Yes, but most of the party isn't and comments like that just fuel UKIP.
I am not rising to your provocation on Ted Heath!
I'm out in the sun enjoying the last few days of my sabbatical where I helped a Eurosceptic MP hold his marginal seat.
There's unity in the Tory party over Europe.
Let us go back to fun stuff, like how much of a cockwomble Tim Montgomerie is or the Edstone?
Can I reprise my suggestion that they insert an Edsword in the Edstone, and whosoever pulleth it out shall be the true-born Leader of the Labour party.
Direction of country - net 'right': England: +15 Scotland: -14
Direction of Economy - net 'improving': England: +38 Scotland: -12
The latest increases in unemployment in Scotland suggest that Scots are right to be worried about the mess the SNP are making of governing. Especially since the unemployment rate used to be lower in Scotland than England but is now the reverse.,
LOL, who are these Scots that are worried , did you miss the fact that they just won a landslide in the election. Doh.
Speedy Well with housing benefit to be ended for under 25s, student fees, cuts to university and further education funding etc the young have only themselves to blame if they suffer disproportionately from austerity while pensioners continue to get free TV Licenses etc
Danny565 Miliband seemed to be proportionally more popular in well-off, middle class suburban areas eg Labour gained Wirral West, Enfield North and Chester which all had sizeable Tory majorities in 1992. However, he was disproportionally unpopular in working class and rural areas, hence Labour losing Bolton West, Vale of Clwyd, Morley and Outwood and Gower (a seat which Kinnock had won comfortably)
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 3h3 hours ago Ministers are looking at ideas to allow state-funding for political parties. Ukip well positioned to lead campaign against
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 58s58 seconds ago @DouglasCarswell@ukipwebmaster I agree about state-funding for political parties. but UKIP still needs funds that you r denying the party.
Mike, you do realise that Short Money is granted explicitly for the purpose of supporting the parliamentary party in opposing the government (offsetting the institutional benefit that the government receives from access to the civil service).
Of course this can be stretched to cover a lot of different aspects of central research. But to use it as a contribution to general party funds would be corrupt and illegal.
Well, I guess the party would have to apply general party funds to those purposes if short money wasn't there, part or all of it.
To the extent they decide to do it.
Carswell reckons he has £300K worth of legitimate use for Short Money, hence why he asked for that much. If UKIP were to take it all and then, say, spend it on running banks of computers they should be held to task to make sure they spend it as intended by parliament
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 3h3 hours ago Ministers are looking at ideas to allow state-funding for political parties. Ukip well positioned to lead campaign against
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 58s58 seconds ago @DouglasCarswell@ukipwebmaster I agree about state-funding for political parties. but UKIP still needs funds that you r denying the party.
Mike, you do realise that Short Money is granted explicitly for the purpose of supporting the parliamentary party in opposing the government (offsetting the institutional benefit that the government receives from access to the civil service).
Of course this can be stretched to cover a lot of different aspects of central research. But to use it as a contribution to general party funds would be corrupt and illegal.
Well, I guess the party would have to apply general party funds to those purposes if short money wasn't there, part or all of it.
To the extent they decide to do it.
Carswell reckons he has £300K worth of legitimate use for Short Money, hence why he asked for that much. If UKIP were to take it all and then, say, spend it on running banks of computers they should be held to task to make sure they spend it as intended by parliament
Quite by coincidence, this cropped up in my twitter feed:
He'll have the court of public opinion onside for this fight.
Absolutely. As I point out to my lawyer connections, for people whose job it is to frame and present an argument, the bar have made an astonishing hash of presenting its case to the people.
Ironically, most lawyers probably voted Conservative.
I know the Senior Partner of a large firm of lawyers in the N West. He'a a lifelong Labour supporter. The fact that he deals daily with a Council and Planning Authority which are Labour dominated is just a coincidence..
@paulwaugh: This is full-fat modernisation from @leicesterliz, not a low-cal version. On public services "I'm on the side of the public" not providers.
