politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON loses 2 of the 3 local by-elections it was defending

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CON loses 2 of the 3 local by-elections it was defending overnight

Bottisham (Con defence) on East Cambridgeshire
Result: Conservative 421 (44% -8%), Liberal Democrat 403 (42% +10%), Labour 99 (10% -6%), UKIP 43 (4%, no candidate in 2015)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 18 (2%) on a swing of 9% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat

Read the full story here

eek

First as were the Greens

Scott_P

2nd like the Scottish Tories?

AndreaParma_82

Scottish Labour regional lists should be out today...some MSPs will already know by the end of the day if they have to start sending CVs out

ThomasNashe

Interesting. Conservative vote down significantly in all four constituencies, and yet Labour are also going backwards. With a half-sane leader they'd be roaring ahead.

MarqueeMark

Neither were lost to Labour though.

MaxPB

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

AndreaParma_82

Alan Roden of Scottish Daily Mail reports that sources are telling him

-Boy Sarwar topped the list there followed by La-Mont and James Kelly with Pauline McNeill 4th. The 2 list MSPs ended in 11-12th position. Being outside the top 4 should be fatal for Patricia Fergusson and Paul Martin.

-Big Jackie is supposed to have top the WoS list. McIntosh in 4th spot

- In Central Scotland 2 newcomers at the top: Richard Leonard and Monica Lennon

Scott_P

@tnewtondunn: Why YouGov have got it wrong again and, actually, Remain is still comfortably ahead - v interesting read on polling;
https://t.co/xRW707b8NC

AndyJS

UKIP continuing to do well in small town Midlands constituencies like NW Leicestershire (which includes Measham).

JonCisBack

Oswestry by-election was caused by some scandal I heard, never good news for the poor person who has to try and stand in that person's place.

Others were where no candidate had stood for party X before. 55-45 in NW Leics last time in with no UKIP candidate was never a likely tory gain when the Kipper stood this time!

Always hard to interpret, and these low turnout highly local elections can surely only be sensibly judges across many months and dozens of seats, where trends will emerge.

Bit of a leap to be going all Bob Worcester on it...

DavidL

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

That's a bit simplistic Max. The EFTA court judgements are full of precedents from the CJE. If the CJE has already determined how a particular regulation will be construed they will follow it. This is their task, to keep the Single Market rules consistent between EU and EEA members.

AndyJS

SeanT said:

Incidentally, the euroref debate should start impacting Tory polling quite soon.

Cameron looks diminished (already), the party will inevitably look divided. But the votes won't go to Corbyn, they will disperse across the parties, at least in polls and local elex.

After the euroref, who knows. Most outcomes are negative for the Tories, I'd say, apart from a massive win for REMAIN 60-65% or more. If Cameron gets that he will go out in "glory" before the deal unravels a few years later, and the Tories will coast to victory in 2020, barring total economic disaster.

But if it's a narrow REMAIN the Tories will be embittered. If it is a narrow (or larger) LEAVE then, eeek, Crazy Times.

The winning side won't get more than 55% IMO.

SandyRentool

Conservative 421 (44% -8%)
Conservative 202 (34% -11%)
Conservative 454 (33% -15%)
Conservative 367 (34% -12%)

Real results in real elections.

Sean_F

Scott_P said:

@tnewtondunn: Why YouGov have got it wrong again and, actually, Remain is still comfortably ahead - v interesting read on polling;
https://t.co/xRW707b8NC

While it's true that phone polls were putting the Conservatives ahead of Labour from the start of 2015, that was in large part due to their underestimating UKIP support.

DavidL

On reflection I think Cameron made a major mistake entering into the renegotiation strategy. I think he thought that he could not sell the EU as it was to his party. So he kept them together by saying well, we will improve the deal. But he really hasn't. Given everything else that was going on in the EU it just was not possible.

So we still have pretty much the same EU that he could not sell to his party at the beginning. A relationship that he has acknowledged does not always work in the UK interest. His latest epistle repeated the line that he had not ruled anything out. I would like to believe it.

Plato_Says

General Election
Yougov Holyrood Poll converted into predicted seats

SNP 69 (nc)
Labour 25 (-12)
Conservatives 25 (+10)
Green 5 (+3)
LibDems 5 (nc)

Richard_Tyndall

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

That's a bit simplistic Max. The EFTA court judgements are full of precedents from the CJE. If the CJE has already determined how a particular regulation will be construed they will follow it. This is their task, to keep the Single Market rules consistent between EU and EEA members.

Your own interpretation is simplistic. The EFTA court only has to take account of rulings made by the ECJ before the EFTA court was created. There is no requirement for it to abide by or give weight to any rulings since it was created.

