But after its sole MP Douglas Carswell refused the full £650,000-a-year parliamentary funding to which Ukip is entitled, saying the party should not ‘jump on the gravy train’, it is now being forced to cut back dramatically on staff.
Whatever one may think of Mr Carswell and his defection, he has proven to be an honest and principled man of moral values and independent thought, no matter which party he represents. Politics needs a lot more like him.
Yes, one may disagree with his policies but he can show the UKIP MEPs and many MPs of all parties how they should behave when it comes to public money. Martin Bell has praised Carswell with regard to the MPs expenses scandal.
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap! Carswell is a liability that UKIP cannot afford. If he want's to appear godlike he should join the church.
Arf. You want rid of UKIP's sole, one and only, singular, MP?
But after its sole MP Douglas Carswell refused the full £650,000-a-year parliamentary funding to which Ukip is entitled, saying the party should not ‘jump on the gravy train’, it is now being forced to cut back dramatically on staff.
Whatever one may think of Mr Carswell and his defection, he has proven to be an honest and principled man of moral values and independent thought, no matter which party he represents. Politics needs a lot more like him.
Yes, one may disagree with his policies but he can show the UKIP MEPs and many MPs of all parties how they should behave when it comes to public money. Martin Bell has praised Carswell with regard to the MPs expenses scandal.
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap! Carswell is a liability that UKIP cannot afford. If he want's to appear godlike he should join the church.
Arf. You want rid of UKIP's sole, one and only, singular, MP?
No, if it can be helped, but Carswell must behave like an elected MP: not as god's representative on earth.
What would Associate EU member look like? 1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU 2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP 3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model 4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP) 5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
The problem is that there is so much wrong with the EU's approach to the fundamental freedoms, which, of themselves would not be objectionable. Can it seriously have been contemplated at the time of the making of the Treaties that the free movement of goods would made a national law prohibiting motorcycles from towing a trailer a justiciable issue of EU law (Commission v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34)? Was it envisaged that a member state could not remove an illegal alien with no right of abode in their jurisdiction because her removal might infringe her partner's right to provide services in another member state (Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 46)? I could give more examples. The whole bizarre system is just rotten through and through.
I would have said that there is zero chance of state funding of political parties being proposed in this Parliament, given the relative funding levels of the various political parties.
Direction of country - net 'right': England: +15 Scotland: -14
Direction of Economy - net 'improving': England: +38 Scotland: -12
The latest increases in unemployment in Scotland suggest that Scots are right to be worried about the mess the SNP are making of governing. Especially since the unemployment rate used to be lower in Scotland than England but is now the reverse.,
The employment rate is still higher in Scotland than it is in England.
That the unemployment rate is also higher is one of those mysteries of the universe.
It's not so much a mystery as the SNP have made a lot of noise and effort into getting women into work, especially those with children.
What would Associate EU member look like? 1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU 2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP 3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model 4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP) 5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
The problem is that there is so much wrong with the EU's approach to the fundamental freedoms, which, of themselves would not be objectionable. Can it seriously have been contemplated at the time of the making of the Treaties that the free movement of goods would made a national law prohibiting motorcycles from towing a trailer a justiciable issue of EU law (Commission v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34)? Was it envisaged that a member state could not remove an illegal alien with no right of abode in their jurisdiction because her removal might infringe her partner's right to provide services in another member state (Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 46)? I could give more examples. The whole bizarre system is just rotten through and through.
Other than for the EU bureaucracy and of course the lawyers, it is hard to see the tangible benefit to a lot of the byzantine system. I try to consider that even in a perfect world the system trying to do what this one is purported to be trying to do would be fiendishly complex, but a lot of it, from a layman's point of view, seems deliberately designed to be frustrating, inconsistent, incomprehensible and lacking in genuine improvement.
I would be the last to defend the newspapers' tortious conduct, but the quantum of damages awarded against them in these cases is eye watering. Compare the damages you would receive if you had lost an arm as a result of another tortfeasor's negligence...
Yes, it is completely insane. The courts have lost all sense of proportion.
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
Good for Carswell for sticking to his principles Plato.
Though we're now well past peak Kipper. The referendum happening is shooting their fox, plus now they're not the sole protest party of opposition anymore. I'd be amazed if UKIP don't poll less votes in 2020 than 2015.
The main protest party being in government, the BNP totally collapsing, the opposition refusing an EU referendum ... 2015 was a perfect storm for UKIP and they failed to capitalise.
I would be the last to defend the newspapers' tortious conduct, but the quantum of damages awarded against them in these cases is eye watering. Compare the damages you would receive if you had lost an arm as a result of another tortfeasor's negligence...
Yes, it is completely insane. The courts have lost all sense of proportion.
