"An effigy of Alex Salmond was blown up during bonfire celebrations in Lewes despite assurances that it would not be burned, it has emerged.
The effigy was one of two which were unveiled at the annual celebrations in the East Sussex town. They were said by police to have been withdrawn after protests on social media. But photographs have emerged which shows one of them being blown up in a firework display."
CCHQ strategy now is clearly to force Labour to rally round Ed... smart move!
@montie: Am told panicky Tory whips are hoping to manufacture a minor scandal to distract media from their pursuit of Ed Miliband #SaveEd
The SNP are joining in...
@PeteWishart: I just want to say that Ed Miliband is a true tribune of the people, not in the least weird, understands Scotland totally. He must stay...
It's strange how Conservative morale improves simply because Labour are having a crisis of confidence. No doubt at the end of the month we will see the same process in reverse.
'Right wing press = New Statesman which set the ball rolling, grauniad and those tory dinosaurs on the bbc. ' That'll be the Blairite New Statesman, Lib-Dem enthusiast Guardian, and ex-young-conservative fronted BBC? I'd say all of the above have right wing political departments these days, to a lesser or greater degree. The Guardian does at least have balanced opinion pieces, but an unabashedly Blairite editorial line and Political Editor.
For those who think Jacob Rees-Mogg will defect to UKIP......
Walking side by side down a suburban Rochester street, campaign leaflets in hand and blue rosettes on their chests, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his young son Peter make for an idyllic picture of English politics.
Like his father, and his father before him, seven-year-old Peter is already a staunch Conservative, with his views on Ukip fully formed. "I think they're absolutely nuts," he says, to the delight of the elder Rees-Mogg.
CCHQ strategy now is clearly to force Labour to rally round Ed... smart move!
@montie: Am told panicky Tory whips are hoping to manufacture a minor scandal to distract media from their pursuit of Ed Miliband #SaveEd
The SNP are joining in...
@PeteWishart: I just want to say that Ed Miliband is a true tribune of the people, not in the least weird, understands Scotland totally. He must stay...
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
My god, this is a toe-curlingly bad performance from EdM. Repeating the same slogans to four questions within a minute. He comes across as an utter weirdo (again). In times gone by I suspect the BBC would have cut this to show just one of the answer, but now, with blood in the water...
Do you know what? I can't even watch that all the way through. He is just so unbelievably bad, like a drunk rabbit caught in headlights. How the hell did Labour go from Blair who was one of the smoothest operators going to this via Gordon Brown. It's like ditching a supermodel to go out with the Krankies one after another. Labour have got to get rid of him there's no doubt about it.
If Labour did replace EdM with a reasonably credible Leader and then see a honeymoon surge to >40% VI support, it could then destabilise the Conservatives and Lib Dems into mounting their own Leadership crisis. Replace EdM and take all three out?
Won't make any difference who leads Labour. Doomed.
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
BBC leading with a crap story about crap banks, not lending etc. is there an election on the way? Government pretending to do something. Guy on BBC opportunity for Virgin & Co-op to grow - absolute shite. Remind me what happened to the Co-op's banking ops. cough Flowers.
Openly criticised by MPs. Blaming hostile press for pics...bacon sandwich & beggar on Manchester St. How does Ed giving money to that Romanian girl form part of a press set up?
Landale - organised plot - no, a wobble by MPs. Fear of Greens, SNP & UKIP. Miliband has a morale problem.
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
Can you point to a single UKIP politician or supporter that says all we need to do to cure everything is say goodbye to EU membership?
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
Hello, Mrs. B., nice to see you with us.
"... all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership."
Might just be a bit of an exaggeration there, don't you think? Perhaps, resorting to a stereotype that matches your own prejudices. It certainly isn't a true statement as it is easily disproved by a single counter-example.
I doubt very much that UKIP will get anywhere near the reins of power next year but if they did how would that take us back to the 1970s? In any case would going back to the 1970s "in every way" necessarily be such a bad thing - there were some very good points about life in the UK in the seventies (affordable housing for a start).
