UKIP's increase seems to be stable

Interesting poll by Angus Reid/Political Betting

In the tables we have question 10

If a General Election were held tomorrow, which one of the following parties would you be most likely to support in your constituency?

Which has UKIP polling 5% nationally with a couple of high spots, the South (not London) at 7% and at 6% at the North. We are doing particularly badly in London at only 3%. The figures get more interesting when you factor in likely to vote where UKIP is now at 7% nationally the South and 8% in the South.

Small beer I might agree, when the Tories are looking at 40% in the same graph, but given that the much vaunted Greens languish at 3% in the poll it begins to look quite good. Now I ahve no idea what this does to Tory/Labour marginals and/or Tory/Lib Dem marginals but I would expect that the campaign team in Tory HQ might be looking at the figures with a certain queasiness.

Particularly given the generally accepted figures of 27 seats lost to UKIP last time on far smaller figures. And even more so when only 2% of those questioned for this poll voted for UKIP in 2005.

Cameron's evasions, dissembling and so on on the Lisbon Treaty, and immigration and his head in the sand approach to the way that the man made global warming debate is heading may well have something to do with this.

So Mr Clark, can you answer these questions honestly?

Mark Mardell has posed a few questions for Ken Clarke onhis return to the shadow cabinet. Methinks it will be a case of wriggle wriggle. Is there any point in roping a big beast to the plough, if the big beast is pulling in the wrong direction?

1) Does he still believe Britain should join the euro?

2) Does he at least agree with the economists who last week argued that there should be a new debate about it?

3) Does he agree with the current Conservative policy that, as the Lisbon reform treaty has not been backed by Irish voters, there should be a referendum in Britain too?

4) Does he think this (leaving the EPP) is a sensible move because the Conservative Party has a different vision of Europe to the parties of Sarkozy and Merkel or does he support those Tory MEPs who want to stick in the EEP?

5) As shadow business secretary does he think it is right to pull out of such EU directives and how easy would it be in practical terms?

Interesting set of questions, and ones that need answering. But I suspect that all that will come is fudge and that famous humerous harumpf.

Beazley is at it again

Christopher Beazley the Conservative MEP today twice showed his true colours over the European Union. He had discovered that his voting machine had broken down in the Strasbourg plenary and stood up to complain.

He informed the President of the Parliament that he didn't really need to fix his machine,

"as I plan to vote Yes to everything".

This hardly a suprise from Beazley as he has form here, but where is the party disciplinary procedure. This has got to be going against official Tory policy. If so, remove the whip, if not, then be honest about and stop trying to wrap yourselves in Eurosceptic colours like the boy Dave did this morning in the FT.

David Cameron, leader of Britain's opposition Conservatives, has vowed to wreck the EU's Lisbon treaty if he emerges victorious from any early general election in the first half of this year.

Mr Cameron has put the Tories on election alert, believing there is a 50/50 chance Gordon Brown, prime minister, will go to the polls in 2009, cashing in on public support for his handling of the recession.

The Tory leader believes there could be an election as early as April - more than a year before the last possible election date of June 2010 - opening up the opportunity for him to derail the EU's flagship treaty.

Mr Cameron told the Financial Times that in such circumstances "we could have a referendum in October" on the treaty, in which he would lead the campaign for a No vote. The "moderately eurosceptic" Tory leader expects to win that vote.

Nail your colours to the mast why don't you? And you wish to take the political leadership of our fine country. You do not deserve to take the leadership of the Witney Boy Scouts.

Not only that Mr Beazley also challenged all comers to a five Euro bet that the next Conservative Government in Britian would introduce the Euro.

I for one won't be takling him up on his bet. Believing him right.

Update
Mr Beazley has made YouTube

In Europe, run by Europe

The Tories splits over Europe just don't go away.

Today they were split over making the EU flag and its motto 'united in diversity' compulsory at all Parliamentary sittings. The anthem "Ode to Joy" must also be played for visits of heads of state and government. European leaders were also strongly urged to make 'Europe Day', 9th May, a European public holiday.

Whilst most Tories did oppose the plans two, Caroline Jackson and Chris Beazley voted in favour.

Conservative democracy in action

Conservative Home has pointed out the absolute democratic disgrace that was the Tory MEP selection racket. The bare facts say it all. Not only were sitting MEPs given a bye into the top slots, thus ossifying the pro-EPP Tory representation in Brussels but also the preference for women over men for the next spot directed by CCHQ has resulted in a Zimbabwean result pattern.

