Miliband, facing anonymous criticisms of his leadership, also saw his personal ratings plunge to a record low in polling conducted on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, plumbing depths that have previously been the preserve of Nick Clegg.
How does this work? If I think UKIP are going to win 20 seats, do I buy or sell now, or do I have to wait until the page is showing UKIP on 20 seats (if that ever happens)?
You buy now, Andy.
I noted below that you thought UKIP were likely to score ten seats. If that's so, you should be a buyer, because your downside is limited to a maximum of ten (but in practice probably no more than five.) Your upside however is huge. Realistically, you might expect to win about five points, but twenty or more is not inconceivable.
'Someone linked on the last thread that there are 'secret' plans to further slash law & order and defence next year?'
What's the problem?
The UK has the most generous legal aid system by a country mile in the entire EU and our military spending is the highest of any EU country and we have the third largest military force in NATO. .
On legal aid I've been told by lawyer friends that it's been savagely cut back in the last year or so?
There was a lawyer on radio Scotland on Sunday whinging that he was only getting £48 an hour from the public to defend the great unwashed nowadays and what a travesty of justice it was to expect him to have to toil for such a pittance.
How mean of the English not to give the whining Scotchman more English money! His arm must ache from holding his hand out for so long!
You thick stupid bag of vomit , it is Scottish Legal system and Scottish money.
So he should have written 'How mean of the Scottish not to give the whining Scotchman more Scottish money! His arm must ache from holding his hand out for so long!'
Is that better Malky, you tartan cockroach?
sick degenerate pervert boy comes out from under his rock, still woofing cretin
Another long afternoon in Wetherspoons? One hopes that you sober up before this evening's Mini-Cabbing shift.
Adam Boulton @adamboultonSKY 38m38 minutes ago Kingston upon Thames, London Home Sec now saying there is no legal reason for a vote on EAW except @YvetteCooperMP replies she and @David_Cameron promised to have one
For what it's worth, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with singing songs in an accent that's not your own.
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"
Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?
I remember when Tomorrow's World predicted that one day you MIGHT be able to control the heating and the entertainment in your home from one small handheld device. Seemed ludicrous at the time.
*sits here with just his iPhone, wirelessly changing the room temperature with Hive, the TV channel with Sky Go, and the tunes and the sound level on his music system with Sonos*
As a 10 year old I was obsessed with being able to do things like that. Now I can't be bothered to set any of it up.
This is very unusual, Dan Hodges is criticizing Cameron! : Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 60m60 minutes ago London, England David Cameron promised a debate and vote on the EAW. How did the government think it would get away with this?
I notice that the Guardian and fellow travelers are on a mission to get "Dapper Laughs" banned from tv. For those not aware, he is a creation of stand up comic, where the character is deliberately misogynistic individual. and goes around providing his wisdom on how to get the ladies. Think a younger more sexist version of Al Murray's pub landlord.
This guy got a tv show due to being incredibly popular on social media. Now personally from just looking up, who it is the Guardianistas are getting so angry about, I don't find him funny at all, but then I am not his target demographic.
But sadly this guy will probably lose his show as the Guardian have been building and build the outrage, where as Wallaims / Lucas are the darlings of the left and can get away with basically similar types of un-PC characters.
The campaign to get him banned is ridiculous, Daniel O'Reilly has clearly created an amusing (to some) character... to call him misogynistic off the back of it would be akin to labelling Sacha Baron Cohen a racist.
Thereas May has arranged Commons procedures to as to shaft the Tory rebels; demonstrate her ability to by-pass proper parliamentary process; push aside objections from all corners of the House; get her own way; destroy her reputation; and lose her chances of ever being leader of the party.
For what it's worth, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with singing songs in an accent that's not your own.
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
I can only give you my opinion.
The language of the working class/WWC is not gentle. The language of abuse is used by the least intelligent and least educated, they don't have 'our' wonderful use of English to be able to put people down with clever barbs etc. They call a spade a spade to use an unfortunate cliche but perhaps apt in this case,
How does this work? If I think UKIP are going to win 20 seats, do I buy or sell now, or do I have to wait until the page is showing UKIP on 20 seats (if that ever happens)?
You buy now, Andy.
I noted below that you thought UKIP were likely to score ten seats. If that's so, you should be a buyer, because your downside is limited to a maximum of ten (but in practice probably no more than five.) Your upside however is huge. Realistically, you might expect to win about five points, but twenty or more is not inconceivable.
How does this work? If I think UKIP are going to win 20 seats, do I buy or sell now, or do I have to wait until the page is showing UKIP on 20 seats (if that ever happens)?
You buy now, Andy.
I noted below that you thought UKIP were likely to score ten seats. If that's so, you should be a buyer, because your downside is limited to a maximum of ten (but in practice probably no more than five.) Your upside however is huge. Realistically, you might expect to win about five points, but twenty or more is not inconceivable.
Thereas May has arranged Commons procedures to as to shaft the Tory rebels; demonstrate her ability to by-pass proper parliamentary process; push aside objections from all corners of the House; get her own way; destroy her reputation; and lose her chances of ever being leader of the party.
That is true, she did a massive favor for a certain Mr.Farage.
Thereas May has arranged Commons procedures to as to shaft the Tory rebels; demonstrate her ability to by-pass proper parliamentary process; push aside objections from all corners of the House; get her own way; destroy her reputation; and lose her chances of ever being leader of the party.
It just goes to show what a bunch of spineless cowards lead the Tory party. They're an embarrassment!
How does this work? If I think UKIP are going to win 20 seats, do I buy or sell now, or do I have to wait until the page is showing UKIP on 20 seats (if that ever happens)?
You buy now, Andy.
I noted below that you thought UKIP were likely to score ten seats. If that's so, you should be a buyer, because your downside is limited to a maximum of ten (but in practice probably no more than five.) Your upside however is huge. Realistically, you might expect to win about five points, but twenty or more is not inconceivable.