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
The Seats (2010 constituencies):
Solihull Dorset Mid and Poole North Wells St Austell & Newquay Somerton and Frome Sutton and Cheam St Ives Chippenham Cheadle Eastbourne Taunton Deane Eastleigh Torbay Brecon and Radnorshire Carshalton and Wallington Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Portsmouth South Kingston and Surbiton Cambridge Southport Thornbury and Yate Colchester Hazel Grove Lewes Twickenham Leeds North West Norfolk North Westmoreland and Lonsdale Sheffield Hallam
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
Stop panicing @MrsB, you couldn't be more wrong. Au contraire, UKIP know well how difficult government is going to be. The difference is that UKIP, if it joined a government, would give it lift, movement and the energy to start, only a start mind you, on making changes the Britain needs to grow and thrive. It will be a long (a decade I recon) business. to affect the changes we will need.
honestly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference who is leading the Labour party when we get to GE 2015. None of the possible replacements are that much better. Different election this time, what with UKIP threat and all. I find UKIP terrifying, because they and all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership. We will really be in trouble if they get anywhere. It'll be back to the 1970s in every way.
Well one things for sure in terms of polls, vote share, number of seats and such like for the Libdems it likely is going to be back to the 1970's.(and hopefully back to 1970 itself!).....
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
Hard to go into a tight GE campaign with a leader who's been so publically questioned by his own MPs. He's surely favourite to hang on, but not hugely so.
Mike is certainly right that any agreement amongst the other likely leaders would make him very vulnerable indeed. How's DMill getting on?
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
Does anyone have an example of a political party getting rid of a long standing leader a few months before an election (with Christmas in the offing, effectively only 3 working months before the election) that has gone on to success?
The thing with Ed is that everyone was assuming that for years he was keeping a low profile and his real intentions were going to become clear as the election approaches.
Well we're 6 months away and it is gradually dawning on the Labour Party that he doesn't have any intentions whatsoever, he's just an empty ill-fitting suit lurching about looking strange on the telly.
They just can't go to the election with him as the leader, it's as simple as that and I think that they are going to get rid of him.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
Does anyone have an example of a political party getting rid of a long standing leader a few months before an election (with Christmas in the offing, effectively only 3 working months before the election) that has gone on to success?
Kim Jong Il left office on 17th December 2011, his party swept the board in the next election.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
Completely sickening. The powers given to the security services are not about protecting us from terrorism. They are about control of the state over the individual. This government seems to be going through all the ancient liberties and undermining them one by one: habeas corpus, confidential legal advice, individual privacy, free speech, etc. They're an awful, awful government.
The thing with Ed is that everyone was assuming that for years he was keeping a low profile and his real intentions were going to become clear as the election approaches.
Well we're 6 months away and it is gradually dawning on the Labour Party that he doesn't have any intentions whatsoever, he's just an empty ill-fitting suit lurching about looking strange on the telly.
They just can't go to the election with him as the leader, it's as simple as that and I think that they are going to get rid of him.
They should have realised. Miliband was Brown's manifesto guru remember and they had to second Hattie Harman in to help him get it finished. Even then that manifesto only won 29% of the vote.
Guidance issued by GCHQ said its staff "may in principle target the communications of lawyers", although it adds "you must give careful consideration to necessity and proportionality".
You can just see the importance of checks and balances at GCHQ: employees are held back by the rigorous check of being asked to think about it first.
The thing with Ed is that everyone was assuming that for years he was keeping a low profile and his real intentions were going to become clear as the election approaches.
Well we're 6 months away and it is gradually dawning on the Labour Party that he doesn't have any intentions whatsoever, he's just an empty ill-fitting suit lurching about looking strange on the telly.
They just can't go to the election with him as the leader, it's as simple as that and I think that they are going to get rid of him.
They should have realised. Miliband was Brown's manifesto guru remember and they had to second Hattie Harman in to help him get it finished. Even then that manifesto only won 29% of the vote.
I don't understand how he got the job and I really don't understand how he's still there when it was clear he was no good 3 years ago. I wonder if the blind hatred of the Tories shielded Labour from the reality.
Does anyone have an example of a political party getting rid of a long standing leader a few months before an election (with Christmas in the offing, effectively only 3 working months before the election) that has gone on to success?