Here are the anomolies,

In London Marina Yannakoudis was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents although three men - JP Floru, Warwick Lightfoot and Bob Seely - all won more support from the grassroots.

In the South East Therese Coffey and Sarah Richardson beat all men in the voting.

In the Eastern region Vicky Ford was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents even though John Flack won more support from members.

In the East Midlands Emma McClarkin was awarded second place even though Rupert Matthews received a better vote from members.

In the West Midlands Anthea McIntyre finished ahead of all men in terms of grassroots support.

In Yorkshire and the Humber Fleur Butler was ranked ahead of Matthew Bean and Nick Burrows although they both received more support from the grassroots.

In the North East Barbara Musgrave was awarded second place although Richard Bell enjoyed more support.

In the North West Jacqueline Foster and Fiona Bruce won more support than any of the non-incumbent men in the selection. Fiona Bruce has apparently dropped out after very narrowly finishing behind Jacqueline Foster.

In the South West Julie Girling received slightly less support than Ashley Fox but was ranked above him.

In Wales Dr Kay Swinburne was awarded top place although Evan Price won more support from the grassroots.

In Scotland Belinda Don and Helen Gardiner both beat all men in the voting.

They then ask a very pertinent question,

We do not yet know if CCHQ will publish turnout and spoilt ballots data.

What we do know is this will play into the hands of the opposition, particularly UKIP in all regions and undermines all of those women who have got their ranking in a transparently unfair manner.

And don't think it won't be noticed, local papers are starting to pick up on the troubles.

(Projected) Tory spending wars

As if in confirmation of Simon Heffer's comments yesterday,

The Tories gave the impression on Thursday that they would like to spend an extra £28 billion a year on the NHS. This is the same party that has bullied its defence spokesman into not talking about the far more obvious need to fund our Armed Forces properly, something that even just £4-5 billion would help put right. This is the party that struggled to locate the £3.5 billion needed to pay for its promises to cut stamp duty and inheritance tax. So where is this massive sum - equivalent to 9p on the basic rate of income tax - supposed to come from?

Liam Fox the Tory, shadow defence secretary has been interviewed by the Sunday Telegraph saying that it would be "inconceivable" that the defence budget could be cut while the forces were still fighting a war in Afghanistan.

After Lansley, Shadow Health had made his comments promised that health budget could rise by 2% as a proportion of gross domestic product - an increase of £28 billion. What with Osborne committing the Tories to Labours spending plans for three years the cuts will have to come from somewhere.

On being reminded of Lansley's words, Fox said,

"I just think it is a timely reminder of the need to be very disciplined and careful when discussing any spending plans... But I find it inconceivable that the Conservatives would cut the defence budget while we are still fighting a war. There is no question of cutting defence."

It not not having cuts that is required is increase in spending, and increase in spending on the things that will help us fight the wars we are fighting.

From this interview it appears that the Tories are so busy fighting their own civil war to realise the needs of our servicemen in theatre.

What on earth are they playing at?

Pot... Kettle

So the Boy Dave has fired all his load at the Prime Minister on the great transparency issue.

Could he then explain how it is that only 13 of his MEPs have come clean about who they employ as assistants with the Parliamentary assistant's allowance.

Furthermore could he tell the 14 who refuse to answer journalists questions to get off their sorry arses and realise that the public have a right to know?

Tories surrender on Constitution

Now here is a fascinating email exchange. Every few months the heads of the UK political parties in the European Parliament are invited to have a session with interested MPs and Lords. This is organised by Dermot Scott who heads up the Parliament office in London.

From: SCOTT Dermot
Sent: Mon 2/4/2008 3:17 PM
To: CHICHESTER Giles; TITLEY Gary; DUFF Andrew; LAMBERT Jean; FARAGE Nigel; HUDGHTON Ian

Cc: TEMPLE-SMITHSON James; ALHADEFF Giampiero; ROYSTON James; PAGE Clive

Subject: Tripartite meeting 6 March, Westminster

Dear colleagues

The following topics have been suggested for discussion at the next Tripartite meeting of MEPs/MPs/Peers on 6 March:

Lisbon Treaty
energy package
Spring Summit/Lisbon Process
Western Balkans/Neighbourhood Policy

If we are, as usual, to reduce that to two main topics and one for general conversation over lunch, would the following meet you approval?

Energy package
Western Balkans

with the Treaty discussed over lunch.

