1000 sample size means a MoE of about 3%. Have LAB or CON moved outside the MoE in the last couple of months, or are we really saying its too close to call and has been for a while?
1000 sample size means a MoE of about 3%. Have LAB or CON moved outside the MoE in the last couple of months, or are we really saying its too close to call and has been for a while?
Lab and Con have very little weighting so the poll looks like a good guide to the true slight Labour lead to me.
I'd offer up Colindale as another in the ShitHole Premier League.
I presume Stratford is better than it was - it'd be hard to be worse. Oh and bits of Gateshead. I don't scare easy but those places were threatening without even trying.
Ed accuses Ukip of being a divisive force - he wouldn't like to live in a UK like that. Setting one section of society against another.
Yet, as far as I can see, nearly all his policies are based on an "us and them" theme. "They're all out to get you."
The fat cats aren't paying their tax, the energy companies are robbing you blind, they're making society more unequal, hard-working families are being taken advantage of by the elite. Vote Labour to sort the bastards out.
His main gripe is that he thinks Ukip have stolen his clothes. But they're stigmatising potential Labour voters and not Tory ones.
"Hi Samuel, the UKIP hustings for the ward of East Ham are to be held...."
"Constituency profile[edit]
Comprising the eastern part of the London Borough of Newham, East Ham is, as at 2010, the safest Labour seat in London and sixth safest in the country. Every component ward has only Labour councillors (resulting from local elections), and their general election candidates have achieved an absolute majority on all four elections against a wide assortment of political parties at each election.
The constituency has the largest proportion of non-white people in the UK; Greater London's highest proportion of British Asian, many of whom are Muslims live in the seat. In the London Borough of Newham 43.5% of people are British Asian in 2011.[n 4]
The constituency takes in several run-down, deprived, lower working class areas with low incomes and high unemployment that in 2000 ranked high in the Index of Multiple Deprivation[2] including Beckton, Silvertown and East Ham itself. London City Airport is in the seat, as are the former Royal Docks where modern luxury housing is springing up.
Around two thirds of constituents are non-white, and more than 40% of the population are immigrants to the UK."
Yes, it would be nice if people were treated the same irrespective of skin colour. But choices have been made. There aren't many smugglers in South Yorkshire but as Kipling said.
"Them that asks no questions they isn't told a lie, Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen of Pakistani heritage go by."
It's only a tiny minority but the Pakistani heritage community are more likely to admit it and face up to it than the London elite.
Surely the thing to do is request extradition of the Italian involved, if that is refused it gives a card to May.
The alleged rape was committed in Italy, what jurisdiction would the Home Office have? No, what we need is a proper extradition process that protects British citizens from the often corrupt and incompetent justice systems on the continent.
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
@montie@ConHome a thoughtful piece, Tim. As always. Much to mull over
Is he thinking of re ratting?
Not until next March, when his re-ratting would cause maximum damage ahead of the election. "I have now had six months to see UKIP from the inside. I had thought they were well intentioned people, with an alternative vision for Britain. I was very wrong on both counts...."
Obviously were he to do that, he would be a patriotic principled chap worthy of praise.
I second that emotion
There's alot of wishful thinking on this site sometimes.
Understatement of the century!!!
If UKIP can't even get the founder of UKIPhome to join them then really, they must be toxic.
Yup, the polling backs that up.
UKIP are the most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates more likely to hold racist/offensive views
Yougov
ABC1 (C2DE) Voting intentions
TORIES 35% (29%) LABOUR 33% (37%) UKIP 12% (20%) LIBDEMS 9% (6%) GREENS 7% (4%) SNP / PC 4% (4%)
The biggest change over the last 40 years has been the sheer number of AB & C1s switching from Tory to Labour. I recall an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey many years ago when a very posh lawyer was asked which party he would be standing for in the election and when he replied "Labour naturally" this was an unusual enough TV moment to be remarked on the following day.
There's a gulf in middle class attitudes now between somewhere like Hertsmere and Inner London.
''it's appalling that Theresa May has wiped away this suspect's traditional British protections.''
Theresa May is the epitome of the 'anything to stay in office' modern politician. Zero conviction. Zero core beliefs.
What a spectacularly silly remark.
How, exactly, is she supposed to have done 'anything to stay in office'? Haven't you noticed that she has done some things unpopular within her party?
Her core beliefs are very clear, and very simple: the traditional Conservative ones of pragmatism and especially of being reasonably tough on criminals, whilst being respectful of civil liberties. In the particular case of the EAW, she has made very substantial improvements to protect British citizens, and concluded that on balance it is best to opt back in, now those protections are in place. That's a very reasonable position, given that there doesn't seem to be any obvious alternative.
You might disagree with her, but your remark is absurd.
More generally, whenever anyone says 'X has no core beliefs', what they invariably mean is at best, that they disagree with their core beliefs, and more often simply that they support a different political party.
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
Unlike that dire article from Mr Cohen a couple of days ago, I had to take a second look at the front cover to check I wasnt reading The Staggers. http://goo.gl/ljE0ho
@NickPalmer I'm still keen to know your views on IHT.
Is it a tax that has been deliberately engineered by government to allow people with the know how, or the means to afford someone else with the know how, to completely avoid paying it?
If so, why does it exist at all? That would clearly be unfair on those without the means or the know how.
If not, and the ways of getting around it are accidental loopholes, will you criticise the Milibands for what you surely must regard as action as morally reprehensible as the legal corporate tax avoidance that you're seemingly keen to publicly condemn?
Or do you have to try to find a third way to explain this, saving you the bother of sticking to your principles without criticising Miliband?
I think that IHT should be made as effective as possible - I paid a large chunk on my mum's estate and thought it quite painless (the windfall was welcome anyway). I know the practical difficulties, though. As for your query, I try not to comment on anyone's private affairs, especially when I don't know the details, such as the arrangements of Mr Miliband senior's estate N years ago.