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
It could be worse. Whilst the "gay cake" Bakery in NI agreed £500 in damages, an American bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple was fined nearly £90,000. I think courts struggle sometimes to have any point of reference.
I would have said that there is zero chance of state funding of political parties being proposed in this Parliament, given the relative funding levels of the various political parties.
Absolutely. Plus I doubt there'd be much popular appetite for it - for non-politicos it sounds like yet more public money for the hated nose-in-trough MPs.
What would Associate EU member look like? 1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU 2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP 3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model 4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP) 5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
The problem is that there is so much wrong with the EU's approach to the fundamental freedoms, which, of themselves would not be objectionable. Can it seriously have been contemplated at the time of the making of the Treaties that the free movement of goods would made a national law prohibiting motorcycles from towing a trailer a justiciable issue of EU law (Commission v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34)? Was it envisaged that a member state could not remove an illegal alien with no right of abode in their jurisdiction because her removal might infringe her partner's right to provide services in another member state (Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 46)? I could give more examples. The whole bizarre system is just rotten through and through.
Other than for the EU bureaucracy and of course the lawyers, it is hard to see the tangible benefit to a lot of the byzantine system. I try to consider that even in a perfect world the system trying to do what this one is purported to be trying to do would be fiendishly complex, but a lot of it, from a layman's point of view, seems deliberately designed to be frustrating, inconsistent, incomprehensible and lacking in genuine improvement.
1% of lawyers do very well and the other 99% have more difficulty getting done what their clients want done.
"The 35-MP nomination hurdle was set to prevent such unwelcome interventions, and one possible candidate, the former miners’ leader Ian Lavery, has ruled himself out because of the threat of media harassment of his family. But Diane Abbott, who stood five years ago, and the shadow cabinet member John Trickett, among others, are ready to stand – and shift the focus of the debate.
One way or another, the wider Labour party needs to take back control of its own contest. If the politics currently paraded by the main candidates wins out, Labour’s prospects in a country where hostility to the Westminster elite has already redrawn the electoral map look bleak. Union disaffiliation could then become a reality and eventually trigger a party split. Where Labour goes now will affect us all."
Just saw (Dr) Evan Harris from Hacked Off (and the party formally known as the Liberal Democrats) on the news wringing his hands about the "Long term viability" of the Mirror being put at risk due to the compensation pay out's they've got to come up with for phone hacking...
This from the man and the organisation that was quite happy to close down the "Murdoch press"...
Michael Gove vs the lawyers - his toughest fight yet The Justice Secretary's new mission makes education reform look like child's play
A brilliant article - Dan Hannan is a class act:
"No man, especially not a barrister, is a villain in his own eyes."
And a throwaway line about David Cameron that is one of the shrewdest I've read about him:
"one of the PM’s more attractive characteristics is that when he finds himself in an unwanted situation, he doesn’t sulk; he does his best to make it work."
Michael Gove vs the lawyers - his toughest fight yet
I have several connections who are barristers. They are all up in arms about Grayling's reforms, particularly the reductions in cash. Goodness knows what they will make of Gove.
I reply that when the layman thinks of a lawyer they think of Messrs Shiner, Mansfield, Blair etc.
This means that Grayling, and now Gove, can do what they like.
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
This is conspiratorial nonsense. The riots were in 2011. In any event, the courts were not "used as a vehicle of social policy". They applied the conventional and sensible principle of sentencing case law that the context in which a crime is committed is relevant to sentencing. It has always been understood that criminal behaviour in the context of a riot is more serious than if it took place outside a tumult (R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499, 506-508 (CA)).
He'll have the court of public opinion onside for this fight.
Absolutely. As I point out to my lawyer connections, for people whose job it is to frame and present an argument, the bar have made an astonishing hash of presenting its case to the people.
I've stopped reading anything montie writes since the election. He was one of THE biggest commentariat failures and I just don't take his views with any confidence or insight now. Winners were those like parris and hodges.
What would Associate EU member look like? 1. Part of the common free trade area, and respecting the four "fundamental freedoms" of the EU 2. Not a benificiary (or otherwise) of EU regional spending, and not a member of CAP 3. Makes a contribution to the upkeep of the EU, but one on a Swiss or Norwegian model 4. Allow the EU to negotiate bumper trade agreements on its behalf (as in the TTIP) 5. Observer status on various councils
I think this is something that would be interesting to the Brits, would satisfy much of business, and would recognise that we are not on a path to "ever closer union". It would allow the remaining Eurozone countries to integrate further without having to be in permanent negotiation with the non-EZ countries.
