I have a suspicion those with 4th and 5th day tickets may be disappointed, although I would prefer the match to go the full distance from an entertainment point of view.
SO - just because Our Lord was born in a stable doesn't make him a horse.
The classic anti semitic line peddled by a PB Tory. So I guess you think Michael Howard and Grant Shapps are "un-British" too do you.
Labour, circa 2005, wrote the book on how to conduct a racist, anti-semitic campaign.
Immigration: are you thinking what we're thinking? Except that was the Conservatives, wasn't it? Lynton Crosby: whatever happened to him?
I think what Pulpstar had in mind was more the posters dogwhistling the "don't vote Tory because Michael Howard is a thieving Jew" message Labour produced.
I found both campaigns quite awful that year, Labour with their ghastly Howard posters and the child like writing on the CON immigration posters made my skin crawl. In the end I voted Lib Dem. Labour's was worse though.
I haven't driven in Germany much, but from what i remember there were large stretches of motorway where there were designated speed limits, and if you went over then they came down on you like a ton of bricks.
Having done a lot of driving in the US this summer our speed limit has become a lot more attractive. And anyone who complains about 70 mph should try Norway. It is soooo sloooow there.
Yes, not all the autobahns are unrestricted. I agree, driving in the US does put it into perspective. Especially in a rental car with an awful CVT transmission.
You are wrong, Brown never stood aside for Blair, that is is a Brownite myth. Brown yet again dithered when it came to the putting himself forward for a Labour Leadership contest because he couldn't be sure of winning. Brown bottled it as he had done before when looking for a safe seat as a Labour candidate until one was handed to him on a plate. Brown then spent the next decade making sure that he would be the only viable candidate to replace Blair when he went, and very successfully, as he got his coronation in place of a Leadership contest. He also bottled the Autumn GE that never was. There would have been no Granita agreement if Brown had acted incisively and had the balls and the ability to go for the Leadership in a contest. Brown then shafted Blair with disastrous results for the Labour party, the fall out is still a festering wound in the upper echelons of the Labour party, undermining both Ed Miliband and his Shadow Cabinet colleagues.
We might never know what actually happened between David and Ed Miliband in those hours after Purnell made his move, but if Ed did talk David out of a Leadership challenge at that point.... I backed Ed Miliband to be next Labour Leader after reading a TUC blog post from SkyNews Jon Craig where he noted that Ed Miliband was making an impression with the Union Leaders.
Absolutely, and framing Ed Miliband as weak and effectual even after he shafted his own brother reminds us yet again of how Brown did exactly the same to Blair.
Brown did not do exactly the same thing to Blair: pretty much the complete opposite, in fact. Following the Granita agreement, Brown stood aside for Blair. This is not like Ed standing and winning against David Miliband. And in the following years, Brown kept away from foreign policy and Blair from economic policy. Problems came only a decade after Granita when Blair did not step down.
The only thing in common is your dislike for both men.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme Wow - over 10% of criminal cases in the UK are chasing people over the BBC licence fee. cityam.com/article/137704… TV tax is unsustainable.
Media Guido @MediaGuido BBC responsible for bringing 12% of all criminal cases. 180,000 Telly Poll Tax evasion cases a year! cityam.com/article/137704…
This is really the nub of the debate, whether or not you think the laws themselves are appropriate. Were the right laws used, and with the right checks and balances?
I tried to post a link to "another publication" but my comment was disappeared....
perhaps this is more acceptable, giving a good analysis:
Your link also contained a substantial discussion about phone hacking, and was removed.
Ahh...missed that, apols.
As far as I can see (your personal Miranda case correspondent here): the issue turns on whether questioning someone under S.7 about possible offences under S.58A (concerning publishing or communicatings information about an individual who is or has been a member of HM forces or intelligence services) is appropriate and/or legal or do they have to jump straight to questioning (and arrest?) under S.58A.
to repost the link incl comments that is illuminating:
The other question is why the fiddle did the Guardian book his flight via LHR? There are far better connections from Berlin to Rio via AMS, CDG or FRA......going via LHR is 5 hours longer.....
That is now a built in regular feature of UKIP internal politics, along with a high turn over of people who have come in and enthusiastically tried to bring some discipline and organisation to the UKIP party operation, only to then leave disillusioned and critical of Farage.
Tax receipts growing nicely though, so if the government actually ever DO get round to making some cuts, the deficit should start coming down at a pace.
The problem (and paradox) is that cuts can lead to increased spending. If the government stops buying paperclips, then paperclip workers will lose their jobs, so that spending on benefits goes up. This comes under the heading of "automatic stabilisers". If the paperclip factory was in a one-industry town, the knock-on effects (less spending in cafes and shops) can become very expensive very quickly.
Or the government can cut the civil service, but then hire private sector consultants to do the work previously done by civil servants. This happens quite often.
Or the government can cut quangos. The problem here is that a lot of small quangos are little more than a handful of academics quaffing tea and biscuits on expenses, so bringing the work in-house to the civil service costs more.
Yes thanks for the economics 101, but unemployment is down, and retail sales up.
Making someone redundant and paying them JSA will surely save money. Maybe one off redundancy payments don't help.
Govt bangs on about hard choices, but seem to be spending more. Makes no sense.
You are wrong, Brown never stood aside for Blair, that is is a Brownite myth. Brown yet again dithered when it came to the putting himself forward for a Labour Leadership contest because he couldn't be sure of winning. Brown bottled it as he had done before when looking for a safe seat as a Labour candidate until one was handed to him on a plate. Brown then spent the next decade making sure that he would be the only viable candidate to replace Blair when he went, and very successfully, as he got his coronation in place of a Leadership contest. He also bottled the Autumn GE that never was. There would have been no Granita agreement if Brown had acted incisively and had the balls and the ability to go for the Leadership in a contest. Brown then shafted Blair with disastrous results for the Labour party, the fall out is still a festering wound in the upper echelons of the Labour party, undermining both Ed Miliband and his Shadow Cabinet colleagues.