Bob Hawke in Australia - new leader replace useless guy.
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
I want my party “be a party for all Britain and all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other”. So does Douglas Carswell. We might also ponder what the good Douglas said about UKIP’s decision to ally with a neo nazi Polish MEP in return for greater EU funding: ''nothing''.
On topic: Ed won't go because, unlike lesser mortals such as the PM, he is sustained by his greater intellectual self-confidence.
Wasn't there equally febrile speculation not so long about Cameron's position if the Tories should lose heavily in the Rochester by-election?
It is a little different - PMs often face public unrest amongst their backbenchers - somewhat rarer for LotO's to do so, and particularly approaching a General Election.
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules. Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said. In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
Could be on to a winner with Luciana Berger,privately educated complete with personalized car number plates,just perfect to recapture the working class vote.
www.libdemvoice.org/luciana-berger-and-the-customised-number-plate-... 14 Mar 2010 - As a Labour candidate in a working class area of Liverpool, glamorous 28-year-old Londoner Luciana Berger has gone to great lengths to ...
On topic: Ed won't go because, unlike lesser mortals such as the PM, he is sustained by his greater intellectual self-confidence.
Wasn't there equally febrile speculation not so long about Cameron's position if the Tories should lose heavily in the Rochester by-election?
It is a little different - PMs often face public unrest amongst their backbenchers - somewhat rarer for LotO's to do so, and particularly approaching a General Election.
Frankly, I would attach much credence to speculation about either.
Does anyone have an example of a political party getting rid of a long standing leader a few months before an election (with Christmas in the offing, effectively only 3 working months before the election) that has gone on to success?
Bob Hawke in Australia - new leader replace useless guy.
Is there a Bob Hawke in the Labour ranks? I can't think of one......
Thank God the child was not seriously hurt. When I was in the army there was no such thing as an accidental discharge of a firearm. All such incidents, absent a demonstrable fault with the weapon, were held to be down to negligence and the offenders were always punished by a minimum of 28 days detention. I wonder what punishment the copper in this case will receive.
Plods gun skills leave a lot to be desired. Witness the BTP's finest on the concourse at Charing Cross, guns swinging and barrels pointing at passengers, rather than towards the ground. Very poor training.
Well, quite. I'm no expert, but surely rule no 1 of gun safety is that you should only point the thing at something or someone you are preparing to shoot.
Although as far as I can see, the main purpose of police armed with sub-machine guns is to put the wind up the public. I used to encounter the same pair walking nonchalantly across the upstream Golden Jubilee footbridge every morning on my way to work, to no purpose that I could discern. (That was back in Tony and Gordon's time, though).
Completely sickening. The powers given to the security services are not about protecting us from terrorism. They are about control of the state over the individual. This government seems to be going through all the ancient liberties and undermining them one by one: habeas corpus, confidential legal advice, individual privacy, free speech, etc. They're an awful, awful government.
The article cited makes it clear that this is not something this government is doing, but it about a policy which has been in place for many years. Maybe that policy has for many years been wrong, or actually illegal - that is what the Independent Powers Tribunal is looking at. That is how the oversight is supposed to work.
Your rush to blame absolutely everything on the current government is absurd.
Completely sickening. The powers given to the security services are not about protecting us from terrorism. They are about control of the state over the individual. This government seems to be going through all the ancient liberties and undermining them one by one: habeas corpus, confidential legal advice, individual privacy, free speech, etc. They're an awful, awful government.
The article cited makes it clear that this is not something this government is doing, but it about a policy which has been in place for many years. Maybe that policy has for many years been wrong, or actually illegal - that is what the Independent Powers Tribunal is looking at. That is how the oversight is supposed to work.
Your rush to blame absolutely everything on the current government is absurd.
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
I want my party “be a party for all Britain and all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other”. So does Douglas Carswell. We might also ponder what the good Douglas said about UKIP’s decision to ally with a neo nazi Polish MEP in return for greater EU funding: ''nothing''.
Doug Carswell wants to withdraw from the EU and then we will no longer have to sully ourselves with any of these dubious political types from Europe. How's Michal Kaminski getting on these days by the way?