The problem is that there is so much wrong with the EU's approach to the fundamental freedoms, which, of themselves would not be objectionable. Can it seriously have been contemplated at the time of the making of the Treaties that the free movement of goods would made a national law prohibiting motorcycles from towing a trailer a justiciable issue of EU law (Commission v Italy [2009] 2 CMLR 34)? Was it envisaged that a member state could not remove an illegal alien with no right of abode in their jurisdiction because her removal might infringe her partner's right to provide services in another member state (Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] QB 46)? I could give more examples. The whole bizarre system is just rotten through and through.
Other than for the EU bureaucracy and of course the lawyers, it is hard to see the tangible benefit to a lot of the byzantine system. I try to consider that even in a perfect world the system trying to do what this one is purported to be trying to do would be fiendishly complex, but a lot of it, from a layman's point of view, seems deliberately designed to be frustrating, inconsistent, incomprehensible and lacking in genuine improvement.
1% of lawyers do very well and the other 99% have more difficulty getting done what their clients want done.
Fair point. I should have clarified it was good for the specifc lawyers making and benefiting from things. Some of the most angry comments I see about the EU seem to come from lawyers.
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
This is conspiratorial nonsense. The riots were in 2011. In any event, the courts were not "used as a vehicle of social policy". They applied the conventional and sensible principle of sentencing case law that the context in which a crime is committed is relevant to sentencing. It has always been understood that criminal behaviour in the context of a riot is more serious than if it took place outside a tumult (R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499, 506-508 (CA)).
It'll smile and nod and make the right noises, but the Brussels express only chugs in one direction.
We should leave and the vile organisation ought to be dismantled. It will end, and I'm reasonably confident it'll do so in my lifetime. That can be an orderly, agreed process or a chaotic disintegration leading to widespread civil strife and possible even warfare.
I don't agree with all you say, but you express my own concern about the end result of the EU.
He'll have the court of public opinion onside for this fight.
Absolutely. As I point out to my lawyer connections, for people whose job it is to frame and present an argument, the bar have made an astonishing hash of presenting its case to the people.
Ironically, most lawyers probably voted Conservative.
Just saw (Dr) Evan Harris from Hacked Off (and the party formally known as the Liberal Democrats) on the news wringing his hands about the "Long term viability" of the Mirror being put at risk due to the compensation pay out's they've got to come up with for phone hacking...
This from the man and the organisation that was quite happy to close down the "Murdoch press"...
Wasn't supposed to be like this was it?
NI Hacking = Bad, Trinity Mirror hacking = Public service.
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
This is conspiratorial nonsense. The riots were in 2011. In any event, the courts were not "used as a vehicle of social policy". They applied the conventional and sensible principle of sentencing case law that the context in which a crime is committed is relevant to sentencing. It has always been understood that criminal behaviour in the context of a riot is more serious than if it took place outside a tumult (R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499, 506-508 (CA)).
In R v Caird the trial and sentencing were some months after the event and while the sentences were harsh they did not appear unduly so. In 2011, trials and sentences were conducted with undue haste and undue harshness. It is not conspiratorial to see the courts as exerting undue influence and to believe this was instructed from another arm of government. Trial and Sentence within days does has not occurred in this fashion in my memory.
I suspect IN will win narrowly. Business will be heavily in favour as a supply of cheap, committed labour from Europe is bound to be attractive. If you were a Lincolnshire farmer, would you prefer Mr awkward from the local population or a young, keen immigrant who'll turn up on time and work all hours?
Romano Prodi last week and Juncker this week have been assertive and comfident about the future. The aim is a common foreign policy and a European army. No ifs and no buts. If you don't like it, close the door on the way out.
I think they might be encouraged to keep quiet for a couple of years, though.
"No man, especially not a barrister, is a villain in his own eyes."
A moderately sensible piece, even if mistaken and incoherent in part. It is certainly ahistorical. For an historically accurate account, see this brilliant lecture on Magna Carta given by that learned medieval historian who now masquerades as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Some of Hannan's claims are also wrong. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not give "direct effect" to rulings of the Strasbourg Court. The slavish habit of following Strasbourg rulings unless they are utterly bonkers is one which our own judges are responsible for.
Hannan is absolutely right that one of the principal defects of the 1998 Act is that it has converted inherently political matters into justiciable questions of law. Partly, this is the fault of Strasbourg's crackpot case law, the absurdities of which are too numerous to recount. But Hannan is absolutely wrong, and dangerously wrong to think that "[t]he problem is not with the rights listed in the Convention". Has he ever sat down and attempted to read articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention? If you give them effect in law, it does not matter whether you have European or English judges doing the interpretation. It will still be a charter for legal uncertainty, judicial supremacy and the enrichment of barristers at Matrix Chambers.