@paulwaugh: Kendall also comes out strongly in favour of Free Schools, says any parent who wants to run schools shd be encouraged.
@rowenamason: Little dig at Yvette Cooper from Liz Kendall- says being on the side of wealth creation is about more than setting up new biz advisory cttee
I think she knows she's been tarnished with the Blairite brush, and painted as a closet Tory, and knows she will probably lose.
But, good for her. She's forcing Labour to have the debate it needs to have and will go down fighting. By putting down this marker she may also set herself up very well if, for whatever reason, the successfully elected leader falters.
The Eurozone is going in one of two ways, it will either break apart completely, or it will look more and more, over time, like a country. Not a nation state like the UK, obviously, but perhaps more like the 19th Century Swiss Confederation. Should it move in this direction, it will - like the vast majority of integrations - happen via a process of ad-hocracy, with short term band aids to particular problems resulting in increased integration between the countries. (Obviously, it may also fall apart. But further integration is the near-term direction of travel - especially as the anti-EU insurgent parties inside the EZ, with the exception of SYRIZA, have all fallen back considerably.)
Personally, I think this makes life for countries that are inside the EU, but not inside the Eurozone, increasingly untenable.
We, alongside the Danes and the Swedes, and anyone else who wishes to get off the integration bus, need to come to some kind of accommodation with the EU. I do not wish it ill (frankly a prospering Europe is in our interests), and we need to accept that the direction of travel of these countries is different to ours, and that we make it hard for them to do the things they need to do to sort out their problems.
Perhaps that is EFTA/EEA. Perhaps it is fully "going it alone".
But if I were Mr Cameron, I would not be focusing on political baubles, but on sorting out a new Associated Member state, that would look more like EFTA/EEA and less like the EU.
This is so self-evidently the most logical route that I wonder why it is not more widely/loudly discussed. Is there a Foreign Office view from the Great and Good that this is somehow undesirable because "we will no longer sit at the top table", or somesuch?
We, alongside the Danes and the Swedes, and anyone else who wishes to get off the integration bus, need to come to some kind of accommodation with the EU. I do not wish it ill (frankly a prospering Europe is in our interests), and we need to accept that the direction of travel of these countries is different to ours, and that we make it hard for them to do the things they need to do to sort out their problems.
More to the point, our Eurozone friends and the EU nomenklatura need to accept it. Before the financial crash and the Eurozone crisis, that would have been near-unthinkable, it was all ever-closer-union combined (improbably) with ever-expanding borders, and so the idea that an EU member might not eventually come fully on board was unthinkable - hence the term 'two-speed' Europe, meaning that countries like the UK were thought to be laggards, but going to the same destination.
All that has, I think, changed. They've given up on the UK getting fully on board the train, and they've also learnt, the hard way, that pretending that countries such as Greece were fully on board with valid tickets has been a very expensive mistake. They've also realised the fudge which is the Eurozone is inherently unstable, and that instability could lead to another very expensive episode. This all points to a two-level EU, along the lines you suggest.
However, I think you are wrong on a couple of points:
1. It won't be called anything like 'associate' membership. To save face, we'll still be classed as full members, otherwise it would look as though the EU is going into reverse. That would be politically unacceptable on the continent.
2. There's one big, big difference between what Cameron will be aiming for and what you describe, namely a veto on anything which the core Eurozone does which might damage our interests. Whilst this might seem a big ask (why should we have a say in the rules if we're semi-detached?), it's not - because of item 1. Their own face-saving logic (and the existing treaties) will force them to concdede this point. It's one of the most compelling reasons for nominally remaining 'In' the EU.