'Someone linked on the last thread that there are 'secret' plans to further slash law & order and defence next year?'
What's the problem?
The UK has the most generous legal aid system by a country mile in the entire EU and our military spending is the highest of any EU country and we have the third largest military force in NATO. .
On legal aid I've been told by lawyer friends that it's been savagely cut back in the last year or so?
There was a lawyer on radio Scotland on Sunday whinging that he was only getting £48 an hour from the public to defend the great unwashed nowadays and what a travesty of justice it was to expect him to have to toil for such a pittance.
How mean of the English not to give the whining Scotchman more English money! His arm must ache from holding his hand out for so long!
You thick stupid bag of vomit , it is Scottish Legal system and Scottish money.
So he should have written 'How mean of the Scottish not to give the whining Scotchman more Scottish money! His arm must ache from holding his hand out for so long!'
Is that better Malky, you tartan cockroach?
sick degenerate pervert boy comes out from under his rock, still woofing cretin
Another long afternoon in Wetherspoons? One hopes that you sober up before this evening's Mini-Cabbing shift.
You sitting perving whilst waiting on your JSA handout arriving sickbag.
Tory defection to UKIP alert update: PoliticsHome @politicshome 1h1 hour ago Tory MP Bill Cash on EAW exclusion from today’s vote: “This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings… This a trick… It is a disgrace”
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"
Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?
I remember when Tomorrow's World predicted that one day you MIGHT be able to control the heating and the entertainment in your home from one small handheld device. Seemed ludicrous at the time.
*sits here with just his iPhone, wirelessly changing the room temperature with Hive, the TV channel with Sky Go, and the tunes and the sound level on his music system with Sonos*
As a 10 year old I was obsessed with being able to do things like that. Now I can't be bothered to set any of it up.
Sky Go is fairly pointless. Clever, but pointless. I still use the remote.
Hive, however, is jolly useful. I can set my heating when I am abroad! - turn it off if I have forgotten, turn it on before I get home.
And Sonos? - wow. It is f*cking amazing. You can have brilliant speakers in every room, playing the same tune, or different tunes, streamed from your smartphone, iPad or laptop. The sound quality is phenomenal. Best I've ever heard from a home audio system. And you get rid of so much clutter and wiring. You just need the rather lovely speakers.
For what it's worth, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with singing songs in an accent that's not your own.
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
I can only give you my opinion.
The language of the working class/WWC is not gentle. The language of abuse is used by the least intelligent and least educated, they don't have 'our' wonderful use of English to be able to put people down with clever barbs etc. They call a spade a spade to use an unfortunate cliche but perhaps apt in this case,
I can't condemn the thick for being thick.
why think being inarticulate is being thick ?
The UK was effectively bankrupted by people with Oxbridge degrees and Harvard MBAs. Blokes in white vans with a CSE in woodwork wouldn't have screwed the place up since they appreciate the value of money.
Tory defection to UKIP alert update: PoliticsHome @politicshome 1h1 hour ago Tory MP Bill Cash on EAW exclusion from today’s vote: “This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings… This a trick… It is a disgrace”
Bill Cash would be an easy hold in Stone, I'd reckon.
Thereas May has arranged Commons procedures to as to shaft the Tory rebels; demonstrate her ability to by-pass proper parliamentary process; push aside objections from all corners of the House; get her own way; destroy her reputation; and lose her chances of ever being leader of the party.
It's these kinds of shenanigans which so disillusion voters. If the EAW is a good measure, argue for it and get Parliament to approve it. But pushing it through in this way will only increase distrust.
I can see the case for having robust extradition treaties with countries within the EU. I can see no case, however, for pretending that Bulgaria's system of justice is of the same standard as ours and, therefore, I would expect the British government to ensure that British citizens are only extradited for an offence which is an offence in this country and on the basis of prima facie evidence.
My main concern though with the measures being pushed through is what this might mean for the criminal law in this country. For instance, could the EU decide on the basis of QMV, to abolish jury trials? Or to abolish the rule against hearsay evidence?
The movement of support from Lab to Greens continues.
These are disastrous polls for Miliband. He, and his party, are in freefall. The only consolation is that Cameron is not gaining.
Both of them are consoling themselves that the other is doing just as badly as they are, so there's no need to panic. I'm sure both UKIP and Greens are just fine with that attitude. Combined support for those two parties is now approaching 25%. In 2010 it was 4%.
Tory defection to UKIP alert update: PoliticsHome @politicshome 1h1 hour ago Tory MP Bill Cash on EAW exclusion from today’s vote: “This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings… This a trick… It is a disgrace”
Bill Cash would be an easy hold in Stone, I'd reckon.
His son is already part of the UKIP team (Rural spokesman)
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
After the histrionics died down and the Home Secretary got an opportunity to explain, it's actually quite simple.
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
So Labour are either on 29, 32 or 36% then. That clears it up..
Viewing it as Labour vs. Conservative is a mistake. People will vote next year in the key marginals on the Prime Minister, and the party preferences are a second order derivative of that.
For what it's worth, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with singing songs in an accent that's not your own.
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
I can only give you my opinion.
The language of the working class/WWC is not gentle. The language of abuse is used by the least intelligent and least educated, they don't have 'our' wonderful use of English to be able to put people down with clever barbs etc. They call a spade a spade to use an unfortunate cliche but perhaps apt in this case,
I can't condemn the thick for being thick.
why think being inarticulate is being thick ?
The UK was effectively bankrupted by people with Oxbridge degrees and Harvard MBAs. Blokes in white vans with a CSE in woodwork wouldn't have screwed the place up since they appreciate the value of money.
