent of the party ranks — eventually securing third place on UKIP’s north west regional list for the European elections in May — ‘van de Bours’ appears to have ditched her tussenvoegsel to become simply ‘Bours’.
Could a foreign-sounding surname be some form of impediment with xenophobic UKIP activists?"
What with last night's YouGov showing Tories and Lab level pegging, a very decent set of locals and the excellent Kelly in place I am feeling quite chipper today.
If by some chance David Cameron were to win the next election, one of the consolations will be the amusement caused by watching his most dedicated rightwing detractors trying to explain either why he won or (more likely) persuading themselves that he hadn't really won at all.
Even more amusing will be their reaction to having what they asked for actually happen in 2017.
Plato. Is you aim to have a referendum or to leave the EU? If you wish to leave the EU then Cameron's phony referendum will not be the way to achieve that. If he had been serious he would have given himself sufficient time to achieve the renegotiation and have it ratified. He has not done that and yet he persists in claiming it will happen and we will be able to trust him (and the EU) with whatever he brings out of the negotiations.
Do you trust the EU to keep their word? Are you willing to back Cameron when he is relying entirely on the goodwill of the EU to adhere to any agreement he might achieve?
If he had been serious then he could have set a date for a referendum at the end of the next Parliament and made it clear his continued support for the UK staying in the EU was based upon ratified treaty changes. No ratification, no support. He has not done that and as long as he persists in misrepresenting what can be achieved by 2017 he will not deserve to be trusted or believed.
Argyll & Bute is one of the most wide open seats in the country, effectively a 4 way marginal (the Lib Dems even get to play because they hold the seat at the moment). Given that, the SNP result is pretty impressive and quite possibly a good indicator as to which way the wind is blowing.
Personally, I think having 3 Unionist parties in the frame makes it a shoo in for the SNP who will probably not be sharing the no vote with anyone significant (there was a green candidate last time around).
I'd place the outcome in order of likelihood
1. SNP 2. LD 3. Con 4. Lab
with 3 and 4 a good deal less likely than 1 or 2.
I can see the Lib Dems coming 4th personally. They are not polling near the giddy heights they are in England Eastleigh up here.
@election_data (@election_data) 24/10/2014 14:30 There's a perfectly reasonable case that 30% represents the peak of what the @Conservatives should expect in Rochester & Strood.
Telegraph says we had angry Dave at press conference " we are not paying " (well, not yet anyway)
And we should not. Even taking the changes to GDP at face value, the time has passed and various govts have made their spending plans accordingly. If the EU payments are based on the new GPD values in future then that may be a different matter. its clear that simply making the demands as they have been is preposterous and Cameron is quite right - it show why the EU needs reform. If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
Absolutely right we should not pay, not on 1st October nor on a later date.
I am slightly dubious as to whether our political class has the balls to say "no means no".
Incidentally, are we perhaps beginning to see a differential movement in the UKIP support? It's hard to be sure because the data is very noisy, but Labour's share in the polls seems to be drifting slowly downwards, UKIP's is rising, and the Conservatives' share is steady or perhaps even rising a smidgen. This might represent a direct Labour to UKIP movement and perhaps a net stalling of the Tory to UKIP movement. If the former is real and continues, Labour might be in some trouble.
That seems pretty clear from the wikipedia plot of the opinion polls, though I'd dispute the Conservative share rising a smidgen (though I guess the plot is a week out of date now).
No problem. Got bored of waiting for that other plot to be updated so took matters into my own hands. The only difference is the averaging is done over a shorter time period for mine (15 days), as opposed to 30 days for the wiki plot.
What with last night's YouGov showing Tories and Lab level pegging, a very decent set of locals and the excellent Kelly in place I am feeling quite chipper today.
You mean the excellent Kelly who is going to fight the council she was/ is a Cabinet member of over the Hoo development? Indeed that should be intriguing given she would have been/ is responsible for ensuring adequate educational facilities for the new development?
Telegraph says we had angry Dave at press conference " we are not paying " (well, not yet anyway)
And we should not. Even taking the changes to GDP at face value, the time has passed and various govts have made their spending plans accordingly. If the EU payments are based on the new GPD values in future then that may be a different matter. its clear that simply making the demands as they have been is preposterous and Cameron is quite right - it show why the EU needs reform. If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
Absolutely right we should not pay, not on 1st October nor on a later date.
I am slightly dubious as to whether our political class has the balls to say "no means no".
Mr. Urquhart, it seems baffling that brand was invited on.
