politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the Ge
ComRes have polled on behalf of UKIP donor Paul Sykes asking what UKIP voters in the Euros would do at the next General Election, the telegraph reports that
Comments
-
A lot hinges on what "likely" means.0
-
FPT: Would David Davis dare force a bye election now, given how well UKIP is doing at the moment?0
-
"This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the Geneal Election"
I think it's spelt "Genial Election".0 -
Oops, fixed now.SirNorfolkPassmore said:"This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the Geneal Election"
I think it's spelt "Genial Election".0 -
Problem is 11.5% (extrapolation) doesn't get you any seats under FPTP if your vote is quite evenly spread...0
-
0
-
FPT
Pulling down "those big houses" would be cultural vandalism, Smarmy.Smarmeron said:@AveryLP
I am all in favour of balance Limp Pole, Use the money to improve and build the type of houses people need. Then pull down those big houses and build houses for the locals.
This will help reduce house price inflation for the poorer people, and at the same time increasing the value of the remaining "Manor Houses"?
A "win win" result as I am sure you will agree?
It reminds me of Alan Bennett referring to the closure of public libraries as "child abuse", though he may be more circumspect about using such language post Charlize Theron's remarks on rape.
The long gallery at Apethorpe Hall could indeed sleep a hundred fruit pickers. Although when an Approved School for Boys (1948-1982 - roughly) it was subdivided. If I remember the historical accounts correctly, this happened after some undesired fruit picking of which Alan Bennett would not approve.0 -
Is the 26% Russell Johnston got in 1992 the lowest share of the vote by any winning candidate in a General Election?RodCrosby said:Problem is 11.5% (extrapolation) doesn't get you any seats under FPTP if your vote is quite evenly spread...
If not, who holds that distinction?0 -
A lot can happen in a year. Even those saying they'll definitely vote UKIP may not for all manner of reasons. If none other than the certains are retained then using the same calculation you get about 1.6m votes for UKIP which on a similar turnout to last time would be 4.5-5% or thereabouts. We shall see.0
-
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
0 -
Auto correct once turned General Election into Venereal ElectionSmarmeron said:@TheScreamingEagles
I am disappointed, "Genital Erection" would have been a far better typo.0 -
Except UKIP's vote isn't that evenly spread, as the Euro elections showed. For sure they are more even than most parties, but they are building up hot and cold spots at a good rate and have clusters of councillors.RodCrosby said:Problem is 11.5% (extrapolation) doesn't get you any seats under FPTP if your vote is quite evenly spread...
0 -
Is Clappison standing?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP0 -
Lib Dems and Labour can't win in Hertsmere.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
It's a 2 horse race.0 -
FPT
How absurd, Smarmy.Smarmeron said:@AveryLP
You do of course realise that if you can't afford to maintain a property, the local council can take ownership? Actually, you probably don't, that law is only for the "lower orders"
What would your average Lady Mayoress do in a boudoir?
Turn it into a media room with a seventy inch flat screen and home theatre system I suspect.0 -
On topic (at last)
No need to worry about the ComRes poll findings.
Kippers are certain about everything.
They are certain they placed their keys on the hall table. They are certain that their grandchildren are coming to lunch this Sunday. They are certain they will vote UKIP next May.
Just smile sweetly and serve them a cup of tea.0 -
No idea tbh. Haven't seen anything to suggest either way.ToryJim said:
Is Clappison standing?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
Has been a very good constituency MP, but would prefer someone with a higher profile.
Boris would be cool though
0 -
Well you had Cecil before so can understand that.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
No idea tbh. Haven't seen anything to suggest either way.ToryJim said:
Is Clappison standing?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
Has been a very good constituency MP, but would prefer someone with a higher profile.
Boris would be cool though
0 -
Latest new from Newark:
A full house at Kelham Hall for @RogerHelmerMEP @Nigel_Farage public meeting #VoteUKIP get #UKIP pic.twitter.com/b7kSxMgz5h
— David Sprason (@ruraloutback) May 31, 2014
Not only that but close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.0 -
Why does everybody take the Euro results as their guide when in first past the post local elections on the same day UKIP saw what can only be described as a huge set-back. Down 6% in a year is a pretty bad appalling trend.
Why does anybody take any notice of a donor funded poll by ComRes - the firm that was overstated Ukip more than any other in the EP14 campaign?
The media narrative is all purple at the moment. We must not get overwhelmed.0 -
0
-
That certainly isn't what the Lib Dem leaflet said in 2010. They were the only ones that could beat CON. Despite finishing in 3rd place in 2005. Hertsmere is rock solid territory, would be shocked and stunned by any other resultPulpstar said:
Lib Dems and Labour can't win in Hertsmere.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
It's a 2 horse race.0 -
Just because they say now that they think they're likely to stick with the party in eleven months time, doesn't mean that they will. Most people aren't very good predictors of their own mood over a month, let alone a year.