Not sure I said 'being inarticulate is being thick', I was trying to point out that it's the 'least intelligent and least educated' that suffer from these laws, the rest of us just carry on abusing people online making sure we're within the law.
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
After the histrionics died down and the Home Secretary got an opportunity to explain, it's actually quite simple.
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
|Bollocks! its just another bunch of lying statists. No different from the blairite scum they preceded!
Tory defection to UKIP alert update: PoliticsHome @politicshome 1h1 hour ago Tory MP Bill Cash on EAW exclusion from today’s vote: “This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings… This a trick… It is a disgrace”
Bill Cash would be an easy hold in Stone, I'd reckon.
His son is already part of the UKIP team (Rural spokesman)
He's just been selected to fight the most marginal Con/Lab seat in the country, North Warwickshire. Euro result for the area was UKIP 6,508; Con 4,169; Lab 3,711; Green 694; LD 406.
I can see the case for having robust extradition treaties with countries within the EU. I can see no case, however, for pretending that Bulgaria's system of justice is of the same standard as ours and, therefore, I would expect the British government to ensure that British citizens are only extradited for an offence which is an offence in this country
This government has done exactly that, correcting the position which was inherited from Labour.
For what it's worth, I don't personally think there's anything wrong with singing songs in an accent that's not your own.
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
I can only give you my opinion.
The language of the working class/WWC is not gentle. The language of abuse is used by the least intelligent and least educated, they don't have 'our' wonderful use of English to be able to put people down with clever barbs etc. They call a spade a spade to use an unfortunate cliche but perhaps apt in this case,
I can't condemn the thick for being thick.
why think being inarticulate is being thick ?
The UK was effectively bankrupted by people with Oxbridge degrees and Harvard MBAs. Blokes in white vans with a CSE in woodwork wouldn't have screwed the place up since they appreciate the value of money.
Not sure I said 'being inarticulate is being thick', I was trying to point out that it's the 'least intelligent and least educated' that suffer from these laws, the rest of us just carry on abusing people online making sure we're within the law.
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"
Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?
I remember when Tomorrow's World predicted that one day you MIGHT be able to control the heating and the entertainment in your home from one small handheld device. Seemed ludicrous at the time.
*sits here with just his iPhone, wirelessly changing the room temperature with Hive, the TV channel with Sky Go, and the tunes and the sound level on his music system with Sonos*
As a 10 year old I was obsessed with being able to do things like that. Now I can't be bothered to set any of it up.
Sky Go is fairly pointless. Clever, but pointless. I still use the remote.
Hive, however, is jolly useful. I can set my heating when I am abroad! - turn it off if I have forgotten, turn it on before I get home.
And Sonos? - wow. It is f*cking amazing. You can have brilliant speakers in every room, playing the same tune, or different tunes, streamed from your smartphone, iPad or laptop. The sound quality is phenomenal. Best I've ever heard from a home audio system. And you get rid of so much clutter and wiring. You just need the rather lovely speakers.
I have been sorely tempted by Sonos having friends who have it installed. The only thing that is holding me up is I would really like a system that incorporates my TV and PC (similar to Apple TV) as well so I can easily do all my home entertainment stuff via a single system.
I can see the case for having robust extradition treaties with countries within the EU. I can see no case, however, for pretending that Bulgaria's system of justice is of the same standard as ours and, therefore, I would expect the British government to ensure that British citizens are only extradited for an offence which is an offence in this country
This government has done exactly that, correcting the position from that inherited from Labour.
They've also made good progress on that, since there now has to an imminent criminal charge, not just an investigation (as was the case under Labour).
They have further legislated to ensure that only serious offences are subject to the EAW, correcting the third really bad feature of Labour's version.
As usual, though, the critics haven't bothered to notice what the government has actually done.
Richard, if all of that was true, then how the hell did PC Plod in Surrey get the parents of that cancer kid arrested in Spain using the EAW? Something is surely not right if the EAW can be abused like that.
The Tories are falling apart over the European Arrest Warrant.I can only assume because it has the word euro in it as does europlod who have to enforce them. Cameron promised and promised and promised and promised again, there would be a vote and there ain't gonna be a vote.The fact is Tory backbenchers know what the rest of us do already,you can't trust a word Cameron says.
some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.
At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...
With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."
This is my second job so I know a bit from the coalface. Agencies are starting to try to get translators to accept 1/3 lower pay in return for having their translations given a first shot by machine. In theory this will speed up our output by more than 1/3 so everyone will be happy, since most of us have more work than we hav etime for as the market keeps expanding.
The problem is that the technology actually hasn't advanced much. At the bottom end of the market where you just want to get the general drift ("it's about sin and he's against it"), Google Translate is generally good enough. But for serious work the artificial translation gets in the way, typically flipping subject and object, so "Osborne criticised the EU" becomes "the EU criticised Osborne". It's easy to miss this sort of shift in a long sentence so the standard of output declines.
The thing is that this is the sort of problem which stumped us when I was doing research in artificial translation 40 years ago. I don't think the fundamental semantic problems have been addressed, and agencies are generally retreating again and sending un-pretranslated material at full rates, except for very simple texts.
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"
Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?
I remember when Tomorrow's World predicted that one day you MIGHT be able to control the heating and the entertainment in your home from one small handheld device. Seemed ludicrous at the time.
*sits here with just his iPhone, wirelessly changing the room temperature with Hive, the TV channel with Sky Go, and the tunes and the sound level on his music system with Sonos*
As a 10 year old I was obsessed with being able to do things like that. Now I can't be bothered to set any of it up.
Sky Go is fairly pointless. Clever, but pointless. I still use the remote.
Hive, however, is jolly useful. I can set my heating when I am abroad! - turn it off if I have forgotten, turn it on before I get home.