What would Associate EU member look like? 1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU 2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP 3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model 4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP) 5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
The problem is that there is so much wrong with the EU's approach to the fundamental freedoms, which, of themselves would not be objectionable. Can it seriously have been contemplated at the time of the making of the Treaties that the free movement of goods would made a national law prohibiting motorcycles from towing a trailer a justiciable issue of EU law (Commission v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34)? Was it envisaged that a member state could not remove an illegal alien with no right of abode in their jurisdiction because her removal might infringe her partner's right to provide services in another member state (Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 46)? I could give more examples. The whole bizarre system is just rotten through and through.
Other than for the EU bureaucracy and of course the lawyers, it is hard to see the tangible benefit to a lot of the byzantine system. I try to consider that even in a perfect world the system trying to do what this one is purported to be trying to do would be fiendishly complex, but a lot of it, from a layman's point of view, seems deliberately designed to be frustrating, inconsistent, incomprehensible and lacking in genuine improvement.
1% of lawyers do very well and the other 99% have more difficulty getting done what their clients want done.
Th wife of one I know drives a new Porsche. And they live in an 8(?10) bedroomed house...
But another I know walks to work and lives in three bedroomed house on an estate..
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Organic anti-tank guns??????
They don't use GMO seeds to grow them. Makes those kind of guns more acceptable to green voters.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Organic anti-tank guns??????
As part of the divisional structure, as opposed to being in a separate organization temporarily allocated to the division by HQ.
To be fair to the Romanians, the Germans didn't do much better (37mm and 50mm) till the 75mm PaK 40 came into widespread service during 1942 or so.
Ghedebrav The recent SNP result in the general election suggests that referendum results are not forgotten, certainly by the losers. The problem with Osborne is he has neither the appeal to the moderate swing voters of Cameron nor to potential Tory Out voters of the likes of Davis or Fox, remember it was Scottish Labour's failure to keep Labour Yes voters defecting to the SNP which cost it so many seats in Scotland, the Tories may need to learn that lesson to stop their Out voters switching to UKIP in 2020
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Hitler's 1942 offensive deep into Russia was a sign of weakness, not strength. He barely had enough troops to contain a full-blooded Soviet counteroffensive following the 1941 debacle as it was. He just thought taking the oil fields in the Caucuses would be decisive.
What astounding success he did have up in advancing in terms of miles, up until the closing months of 1942, was due to rank Soviet incompetence and counterproductive brutality. But it totally wore the Nazis out.
But if I were Mr Cameron, I would not be focusing on political baubles, but on sorting out a new Associated Member state, that would look more like EFTA/EEA and less like the EU.
Agreed. The problem, however, is that Cameron is pursuing a Wilsonite strategy for political reasons, rather than putting the long-term national interest first.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Organic anti-tank guns??????
They don't use GMO seeds to grow them. Makes those kind of guns more acceptable to green voters.
That's what I thought. Maybe they could be revived nd sold to Bennett & Lucas
I can't see Liz Kendall offering much appeal to those on the left of the Labour party. What incentive does she offer such voters to stay on board?
Sound finances... siding with consumers not producers of public services... free schools... arguing that Labour spent too much...in favour of an EU referendum...
All good stuff, but she's jumping the gun - the contest to replace David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party hasn't started yet.
I can't see Liz Kendall offering much appeal to those on the left of the Labour party. What incentive does she offer such voters to stay on board?
None at all. People go on about how Tony Blair kept the core Labour vote onside, but forget that (a) even if he discarded some traditional socialism, he still offered "red meat" with public spending programmes, and (b) he had the charisma which allowed him to paper over the cracks and meant people (either left or right) were willing to put any doubts they had aside.
On Gove and Justice, one theory out there is that it will run just like at Education - Gove will come in with some big ideas, kick up a great deal of fuss and provoke very high amounts of personal animosity, but then someone else can be brought in to smooth things over despite not changing much at all, if anything. This one seems a harder nut to crack, and they arent doing a great job so far of selling why it is necessary to pick this fight, but I guess it might work again. Though not sure if it would if they set out to do that deliberately this time, rather than forced into it like at Education.