Maybe the policy doesn't exist, or is legal. Who knows? The BBC report is about what lawyers for Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi , and campaigners, are saying. As with all the Guardian articles which Socrates gets so excited about, it's impossible from these selective quotes and press releases to know what the whole picture is - they are allegations. That's why we have an independent tribunal to consider them.
Very poor response from Ed in the interview on the BBC too. Layed some 2.84s on bf next pm - wonder if that's a PBer on the other side.
@Peter_the_punter - I can't see why a group of Labour MPs would get the BBC to run the story if there wasn't a reasonably coherent plan about replacing him.
I'm far from convinced, but I am now slightly a beneficiary of him going whereas before I would have profited handsomely from him staying and better still staying and not winning.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
Maybe the policy doesn't exist, or is legal. Who knows? The BBC report is about what lawyers for Abdul Hakim Belhaj and Sami al-Saadi , and campaigners, are saying. As with all the Guardian articles which Socrates gets so excited about, it's impossible from these selective quotes and press releases to know what the whole picture is - they are allegations. That's why we have an independent tribunal to consider them.
It's what's wrong with politics.
Everything is farmed off to a box ticking independent something or other a la Ed Miliband that does nothing.
Nobody's responsible. Nothing happens. The problem rolls on.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
How much “better” is relying on UKIP than relying on DUP?
Both seem an appalling prospect. The saloon bar of the Slaughtered Lamb vs the Free Presbyterian Orange Convention!
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
I want my party “be a party for all Britain and all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other”. So does Douglas Carswell. We might also ponder what the good Douglas said about UKIP’s decision to ally with a neo nazi Polish MEP in return for greater EU funding: ''nothing''.
The problem with that anti-UKIP argument is that UKIP can simply retort: "Y'see, these are the sorts of people we have to collaborate with in Brussels. Better off out, aren't we?"
Also, it's my understanding the MEP himself was not a neo-Nazi, the leader of the party he represents allegedly is.
Everything is farmed off to a box ticking independent something or other a la Ed Miliband that does nothing.
Nobody's responsible. Nothing happens. The problem rolls on.
It's not rolling on, it is a case actively being considered in what is effectively a court.
so in normal speak "kicked into the long grass"
Not at all. You can't complain about allegations that ancient legal rights being trampled on, and in the same breath complain that a legal process is operating to determine whether the allegations are justified.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
Given UKIP were not a significant factor in any of the elections referred to it shows nothing of the sort nor does it demonstrate the importance of the centre ground because arguably Blair owned the centre ground from 1997 to his departure in 2007 and during that period he lost 4 million votes many of whom would hardly have been called centreists.......
The Editor of the Independent in the Evening Standard tonight says he is proud to be a metropolitan liberal and that immigration is an illegitimate concern.
I want my party “be a party for all Britain and all Britons, first and second generation as much as every other”. So does Douglas Carswell. We might also ponder what the good Douglas said about UKIP’s decision to ally with a neo nazi Polish MEP in return for greater EU funding: ''nothing''.
Doug Carswell wants to withdraw from the EU and then we will no longer have to sully ourselves with any of these dubious political types from Europe. How's Michal Kaminski getting on these days by the way?
More to the point why is it that UKIPs new poster boy is so ashamed of their dubious political types and policies and clearly has views totally at variance with their nutjob supporters and activists?
Everything is farmed off to a box ticking independent something or other a la Ed Miliband that does nothing.
Nobody's responsible. Nothing happens. The problem rolls on.
It's not rolling on, it is a case actively being considered in what is effectively a court.
so in normal speak "kicked into the long grass"
Not at all. You can't complain about allegations that ancient legal rights being trampled on, and in the same breath complain that a legal process is operating to determine whether the allegations are justified.
of course I can, it's just you don't agree. Your believe in big government, I don't.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
How much “better” is relying on UKIP than relying on DUP?
Both seem an appalling prospect. The saloon bar of the Slaughtered Lamb vs the Free Presbyterian Orange Convention!
Well after the back stabbing hysterics they have relied on for the last four years pretty much anything would be an improvement!
of course I can, it's just you don't agree. Your believe in big government, I don't.