And Sonos? - wow. It is f*cking amazing. You can have brilliant speakers in every room, playing the same tune, or different tunes, streamed from your smartphone, iPad or laptop. The sound quality is phenomenal. Best I've ever heard from a home audio system. And you get rid of so much clutter and wiring. You just need the rather lovely speakers.
I have been sorely tempted by Sonos havving friends who have it installed. The only thing that is holding me up is I would really like a system that incorporates my TV and PC (similar to Apple TV) as well so I can easily do all my home entertainment stuff via a single system.
I have a PC plugged into the TV, it's all connected to the digital video amp (along with Sky) which is connected to a 7.1 Bose system, I don' t need speakers in every room.
Richard, if all of that was true, then how the hell did PC Plod in Surrey get the parents of that cancer kid arrested in Spain using the EAW? Something is surely not right if the EAW can be abused like that.
That presumably was because the Spanish don't have the same protections in place.
I agree that that was an appalling episode, but it hasn't got much to do with the EAW particularly. Would it have been all right if Mr Plod had arrested them before they left the country?
I can see the case for having robust extradition treaties with countries within the EU. I can see no case, however, for pretending that Bulgaria's system of justice is of the same standard as ours and, therefore, I would expect the British government to ensure that British citizens are only extradited for an offence which is an offence in this country
This government has done exactly that, correcting the position from that inherited from Labour.
They've also made good progress on that, since there now has to an imminent criminal charge, not just an investigation (as was the case under Labour).
They have further legislated to ensure that only serious offences are subject to the EAW, correcting the third really bad feature of Labour's version.
As usual, though, the critics haven't bothered to notice what the government has actually done.
Two separate points here: has the government made changes which make the EAW better? And, if so, should it get Parliamentary approval for those changes?
On the first, based on what you have said, it would appear so. But - an imminent criminal charge is not good enough IMO. There should be an actual charge with the requesting government setting out the prima facie evidence supporting the basis for that charge. Otherwise, there is a risk that the charge is imminent, the person gets extradited but the charge does not materialise and someone is held for months / years maybe without trial and without any means to carry on their defence. I do not see how ECHR rights can be guaranteed in those cases.
On the second point, any government which had a proper respect for Parliament should put this to the vote not try silly stunts, particularly if they've already said that they would do so. Much of the anger over European measures derives from the fact that people feel that governments are afraid to make the argument and get our consent, either directly or through Parliament, and therefore go behind our backs. That is very very corrosive of trust in the political process and one reason why UKIP (with whom I have little natural sympathy) is gaining such traction with the public.
What are the other 35 measures? A reference would do. I'm not expecting you to list them all!
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
After the histrionics died down and the Home Secretary got an opportunity to explain, it's actually quite simple.
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
Rubbish, the Speaker said that it is NOT a vote for the EAW. Every MP is now angry with the government for violating parliamentary procedure. The government is pretending that a vote on something different is the same as voting for whatever the government says it is.
To make it simple, it's like you go to a restaurant and you order potatoes and instead you get rice, you say to the waiter "but I ordered potatoes, not rice" and the waiter says " for us everything you order is rice".
Catching up with the papers. Polly has spoken. The rebels have a few days at best to arm-twist Johnson, otherwise the plot is over and its Ed all the way. Looking unlikely, possibly even more unlikely than my 26/1 bet.
So the kipper line on "ting tong" is that the BBC were racist and so it's ok for UKIP candidates to be racist too, and that their Parliamentary candidate should be excused for using it because she is a bit thick.
OK.
I don't think "Little Britain" is racist.
...
I don't think "Little Britain" is racist.
No its satirising racism and kippers fall for it.
So it is fine to be racist as long as you call it satire.
The man's a turnip malc.
I'm sitting here watching The Quiet Man on Film 4 trying to figure out if I should be violently offend or if it's satire or if one or two PBers have lost the plot and need to get out more.
Begorrah.
You just prove that kippers from Farage down have no sense of self awareness. Thanks for confirming to me what sort of people you are. You will be condoning profiteers on the Tower poppies next. Its really quite pathetic seeing kippers stick their heads so far up their backsides using the BBC and its absurd comedians to defend the gratuitous use of a racist slur (about her own supporters!).
It is of course not 'fine to be racist as long as you call it satire'. But that is not what happened. The programme was attacking casual racism (not in a very brilliant way IMHO) indeed the fact that kippers cannot see through that shows how poorly designed the 'comedy' was.
I'm not a kipper. I've never voted UKIP. I have voted conservative and voted for Cameron in 2010. So does that make you a total arse by association or was I being satirical ?
Or maybe you should just get a life.
I'm a conservative and will vote conservative. I am happy and proud to vote conservative. The govt have had a good record over the last 4 years - I do not see any valid reason to let in Europhile labour and I will be very happy to have a referendum on the EU in 2017. I will be happy to negotiate fresh rules on migration. I will be very happy for the nation to vote on all of this and accept the result. I don't defend UKIP or their apologists and their pathetic attempts to play down the purile opinions and spoutings of their MEPs. I have a very happy life in a very real world thank you very much. But let me tell you this - I know just what kind of people cheer lead for Farage, his dog whistles and his increasingly odious party.
More EAW mess: chris g @chrisg0000 11m11 minutes ago Zac Goldsmith: What is the most trivial crime that someone can be extradited using Euro Arrest Warrant?
On the second point, any government which had a proper respect for Parliament should put this to the vote not try silly stunts, particularly if they've already said that they would do so.
A negotiated package is a single package. You can't carry out a negotiation - for example, on a company takeover - and then ask shareholders to approve it in pieces. Either they accept it or they don't, because the provisions inter-relate and there's someone else on the other side who has also agreed the whole package.
So the kipper line on "ting tong" is that the BBC were racist and so it's ok for UKIP candidates to be racist too, and that their Parliamentary candidate should be excused for using it because she is a bit thick.