Feeling that you'd support them today - yes. That you'd support them in a few weeks, okay. That you'd support them next year ... a lot harder to put confidence into. Especially given the atmosphere over the past month or so.
It may well be that UKIP will hold on to a decent chunk of this support - but it's got to be more likely that a significant chunk will fall away.
My best guess is that it could be anywhere between 6% and 15% next year, and that we really don't have enough reliable information to narrow it down much further. And either extreme won't amount to many (if any) seats.0 -
MikeK said:
Latest new from Newark:
A full house at Kelham Hall for @RogerHelmerMEP @Nigel_Farage public meeting #VoteUKIP get #UKIP pic.twitter.com/b7kSxMgz5h
— David Sprason (@ruraloutback) May 31, 2014
Not only that but close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.
Repeating my comment on the previous thread.
Very gay, me old Weathercock.
But where are the women?
Domestic duties?0 -
One of my friends managed to get himself on the TV delivering Cecil's newspapers during the height of the Sarah Keys scandal. Was gutted when he stood down as never got the chance to vote for him, being only 16 during the 87 electionToryJim said:
Well you had Cecil before so can understand that.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
No idea tbh. Haven't seen anything to suggest either way.ToryJim said:
Is Clappison standing?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
Has been a very good constituency MP, but would prefer someone with a higher profile.
Boris would be cool though0 -
Shame. His house is nice and the garden is huge.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
One of my friends managed to get himself on the TV delivering Cecil's newspapers during the height of the Sarah Keys scandal. Was gutted when he stood down as never got the chance to vote for him, being only 16 during the 87 electionToryJim said:
Well you had Cecil before so can understand that.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
No idea tbh. Haven't seen anything to suggest either way.ToryJim said:
Is Clappison standing?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
As a UKIP voter in the Euro's. I would describe myself as 50/50 on whether I stick with the Kippers or drift back to CON.antifrank said:A lot hinges on what "likely" means.
Although as a resident of Hertsmere, my vote doesn't count for much under FPTP
Has been a very good constituency MP, but would prefer someone with a higher profile.
Boris would be cool though0 -
Calm down, Mike. Yes it's a positive narrative for UKIP for once; in exchange for 6 weeks of unrelenting bias and hate from all the organs of the establishment. And it was London that let UKIP down in the Locals and was a weakness in the Euros. Something we mean to put right.MikeSmithson said:Why does everybody take the Euro results as their guide when in first past the post local elections on the same day UKIP saw what can only be described as a huge set-back. Down 6% in a year is a pretty bad appalling trend.
Why does anybody take any notice of a donor funded poll by ComRes - the firm that was overstated Ukip more than any other in the EP14 campaign?
The media narrative is all purple at the moment. We must not get overwhelmed.
BTW, I can offer you an escape from the L/Dems: Join UKIP.0 -
If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.shiney2 said:
@gin1138
If he wore the purple AND blue, would Dave dare deselect him?0 -
-
@OliverCooper: Brilliant to have 600 Conservative activists in #Newark today: the largest action day I've ever seen. @RoadTrip2015's the real #PeoplesArmy.MikeK said:close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.
0 -
That can, and probably will work the other way. More and more voters and supporters leaving the Lab/Lib/Cons in numbers that we cannot foresee.Andy_Cooke said:Just because they say now that they think they're likely to stick with the party in eleven months time, doesn't mean that they will. Most people aren't very good predictors of their own mood over a month, let alone a year.
Feeling that you'd support them today - yes. That you'd support them in a few weeks, okay. That you'd support them next year ... a lot harder to put confidence into. Especially given the atmosphere over the past month or so.
It may well be that UKIP will hold on to a decent chunk of this support - but it's got to be more likely that a significant chunk will fall away.
My best guess is that it could be anywhere between 6% and 15% next year, and that we really don't have enough reliable information to narrow it down much further. And either extreme won't amount to many (if any) seats.0 -
Twitter
Jeremy Browne @JeremyBrowneMP 51m
Drinking in Sheffield.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 39m
@JeremyBrowneMP to the good health and prosperity of your leader, no doubt
Jeremy Browne @JeremyBrowneMP 17m
@ShippersUnbound It's in his (electorally secure) constituency!0 -
It is an unintended consequence of camera phones. I first noticed the effect taking photos of the crowd at the great lady's funeral last year.
When you look at the crowd, you see a lot of right arms raised at an unfortunate angle
twitter.com/halfon4harlowMP/status/472761190389919744/photo/10 -
Yes, Johnston, beating a record which had stood since 1922.TheScreamingEagles said:
Is the 26% Russell Johnston got in 1992 the lowest share of the vote by any winning candidate in a General Election?RodCrosby said:Problem is 11.5% (extrapolation) doesn't get you any seats under FPTP if your vote is quite evenly spread...