We might never know what actually happened between David and Ed Miliband in those hours after Purnell made his move, but if Ed did talk David out of a Leadership challenge at that point.... I backed Ed Miliband to be next Labour Leader after reading a TUC blog post from SkyNews Jon Craig where he noted that Ed Miliband was making an impression with the Union Leaders.
Absolutely, and framing Ed Miliband as weak and effectual even after he shafted his own brother reminds us yet again of how Brown did exactly the same to Blair.
Brown did not do exactly the same thing to Blair: pretty much the complete opposite, in fact. Following the Granita agreement, Brown stood aside for Blair. This is not like Ed standing and winning against David Miliband. And in the following years, Brown kept away from foreign policy and Blair from economic policy. Problems came only a decade after Granita when Blair did not step down.
The only thing in common is your dislike for both men.
You describe Brown as dithering and affirm the Granita agreement in which Brown stood aside.
The parallel you wish to draw is not there because it was Blair and not Brown who was decisive (and who arguably went on to shaft various other colleagues such as Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam). To fix your comparison, Ed Miliband is Blair and David is Brown.
And into the trap filled with sharp sticks Labour falls
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden No wonder Labour want to lower the voting age to 16. Their paymasters Unite now producing propaganda for schoolkids order-order.com/2013/08/21/uni…
Patrick. I agree. Crazy limit. I recently drove to Edinburgh and sat behind a lorry trying to overtake another the whole manoeuvre taking over five miles to complete.The outside lane being bumper to bumper with cars doing 70. I might as well have been navigating The country lanes of Ludlow
Most lorries are limited to 55mph. M11 (2 lanes north of Stansted) is full of lorries overtaking other lorries - one at 55mph vs the other at 54.9mph. As it's hilly they often give up, or the road bends and they stay level.
70mph is fine as a limit, because everyone know you can do 80mph in practice!
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky Liam Byrne lays it on thick when asked about Miliband: "man of courage and vision" who has done "extraordinary" thing in setting agenda
Tax receipts growing nicely though, so if the government actually ever DO get round to making some cuts, the deficit should start coming down at a pace.
The problem (and paradox) is that cuts can lead to increased spending. If the government stops buying paperclips, then paperclip workers will lose their jobs, so that spending on benefits goes up. This comes under the heading of "automatic stabilisers". If the paperclip factory was in a one-industry town, the knock-on effects (less spending in cafes and shops) can become very expensive very quickly.
Or the government can cut the civil service, but then hire private sector consultants to do the work previously done by civil servants. This happens quite often.
Or the government can cut quangos. The problem here is that a lot of small quangos are little more than a handful of academics quaffing tea and biscuits on expenses, so bringing the work in-house to the civil service costs more.
Yes thanks for the economics 101, but unemployment is down, and retail sales up.
Making someone redundant and paying them JSA will surely save money. Maybe one off redundancy payments don't help.
Govt bangs on about hard choices, but seem to be spending more. Makes no sense.
Is there a breakdown of where spending is up?
The BBC story below has a suggestive graphic, but the colours are not explained.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
I imagine you would have reacted with studied equanimity and calm over the revelation that Cameron & May had interfered in police operational matters.....
TV LICENSING offences now account for more than a tenth of all criminal prosecutions in the UK, City A.M. can reveal.
More than 180,000 people – almost 3,500 a week – appeared in front of magistrates during 2012 after being accused of watching TV without paying the £145.50 fee.
Magistrates handled a total of 1.48m cases last year, meaning a record 12 per cent of court cases now involve TV licensing.
Women are disproportionately affected by the fee – which funds the BBC – with two thirds of cases brought against females. Last night the TV Licensing authority said the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.
In total, 155,000 prosecutions resulted in a conviction, which can lead to a fine of up to £1,000. Those who refuse to pay can face jail.
Off topic. Any strong PB views on motorway top speeds?
I have been on holiday recently and driven in the UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and NL. The top speeds on motorways are:
UK 113 kmh France 130 kmh Belgium 120 kmh Luxembourg 120 kmh Germany No top limit! NL 130 kmh
(No doubt some PB geek will correct me but these are what I noticed. And sorry for using kmh not mph but only converting UK speeds is easier)
The French, Dutch and German motorways are great, nicely surfaced, fast and and easy. Belgium is a bumpy horror story. Luxembourg isn't big or flat enough to achieve more than 120!
The UK is the same as the good three - only SLOW. Why oh why is our motorway speed limit so damned low? Couldn't we emulate the sensible and safe Germans and let people go as fast as they want but prosecute dangerous driving. Really, 70 mph on a flat clear stretch is just too slow for a motorway.
I'd propose we set to 90mph and then rigidly enforce it - rather than having a silly limit that is widely ignored. I suspect this would play very well politically too. (Cue nannystater outrage)
In my experience the convention on unlimited stretches in Germany is that if you are really "going for it" headlights are put on full beam and you sit in the outside lane doing warp speed whilst everyone else clears a path. Not done it myself, and have no intention of. However, in perfect conditions with nobody at all around I have been doing 100mph only to be overtaken by a margin of at least 40mph on several occasions. In practice quite a few Autobahns are only two lanes to and the older ones are seriously twisty.
France: barely ever seen a speed cop in 25 years of driving over there. You have to remember though that the toll booths effectively represent a huge elongated speed trap if you exceed 130kph as an average between them. Cruise control is the answer set at 129 kph. Generally, due to the tolls, French Autoroutes are pretty empty, and a joy to drive on.
Belgium: Agree, there is no motorway network it's a pothole network with occasional linking tarmac, especially in Wallonia.
Netherlands: Good. Congested but good.
USA. Surfaces a bit ropey. Speed limit irrelevant as engines on hire cars detuned to the extent that the accelerator is there purely to add sound effects, having little noticeable impact of speed.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky Liam Byrne lays it on thick when asked about Miliband: "man of courage and vision" who has done "extraordinary" thing in setting agenda
Patrick. I agree. Crazy limit. I recently drove to Edinburgh and sat behind a lorry trying to overtake another the whole manoeuvre taking over five miles to complete.The outside lane being bumper to bumper with cars doing 70. I might as well have been navigating The country lanes of Ludlow
Most lorries are limited to 55mph. M11 (2 lanes north of Stansted) is full of lorries overtaking other lorries - one at 55mph vs the other at 54.9mph. As it's hilly they often give up, or the road bends and they stay level.