I thought Evan Davis was singularly unimpressive ..... he should have brought the "interview" to an early conclusion once he realised that Brand was intent on shouting him down and attempting other bullying tactics like waving his arms aggressively in Davis's direction. Paxo would have known what to do, no doubt.
Shouting people down - that's what they do on the Radio 4 Today programme from where Evan Davis hails.
Newsnight now adopting the same black and white, confronational style of the Today programme and going downhill rapidly.
When will Newsnight and Today try to shed light on isues in the intelligent way that the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics programmes do?
Lucky we don't have quisling Farage running the country - he would have handed over the cash no questions asked
"Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said Britain would have no choice but to pay the money. “Of course he will pay up," he said. "These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do.""
Yes, I thought this was an extraordinary and potentially highly damaging statement from Farage.
Of course, what he was really trying to get across was that the EU was so overbearing and all-powerful that we simply had no option other than to pay up. Unfortunately for him (and therefore for UKIP), it sounded very much as though he would hand over the money whilst at the same time squealing incessantly that we should leave the club asap. I feel sure that the mood of the British people is that this enormous sum should simply not be paid under any circumstances.
What with last night's YouGov showing Tories and Lab level pegging, a very decent set of locals and the excellent Kelly in place I am feeling quite chipper today.
You mean the excellent Kelly who is going to fight the council she was a Cabinet member of over the Hoo development? Indeed that should be intriguing given she would have been/ is responsible for ensuring adequate educational facilities for the new development?
One of the most foolish things the Tories did in the early years of the Coaltion was let the boundary changes go.
I bet that if they had agreed to the LibDems bollocking up the House of Lords in order to get the boundary changes through you'd have criticised them for that though!
At least it was reasonably constructive proposal for Lords reform, rather than simply stuffung it with highly questionable placemen like Hanningfiield.
Mr. Urquhart, it seems baffling that brand was invited on.
I thought Evan Davis was singularly unimpressive ..... he should have brought the "interview" to an early conclusion once he realised that Brand was intent on shouting him down and attempting other bullying tactics like waving his arms aggressively in Davis's direction. Paxo would have known what to do, no doubt.
Shouting people down - that's what they do on the Radio 4 Today programme from where Evan Davis hails.
Newsnight now adopting the same black and white, confronational style of the Today programme and going downhill rapidly.
When will Newsnight and Today try to shed light on isues in the intelligent way that the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics programmes do?
On a similar topic I thought Paul Mason was atrocious in C4 News last night, chasing the outgoing Chairman of Tesco, almost pushing him through a door whilst shouting 'Answer my questions' at the top of his voice, a foot or so from his face. If I had been the Chairman I think I would have been seriously tempted to plant him.
What with last night's YouGov showing Tories and Lab level pegging, a very decent set of locals and the excellent Kelly in place I am feeling quite chipper today.
You mean the excellent Kelly who is going to fight the council she was a Cabinet member of over the Hoo development? Indeed that should be intriguing given she would have been/ is responsible for ensuring adequate educational facilities for the new development?
Conflict of interest perhaps?
Lol cf Reckless on the issue
Yeah well it will take time to rehabilitate Reckless from the excesses of Tory behaviour.......
Mr. Urquhart, it seems baffling that brand was invited on.
I thought Evan Davis was singularly unimpressive ..... he should have brought the "interview" to an early conclusion once he realised that Brand was intent on shouting him down and attempting other bullying tactics like waving his arms aggressively in Davis's direction. Paxo would have known what to do, no doubt.
He should have very firmly early on told Brand to stop fondling his knee. Yes the whole interview was a typical Brand rant.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
Interesting that there is hardly a whimper from the Tories about the Labour and Libdems response to the EU 'Tart tax'. They have all the seats the Tories want after all. Such a lack of perspective must raise questions
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
The current cost of bringing up a child to the age of 21 is estimated to be around £220,000. I assume the father has never made any contribution to the raising of the child so on that basis alone, and before taking into account any of the questions of stress, betrayal or other liability this woman and her child are owed at least £110,000 if we consider each parent contributes equally in this day and age.
Personally I think the £400,000 figure is probably about right. That said it is a shame the tax payer is having to pay it. Maybe they should surcharge the policeman and his superiors.
I'd like to point out that about two years ago, I asserted, on this site, that one way for Cameron to win the GE might be for him to brew up an apparently massive yet essentially meaningless row with the EU, about six months before the election. Then tell the EU to get stuffed.
Those were my very words. Go check.
Lo, and Behold.
Also worth bearing in mind that this is just the first bill - from Tim Stanley in the Tele..