If not, who holds that distinction?0 -
MikeK said:
Latest news from Newark:
A full house at Kelham Hall for @RogerHelmerMEP @Nigel_Farage public meeting #VoteUKIP get #UKIP pic.twitter.com/b7kSxMgz5h
— David Sprason (@ruraloutback) May 31, 2014
Not only that but close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.
reminds me of Crosby '81...0 -
More good news from NewarK:
Massive UKIP support in Newark - Cons out in force but we matched them easily on the streets pic.twitter.com/fruvAEBUaR
— Nathan Gill (@NathanGillMEP) May 31, 20140 -
More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
shiney2 said:@gin1138
If he wore the purple AND blue, would Dave dare deselect him?0 -
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
0 -
Yes, quite likely. However, we've got so used to talking about mid-term effects and a long time to adjust that we need to start adjusting to the final stages with 11 months to go. From October after the conferences I think we'll be de facto in a long General Election mode, and people are probably not all that skittish at this stage.Andy_Cooke said:Just because they say now that they think they're likely to stick with the party in eleven months time, doesn't mean that they will. Most people aren't very good predictors of their own mood over a month, let alone a year.
Feeling that you'd support them today - yes. That you'd support them in a few weeks, okay. That you'd support them next year ... a lot harder to put confidence into. Especially given the atmosphere over the past month or so.
It may well be that UKIP will hold on to a decent chunk of this support - but it's got to be more likely that a significant chunk will fall away.
My best guess is that it could be anywhere between 6% and 15% next year, and that we really don't have enough reliable information to narrow it down much further. And either extreme won't amount to many (if any) seats.
0 -
reminds me of Crosby '81...RodCrosby said:MikeK said:Latest news from Newark:
A full house at Kelham Hall for @RogerHelmerMEP @Nigel_Farage public meeting #VoteUKIP get #UKIP pic.twitter.com/b7kSxMgz5h
— David Sprason (@ruraloutback) May 31, 2014
Not only that but close to 300 UKIP activists very active in Newark today.
It's the same audience a third of a century later, Sir Roderick.
Just a little less sprightly (more spritely perhaps).0 -
2 data points is not a trend.MikeSmithson said:Why does everybody take the Euro results as their guide when in first past the post local elections on the same day UKIP saw what can only be described as a huge set-back. Down 6% in a year is a pretty bad appalling trend.
Why does anybody take any notice of a donor funded poll by ComRes - the firm that was overstated Ukip more than any other in the EP14 campaign?
The media narrative is all purple at the moment. We must not get overwhelmed.
The LD local election results however do look like a trend:
2010: 24%
2011: 16%
2012: 15%
2013: 13%
2014: 11%
0 -
Civil liberties was a useful pretext but there was a lot more to it than met the eye.Life_ina_market_town said:
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
0 -
Sounds intriguingToryJim said:
Civil liberties was a useful pretext but there was a lot more to it than met the eye.Life_ina_market_town said:
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
0 -
MikeK said:
More good news from NewarK:
Massive UKIP support in Newark - Cons out in force but we matched them easily on the streets pic.twitter.com/fruvAEBUaR
— Nathan Gill (@NathanGillMEP) May 31, 2014
Sounds like they're gearing up for a street brawl.0 -
...pwobably.shiney2 said:@alp
Interestingly, if the the 83GE had been only 11months after Crosby81, Roy Jenkins would probably have been PM.
We can better that..
I have to tell you that I am still in shock at Gareth's translation of the last line of that Italian article on College.
When the Italian press start portraying Farage as a friend by which the comedian Beppe Grillo should be judged, one does wonder what is happening in Europe.0 -
Very true.NickPalmer said:
Yes, quite likely. However, we've got so used to talking about mid-term effects and a long time to adjust that we need to start adjusting to the final stages with 11 months to go. From October after the conferences I think we'll be de facto in a long General Election mode, and people are probably not all that skittish at this stage.Andy_Cooke said:Just because they say now that they think they're likely to stick with the party in eleven months time, doesn't mean that they will. Most people aren't very good predictors of their own mood over a month, let alone a year.
Feeling that you'd support them today - yes. That you'd support them in a few weeks, okay. That you'd support them next year ... a lot harder to put confidence into. Especially given the atmosphere over the past month or so.
It may well be that UKIP will hold on to a decent chunk of this support - but it's got to be more likely that a significant chunk will fall away.
My best guess is that it could be anywhere between 6% and 15% next year, and that we really don't have enough reliable information to narrow it down much further. And either extreme won't amount to many (if any) seats.
And on the one hand, we've got the well known tendency of people to gravitate back to what they did/felt before - and on the other, the iconoclastic desire to break past the current established options.
I've long been of the opinion that the disillusionment that many of the electorate have with the political process and the concomitant worldwide dropping in turnout figures, near-contempt of politicians in general and now the surge to A N Other option come from seeds sewn by the partisans and tribalists themselves. One example that springs to mind is the Labour PPB on "The Un-Credible Shrinking Man". Purely bashing. I could certainly grab ones from other parties as well, mind you.