And of course the EFTA court only rules strictly on issues related to the single market. The vast amount if additional EU regulation over and above the single market which the ECJ regularly rules on is not the arena of the EFTA court.

richardDodd

I will keep posting this on a regular basis until the ref..57% for leave

MaxPB

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

That's a bit simplistic Max. The EFTA court judgements are full of precedents from the CJE. If the CJE has already determined how a particular regulation will be construed they will follow it. This is their task, to keep the Single Market rules consistent between EU and EEA members.

I'm not disputing that, but in the EEA the ruling on deporting foreign criminals with British anchor children would have been considered by the SC over here and not by the ECJ.

My point is that one of the attractions of being in the EEA for single market access is that we would not be under direct jurisdiction of the ECJ and all that entails, plus we would have a more powerful voice in the EFTA court than we do in the ECJ. Obviously you are the expert, but I've been told by many people that criminal justice in the UK is just too different to other EU nations and having their judges rule on British cases over-rides British law much too often.

SandyRentool

I've received an invitation to one of Keir Starmer's "send the buggers back" events. Unfortunately I can't make it.

Plato_Says

Lol

Sarah Brown
To everyone who has ever worked with my husband, please click on this Gif and tell me if it reminds you of anyone! https://t.co/FEARm9VXqy

runnymede

DavidL

Yes - if we are being charitable, the renegotiation strategy has been tried and has failed. Exit is therefore the only option to secure substantial change.

If we are being uncharitable, the strategy was never seriously tried. Cameron's only interest was trying to produce the appearance of something he could fool the voters with, and the party would have to just wear it.

Again, if you want real change, it won't come this way as the government just won't pursue this. Exit is the only option.

MarqueeMark

SandyRentool said:

I've received an invitation to one of Keir Starmer's "send the buggers back" events. Unfortunately I can't make it.

If they are only inviting party faithful, they are never going to learn....

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

On reflection I think Cameron made a major mistake entering into the renegotiation strategy. I think he thought that he could not sell the EU as it was to his party. So he kept them together by saying well, we will improve the deal. But he really hasn't. Given everything else that was going on in the EU it just was not possible.

So we still have pretty much the same EU that he could not sell to his party at the beginning. A relationship that he has acknowledged does not always work in the UK interest. His latest epistle repeated the line that he had not ruled anything out. I would like to believe it.

The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff.

MarqueeMark

Plato_Says said:

General Election
Yougov Holyrood Poll converted into predicted seats

SNP 69 (nc)
Labour 25 (-12)
Conservatives 25 (+10)
Green 5 (+3)
LibDems 5 (nc)

Just one more heave for the Tories to be the official Holyrood Opposition....

AndreaParma_82

To read upcoming SLAB regional lists in perspective...here's the number of seats per region in 2011

Central Scotland: 6 seats ( constituencies + 3 regional seats )
Glasgow: 7 (4+3)
Highlands: 2 (0+2)
Lothians: 4 (1+3)
Mid Scotland and Fife: 4 (1+3)
North East 3 (0+3)
South: 4 (2+2)
West: 7 (4+3)

Richard_Nabavi

MaxPB said:

...but I've been told by many people that criminal justice in the UK is just too different to other EU nations and having their judges rule on British cases over-rides British law much too often.

Surely that's more about the ECHR than the ECJ?

taffys

''The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff. ''

They also know his form. That ''appalling!!!'' extra charge they slapped us with? He paid. Promptly. And in full.

DavidL

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

That's a bit simplistic Max. The EFTA court judgements are full of precedents from the CJE. If the CJE has already determined how a particular regulation will be construed they will follow it. This is their task, to keep the Single Market rules consistent between EU and EEA members.

Your own interpretation is simplistic. The EFTA court only has to take account of rulings made by the ECJ before the EFTA court was created. There is no requirement for it to abide by or give weight to any rulings since it was created.

And of course the EFTA court only rules strictly on issues related to the single market. The vast amount if additional EU regulation over and above the single market which the ECJ regularly rules on is not the arena of the EFTA court.

The second bit is true but the first bit is not. I have cited EFTA court decision in the Scottish courts and they are littered with CJE decisions.

MaxPB

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

...but I've been told by many people that criminal justice in the UK is just too different to other EU nations and having their judges rule on British cases over-rides British law much too often.

Surely that's more about the ECHR than the ECJ?

Both.

Indigo

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

DavidL

AndreaParma_82 said:

To read upcoming SLAB regional lists in perspective...here's the number of seats per region in 2011

Central Scotland: 6 seats ( constituencies + 3 regional seats )
Glasgow: 7 (4+3)
Highlands: 2 (0+2)
Lothians: 4 (1+3)
Mid Scotland and Fife: 4 (1+3)
North East 3 (0+3)
South: 4 (2+2)
West: 7 (4+3)

So is that 18 constituency MSPs very likely to lose their seats and their jobs unless they have also got themselves high on the regional list?