By the way, this isn’t the last bill coming our way. Apparently, officials have warned that reforms to accounting will apply next year and could amount to a further bill to the UK for 1 billion euros. The EU is, in the PM's words, being exposed as the rarified counting house of "heartless technocrats and bureaucrats".
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
To put EU's sudden demand for £1.7bn by December, from the UK, in some kind of perspective - it's £400m MORE than Ed Miliband would raise with the "mansion tax".
Which is expected to start at £1.50 more than his Primrose Hill pad is worth.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
I am sorry but she chose to sleep with him and he lied to her. Men and women do this every day. Without even contemplating compensation.
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
I'd like to point out that about two years ago, I asserted, on this site, that one way for Cameron to win the GE might be for him to brew up an apparently massive yet essentially meaningless row with the EU, about six months before the election. Then tell the EU to get stuffed.
Those were my very words. Go check.
Lo, and Behold.
Also worth bearing in mind that this is just the first bill - from Tim Stanley in the Tele..
By the way, this isn’t the last bill coming our way. Apparently, officials have warned that reforms to accounting will apply next year and could amount to a further bill to the UK for 1 billion euros. The EU is, in the PM's words, being exposed as the rarified counting house of "heartless technocrats and bureaucrats".
An extra two billion this year. An extra billion next. All this after Cameron supposedly capped our exposure.
The EU is just a protection racket. They tap us up for more cash when it looks like we're doing better, and send over Barroso to knock over a couple of ornaments and say "of course, a great many bad things would happen if you don't continue to play along".
Never quite sure about Crick ( he says he doesn't go for hyperbole despite laughably calling the Scotindref for Yes on the day itself) but I am noticing contributors on PB are often ahead of the curve.
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
not a great day to be long a Tory win in Rochester as well as a pro European Tory.
Low profile for me until er something turns up.
At least my annuity punts are recovering a little.
It's alright - Spurs are playing the Magpies at the weekend - you might manage a win...
this is spurs... a point perhaps
You have seen our recent form right?
the worse the form, the more likely a teams is to beat us.... look at West Brom, they were on their uppers until they played as off the park at the lane...
Indeed, one can only wonder how those Eurocrats really thought this news would be received in the UK. It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Indeed, one can only wonder how those Eurocrats really thought this news would be received in the UK. It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
I've been reading a lot of forums this morning, and pro-Europeans who spend time debating with eurosceptics (mainly those in the UK) know how much of a nightmare this is for them. Those of them that spend time talking to themselves in very pro-EU forums are completely clueless and think it's the British tabloids distorting things again (ignoring the fact it was an FT story!)
I suspect the Eurocrat elite will be similar to the second group.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
I am sorry but she chose to sleep with him and he lied to her. Men and women do this every day. Without even contemplating compensation.
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so. The state has a responsibility to ensure that he did not exceed his mandate while undercover, which should have involved ensuring he didn't screw up people's lives by having children with them before disappearing when his deployment was over.
The state failed in their duty of care and so should pay compensation.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
Oh dear ....... it seems that Cameron isn't in fact saying that Britain won't pay, but rather that he won't pay by 1 December. That's hardly the same thing!
The fact it's demanding a huge amount off impoverished Greece, which is always living in danger of an interest rate spiral just around the corner and would blow up the whole Eurozone, suggests it's not a conspiracy. Nobody would risk that for a PR exercise. This is just a great EU cock-up.
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
Oh dear ....... it seems that Cameron isn't in fact saying that Britain won't pay, but rather that he won't pay by 1 December. That's hardly the same thing!
James Manning (@JamesManning4) 24/10/2014 13:53 Cameron: "I'm not paying that bill..." *tiny voice* "...on December 1st."
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
Oh dear ....... it seems that Cameron isn't in fact saying that Britain won't pay, but rather that he won't pay by 1 December. That's hardly the same thing!
James Manning (@JamesManning4) 24/10/2014 13:53 Cameron: "I'm not paying that bill..." *tiny voice* "...on December 1st."
If Cameron pays on December 2nd, be annoyed with him then.
Indeed, one can only wonder how those Eurocrats really thought this news would be received in the UK. It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
I'm Euro-ambivalent and in a slightly contrarian mood, so i'll bite!
Seems to me like there's a pretty crude GDP adjustment system in place, probably the result of a typical consensus fudge that presumably made some sort of logical sense to governments at the time when it was agreed. The winners don't see what the problem is and the losers see it as outrageous . Unless you're Germany, in which case you always pay up to keep the peace.