70mph is fine as a limit, because everyone know you can do 80mph in practice!
If your vehicle is limited to sub 70, you should never get out the slow lane. The outside lane should probably have a MINIMUM speed of 85 miles/hour also.
"Sometimes it's better to say nothing, if you have nothing much to say. The sudden flurry of Labour spokespeople responding to the summer void risks raising too many questions about what Labour would do."
Sussex Police @sussex_police 1/2 Our officers have just entered a camp set up in a Christmas tree plantation/woodland close to the Cuadrilla site in Balcombe.
Sussex Police @sussex_police 2/2 We will be removing those camped there under Section 61 of the Public Order Act.
Sussex Police are attempting to evict the protesters... popcorn time.
Frack Off @Frack_Off Huge call out - get to #Balcombe now. Police attempting to evict the community protection camp under s61 #greatgasgala RT
“Community protection Camp” - I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them. - My how the luddites like to veneer over their true nature.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
That is now a built in regular feature of UKIP internal politics, along with a high turn over of people who have come in and enthusiastically tried to bring some discipline and organisation to the UKIP party operation, only to then leave disillusioned and critical of Farage.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
I'm sure the local community would welcome you telling them which of their opinions on the subject are wrong!
The Blairites in the Labour camp are terribly bitter at the moment aren't they. At this point the best policy is simply just to shut up or speak up to attack the Conservatives. Labour don't particularly need any policies at this point. They just need to prepare ideas, very vague ideas that they can put into the manifesto. They aren't running the country so their ideas at this stage are of little importance to anyone.
By yacking on about it so much they are indeed starting to put the focus onto Labour policies, if they all just kept schtum the population at large would not particularly care or notice about their blank book.
Labour are in very real danger of making themselves visible here.
Off topic. Any strong PB views on motorway top speeds?
Italy is the same as France, but I believe there is a provision for up to 150 kmh on certain high quality roads, but according to Wikipedia it hasn't been used.
Many German autobahns do in fact have 130 kmh limits, usually in urban areas or the old ones that Hitler built and aren't up to modern standards. Althought wikipedia again suggests that the "unlimited" speed limit applies by default to any extra-urban dual carriageway. However there are provisions which apparently make you liable for accidents if driving over 130kmh, and also you are banned if you drive faster than a speed which enables you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear - a concept which seems to elude many British drivers who seem to believe you are safe as long as you are driving at the speed limit.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme Wow - over 10% of criminal cases in the UK are chasing people over the BBC licence fee. cityam.com/article/137704… TV tax is unsustainable.
Media Guido @MediaGuido BBC responsible for bringing 12% of all criminal cases. 180,000 Telly Poll Tax evasion cases a year! cityam.com/article/137704…
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
Cobblers - there are 1750 living in Balcombe - 30 went to the anti-fracking church hall meeting. The chair of the PCC said we don't want bussed in prostesters you aren't welcome here.
And 1000 flying pickets turn up from nowhere near to intimidate the locals and Cuadrilla. There's been approx 50 arrests including biting a police officer. If I was a Greenie I'd be embarrassed by this mob rule.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
Cobblers - there are 1750 living in Balcombe - 30 went to the anti-fracking church hall meeting. The chair of the PCC said we don't want bussed in prostesters you aren't welcome here.
And 1000 flying pickets turn up from nowhere near to intimidate the locals and Cuadrilla. There's been approx 50 arrests including biting a police officer. If I was a Greenie I'd be embarrassed by this mob rule.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
Given that they're actually drilling for oil and aren't even fracking seems to be a small but important fact.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
That is now a built in regular feature of UKIP internal politics, along with a high turn over of people who have come in and enthusiastically tried to bring some discipline and organisation to the UKIP party operation, only to then leave disillusioned and critical of Farage.
UKIP changed their web hosting provider shortly after the local elections. On August 15th they reverted to their previous host, and their website's performance improved. Perhaps the reason for his departure is here?
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
I'm sure the local community would welcome you telling them which of their opinions on the subject are wrong!
We haven't had a proper poll let alone a vote of what the locals think really I assume.
This is the latest rent a mob cause. It was bankers, now it's fracking, what next the long eared Peruvian bat?
And the problem is, as with GM, is that they are getting in the way (no pun) of a rational debate. There are good reasons to look closely at the overall impact of fracking and to regulate it. But there has to be a sane set of pilot schemes somewhere to verify or otherwise the concerns and especially in a British context. Fracking on the plains of Texas tens of miles from the next town is not quite the same as Lancashire or Sussex.
That said it's not Green MP's who are going to struggle to pay future gas bills in cold winters is it, or (back to GM) struggle to buy bread when grain prices go up in India or whatever, and that is without being in hock to Putin and a range of other leaders in parts of the world less stable than Sussex.
Surely the sane thing is to proceed with caution and stop or accelerate as some facts become clearer.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
I suppose it had to happen: the usually crazed (with his own deluded self importance) Mick Pork got this one 100% right a few days ago when he pointed to the absolute necessity of these oil exploration/drilling companies to meticulously and consistently engage with their local communities, explaining all aspects of their project, be up front in addressing concerns and show willingness to adapt and modify their plans after such consultation. And above all to be genuinely involved with and in the community itself through sponsoring events, residents' groups and even invest in modest infrastructure projects.
It doesn't appear - I might be wrong - that Cuadrilla has made much, if any, effort to establish a rapport with either the Parish Council or local residents in this respect. Which kind of surprises me as I think my old boss at BP, John Browne, is a Board member, and he used to get this stuff and practice it.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
I'm sure the local community would welcome you telling them which of their opinions on the subject are wrong!
We haven't had a proper poll let alone a vote of what the locals think really I assume.
This is the latest rent a mob cause. It was bankers, now it's fracking, what next the long eared Peruvian bat?