Being a cynic I reckon that the intention is to pick a big fight over the Human Rights Act, because it distracts attention from the more important economic and budgetary agenda, while keeping the right flank happyish. Added benefit if they can create the impression that it is the Opposition who are obsessed with trifles like the Human Rights Act, while the government is focussed on the economy.
Putting political views to one side there is something somewhat amusing about a party proclaiming hard work / ending the benefits culture and then the people who vote for it are those that won't actually have to do the hard work and won't be affected by the benefit changes.
Danny565 Indeed, and John Smith would have won in 1997 and 2001 too, even Kinnock and Foot would have won, Blair just ensured it was a massacre. Labour do not need to elect Cameron Mark 2, they just need a leader more capable and appealing than Miliband who does not want to become PM to use the UK as some form of socialist experiment.
I (and others) came on here numerous times and pointed out that the weighted numbers in the YouGov surveys every single day implied turnout amongst 18 to 24s would be about the same as turnout amongst over 60s.
I know someone actually contacted YouGov about this at the time.
Danny565 Indeed, and John Smith would have won in 1997 and 2001 too, even Kinnock and Foot would have won, Blair just ensured it was a massacre. Labour do not need to elect Cameron Mark 2, they just need a leader more capable and appealing than Miliband who does not want to become PM to use the UK as some form of socialist experiment.
Blair ensured it was a 13 year Labour government, rather than a 9 year one.
Smith would not have won a landslide, Blair got Labour at least an extra 40 seats, and Portillo would have made advances against Labour in 2001 as LOTO.
But if I were Mr Cameron, I would not be focusing on political baubles, but on sorting out a new Associated Member state, that would look more like EFTA/EEA and less like the EU.
Agreed. The problem, however, is that Cameron is pursuing a Wilsonite strategy for political reasons, rather than putting the long-term national interest first.
Can't see what evidence you have that Cameron is not interested in the national long term interest.
FalseFlag No, Blair kept taxes relatively low but gradually increased spending and investment in the public services, Brown raised taxes on the rich and allowed spending to really take off. Blair was happy allowing the rich to make a lot of money as long as he could spend some of the proceeds, Brown was too until the Crash, then he put the top tax rate up too
Stokes and Root fighting back for England. By my calculation, Root has to make 201 runs in this series to make the top 50 List of England Test scorers. He is on 64 no at the moment.
I would vote for Liz Kendall, if it wasn't for the fact that she's surrounded by mediocrity - where is the talent that would make up a future cabinet? She certainly has broader appeal that Burnham or Cooper.
Sound finances, strong defence policy and a coherent immigration policy (which doesn't necessarily mean tilting at the windmill of a numerical target) sounds genuinely appealing.
''Well, @LizforLeader just blew collective lobby socks off.''
A journalist might ask in what way dear Liz actually disagrees with David Cameron.
Liz Kendall and Tristram Hunt have both espoused Lib Dem principles and policies in their leadership speeches. If they lose the leadership election there is a natural place for them.
Maybe they could stand for the Lib Dem leadership?
I can't see Liz Kendall offering much appeal to those on the left of the Labour party. What incentive does she offer such voters to stay on board?
None at all. People go on about how Tony Blair kept the core Labour vote onside, but forget that (a) even if he discarded some traditional socialism, he still offered "red meat" with public spending programmes, and (b) he had the charisma which allowed him to paper over the cracks and meant people (either left or right) were willing to put any doubts they had aside.
Blair effected a big chance in UK social attitudes as well. Just look at the differences in attitude towards homosexuality, smoking and disability between the mid 1990s and the 2010s.
On the other hand, attitudes to free speech have changed too, identity politics increased, and 'rights' were pushed at the expense of duty and responsibility.
''Well, @LizforLeader just blew collective lobby socks off.''
A journalist might ask in what way dear Liz actually disagrees with David Cameron.
Liz Kendall and Tristram Hunt have both espoused Lib Dem principles and policies in their leadership speeches. If they lose the leadership election there is a natural place for them.
Maybe they could stand for the Lib Dem leadership?