I think the Lisbon process has been on the agenda fairly regularly, though of course the spring summit follows shortly after. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks

Dermot Scott

Dermot Scott
Head of Office, European Parliament UK Office
2 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AA

A perfectly reasonable request I would have thought.

This below is the response from James Temple-Smithson, who is the EPP-ED staffer based in Conservative headquarters in London as is one of the senior advisers to the Tory leadership on matters pertaining to the EU. His advice having spoken to Giles Chichester, Tory MEP leader is as follows.

Dear Dermot,

Thank you for your mail. Giles' view is that there is limited value in another discussion of the Treaty at this meeting as there will be little new to say, so he would prefer it to be dropped in favour of the Spring Summit which, as you say, will be more topical.

Best wishes,

James

Nothing new to say! What the ?==))(&(&!!!!

The treaty will still be going through Westminster at this time, either in the Lords or back in time for a third reading. Given that the Lib/Dems are falling out at this moment and that for the first time there seems to be a chink in the armour over a referendum, to not talk about the key European issue de jour is tantamount to absolute surrender. Yes the odds are against any significant change, but do you give up now. Even Mr Scott points out that the Lisbon Agenda has been done to death over the last few years. But Giles Chichester has decided to airbrush the incovienience of our liberties being sold down the river out of the equation. I cannot see Duff, or Titley out voting him on this. After all the Labour Party and the Lib/Dems would be delighted to sweep the Treaty under the table. But to have a Tory doing their work for them.

Nothing to see, move along.

The news just keeps getting better

Today's news that the Russians have increased their hold on Europe's energy supply just twists the knife.

Vladimir Putin's own words at the ceremony at which he signed the deal that will lead to a the new Russia/Bulgaria pipeline showed just how much he was enjoying having the European Union's collective balls in his mail-fisted grip,

"There is a tough struggle among European nations for Russia to build such gas transportation networks," he said. "We don't need to convince anyone; they are pleading with us for that every day, especially in the autumn and winter period."

What is even funnier, given the current state of UK/Russian relations is how the outgoing president of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) talked about that country,

"President René van der Linden today welcomed the Russian Federation’s European orientation and its commitment to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law".

Now Mr van der Linden did make suggestions that certain things weren't tikity boo in Mother Russia, with a side swipe at electoral processes, but this sounds like a supplicant rather than words of confidence. We must after all remember that the Russians have just elected a man to be an MP who is wanted for the brutal public killing of a British citizen in London, Alexander Litvenienko.

What makes the involvement of the Council of Europe even funnier is that the only people allied to President Putin's party in the Parliamentary Assembly are the British Tories who are part of the European Democrat Group.

The Chairman of this Group is one Mikhail Margelov, a nice chap who having been the chief spin doctor in the North Caucasus (read Chechenya) became Putin's pressman for foreigners and is currently Chairman of the Russian Foreign Affairs Committee, the sort of fellow that Tories such as the federalist North Dorset MP, Bob Walters must love to associate themselves with.

Margelov who was expected to take over the Presidency of PACE with the support of the Conservatives (as Dennis MacShane pointed out in last weeks Spectator - no link subscription only) has been blocked for the time being, but,

"The reform entails that the Assembly's presidency and committee chairmanships rotate every two years instead of three. Being the biggest group, the Socialists will nominate the first candidate, and Margelov's European Democrats will be next".

Picture AP

Who said that?

It seems that the arrival of Sajjad Karim into the bosom of the Conservative Group of MEPs has not been greeted with unalloyed joy. Outside the group one Jackie, ("Jaqueline, Miss Foster to you") Foster, formerly of this parish and very keen on returning to its fold is, I am told "Off her cake".

However the comments in today's Telegraph are made by a present incumbent,

"Having failed to top the North West Lib Dem list for the next election, he's clearly concluded that he's most likely to retain his seat by standing as a Tory," one Conservative MEP told Spy. "The man is a complete opportunist and I'm not aware he has a Conservative bone in his body."

I am running a book as to who might possibly have said it.