Blimey.

SimonStClare

Afternoon all

From this morning’s thread I had assumed Assange was finally abandoning his Ecuadorian sanctuary today – is it still on, or has he had a change of heart?

Indigo

taffys said:

''The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff. ''

They also know his form. That ''appalling!!!'' extra charge they slapped us with? He paid. Promptly. And in full.

I am not sure that has been accepted by all members of this august assembly yet, I believe some of the Great Undecided are still convinced that Dave and George got us a cracking deal.

AndyJS

O/T:

Germany announces that 91,671 migrants entered the country in January, equivalent to 1.1 million a year, except that January is expected to be the slowest month for migration.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2016/2/4/european-crisis/germany-logs-91000-migrant-arrivals-jan

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On reflection I think Cameron made a major mistake entering into the renegotiation strategy. I think he thought that he could not sell the EU as it was to his party. So he kept them together by saying well, we will improve the deal. But he really hasn't. Given everything else that was going on in the EU it just was not possible.

So we still have pretty much the same EU that he could not sell to his party at the beginning. A relationship that he has acknowledged does not always work in the UK interest. His latest epistle repeated the line that he had not ruled anything out. I would like to believe it.

The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff.

But they don't know that we won't. Calling our bluff is looking like a mistake and they have undermined their best asset in keeping us in. Foolish from both sides really.

MikeK

AndyJS said:

SeanT said:

Incidentally, the euroref debate should start impacting Tory polling quite soon.

Cameron looks diminished (already), the party will inevitably look divided. But the votes won't go to Corbyn, they will disperse across the parties, at least in polls and local elex.

After the euroref, who knows. Most outcomes are negative for the Tories, I'd say, apart from a massive win for REMAIN 60-65% or more. If Cameron gets that he will go out in "glory" before the deal unravels a few years later, and the Tories will coast to victory in 2020, barring total economic disaster.

But if it's a narrow REMAIN the Tories will be embittered. If it is a narrow (or larger) LEAVE then, eeek, Crazy Times.

The winning side won't get more than 55% IMO.

Agree with that. I put it even closer 51/49% and it may be a shade closer than that.

Pulpstar

AndyJS said:

O/T:

Germany announces that 91,671 migrants entered the country in January, equivalent to 1.1 million a year, except that January is expected to be the slowest month for migration.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2016/2/4/european-crisis/germany-logs-91000-migrant-arrivals-jan

That's an astonishing pace of immigration.

runnymede

'But they don't know that we won't.'

Yes they do, because the PM has been telling them that. And presumably telling them the referendum is the bag as well.

richardDodd

The EU seem to have forgotten that this is going to be a Referendum...where everyone gets a vote...and not a diktat that Cameron will hand down to the serfs..maybe none of them are used to that idea.

MP_SE

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.
Dave has made a real pigs ear of the "renegotiation".

Richard_Tyndall

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

david_herdson said:

Patrick said:

3. You're a bit in a twist here. The Commission *is* the government. Personally, I'd fully support a Commission comprised solely of MEPs and fully accountable to the EP like any other government. Same with single-member constituencies. But you have to realise that if you gave the EP and Commission more legitimacy then you'd implicitly give them more power. For that reason, unlikely to win support from Scpetics.

I'd only ever accept a deeply two-speed EU. The superstate core must be a proper democracy. But we'd never be in that core. We'd be in the slow lane / 'quasi' status - 'with' but not 'of'. I would not expect Brits to form part of the core superstate government but likewise we wouldn't be bound by its government either. The slow lane should be a members club. The core a country - if that's what it's peoples really want.

You can't separate them to that extent. Membership of the Single Market has to mean accepting the governance of it, which comes from the Commission and its interpretation in the ECJ.

Certainly we can opt out of some policies but that does the raise the issue of what we and other states like states do on policy decisions in these areas: a West Latvian Question, if you like.

EEA member states are subject to EFTA court rulings rather than the ECJ. The EFTA court doesn't have integrationism as one of its mandates so it doesn't have the same political expediency that the ECJ has when it comes to violating single market rules for the greater good.

That's a bit simplistic Max. The EFTA court judgements are full of precedents from the CJE. If the CJE has already determined how a particular regulation will be construed they will follow it. This is their task, to keep the Single Market rules consistent between EU and EEA members.

Your own interpretation is simplistic. The EFTA court only has to take account of rulings made by the ECJ before the EFTA court was created. There is no requirement for it to abide by or give weight to any rulings since it was created.