It may have worked well in the past when there was a greater tendency to align oneself with a political tribe, but now we have the problem that most people listen to all sides, dismiss the positive bits that each side says about itself with "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they" ... and believe the negative ones. From all of them.
So the various parties have convinced the public: Tories are evil, grasping and heartless. Labour are stupid, warmongering and Britain-hating. Lib Dems are treacherous, self-serving and indecisive.
So - why should we expect the public to turn out and vote for one of the main choice if they've been assured that the choices are:
A - Evil
B - Stupid
C - Treacherous?
And should we be surprised that they search for someone - anyone - else?
0 -
Ahem. Sorry. Rant mode = off.
0 -
UKIP's projected share of 17% this year looks right, but last year's 23% seemed too high IMO.0
-
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.Richard_Tyndall said:More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
0 -
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.Life_ina_market_town said:
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
0 -
Buttler and Bopara are having a huge set-back.MikeSmithson said:Why does everybody take the Euro results as their guide when in first past the post local elections on the same day UKIP saw what can only be described as a huge set-back. Down 6% in a year is a pretty bad appalling trend.
Why does anybody take any notice of a donor funded poll by ComRes - the firm that was overstated Ukip more than any other in the EP14 campaign?
The media narrative is all purple at the moment. We must not get overwhelmed.
0 -
Unfortunately . the responders to this poll spoke with forked tongues . If you take the figures for the question How likely are you going to vote for Party X at the GE next year and take 100% of those 10/10 90% of those 9/10 80% of those 8/10 etc you get the following % share for each party next year as
Con 39%
Lab 39%
LDem 23%
UKIP 33%0 -
EDIT - Reply to Andy Cooke
Very true.
And on the one hand, we've got the well known tendency of people to gravitate back to what they did/felt before - and on the other, the iconoclastic desire to break past the current established options.
I've long been of the opinion that the disillusionment that many of the electorate have with the political process and the concomitant worldwide dropping in turnout figures, near-contempt of politicians in general and now the surge to A N Other option come from seeds sewn by the partisans and tribalists themselves. One example that springs to mind is the Labour PPB on "The Un-Credible Shrinking Man". Purely bashing. I could certainly grab ones from other parties as well, mind you.
It may have worked well in the past when there was a greater tendency to align oneself with a political tribe, but now we have the problem that most people listen to all sides, dismiss the positive bits that each side says about itself with "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they" ... and believe the negative ones. From all of them.
So the various parties have convinced the public: Tories are evil, grasping and heartless. Labour are stupid, warmongering and Britain-hating. Lib Dems are treacherous, self-serving and indecisive.
So - why should we expect the public to turn out and vote for one of the main choice if they've been assured that the choices are:
A - Evil
B - Stupid
C - Treacherous?
And should we be surprised that they search for someone - anyone - else?
I like your summary.
The vast majority of the people I know are non political.
Many take the view that no matter who you vote for. You get screwed.
They haven't been screwed by UKIP yet, so what's to lose by voting for them as the alternatives are no better.
0 -
Yeah - the UKIP estimates may well have more of a pinch of salt around them than the others. If the principle is to extrapolate from areas of historical strength and weakness and how support has changed over the cycle to estimate a national equivalent vote share, then having a party like UKIP is far more of a challenge. Which are the areas of historical strength and weakness? How has the cycle changed them? You'd have to estimate onto estimate.AndyJS said:UKIP's projected share of 17% this year looks right, but last year's 23% seemed too high IMO.