The obliteration of the Lib Dems, and the somewhat different positioning of UKIP may well mean that Kendall, Hunt and Tim Montgomerie! stay in their respective parties. Labour and Conservatives both look like decent sized tents to me.
@Anorak Small stakes only just for interest (£10/15.60) - I know I'm not a pro at cricket trading
I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
Perhaps you are right. Certain recent developments in purely domestic public law are simply indefensible. Most worryingly of all, there is growing speculation that the Supreme Court will overrule Wednesbury in Keyu v Foreign Secretary, and make necessity/proportionality, rather than rationality the test for the lawful exercise of an administrative discretion. Whether the government or Parliament actually work out what the courts are up to here, which is nothing less than a wholly unconstitutional power grab, remains to be seen.
For those of us who are less well educated in law and legal terms, what would this do?
Casino Smith would have won a majority of around 100 in 1997, albeit not 160. Labour would not have won outright in 2005, but there may have been a Labour-LD deal or minority government, I don't think Michael Howard would have won then either. In 1997 the Tories were always going to move right, even if Portillo had held his seat if he continued to push a metrosexual agenda as he did in 2001 Hague would still probably have beaten him
I have to say David Cameron looks like a different man now he has seen off the 'yellow peril.' Vince Cable was a real drag anchor in the Business Dept and I can't think of a worse place to put a 'leftie.' What a frustrating five years it must have been.
Watched Emily Maitlis interview Steve Hilton yesterday, supposedly about his new book. Most of the questions were about the Labour leadership. One completely irrelevant question was "why were the government closing Sure Start Centres?"
Glad to see conservatives staying off the airwaves by and large.
FalseFlag No, Blair kept taxes relatively low but gradually increased spending and investment in the public services, Brown raised taxes on the rich and allowed spending to really take off. Blair was happy allowing the rich to make a lot of money as long as he could spend some of the proceeds, Brown was too until the Crash, then he put the top tax rate up too
The new left has more in common with investment banks than trade unions.
Blair effected a big chance in UK social attitudes as well. Just look at the differences in attitude towards homosexuality, smoking and disability between the mid 1990s and the 2010s.
It's very far from obvious that that was Blair's doing. In fact, there is strong evidence to support the thesis that these things were going to happen anyway - after all, similar changes occurred in most Western nations over this period.
Blair effected a big chance in UK social attitudes as well. Just look at the differences in attitude towards homosexuality, smoking and disability between the mid 1990s and the 2010s.
It's very far from obvious that that was Blair's doing. In fact, there is strong evidence to support the thesis that these things were going to happen anyway - after all, similar changes occurred in most Western nations over this period.
The UK moved particularly quickly on gay rights, though, by international standards. Which is a credit to Blair for actually having the balls to argue and try and persuade the public of something, even when it was unpopular (gay rights was by some accounts one of Labour's main liabilities in the 1987 election in particular after all the nonsense about London "loony left" councils).
Putting political views to one side there is something somewhat amusing about a party proclaiming hard work / ending the benefits culture and then the people who vote for it are those that won't actually have to do the hard work and won't be affected by the benefit changes.
Yes. There's also an idealism problem for left-of-centre parties that many of the groups which they emotionally want to protect (poor people, young people, immigrants) tend to be low-turnout and detached from politics. The underlying temptation is to focus on helping the active public sector workers instead, as they are well-organised and vote in large numbers. The process is obvious in the US, where the Democrats are highly interested in, say, teaching unions but often seemingly couldn't care less about street people, people who live on trailer parks or declining mountain communities.
I can't see Liz Kendall offering much appeal to those on the left of the Labour party. What incentive does she offer such voters to stay on board?
None at all. People go on about how Tony Blair kept the core Labour vote onside, but forget that (a) even if he discarded some traditional socialism, he still offered "red meat" with public spending programmes, and (b) he had the charisma which allowed him to paper over the cracks and meant people (either left or right) were willing to put any doubts they had aside.