The problem is not with the laws, it's with the judges. You don't make them less interventionist by changing the law, you just change the routes by which they intervene.
TSE And for many diehard sceptics Cameron becomes the new Heath. UKIP would be waiting to welcome them, especially if Cameron is front and centre of a small In victory, as I have said the best result for UKIP, is a narrow In, just as for the SNP it was a narrow No, a big In would mean they were defeated and the matter settled, an Out would mean there was no longer any further need for them
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Other than for the EU bureaucracy and of course the lawyers, it is hard to see the tangible benefit to a lot of the byzantine system. I try to consider that even in a perfect world the system trying to do what this one is purported to be trying to do would be fiendishly complex, but a lot of it, from a layman's point of view, seems deliberately designed to be frustrating, inconsistent, incomprehensible and lacking in genuine improvement.
1% of lawyers do very well and the other 99% have more difficulty getting done what their clients want done.
Fair point. I should have clarified it was good for the specifc lawyers making and benefiting from things. Some of the most angry comments I see about the EU seem to come from lawyers.
Gove's track record in 'taking people with him' is not good. Rightly or wrongly (and despite essentially carrying out turbocharged Labour policies in education) he became the most reviled education secretary for decades amongst the education workforce (often wrongly characterised as a bloc of Marxist trendies, based on the behaviour of their unscrupulous union leaders) - because he allowed himself to be perceived as 'taking them on'.
Teachers (and, I'm guessing, lawyers) don't like being generalised about (look at their voting record), and don't particularly want to be 'taken on' and criticised by an ideologue when, on the whole, they're just normal people trying to do their job as well as they can.
@paulwaugh: This is full-fat modernisation from @leicesterliz, not a low-cal version. On public services "I'm on the side of the public" not providers.
@paulwaugh: Kendall also comes out strongly in favour of Free Schools, says any parent who wants to run schools shd be encouraged.
@rowenamason: Little dig at Yvette Cooper from Liz Kendall- says being on the side of wealth creation is about more than setting up new biz advisory cttee
After the precedent set in 2010 when the courts were used as a vehicle of social policy following civil unrest, we can probably expect much more of this in the future. It is a particularly worrying trend.
This is conspiratorial nonsense. The riots were in 2011. In any event, the courts were not "used as a vehicle of social policy". They applied the conventional and sensible principle of sentencing case law that the context in which a crime is committed is relevant to sentencing. It has always been understood that criminal behaviour in the context of a riot is more serious than if it took place outside a tumult (R v Caird (1970) 54 Cr App R 499, 506-508 (CA)).
In R v Caird the trial and sentencing were some months after the event and while the sentences were harsh they did not appear unduly so. In 2011, trials and sentences were conducted with undue haste and undue harshness. It is not conspiratorial to see the courts as exerting undue influence and to believe this was instructed from another arm of government. Trial and Sentence within days does has not occurred in this fashion in my memory.
Undue haste seems arguable, certainly, again speaking as a layman there were unexpectedly swift conclusions. Whether it was indeed undue I do not know, but it seems from the outside easy to make the initial case at least.
Is there much evidence sentences were unduly harsh though? Harsher than if they had not been handing sentences given the context in which the crimes occurred would not in itself be undue, surely, if it is an established principle of law as LIAMT suggests.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 3h3 hours ago Ministers are looking at ideas to allow state-funding for political parties. Ukip well positioned to lead campaign against
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 58s58 seconds ago @DouglasCarswell@ukipwebmaster I agree about state-funding for political parties. but UKIP still needs funds that you r denying the party.
Mike, you do realise that Short Money is granted explicitly for the purpose of supporting the parliamentary party in opposing the government (offsetting the institutional benefit that the government receives from access to the civil service).
Of course this can be stretched to cover a lot of different aspects of central research. But to use it as a contribution to general party funds would be corrupt and illegal.
@paulwaugh: This is full-fat modernisation from @leicesterliz, not a low-cal version. On public services "I'm on the side of the public" not providers.
@paulwaugh: Kendall also comes out strongly in favour of Free Schools, says any parent who wants to run schools shd be encouraged.
@rowenamason: Little dig at Yvette Cooper from Liz Kendall- says being on the side of wealth creation is about more than setting up new biz advisory cttee
This just shows what nonsense it is for "Blairites" to claim they're the ones who are in touch with public opinion. Free schools are unpopular, does she seriously think that was one of the reasons Labour lost?
The Blairites who claim to be so concerned with "winning" also tend to be the ones most fanatical about the EU, even though that would be one of the biggest turn-offs with southern swing voters in particular.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell 3h3 hours ago Ministers are looking at ideas to allow state-funding for political parties. Ukip well positioned to lead campaign against
mike kaye @atmikekayes3 58s58 seconds ago @DouglasCarswell@ukipwebmaster I agree about state-funding for political parties. but UKIP still needs funds that you r denying the party.