Just one more, hypothetical, question on this; if it were to become public knowledge that the Milibands did dodge IHT through a deed of variation (I'm no expert on IHT avoidance but I believe this is what's alleged), would you be prepared to then criticise him?
And please don't hide behind that "private affairs" shield again. The man wants to be PM and is already bashing companies for legally avoiding tax. And, hypothetically, it's already public.
Isn't the place economically benefitting from having had so much more immigration than the rest of the country?
From Wikipedia: "According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. " Also " Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy" but "Socrates' opposition to democracy is often denied" So now we know.
In the particular case of the EAW, she has made very substantial improvements to protect British citizens, and concluded that on balance it is best to opt back in, now those protections are in place.
Except the protections are worthless because they will be adjudicated on by the ECJ which does not follow our reasoning. See Mr Hannan here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGUHeaRa2Q
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
''it's appalling that Theresa May has wiped away this suspect's traditional British protections.''
Theresa May is the epitome of the 'anything to stay in office' modern politician. Zero conviction. Zero core beliefs.
What a spectacularly silly remark.
How, exactly, is she supposed to have done 'anything to stay in office'? Haven't you noticed that she has done some things unpopular within her party?
Her core beliefs are very clear, and very simple: the traditional Conservative ones of pragmatism and especially of being reasonably tough on criminals, whilst being respectful of civil liberties. In the particular case of the EAW, she has made very substantial improvements to protect British citizens, and concluded that on balance it is best to opt back in, now those protections are in place. That's a very reasonable position, given that there doesn't seem to be any obvious alternative.
You might disagree with her, but your remark is absurd.
More generally, whenever anyone says 'X has no core beliefs', what they invariably mean is at best, that they disagree with their core beliefs, and more often simply that they support a different political party.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
That's encouraging. I come from an area where broken glass cemented on top of walls was de rigure. And the birth of Ram Raids as evolutionary progress.
He is for "big ideas", yet his platform is full of minor policies (like scrapping the bedroom tax), or aims without mechanics behind them (like a jobs guarantee or 100% renewables) that clearly won't happen. The one big policy with an actual mechanism - capping retail price rises - now won't have too much of an effect due to the huge fall in wholesale prices. Thank God.
Well quite. That's because he has a few ideas, but not vision. He doesnt know what he actually wants to do with the country, and doesnt have the faintest idea how he will get there., the next paragraph of that article is even more damning
Mr Miliband said his principal task was to change the country. But change it from what, and to what exactly? After all, his party was in government for 13 years until 2010. What we are today is as much Labour’s responsibility as anyone else’s. Were there not bankers before 2010 earning big bonuses? Were there not people avoiding taxes? What did the Labour government, of which Mr Miliband was a leading figure, do about that?
He lamented our unequal society; and yet inequality grew under the Labour government and the “privileged few” thrived. Indeed, the rich were taxed at a lower rate than they are now. The greatest scandals in the NHS happened on their watch. Immigration became an issue under Labour. This attempt by Mr Miliband to turn 2010 into Year Zero and disavow all responsibility for what went before simply does not wash.
This is what they always do. They turned 1979 into year zero and all the ills of the country and the planet were laid at the Tories door within 3 months of the election. They did the same in 2010.
The abject failure to actually do anything constructive or useful is equally matched by their ability to blame everyone or anyone else but themselves for the state in which they always leave the country.
How does this differ from the Conservatives? The article's analysis is a rather boorish one: essentially asking the rhetorical question, if the Labour/Conservative Party manifesto is any good, why were the policies not enacted by Cameron/Brown/Blair/Major/Thatcher?
Eds first comment on his blank sheet is to repair the damage done by the Tories completing forgetting that everything they doomongered about never happened and failing to apologies for the the Labour years.
Spectacular epic fail. As was said earlier thick on the ground with sound bites but no solutions except the other lot is wot dunnit, " when it was actually Labour all along. "
''it's appalling that Theresa May has wiped away this suspect's traditional British protections.''
Theresa May is the epitome of the 'anything to stay in office' modern politician. Zero conviction. Zero core beliefs.
What a spectacularly silly remark.
How, exactly, is she supposed to have done 'anything to stay in office'? Haven't you noticed that she has done some things unpopular within her party?
Her core beliefs are very clear, and very simple: the traditional Conservative ones of pragmatism and especially of being reasonably tough on criminals, whilst being respectful of civil liberties. In the particular case of the EAW, she has made very substantial improvements to protect British citizens, and concluded that on balance it is best to opt back in, now those protections are in place. That's a very reasonable position, given that there doesn't seem to be any obvious alternative.
You might disagree with her, but your remark is absurd.
More generally, whenever anyone says 'X has no core beliefs', what they invariably mean is at best, that they disagree with their core beliefs, and more often simply that they support a different political party.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
Still time to rescue 4 pennies in the pound for Scrapheap.
Mention earlier of PB's most famous pair of red shoes had me wondering whether OGH had borrowed them whilst wandering up the yellow peril brick road to find the Wizard of Ashcroft playing with his organ and spewing out polls.
Nominations for other roles :
Red Slippers - TSE Dorothy - Mike Smithson Cowardly Lion (Looking for courage and friend of Dorothy) - Ed Miliband Tin Man - (Seeks a brain) - Ed Balls Scarecrow - (Searching for a heart) - George Osborne Toto - (Scruffy Dog) - Robert Smithson Wicked Witch of the West - Margaret Beckett Glenda the Good Witch - Theresa May The Tornado - Bedford Gays
Ed accuses Ukip of being a divisive force - he wouldn't like to live in a UK like that. Setting one section of society against another.
Yet, as far as I can see, nearly all his policies are based on an "us and them" theme. "They're all out to get you."
The fat cats aren't paying their tax, the energy companies are robbing you blind, they're making society more unequal, hard-working families are being taken advantage of by the elite. Vote Labour to sort the bastards out.
His main gripe is that he thinks Ukip have stolen his clothes. But they're stigmatising potential Labour voters and not Tory ones.