But yeah, i'll grant you, it's a crap system which should be changed.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
the £5.4 billion (our payment from it apparently was £680 million) was in the first Telegraph article about the Tart Tax and the other was from an article I posted earlier:
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
I am sorry but she chose to sleep with him and he lied to her. Men and women do this every day. Without even contemplating compensation.
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so. The state has a responsibility to ensure that he did not exceed his mandate while undercover, which should have involved ensuring he didn't screw up people's lives by having children with them before disappearing when his deployment was over.
The state failed in their duty of care and so should pay compensation.
What he did under the covers did not form a part of his official duties. How exactly was the state supposed to "ensure that he did not exceed his mandate"? Are you really saying it was the job of the Met to regulate their employee's sex life?
If it had been rape or a criminal offence that would have been one thing. But she is responsible for the consequences of her own consensual acts and judgement.
One of the most foolish things the Tories did in the early years of the Coaltion was let the boundary changes go.
I bet that if they had agreed to the LibDems bollocking up the House of Lords in order to get the boundary changes through you'd have criticised them for that though!
At least it was reasonably constructive proposal for Lords reform, rather than simply stuffung it with highly questionable placemen like Hanningfiield.
No - it was neither reasonable, nor constructive (i'll give you "proposal"). It was utterly daft and he must have known it would never succeed.
But I'm not going to stick up for the current system - it was a shabby stitch-up by Blair. Time for the whole system to be reformed: but that needs to start with a decision about what the second house is actually *for*
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
I can't decide whether this is cock-up or conspiracy
1. Cock-up by the EU: a genuine boo-boo by statisticians and lawyers who did not realise the huge political impact this would have
or
2. Conspiracy by
(a) the EU to harm Cameron in Rochester and so on, or
(b) the EU help Cameron defeat UKIP by handing him a victory over Brussels, or
(c) a conspiracy by Cameron himself (my theory first suggested two years ago) - brew up a big but bogus argument with the EU, six months before the election, which he can win, getting a supersized vetogasm, stealing back kipper voters, at the crucial moment, and thereby sail on to a majority in 2015. Or
(d) a conspiracy by Anglophobes in Brussels to get Britain out of the EU
Right now my money is on some combination of 1 and 2 (c)
I hope that's clear.
I discount 1 .... no one could possibly be that dumb .
2 (a) and 2 (b) as well as 2 (a) and 2 (c) are surely both contradictory?
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
I can't decide whether this is cock-up or conspiracy
Neither can I. Interesting that the FT broke the story - a Euro-enthusiast paper. Smells like conspiracy.
On the other hand, they could be the only paper left that would pay a journalist to read through the mountains of paper that the EU produces to find the newsworthy bits.
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
Lies are told, woman opens her legs, taxpayer gets screwed.
This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
the £5.4 billion (our payment from it apparently was £680 million) was in the first Telegraph article about the Tart Tax and the other was from an article I posted earlier:
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
The Euro Parliament is a joke of an institution filled with jokers like Farage. At least it would be if he could be bothered turning up.
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
Of course she is entitled to maintenance. As every other of the hundreds of thousands of single parents are. But £400K of taxpayers money? I just don't get it.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
The world has gone mad when the state thinks it can play with human lives like this. Even worse when the MET won't just stand up and say they were categorically wrong and that a case like this won't ever happen again.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
I am sorry but she chose to sleep with him and he lied to her. Men and women do this every day. Without even contemplating compensation.
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so. The state has a responsibility to ensure that he did not exceed his mandate while undercover, which should have involved ensuring he didn't screw up people's lives by having children with them before disappearing when his deployment was over.
The state failed in their duty of care and so should pay compensation.
What he did under the covers did not form a part of his official duties. How exactly was the state supposed to "ensure that he did not exceed his mandate"? Are you really saying it was the job of the Met to regulate their employee's sex life?
If it had been rape or a criminal offence that would have been one thing. But she is responsible for the consequences of her own consensual acts and judgement.
But the Met says that it is against their policy for undercover officers to have relationships with people they are deceiving as part of their deployment. That makes it a disciplinary offence, and so something that they are responsible for.
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
I can't decide whether this is cock-up or conspiracy
1. Cock-up by the EU: a genuine boo-boo by statisticians and lawyers who did not realise the huge political impact this would have
or
2. Conspiracy by
(a) the EU to harm Cameron in Rochester and so on, or
(b) the EU help Cameron defeat UKIP by handing him a victory over Brussels, or
(c) a conspiracy by Cameron himself (my theory first suggested two years ago) - brew up a big but bogus argument with the EU, six months before the election, which he can win, getting a supersized vetogasm, stealing back kipper voters, at the crucial moment, and thereby sail on to a majority in 2015. Or
(d) a conspiracy by Anglophobes in Brussels to get Britain out of the EU
Right now my money is on some combination of 1 and 2 (c)
I hope that's clear.