0 -
Sorry yes I understand you. The sort of authoritarian rubbish that Fitlass considers acceptable is not the same as more reasonable people would consider the mark of a good Home Secretary.Life_ina_market_town said:
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.Richard_Tyndall said:More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
I suppose that also explains why May is happy to sign over so much power to the EU. Tories are only interested paying lip service to limiting the power of the EU over our affairs. In reality they are more than happy to see control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels.0 -
Huge lines at passport control. Immigration levels at more than double the target a year before the election. Massive and obvious fraud in the process had to be uncovered by the BBC and the Mail. Millions of untracked migrants. A badly privatised system for visa applicants abroad. No abolition of New Labour's erosions of liberty on counter-terrorism powers. Mass spying on British citizens without probable cause, including stealing the contents of their communications.fitalass said:Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
If this is what an "able and effective" home secretary looks like, I'd hate to see what a bad one is. May is a disgrace.0 -
UKPR comment
MRNAMELESS
'UKIP claim they had 500 canvassers here this morning. I doubt it was that high but certainly in decent three figures. Farage has been here today. Spoke to some Tory people who think they’re about to lose.'0 -
You're probably right.Socrates said:
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.Life_ina_market_town said:
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.0 -
Actually, if she has managed to deliver all of that, then she probably is able and effective. You just disagree with her objectives ;-)Socrates said:
Huge lines at passport control. Immigration levels at more than double the target a year before the election. Massive and obvious fraud in the process had to be uncovered by the BBC and the Mail. Millions of untracked migrants. A badly privatised system for visa applicants abroad. No abolition of New Labour's erosions of liberty on counter-terrorism powers. Mass spying on British citizens without probable cause, including stealing the contents of their communications.fitalass said:Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
If this is what an "able and effective" home secretary looks like, I'd hate to see what a bad one is. May is a disgrace.0 -
That is a hopeless argument. Cameron added 3.7% to what Michael Howard achieved in 2005 against Blair during an economic bubble. There is no reason to think that Davis would have been as unappealing to the public as Cameron.Charles said:You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.0 -
You regard huge queues at passport control as an achievement?Charles said:
Actually, if she has managed to deliver all of that, then she probably is able and effective. You just disagree with her objectives ;-)Socrates said:
Huge lines at passport control. Immigration levels at more than double the target a year before the election. Massive and obvious fraud in the process had to be uncovered by the BBC and the Mail. Millions of untracked migrants. A badly privatised system for visa applicants abroad. No abolition of New Labour's erosions of liberty on counter-terrorism powers. Mass spying on British citizens without probable cause, including stealing the contents of their communications.fitalass said:Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
If this is what an "able and effective" home secretary looks like, I'd hate to see what a bad one is. May is a disgrace.
0 -
Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply a pragmatic and sensible means of resolving international disputes.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry yes I understand you. The sort of authoritarian rubbish that Fitlass considers acceptable is not the same as more reasonable people would consider the mark of a good Home Secretary.Life_ina_market_town said:
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.Richard_Tyndall said:More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
I suppose that also explains why May is happy to sign over so much power to the EU. Tories are only interested paying lip service to limiting the power of the EU over our affairs. In reality they are more than happy to see control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to such unjustified hyperbole.
0 -
FPT
The EBA agreement excludes huge countries like Nigeria, who have tens of millions on the breadline. It also generates good headlines but throws spanners in the work by requiring every element of the production to be in that one country, which is beyond the capabilities of many of these countries to do.foxinsoxuk said:Under the "Everything but arms" arrangement the Least Developed Countries have tarrif free access to the EU: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_but_Arms
The CAP is now a much smaller percentage of the EU budget than it one was, and while slow, reform has happened. For this to continue to occur we need a strong UK presence in the European parliament; but what we got last week were a bunch of no show loadmouths like the awful shouty Boars on QT the other night.
The EU is a better place for having us within it, and we are a better place for being in it.
As for reform happening, this is complete drivel. Dumping on the world market still happens. Highly perverse economic incentives remain. Overproduction is still huge. The cost of CAP has just gone up and up and up. The fact other wastes of money in the EU budget have gone up more doesn't make it any better. If we can't get decent reform in 13 years of New Labour being 'at the heart of Europe', and giving away half our rebate, when can we ever reasonably expect reform? You're banging your head on the same wall over and over and expecting a different result.0 -
I'll stick with my prediction of 10% for UKIP at the GE. Neck and neck with the LibDems for 3rd place.
0 -
Youse looking at a faceful of heid.
http://home.bt.com/news/worldnews/caption-competition-heads-up-for-salmond-114007936997310 -
This is stupid whataboutism. Yes, USA has barriers that are far too high, but the European ones are twice what any other major market has. Plus the European market is the naturally one to ship to, due to geographic proximity. No, there wouldn't be incentive for us to have protectionist tariffs on our own, as all four major political parties in this country support removing them. Not that that matters a jot in the EU, where it's Germany and France first, the UK a distant last, and the world's poorest nowhere at all.foxinsoxuk said:I am in favour of CAP reform, but Countries such as USA and Japan have major tariff and non tariff barriers against African agricultural exports. How would CAP reform be enhanced by us leaving the EU? And would not there be just as much incentive for us to have protectionist tariffs on our own?
0 -
I still can't understand how punters gave Labour a better chance of winning Newark than UKIP a couple of weeks ago.0
-
This is absurd. UKIP have shown how many Labour votes were ripe for the taking. A principled, working class Tory could clearly have won them over.Charles said:
You're probably right.Socrates said:
Strong on civil liberties, eurosceptic, firm on law and order, understands working class people, a self-made man. I'm pretty sure UKIP wouldn't have emerged if Davis had been in charge.Life_ina_market_town said:
David Davis' resignation in 2008 forced the Conservatives to maintain their opposition to 42 days detention when Cameron was wavering. He was ultimately instrumental in seeing that pernicious piece of authoritarianism defeated. The reason that arch-loyalists like yourself dislike Davis so much is that (1) unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has some principles, and (2) he is prepared to put those principles above personal ambition.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this oneave dare deselect him?