Poppycock. I believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and independent courts adjudicating on alleged breaches of the law. You seem to believe that anything claimed by a non-government party in a legal case must by definition be the whole truth.
In fact, even the Guardian is cautious on this particular point:
Intelligence agencies ‘may have abused access to lawyer-client documents’
Lawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj claim MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may have intercepted legally privileged communications
Neither you nor I will ever get to hear the evidence, so the best thing we can do is leave it to the independent tribunal (chaired by senior judges and comprising mainly QCs) to determine the matter.
www.libdemvoice.org/luciana-berger-and-the-customised-number-plate-... 14 Mar 2010 - As a Labour candidate in a working class area of Liverpool, glamorous 28-year-old Londoner Luciana Berger has gone to great lengths to ...
I doubt a 51 plate with an otherwise odd collection of letters cost that much. Its on a Toyota Aygo. I bought my wife a personal plate for her birthday, it cost far less than an arm and a leg. So clearly I am not going to be hypocritical and throw stones at her for that. being a socialist is a different kettle of fish. As I recall the people of St Helens elected a Labour MP with a butler.
of course I can, it's just you don't agree. Your believe in big government, I don't.
Poppycock. I believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and independent courts adjudicating on alleged breaches of the law. You seem to believe that anything claimed by a non-government party in a legal case must by definition be the whole truth.
In fact, even the Guardian is cautious on this particular point:
Intelligence agencies ‘may have abused access to lawyer-client documents’
Lawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj claim MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may have intercepted legally privileged communications
Neither you nor I will ever get to hear the evidence, so the best thing we can do is leave it to the independent tribunal (comprising mainly QCs) to determine the matter.
No richard you say you do, but when it comes to it you always give the government the benefit of the doubt even when it's just carrying on a Blair\Brown policy. As a citizen I believe it's my job to be sceptical and scrutinise the powers that be. You don't.
of course I can, it's just you don't agree. Your believe in big government, I don't.
Poppycock. I believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and independent courts adjudicating on alleged breaches of the law. You seem to believe that anything claimed by a non-government party in a legal case must by definition be the whole truth.
In fact, even the Guardian is cautious on this particular point:
Intelligence agencies ‘may have abused access to lawyer-client documents’
Lawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj claim MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may have intercepted legally privileged communications
Neither you nor I will ever get to hear the evidence, so the best thing we can do is leave it to the independent tribunal (comprising mainly QCs) to determine the matter.
No richard you say you do, but when it comes to it you always give the government the benefit of the doubt even when it's just carrying on a Blair\Brown policy. As a citizen I believe it's my job to be sceptical and scrutinise the powers that be. You don't.
Its GCHQ which is in the front line of fighting terror. Leave them to it.
No richard you say you do, but when it comes to it you always give the government the benefit of the doubt even when it's just carrying on a Blair\Brown policy. As a citizen I believe it's my job to be sceptical and scrutinise the powers that be. You don't.
You're not being sceptical. You are believing one very selective side of the story.
I'm the one being sceptical. I know that I will never hear the whole story, so I am not making a judgement either way.
of course I can, it's just you don't agree. Your believe in big government, I don't.
Poppycock. I believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and independent courts adjudicating on alleged breaches of the law. You seem to believe that anything claimed by a non-government party in a legal case must by definition be the whole truth.
In fact, even the Guardian is cautious on this particular point:
Intelligence agencies ‘may have abused access to lawyer-client documents’
Lawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj claim MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may have intercepted legally privileged communications
Neither you nor I will ever get to hear the evidence, so the best thing we can do is leave it to the independent tribunal (comprising mainly QCs) to determine the matter.
No richard you say you do, but when it comes to it you always give the government the benefit of the doubt even when it's just carrying on a Blair\Brown policy. As a citizen I believe it's my job to be sceptical and scrutinise the powers that be. You don't.
Its GCHQ which is in the front line of fighting terror. Leave them to it.
Total bollocks. Those of us who have lived through a terrorist campaign know crud when we see it. You really haven't a clue what you're talking about, go back to trolling kippers.