And the problem is, as with GM, is that they are getting in the way (no pun) of a rational debate. There are good reasons to look closely at the overall impact of fracking and to regulate it. But there has to be a sane set of pilot schemes somewhere to verify or otherwise the concerns and especially in a British context. Fracking on the plains of Texas tens of miles from the next town is not quite the same as Lancashire or Sussex.
That said it's not Green MP's who are going to struggle to pay future gas bills in cold winters is it, or (back to GM) struggle to buy bread when grain prices go up in India or whatever, and that is without being in hock to Putin and a range of other leaders in parts of the world less stable than Sussex.
Surely the sane thing is to proceed with caution and stop or accelerate as some facts become clearer.
There are ten other sites that are getting no attention at all now and several that have operated for yrs inc one immediately adjacent to a RSPB reserve. If you want to protest and are a Greenie - do it on your own patch not someone elses.
The funniest thing about the licence fee is the fact that people can watch whatever they like online as long as it isn't "live". So watching a programme a few seconds later without paying is fine. What a joke.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
@DecrepitJohnL No it doesn't, my original comparison still stands. "Absolutely, and framing Ed Miliband as weak and effectual even after he shafted his own brother reminds us yet again of how Brown did exactly the same to Blair. And like Brown before him, Ed Miliband has been found to be weak, dithering and totally out of his depth as Labour Leader. He has no idea whatsoever about what he represents to his own party, never mind the country.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
There was a profile/interview with Mr Farage recently (Observer?) where he said his attitude changed after the plane accident in 2010.
Prior to the council elections he repeatedly said people should judge UKIP by their results in the coming elections. He certainly appears focused to me.
When next that Ms Lucas glues herself to a fence or something, could we not threaten to inject her with the MMR vaccine and a few e-numbers?
I'd think a bushtucker challenge - sitting in a wormery perhaps would be perfect TV. That'd get her a lot of attention. She is after all Caroline I Didn't Come To Balcombe To Be Arrested Lucas.
The borrowing figures look to be more-or-less in line with the profile expected based on the March budget estimates. Were you expecting something radically different?
The borrowing figures look to be more-or-less in line with the profile expected based on the March budget estimates. Were you expecting something radically different?
N - “The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.”
P – “Given that they're actually drilling for oil and aren't even fracking seems to be a small but important fact.”
PBism - Reality should never get in the way of a good rebuttal.
The poll is about fracking at the site so that is what I restricted my comments to. If there is any evidence about locals' opinions about drilling please feel free to post it but I didnt make any comments about that because I have no evidence to back it up.
The PB Tories want to ignore the fact that Tory NIMBY's in the Shires are the govts big problem, as with housing and HS2, so would rather rant about Greenies
I guess I'm a 'PB Tory' - I'm certainly a PB rightie (but have my doubts if Dave is in fact a Tory).
For the record - housing needs to be built but this can ONLY be achieved with planning reform. Major planning reform. No amount of good intentions to build this many or that many houses will go anywhere without largely taking local planning authorities out of the loop. Personally I'm of the view this is a local government issue in terms of implementation. In terms of law - Labour could deliver, but only if they legislate to liberalise the planning process massively. This does not play well in marginal middle England.
HS2 is indeed a stupid, costly, money wasting white elephant of the first order dreamt up by a statist central government twat.
The greenie ranting is, however, spot on. Hannan has a good piece in today's DT.
Last night you were urging us to watch for the borrowing figures. Spending and borrowing up then, three years into "austerity"
@tim - they were slightly worse than anticipated, but the analysts quoted in the BBC report didn't seemed fazed, and there's the possibility that like last year, they will be revised to show a surplus. Who knows?
On what I imagine to be your underlying point, 18 months before the election, I'm chillaxed, dare I say bordering on nascent complacency (OK, not quite); you, by contrast, are showing ever more disturbing signs of florid agitation, a serious though comic affliction that I fear I am powerless to assuage.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky Liam Byrne lays it on thick when asked about Miliband: "man of courage and vision" who has done "extraordinary" thing in setting agenda
The borrowing figures look to be more-or-less in line with the profile expected based on the March budget estimates. Were you expecting something radically different?
No, but the Tories were.
They should learn to trust their own Budget forecasts more then.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
I used to follow one of the UKIP forums for a few years when previous rounds of internal fighting were a regular feature of discussion. Mr Gilpin is but one in a very long line of people who have tried without success to help put various areas of the UKIP party organisation onto a far more professional footing before finally giving up and standing down. Like others before him, he walks away disillusioned and critical of Farage as a major roadblock to such reform. Be interesting to see the kind of staff turn over UKIP has experienced over the last decade at this level.
As an existing member of UKIP it is interesting to me that Farage is both the main benefit and the main problem for the party. At the last leadership elections I voted for Tim Congdon who seemed to have both the right ideas for the party and the necessary organisational and interpersonal skills to keep everyone on board and help the party advance. To my mind Farage made a huge error in moving back from a very important party spokesman/figurehead role at which he is brilliant into the leadership role. where he has made too many enemies in the past.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
N - “The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.”
P – “Given that they're actually drilling for oil and aren't even fracking seems to be a small but important fact.”
PBism - Reality should never get in the way of a good rebuttal.
I've come to the conclusion that facts are immaterial when it meets ideology. Just as flying pickets from Islington in Arrafat scarves and Peruvian knitted hats speak for the locals of a Sussex village where the Tory vote is weighed.
Just get the police to contain them until McProtest moves their VW Camper van protest onto somewhere else. Poor buggers who get them next to speak on their behalf.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
Well, yes, rather like New Labour should have realised that using anti-terror laws to bother trainspotters taking photos was likely to undermine them too.
Off topic. Any strong PB views on motorway top speeds? ... I'd propose we set to 90mph and then rigidly enforce it - rather than having a silly limit that is widely ignored. I suspect this would play very well politically too. (Cue nannystater outrage)
It is 120 kph on Irish motorways, too.
In general I think it is a sound principle not to have laws that are widely flouted - as the motorway speed limit currently is.