OK.
I don't think "Little Britain" is racist.
...
I don't think "Little Britain" is racist.
No its satirising racism and kippers fall for it.
So it is fine to be racist as long as you call it satire.
The man's a turnip malc.
I'm sitting here watching The Quiet Man on Film 4 trying to figure out if I should be violently offend or if it's satire or if one or two PBers have lost the plot and need to get out more.
Begorrah.
You just prove that kippers from Farage down have no sense of self awareness. Thanks for confirming to me what sort of people you are. You will be condoning profiteers on the Tower poppies next. Its really quite pathetic seeing kippers stick their heads so far up their backsides using the BBC and its absurd comedians to defend the gratuitous use of a racist slur (about her own supporters!).
It is of course not 'fine to be racist as long as you call it satire'. But that is not what happened. The programme was attacking casual racism (not in a very brilliant way IMHO) indeed the fact that kippers cannot see through that shows how poorly designed the 'comedy' was.
I'm not a kipper. I've never voted UKIP. I have voted conservative and voted for Cameron in 2010. So does that make you a total arse by association or was I being satirical ?
Or maybe you should just get a life.
I'm a conservative and will vote conservative. I am happy and proud to vote conservative. The govt have had a good record over the last 4 years - I do not see any valid reason to let in Europhile labour and I will be very happy to have a referendum on the EU in 2017. I will be happy to negotiate fresh rules on migration. I will be very happy for the nation to vote on all of this and accept the result. I don't defend UKIP or their apologists and their pathetic attempts to play down the purile opinions and spoutings of their MEPs. I have a very happy life in a very real world thank you very much. But let me tell you this - I know just what kind of people cheer lead for Farage, his dog whistles and his increasingly odious party.
I mean do you ? Strikes me you've never met a kipper in your life. You're pique that people don't back Cameron simply blurs your judgement.
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
After the histrionics died down and the Home Secretary got an opportunity to explain, it's actually quite simple.
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
But the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary promised to bring the EAW to the House of Commons for a vote. What she has brought to the Commons is some secondary legisation on 11 out of the 35 measures to be opted back into EU legislation.
Because the EAW is not one of them, the Speaker has ruled that the vote on the 11 does not apply to the rest of the 35. Nor should the debate be about the EAW because the legislation being voted on does not include the EAW.
On the second point, any government which had a proper respect for Parliament should put this to the vote not try silly stunts, particularly if they've already said that they would do so.
A negotiated package is a single package. You can't carry out a negotiation - for example, on a company takeover - and then ask shareholders to approve it in pieces. Either they accept it or they don't, because the provisions inter-relate and there's someone else on the other side who has also agreed the whole package.
What a ridiculous argument, in a democracy the voters are the shareholders, parliament is the board. You just refused the board to vote.
Catching up with the papers. Polly has spoken. The rebels have a few days at best to arm-twist Johnson, otherwise the plot is over and its Ed all the way. Looking unlikely, possibly even more unlikely than my 26/1 bet.
I'm on Johnson at £40 at around 18-1. It's not even a bet I particularly care about winning, its more insurance on my Labour side of the General Election bets.
If Yvette decides to go for the job I'm up shit creek
Dear Peter the Punter - I and I am sure may other mat have once thought llike you, but I am afraid if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck and lays rotten eggs like a duck then I draw my own conclusions.
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
The praetorian Tories are continuing to defend the line that a vote is not needed for the EAW. That only reinforces the view that they would have lost that vote, and that is why they have refused to grant a vote to parliament.
Not paying full attention, but the EAW business is baffling. Is it madness, arrogance, incompetence? Is this a witless attempt to circumvent the promised vote, or an incompetent omission?
After the histrionics died down and the Home Secretary got an opportunity to explain, it's actually quite simple.
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
But the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary promised to bring the EAW to the House of Commons for a vote. What she has brought to the Commons is some secondary legisation on 11 out of the 35 measures to be opted back into EU legislation.
Because the EAW is not one of them, the Speaker has ruled that the vote on the 11 does not apply to the rest of the 35. Nor should the debate be about the EAW because the legislation being voted on does not include the EAW.
If you think this is bad, just wait until you see the logical backflips they make to justify not having an In-Out referendum.
some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.
At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc
"One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...
With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."
This is my second job so I know a bit from the coalface. Agencies are starting to try to get translators to accept 1/3 lower pay in return for having their translations given a first shot by machine. In theory this will speed up our output by more than 1/3 so everyone will be happy, since most of us have more work than we hav etime for as the market keeps expanding.
The problem is that the technology actually hasn't advanced much. At the bottom end of the market where you just want to get the general drift ("it's about sin and he's against it"), Google Translate is generally good enough. But for serious work the artificial translation gets in the way, typically flipping subject and object, so "Osborne criticised the EU" becomes "the EU criticised Osborne". It's easy to miss this sort of shift in a long sentence so the standard of output declines.
The thing is that this is the sort of problem which stumped us when I was doing research in artificial translation 40 years ago. I don't think the fundamental semantic problems have been addressed, and agencies are generally retreating again and sending un-pretranslated material at full rates, except for very simple texts.
Yep, but the catch phrase in the Oxford blurb is "in as little as 20 years". That's a long time in computing even in AI. If you believe Ray Kurzweil by 2029 we will have a fully artificial replicant of the entire human brain. Its been right before, but not always and is seen as a bit maverick by many comp scientists.
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
Nabavi, as a praetorian Tory, has predictably defended this disgrace.
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
Yes RN as usual has defended all things Tory
What's the argument by Tory loyalists on why it's ok not to have a vote on the EAW after they promised to have a vote on the EAW?
And these are the people who will lead the Tories into the election......