No richard you say you do, but when it comes to it you always give the government the benefit of the doubt even when it's just carrying on a Blair\Brown policy. As a citizen I believe it's my job to be sceptical and scrutinise the powers that be. You don't.
You're not being sceptical. You are believing one very selective side of the story.
I'm the one being sceptical. I know that I will never hear the whole story, so I am not making a judgement either way.
Perhaps in your own mind, but if this was EdM continuing the policy your view would be different.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Whilst I recognise we have to churn out threads, this is all so speculative at the moment. Until we start to get serious about the General Election next February there's little benefit from over-analysing at the moment. What would be helpful are some more polls, preferably not just by Lord Ashcroft who consistently over-states Labour.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
How much “better” is relying on UKIP than relying on DUP?
Both seem an appalling prospect. The saloon bar of the Slaughtered Lamb vs the Free Presbyterian Orange Convention!
Well after the back stabbing hysterics they have relied on for the last four years pretty much anything would be an improvement!
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
Given UKIP were not a significant factor in any of the elections referred to it shows nothing of the sort nor does it demonstrate the importance of the centre ground because arguably Blair owned the centre ground from 1997 to his departure in 2007 and during that period he lost 4 million votes many of whom would hardly have been called centreists.......
Blair lost votes to the LDs over the Iraq issue, he lost a significant part of the centre and the LDs were able to portray themselves in the centre as a result. It shows that the LDs continued portrayal of the conservatives as the other extremist wing served them well in holding on to their seats. I suggest that UKIPs self portrayal will serve them badly with that same group of like minded people in seats where they are perceived to be viable winners - presumably due to their anti immigrant (anti everything) rhetoric.
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
It's actually a very good point. If you 'Baxter' then almost all the Tory gains would be from the LibDems. It's a pity Mike has overlooked this.
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
It also shows how important the centre ground is and not be seen as extremist, and quite possibly how important it is to be the main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
How much “better” is relying on UKIP than relying on DUP?
Both seem an appalling prospect. The saloon bar of the Slaughtered Lamb vs the Free Presbyterian Orange Convention!
Well after the back stabbing hysterics they have relied on for the last four years pretty much anything would be an improvement!
PS Even the Labour Party!
Yeah, Clegg's had to put up with a lot.
Indeed I have some sympathy for Clegg. Nice lad even if he was an arsonist but absolutely hopeless when it comes to policy (that HoL reform was a mess). After all he got dealt a lousy hand. Huhne, Cable. Oakeshott, Tonge, Opek, Baker, Browne, Laws, Davey, Featherstone, Teather, Rennard, Hancock, Alexander, Ashdown.
No wonder the poor sod is so unpopular trying to make even a sow's ear let alone a silk purse out of that worthless rabble!
No - because of the slew of seats that the Libdem collapse will hand to the Tories.
Had the Tories won all the seats now occupied by Liberal Democrats that were held/won by the Major government in the 1992 election, then the Tories would have won an extra 29 seats giving them a total of 336 seats.
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
...
main anti UKIP party in any constituency.
Given UKIP were not a significant factor in any of the elections referred to it shows nothing of the sort nor does it demonstrate the importance of the centre ground because arguably Blair owned the centre ground from 1997 to his departure in 2007 and during that period he lost 4 million votes many of whom would hardly have been called centreists.......
Blair lost votes to the LDs over the Iraq issue, he lost a significant part of the centre and the LDs were able to portray themselves in the centre as a result. It shows that the LDs continued portrayal of the conservatives as the other extremist wing served them well in holding on to their seats. I suggest that UKIPs self portrayal will serve them badly with that same group of like minded people in seats where they are perceived to be viable winners - presumably due to their anti immigrant (anti everything) rhetoric.
Your Iraq war theory is cobblers because three quarters of those voters who left Blair left before the 2001 election when Iraq wasn't even contemplated
The Libdems won votes off Labour by pretending to be left wing. That's why those votes returned to Labour as soon as the Libdems got into bed with the 'centreist' Tories. Funny that isn't it? First they are repelled by 'centreist' Blair and then they are repelled by Centreist Cameron and you think those voters are centreists?