Blair effected a big chance in UK social attitudes as well. Just look at the differences in attitude towards homosexuality, smoking and disability between the mid 1990s and the 2010s.
On the other hand, attitudes to free speech have changed too, identity politics increased, and 'rights' were pushed at the expense of duty and responsibility.
Matthew Parris once responded to a challenge to write something positive about Blair, and it was that - he said he'd done a great deal to make Britain a much less arrow-minded, insular country, and the impact was overwhelmingly positive in terms of a pleasant atmosphere to live in. It's a tempting route for leftish people who find the economic aspects of leftism difficult to accept or difficult to implement.
Labour should be more left-wing: 19% Labour should be more right-wing: 21%
Labour should increase taxes on the rich: 46% Labour is too tough on investors and wealthy people: 35%
The idea that people thought Miliband was some raving dangerous socialist just isn't borne out by these poll results. The basic competence issues were much more prevalent (as well as welfare and immigration to some extent).
I have to say David Cameron looks like a different man now he has seen off the 'yellow peril.'
Slightly concerning from my perspective, a frustration at some incomptent governing notiwthstanding, and the wholesale failure on deficit reduction from ther terms it had set itself, I was reasonably well disposed toward the last government and David Cameron. Depending on what type of different man he wil end up looking like I feel I may not end up liking it. We shall see.
For those of us who are less well educated in law and legal terms, what would this do?
Public authorities are routinely given discretionary powers to do things by Parliament. At the moment, it is only possible to challenge the merits, as opposed to the legality or procedural propriety, of a decision made in the exercise of a discretionary power if it is "Wednesbury unreasonable", or irrational. For the court to intervene, the decision must be "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." Infamously, a ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces of the Crown was held to be rational and thus lawful under this test. The stringency of the test is perfectly understandable, however, from a constitutional point of view, since Parliament gave the power to take the decision to the public authority not the court, and the court exercises a supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction over the executive.
It is speculated that the Supreme Court will replace the Wednesbury test with the vastly more onerous burden of proportionality. Under that test, to be lawful decision must be no more than necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and one that strike a fair balance between the rights of the person affected and the interest of society as a whole. This test in principle only yields one right answer, and converts the judicial review jurisdiction into an appellate one, handing the discretion from the executive to the courts. For the courts to adopt this standard of review without the sanction of Parliament would be a constitutional outrage.
The UK moved particularly quickly on gay rights, though, by international standards.
Not really - civil partnerships were introduced in the UK in 2005, long after Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Sweden introduced somewhat similar arrangements, and at about the same time as Germany and Switzerland.
I do agree, though, that this is something which is very much to Blair's, and Labour's, credit.
Amusingly, this poll says that 15% of those who "considered Labour but voted Tory" think Labour should be more left-wing. 23% of that category say they should move to the centre/right.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Organic anti-tank guns??????
They don't use GMO seeds to grow them. Makes those kind of guns more acceptable to green voters.
Well they were called peashooters! How green do you want?
Yes, but most of the party isn't and comments like that just fuel UKIP.
I am not rising to your provocation on Ted Heath!
I'm out in the sun enjoying the last few days of my sabbatical where I helped a Eurosceptic MP hold his marginal seat.
There's unity in the Tory party over Europe.
Let us go back to fun stuff, like how much of a cockwomble Tim Montgomerie is or the Edstone?
Can I reprise my suggestion that they insert an Edsword in the Edstone, and whosoever pulleth it out shall be the true-born Leader of the Labour party.
Comments
http://bit.ly/1LoSGUZ
Third definition was what I meant.
Carswell reckons he has £300K worth of legitimate use for Short Money, hence why he asked for that much. If UKIP were to take it all and then, say, spend it on running banks of computers they should be held to task to make sure they spend it as intended by parliament
http://t.co/sHqLaG8UAY
But, good for her. She's forcing Labour to have the debate it needs to have and will go down fighting. By putting down this marker she may also set herself up very well if, for whatever reason, the successfully elected leader falters.