And of course the EFTA court only rules strictly on issues related to the single market. The vast amount if additional EU regulation over and above the single market which the ECJ regularly rules on is not the arena of the EFTA court.

The second bit is true but the first bit is not. I have cited EFTA court decision in the Scottish courts and they are littered with CJE decisions.

They might choose to reference ECJ rulings but if you look at the treaty that sets up the EFTA court it us absolutely clear that they are only obliged to reference rulings from prior to the creation of the EFTA court.

AndyJS

From Die Welt:

"The Federal Office for Migration has to handle one million asylum applications - twice as many as last year. But in 2015 up to 400,000 applications were not processed. There were not enough staff."

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article151871966/Bundesamt-fuer-Migration-muss-eine-Million-Asylantraege-bearbeiten.html

taffys

''maybe none of them are used to that idea. ''

Do the Eurocrats even KNOW the numbers? do they even know that Britain writes an enormous net cheque to them every year for them to buy patronage in poor states?

Because we certainly do.

DavidL

runnymede said:

'But they don't know that we won't.'

Yes they do, because the PM has been telling them that. And presumably telling them the referendum is the bag as well.

You think that these people simply take DC's word as to public opinion in the UK? Interesting.

AndreaParma_82

15 constituency MSPs + Cara Hilton elected in a by-election gain
22 list MSPs

8 are retiring though (3 constituency and 5 form the lists).

If constituency MSPs get a good list spot, it would mean list MSPs losing their seat in some regions.
If newcomers get a good spot, it would mean both constituency and list MSPs being booted out.

I don't know what could be a realistic prediction..something like the following??

Central Scotland: 3-4 seats (-2/3 seats overall)
Glasgow: 4-5 (-2/3)
Lothians: 3 (-1 if the trend is similar to GE, SLAB could hold better in Edinburgh than in the Central belt)
MidScotland and Fife 2-3 (-1/2)
North East 2 (-1)
South 2 (-2)
West 4 (-3)
Highlands: 1-2

Range: 21-25 seats

DavidL said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

To read upcoming SLAB regional lists in perspective...here's the number of seats per region in 2011

Central Scotland: 6 seats ( constituencies + 3 regional seats )
Glasgow: 7 (4+3)
Highlands: 2 (0+2)
Lothians: 4 (1+3)
Mid Scotland and Fife: 4 (1+3)
North East 3 (0+3)
South: 4 (2+2)
West: 7 (4+3)

So is that 18 constituency MSPs very likely to lose their seats and their jobs unless they have also got themselves high on the regional list?

Blimey.

Scott_P

@DPJHodges: We can get excited by one poll. But everyone knows how this ends > Telegraph > https://t.co/RosQkv16Lz

tyson

He could walk away...... if he thinks that he cannot get a deal he can sell, he can resign before on his own accord, knowing full well that if he were to lose a vote he would be pushed out pretty wretchedly.

The full resumption of the migrant crisis in Spring, the right wing rags hurling crap at him, his revolting back benchers (and soon front benchers), the back biting and lack of bonhomie from existing states....I cannot see DC wanting to put himself at the head of a doomed Yes campaign. And he has tied himself to a calendar. It all looks a bit hopeless.

Just as I've finally taken to Cameron, the world could come crashing around him rather quickly. That's politics for you.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On reflection I think Cameron made a major mistake entering into the renegotiation strategy. I think he thought that he could not sell the EU as it was to his party. So he kept them together by saying well, we will improve the deal. But he really hasn't. Given everything else that was going on in the EU it just was not possible.

So we still have pretty much the same EU that he could not sell to his party at the beginning. A relationship that he has acknowledged does not always work in the UK interest. His latest epistle repeated the line that he had not ruled anything out. I would like to believe it.

The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff.

Indigo

richardDodd said:

The EU seem to have forgotten that this is going to be a Referendum...where everyone gets a vote...and not a diktat that Cameron will hand down to the serfs..maybe none of them are used to that idea.

Dave thinks so, or atleast that appears to be a view gathering weight with his constituency chairmen after his recent comments about not listening to eurosceptic associations

And John Strafford, a former association chair who now runs the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, said: A dictatorship is when a leader says what he thinks and decides what is going to be done. I am afraid this is what David Cameron has done.

"There is huge frustration within the Party's grassroots and there are other Party's waiting on the fringes for bitter Conservative members at the end of this referendum."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141419/David-Camerons-Brexit-comments-infuriate-Tory-activists-who-now-threaten-to-abandon-support-for-candidates.html

Dave's usual contempt for anyone not a centrist metropolitan europhile liberal shines through again.

flightpath01

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On reflection I think Cameron made a major mistake entering into the renegotiation strategy. I think he thought that he could not sell the EU as it was to his party. So he kept them together by saying well, we will improve the deal. But he really hasn't. Given everything else that was going on in the EU it just was not possible.