I discount 1 .... no one could possibly be that dumb .
2 (a) and 2 (b) as well as 2 (a) and 2 (c) are surely both contradictory?
EU institutions have time and again showed they have no understanding of why anyone would choose to oppose national membership of the EU. It's clear even Merkel, Hollande, etc. have far more awareness. So I wouldn't be surprised if nobody responsible even thought in the right terms, nor those who did had anything to do with this.
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
Lies are told, woman opens her legs, taxpayer gets screwed.
If you want a Cameron love-fest, translate the comments in Dutch websites:
"Great that there is a prime minister who has balls. Can Rutte and his mates to take an example. Down with the EU. Sooner rather than later, stop this nonsense."
"Cameron, finally a guy with balls in Brussels!"
etc. etc. etc.
Most expect Rutte to pay up, but I think that's cynicism talking.
More important is that the bill has to be paid by 1 December – just five weeks away. That’s about as long as most people have to pay their utility bills. Normally in EU business there are many months to negotiate some kind of compromise or opt-out. In this case there’s very little time. Or legal leeway. The rules on calculating budget contributions are very clear, we’re told... What if Britain were to refuse to pay?
That's the part of this I find most ridiculous - five weeks to pay. It seems that when it's money coming in, the EU can move quite quickly ...
I can't decide whether this is cock-up or conspiracy
1. Cock-up by the EU: a genuine boo-boo by statisticians and lawyers who did not realise the huge political impact this would have
or
2. Conspiracy by
(a) the EU to harm Cameron in Rochester and so on, or
(b) the EU help Cameron defeat UKIP by handing him a victory over Brussels, or
(c) a conspiracy by Cameron himself (my theory first suggested two years ago) - brew up a big but bogus argument with the EU, six months before the election, which he can win, getting a supersized vetogasm, stealing back kipper voters, at the crucial moment, and thereby sail on to a majority in 2015. Or
(d) a conspiracy by Anglophobes in Brussels to get Britain out of the EU
Right now my money is on some combination of 1 and 2 (c)
I hope that's clear.
The EU's a set of massive organisations. It wouldn't surprise me if people were just doing their jobs, and the political considerations didn't come into it for many people. New accounting systems come in, and Eurostat are tasked to recalculate things. Out of the end drops rebates and surcharges. From their perspective, fiscal corrections are needed.
I'd go for cock-up. And in something as large as the EU, this sort of thing will happen: no-one can have full overview of what's happening, and you will get blindsided by such things. The same's true for internal UK politics as well, but to a lesser degree.
This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
Of course she is entitled to maintenance. As every other of the hundreds of thousands of single parents are. But £400K of taxpayers money? I just don't get it.
Duh. She couldn't track him down for maintenance because he was an undercover cop - that's why the Met are responsible.
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
I'm sure somewhere on the interwebs you'll find some anarcho-feminists who would say yes, yes, she was raped by the state!
but meh.
There does seem to be a problem on PB of posters unable to appreciate how the world looks from a different perspective. Were this a female met officer who had seduced a man, then disappeared and left him with a baby I suspect we'd have more moral outrage at the actions of the state.
£400k because a woman slept with an undercover cop and had a child?
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
I am sorry but she chose to sleep with him and he lied to her. Men and women do this every day. Without even contemplating compensation.
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so. The state has a responsibility to ensure that he did not exceed his mandate while undercover, which should have involved ensuring he didn't screw up people's lives by having children with them before disappearing when his deployment was over.
The state failed in their duty of care and so should pay compensation.
What he did under the covers did not form a part of his official duties. How exactly was the state supposed to "ensure that he did not exceed his mandate"? Are you really saying it was the job of the Met to regulate their employee's sex life?
If it had been rape or a criminal offence that would have been one thing. But she is responsible for the consequences of her own consensual acts and judgement.
But the Met says that it is against their policy for undercover officers to have relationships with people they are deceiving as part of their deployment. That makes it a disciplinary offence, and so something that they are responsible for.
No, it is something the officer is responsible for, and can be disciplined for. Just because something is a disciplinary matter does not mean that it creates any liability to a third party.