Yeah Righto Ed
Look at the places where Labour are strong... The muslim caliphates of East London, and South Yorkshire...
What lovely examples of a United britain
If Gilligan was accurate yesterday Ken Livingstone apart from being a massive bell end must be close to causing incitement?
How depressingly familiar was the line of defence put forward by Rahman - your all being beastly racists.......
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
I didn't see the Express story, what was it?
Yesterdays front page
Ukip on the way to election VICTORY: Bookies already paying out on Rochester win
"Bookies are so sure they are already paying out to punters who backed its candidate in Rochester and Strood.
A Ukip spokesman said the expected by-election win would confound those who said a vote for the party was wasted. It would prove instead that “if you vote Ukip, you get Ukip”.
The odds for a win for Mark Reckless, the party’s candidate, were 1-25 yesterday. David Stevens, of Coral, said last night: “As far as we’re concerned, this contest is over, so anyone who has backed Ukip can go and collect and begin the celebrations now.”"
Well done to Corals for paying out early on UKIP and their PR team must be delighted to get it on the front page of a national paper. There's less than a 10% chance it will cost them any money, and I don't suppose they took very much in the first place. Excellent value for them.
That's encouraging. I come from an area where broken glass cemented on top of walls was de rigure. And the birth of Ram Raids as evolutionary progress.
At the top, between Bow Church and Stratford, are block after block of new luxury apartments. At the bottom they've tried to replicate Docklands.
The bit in between is a mixture of old terraces and council estates.
When people run it down, they're really running down the people who live in it.
The actual housing is just lots of old terraces, very similar to places that are now deemed trendy in places like Stoke Newington and Crouch End.
Its not really encouraging... the people who call it home will be shunted out as the local authorities sell the new homes to rich outsiders and build social housing on the outskirts of London to house those who are priced out/in social housing
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
Isn't the place economically benefitting from having had so much more immigration than the rest of the country?
From Wikipedia: "According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. " Also " Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy" but "Socrates' opposition to democracy is often denied" So now we know.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
I didn't see the Express story, what was it?
Yesterdays front page
Ukip on the way to election VICTORY: Bookies already paying out on Rochester win
"Bookies are so sure they are already paying out to punters who backed its candidate in Rochester and Strood.
A Ukip spokesman said the expected by-election win would confound those who said a vote for the party was wasted. It would prove instead that “if you vote Ukip, you get Ukip”.
The odds for a win for Mark Reckless, the party’s candidate, were 1-25 yesterday. David Stevens, of Coral, said last night: “As far as we’re concerned, this contest is over, so anyone who has backed Ukip can go and collect and begin the celebrations now.”"
Ed accuses Ukip of being a divisive force - he wouldn't like to live in a UK like that. Setting one section of society against another.
Yet, as far as I can see, nearly all his policies are based on an "us and them" theme. "They're all out to get you."
The fat cats aren't paying their tax, the energy companies are robbing you blind, they're making society more unequal, hard-working families are being taken advantage of by the elite. Vote Labour to sort the bastards out.
His main gripe is that he thinks Ukip have stolen his clothes. But they're stigmatising potential Labour voters and not Tory ones.
Yeah Righto Ed
Look at the places where Labour are strong... The muslim caliphates of East London, and South Yorkshire...
What lovely examples of a United britain
UKIP are slightly stronger in the Sheffield Caliphates:
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
Isn't the Daily Excess the Kippers own house paper these days with a penchant for scaring its dimishing elderly readership with bloodcurdling stories about impending artic blasts (that never materialise) and other ludicrous hyberbole?
Well done to Corals for paying out early on UKIP and their PR team must be delighted to get it on the front page of a national paper. There's less than a 10% chance it will cost them any money, and I don't suppose they took very much in the first place. Excellent value for them.
Isn't the Daily Excess the Kippers own house paper these days with a penchant for scaring its dimishing elderly readership with bloodcurdling stories about impending artic blasts (that never materialise) and other ludicrous hyberbole?
To be fair, their bloodcurdling warnings about the weather last Christmas turned out to be pretty accurate!
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
Hmm.. Shadsy has UKIP out to 1/25 (from1/33) Con in to 10/1(from 14/1), not really significant moves but maybe a delayed effect of Mike's blog yesterday (ie caused by some punters swayed by his opinion)?
Unlikely.. The Conservatives have just traded at their biggest price yet on Betfair (21), and the front page of The Express was probably seen by more people than PB, and that was about Coral paying out on UKIP already
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
I didn't see the Express story, what was it?
Yesterdays front page
Ukip on the way to election VICTORY: Bookies already paying out on Rochester win
"Bookies are so sure they are already paying out to punters who backed its candidate in Rochester and Strood.
A Ukip spokesman said the expected by-election win would confound those who said a vote for the party was wasted. It would prove instead that “if you vote Ukip, you get Ukip”.
The odds for a win for Mark Reckless, the party’s candidate, were 1-25 yesterday. David Stevens, of Coral, said last night: “As far as we’re concerned, this contest is over, so anyone who has backed Ukip can go and collect and begin the celebrations now.”"
@isam Mike can explain why he didn't splash with the Corals early payout if he wants, but I can take a guess.
He knows a lot more about political betting than the hacks at the Express and he can recognise this as a fairly meaningless PR stunt. Especially as Corals is hardly anyone's go-to place for politics betting and they have probably taken peanuts on it.
I think Betfair's sportsbook did the same thing for the Scottish Referendum for NO backers a couple of days early. That almost certainly carried a lot more risk.
That's encouraging. I come from an area where broken glass cemented on top of walls was de rigure. And the birth of Ram Raids as evolutionary progress.
At the top, between Bow Church and Stratford, are block after block of new luxury apartments. At the bottom they've tried to replicate Docklands.
The bit in between is a mixture of old terraces and council estates.
When people run it down, they're really running down the people who live in it.