Syed Kamall: Evens
Sayed is not thought to be a great fan of his co-religionist, having allegedly described him as, "A professional Muslim". Mr Kamall is famous for having the Danish cartoons stuck up in his office, right next to his prayer mat. A passionate believer in free trade and liberty, Mr Karim is an anathema.
Roger Helmer, 2:1
Roger is what can be described as a semi-detached member of the delegation despite having the whip returned. He is Hon Chairman of the Freedom Association and is a passionate supporter of Better Off Out. He is also Parliament's leading Climate Change sceptic.
Martin Callanan, 4:1
Martin also hails from the sceptic wing and is no great friend of the enviro-weenies
Nirj Deva, 6:1
Nirj, though he keeps his nose clean in most matters is currently the only (what about Kamall? Ed.) ethnic minority Tory MEP and worse his chosen field Sri Lanka has had Karim's size 6's pattering all over it, not only that but Karim has attacked Nirj on the subject in an anonymous piece of vitriol on his blog.
Chris Heaton-Harris, 8:1
A year ago, Chris would have been favourite as the Tory's resident sceptic rent-a-gob, but selection to the safe Tory seat of Daventry has filed his mouth with fool's gold. Still a possibility, old habits die hard.
Dan Hannan 12:1
Though Dan should be a favourite he maintains a strict policy of only being rude about people in public through his blog or through his various articles in the Telegraph and Spectator. If he wanted to say this he would be unlikely to do so anonymously through the Spy column.
Geoffrey Van Orden, Den Dover, David Sumberg, 15:1
From the sceptic wing, Karim's appearance strengthens the federastic EPP wing of the delegation.
The rest
250:1 bar
Only too delighted to have such a fine principled chap in the delegation.

At tonight's reception to welcome Karim to the Tory family I fear that it won't just be champagne flutes that will be frosty.

What a horrifying thought

From Peter Briffa I bring you this comment on the Ming Campbell departure.

"David Cameron is now our most experienced party leader".

Hague speaks with forked tongue

So William Hague makes his great conference speech. He bangs the drum for a referendum, he accuses Brown of deception. All good stuff
But then goes on to do the same thing himself.

"We will go further: the next Conservative Government will end the 1972 European Communities Act, so that if any future government agrees any treaty that transfers further competences from Britain to the EU a national referendum before it could be ratified would be required by law."

Please note that he says "any treaty" not any revision of the Treaty. He knows about Article 33, the simplified revision treaty. How can I say that, because here he is in the Daily Mail of the 2nd August a brief two months ago saying, about the so called 'ratchet clause'

"All vetoes other than over defence can be abolished by agreements between European governments in future, without having to go through the whole process of negotiating a fresh treaty or ratifying that in any formal way"

So why is he saying something that he knows is not the constitutional guarantee that those in the hall, and those who will read the papers tomorrow believe it to be.

Let it be said once and for all, there will be no need of a new EU Treaty after this one. There is the procedure in place to ensure that they will never have to put everything on the line again. In the future it will be piecemeal, and this promise to amend the European Communities Act, though good in its own way does not do what he suggests. Further amendments, which the government of the day support - with or without the support of the British people - will still go through Parliament under the current Westminster procedure and this safeguard is as much use as a phoning the local police in the event of a burglary.

Update

Seems like somebody liked the photomontage. Hague at Blackpool

Self denial in impotence, or latest Tory promise

How is it that the Tories think that they can get away with abolishing the much reviled Home Information Packs (HIPs)?
After all as was pointed out by their own pet think tank, Open Europe,

"an EU directive agreed in 2002, “The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive”
required that homes and other buildings should have an energy efficiency survey when they are bought, sold or rented. This would then be used to produce the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which would give homes an efficiency grade from “A” to “G” (with A as the most efficient). This was supposed to encourage people to adopt more energy efficiency measures. The Government decided to bundle in the new EU energy certificate with the old idea for a Home Information Pack. However, the legislation has been revised several times, and in practice when the “pack” comes into force on 1 June this year it will contain little other than the EU Energy Performance Certificate".

So how is it that Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister can today claim at the Tory conference,

"The experts ridiculed them. The industry doesn't want them... and I can announce that the next Conservative government will scrap them".

After all it isn't up to him or indeed a Tory Government, thye would need to get the unanimous agreement of the EU 27 at Council. Which, as I have pointed out before would be rather unlikely.

I'm finding this hard to believe

At what point did it become possible in Britain for the state to create rules that allowed them to close down private businesses because the owners of those businesses publicly oppose a law. These people have not in fact broken a law, but "positively promote non-compliance".