People should not forget that the EU Parliament has just voted through to increase next years' budget (reports differ from 4.2 billion Euros to £5.4 billion) on top of the Tart tax as well in defiance of the Council of Ministers.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
Do you have a source for this? Would love to read.
the £5.4 billion (our payment from it apparently was £680 million) was in the first Telegraph article about the Tart Tax and the other was from an article I posted earlier:
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
The Euro Parliament is a joke of an institution filled with jokers like Farage. At least it would be if he could be bothered turning up.
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
Not according to the EU:
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
Of course she is entitled to maintenance. As every other of the hundreds of thousands of single parents are. But £400K of taxpayers money? I just don't get it.
Duh. She couldn't track him down for maintenance because he was an undercover cop - that's why the Met are responsible.
Even if he had wanted to play happy families with the lady in question - his status as an undercover cop meant that his employer wouldn't let him. Again, this makes the Met responsible.
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
I'm sure somewhere on the interwebs you'll find some anarcho-feminists who would say yes, yes, she was raped by the state!
but meh.
There does seem to be a problem on PB of posters unable to appreciate how the world looks from a different perspective. Were this a female met officer who had seduced a man, then disappeared and left him with a baby I suspect we'd have more moral outrage at the actions of the state.
I can't see why you would suspect any such thing. A very bizarre straw baby argument.
What he did under the covers did not form a part of his official duties. How exactly was the state supposed to "ensure that he did not exceed his mandate"? Are you really saying it was the job of the Met to regulate their employee's sex life?
If it had been rape or a criminal offence that would have been one thing. But she is responsible for the consequences of her own consensual acts and judgement.
Re: 'his official duties', & 'his sex life': this team of undercover police were so badly managed & monitored that they saw sleeping with protesters as part of the job, with the even the main supervisor being on the record saying sometimes it was required to maintain cover. This isn't about his 'sex life', which indicates something happening outside of work, this is about what he did while *on the payroll and on the clock*. There is much evidence that the unit went far beyond it's statutory powers because that is what their supervisors (and by inference the higher powers-that-be) encouraged them to do - both in terms of sleeping & having children with women and of entrapment. I think there are at least ten other cases similar to this - all involving women who had committed no criminal offences but were targeted by the state because of their political beliefs.
And from this woman's point of view he ruined her life at the behest of the state.
'Undercover' by Paul Lewis is a terrifying read looking into this - if it had been done to anyone other than a bunch of crusty eco-protesters there would be a national outcry (even if you have an instinctive aversion to the Grauniad their reporting in this case has been exemplary).
If the UK managed to agree new accounting standards with the EU without applying their minds to the potential knock on effects of payments like this based on GDP then the number of people employed in the public sector can surely be reduced again. I find it very hard to believe that Ministers would not have been warned of the risk.
There was a link earlier indicating that there were about 6 adjustments going on with the EU budget right now, some positive and some negative. This is an exceptionally large sum but the principles were surely clear enough.
Comments
As for the supposed UKIP 'winnable' targets let's take the Folkestone one which I know. That ward happens to be full of leafy avenues full of large Victorian properties. Great pickings for Libdems and Tories not so much for UKIP but still they took 29%. Worth noting that UKIP took the less salubrious town centre seat next door not so long ago which suggests they may well be neck and neck with the Tories in Michael Howard's old seat.
Personally, I think having 3 Unionist parties in the frame makes it a shoo in for the SNP who will probably not be sharing the no vote with anyone significant (there was a green candidate last time around).
The tories didn't have any choice about letting the boundary changes go, the LDs withdrew their support because everyone laughed at Clegg's ridiculously ill thought out 15 year single term elected Lords proposal. So he took the chance to ditch a proposal which would have harmed his party.
You may well think the two are not linked and you may well be right. But the LDs are the sole reason the boundary changes thing died, not the tories.
1. SNP
2. LD
3. Con
4. Lab
with 3 and 4 a good deal less likely than 1 or 2.
What should Labour do about the one third of Labour voters who voted Yes for independence?
Its answer is apparently to tell them they are morons and encourage them to bugger off and try and pick up Unionist votes in their place.
Bold strategy.
If people who were realy interested about changing our relationship with the EU (and we will have to have one even if out) they would would be supporting reform and indeed suggesting a measured move to the EEA as the best for Britain and the best for maintaining the investment and jobs benefits from the EU.
Sadly it has descended into crass crude racial prejudice by self serving populist rabble rousers.
Angered by EU criticism of Italy’s proposed budget for 2015, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has warned that his government is “going to have some fun” publishing details of the cost of European institutions.
http://www.france24.com/en/20141024-italy-reveal-cost-eu-palaces-escalating-budget-row-renzi-hollande/
Or *unfair* a la the AV one. Jeez that was tedious - and the Yes2AV mob got mashed.
"Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said Britain would have no choice but to pay the money.
“Of course he will pay up," he said. "These are the rules, the contributions to the European Union was a very complex formula and part of it is a measurement of your GDP against everybody else’s. There’s nothing he can do.""
PS I forgot to mention we are already members of the EEA by default. To be solely in the EEA would require invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty
But the SNP is clearly the best bet.
Has the world gone mad? Cameron ranting about taxpayers money and this is the next item up. Who dreams up settlements like this?
She was still terrible on the telly whatever her surname is.
Do you trust the EU to keep their word? Are you willing to back Cameron when he is relying entirely on the goodwill of the EU to adhere to any agreement he might achieve?
If he had been serious then he could have set a date for a referendum at the end of the next Parliament and made it clear his continued support for the UK staying in the EU was based upon ratified treaty changes. No ratification, no support. He has not done that and as long as he persists in misrepresenting what can be achieved by 2017 he will not deserve to be trusted or believed.
24/10/2014 14:30
There's a perfectly reasonable case that 30% represents the peak of what the @Conservatives should expect in Rochester & Strood.
I am slightly dubious as to whether our political class has the balls to say "no means no".
Conflict of interest perhaps?
Shouting people down - that's what they do on the Radio 4 Today programme from where Evan Davis hails.
Newsnight now adopting the same black and white, confronational style of the Today programme and going downhill rapidly.
When will Newsnight and Today try to shed light on isues in the intelligent way that the Daily Politics and Sunday Politics programmes do?
Of course, what he was really trying to get across was that the EU was so overbearing and all-powerful that we simply had no option other than to pay up.
Unfortunately for him (and therefore for UKIP), it sounded very much as though he would hand over the money whilst at the same time squealing incessantly that we should leave the club asap.
I feel sure that the mood of the British people is that this enormous sum should simply not be paid under any circumstances.
Andrea Parma @AndreaParma82 29m29 minutes ago
Richard Shepherd to retire in Aldridge-Brownhills after 36 years http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/10/24/sir-richard-shepherd-conservative-mp-for-aldridge-brownhills-to-stand-down-at-election/ …
Yes the whole interview was a typical Brand rant.
I don't honestly know what kind of settlement would be reasonable for the mother of a child whos father vanished - but to bring up a child, alone, from age 2 to ~18 - never knowing whether or not the father would reappear, then finding out years later you and your child were part of the plot of a kind of truman show directed by a MET intel officer is just insane. £400k sounds reasonable recompense in my book. £200k & an unconditionl apology would probably be better though.
Imagine the identity crisis the poor 29 year old is having right now.
Edit - I suspect there are more cases like this which may or may not come to light, which will probably have been calculated into the decision to settle.
http://constituencyopinion.org.uk/uncategorized/clacton-is-the-most-euroskeptic-constituency-in-the-uk/
Was she raped? Did he stop her using contraceptive?
She chose to have sex with him and not to use precautions. He wasn't exactly what she assumed he was - that never happens unless the bloke is an undercover cop, I suppose.
Personally I think the £400,000 figure is probably about right. That said it is a shame the tax payer is having to pay it. Maybe they should surcharge the policeman and his superiors.
By the way, this isn’t the last bill coming our way. Apparently, officials have warned that reforms to accounting will apply next year and could amount to a further bill to the UK for 1 billion euros. The EU is, in the PM's words, being exposed as the rarified counting house of "heartless technocrats and bureaucrats".
David Cameron has already said he won't pay it.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/525630300559511552
She is entitled to maintenance costs for the child from the father. Whether his employer thinks it appropriate for him to be reimbursed for those is a matter for them. Otherwise? Not for me.
The EU is just a protection racket. They tap us up for more cash when it looks like we're doing better, and send over Barroso to knock over a couple of ornaments and say "of course, a great many bad things would happen if you don't continue to play along".
It would be interesting to hear the views of PB's arch pro-Europeans, such as OGH, etc to this money grab.
So this is not the last of it. Brussels is looking to screw countries every which way!
I suspect the Eurocrat elite will be similar to the second group.
The state failed in their duty of care and so should pay compensation.
The fact it's demanding a huge amount off impoverished Greece, which is always living in danger of an interest rate spiral just around the corner and would blow up the whole Eurozone, suggests it's not a conspiracy. Nobody would risk that for a PR exercise. This is just a great EU cock-up.
24/10/2014 13:53
Cameron: "I'm not paying that bill..." *tiny voice* "...on December 1st."
6 weeks to come up with €2bn? Dating back some twenty years?