So we still have pretty much the same EU that he could not sell to his party at the beginning. A relationship that he has acknowledged does not always work in the UK interest. His latest epistle repeated the line that he had not ruled anything out. I would like to believe it.

The EU knows he won't walk away. They are calling his bluff.

But they don't know that we won't. Calling our bluff is looking like a mistake and they have undermined their best asset in keeping us in. Foolish from both sides really.

This is the point people are missing. Whatever the result it is going go to a referendum - its not some back room agreement rubber stamped by parliament. If the EU is not perceived to be 'giving' enough then the referendum is free to vote Leave.
Everyone will just have to wait and see what the electorate think.
It does look as if that will have to be based on a 3-way split (at least) on the Leave side. And this is another point I wonder if people will pick up on. Leave will not be the end of the argument - it will only be a fresh beginning.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

runnymede said:

'But they don't know that we won't.'

Yes they do, because the PM has been telling them that. And presumably telling them the referendum is the bag as well.

You think that these people simply take DC's word as to public opinion in the UK? Interesting.

Of course they do @DavidL !

Charles

tyson said:

Just as I've finally taken to Cameron, the world could come crashing around him rather quickly.

Coincidence.... or may be not....

taffys

''Dave's usual contempt for anyone not a centrist metropolitan europhile liberal shines through again. ''

Calm down. Dave WON an election he was predicted to lose. Even the biggest Leavers in the party like and respect him. Jacob Rees Mogg in City AM today was fulsome in his praise of Dave's achievements.

MyBurningEars

FPT

http://web.archive.org/web/20160120120635/http://www.jihadica.com/

Apparently was working up til nearly the end of January. There's some interesting stuff in their archives.

Indigo

taffys said:

''Dave's usual contempt for anyone not a centrist metropolitan europhile liberal shines through again. ''

Calm down Dave WON an election he was predicted to lose. Even the biggest Leavers in the party like and respect him. Jacob Rees Mogg in City AM today was fulsome in his praise of Dave's achievements.

His consitituency chairmen less so at the moment it would seem.

In a letter to The Telegraph Andrew Nicholas, the chairman of Enfield North Conservative Association, said: “Despite what he appears to think, he has no divine right to rule and if he thinks he can contemptuously dismiss the views of those of us throughout the Country who helped to put him in Downing Street, he may well find he is in for a nasty shock in the future.”

taffys

''There is huge frustration within the Party's grassroots and there are other Party's waiting on the fringes for bitter Conservative members at the end of this referendum."

Labour is a party run by its grassroots.

Look what is happening there.

Roger

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

flightpath01

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

I do not see the point of what you or he are talking about. For a start the analogy seems bogus - it takes the Jeremy Corbyn vie of the nuclear deterrent and if you agree with this lawyer then you should be campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand if the court by its existence prevents the enacting of legislation we do not want then its doing a good job.

Indigo

flightpath01 said:

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

I do not see the point of what you or he are talking about. For a start the analogy seems bogus - it takes the Jeremy Corbyn vie of the nuclear deterrent and if you agree with this lawyer then you should be campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand if the court by its existence prevents the enacting of legislation we do not want then its doing a good job.

He is saying that if its not going to strike down EU laws, it should not be sold to the public as if it would. I know that overselling is turning into rather a habit for this government, but a little outbreak of integrity now and again wouldn't go amiss.

Charles

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

david_herdson

MarqueeMark said:

Plato_Says said:

General Election
Yougov Holyrood Poll converted into predicted seats

SNP 69 (nc)
Labour 25 (-12)
Conservatives 25 (+10)
Green 5 (+3)
LibDems 5 (nc)

Just one more heave for the Tories to be the official Holyrood Opposition....

Level-pegging on list votes might be enough for Con to be ahead of Lab given that the Tories' vote is much more concentrated and it's possible that the Conservatives could over-perform their list allocation in the South, giving them an extra seat. I think the list share would need to be 20+ though in order to stop the SNP from taking the seats.

DavidL

AndreaParma_82 said:

15 constituency MSPs + Cara Hilton elected in a by-election gain
22 list MSPs

8 are retiring though (3 constituency and 5 form the lists).

If constituency MSPs get a good list spot, it would mean list MSPs losing their seat in some regions.
If newcomers get a good spot, it would mean both constituency and list MSPs being booted out.

I don't know what could be a realistic prediction..something like the following??