The actual housing is just lots of old terraces, very similar to places that are now deemed trendy in places like Stoke Newington and Crouch End.
Its not really encouraging... the people who call it home will be shunted out as the local authorities sell the new homes to rich outsiders and build social housing on the outskirts of London to house those who are priced out/in social housing
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
@isam Mike can explain why he didn't splash with the Corals early payout if he wants, but I can take a guess.
He knows a lot more about political betting than the hacks at the Express and he can recognise this as a fairly meaningless PR stunt. Especially as Corals is hardly anyone's go-to place for politics betting and they have probably taken peanuts on it.
I think Betfair's sportsbook did the same thing for the Scottish Referendum for NO backers a couple of days early. That almost certainly carried a lot more risk.
I'd take a guess that it was because Mike advised backing the Tories on several occasions, and had it been the Tories that were being paid out a week early, that would have been the story on PB
You're a nice guy and all that, but you don't exactly take a massive bet on politics at Ladbrokes.. my shop wouldn't lay more than £60 on a 5/6 shot
That's encouraging. I come from an area where broken glass cemented on top of walls was de rigure. And the birth of Ram Raids as evolutionary progress.
At the top, between Bow Church and Stratford, are block after block of new luxury apartments. At the bottom they've tried to replicate Docklands.
The bit in between is a mixture of old terraces and council estates.
When people run it down, they're really running down the people who live in it.
The actual housing is just lots of old terraces, very similar to places that are now deemed trendy in places like Stoke Newington and Crouch End.
Its not really encouraging... the people who call it home will be shunted out as the local authorities sell the new homes to rich outsiders and build social housing on the outskirts of London to house those who are priced out/in social housing
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
Sigh...
I sometimes wonder why I bother to write sensible comments. Any nuance is invariably lost.
One more try.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EAW.
Got that? Is that clear enough for you?
Now can you get to the next stage of the argument, which is: what do we do about it, starting from where we started?
Clearly we can't redesign the EAW from scratch - the time to get it right was before it was set up. Too late now; it's in place.
So there were only three options facing Theresa May, none of them ideal.
1) Opt back in with no changes at all. 2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in. 3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.
Of the three options, Theresa May concluded that number 2 is the least bad, and, remarkably, she seems to have made some very significant improvements. Her Telegraph article of a few days ago was a very succinct summary of the arguments.
''All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.''
Go back further. Look at steptoe and son. Jokes about really naff areas like Putney (FNNAAR) ..and Shepherds Bush...
Look at the bombed out, grimy, run down buildings as the 'orse and cart traipses around what are now some of the world's most affluent areas.
The thread header does have some relevance from a LD point of view. Recent polls show both government parties are starting to register a very slight swingback which in the case of the LDs was perhaps from an unrealistically low base. Even in LD marginals with an incumbent MP that must be important. Good also though for those of us who have backed the coalition and hope any credit that there is doesn't just go to the way of the Tories.
@isam Mike can explain why he didn't splash with the Corals early payout if he wants, but I can take a guess.
He knows a lot more about political betting than the hacks at the Express and he can recognise this as a fairly meaningless PR stunt. Especially as Corals is hardly anyone's go-to place for politics betting and they have probably taken peanuts on it.
I think Betfair's sportsbook did the same thing for the Scottish Referendum for NO backers a couple of days early. That almost certainly carried a lot more risk.
Wonder how much it cost to pay out to UKIP bettors, compared to a front page ad in the Express..
''1) Opt back in with no changes at all. 2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in. 3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.''
4. publicly declare that, under the current arrangements that exist, there is simply no way of safeguarding the rights and protecting the liberty of British citizens, and f8cking resign.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
Right, but nobody is calling for London to go back to 30 years ago, pre-Big Bang. London has clearly had a fantastic benefit from the Thatcher reforms. But what we are arguing is that London would have improved even more had it not had to fight against the tide of developing world immigration. Rather than having sterile luxury apartments and run-down estates, we could have sterile luxury apartments and pleasant spatious middle class homes.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
And before that they did not have toilets. What you are both talking about is change and lets remember there are always unscrupulous chancers willing to take advantage of the problems of change.
The Thatcher era had good things and bad (well less good) things, but what it represented was change, necessary change. And with change comes turmoil. We need to stop listening to the chancers and loonies and realise that what is nimportant is managing change. Funnily enough what's always struck me is that that's what the 'conservative' party has always been about.
I sometimes wonder why I bother to write sensible comments. Any nuance is invariably lost.
One more try.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EAW.
Got that? Is that clear enough for you?
Now can you get to the next stage of the argument, which is: what do we do about it, starting from where we started?
Clearly we can't redesign the EAW from scratch - the time to get it right was before it was set up. Too late now; it's in place.
So there were only three options facing Theresa May, none of them ideal.
1) Opt back in with no changes at all. 2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in. 3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.
Of the three options, Theresa May concluded that number 2 is the least bad, and, remarkably, she seems to have made some very significant improvements. Her Telegraph article of a few days ago was a very succinct summary of the arguments.
This is the real world. Government is about making choices, not tilting at windmills.
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangement with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Not to mention that to be extradited to most countries there needs to be "evidence or information that justifies the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing" and a lot of other bells and whistles. Plus the whole thing is appealable the whole way to the Supreme Court. Compare and contrast the difference in the EAW and Extradition processes here: https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
It's not the 'corrrect' answer, it's an impractical one. Our EU friends would, unsurprisingly, tell us to get stuffed, given that they have set up what they regard as a perfectly fine arrangement.
It's interesting how well UKIP are doing in London, all things considered.
For example, Ashcroft polling had the party on 19% in Croydon Central, a crucial Con/Lab marginal with a 40-45% ethnic minority population.
Londoners whose parents & grandparents are not immigrants vote UKIP just as much as the rest of the population. That's mainly because they understand and appreciate this country's heritage a lot more, whether it's an intellectual appreciation for English liberties, or just a preference for traditional British culture.