Has Richard Nabavi defended this yet? Cameron promised a vote on the EAW, and now he's just putting two fingers up to eurosceptics. After he just lied about getting half off the EU shakedown, we just can't trust him on any EU promises any more. His referendum promise has zero credibility yet.
Yep already on here defending the indefensible. To their credit there are Tories on here who are calling this the fraud it is.
If I happened to choose as a lifelong Tory voter to vote UKIP then does that somehow make me a 'kipper'?
I'm not thinking that I'll do so, but if I happened to intellectually ingest the odd UKIP opinion or two, and if they agreed with me - well then the one thing that I'd not expect would be some torrent of vitriol.
If anyone imagines that their opinion is worth more than that of a UKIP voter then they are mistaken. One vote each.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
Catching up with the papers. Polly has spoken. The rebels have a few days at best to arm-twist Johnson, otherwise the plot is over and its Ed all the way. Looking unlikely, possibly even more unlikely than my 26/1 bet.
I'm on Johnson at £40 at around 18-1. It's not even a bet I particularly care about winning, its more insurance on my Labour side of the General Election bets.
If Yvette decides to go for the job I'm up shit creek
Can't see her plunging the knife this side of an election to be honest. The general consensus seems to be Johnson or nothing.
As an aside, what fun we would all have if Johnson (Alan) was PM and Johnson (Boris) was Opposition Leader.
We have a fundamentally different criminal law system to that in the rest of the EU - trial by jury, habeas corpus, rules against the use of hearsay evidence, contempt of court laws, rights against self-incrimination, burden of proof on the prosecution, the heavy standard of proof the prosecution must meet, cross-examination in person of witnesses, the need to be present at your own trial etc etc. I do not think that control over this should be given to the EU.
If the government were serious about negotiating a different arrangement with the EU, justice should be one of the items on its agenda. And by justice I mean how states ensure the proper balance between order and security and not infringing the liberty of the citizen in a disproportionate manner i.e. that where the state does have to take measures against citizens this is done in accordance with the rule of law, subject to independent judicial scrutiny and not in an oppressive manner.
This government seems to have no conception of the need to strike this balance and seems to me far too quick to opt into EU measures on the basis of a naive and touching belief that because all countries in the EU have signed up to the ECHR there is an equivalence in their justice systems. Anyone who knows anything about this - and I have in a professional capacity some considerable experience of the Italian criminal process - will tell you this is nonsense on stilts.
How a state organises its criminal process tells you a great deal about how that state views its citizens, the balance of power between them and the need for the state not to behave oppressively. The record of many EU countries is not great on this and I have very little confidence that the EU has an instinctive belief in the rights of the citizens vs those of governments. There was way too much "the state knows best" authoritarianism from the last Labour government and this government is - regrettably - going down the same route and using the EU as a shield.
I have never been a paid up member of the "May is Cameron's successor" crowd. I think she has been a so-so Home Secretary, with the fortune to have been shadowed by someone who is even more underwhelming.
Catching up with the papers. Polly has spoken. The rebels have a few days at best to arm-twist Johnson, otherwise the plot is over and its Ed all the way. Looking unlikely, possibly even more unlikely than my 26/1 bet.
I'm on Johnson at £40 at around 18-1. It's not even a bet I particularly care about winning, its more insurance on my Labour side of the General Election bets.
If Yvette decides to go for the job I'm up shit creek
Can't see her plunging the knife this side of an election to be honest. The general consensus seems to be Johnson or nothing.
As an aside, what fun we would all have if Johnson (Alan) was PM and Johnson (Boris) was Opposition Leader.
Eventually the software will have encountered almost every conceivable sentence in English and will remember the very best translation, and they will give you that translation, pretty much for free. And so the vast majority of interpreters and translators lose their jobs.
I had an interesting conversation with Martin Wolf about how a lot of these new technologies in recent years have destroyed more company value than they have created for the company behind the new tech. This is a great example. Where does the value go? To consumer surplus, of course, and it's something that's not recorded in GDP accounts, or CPI for that matter. That in turn means that it's not counted in the inequality statistics even though it's a huge lever of equality: giving everyone with an internet connection access to a very valuable resource for free.
On the second point, any government which had a proper respect for Parliament should put this to the vote not try silly stunts, particularly if they've already said that they would do so.
A negotiated package is a single package. You can't carry out a negotiation - for example, on a company takeover - and then ask shareholders to approve it in pieces. Either they accept it or they don't, because the provisions inter-relate and there's someone else on the other side who has also agreed the whole package.
I place rather more importance on Parliament voting on matters which will affect the citizens of this country than you appear to do. If Parliament votes against then the government will have to remain opted out or negotiate a better package. Tant pis.
Parliament is (or should be) there to represent us - the British people - who put them there not be seen as some dreadful inconvenience daring to express an opinion on what sovereigns have agreed between themselves in private.
'Wow Cooper making May look incredibly incompetent'
If you keep on repeating that enough times ,you'll even believe that yourself.
I'm watching BBC parliament and I can agree that this is Theresa May's worst day so far. Cooper and the Tory backbenchers, are not losing a single moment into embarrassing May repeatedly.
Eventually the software will have encountered almost every conceivable sentence in English and will remember the very best translation, and they will give you that translation, pretty much for free. And so the vast majority of interpreters and translators lose their jobs.
I had an interesting conversation with Martin Wolf about how a lot of these new technologies in recent years have destroyed more company value than they have created for the company behind the new tech. This is a great example. Where does the value go? To consumer surplus, of course, and it's something that's not recorded in GDP accounts, or CPI for that matter. That in turn means that it's not counted in the inequality statistics even though it's a huge lever of equality: giving everyone with an internet connection access to a very valuable resource for free.
I had a discussion on Sunday about printers.
Who's going to be making anything once you have printers that can make printers?
You take your junk to the recycling centre and pick up new cartridges for your printer, you buy specialised parts in kits for the bits your printer can't make.