And if the centreist Libdems were so succesful in their centreism do tell how they rarely win 10% of the vote share these days in polls and hanging on to their deposit is now considered an event to celebrate at by elections?
As for your opinion of UKIP, given your narrow minded bigoted view of them you'll understand if i respond in this way.........
Comments
The effigy was one of two which were unveiled at the annual celebrations in the East Sussex town. They were said by police to have been withdrawn after protests on social media. But photographs have emerged which shows one of them being blown up in a firework display."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29929438
The SNP are joining in...
@PeteWishart: I just want to say that Ed Miliband is a true tribune of the people, not in the least weird, understands Scotland totally. He must stay...
I did a quick Google - seems he married some posh toff with the superbly comic name Helena de Chair!
Haha In these febrile times I hope most people on all sides can have a laugh at this. Very good!! Bravo.
http://order-order.com/2014/11/06/that-miliband-leadership-crisis-in-full/
Unless you think it's all made up … oh what the heck, it just isn't.
It's not like people haven't been pointing out Ed Miliband may, in fact, be crap.
Ed decided to respond to criticism.
Openly criticised by MPs. Blaming hostile press for pics...bacon sandwich & beggar on Manchester St. How does Ed giving money to that Romanian girl form part of a press set up?
Landale - organised plot - no, a wobble by MPs. Fear of Greens, SNP & UKIP. Miliband has a morale problem.
"... all their supporters are convinced government is simple and all we need to cure everything they think it wrong is the magic wand of saying goodbye to EU membership."
Might just be a bit of an exaggeration there, don't you think? Perhaps, resorting to a stereotype that matches your own prejudices. It certainly isn't a true statement as it is easily disproved by a single counter-example.
I doubt very much that UKIP will get anywhere near the reins of power next year but if they did how would that take us back to the 1970s? In any case would going back to the 1970s "in every way" necessarily be such a bad thing - there were some very good points about life in the UK in the seventies (affordable housing for a start).
This would have given them a majority of 22. It would have given them an effective majority of 28 (due to five SF and squeaker not voting)
With DUP supply and confidence they would have had an effective majority of 44 if the DUP voted with them and 36 if the DUP abstained. That is a pretty good majority.
The reason there was a need for a coalition was that the Libdems retained these 29 seats which, prior to 1997 had been longstanding Tory seats, many of them very safe Tory seats. The tories failed to get a majority entirely because they failed to unseat the Libdems in these seats.
Hence any collapse in the Libdem vote in 2010 will hand the tories a huge number of seats (no other party is seriously in contention in most if not all). The Greens in this regard are particularly poisonous to the Libdems because they didn't stand in a lot of Libdem seats in 2010 and any splintering of the Libdem vote in these seats will let the Tories in. (which might account for anti Green comments in certain quarters) .
Similarly many of these seats have artificially low Labour voting due to Labour supporters voting Lib Dem. Any unwinding of this (due to Labour voters resentment of Libdems being in coalition) will be equally disastrous for the Libdems.
This also shows how poorly Labour did in 2010.
The Seats (2010 constituencies):
Solihull
Dorset Mid and Poole North
Wells
St Austell & Newquay
Somerton and Frome
Sutton and Cheam
St Ives
Chippenham
Cheadle
Eastbourne
Taunton Deane
Eastleigh
Torbay
Brecon and Radnorshire
Carshalton and Wallington
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Portsmouth South
Kingston and Surbiton
Cambridge
Southport
Thornbury and Yate
Colchester
Hazel Grove
Lewes
Twickenham
Leeds North West
Norfolk North
Westmoreland and Lonsdale
Sheffield Hallam
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29933328
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29934672
All but the most foolish can see power and seats drifting away from them.
About time too!
If he stays long enough Labour might just disintegrate.
Mike is certainly right that any agreement amongst the other likely leaders would make him very vulnerable indeed. How's DMill getting on?
Guardian circulation 207,958 per day
Daily Mail circulation 1,780,565 per day
The Sun Circulation 2,213,659 per day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
British intelligence agencies have policies allowing staff to access confidential communications between lawyers and their clients, official documents have revealed.
The guidance was disclosed for the first time at a tribunal which examines complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.
The lawyer-client relationship is generally protected by strict rules.