Central Scotland: 3-4 seats (-2/3 seats overall)
Glasgow: 4-5 (-2/3)
Lothians: 3 (-1 if the trend is similar to GE, SLAB could hold better in Edinburgh than in the Central belt)
MidScotland and Fife 2-3 (-1/2)
North East 2 (-1)
South 2 (-2)
West 4 (-3)
Highlands: 1-2

Range: 21-25 seats

DavidL said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

To read upcoming SLAB regional lists in perspective...here's the number of seats per region in 2011

Central Scotland: 6 seats ( constituencies + 3 regional seats )
Glasgow: 7 (4+3)
Highlands: 2 (0+2)
Lothians: 4 (1+3)
Mid Scotland and Fife: 4 (1+3)
North East 3 (0+3)
South: 4 (2+2)
West: 7 (4+3)

So is that 18 constituency MSPs very likely to lose their seats and their jobs unless they have also got themselves high on the regional list?

Blimey.

If they are at the bottom of that range there is a good chance Labour will no longer be even the Official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament.

I would expect them to get maybe 25. Ignoring inefficiencies and newbies that means that 5 would be involuntarily retired over all. But I think the casualties will all be on the Constituency side. It is quite hard to see them holding a constituency seat at the moment. In the golden era of Labour you were not allowed to stand on both the constituency and regional lists but I presume that has been abandoned.

Danny565

I have to admit, I'm in the happy position of having OVERestimated Cameron's political talent. Although it always seemed obvious to me that this "renegotiation" was a farce, I did think his panache and trademark Serious Face when he came back waving his bit of paper with Mrs Merkel's signature would sway the voters. But it would appear not.

Indigo

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

No, they said in view of the treaty that Sweden has with the US they could not legally make that guarantee, he got what amounted to a political promise (!). For similar legal reasons the US could not guarantee the death penalty did not apply.

Richard_Tyndall

flightpath01 said:

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

I do not see the point of what you or he are talking about. For a start the analogy seems bogus - it takes the Jeremy Corbyn vie of the nuclear deterrent and if you agree with this lawyer then you should be campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand if the court by its existence prevents the enacting of legislation we do not want then its doing a good job.

It won't and it can't. It can only prevent ECJ decisions by breaching UK treaty obligations and effectively removing us from the EU. It can only prevent ECHR decisions by breaching UK treaty obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

DavidL

flightpath01 said:

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

I do not see the point of what you or he are talking about. For a start the analogy seems bogus - it takes the Jeremy Corbyn vie of the nuclear deterrent and if you agree with this lawyer then you should be campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand if the court by its existence prevents the enacting of legislation we do not want then its doing a good job.

Is this not similar to the German Constitutional Court which has reserved the power to declare an EU law incompatible with their basic law? Its the thing AEP gets his knickers in a twist about a couple of times a year believing they are going to reject the latest shenanigans involving the Euro. They never do of course.

edmundintokyo

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden did not guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

Scott_P

@MrHarryCole: In an utterly shocking development Ukip have thrown their weight behind their largest donor's latest front group.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

@MrHarryCole: In an utterly shocking development Ukip have thrown their weight behind their largest donor's latest front group.

Another front group?

DavidL

david_herdson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Plato_Says said:

General Election
Yougov Holyrood Poll converted into predicted seats

SNP 69 (nc)
Labour 25 (-12)
Conservatives 25 (+10)
Green 5 (+3)
LibDems 5 (nc)

Just one more heave for the Tories to be the official Holyrood Opposition....

Level-pegging on list votes might be enough for Con to be ahead of Lab given that the Tories' vote is much more concentrated and it's possible that the Conservatives could over-perform their list allocation in the South, giving them an extra seat. I think the list share would need to be 20+ though in order to stop the SNP from taking the seats.

I was surprised that the projections on the latest poll had Labour 1 seat ahead even although they were all of 1% behind in the list vote for exactly that reason. The Tory constituency vote is very inefficient but Labour's look like being 100% inefficient.

Anyway, we are getting carried away with ourselves. Breaking 20% will be seriously difficult for Ruth.

Indigo

DavidL said:

flightpath01 said:

Indigo said:

Dave is on a roll today

Michael Gove's new constitutional court will not veto any EU laws, says leading Tory QC
Anthony Speaight QC, a senior Conservative lawyer, said the court’s powers were like the Trident nuclear deterrent, which could act as a deterrent to stop the EU overreaching its powers but never be used

He said: “To exercise such a power puts the state involved in conflict with its international obligations under the EU treaties to give effect to all EU law.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12141230/Michael-Goves-new-constitutional-court-will-not-veto-any-EU-laws-says-leading-Tory-QC.html

Hannan was wrong, even a chocolate teapot would be more useful, at least you can eat it. This renegotation is turning out to be a .... corker.