The ECJ recognises that it is permissible to allow the correction of long-standing errors only going back so many years (say 5 or 7) for this reason.
Incidentally, does anyone know what the bill would be if it were limited to that sort of time period?
Seems to me like there's a pretty crude GDP adjustment system in place, probably the result of a typical consensus fudge that presumably made some sort of logical sense to governments at the time when it was agreed. The winners don't see what the problem is and the losers see it as outrageous . Unless you're Germany, in which case you always pay up to keep the peace.
But yeah, i'll grant you, it's a crap system which should be changed.
MEPs vote to increase EU budget, including development
https://www.devex.com/news/meps-vote-to-increase-eu-budget-including-development-84619
Mr Cameron is fighting the budget battle with Brussels on two fronts after MEPs voted through an extra £5.4 billion in EU spending next year in defiance of British calls for cuts.
The European Parliament’s demand for extra cash means the Treasury will have to find an extra £680million from taxpayers to pay Britain’s EU membership bill next year
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11184044/EU-makes-Britain-pay-for-recovery.html
If it had been rape or a criminal offence that would have been one thing. But she is responsible for the consequences of her own consensual acts and judgement.
But I'm not going to stick up for the current system - it was a shabby stitch-up by Blair. Time for the whole system to be reformed: but that needs to start with a decision about what the second house is actually *for*
2 (a) and 2 (b) as well as 2 (a) and 2 (c) are surely both contradictory?
On the other hand, they could be the only paper left that would pay a journalist to read through the mountains of paper that the EU produces to find the newsworthy bits.
Around June 1st 2015 most likely
It's Romeo and Juliet with lawyers.
This farce seems strangely familiar ... Ah yes, The Life of Brian.
"Promised me the world he did. I was to be taken to Rome. House by the forum. Slaves, Asses milk. As much gold as I could eat. Then, he, having his way with me. Voom! ... Like a rat out of an aqueduct."
I know it's not funny, but ... "He was deceiving her about his identity, etc, because he was ordered, to do so."
So he was ordered to have sex with her without using contraception? Why not ask him to pay towards maintenance? Or is that no longer done?
They do not set the budget. They have a right to be involved in the process but they cannot demand a settlement which the Council of Ministers has not agreed to.
Both the EU and Cameron must come clean about the origins of this outrageous bill
The EU budget bill has shocked British voters. But so too should the Treasury's strange delay in telling the Prime Minister about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11185604/Both-the-EU-and-Cameron-must-come-clean-about-the-origins-of-this-outrageous-bill.html
Could this be more bad news for Cameron?
They've only gone back 4 years to calculate the charge.
"Great that there is a prime minister who has balls. Can Rutte and his mates to take an example. Down with the EU. Sooner rather than later, stop this nonsense."
"Cameron, finally a guy with balls in Brussels!"
etc. etc. etc.
Most expect Rutte to pay up, but I think that's cynicism talking.
I'd go for cock-up. And in something as large as the EU, this sort of thing will happen: no-one can have full overview of what's happening, and you will get blindsided by such things. The same's true for internal UK politics as well, but to a lesser degree.
but meh.
There does seem to be a problem on PB of posters unable to appreciate how the world looks from a different perspective. Were this a female met officer who had seduced a man, then disappeared and left him with a baby I suspect we'd have more moral outrage at the actions of the state.
It turns out the new Tory candidate for Rochester is an anti-Israeli activist:
https://mobile.twitter.com/montie
Tim Montgomerie:
"Very disappointing that the Tory candidate in Rochester advocates a boycott of Israel thejc.com/news/uk-news/1…
3:47pm - 24 Oct 14"
Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament now shares the power to decide on the entire annual budget of the EU with the Council of the European Union and it has the final say.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/003dcd4001/The-budget-procedure-explained.html
Furthermore as I understand it the EU Budget moves from a Unanimity vote to Qualified Majority Voting on the 1st of November this year so Dave will lose his veto as well!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
The Met order hm to pay maintenance - job done.
She'll still be better off than some other women who meet untrustworthy men. Caveat Emptor.
A very bizarre straw baby argument.
And from this woman's point of view he ruined her life at the behest of the state.
'Undercover' by Paul Lewis is a terrifying read looking into this - if it had been done to anyone other than a bunch of crusty eco-protesters there would be a national outcry (even if you have an instinctive aversion to the Grauniad their reporting in this case has been exemplary).
There was a link earlier indicating that there were about 6 adjustments going on with the EU budget right now, some positive and some negative. This is an exceptionally large sum but the principles were surely clear enough.