Mike, you do realise that Short Money is granted explicitly for the purpose of supporting the parliamentary party in opposing the government (offsetting the institutional benefit that the government receives from access to the civil service).
Of course this can be stretched to cover a lot of different aspects of central research. But to use it as a contribution to general party funds would be corrupt and illegal.
Well, I guess the party would have to apply general party funds to those purposes if short money wasn't there, part or all of it.
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
Got to laugh at these "business leaders" being wheeled out to support the EU as net immigration comes within 2000 of record levels 10 years ago. By the time the referendum gets here that figure will be higher still and Cameron's ridiculous pledge of renegotiation will be in tatters.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
There are so many myths regarding The Soviet Union in WWII and Stalingrad in particular that it is something I can believe.
The problem is not with the laws, it's with the judges. You don't make them less interventionist by changing the law, you just change the routes by which they intervene.
That's obviously untrue. Before the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, judicial reviews of Acts of Parliament were wholly unsuccessful, and all Acts of Parliament were construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning. The strained constructions which abound today did not occur. Indeed, before the incorporation of the Convention, the House of Lords firmly rejected the human rights lobby's attempt to incorporate it by the backdoor method of judicial activism (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696). A statute repealing the 1998 Act and obliging the courts to read Lord Ackner's speech in that case as if it were a statute would not be a bad start.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
I'm with you on that, and I think you're right about it being a majority. So much of the EU is about integration and shared involvement in things that, from our no doubt ill informed view according to the EU, do not seem to need such integration or shared involvement. It happens because they want it as a goal in itself, whereas peopel like me might be happy with plenty of integration and shared involvement, perhaps even in political aspects, but are uncomfortable with that being taken as licence to have wholesale political union and full integration on everything humanly possible.
On Gove and Justice, one theory out there is that it will run just like at Education - Gove will come in with some big ideas, kick up a great deal of fuss and provoke very high amounts of personal animosity, but then someone else can be brought in to smooth things over despite not changing much at all, if anything. This one seems a harder nut to crack, and they arent doing a great job so far of selling why it is necessary to pick this fight, but I guess it might work again. Though not sure if it would if they set out to do that deliberately this time, rather than forced into it like at Education.
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
Nick Clegg casting himself as the Wizard of Oz may have had something to do with it on a very subliminal level
Got to laugh at these "business leaders" being wheeled out to support the EU as net immigration comes within 2000 of record levels 10 years ago. By the time the referendum gets here that figure will be higher still and Cameron's ridiculous pledge of renegotiation will be in tatters.
Business leaders can feck right off, in the same way as community leaders wheeled out in other contexts, on the basis that no one asked them to lead or represent anyone and that their not wanting something is quite likely to be good grounds for the rest of us wanting it. I am pretty sure most business leaders are against competition, and corporation tax, just for starters.
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
The problem is not with the laws, it's with the judges. You don't make them less interventionist by changing the law, you just change the routes by which they intervene.
That's obviously untrue. Before the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, judicial reviews of Acts of Parliament were wholly unsuccessful, and all Acts of Parliament were construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning. The strained constructions which abound today did not occur. Indeed, before the incorporation of the Convention, the House of Lords firmly rejected the human rights lobby's attempt to incorporate it by the backdoor method of judicial activism (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696). A statute repealing the 1998 Act and obliging the courts to read Lord Ackner's speech in that case as if it were a statute would not be a bad start.
I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
TSE Watched the Iron Lady again last night on More4, rubbish piling in the streets under the Heath government, power cuts (even in Cabinet Meetings), unions in control, yes Heath took us into Europe but it is no wonder Maggie felt she had to challenge him when he lost in 1974
The Eurozone is going in one of two ways, it will either break apart completely, or it will look more and more, over time, like a country. Not a nation state like the UK, obviously, but perhaps more like the 19th Century Swiss Confederation. Should it move in this direction, it will - like the vast majority of integrations - happen via a process of ad-hocracy, with short term band aids to particular problems resulting in increased integration between the countries. (Obviously, it may also fall apart. But further integration is the near-term direction of travel - especially as the anti-EU insurgent parties inside the EZ, with the exception of SYRIZA, have all fallen back considerably.)
Personally, I think this makes life for countries that are inside the EU, but not inside the Eurozone, increasingly untenable.
We, alongside the Danes and the Swedes, and anyone else who wishes to get off the integration bus, need to come to some kind of accommodation with the EU. I do not wish it ill (frankly a prospering Europe is in our interests), and we need to accept that the direction of travel of these countries is different to ours, and that we make it hard for them to do the things they need to do to sort out their problems.