Not forgetting that a genetic experiment on mice nearly a decade ago increased the strength of their myelin sheaths such that it gave them an effective lifespan of 130 in human years and that was manipulating one gene.
IT is about time Bercow got his marching orders. He is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events, getting involved in the politics shows what a contemptible little man he is.
He is also meant to represent the rights of back-benchers and minority views in Parliament if they are not being properly addressed by the Government. Further he is supposed to ensure that procedures are followed - something he is clearly doing by clarifying the position (or lack of it) of the EAW within the vote today.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.
Comments
Miliband, facing anonymous criticisms of his leadership, also saw his personal ratings plunge to a record low in polling conducted on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, plumbing depths that have previously been the preserve of Nick Clegg.
ITV poll: Miliband less trusted than Farage on economy
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-10/itv-poll-miliband-less-trusted-than-farage-on-economy/
I noted below that you thought UKIP were likely to score ten seats. If that's so, you should be a buyer, because your downside is limited to a maximum of ten (but in practice probably no more than five.) Your upside however is huge. Realistically, you might expect to win about five points, but twenty or more is not inconceivable.
Adam Boulton @adamboultonSKY 38m38 minutes ago Kingston upon Thames, London
Home Sec now saying there is no legal reason for a vote on EAW except @YvetteCooperMP replies she and @David_Cameron promised to have one
National Opinion Poll (ICM):
LAB - 32% (-3)
CON - 31% (-)
UKIP - 14% (-)
LDEM - 11% (-)
GRN - 6% (+2)
But.. If everyone thought I was a racist, I wouldn't imagine I could dispel that image by publicly singing in the accent of an ethnic minority.
In fact, I'd only do that if I wanted to perpetuate that belief about me. I'd also be careful not to use terms like ting-tong, unless I wanted more people to think I was a racist.
This is what surprises me about UKIP's casual attitude to these kind of things. Do they WANT everyone to think that they're racist, even though they're not? Is that their clever electoral tactic to win over those members of the WWC who are racist themselves?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzVAkztIcAE5Y2D.jpg
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 60m60 minutes ago London, England
David Cameron promised a debate and vote on the EAW. How did the government think it would get away with this?
They are taking offence on behalf of a group they do not belong to and one that doesn't give a toss anyway.
Anyone fancy meeting up in my local Thai?
http://www.tingtongthai.co.uk/#!about/c1pyv
I've given him a "like" on FB at any rate ^_~
ITV Index Poll: 50% think Miliband would be bad PM
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-10/itv-index-poll-50-think-miliband-would-be-bad-pm/
The language of the working class/WWC is not gentle. The language of abuse is used by the least intelligent and least educated, they don't have 'our' wonderful use of English to be able to put people down with clever barbs etc. They call a spade a spade to use an unfortunate cliche but perhaps apt in this case,
I can't condemn the thick for being thick.
At this point in the last electoral cycle, the scores were
ICM/Guardian 2009-11-15 42 29 19 13
Labour 10 points down on where the Tories were
Presumably ICM VI not gold standard only ICM WI?
PoliticsHome @politicshome 1h1 hour ago
Tory MP Bill Cash on EAW exclusion from today’s vote: “This is a travesty of our parliamentary proceedings… This a trick… It is a disgrace”
Although I'm wondering if the Amazon Echo is going to be even better.
The UK was effectively bankrupted by people with Oxbridge degrees and Harvard MBAs. Blokes in white vans with a CSE in woodwork wouldn't have screwed the place up since they appreciate the value of money.
“Labour’s tendency to market intervention could deter investment. We believe open markets are the best way to deliver growth for all.”
And Chuka said they are putting Davi...... Sorry Ed in No 10. 4 years and they still get it wrong.
I can see the case for having robust extradition treaties with countries within the EU. I can see no case, however, for pretending that Bulgaria's system of justice is of the same standard as ours and, therefore, I would expect the British government to ensure that British citizens are only extradited for an offence which is an offence in this country and on the basis of prima facie evidence.
My main concern though with the measures being pushed through is what this might mean for the criminal law in this country. For instance, could the EU decide on the basis of QMV, to abolish jury trials? Or to abolish the rule against hearsay evidence?
Conservative 355-360
Labour 205-210
LibDem 50-53
The Betfair prices were (Back/Lay):
No Overall Majority 4.5 - 4.6
Conservative Majority 1.39 - 1.4
Labour Majority 15.5 - 16.5
1. There is an indivisible package of 35 measures. It's all or nothing.
2. A subset of those measures require changes in UK legislation if they are to be enacted.
3. They are debating those measures that require changes to UK legislation.
4. The EAW does not require such changes
5. If the vote goes against the Government, they will not opt in to any measures.
6. If the vote goes with the Government, they will opt into all, including the EAW
The value is in buying Con.
It's still the same hateful shite.
If that's accurate, it would seem fair enough. But why did the Speaker kick up such a fuss, if that is the case?
They have further legislated to ensure that only serious offences are subject to the EAW, correcting the third really bad feature of Labour's version.
As usual, though, the critics haven't bothered to notice what the government has actually done.
Historical precedence.
Hmm.
Has May explicitly stated a lost vote would mean we do not opt back into the EAW?
Edited extra bit: I really should get some work done...
Cameron promised and promised and promised and promised again, there would be a vote and there ain't gonna be a vote.The fact is Tory backbenchers know what the rest of us do already,you can't trust a word Cameron says.
The problem is that the technology actually hasn't advanced much. At the bottom end of the market where you just want to get the general drift ("it's about sin and he's against it"), Google Translate is generally good enough. But for serious work the artificial translation gets in the way, typically flipping subject and object, so "Osborne criticised the EU" becomes "the EU criticised Osborne". It's easy to miss this sort of shift in a long sentence so the standard of output declines.
