politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB moves to its best YouGov position for seven weeks

SouthamObserver said:

But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement.

I have every confidence that the legal profession will have found a way to make it expensive.

RichardNabavi said:

SouthamObserver said:

But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement.

I have every confidence that the legal profession will have found a way to make it expensive.

of course! But I doubt it will be ruinous. And I would be surprised if Bercow herself was forced to pay all of whatever settlement sum is agreed.

Reading between the lines it looks as if the framework of a deal was agreed before the ruling.

SouthamObserver said:

Next said:

SouthamObserver said:

TGOHF said:

Bercow has well wishers happy to part with cash to help her out ? That would be a short queue.

It only takes one wealthy backer. As it's now going to be settled it is unlikely we will ever know. But in the great scheme of things this will not have been an expensive case. There were no witnesses called, discvovery would have been very limited, Bercow did not deny making the statement. The only issue was whether the Tweet was libellous and the judge has not taken very long to decide that.

I thought damages are going to be decided at another hearing. In which we will know then?

Bercow said: "To say I'm surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter.

"Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intent them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine

I see your Guardian, and raise you the BBC:

"A subsequent High Court hearing will determine the damages she must pay."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083

Comments all disappeared...

I can just see a collection of faces and avatars, some happy, some sad others about to have their disability cut

This is pretty devastating to the rightwing Welfare anecdotalists:

@reddeviljp
People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong. Church report explains. pic.twitter.com/dCcD2SS8wU

dr_spyn said:

Unforeseen benefit of switching of street lights - fall in crime? Thieves afraid of the dark...

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Burglars-afraid-dark-Crime-falls-Bristol-street/story-13952633-detail/story.html#axzz2Tv1m6240

Nick Ross had a very interesting article on crime the mail the other day:

"Crime requires more than a predisposition to offend. It will flourish when we make it easy and shrivel when we make it hard."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326656/How-Jill-Dandos-death-convinced-know-crime-wrong-NICK-ROSS-tells-shocking-truth-murder-friend-real-cause-crime.html

https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/crime-hardback

'People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong...'

The word 'snitching' beautifully betrays your contempt for people who report what they suspect to be criminal activity.

Labour would far rather this didn't happen so that a significant minority of its client state could go back to fleecing the state in peace.

SouthamObserver said:

BenM said:

This is pretty devastating to the rightwing Welfare anecdotalists:

@reddeviljp
People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong. Church report explains. pic.twitter.com/dCcD2SS8wU

It's a shame that cannot be cut and pasted. I wonder why the government - which so loves a welfare statistic, of course - does not share these ones with us. *InnocentFace*

Very good point.

Morris_Dancer said:

Stupid vote by the Kirk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22650393

If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.

Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.

taffys said:

'People who end up snitching on their neighbours for benefit fraud are usually wrong...'

The word 'snitching' beautifully betrays your contempt for people who report what they suspect to be criminal activity.

Labour would far rather this didn't happen so that a significant minority of its client state could go back to fleecing the state in peace.

Is that why Labour increased the resources that went into fighting benefit fraud?

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Stupid vote by the Kirk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22650393

If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.

Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.

Has Scotland ever had a King Jack before?

Peter_the_Punter said:

JackW said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Stupid vote by the Kirk:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22650393

If Scotland becomes independent they want a separate coronation in Scotland. Credit to Sturgeon for (earlier) dismissing such a thing.

Should Scotland become independent again then I'd certainly favour a Scottish coronation. Before the 1707 Act of Union the last Scottish monarch to be crowned was Charles II in 1651 having succeeded his father as king in 1649 following the regicide.

Has Scotland ever had a King Jack before?

No but you should surely be Mistress of the Robes should it come to pass !!

Alanbrooke said:

Filleted kippers for lunch - eat your your heart out David Cameron.

I admit to being rather partial to kippers which makes my aversion to the human variety a wee bit perplexing ?!?

Kipper pies .... Hhmmm not too sure ??

Anorak said:

Oh my. Someone's not a fan.

Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/twitter-not-allowed-to-be-completely-full-of-shit-2013052470025

Nasty little piece of misogyny from Mash. She is not an appendage of her husband.

JackW said:

Anorak said:

Oh my. Someone's not a fan.

Bercow had challenged McAlpine’s claim insisting her tweet was part of a widely-recognised pattern of being an attention-seeking cretin who degrades the office of Speaker of the House of Commons almost as much as her ghastly little husband.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/twitter-not-allowed-to-be-completely-full-of-shit-2013052470025

Nasty little piece of misogyny from Mash. She is not an appendage of her husband.

...but she's only known because of him, so I don't think it's a black and white as all that.

Or would Michelle Obama being caught shoplifting not impact her husband's office?

JackW said:

Alanbrooke said:

Filleted kippers for lunch - eat your your heart out David Cameron.