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.
0 -
Avery, can you give a single example since the Reformation where the decision of an English court has been liable to be overturned by a foreign tribunal in a criminal cause or matter? The only one I can think of is Blair's mad decision to sign us up to the International Criminal Court. The government now plans on giving that power to the Court of Justice of the European Union as well.AveryLP said:Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply pragmatic and sensible.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to unjustified hyperbole.
I have no problem with parties to a contract voluntarily subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. That in not comparable to what is being proposed. It may be argued that ceding sovereignty is both "pragmatic and sensible". That in no way stops what the government is proposing being a session of sovereignty. There is a reason that when the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament was first declared, it was done in an Act in restraint of appeals in 1533.
0 -
@alp
"..ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject.."
"When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty.."
You appear to confusing commercial law with the criminal law.
Unless of course you are trading rather esoteric "goods". I had thought the Royal Navy put a stop to that in the 1840's.0 -
No. She hasn't been able to get to grips with the failings at UKBA, she has let private companies run riot with much of the system, she has let the police and the security services get away with blatant abuses of liberty and she's buckling to the EU over arrest warrants. The whole picture is a woman who can't control anyone around her.Charles said:
Actually, if she has managed to deliver all of that, then she probably is able and effective. You just disagree with her objectives ;-)Socrates said:
Huge lines at passport control. Immigration levels at more than double the target a year before the election. Massive and obvious fraud in the process had to be uncovered by the BBC and the Mail. Millions of untracked migrants. A badly privatised system for visa applicants abroad. No abolition of New Labour's erosions of liberty on counter-terrorism powers. Mass spying on British citizens without probable cause, including stealing the contents of their communications.fitalass said:Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
If this is what an "able and effective" home secretary looks like, I'd hate to see what a bad one is. May is a disgrace.0 -
What you do in the privacy of your own contracts is down to you. The criminal law is another matter altogether not least because it deals with the liberty of the subject. The EAW is both an abomination and unnecessary. That a present Conservative minister thinks it a good idea just shows unfit for office Cameron and his clique are.AveryLP said:
Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply a pragmatic and sensible means of resolving international disputes.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry yes I understand you. The sort of authoritarian rubbish that Fitlass considers acceptable is not the same as more reasonable people would consider the mark of a good Home Secretary.Life_ina_market_town said:
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.Richard_Tyndall said:More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
I suppose that also explains why May is happy to sign over so much power to the EU. Tories are only interested paying lip service to limiting the power of the EU over our affairs. In reality they are more than happy to see control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to such unjustified hyperbole.0 -
M'Lud, I shall defer to your better knowledge of legal precedent.Life_ina_market_town said:
Avery, can you give a single example since the Reformation where the decision of an English court has been liable to be overturned by a foreign tribunal in a criminal cause or matter? The only one I can think of is Blair's mad decision to sign us up to the International Criminal Court. The government now plans on giving that power to the Court of Justice of the European Union as well.AveryLP said:Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply pragmatic and sensible.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to unjustified hyperbole.
I have no problem with parties to a contract voluntarily subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. That in not comparable to what is being proposed. It may be argued that ceding sovereignty is both "pragmatic and sensible". That in no way stops what the government is proposing being a session of sovereignty. There is a reason that when the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament was first declared, it was done in an Act in restraint of appeals in 1533.
My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?
0 -
BOOAveryLP said:
M'Lud, I shall defer to your better knowledge of legal precedent.Life_ina_market_town said:
Avery, can you give a single example since the Reformation where the decision of an English court has been liable to be overturned by a foreign tribunal in a criminal cause or matter? The only one I can think of is Blair's mad decision to sign us up to the International Criminal Court. The government now plans on giving that power to the Court of Justice of the European Union as well.AveryLP said:Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply pragmatic and sensible.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to unjustified hyperbole.
I have no problem with parties to a contract voluntarily subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. That in not comparable to what is being proposed. It may be argued that ceding sovereignty is both "pragmatic and sensible". That in no way stops what the government is proposing being a session of sovereignty. There is a reason that when the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament was first declared, it was done in an Act in restraint of appeals in 1533.
My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?
0 -
2U2shiney2 said:
BOOAveryLP said:
M'Lud, I shall defer to your better knowledge of legal precedent.Life_ina_market_town said:
Avery, can you give a single example since the Reformation where the decision of an English court has been liable to be overturned by a foreign tribunal in a criminal cause or matter? The only one I can think of is Blair's mad decision to sign us up to the International Criminal Court. The government now plans on giving that power to the Court of Justice of the European Union as well.AveryLP said:Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply pragmatic and sensible.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to unjustified hyperbole.
I have no problem with parties to a contract voluntarily subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. That in not comparable to what is being proposed. It may be argued that ceding sovereignty is both "pragmatic and sensible". That in no way stops what the government is proposing being a session of sovereignty. There is a reason that when the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament was first declared, it was done in an Act in restraint of appeals in 1533.