I do not see the point of what you or he are talking about. For a start the analogy seems bogus - it takes the Jeremy Corbyn vie of the nuclear deterrent and if you agree with this lawyer then you should be campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand if the court by its existence prevents the enacting of legislation we do not want then its doing a good job.

Is this not similar to the German Constitutional Court which has reserved the power to declare an EU law incompatible with their basic law? Its the thing AEP gets his knickers in a twist about a couple of times a year believing they are going to reject the latest shenanigans involving the Euro. They never do of course.

And anyone that matters knows they won't which makes it similar to Dave's threats to leave the EU.

SimonStClare

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden did not guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

Indeed - Assange offered to go to Sweden if the authorities agreed not to transfer him to the United States, however, Swedish officials claimed that no such pledge could be made under the country’s legal system.

oxfordsimon

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden did not guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

And nor should they. Their role - at this stage - is to examine the case against him with regards to the alleged rape. It is not for Assange to try to cut a deal.

He is playing the victim card brilliantly. And is the one responsible for his own "detention"

Indigo

oxfordsimon said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden did not guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

And nor should they. Their role - at this stage - is to examine the case against him with regards to the alleged rape. It is not for Assange to try to cut a deal.

He is playing the victim card brilliantly. And is the one responsible for his own "detention"

Since the "crimes" the US wants to charge him with potentially carry the death sentence I think he is behaving in a completely rational manner.

Richard_Tyndall

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden only said they would not extradite him if he would face the death penalty. If the US agreed they would not invoke the death penalty then Sweden could quite easily extradite him.

oxfordsimon

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

oxfordsimon

Indigo said:

oxfordsimon said:

edmundintokyo said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

Sweden, I believe, guaranteed not to extradite him to the US.

But frankly that doesn't matter.

The alleged victim of the crime deserves her day in court. Regardless of the potential risks for Assange.

Sweden did not guarantee not to extradite him to the US.

And nor should they. Their role - at this stage - is to examine the case against him with regards to the alleged rape. It is not for Assange to try to cut a deal.

He is playing the victim card brilliantly. And is the one responsible for his own "detention"

Since the "crimes" the US wants to charge him with potentially carry the death sentence I think he is behaving in a completely rational manner.

Calculated rather than rational

tyson

I think Tony Blair said something like as you become better in the job, finding your feet etc...you become more vilified.

Political careers usually end prematurely in defeat, and failure. Cameron has tried to define how his will end, but sadly, I think he will be pushed out by events. And I do genuinely mean sadly- Cameron is still the Tories best asset, and Labour has become so unelectable at present, that even I would much prefer a Cameron led Tory party to remain in power until Labour sort themselves out into something that remotely feels like a party of Government.

Charles said:

tyson said:

Just as I've finally taken to Cameron, the world could come crashing around him rather quickly.

Coincidence.... or may be not....

Wanderer

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

As Marina Hyde points out in this excellent piece, he didn't let his fear of extradition to the US stop him visiting Sweden before the rape allegation http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-un-panel-blame-fugitive

As to the point about it not being rape under UK law, that the trouble with being in Sweden isn't it? They have their own laws. Shouldn't be surprised if they talk foreign too.

Richard_Tyndall

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

He was absolutely right to publish the information he had. We need more people willing to do so not less.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tyson, Blair said a lot of things.

I think it's more likely the record problem (similar to the lore issue that can become a problem for long-running series). As time goes by, a PM does more stuff. People readily forget most things that benefit them, but remember more vividly things which are against their interests.

AndreaParma_82

Alan Roden ‏@AlanRoden 8 min8 minuti fa Visualizza traduzione
The official Labour rankings have now been published, under embargo for Saturday. No updates until tomorrow.

Bloody useless SLAB

AlastairMeeks

Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.

Plato_Says

i think we should lobby the Ecuadorians to take Batman too - the pair are made for each other.

Charles

Richard_Tyndall said:

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

He was absolutely right to publish the information he had. We need more people willing to do so not less.

And he should be willing to stand up and be proud of what he did.

I think he was wrong to do so, but to skulk in the shadows undermines any values that he claims to represent. Especially as he has allegedly broken the law in Sweden and definitely broken the law in the UK (as a bail jumper)

taffys

''Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.''

At the same time as his sidekick is threatening them with their careers? do me a favour.

Pulpstar

Assange won't be put to death, but he will spend the rest of his life in far worse conditions than the Ecuadorian embassy if he ends up in the US. See Bradley Manning.

oxfordsimon

Richard_Tyndall said:

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

He was absolutely right to publish the information he had. We need more people willing to do so not less.

That is your opinion and not a fact. And I suspect the courts would not agree with you.