The reason I ask is because up in Blackpool the Licensing Committee met on the 18th September this year to discuss the new licensing policy for 2008-2011. Under the Chairmanship of Tory Councillor, Henry Mitchell the Tory dominated committee has drafted new regulations that take into account the introduction of the smoking ban. Here is point 3.9.3 (Page 16)

3.9.3 Smoking
The licensing authority recognises that premises licence holders who do not comply with the prohibition on smoking in enclosed public places will be dealt with under the relevant legislation, and ordinarily will not be brought to its attention through the review process. Premises licence holders however, who persistently fail to comply with the legislation, and/or positively promote non-compliance should be brought before the panel on review and can expect that suspension or revocation of the licence would be the normal course of action.

Take a close look at the little section starting "and/or". What this seems to be saying is that a publican, such as Stuart Dudgeon who is vocally opposed to the ban could have his license revoked. Remember he has not broken the law, but what he has done is support somebody who has broken the law, in this case Hamish Howitt.

By vocally supporting the law breaker he puts himself at risk of losing his licence.

So my question is, did the people of Blackpool realise that they voted for a man whose political compass points to a Mugabean regard for the rule of Law? When the Tories rock up in Blackpool next week, will they feel just a little ashamed? I doubt it.

This little piece of regulation just illustrates a wider and scarier conception of what law is about. If we do not defend ourselves from it, then we will only have ourselves to blame.

Can I ask anybody who is concerned by this to write to the fat fellow who came up with this idea then email him here and ask him what the devil he thinks he is up to,

cllr.henry.mitchell@blackpool.gov.uk

So who does Dave like?

Obviously not his membership?
Responding to the criticism of Michael Ancram this week we have the boy Dave telling the Sun,
"When you make changes you’ll get blasts from the past who signify nothing".

Remind me what it was that Ancram said,

I have a simple political creed
I believe in people and in their individual freedom and their right to choose; I believe in promoting aspiration and merit; I believe in the smaller state in value for taxpayers moneyy and in being the 'Good Neighbour'; I believe in the family; I believe in protecting and conserving our environment; I believe in the resolute defence of our sovereignty and of the realm.

If Mr Cameron truly thinks that that set of principles signifies nothing God help the Conservative Party

It appears I am not the only one who has doubts

The Huntsman has written a considered piece about the apparant lack of gumption over the referendum campaign. His phraseolgy however rises above my dull prose as he sums up,

"Since the political elite of this country is so confident that it knows better than the People, fervently believing that the EU is good for us, the prospect of having to carry out the wishes of the People bears too much of the whiff of bitter almonds about it to be in the least bit attractive to them: most, one suspects, would rather undergo a tonsillectomy without anæsthetic on YouTube first".

He follows it up with a question on The Difference magazine, which will be putting questions to Caroline Spelman, the Tory Chairman.

"Why has the Conservative party become lukewarm on the issue of the EU
Referendum?

This is open goal territory but lately the Conservatives have been conspicuous by their absence.

Is it because this is seen as a win-win situation for Mr. Cameron in that
a) if GB yields on the referendum, he will be seen to be weak and to have given in to the Tories

(b)if he refuses he will be seen as a dishonourable shyster, but

(c) the Conservatives do not really want a referendum because the result
might be such a large majority against the treaty as to raise the whole issue of the principle our membership of the EU all over again, a perceived nightmare the Tories prefer not to contemplate?"

Another question could be, why are the Tories not officially backing the Pro Referendum Rally campaign?

Should politicians lie?

OK, don't get me wrong I know they do, but are there times when it is justifiable to lie?.

I would say, that sadly yes. Nobody wants a Chancellor of the Exchequer who turns up at the depatch box puts his head in his hands and says,
"You know the balance of payments is up the spout, inflation is running at 3 times the official figures and we cannot afford the repayments on our national debts".

Even if this were true the effect on the markets would be catastrophic. Indeed by his honesty the Chancellor would exacerbate a crisis trurning it into a disaster.

In a similar vein, if Churchill had been brutally honest about the UK's position in 1940, rather than pugnaciously upbeat about our prospects then the collapse of national morale would have been such as to hasten the end of the war on German terms.

Which is why the comments made by David Davis on the BBC News 24 yesterday and spotted by EU Referendum depress me so much.

Here is it reported on EU Politix.

A senior Conservative has conceded that the government will "probably" avoid having to hold a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty.
Shadow home secretary David Davis said he did not believe reports that up to 120 Labour MPs are ready to rebel on the issue.
However, he claimed that the government would "lose the argument" to the Conservatives and other critics of the treaty.
Recent reports have suggested that the prime minister could face a major rebellion from proponents of the poll, which Labour originally committed to hold when the document was officially described as a 'constitution'.
But Davis told the BBC News 24 Sunday programme: "I think they will probably evaporate when it comes down to it.
"But it doesn't mean the government will win the argument. They may win the vote.
"In a way, losing the argument is worse for them. People will say 'you promised this
before. This treaty is 90 per cent the same. What are you afraid of?'"