I'd be okay with increasing the speed limit if it were properly enforced, but I don't know how feasible that is, given how widely ignored the current limit is. I wonder whether there is any connection between our relatively low speed limit and our relatively low rate of road fatalities.
In my experience one of the main limiting factors to my speed on motorways is not the 70mph limit, but the sheer weight of lorry traffic. If you could encourage a quarter of freight traffic on to the railways then you would do a lot to make motorways move more quickly.
Does anyone know why the government backed away from their proposal to increase motorway speed limits? Were they frightened off by projections on the number of extra deaths it would cause?
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
And they aren't fracking. That's like asking them about seal culling in Balcombe.
I have NO PROBLEM with real locals really objecting - its where they live and will take the pain/gain. But for hundreds of anti-capitalist McProtesters to invade a place to intimidate the locals and make a fuss is fundamentally wrong.
That they're protesting and costing the locals of Sussex over £800k about something that isn't even happening just adds to the idiocy of it.
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
A polling card was delivered to every residence not every resident - the turnout was much higher than 17%. But, hey, facts are immaterial when it comes to assessing whether the local population supports fracking or not (they dont but if you are blinded by ideology you can convince yourself they do).
BBC - Labour issues apology to heckler "The Labour Party has apologised after an 82-year-old member was thrown out of its annual conference for heckling.
Walter Wolfgang, from London, was ejected from the hall after shouting "nonsense" as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Iraq policy.
Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested."
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
And they aren't fracking. That's like asking them about seal culling in Balcombe.
But on the point of whether the local people support fracking it's actually extremely relevant, isnt it? You know the assertion you said was cobblers in the face of overwhelming evidence.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
Well, yes, rather like New Labour should have realised that using anti-terror laws to bother trainspotters taking photos was likely to undermine them too.
I agree
You must be delighted that Theresa May has withdrawn that power then. Go on, knock yourself out, congratulate her!
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
No.
What Miranda appears to have been suspected of is stealing information that may be of interest to terrorists. Which to a layman sounds like it is probably covered by "involved with terrorism", in any case you wouldn't expect the HS and PM to question the precise legal pretext under which a suspect is being held. Not their job. And they can't be expected to have the right level of expertise. AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE ANYWAY.
So now you are worried the law is being "undermined", so you are happy as long as the power of the State is not questioned? If it is a stupid law and has been misused it is right that these cases are brought to our attention. There are plenty of laws that need to be undermined.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
And they aren't fracking. That's like asking them about seal culling in Balcombe.
But on the point of whether the local people support fracking it's actually extremely relevant, isnt it? You know the assertion you said was cobblers in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Tosh - when they cull for seals in Balcombe I'll pay attention.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m Lord Carlile on @BBCNews: "[more effective to have subjected Miranda] to the very clear powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act"
Thats the problem Cameron and May have, why did they not point that out when pre warned?
Oh for Christ's sake, Cameron and May are supposed to be experts on the Police & Criminal Evidence Act? You're obviously not either, or you'd have thought of that one yesterday. As well as interfering with operational decisions of the police!
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You'd think politicans at that level would recognise that using terrorism laws in this way is likely to undermine those terrorism laws wouldn't you?
The use, or otherwise of these laws is 100% an operational matter for the police. If No 10 or May had doubts about the operation when they were informed then they needed to keep those doubts to themself. If the police have used the law inappropriately, yes it will undermine it - but it would have been absolubtely wrong for anyone in Gov't to stop the operation.
The correct response at the time is absolutely 'Thank-you for letting us know' - Not 'Go ahead' or 'Stop' or get into a debate about PACE and the terrorism laws. Cameron and May seem to have acted entirely properly - the police, perhaps not.
No, it's absolutely correct, I know you've seen the evidence for it more than once already so I wont bother reposting why you are wrong to disagree with my assertion.
So I use figures and quotes and you provide nothing but your assertion to invalid mine. Yep - very convincing.
I gave you the evidence before (and it's been reposted again for those who may not have seen it) - I cant be responsible for your inability to remember some basic facts about a subject you post a lot about.
Go on indulge me rather than insulting me. What is your evidence. You've used enough pixels already to have typed it.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
And they aren't fracking. That's like asking them about seal culling in Balcombe.
But on the point of whether the local people support fracking it's actually extremely relevant, isnt it? You know the assertion you said was cobblers in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Tosh - when they cull for seals in Balcombe I'll pay attention.
(1) I said that the local population was against fracking (2) You said this was cobblers (3) We all see the evidence that they are (4) You post that some people dont like evidence when it doesnt suit their ideology (5) You declare that you'll pay attention to the evidence at some point in the future
It would be funny if the penny ever dropped but as it is unlikely to I'm not sure it's funny.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Your statement has implications.
More people vote on local issues - a local council polled on bin collections and got a higher turnout than their local elections.
JL.. you do know that tim knows everything about everything and mere mortals such as you or I know absolutely nothing..thats why he walked into a not too subtle beartrap yesterday, along wth the usual superior knowledge numpties Maybe he should really stick to farming
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Your statement has implications.
Local election turnouts every May are always above 30%. Agree about the PCCs - these should have been held this May not last November.
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Your statement has implications.
Local election turnouts every May are always above 30%. Agree about the PCCs - these should have been held this May not last November.
Local by-elections get dismal turnout. You can be elected with the support of less than 5% of the electorate.
The idea that this poll is invalid because it queries 17% of the electorate is absurd.
A bloke stealing a bag of fertiliser may have something that is of use to terrorists, but I suspect you'd nick them under the Theft Act if you had no evidence that they were taking the bag of fertiliser to a terrorist group.
Fertiliser is widely available, so moving some around is not particularly valuable to terrorists. The sort of information that has been leaked is being kept secret on the very basis that it would be of use to terrorists and no-one should have it.
And in any case, you miss the point (as ever) that it is not the Home Secretary's job to correct the police on the legal minutiae of their work.
I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them.
The overwhelming opinion of the local community is against fracking at the site.