UKIP could really make deep roads into outer London if it made its arguments better: focus on how immigration drives up rent and house prices, congestion on the roads, and a lack of school places/GP appointments. They could add to that a focus on crime: particularly gangs, knife attacks and fly-tipping.
I remember Yuppification in spades. Colleagues bought huge loft apartments in Docklands back in the early 90s and there were no shops or pubs around them to go to - or the wrong end of Liverpool St station with drip tray pints. It was a wasteland. They made a mint on them.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
It's not the 'corrrect' answer, it's an impractical one. Our EU friends would, unsurprisingly, tell us to get stuffed, given that they have set up what they regard as a perfectly fine arrangement.
Presumably they have extradition treaties with non-EU nations.
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
It's not the 'corrrect' answer, it's an impractical one. Our EU friends would, unsurprisingly, tell us to get stuffed, given that they have set up what they regard as a perfectly fine arrangement.
Presumably they have extradition treaties with non-EU nations.
"the EAW is not seen in Europe as a free standing extradition device, but part of the creation of a pan-European system of Criminal Justice, with its own prosecution service, it's own police force and its own court" - Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
It's not the 'corrrect' answer, it's an impractical one. Our EU friends would, unsurprisingly, tell us to get stuffed, given that they have set up what they regard as a perfectly fine arrangement.
Then we can tell them to do one. It's not that hard. Maggie did it and came back with a massive rebate. The truth is that Dave is just too weak. His need to be loved/liked is just too strong. Even when he "vetoed" the fiskalcompact he didn't actually exercise full veto powers and exclude the use of EU mechanisms and organisations to members who signed up. He wants to be liked by other members too much rather than get the best deal for British citizens which was to completely halt the EAW in the UK and properly veto the compact and force them to self-police it via enhanced co-operation and preclude them the use of the ECJ.
@isam Mike can explain why he didn't splash with the Corals early payout if he wants, but I can take a guess.
He knows a lot more about political betting than the hacks at the Express and he can recognise this as a fairly meaningless PR stunt. Especially as Corals is hardly anyone's go-to place for politics betting and they have probably taken peanuts on it.
I think Betfair's sportsbook did the same thing for the Scottish Referendum for NO backers a couple of days early. That almost certainly carried a lot more risk.
Wonder how much it cost to pay out to UKIP bettors, compared to a front page ad in the Express..
Not much. It would potentially cost Ladbrokes just over £50k if we did it and the Tories won. Let's generously say there is a 10% chance of that happening, so the expected cost is around £5k. If I'd known it would get on the front page of a national, I'd call that very good value. I would imagine that the equivalent Coral's figure is even lower, so a great PR result for them.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
Sigh...
I sometimes wonder why I bother to write sensible comments. Any nuance is invariably lost.
One more try.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EAW.
Got that? Is that clear enough for you?
Now can you get to the next stage of the argument, which is: what do we do about it, starting from where we started?
Clearly we can't redesign the EAW from scratch - the time to get it right was before it was set up. Too late now; it's in place.
So there were only three options facing Theresa May, none of them ideal.
1) Opt back in with no changes at all. 2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in. 3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.
Of the three options, Theresa May concluded that number 2 is the least bad, and, remarkably, she seems to have made some very significant improvements. Her Telegraph article of a few days ago was a very succinct summary of the arguments.
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
Right, but nobody is calling for London to go back to 30 years ago, pre-Big Bang. London has clearly had a fantastic benefit from the Thatcher reforms. But what we are arguing is that London would have improved even more had it not had to fight against the tide of developing world immigration. Rather than having sterile luxury apartments and run-down estates, we could have sterile luxury apartments and pleasant spatious middle class homes.
Why build sterile luxury apartments that no one in the area can afford, which results in people from the area having to move out?
Does everything have to be so bipolar? The money used to gentrify parts of the East End and Zones 1&2 needn't have led to social cleansing.. but that is what is happening
@NickPalmer I'm still keen to know your views on IHT.
Is it a tax that has been deliberately engineered by government to allow people with the know how, or the means to afford someone else with the know how, to completely avoid paying it?
If so, why does it exist at all? That would clearly be unfair on those without the means or the know how.
If not, and the ways of getting around it are accidental loopholes, will you criticise the Milibands for what you surely must regard as action as morally reprehensible as the legal corporate tax avoidance that you're seemingly keen to publicly condemn?
Or do you have to try to find a third way to explain this, saving you the bother of sticking to your principles without criticising Miliband?
I think that IHT should be made as effective as possible - I paid a large chunk on my mum's estate and thought it quite painless (the windfall was welcome anyway). I know the practical difficulties, though. As for your query, I try not to comment on anyone's private affairs, especially when I don't know the details, such as the arrangements of Mr Miliband senior's estate N years ago.
Just one more, hypothetical, question on this; if it were to become public knowledge that the Milibands did dodge IHT through a deed of variation (I'm no expert on IHT avoidance but I believe this is what's alleged), would you be prepared to then criticise him?
And please don't hide behind that "private affairs" shield again. The man wants to be PM and is already bashing companies for legally avoiding tax. And, hypothetically, it's already public.
So when/if a rich Tory does similar can we assume NPXMP will claim it is their own public affair?
When will the media run with the Millibands and their view that IHT is for the proles. I now know why they don't care about the threshold - they'll always be exempt.
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
Wealth and religion have always been demarcation lines.
The grumbling from places like Havering is because people can see that the decades long direction of travel between money and poverty in relation to property has reversed.
The money is heading into London, rather than out to suburbia, while the poverty is heading out rather than clustering in.
Mention earlier of PB's most famous pair of red shoes had me wondering whether OGH had borrowed them whilst wandering up the yellow peril brick road to find the Wizard of Ashcroft playing with his organ and spewing out polls.