Perhaps that is EFTA/EEA. Perhaps it is fully "going it alone".
But if I were Mr Cameron, I would not be focusing on political baubles, but on sorting out a new Associated Member state, that would look more like EFTA/EEA and less like the EU.
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
It may just have been random variation between seats. Or it may have been the impact of a superior ground game, just as Labour did a bit better in London than elsewhere.
Ghedebrav Depends, if eu ref is a narrow In not yet impossible someone like Davis or Fox could be Tory leader to try and keep Tory Out voters in the Tory tent, Osborne or May are most likely but anything could happen with Cameron not running again
Hooray for the guy who made UKIP a major force in British politics.
Dave and George are truly master strategists of the highest order.
Boosted UKIP so much that they ended damaging Labour more.
Seriously did anyone think a Tory majority was possible whilst UKIP were polling 13%?
Even if Cameron wins the staying in vote,ukip will have alot of angry voters who voted out and need to take it out on the establishment pro EU parties.(remember Scotland for a example)
Got to laugh at these "business leaders" being wheeled out to support the EU as net immigration comes within 2000 of record levels 10 years ago. By the time the referendum gets here that figure will be higher still and Cameron's ridiculous pledge of renegotiation will be in tatters.
Business leaders can feck right off, in the same way as community leaders wheeled out in other contexts, on the basis that no one asked them to lead or represent anyone and that their not wanting something is quite likely to be good grounds for the rest of us wanting it. I am pretty sure most business leaders are against competition, and corporation tax, just for starters.
Summed up well in S2 of TTOI by Malcom Tucker:
"Yeah, well, my expert would totally oppose that." "Who is your expert?" "No idea, but I can get one by this afternoon."
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
No Green candidate and a particularly virulent campaign against Miss McVey Probably helped.
I see the GQR findings are essentially the same as the other postmortems after the election. The Tories won because they lead by 30% in over 65's and the turnout for over 65's was almost double of those under 65's. Labour lead on all other age contours and by 30% in the under 25's but turnout among them was byelection like low.
When you have a 30% lead among the demographic that had 90% turnout you can't lose, the Tories had a very effective pensioner strategy to make them vote and vote Tory.
And the turnout difference from the predicted one explains most of the difference between the actual election result and the predicted one.
Also it makes the case that the EU referendum is going to be closer than what pollsters said up to now. If IN leads by 10% without turnout weightings and adjustments then OUT should be slightly ahead, given that the younger you are the more likely you vote IN but less likely to vote at all.
I quite like the idea of a common market - it's the political union that jars, and in that, I think I'm still in the majority.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
All of the Axis allies on the Eastern front were woefully under-equipped and under-supplied when compared to even ordinary Heer divisions.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
Got to laugh at these "business leaders" being wheeled out to support the EU as net immigration comes within 2000 of record levels 10 years ago. By the time the referendum gets here that figure will be higher still and Cameron's ridiculous pledge of renegotiation will be in tatters.
Business leaders can feck right off, in the same way as community leaders wheeled out in other contexts, on the basis that no one asked them to lead or represent anyone and that their not wanting something is quite likely to be good grounds for the rest of us wanting it. I am pretty sure most business leaders are against competition, and corporation tax, just for starters.
My feelings entirely. The IN approach is clear, don't mention immigration talk about the potential (but untrue) loss of investment. The working classes will instinctively oppose Cameron and big business, I'm confident OUT will win.
That said, it might be better for Ukip if its a narrow IN vote looking at SNP.
Spoke to my friend in the Wirral West Labour Party before. Apparently, they're all scratching their heads wondering how on earth they won the seat, in the context of the national results. She said in canvassing they'd picked up Labour "hedgers" and lots of undecideds just like everywhere, with mostly the same doubts reported (Miliband, the SNP, and "why change when I've not done too badly from this government?"). No-one can understand why those waverers jumped a different way here than they did almost everywhere else.
No Green candidate and a particularly virulent campaign against Miss McVey Probably helped.
I did wonder if it was a negative vote against McVey, but my friend said there was no particularly strong animosity towards her on the doorstep (despite their best efforts!), apart from just the fact she was a Tory.
I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
Perhaps you are right. Certain recent developments in purely domestic public law are simply indefensible. Most worryingly of all, there is growing speculation that the Supreme Court will overrule Wednesbury in Keyu v Foreign Secretary, and make necessity/proportionality, rather than rationality the test for the lawful exercise of an administrative discretion. Whether the government or Parliament actually work out what the courts are up to here, which is nothing less than a wholly unconstitutional power grab, remains to be seen.