All that has, I think, changed. They've given up on the UK getting fully on board the train, and they've also learnt, the hard way, that pretending that countries such as Greece were fully on board with valid tickets has been a very expensive mistake. They've also realised the fudge which is the Eurozone is inherently unstable, and that instability could lead to another very expensive episode. This all points to a two-level EU, along the lines you suggest.
However, I think you are wrong on a couple of points:
1. It won't be called anything like 'associate' membership. To save face, we'll still be classed as full members, otherwise it would look as though the EU is going into reverse. That would be politically unacceptable on the continent.
2. There's one big, big difference between what Cameron will be aiming for and what you describe, namely a veto on anything which the core Eurozone does which might damage our interests. Whilst this might seem a big ask (why should we have a say in the rules if we're semi-detached?), it's not - because of item 1. Their own face-saving logic (and the existing treaties) will force them to concdede this point. It's one of the most compelling reasons for nominally remaining 'In' the EU.
But another I know walks to work and lives in three bedroomed house on an estate..
Well, @LizforLeader just blew collective lobby socks off. Will @andyburnhammp and @YvetteCooperMP come and do a turn in the Gallery next?
To be fair to the Romanians, the Germans didn't do much better (37mm and 50mm) till the 75mm PaK 40 came into widespread service during 1942 or so.
What astounding success he did have up in advancing in terms of miles, up until the closing months of 1942, was due to rank Soviet incompetence and counterproductive brutality. But it totally wore the Nazis out.
A journalist might ask in what way dear Liz actually disagrees with David Cameron.
All good stuff, but she's jumping the gun - the contest to replace David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party hasn't started yet.
That she actually gives Labour a chance to win at the next election.
Will probably have her proverbial legs broken by the weekend...
Very 60s new left who radically altered the country, for the worse.
I know someone actually contacted YouGov about this at the time.
Was a response / explanation ever received?
Smith would not have won a landslide, Blair got Labour at least an extra 40 seats, and Portillo would have made advances against Labour in 2001 as LOTO.
Sound finances, strong defence policy and a coherent immigration policy (which doesn't necessarily mean tilting at the windmill of a numerical target) sounds genuinely appealing.
Maybe they could stand for the Lib Dem leadership?
On the other hand, attitudes to free speech have changed too, identity politics increased, and 'rights' were pushed at the expense of duty and responsibility.
@Anorak Small stakes only just for interest (£10/15.60) - I know I'm not a pro at cricket trading
Watched Emily Maitlis interview Steve Hilton yesterday, supposedly about his new book. Most of the questions were about the Labour leadership. One completely irrelevant question was "why were the government closing Sure Start Centres?"
Glad to see conservatives staying off the airwaves by and large.
Labour should cut public spending QUICKER than they plan: 34%
Labour should cut public spending SLOWER than they plan: 39%
Labour is too TOUGH on big business and banks: 22%
Labour is too SOFT on big business and banks: 42%
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
In the end Labour did end up spending too much anyway.
Labour should be more right-wing: 21%
Labour should increase taxes on the rich: 46%
Labour is too tough on investors and wealthy people: 35%
The idea that people thought Miliband was some raving dangerous socialist just isn't borne out by these poll results. The basic competence issues were much more prevalent (as well as welfare and immigration to some extent).
It is speculated that the Supreme Court will replace the Wednesbury test with the vastly more onerous burden of proportionality. Under that test, to be lawful decision must be no more than necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and one that strike a fair balance between the rights of the person affected and the interest of society as a whole. This test in principle only yields one right answer, and converts the judicial review jurisdiction into an appellate one, handing the discretion from the executive to the courts. For the courts to adopt this standard of review without the sanction of Parliament would be a constitutional outrage.
I do agree, though, that this is something which is very much to Blair's, and Labour's, credit.
new thread
http://xkcd.com/1521/