And while some of their concerns are well founded (increased traffic) others are less so (water pollution) - unless they are among the 0.14% of the population with bore holes......
I'm sure the local community would welcome you telling them which of their opinions on the subject are wrong!
I didn't say they were "wrong" - I wrote that they were not well founded. Pun intended. The studies on water pollution have been on bore holes.....
The idea that this poll is invalid because it queries 17% of the electorate is absurd.
Particularly as the turnout was actually 284 out of about 750 polling cards distributed. The idea that an 82% result on a turnout like that doesnt allow us to conclude that the local population is against fracking is statistical madness.
FULLY agree with your observation that having laws that are widely flouted is a very bad precedent in any civilised country that seeks to be governed by the rule of law.
You said: Does anyone know why the government backed away from their proposal to increase motorway speed limits? Were they frightened off by projections on the number of extra deaths it would cause?
I suspect this a manifestation of the pervasive Health n Safety mindset so well ingrained in our country now. Raising the limit to 90 (with temporary limits in bad weather etc) and enforcing it strictly would: 1. Result in a higher number of accidents and deaths (in the sheme of things of a very small number of people) 2. Make life easier and more convenient for a great many people 3. Save time and money for a great many people 4. Increase respect for the law and personal responsibility for all
Taken together these 4 represent for me a very strong case for going ahead. Item 1 is the blocker for some (the 'ban anything that might be bad for you' brigade).
Neil points to the Parish Council survey recieved 296 responses of which the overwhelming majority objected to Cuadrilla
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
Local Council elections get smaller turnouts. The police crime commissioners were elected on turnout under 15%.
Your statement has implications.
Local election turnouts every May are always above 30%. Agree about the PCCs - these should have been held this May not last November.
Local by-elections get dismal turnout. You can be elected with the support of less than 5% of the electorate.
The idea that this poll is invalid because it queries 17% of the electorate is absurd.
Hold on a sec, I didn't contend it was "invalid" merely that the low turnout should be taken into account when decisions are being taken. Moreover, the poll has no legal standing unlike elections to statutory bodies such as local Councils or indeed to Parliament. Are you advocating a minumum legal turnout for either or both?
Neil/JohnO - This story is a couple of weeks old, so you may have seen it, but in case you haven't
Disgraced councillor Brian Coleman’s judicial woes may be behind him but he still finds himself at the sharp end of Barnet Council’s disciplinary stick.
Cllr Coleman now faces a public telling-off at the next meeting of Barnet’s full council after being found guilty of calling a resident “a tw*t” during a council meeting last year.
Failing socialist rag Tribune’s bitch fight with CCHQ over conference press passes has taken a particularly shouty turn. There has been an impasse after the Tories said they would only award the paper one pass, despite editor Chris McLaughlin demanding two. With Tribune only having three members of staff and a circulation that plummeted to just 4,000 in 2011, in fairness giving 66% of their employees free entrance to Tory conference does seem a bit silly.
McLaughlin isn’t giving up without a fight though. He accuses CCHQ of “discriminatory restrictions and politically motivated censorship, Zimbabwe-style”, insisting “this amounts to a ban on Tribune attending conference, defended by trumped up, false claims of justification. It is an attack on press freedom and a disgrace”. Tribune are now accusing CCHQ of taking away the one pass they did offer, though Tory sources stress this is because the magazine refused to provide a name to put on the pass. Nonetheless amusing to see the loony left jumping on the press freedom bandwagon… http://order-order.com/2013/08/21/tribune-v-tories-bitch-fight-rumbles-on/
Banti Singh @Khyberman Really #Tribune? My blog has more readers than you and I am a nobody.
In the old days the (unlamented) Standards Board could get you chucked off for something like that (particularly with everything else our favourite "Arsenal fan" has done). ALmost worth campaigning for it to be brought back temporarily. What does Brian do next year when he is off the Council, the GLA and the LFEPA? Become a WAG?
Comments
I have a suspicion those with 4th and 5th day tickets may be disappointed, although I would prefer the match to go the full distance from an entertainment point of view.
We might never know what actually happened between David and Ed Miliband in those hours after Purnell made his move, but if Ed did talk David out of a Leadership challenge at that point....
I backed Ed Miliband to be next Labour Leader after reading a TUC blog post from SkyNews Jon Craig where he noted that Ed Miliband was making an impression with the Union Leaders.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme
Wow - over 10% of criminal cases in the UK are chasing people over the BBC licence fee. cityam.com/article/137704… TV tax is unsustainable.
Media Guido @MediaGuido
BBC responsible for bringing 12% of all criminal cases. 180,000 Telly Poll Tax evasion cases a year! cityam.com/article/137704…
You seem to forget that it was Mr Farage & co who advertised the position. Who want to improve UKIP's performance.
That Mr Gilpin has publicly sounded off after leaving UKIP is poor behaviour on his part, and only one version of events.
Making someone redundant and paying them JSA will surely save money. Maybe one off redundancy payments don't help.
Govt bangs on about hard choices, but seem to be spending more. Makes no sense.
Is there a breakdown of where spending is up?
The parallel you wish to draw is not there because it was Blair and not Brown who was decisive (and who arguably went on to shaft various other colleagues such as Robin Cook and Mo Mowlam). To fix your comparison, Ed Miliband is Blair and David is Brown.
70mph is fine as a limit, because everyone know you can do 80mph in practice!
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky
Liam Byrne lays it on thick when asked about Miliband: "man of courage and vision" who has done "extraordinary" thing in setting agenda
Julia Hartley-Brewer @JuliaHB1
Has Liam Byrne been drinking..? @SophyRidgeSky
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23029683
"Gist" might be an answer.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/getting-the-gist-on-government-spending/
Frack Off @Frack_Off
Huge call out - get to #Balcombe now. Police attempting to evict the community protection camp under s61 #greatgasgala RT
More than 180,000 people – almost 3,500 a week – appeared in front of magistrates during 2012 after being accused of watching TV without paying the £145.50 fee.
Magistrates handled a total of 1.48m cases last year, meaning a record 12 per cent of court cases now involve TV licensing.