My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?
0 -
Twitter
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe 8m
Great @DerSPIEGEL exclusive: Cameron tells Merkel he can no longer guarantee UK's EU membership if Juncker runs EC. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/cameron-droht-merkel-wegen-juncker-lucke-will-zu-tories-a-972685.html …0 -
Nick Clegg your speechwriter?AveryLP said:
2U2shiney2 said:
BOOAveryLP said:
M'Lud, I shall defer to your better knowledge of legal precedent.Life_ina_market_town said:
Avery, can you give a single example since the Reformation where the decision of an English court has been liable to be overturned by a foreign tribunal in a criminal cause or matter? The only one I can think of is Blair's mad decision to sign us up to the International Criminal Court. The government now plans on giving that power to the Court of Justice of the European Union as well.AveryLP said:Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply pragmatic and sensible.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to unjustified hyperbole.
I have no problem with parties to a contract voluntarily subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. That in not comparable to what is being proposed. It may be argued that ceding sovereignty is both "pragmatic and sensible". That in no way stops what the government is proposing being a session of sovereignty. There is a reason that when the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament was first declared, it was done in an Act in restraint of appeals in 1533.
My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?
0 -
O/T Piers Morgan has a bet on the cricket with Jeffery Archer.
Wish they could both lose
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 47m
I have 228 as the over-under with @Jeffrey_Archer on England's score. He's over, I'm under. He's feeling confident. So am I.. #Lords0 -
Great news.
Twitter
The Times of London @thetimes 1m
Latest: Sudanese official says Meriam Ibrahim is 'to be freed' http://thetim.es/1tXYlcf #SaveMeriam (Photo: Alayaam) pic.twitter.com/JfclNLfyhp0 -
Why and in what way?HurstLlama said:
... The EAW is both an abomination and unnecessary. ...AveryLP said:
Allowing a supranational court to hear appeals on the EAW process is neither "ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation" nor is it "see[ing] control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels". It is simply a pragmatic and sensible means of resolving international disputes.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry yes I understand you. The sort of authoritarian rubbish that Fitlass considers acceptable is not the same as more reasonable people would consider the mark of a good Home Secretary.Life_ina_market_town said:
Richard, you do @Fitalass a disservice. There is no doubt that May has been 'a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been'. The important qualification to note is 'Tory'. Hence the support for the Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the introduction of closed material procedures in all civil proceedings bar inquests, the creation of new and unnecessary criminal offences, and now ceding jurisdiction over the liberty of the subject to foreign courts for the first time since the Reformation. This is able and effective Tory authoritarianism in practice.Richard_Tyndall said:More rubbish again. May has been an atrocious authoritarian Home Secretary who is an utter disgrace. The fact that she is happy, in spite of the chance to pull us away from EU controls on justice issues, to sign us back up to more than 30 areas of EU control shows just how awful she is. Davis would have been better in every way.
I suppose that also explains why May is happy to sign over so much power to the EU. Tories are only interested paying lip service to limiting the power of the EU over our affairs. In reality they are more than happy to see control of our Justice system slip away to Brussels.
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Sometimes the anti-EU cause can drive its advocates to such unjustified hyperbole.
My argument on appeals is not dependent on the EAW being good law. It follows from the assumption that the treaty obligation exists.
But I am happy for the the subject to be changed.
0 -
228 ought to do it? ;-)Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Piers Morgan has a bet on the cricket with Jeffery Archer.
Wish they could both lose
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 47m
I have 228 as the over-under with @Jeffrey_Archer on England's score. He's over, I'm under. He's feeling confident. So am I.. #Lords
0 -
If he's done that as a spread bet, he'll be feeling a bit sick: England 289/6 with one over to go, chasing 301Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Piers Morgan has a bet on the cricket with Jeffery Archer.
Wish they could both lose
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 47m
I have 228 as the over-under with @Jeffrey_Archer on England's score. He's over, I'm under. He's feeling confident. So am I.. #Lords
0 -
Consider as follows: A District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court issues an arrest warrant in respect of AB on a charge of murder. AB is in the Commonwealth of Australia. The Australian authorities are notified. The courts in Australia determine that AB is ineligible to be surrendered to the United Kingdom on procedural grounds. The Australian authorities view this as the enforcement of the rule of law, the British as 'fiddling with procedure'. What is to be done? Nothing, certainly not the creation of a supranational tribunal with power to overrule either the Australian or British courts. Anyone who suggested such a proposal would be considered mad, and rightly so. There is no reason why extradition to and from European Union Member States should be subject to different principles.AveryLP said:My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?0 -
Whilst releasing her is welcome, has the sentence been overturned or will she still be subject to 100 lashes etc? Until we know for certain I'd be cautious.fitalass said:Great news.