Ghedebrav Depends, if eu ref is a narrow In not yet impossible someone like Davis or Fox could be Tory leader to try and keep Tory Out voters in the Tory tent, Osborne or May are most likely but anything could happen with Cameron not running again
By 2020 I don't think anyone will care about the referendum result, unless it's an Out vote that is followed by economic woe.
Voters don't care anything like as much as they should about the EU; even when it's at the heart of a much bigger concern like immigration the link doesn't seem to get through. Davis or Fox would both be bad choices; unappealing to the centrists in the swing seats who decide elections - unlike Osborne who has a reputation for toughness and competence and a long track record of perceived success.
Comments
It's test cricket, Geoffrey, but not as we know it.
The growth potential of some of Britain's former colonies far outweighs that of the dreadful eurozone.
I am considerably holier than thou
Mr. K (part 2), I agree that state funding of parties is a horrendous idea. Helping themselves to taxpayers' money is not on.
No, if it can be helped, but Carswell must behave like an elected MP: not as god's representative on earth.
We saw how that worked in the Indy ref.
Michael Gove vs the lawyers - his toughest fight yet
The Justice Secretary's new mission makes education reform look like child's play
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/20/blairite-revival-leadership-contest-labour-breakup
"The 35-MP nomination hurdle was set to prevent such unwelcome interventions, and one possible candidate, the former miners’ leader Ian Lavery, has ruled himself out because of the threat of media harassment of his family. But Diane Abbott, who stood five years ago, and the shadow cabinet member John Trickett, among others, are ready to stand – and shift the focus of the debate.
One way or another, the wider Labour party needs to take back control of its own contest. If the politics currently paraded by the main candidates wins out, Labour’s prospects in a country where hostility to the Westminster elite has already redrawn the electoral map look bleak. Union disaffiliation could then become a reality and eventually trigger a party split. Where Labour goes now will affect us all."
"No man, especially not a barrister, is a villain in his own eyes."
This from the man and the organisation that was quite happy to close down the "Murdoch press"...
Wasn't supposed to be like this was it?
"one of the PM’s more attractive characteristics is that when he finds himself in an unwanted situation, he doesn’t sulk; he does his best to make it work."
Though I fear I may be poking the Scots Nats Hornets' nest by headlining the piece
"The SNP are just like Hamas"
I have several connections who are barristers. They are all up in arms about Grayling's reforms, particularly the reductions in cash. Goodness knows what they will make of Gove.
I reply that when the layman thinks of a lawyer they think of Messrs Shiner, Mansfield, Blair etc.
This means that Grayling, and now Gove, can do what they like.
Absolutely. As I point out to my lawyer connections, for people whose job it is to frame and present an argument, the bar have made an astonishing hash of presenting its case to the people.
Nor should he. I won't give up on my target of becoming rich before I'm twenty five. A noble aim, so 1975 still remains my target. No ifs, no buts.
In the case Lawyers vs Humanity, it was determined that Lawyers always act for the public good.
A Tory PM took us into the EC, a Tory PM signed the Single European Act and a Tory PM kept us in.
The Tory Party, the true Pro European Party.
I suspect IN will win narrowly. Business will be heavily in favour as a supply of cheap, committed labour from Europe is bound to be attractive. If you were a Lincolnshire farmer, would you prefer Mr awkward from the local population or a young, keen immigrant who'll turn up on time and work all hours?
Romano Prodi last week and Juncker this week have been assertive and comfident about the future. The aim is a common foreign policy and a European army. No ifs and no buts. If you don't like it, close the door on the way out.
I think they might be encouraged to keep quiet for a couple of years, though.
Hannan is absolutely right that one of the principal defects of the 1998 Act is that it has converted inherently political matters into justiciable questions of law. Partly, this is the fault of Strasbourg's crackpot case law, the absurdities of which are too numerous to recount. But Hannan is absolutely wrong, and dangerously wrong to think that "[t]he problem is not with the rights listed in the Convention". Has he ever sat down and attempted to read articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention? If you give them effect in law, it does not matter whether you have European or English judges doing the interpretation. It will still be a charter for legal uncertainty, judicial supremacy and the enrichment of barristers at Matrix Chambers.
.@leicesterliz tells Press Gallery. "Most people thought we'd lost our balls before the election" #ballsy
Thought that didn't happen until c. 9.00 am on Friday 8th May.
A European army seems barmy or is it my old fashioned views?
My Eagles and Mr Dancer, you're the historians. Is it true that at Stalingrad, the Russians targeted the Rumanian divisions in order to surround von Paulus on the assumption that the Rumanians would be asleep in their caravans at the time.
Aren't stereotypes amusing?