Nominations for other roles :
Red Slippers - TSE Dorothy - Mike Smithson Cowardly Lion (Looking for courage and friend of Dorothy) - Ed Miliband Tin Man - (Seeks a brain) - Ed Balls Scarecrow - (Searching for a heart) - George Osborne Toto - (Scruffy Dog) - Robert Smithson Wicked Witch of the West - Margaret Beckett Glenda the Good Witch - Theresa May The Tornado - Bedford Gays
Shouldn't you ask my permission before asking all these people 'round my gaffe?
My point is that one decides what role one wants to play - Victim or Abuser. In charge of your destiny or a chorus line player.
If residents of Newham want to be in the chorus line, it's their choice. I have no sympathy for them. They could've made another one, but didn't. If they want to wallow in their own choices, fine. But don't expect me to feel sorry for them. It's an existence they chose. We all choose ours.
That's encouraging. I come from an area where broken glass cemented on top of walls was de rigure. And the birth of Ram Raids as evolutionary progress.
At the top, between Bow Church and Stratford, are block after block of new luxury apartments. At the bottom they've tried to replicate Docklands.
The bit in between is a mixture of old terraces and council estates.
When people run it down, they're really running down the people who live in it.
The actual housing is just lots of old terraces, very similar to places that are now deemed trendy in places like Stoke Newington and Crouch End.
Its not really encouraging... the people who call it home will be shunted out as the local authorities sell the new homes to rich outsiders and build social housing on the outskirts of London to house those who are priced out/in social housing
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
The election of Stuart Hosie MP as Deputy Leader in a very close result-55 to 45 so obviously very close :-) strikes me as evidence that the SNP will be more strongly focussed on the Westminster GE than at any time since the creation of Holyrood.
They must have considerable money available (and a ready member base to raise more) which was not spent in the referendum if recent figures are to be believed.
Number of seats they will win in GE 2015 still very difficult to predict under the barking mad FPTP voting system.
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
Wealth and religion have always been demarcation lines.
The grumbling from places like Havering is because people can see that the decades long direction of travel between money and poverty in relation to property has reversed.
The money is heading into London, rather than out to suburbia, while the poverty is heading out rather than clustering in.
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
Wealth and religion have always been demarcation lines.
The grumbling from places like Havering is because people can see that the decades long direction of travel between money and poverty in relation to property has reversed.
The money is heading into London, rather than out to suburbia, while the poverty is heading out rather than clustering in.
What were the religious demarcation lines in Havering in, say, 1945?
When you take a ride on the DLR from Bank to Canary Wharf, perhaps the defining feature is the absolute lack of middle-of-the-road residential properties. All you see are luxury apartments and run-down 1960s tenements. A slight exaggeration, but not much.
But remember what it was like in the early 80s? I do. the Docklands was an utter wasteland. Empty. Bewilderingly desolate. Ditto many parts of the South Bank, especially by Tower Bridge, also Wapping, Kings Cross, and so on.
All those who decry the advance of London seem to forget that, even if parts of it are a bit grim now, entire boroughs were total and utter toilets about 30 years ago.
Right, but nobody is calling for London to go back to 30 years ago, pre-Big Bang. London has clearly had a fantastic benefit from the Thatcher reforms. But what we are arguing is that London would have improved even more had it not had to fight against the tide of developing world immigration. Rather than having sterile luxury apartments and run-down estates, we could have sterile luxury apartments and pleasant spatious middle class homes.
Why build sterile luxury apartments that no one in the area can afford, which results in people from the area having to move out?
Does everything have to be so bipolar? The money used to gentrify parts of the East End and Zones 1&2 needn't have led to social cleansing.. but that is what is happening
The point is that both the luxury flats for single professionals and the middle-class families WOULD have been affordable, had we not massively ramped up the population of London, causing a huge squeeze on housing supply.
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
There are 'Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant' and 'Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant' The 'Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union'
A EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long. This process has been ongoing for years and years.
Its designed to take the politics out of the process and put it in the hands of the judiciary. Your comments about foreign countries just about sums you and your lot up. Hate foreigners.
The correct answer is option 3 and get to work on extradition treaties with EAW nations. If they don't like it then they can lump it. The EAW is not fit for purpose and no tinkering on the edges is going to change that. Blame Labour as much as you want, but as you said it's no use now, making the best of a bad situation still leaves us in a bad situation. It is also highly questionable that any of the changes made to the British implementation of the EAW will stand up to scrutiny by the ECJ. Better not to bother and get started on an entirely different extradition mechanism that protects British citizens from corrupt and incompetent justice systems in Europe.
It's not the 'corrrect' answer, it's an impractical one. Our EU friends would, unsurprisingly, tell us to get stuffed, given that they have set up what they regard as a perfectly fine arrangement.
Then we can tell them to do one. It's not that hard. Maggie did it and came back with a massive rebate. The truth is that Dave is just too weak. His need to be loved/liked is just too strong. Even when he "vetoed" the fiskalcompact he didn't actually exercise full veto powers and exclude the use of EU mechanisms and organisations to members who signed up. He wants to be liked by other members too much rather than get the best deal for British citizens which was to completely halt the EAW in the UK and properly veto the compact and force them to self-police it via enhanced co-operation and preclude them the use of the ECJ.
And the day after he did that, the LibDems would desert him, he would lose a vote of confidence.. lose the resulting GE (as Conservatives were WAYYY behind Labour in the polls.
The new Labour Government would rescind the VETO.
So really clever Government action. Lose Government and not achieve anything.
You anti Eu people really need to think through the consequences of your actions... :-)
Its designed to take the politics out of the process and put it in the hands of the judiciary. Your comments about foreign countries just about sums you and your lot up. Hate foreigners.
So now pointing out that the Italian justice system faces a lot of corruption is also a mark of xenophobia. Where does this logic end exactly? Having to pretend that the Central African Republic is just as successful as the UK and its racist to suggest anything otherwise?
What are the projections does this young woman have from the Italian justice system?
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
I haven't made any comment on the case. I don't know anything much about it. There doesn't actually seem to have been any extradition request, as far as I can see. In fact it's not clear whether she is being accused of anything.