Of course some will claim that as a grand conspiracy to silence whistleblowers. Others will see that the rule of law is a vital part of any civil society and breaking the law brings consequences.

Innocent_Abroad

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyson, Blair said a lot of things.

I think it's more likely the record problem (similar to the lore issue that can become a problem for long-running series). As time goes by, a PM does more stuff. People readily forget most things that benefit them, but remember more vividly things which are against their interests.

When a politician does something that benefits me, it is because they have - belatedly and grudgingly - recognised how wonderful I am. It is I, not they, who deserve the benefit.

When they do anything against my interest, they are evil bastards and I shall bang on about it (usually on this forum) interminably.

Sean_F

AlastairMeeks said:

Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.

Problem is, Osborne is telling the same people "do you want to support Brexit, or do you wants a career?"

It's like Rosa Klebb talking sweetly to her captives, after her minions have been torturing them.

Richard_Tyndall

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

He was absolutely right to publish the information he had. We need more people willing to do so not less.

And he should be willing to stand up and be proud of what he did.

I think he was wrong to do so, but to skulk in the shadows undermines any values that he claims to represent. Especially as he has allegedly broken the law in Sweden and definitely broken the law in the UK (as a bail jumper)

Not at all. He's indeed willing to stand up and be proud of it. He is not willing to go to jail or worse for something he feels should not be a crime in the first place.

Of course that is separate from the sex crime allegations for which he should be treated like everyone else.

Indigo

AlastairMeeks said:

Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.

Yes, it's not their job. Their job is to represent their electorate.

Plato_Says

!!!

http://news.sky.com/story/1636810/one-dead-in-gun-attack-at-dublin-hotel

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dublin-hotel-boxing-weigh-shooting-7316406

AlastairMeeks

taffys said:

''Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.''

At the same time as his sidekick is threatening them with their careers? do me a favour.

The Bufton Tuftons are actually foaming in the Telegraph because David Cameron has advocated that MPs make their own minds up on the subject. It seems that in their eyes MPs are allowed to come up with any answer so long as it's Leave.

SimonStClare

Plato_Says said:

i think we should lobby the Ecuadorians to take Batman too - the pair are made for each other.

The pair of them sharing a cot bed in the Ecuadorian embassy for eternity – harsh, but fair..!

MarkHopkins

AlastairMeeks said:

taffys said:

''Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.''

At the same time as his sidekick is threatening them with their careers? do me a favour.

The Bufton Tuftons are actually foaming in the Telegraph because David Cameron has advocated that MPs make their own minds up on the subject. It seems that in their eyes MPs are allowed to come up with any answer so long as it's Leave.

And Cameron wants them to make up their own minds as long as it's Remain.

Indigo

AlastairMeeks said:

taffys said:

''Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.''

At the same time as his sidekick is threatening them with their careers? do me a favour.

The Bufton Tuftons are actually foaming in the Telegraph because David Cameron has advocated that MPs make their own minds up on the subject. It seems that in their eyes MPs are allowed to come up with any answer so long as it's Leave.

As undecided as ever I see Mr Meeks

AlastairMeeks

Indigo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Are there really people upset because David Cameron has advised MPs to do what's in their hearts? Extraordinary.

Yes, it's not their job. Their job is to represent their electorate.

I suggest you reread Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol.

Indigo

oxfordsimon said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

oxfordsimon said:

Roger said:

FPT. Re Julian Assange. Cyclefree, TimT and David H

As I understand it the rape allegation refers to an offense that wouldn't be considered an offence in the UK (the non use of a condom). The reason he doesn't want to go to Sweden to contest it is because he believes there's a very real chance he'll be extradited from Sweden to the US where they DO want to charge him with publishing Wikileaks.

Unless my facts are wrong (wouldn't be the first time) this has nothing to do with avoiding facing rape charges but avoiding a lifetime in jail for publishing the truth

If he broke the law in order to obtain the material he published, then he is answerable for that. Just because he believes he is some sort of crusader, that does not put him above the law.

I am quite frankly fed up of his posturing. He is no saint. He knows he has broken laws and instead of fighting his case in court, he is hiding out playing the victim.

He was absolutely right to publish the information he had. We need more people willing to do so not less.

That is your opinion and not a fact. And I suspect the courts would not agree with you.

Of course some will claim that as a grand conspiracy to silence whistleblowers. Others will see that the rule of law is a vital part of any civil society and breaking the law brings consequences.

This mess is at least in part the fault of that other government masterpiece the European Arrest Warrant. In a standard extradition request a person cannot be extradited if their alleged crime is not a crime in the country to which the application is made. With the EAW this is not the case, neither is a country allowed to refuse to extradite their own nationals. If Romania were to pass a law outlawing posting on a political blog a lot of people here could be in trouble!