I admit to being rather partial to kippers which makes my aversion to the human variety a wee bit perplexing ?!?

Kipper pies .... Hhmmm not too sure ??

If only I had a liking for fruitcake I could do cameron lunches .......

Socrates said:

That they are inflicting protectionist restrictions on the UK, against the best interests of our country.

Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?

What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?

Bond_James_Bond said:

Socrates said:

That they are inflicting protectionist restrictions on the UK, against the best interests of our country.

Presumably it is literally impossible for the EU to expel any country from membership, right?

What would actually happen in EU terms if, say, Lithuania elected a fascist government that then reintroduced the death penalty? What's the actual mechanism for reversing that law or removing that government, anyone know?

Given their inability to reverse the constitutional changes in Hungary, they'll be able to do sweet FA apart from some huffing and puffing.

@Marches and @Anorak

To a large degree yes but still it smacks of antediluvian attitudes towards women as if their existence derives solely from their marriage.

JosiasJessop said:

Polruan said:

There's an unusual lack of comment from the usual plane geeks (not an insult; I include myself) about the BA762 emergency landing at Heathrow this morning. Everyone fine, thankfully, other than the birds that appear to have been shredded and lightly fricassed in engine 2.

Anyway, it's a good opportunity to post a link to this masterpiece

http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html

In my defence, I was working. :-)

It'll be interesting to see what happened to the plane - if it was a bird strike (there seems to be some doubt on the radio). But thank goodness everyone was okay.

It throw up yet more questions about the capacity problems at Heathrow, and how best to fix them. One thing is for certain: the current situation cannot continue forever.

Oh, and that website's brilliant.

Following up my own post: looking at the video which shows the engine covers missing in flight, and the fact that BA have suspended all short-haul flights, I'm wondering if it might be a maintenance issue?

I wonder where the engine covers landed?

(It could still be a bird strike; I might inexpertly be reading too much into the images).

GIN1138 said:

So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.

Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?

In Spain it was snowing last week up where i used to live. So, in fact, you could say our weather i sbetter than theirs!

http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20130515/54373549164/nieve-cadenas-mayo-catalunya.html

Anorak said:

Given their inability to reverse the constitutional changes in Hungary, they'll be able to do sweet FA apart from some huffing and puffing.

I suppose what I'm musing on is at what point a country could do something so beyond the pale that the EU would decide they had to be expelled. What about one that flouted EU directives, didn't implement them, and didn't pay its subs? Actually, scratch that - hardly anyone pays in anyway so almost nobody has subs they could stop paying.

My suspicion is that a militant fascist government would be a HAL9000 paranoid fugue moment for the EU. Expelling a country would require it to return sovereignty to a member and to get smaller. This is in precise conflict with its 50-year agenda of absorbing member states' sovereignty and getting bigger.

Would the EU tolerate a fascist government if the alternative were to get smaller? I think it would.

BoredInParis said:

GIN1138 said:

So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.

Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?

Our climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that climate change might affect this system, and that the effects of this on our climate would be significant.

Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.

But the original idea (when it was called "Global Warming") was that the jet stream would be shunted north and the sub-tropical high pressure from the Azores would expand to deliver us consistently hot summers and mild, stormy winters.

The Med was supposed to become an arid desert like north Africa, while northern Europe would become like the Med.

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?

Indeed, Mr. Gin. Those who believe in global warming claimed we'd have Mediterranean type weather, and are now claiming exactly the same cause for droughts, floods, prolonged cold winters etc etc.

One wonders what sort of weather is not covered by global warming (now handily renamed 'climate change', which rather ignores the fact that the UK's climate, like the world's, has always changed naturally).

Bond_James_Bond said:

edmundintokyo said:

The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.

So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.

Well, if you actually wanted to become a non-member you'd just go ahead and leave...

Anorak said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

edmundintokyo said:

The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.

So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.

Who gets to decide what 'unsavory' is?

Realpolitik would probably decide

GIN1138 said:

BoredInParis said:

GIN1138 said:

So as I sit here on 24th May theres rain lashing down on the window, a howling north-easterly gale and the temperature's just 5C.

Whatever happened to the Mediterranean Climate we were promised in the 1990's? The weather seems to have become more Nordic than Spainish?

Our climate is moderated by the Gulf Stream. It is not an unreasonable hypothesis that climate change might affect this system, and that the effects of this on our climate would be significant.

Look at the countries at the same latitude. Canada and the southern bits of Scandinavia.

But the original idea (when it was called "Global Warming") was that the jet stream would be shunted north and the sub-tropical high pressure from the Azores would expand to deliver us consistently hot summers and mild, stormy winters.

The Med was supposed to become an arid desert like north Africa, while northern Europe would become like the Med.

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?

I'm just trying to think it through logically. Like a scientist perhaps should.