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
No one is suggesting that, but under the EAW the extradition is immediate and without legal recourse, under the regular arrangement there would be a hearing to see whether the extradition is warranted and whether the allegations have any foundation, in a trustworthy British court, not a dodgy Italian one who seem to relish making scapegoats out of foreigners.
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
There are 'Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant' and 'Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant' The 'Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union'
A EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long. This process has been ongoing for years and years.
Its designed to take the politics out of the process and put it in the hands of the judiciary. Your comments about foreign countries just about sums you and your lot up. Hate foreigners.
Seems slightly at odds with using the EAW process to arrest parents who took their child out of hospital to get him treated somewhere else. Which custodial sentence was being enforced there, and which prosecution rather than investigation ?
Isn't the Daily Excess the Kippers own house paper these days with a penchant for scaring its dimishing elderly readership with bloodcurdling stories about impending artic blasts (that never materialise) and other ludicrous hyberbole?
To be fair, their bloodcurdling warnings about the weather last Christmas turned out to be pretty accurate!
But in other respects its pretty pathetic to see the miserable depths to which the rag that is the current Express has sunk to. I think we can expect that if its dubious proprietors think there is money in it for them they will be curdling the blood in favour of UKIP and the hate the immigrants band wagon soon enough.
Comments
I indulge in hyperbole, but he's off even my scale of poetic licence usage.
A 5/10 Labour voter is probably in reality a 15 or so % chance to actually head out on the day. Perhaps less.
A score of 35 for labour should surely make R&S a three-way marginal at least.
And yet it won;t be. Not even close. No even close to close.
I presume Stratford is better than it was - it'd be hard to be worse. Oh and bits of Gateshead. I don't scare easy but those places were threatening without even trying.
Mr Socrates,
Yes, it would be nice if people were treated the same irrespective of skin colour. But choices have been made. There aren't many smugglers in South Yorkshire but as Kipling said.
"Them that asks no questions they isn't told a lie,
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen of Pakistani heritage go by."
It's only a tiny minority but the Pakistani heritage community are more likely to admit it and face up to it than the London elite.
At the top, between Bow Church and Stratford, are block after block of new luxury apartments. At the bottom they've tried to replicate Docklands.
The bit in between is a mixture of old terraces and council estates.
When people run it down, they're really running down the people who live in it.
The actual housing is just lots of old terraces, very similar to places that are now deemed trendy in places like Stoke Newington and Crouch End.
I think this is quite significant in terms of behaviour - like luvvies, but with less self-delusion. I know I'm stroking my ego.
But we are to believe that this time they really mean it.
How, exactly, is she supposed to have done 'anything to stay in office'? Haven't you noticed that she has done some things unpopular within her party?
Her core beliefs are very clear, and very simple: the traditional Conservative ones of pragmatism and especially of being reasonably tough on criminals, whilst being respectful of civil liberties. In the particular case of the EAW, she has made very substantial improvements to protect British citizens, and concluded that on balance it is best to opt back in, now those protections are in place. That's a very reasonable position, given that there doesn't seem to be any obvious alternative.
You might disagree with her, but your remark is absurd.
More generally, whenever anyone says 'X has no core beliefs', what they invariably mean is at best, that they disagree with their core beliefs, and more often simply that they support a different political party.
Funny that a story about betting on politics makes the front page of a national newspaper, and isn't mentioned on here!
And please don't hide behind that "private affairs" shield again. The man wants to be PM and is already bashing companies for legally avoiding tax. And, hypothetically, it's already public.
"According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. "
Also " Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy" but "Socrates' opposition to democracy is often denied"
So now we know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGUHeaRa2Q
Presumably that should those "substantial improvement" put in place on the EAW be struck down by European courts, Theresa May will opt us out again?
Eds first comment on his blank sheet is to repair the damage done by the Tories completing forgetting that everything they doomongered about never happened and failing to apologies for the the Labour years.
Spectacular epic fail. As was said earlier thick on the ground with sound bites but no solutions except the other lot is wot dunnit, " when it was actually Labour all along. "
Nominations for other roles :
Red Slippers - TSE
Dorothy - Mike Smithson
Cowardly Lion (Looking for courage and friend of Dorothy) - Ed Miliband
Tin Man - (Seeks a brain) - Ed Balls
Scarecrow - (Searching for a heart) - George Osborne
Toto - (Scruffy Dog) - Robert Smithson
Wicked Witch of the West - Margaret Beckett
Glenda the Good Witch - Theresa May
The Tornado - Bedford Gays
Libya goes from strength to strength since Cameron decided to illegally invade the country.
How depressingly familiar was the line of defence put forward by Rahman - your all being beastly racists.......
Ukip on the way to election VICTORY: Bookies already paying out on Rochester win
"Bookies are so sure they are already paying out to punters who backed its candidate in Rochester and Strood.
A Ukip spokesman said the expected by-election win would confound those who said a vote for the party was wasted. It would prove instead that “if you vote Ukip, you get Ukip”.
The odds for a win for Mark Reckless, the party’s candidate, were 1-25 yesterday. David Stevens, of Coral, said last night: “As far as we’re concerned, this contest is over, so anyone who has backed Ukip can go and collect and begin the celebrations now.”"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/534791/Bookies-make-Ukip-certain-win-Rochester-and-Strood-by-election
Incredible it wasn't the lead story on here. Has there ever been a more apt front page of a national for the site?...
Why could that be????
There's less than a 10% chance it will cost them any money, and I don't suppose they took very much in the first place. Excellent value for them.
Newham will become as segregated as Tower Hamlets, with fabulously wealthy people living on one side and very poor people living on the other.. divided by wealth, colour, religion and language
Presumably, though, under any extradition arrangement someone accused of the extremely serious offence of a false rape allegation could be extradited. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an extradition arrangment with Italy?
The EU loves plebiscites as well. They just keep holding them until they get the correct answer they wanted in the first place.