Women are disproportionately affected by the fee – which funds the BBC – with two thirds of cases brought against females. Last night the TV Licensing authority said the gender imbalance was because women are more likely to be at home when their inspectors call.
In total, 155,000 prosecutions resulted in a conviction, which can lead to a fine of up to £1,000. Those who refuse to pay can face jail.
The Ministry of Justice figures were published following a parliamentary question tabled by Lord Laird.
- See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1377046054/exclusive-tv-licence-offences-responsible-tenth-all-uk-court-cases#sthash.5pZii9Y8.dpuf
France: barely ever seen a speed cop in 25 years of driving over there. You have to remember though that the toll booths effectively represent a huge elongated speed trap if you exceed 130kph as an average between them. Cruise control is the answer set at 129 kph. Generally, due to the tolls, French Autoroutes are pretty empty, and a joy to drive on.
Belgium: Agree, there is no motorway network it's a pothole network with occasional linking tarmac, especially in Wallonia.
Netherlands: Good. Congested but good.
USA. Surfaces a bit ropey. Speed limit irrelevant as engines on hire cars detuned to the extent that the accelerator is there purely to add sound effects, having little noticeable impact of speed.
Melanie Phillips
Ruth Dudley Edwards
Christine Odone
Polly:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/what-would-labour-do-policies?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Liam Byrne in personal attack on IDS: "Something seems to be very wrong in the mind of the man at the helm of DWP."
Says man who penned lengthy memo about when to serve him soup.
1/2 Our officers have just entered a camp set up in a Christmas tree plantation/woodland close to the Cuadrilla site in Balcombe.
Sussex Police @sussex_police
2/2 We will be removing those camped there under Section 61 of the Public Order Act.
“Community protection Camp” - I doubt a single member of the sit in is a member of the local community or represents the majority view of them. - My how the luddites like to veneer over their true nature.
By yacking on about it so much they are indeed starting to put the focus onto Labour policies, if they all just kept schtum the population at large would not particularly care or notice about their blank book.
Labour are in very real danger of making themselves visible here.
Many German autobahns do in fact have 130 kmh limits, usually in urban areas or the old ones that Hitler built and aren't up to modern standards. Althought wikipedia again suggests that the "unlimited" speed limit applies by default to any extra-urban dual carriageway. However there are provisions which apparently make you liable for accidents if driving over 130kmh, and also you are banned if you drive faster than a speed which enables you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear - a concept which seems to elude many British drivers who seem to believe you are safe as long as you are driving at the speed limit.
Well I never.
And 1000 flying pickets turn up from nowhere near to intimidate the locals and Cuadrilla. There's been approx 50 arrests including biting a police officer. If I was a Greenie I'd be embarrassed by this mob rule.
Linkedin also put IT as Mr Gilpin's responsibility.
"Responsible for IT, web presence, social media and security"
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/wgilpin
UKIP changed their web hosting provider shortly after the local elections. On August 15th they reverted to their previous host, and their website's performance improved. Perhaps the reason for his departure is here?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ukip.org
This is the latest rent a mob cause. It was bankers, now it's fracking, what next the long eared Peruvian bat?
And the problem is, as with GM, is that they are getting in the way (no pun) of a rational debate. There are good reasons to look closely at the overall impact of fracking and to regulate it. But there has to be a sane set of pilot schemes somewhere to verify or otherwise the concerns and especially in a British context. Fracking on the plains of Texas tens of miles from the next town is not quite the same as Lancashire or Sussex.
That said it's not Green MP's who are going to struggle to pay future gas bills in cold winters is it, or (back to GM) struggle to buy bread when grain prices go up in India or whatever, and that is without being in hock to Putin and a range of other leaders in parts of the world less stable than Sussex.
Surely the sane thing is to proceed with caution and stop or accelerate as some facts become clearer.
I suppose in a way I have been proved wrong by the results of the May elections and the increasing polling support for UKIP but I can't help but think that would have happened anyway and that Farage in his current role might be hindering rather than helping the growth of the party.
It doesn't appear - I might be wrong - that Cuadrilla has made much, if any, effort to establish a rapport with either the Parish Council or local residents in this respect. Which kind of surprises me as I think my old boss at BP, John Browne, is a Board member, and he used to get this stuff and practice it.
http://balcombeparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fracking-poll-results.pdf
"Absolutely, and framing Ed Miliband as weak and effectual even after he shafted his own brother reminds us yet again of how Brown did exactly the same to Blair. And like Brown before him, Ed Miliband has been found to be weak, dithering and totally out of his depth as Labour Leader. He has no idea whatsoever about what he represents to his own party, never mind the country.
Prior to the council elections he repeatedly said people should judge UKIP by their results in the coming elections. He certainly appears focused to me.
20 odd million households. 200k licence fee dodgers.
Not that hard to collect then.
Pfft.
The borrowing figures look to be more-or-less in line with the profile expected based on the March budget estimates. Were you expecting something radically different?
P – “Given that they're actually drilling for oil and aren't even fracking seems to be a small but important fact.”
PBism - Reality should never get in the way of a good rebuttal.
The PB Tories want to ignore the fact that Tory NIMBY's in the Shires are the govts big problem, as with housing and HS2, so would rather rant about Greenies
I guess I'm a 'PB Tory' - I'm certainly a PB rightie (but have my doubts if Dave is in fact a Tory).
For the record - housing needs to be built but this can ONLY be achieved with planning reform. Major planning reform. No amount of good intentions to build this many or that many houses will go anywhere without largely taking local planning authorities out of the loop. Personally I'm of the view this is a local government issue in terms of implementation. In terms of law - Labour could deliver, but only if they legislate to liberalise the planning process massively. This does not play well in marginal middle England.
HS2 is indeed a stupid, costly, money wasting white elephant of the first order dreamt up by a statist central government twat.
The greenie ranting is, however, spot on. Hannan has a good piece in today's DT.