I don't disagree with the cynicism, btw.

Anorak said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

edmundintokyo said:

The EU doesn't have a mechanism for expelling a member state, but it could suspend voting rights by unanimity of everyone except the country concerned.

So presumably you could become a non-member in practice by simply doing whatever your electors decided. You could close your borders, for example.

I wonder how the EU would react to a coup within a member country, resulting in military rule, or one with no sign of democracy re-emerging? Military intervention would be political dynamite, especially if the coup was [relatively] peaceful. Sanctions have proved to be weak-sauce and hurt the population much more than the regime.

Would it make a difference if the coup removed an unsavory regime (e.g. Fidesz in Hungary, or the aforementioned fascist regime elsewhere)? Who gets to decide what 'unsavory' is?

This was vaguely discussed at one point in the context of Greece. But it's pretty straightforward really - EU membership carries a bunch of legal obligations (not directly related to whether people think you unsavory) including respecting human rights, and if one breaches them you can get compensation required to be paid to the victims and other penalties.

If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers and you'd then look silly trying to complain that your EU rights had been violated. You'd be better off just using the Lisbon procedure to leave voluntarily and negotiate trade etc. on your way out. The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that'[s why Lisbon provided for it.

There isn't any scope for intervening militarily (no EU military forces, for a start), though if you imagine a new Hitler it's possible that other countries would decide to intervene - but that wouldn't be an EU action.

edmundintokyo said:

GIN1138 said:

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?

The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.

What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.

If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.

Well, the expansion of the "sub-tropical belts" and the resulting northwards movement of the jet stream is hardly a "local" effect. It's key to the whole thing.

If anything I would say the past ten years have probably seen the sub-tropical belts and the jets stream shift a little bit south of their position in the 1990's. That shouldn't be happening, surely?

Afternoon all.

Time for a little ECB Qualitative Teasing.

Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank gave a speech yesterday to a conference organised by the City of London Corporation. The theme of the conference was "The Future of Europe in the Global Economy".

Two statements made during the speech stand out. His opening conciliatory but entirely meaningless line:

Europe needs a more European UK as much as the UK needs a more British Europe

And his final conclusion:

The answer to the crisis has not been less Europe, but more Europe

For those wondering whether there was any substance in between, contemplate this vision of EU utopia:

“A more stable union will be one where financial contagion will have disappeared, where business for the financial centres will vastly increase, where financial market integration will resume.”

Well, yes, Sr. Draghi, but how about telling us how we will get there.

tim said:

@Neil

Nice destruction of Paisley by Maajid Nawaz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFO8UGQ78Eg&feature=youtu.be

I'd not really seen much of Paisley Jn before last night but he really is an odious individual. I thought Tatchel was hugely restrained in his comments. I think if I'd had someone next to me coming out with such vile bigoted claptrap and then effectively telling me who I should be marrying I'd have smacked him.

Nawaz' put down was masterful and Paisley's body language throughout showed his fury at anyone having the temerity to challenge his views - even having a go at one of the audience members who'd simply asked him a question. Nasty piece of work, but as Nawaz indicated, yesterday's man.

edmundintokyo said:

GIN1138 said:

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?

The basic hypothesis is that the planet (air and sea combined) will get warmer. Once you've proved the basic physics, which you can do with a coke bottle, you figure out whether it's happening or not in the actual planet by seeing whether the planet gets warmer or not.

What's going to happen locally in any particular place is crazy hard, because you've got all kinds of complex systems that interact with each other, so if you get one bit a little bit wrong it can have knock-on effects that make another bit even wronger.

If it was easy to figure out all the details there might actually be less to worry about, because if the worst came to the worst we could geo-engineer our way out of it.

The trouble with this is that whilst the basic physics you refer to is of course correct, it is not actually the main foundation of the hypothesis surrounding the concerns about catastrophic AGW. If the planet reacted as a simple coke bottle then actually the warming we would see would not be problematic. The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.

It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing. That in itself is of course hugely difficult because of the problems with taking thousands of local readings and using them to create an overall picture of warming or cooling.

But anyone who tells you (and I am not saying this is what you were saying Edmund) that "it is all simple, just look at the lab experiments", clearly doesn't understand the basics of climate science.

Tykejohnno said:

Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good

The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/

Why should we "celebrate" bogus students being denied entry to the UK?

Bond_James_Bond said:

NickPalmer said:

If you systematically refuse to play ball in any way then de facto suspension will follow, and of course that also means that the other countries can impose trade barriers....The idea that losing a country is anathema isn't one I've heard - that's why Lisbon provided for it.

What I am wondering, Nick, is whether you could de facto leave by ignoring all the rules, without actually doing anything else about it. You'd then be either

1/ a member in such poor standing that you're not member, or
2/ expelled.