Twitter
The Times of London @thetimes 1m
Latest: Sudanese official says Meriam Ibrahim is 'to be freed' http://thetim.es/1tXYlcf #SaveMeriam (Photo: Alayaam) pic.twitter.com/JfclNLfyhp
0 -
I think it is a pretty common view. Don't recall stats to back it up. Certainly unlikely that he would have been able to do a deal with the LibDems in the same way.Life_ina_market_town said:
That is a hopeless argument. Cameron added 3.7% to what Michael Howard achieved in 2005 against Blair during an economic bubble. There is no reason to think that Davis would have been as unappealing to the public as Cameron.Charles said:You're probably right.
With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister at the moment, their focus would be on the fight for the soul of the Tory party.0 -
M'Lud.Life_ina_market_town said:
Consider as follows: A District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court issues an arrest warrant in respect of AB on a charge of murder. AB is in the Commonwealth of Australia. The Australian authorities are notified. The courts in Australia determine that AB is ineligible to be surrendered to the United Kingdom on procedural grounds. The Australian authorities view this as the enforcement of the rule of law, the British as 'fiddling with procedure'. What is to be done? Nothing, certainly not the creation of a supranational tribunal with power to overrule either the Australian or British courts. Anyone who suggested such a proposal would be considered mad, and rightly so. There is no reason why extradition to and from European Union Member States should be subject to different principles.AveryLP said:My point is simple.
UK issues EAW to seek extradition of German national to the UK for trial on a professional negligence manslaughter type charge.
Germany resists EAW by fiddling with procedure.
How is the matter to be resolved?
The fact there is no process for adjudicating international disputes on extradition proceedings is a systemic weakness not grounds for opposing its geographically limited introduction elsewhere.
0 -
I doubt they exist. I travel through Heathrow about 3 times (each way) a week. there are long queues about once every 2-3 weeks, which suggests to me that it's an issue with staffing rather than something May is responsible for. For instance, on Friday, there was a queue of about 30 people in front of the manual check, but the electronic check was completely empty.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
You regard huge queues at passport control as an achievement?Charles said:
Actually, if she has managed to deliver all of that, then she probably is able and effective. You just disagree with her objectives ;-)Socrates said:
Huge lines at passport control. Immigration levels at more than double the target a year before the election. Massive and obvious fraud in the process had to be uncovered by the BBC and the Mail. Millions of untracked migrants. A badly privatised system for visa applicants abroad. No abolition of New Labour's erosions of liberty on counter-terrorism powers. Mass spying on British citizens without probable cause, including stealing the contents of their communications.fitalass said:Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
If this is what an "able and effective" home secretary looks like, I'd hate to see what a bad one is. May is a disgrace.
But I was just pointing out to Socrates that "able and effective" does not necessarily imply that he likes the outcome. For instance, I think Putin is an able and effective leader of Russia, but I'd hate to live in a country ruled by him.0 -
Davis is the biggest disappointment in modern British politics. I was a huge fan when he did his ancient-rights thing and even donated to his fighting fund, but it's transpired that was all just a five-minute wonder. Since then his only contributions have been to make homophobic rants in London bars and slippery surmises for Michael Crick by canteen service hatches. A total dud.fitalass said:If David Davis pulled a stunt like that, he really would effectively be ending his career as a Conservative politician altogether. The fact that Davis has never been invited back to the Conservative front bench since he resigned as Shadow Home Secretary and caused that by-election in his own seat should tell you that Cameron wouldn't think twice about deselecting him. Theresa May has also proved to be a far more able and effective Tory Home Secretary than David Davis would have ever been, so Cameron certainly made the right judgement call on this one.
shiney2 said:@gin1138
If he wore the purple AND blue, would Dave dare deselect him?0 -
Really?AveryLP said:
When I enter into a commercial contract with a overseas counterparty, the contract will be subject to an agreed jurisdiction and an arbitral process may additionally agreed under the jurisdiction of a different country, often not that of either of the principal parties to the contract (Sweden seems to have cornered this market).
Jurisdiction is always a fight (particularly when Americans are involved) but the ones I've seen usual end up as England, Germany, or Switzerland (for arbitration). I've worked under Danish and Norwegian law before, but only when they were my clients and I had instructions to absolutely not budge on the issue.0 -
They assumed that LAB would campaign hard - which is not what's happened. I'm now on a UKIP victory at an average 4.2/1AndyJS said:I still can't understand how punters gave Labour a better chance of winning Newark than UKIP a couple of weeks ago.
0 -
Der Spiegel, the German magazine, reported that the Prime Minister told Mrs Merkel that picking Mr Juncker for the job would “destabilise his government to such a point that it would bring forward a referendum on whether to exit the EU” – a move which could lead to Britain leaving.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10867373/Cameron-warned-Merkel-over-Britain-quitting-European-Union.html0