However, expect the smaller parties to get squeezed as we get closer to the general election.
But how would that explain UKIP drifting a little with ladbrokes?
For example, Ashcroft polling had the party on 19% in Croydon Central, a crucial Con/Lab marginal with a 40-45% ethnic minority population.
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/elections/election-results/2014/burngreave.html
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/elections/election-results/2014/darnall.html
vs
http://www.newham.gov.uk/Pages/Services/Election-results.aspx
Your support of the EAW is absolutely disgusting and snivelling Richard, just like your support of the snoopers charter. The Tories are on the wrong side of both arguments here. British citizens need protection from the power of the executive, especially those in foreign countries who have little to no regard for the rule of law.
It will be headlined on politicalbetting.com if Reckless loses.
Dog bites man - not news. Man bites dog - newsworthy.
Mike can explain why he didn't splash with the Corals early payout if he wants, but I can take a guess.
He knows a lot more about political betting than the hacks at the Express and he can recognise this as a fairly meaningless PR stunt. Especially as Corals is hardly anyone's go-to place for politics betting and they have probably taken peanuts on it.
I think Betfair's sportsbook did the same thing for the Scottish Referendum for NO backers a couple of days early. That almost certainly carried a lot more risk.
I do Big. And play Victim & Abuser a lot. It's not pretty, but brutally honest, rather than self-deceiving.
You're a nice guy and all that, but you don't exactly take a massive bet on politics at Ladbrokes.. my shop wouldn't lay more than £60 on a 5/6 shot
I sometimes wonder why I bother to write sensible comments. Any nuance is invariably lost.
One more try.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EAW.
Got that? Is that clear enough for you?
Now can you get to the next stage of the argument, which is: what do we do about it, starting from where we started?
Clearly we can't redesign the EAW from scratch - the time to get it right was before it was set up. Too late now; it's in place.
So there were only three options facing Theresa May, none of them ideal.
1) Opt back in with no changes at all.
2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in.
3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.
Of the three options, Theresa May concluded that number 2 is the least bad, and, remarkably, she seems to have made some very significant improvements. Her Telegraph article of a few days ago was a very succinct summary of the arguments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11216589/Theresa-May-Fight-Europe-by-all-means-but-not-over-this-Arrest-Warrant.html
Got it?
This is the real world. Government is about making choices, not tilting at windmills.
Go back further. Look at steptoe and son. Jokes about really naff areas like Putney (FNNAAR) ..and Shepherds Bush...
Look at the bombed out, grimy, run down buildings as the 'orse and cart traipses around what are now some of the world's most affluent areas.
2) Make some changes to ameliorate the EAW, and opt back in.
3) Opt out completely, leaving no effective extradition arrangements in place with 26 neighbouring countries, all of which have free movement of people with us.''
4. publicly declare that, under the current arrangements that exist, there is simply no way of safeguarding the rights and protecting the liberty of British citizens, and f8cking resign.
What you are both talking about is change and lets remember there are always unscrupulous chancers willing to take advantage of the problems of change.
The Thatcher era had good things and bad (well less good) things, but what it represented was change, necessary change. And with change comes turmoil. We need to stop listening to the chancers and loonies and realise that what is nimportant is managing change. Funnily enough what's always struck me is that that's what the 'conservative' party has always been about.
UKIP could really make deep roads into outer London if it made its arguments better: focus on how immigration drives up rent and house prices, congestion on the roads, and a lack of school places/GP appointments. They could add to that a focus on crime: particularly gangs, knife attacks and fly-tipping.
I would imagine that the equivalent Coral's figure is even lower, so a great PR result for them.
Or so the high priests of PC-ness would have us believe.
Talking Norwegian here as well.
Does everything have to be so bipolar? The money used to gentrify parts of the East End and Zones 1&2 needn't have led to social cleansing.. but that is what is happening
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/newham-council-accused-of-social-cleansing-after-attempts-to-move-poorest-families-7674939.html
So when/if a rich Tory does similar can we assume NPXMP will claim it is their own public affair?
When will the media run with the Millibands and their view that IHT is for the proles. I now know why they don't care about the threshold - they'll always be exempt.
The grumbling from places like Havering is because people can see that the decades long direction of travel between money and poverty in relation to property has reversed.
The money is heading into London, rather than out to suburbia, while the poverty is heading out rather than clustering in.
If residents of Newham want to be in the chorus line, it's their choice. I have no sympathy for them. They could've made another one, but didn't. If they want to wallow in their own choices, fine. But don't expect me to feel sorry for them. It's an existence they chose. We all choose ours.
I do believe our very own NPthenMP even included that commitment in his election manifesto.
They must have considerable money available (and a ready member base to raise more) which was not spent in the referendum if recent figures are to be believed.
Number of seats they will win in GE 2015 still very difficult to predict under the barking mad FPTP voting system.
If social cleansing were really happening London would (surely?) be turning blue. As it is, the opposite seems to be happening.
The 'Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union'
A EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison. Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.
This process has been ongoing for years and years.
Its designed to take the politics out of the process and put it in the hands of the judiciary.
Your comments about foreign countries just about sums you and your lot up. Hate foreigners.
Rochester really is all over if the bookies are already paying out. They got it right doing the same thing with the Indy referendum.
The new Labour Government would rescind the VETO.
So really clever Government action. Lose Government and not achieve anything.
You anti Eu people really need to think through the consequences of your actions... :-)
For any rugby punters, food for thought. At some point this could turn into a bit of a crisis for SA.
I think we can expect that if its dubious proprietors think there is money in it for them they will be curdling the blood in favour of UKIP and the hate the immigrants band wagon soon enough.
It has been the home of the Huguenots, the Irish and the Jewish. The dock area was well known for it's Chinese links. All this before the Bengalis.
It's beyond credulity to fail to recognise that wealth has been a demarcation line for where people live for yonks.
Mayfair was lush and Tower Hamlets a Ripperite slum back in the 19th century.