Hold on. What Davis has said may be true, but should he actually say it? (Indeed he should know, he was a whip during the Maastricht debate remember)

Not at all, if even her Maj's opposition sit their and say it isn't worth the effort why would any Labour back (or Front) bencher risk their political life for the referendum?

And frankly he seems to think that if the price of a few percentage points in the polls is selling the country down the slide it is a price worth paying. He is not fit to hold one of the major offices of State and his party is not fit to govern this country. If they had their way it would merely be a province of Mr Barroso's empire.

I thank God I left the Tories.

Yes yes, I know he went on to say he was going to campaign hard, but he has already shown his heart isn't in it. So why bother?

Ongoing hiatus

Quick apologies, now leaving the bucolic pleasures of rural Dorset for the windswept fastness that is the Isle of Tiree.

Normal service to be resumed after the 27th August.

In the meantime, those splendid types over at EU Referendum seem to be ploughing their useful and informative furrow without pausing for breath.

In particular the mythbuster series is well worth a visit.

Here is the Tory MEP leader Timothy Kirkhope prentending to be something he isn't, just like his absurd poposals for a new, but acceptable European Constitution are pretending to be an answer which of course they are not,

No it is not his house, he just fancies himself an aristo.

Bully for Brontosauri

Those perenial beasts from the Cretaceous period in new Conservativism Clarke and Hurd got together on the sofa at GMTV to add their ha'pence to internal Tory discord over Europe. Clarke was up first And what sanctimonious, self serving deceitful nonsense it was too,

"One thing that will make a Conservative Party electable... will be if we
continue to dilute this absurd, extreme Eurosceptism that swept over the party
in the last 10 years,"

First pile of ordure, "extreme euroscepticism", the closet thing to extreme that the Tory party have managed over the past decade was their short lived support for repartriating fisheries policy. I suppose that Dave has rowed back from that position, but given the economic and environmental disastor that is the CFP is this s good thing?

"I find the idea of a referendum on whether the Polish voting deal was the
correct one and whether you should have a rotating presidency of the European
Council has an inner absurdity.

But of course the demand for a referendum has nothing whatsoever to do with the relative voting weights of ploand and Germany, and Clarke knows this very well. His suggestion is mendacious in the extreme. As for having a permanant President, he presents it in such flippant way as to suggest the background to this is ridiculous. A legal personality, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, loss of veto in over 50 areas, the aibilityof the Council to continue to alter the Treaty without over the table dicussion, the creation of a Foreign Minister and as Jean Claude Juncker points out 99% of the failed and rejected Constitution he doesn't even deal with. The man has contempt for people, democracy and his country.

"And as for the arguments that this is bringing the end to our nation's sovereignty and that all the European countries have now given up their right to an independent foreign policy, that is just crackpot."

Cackpot, so why is there to be a permanent Foriegn Minister - you can call it anything you want Mr Clarke, but it is a foriegn Minister? What is soveriegnty after all other than the ability to make decisions on policy (including trade, agriculture, research and so on in the interests of your own country?

Hurd just dribbled supportively in his wake.

"Sub-human". An appropriate phrase for political discourse?

It appears that Nick Bourne AM, Tory leader in Wales, has got into a spot of bother for a piece of splen vented against the BNP. Describing them, on his blog in February as, "nasty, mean, distasteful and grubby bunch of sub-human flotsam and jetsam".
His comments are being considered by the Welsh assembly's standard's committee. 180 complaints were made, no doubt almost entirely by BNP members.

The BNP, is a pretty vile party, the worst combination of vicious xenophobia and socialism to be found in the British Isles, barring only Sinn Fein. However the words "sub-human" are probematic in the extreme.

After all this concept of dehumanising political opponents is normaly the tactic of facsists and communists, not so called liberal parties. But looking at what else he says about them and how they should be treated I think he is about right.

Beat them with arguements, not with the legal process. (That said using the words of Henrich Himmler to attack them is perhaps no the most sensible thing to do).

Another thing, he boast about being over in Brussels last week talking to Commission officials and others about "Higher Education". Isn't education supposed to be a National issue?