Teachers (and, I'm guessing, lawyers) don't like being generalised about (look at their voting record), and don't particularly want to be 'taken on' and criticised by an ideologue when, on the whole, they're just normal people trying to do their job as well as they can.
I wonder if he's learned any lessons?
@paulwaugh: Kendall also comes out strongly in favour of Free Schools, says any parent who wants to run schools shd be encouraged.
@rowenamason: Little dig at Yvette Cooper from Liz Kendall- says being on the side of wealth creation is about more than setting up new biz advisory cttee
Is there much evidence sentences were unduly harsh though? Harsher than if they had not been handing sentences given the context in which the crimes occurred would not in itself be undue, surely, if it is an established principle of law as LIAMT suggests.
If you want inflammatory
"Ted Heath is our greatest ever PM, took us into Europe and made sure Middlesbrough was no longer part of Yorkshire"
Discuss.
Of course this can be stretched to cover a lot of different aspects of central research. But to use it as a contribution to general party funds would be corrupt and illegal.
Len's not going to vote for her then...
The Blairites who claim to be so concerned with "winning" also tend to be the ones most fanatical about the EU, even though that would be one of the biggest turn-offs with southern swing voters in particular.
Typo that should read 'farce'.
Looking like the best candidate ideas-wise (IMHO); I have no idea what she'll be like leadership-wise.
Am I the only person who doesn't think it'll be Boris leading the Tories in 2020? Osborne, I'd say.
NewsSense™ endorsed.
On Gove and Justice, one theory out there is that it will run just like at Education - Gove will come in with some big ideas, kick up a great deal of fuss and provoke very high amounts of personal animosity, but then someone else can be brought in to smooth things over despite not changing much at all, if anything. This one seems a harder nut to crack, and they arent doing a great job so far of selling why it is necessary to pick this fight, but I guess it might work again. Though not sure if it would if they set out to do that deliberately this time, rather than forced into it like at Education.
Boosted UKIP so much that they ended damaging Labour more.
Seriously did anyone think a Tory majority was possible whilst UKIP were polling 13%?
I am not rising to your provocation on Ted Heath!
The Eurozone is going in one of two ways, it will either break apart completely, or it will look more and more, over time, like a country. Not a nation state like the UK, obviously, but perhaps more like the 19th Century Swiss Confederation. Should it move in this direction, it will - like the vast majority of integrations - happen via a process of ad-hocracy, with short term band aids to particular problems resulting in increased integration between the countries. (Obviously, it may also fall apart. But further integration is the near-term direction of travel - especially as the anti-EU insurgent parties inside the EZ, with the exception of SYRIZA, have all fallen back considerably.)
Personally, I think this makes life for countries that are inside the EU, but not inside the Eurozone, increasingly untenable.
We, alongside the Danes and the Swedes, and anyone else who wishes to get off the integration bus, need to come to some kind of accommodation with the EU. I do not wish it ill (frankly a prospering Europe is in our interests), and we need to accept that the direction of travel of these countries is different to ours, and that we make it hard for them to do the things they need to do to sort out their problems.
Perhaps that is EFTA/EEA. Perhaps it is fully "going it alone".
But if I were Mr Cameron, I would not be focusing on political baubles, but on sorting out a new Associated Member state, that would look more like EFTA/EEA and less like the EU.
There's unity in the Tory party over Europe.
Let us go back to fun stuff, like how much of a cockwomble Tim Montgomerie is or the Edstone?
"Yeah, well, my expert would totally oppose that."
"Who is your expert?"
"No idea, but I can get one by this afternoon."
The Tories won because they lead by 30% in over 65's and the turnout for over 65's was almost double of those under 65's.
Labour lead on all other age contours and by 30% in the under 25's but turnout among them was byelection like low.
When you have a 30% lead among the demographic that had 90% turnout you can't lose, the Tories had a very effective pensioner strategy to make them vote and vote Tory.
And the turnout difference from the predicted one explains most of the difference between the actual election result and the predicted one.
Also it makes the case that the EU referendum is going to be closer than what pollsters said up to now. If IN leads by 10% without turnout weightings and adjustments then OUT should be slightly ahead, given that the younger you are the more likely you vote IN but less likely to vote at all.
For example, Romanian divisions had organic 37mm and 47mm anti-tank guns, which might just as well have been peashooters for all the good they did against contemporary Soviet armour.
That said, it might be better for Ukip if its a narrow IN vote looking at SNP.
Voters don't care anything like as much as they should about the EU; even when it's at the heart of a much bigger concern like immigration the link doesn't seem to get through. Davis or Fox would both be bad choices; unappealing to the centrists in the swing seats who decide elections - unlike Osborne who has a reputation for toughness and competence and a long track record of perceived success.
Certainly not impossible though.