On what I imagine to be your underlying point, 18 months before the election, I'm chillaxed, dare I say bordering on nascent complacency (OK, not quite); you, by contrast, are showing ever more disturbing signs of florid agitation, a serious though comic affliction that I fear I am powerless to assuage.
They were briefed as a heads up on the basis that (a) it's to do with national security and a case that Whitehall is showing interest in at the highest level and (b) that it's likely to be controversial and in the press or on the TV news. You would expect ministers to say "thanks for letting us know" and then let the Met get on with it.
You point to the fact that population of Balcombe is 1750. Therefore, with a turnout of only 17%, the Parish Council 'poll' is wholly unrepresentative of the residents as a whole.
It is undeniable that the opponents of any particular scheme tend to be the most vocal and vociferous so I personally wouldn't place too much emphasis on the first, but that a still sizeable component of the Village harbours, at minimum, serious misgivings about the project, shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
Just get the police to contain them until McProtest moves their VW Camper van protest onto somewhere else. Poor buggers who get them next to speak on their behalf.
In general I think it is a sound principle not to have laws that are widely flouted - as the motorway speed limit currently is.
I'd be okay with increasing the speed limit if it were properly enforced, but I don't know how feasible that is, given how widely ignored the current limit is. I wonder whether there is any connection between our relatively low speed limit and our relatively low rate of road fatalities.
In my experience one of the main limiting factors to my speed on motorways is not the 70mph limit, but the sheer weight of lorry traffic. If you could encourage a quarter of freight traffic on to the railways then you would do a lot to make motorways move more quickly.
Does anyone know why the government backed away from their proposal to increase motorway speed limits? Were they frightened off by projections on the number of extra deaths it would cause?
I have NO PROBLEM with real locals really objecting - its where they live and will take the pain/gain. But for hundreds of anti-capitalist McProtesters to invade a place to intimidate the locals and make a fuss is fundamentally wrong.
That they're protesting and costing the locals of Sussex over £800k about something that isn't even happening just adds to the idiocy of it.
They are flying pickets - no more and no less.
"The Labour Party has apologised after an 82-year-old member was thrown out of its annual conference for heckling.
Walter Wolfgang, from London, was ejected from the hall after shouting "nonsense" as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Iraq policy.
Police later used powers under the Terrorism Act to prevent Mr Wolfgang's re-entry, but he was not arrested."
What Miranda appears to have been suspected of is stealing information that may be of interest to terrorists. Which to a layman sounds like it is probably covered by "involved with terrorism", in any case you wouldn't expect the HS and PM to question the precise legal pretext under which a suspect is being held. Not their job. And they can't be expected to have the right level of expertise. AND THEY DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE ANYWAY.
So now you are worried the law is being "undermined", so you are happy as long as the power of the State is not questioned? If it is a stupid law and has been misused it is right that these cases are brought to our attention. There are plenty of laws that need to be undermined.
The correct response at the time is absolutely 'Thank-you for letting us know' - Not 'Go ahead' or 'Stop' or get into a debate about PACE and the terrorism laws. Cameron and May seem to have acted entirely properly - the police, perhaps not.
(2) You said this was cobblers
(3) We all see the evidence that they are
(4) You post that some people dont like evidence when it doesnt suit their ideology
(5) You declare that you'll pay attention to the evidence at some point in the future
It would be funny if the penny ever dropped but as it is unlikely to I'm not sure it's funny.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSL9hcNCEAAopvD.jpg:large
Your statement has implications.
If the motorway speed was upped to 90mph as you suggest it should be applied retrospectively to offences committed on the M11 in 2003?
Pro or anti Fracking, sir?
RT @lbc973: Police with photographic memories to be used to identify troublemakers at Notting Hill Carnival ow.ly/o7Hx1s
What % of the Met have photographic memories? Do any PBers have one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory
The idea that this poll is invalid because it queries 17% of the electorate is absurd.
And in any case, you miss the point (as ever) that it is not the Home Secretary's job to correct the police on the legal minutiae of their work.
FULLY agree with your observation that having laws that are widely flouted is a very bad precedent in any civilised country that seeks to be governed by the rule of law.
You said: Does anyone know why the government backed away from their proposal to increase motorway speed limits? Were they frightened off by projections on the number of extra deaths it would cause?
I suspect this a manifestation of the pervasive Health n Safety mindset so well ingrained in our country now. Raising the limit to 90 (with temporary limits in bad weather etc) and enforcing it strictly would:
1. Result in a higher number of accidents and deaths (in the sheme of things of a very small number of people)
2. Make life easier and more convenient for a great many people
3. Save time and money for a great many people
4. Increase respect for the law and personal responsibility for all
Taken together these 4 represent for me a very strong case for going ahead. Item 1 is the blocker for some (the 'ban anything that might be bad for you' brigade).
Disgraced councillor Brian Coleman’s judicial woes may be behind him but he still finds himself at the sharp end of Barnet Council’s disciplinary stick.
Cllr Coleman now faces a public telling-off at the next meeting of Barnet’s full council after being found guilty of calling a resident “a tw*t” during a council meeting last year.
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_council_to_discipline_councillor_brian_coleman_for_calling_resident_a_tw_t_1_2323189
McLaughlin isn’t giving up without a fight though. He accuses CCHQ of “discriminatory restrictions and politically motivated censorship, Zimbabwe-style”, insisting “this amounts to a ban on Tribune attending conference, defended by trumped up, false claims of justification. It is an attack on press freedom and a disgrace”. Tribune are now accusing CCHQ of taking away the one pass they did offer, though Tory sources stress this is because the magazine refused to provide a name to put on the pass. Nonetheless amusing to see the loony left jumping on the press freedom bandwagon… http://order-order.com/2013/08/21/tribune-v-tories-bitch-fight-rumbles-on/
Banti Singh @Khyberman
Really #Tribune? My blog has more readers than you and I am a nobody.
In the old days the (unlamented) Standards Board could get you chucked off for something like that (particularly with everything else our favourite "Arsenal fan" has done). ALmost worth campaigning for it to be brought back temporarily. What does Brian do next year when he is off the Council, the GLA and the LFEPA? Become a WAG?