Campaigners said the disclosure had "troubling implications for the whole British justice system".
The government could be handed an unfair advantage in court if it had access to confidential materials, they said.
In one case, MI5 revealed, privileged information had been inappropriately passed to lawyers involved in litigation against the agencies where "the potential for tainting" was identified.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29939192
Well we're 6 months away and it is gradually dawning on the Labour Party that he doesn't have any intentions whatsoever, he's just an empty ill-fitting suit lurching about looking strange on the telly.
They just can't go to the election with him as the leader, it's as simple as that and I think that they are going to get rid of him.
Mr. Eagles, indeed, likewise RIPA being used against the press.
It's almost as if giving the police too much power is a bad thing.
You can just see the importance of checks and balances at GCHQ: employees are held back by the rigorous check of being asked to think about it first.
We might also ponder what the good Douglas said about UKIP’s decision to ally with a neo nazi Polish MEP in return for greater EU funding: ''nothing''.
Not at all.
It's plainly chargeable time and I expect the spooks will be receiving an invoice any time soon.
'Two wildcard choices for the Labour leadership
Liz Kendall
Luciana Berger'
Could be on to a winner with Luciana Berger,privately educated complete with personalized car number plates,just perfect to recapture the working class vote.
www.libdemvoice.org/luciana-berger-and-the-customised-number-plate-...
14 Mar 2010 - As a Labour candidate in a working class area of Liverpool, glamorous 28-year-old Londoner Luciana Berger has gone to great lengths to ...
Although as far as I can see, the main purpose of police armed with sub-machine guns is to put the wind up the public. I used to encounter the same pair walking nonchalantly across the upstream Golden Jubilee footbridge every morning on my way to work, to no purpose that I could discern. (That was back in Tony and Gordon's time, though).
Your rush to blame absolutely everything on the current government is absurd.
Good to see the police, as ever, using their time effectively.
The offended reaction generally was shrieking and pathetic, crying to the police was nuts, and the police taking it seriously even more so.
Did anyone care when Cameron's effigy was burnt?
@Peter_the_punter - I can't see why a group of Labour MPs would get the BBC to run the story if there wasn't a reasonably coherent plan about replacing him.
I'm far from convinced, but I am now slightly a beneficiary of him going whereas before I would have profited handsomely from him staying and better still staying and not winning.
Everything is farmed off to a box ticking independent something or other a la Ed Miliband that does nothing.
Nobody's responsible. Nothing happens. The problem rolls on.
Anyone who knows anything about Sussex Bonfire knows that they're answerable to no-one, and certainly not to any official:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_wunt_be_druv
On a cold dark winter's night we need somoene to give us a laugh by spouting more Osborne nonsense.
Come on Pole give us a yellow box !
Both seem an appalling prospect. The saloon bar of the Slaughtered Lamb vs the Free Presbyterian Orange Convention!
Also, it's my understanding the MEP himself was not a neo-Nazi, the leader of the party he represents allegedly is.
What about Kaminski? Are you siding with a Miliband by any chance?
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/david-milibands-insult-michal-kaminski-contemptible
More to the point why is it that UKIPs new poster boy is so ashamed of their dubious political types and policies and clearly has views totally at variance with their nutjob supporters and activists?
PS Even the Labour Party!
In fact, even the Guardian is cautious on this particular point:
Intelligence agencies ‘may have abused access to lawyer-client documents’
Lawyers for Abdel Hakim Belhaj claim MI5, MI6 and GCHQ may have intercepted legally privileged communications
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/06/intelligence-agencies-lawyer-client-abdel-hakim-belhaj-mi5-mi6-gchq
Neither you nor I will ever get to hear the evidence, so the best thing we can do is leave it to the independent tribunal (chaired by senior judges and comprising mainly QCs) to determine the matter.
I bought my wife a personal plate for her birthday, it cost far less than an arm and a leg. So clearly I am not going to be hypocritical and throw stones at her for that. being a socialist is a different kettle of fish.
As I recall the people of St Helens elected a Labour MP with a butler.
I'm the one being sceptical. I know that I will never hear the whole story, so I am not making a judgement either way.