The thing is that this is the sort of problem which stumped us when I was doing research in artificial translation 40 years ago. I don't think the fundamental semantic problems have been addressed, and agencies are generally retreating again and sending un-pretranslated material at full rates, except for very simple texts.
I just turn it up.
I agree that that was an appalling episode, but it hasn't got much to do with the EAW particularly. Would it have been all right if Mr Plod had arrested them before they left the country?
'Indeed Blanchflower is a tame Labour propagandist (economist)'
He's a useful idiot for the Coalition.
On the first, based on what you have said, it would appear so. But - an imminent criminal charge is not good enough IMO. There should be an actual charge with the requesting government setting out the prima facie evidence supporting the basis for that charge. Otherwise, there is a risk that the charge is imminent, the person gets extradited but the charge does not materialise and someone is held for months / years maybe without trial and without any means to carry on their defence. I do not see how ECHR rights can be guaranteed in those cases.
On the second point, any government which had a proper respect for Parliament should put this to the vote not try silly stunts, particularly if they've already said that they would do so. Much of the anger over European measures derives from the fact that people feel that governments are afraid to make the argument and get our consent, either directly or through Parliament, and therefore go behind our backs. That is very very corrosive of trust in the political process and one reason why UKIP (with whom I have little natural sympathy) is gaining such traction with the public.
What are the other 35 measures? A reference would do. I'm not expecting you to list them all!
Every MP is now angry with the government for violating parliamentary procedure.
The government is pretending that a vote on something different is the same as voting for whatever the government says it is.
To make it simple, it's like you go to a restaurant and you order potatoes and instead you get rice, you say to the waiter "but I ordered potatoes, not rice" and the waiter says " for us everything you order is rice".
Or maybe you should just get a life.
I'm a conservative and will vote conservative. I am happy and proud to vote conservative. The govt have had a good record over the last 4 years - I do not see any valid reason to let in Europhile labour and I will be very happy to have a referendum on the EU in 2017. I will be happy to negotiate fresh rules on migration. I will be very happy for the nation to vote on all of this and accept the result.
I don't defend UKIP or their apologists and their pathetic attempts to play down the purile opinions and spoutings of their MEPs. I have a very happy life in a very real world thank you very much. But let me tell you this - I know just what kind of people cheer lead for Farage, his dog whistles and his increasingly odious party.
chris g @chrisg0000 11m11 minutes ago
Zac Goldsmith: What is the most trivial crime that someone can be extradited using Euro Arrest Warrant?
Theresa May: I don't have that info
(Table 3)
Tories 27
Labour 12
Lib Dem 8
SNP 43
UKIP 4
Greens 4
(And no the Tory-Labour votes haven't been interchanged!)
I don't defend UKIP or their apologists and their pathetic attempts to play down the purile opinions and spoutings of their MEPs. I have a very happy life in a very real world thank you very much. But let me tell you this - I know just what kind of people cheer lead for Farage, his dog whistles and his increasingly odious party.
I mean do you ? Strikes me you've never met a kipper in your life. You're pique that people don't back Cameron simply blurs your judgement.
Because the EAW is not one of them, the Speaker has ruled that the vote on the 11 does not apply to the rest of the 35. Nor should the debate be about the EAW because the legislation being voted on does not include the EAW.
You just refused the board to vote.
If Yvette decides to go for the job I'm up shit creek
Wasn't there a promise of a referendum if significant new powers were transferred?
That only reinforces the view that they would have lost that vote, and that is why they have refused to grant a vote to parliament.
I'm not thinking that I'll do so, but if I happened to intellectually ingest the odd UKIP opinion or two, and if they agreed with me - well then the one thing that I'd not expect would be some torrent of vitriol.
If anyone imagines that their opinion is worth more than that of a UKIP voter then they are mistaken. One vote each.
As an aside, what fun we would all have if Johnson (Alan) was PM and Johnson (Boris) was Opposition Leader.
If the government were serious about negotiating a different arrangement with the EU, justice should be one of the items on its agenda. And by justice I mean how states ensure the proper balance between order and security and not infringing the liberty of the citizen in a disproportionate manner i.e. that where the state does have to take measures against citizens this is done in accordance with the rule of law, subject to independent judicial scrutiny and not in an oppressive manner.
This government seems to have no conception of the need to strike this balance and seems to me far too quick to opt into EU measures on the basis of a naive and touching belief that because all countries in the EU have signed up to the ECHR there is an equivalence in their justice systems. Anyone who knows anything about this - and I have in a professional capacity some considerable experience of the Italian criminal process - will tell you this is nonsense on stilts.
How a state organises its criminal process tells you a great deal about how that state views its citizens, the balance of power between them and the need for the state not to behave oppressively. The record of many EU countries is not great on this and I have very little confidence that the EU has an instinctive belief in the rights of the citizens vs those of governments. There was way too much "the state knows best" authoritarianism from the last Labour government and this government is - regrettably - going down the same route and using the EU as a shield.
And indeed it would
'Wow Cooper making May look incredibly incompetent'
If you keep on repeating that enough times ,you'll even believe that yourself.
Parliament is (or should be) there to represent us - the British people - who put them there not be seen as some dreadful inconvenience daring to express an opinion on what sovereigns have agreed between themselves in private.
Cooper and the Tory backbenchers, are not losing a single moment into embarrassing May repeatedly.
Who's going to be making anything once you have printers that can make printers?
You take your junk to the recycling centre and pick up new cartridges for your printer, you buy specialised parts in kits for the bits your printer can't make.
Not forgetting that a genetic experiment on mice nearly a decade ago increased the strength of their myelin sheaths such that it gave them an effective lifespan of 130 in human years and that was manipulating one gene.
Personally I don't like Bercow's style but his behaviour today is entirely in keeping with the duties of his office.