I take your point about Article 50 of Lisbon. I guess what I am thinking is that any invocation of that article would probably be opposed by some sort of process pleading.

Eg if a government invoked it, as a negotiating tactic for example, wouldn't the EU argue that they hadn't any mandate to do so? If they had one, in the shape of a referendum result, wouldn't they be required to keep repeating the referendum until the result changed?

I have recently been having a long discussion about this with Dr Richard North. He and I both agree that Article 50 is really the only legal way to proceed and remain in accordance with the Vienna Convention. Unfortunately there are a lot of headbangers in the BOO side who seem to think simply tearing up our treaty agreements would be fine. They really are not giving any thought to what this would mean in terms of trade and our relationship with the rest of the EU.

A few days ago in response to our discussions about the status of the UK in the EEA after leaving the EU (formally through invoking article 50) Dr North wrote to the Deputy Secretary-General of EFTA to ask for his opinion on the issue. I will let you know what he says when we hear back.

Richard_Tyndall said:

edmundintokyo said:

GIN1138 said:

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?


The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.

It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing.

And worth noting here that the models have been pretty robust thus far.

There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.

Oops, BBC writes off £100m project.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22651126

BenM said:

Tykejohnno said:

Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good

The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/

Why should we "celebrate" bogus students being denied entry to the UK?

It's just lovely to point out how wrong labour and it's supporters were.

BBC: RAF jets launched to investigate unexpected diversion of Pakistan passenger plane from Manchester to Stansted

BenM said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

edmundintokyo said:

GIN1138 said:

"Climate Change" seems to be something else that covers pretty much any weather event and pattern?


The whole basis of the CAGW hypothesis is that the feedback mechanisms will magnify the effects of any slight warming caused by increased CO2 and so will lead to far larger temperature increases than we would otherwise expect. The counter argument is that in fact these feedback mechanisms act to reduce the temperature impact (something along the lines of a refined Gaia Principle) and so any warming will be very small or non existent to the extent it will be masked by natural processes.

It is at this point that these models then have to be subjected to the real life data of the planet and what it is doing.

And worth noting here that the models have been pretty robust thus far.

There is no evidence that the predictions in them are totally wrong at all.

Actually no, its worth noting that the models have not been robust at all when used in a predictive sense. They matched the actual measurements very well when used to back model pre- the mid 1990s but since then have diverged rapidly from the recorded measurements to the extent that many of the peer reviewed papers being released in the last year - including a number by former or current IPCC members - are now massively reducing the likely temperature rise.

The current global temperatures lie below even the lowest estimates of any of the IPCC models.

chrisshipitv Two RAF Typhoon jets are escorting a passenger plane from Pakistan to Stansted airport - the UK's designated counter terrorism airport

chrisshipitv Latest on diverted aircraft on which Essex Police confirms there has been "an incident". Here: itv.co/12Sehjg

BenM said:

Tykejohnno said:

BenM said:

Tykejohnno said:

Why, once again, a fall in student immigration is good

The reality is that bogus students are being prevented from studying in the UK – something we should all celebrate. Meanwhile, university applications are up 5 per cent and work visas (Tier 2) are also up 7 per cent. The government’s progress is something to be celebrated – net migration is coming down without any significant damage to business or higher education. There remains much more to be done but let us offer at least two cheers for the government’s considerable achievements so far.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/why-once-again-a-fall-in-student-immigration-is-good/

Why should we "celebrate" bogus students being denied entry to the UK?

It's just lovely to point out how wrong labour and it's supporters were.

"Wrong" about what?

Just wrong, Ben.

There is no need to elaborate.

Personally I think we need more data points to decide what to do, given we are technically in an interglacial period within an ice age shutting down CO2 emmissions could concievably allow the world to run its natural course into a glacial (Another ice age). This would affect the world just as much as a runaway greenhouse would.

If one thinks its better to have a natural process over an unnatural, then take a look around - humans have changed the landscape of the land of the earth beyond all recognition. Our effect on long term temperature processes (climate) ? Much harder to evaluate, given we have only in the last fraction of a millisecond (Of the Earth's time) become 'industrialised'. Accuratish data from the last hundred years really isn't enough of a set.

AndreaParma_82 said:

It seems they have done a Lab-LD-UKIP-Green-Ind coalition in Norfolk!!

As goes Norfolk, so goes Britain.

Tykejohnno said:

chrisshipitv Two RAF Typhoon jets are escorting a passenger plane from Pakistan to Stansted airport - the UK's designated counter terrorism airport

The escorts will have to refuel at least twice!

Sorry - now see they are only going from Lincolnshire to Stansted!

Richard_Tyndall said:

LOL. Not sure how long that will last :-)

We're on the same side now, Richard!!!

UKIP Welsh MEP John Bufton announces retirement after 1 term. "Personal reasons" cited as the reason