Tuesday 17th.March 2015

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:32 am

gilsey wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: But people are out there shouting that there is no difference between the parties, that Labour don't deserve their vote, that they will vote Green, TUSC, anything for a change. I'm a f***ing Red Tory, an irrelevance, my opinion is worth less than nothing. Intelligent people are swallowing the lies and sleepwalking over the edge of a cliff; problem is, they are dragging the rest of us with them as well and I can no longer see a way to prevent it. Ah well, if we're all that goddamned stupid we deserve everything we get, we deserve a proper evil bastard unfettered Tory Government; I won't survive it, but never mind.
The difference between you and me is that I believe there are good numbers of good people who don't swallow the lies, who understand the issues and agree with you. They just don't make as much noise. They'll turn out to vote, you'll see.

Labour will get 316. You heard it here first.

Ooh. When is it time for final predictions?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:32 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
pk1 wrote:
ephemerid wrote: Don't give up, TGS.

I won't.

Whatever happens with our individual pets issues (and we've all got 'em) the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that if the Tories get another 5 years we'll all be sunk.

And that is what people should be aware of & voting to prevent. All the non-votes will do is increase the Cons chances.
But people are out there shouting that there is no difference between the parties, that Labour don't deserve their vote, that they will vote Green, TUSC, anything for a change. I'm a f***ing Red Tory, an irrelevance, my opinion is worth less than nothing. Intelligent people are swallowing the lies and sleepwalking over the edge of a cliff; problem is, they are dragging the rest of us with them as well and I can no longer see a way to prevent it. Ah well, if we're all that goddamned stupid we deserve everything we get, we deserve a proper evil bastard unfettered Tory Government; I won't survive it, but never mind.

But those 'intelligent people' should realise those parties won't be in power to enact their promises ! I promise you a million pounds if you vote for me at the 2015 GE - I'm not standing (obvs) but if I was & with that promise as my manifesto, I guarantee to get some sucker to vote for me.

Thing is that every minority party can promise the earth because they won't ever have to deliver !

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:34 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:If Reeves genuinely said that then she is irredeemably stupid, but I'm still suspicious as the Guardian have serious form with misquoting her words. I tend to agree with Lonewolfie, possibly best to say nothing if you know what you do say will get twisted. But I'm close to giving up anyway, I think Lynton is winning and can no longer see the point of fighting.

Never give up - it's what they want - only 7 weeks to go - the polls are the usual b******s - and Lynton is most definitely not winning (actually, has he ever 'won'? - did he get Abbott in, in Australia? (Genuine question - I thought his clout was around knowing how to deal with lobbyists) He certainly didn't manage to get the most embarrassing product of Llanelli GS elected (Michael 'something of the night' Howard) and, I say again - another 7 weeks...every time they try to re-establish the 'Labour are sh1t' line to gain a few more polling points they seem to get 'shapped' by their own history and actions. It is very close to the end of the Tory Party for ever (if you think there was a meltdown in Labour in the early '80s, it'll be nothing compared to the sh1tfest of bitchiness that will ensue following the Labour Landslide)

I live in hope north of P'boro and 50 days from Landslide

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:35 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Also -

Happy St.Patrick's Day.

Happy Commonwealth Day.

And I wish Rachel Reeves would just be quiet.
Pleeeeeaaase, Rachel.
The disability Bloggers and Tweeters are up in arms this morning.
With reason.
As I've said before, I'm not Reeves biggest fan, but are you sure she is being quoted accurately? I saw a tweet from Dawn Foster which still references the "tougher than the Tories" line which we know was a misquote; the Guardian have an agenda and, at the moment, I wouldn't trust them if they told me daffodils were yellow.

There is nothing objectionable in the Reeves article, which is really about sorting out sanctions so they aren't punitive.

The Labour Party is the party of working people not the unemployed, always has been. The objective is to get the unemployed into decent jobs that pay, always has been. The reason she has to say stuff like this is the media, it would be wonderful for the Tories if IDS could paint Labour as a soft touch who will give away all your cash to the feckless.

Why that is upsetting people is beyond me.[/quote

Many people are suffering through disabilities and/or unemployment,of course,but those of them complaining about labours stance and doing the card cutting up/never voting for labour thing need to ask themselves a really,really simple question.
If by not voting labour/voting green etc/not voting at all they usher in 5 more years of this punitive govt,will their anger keep them warm and fed?Because that's what they will have left

Er..don't know what happened here,my bit is below 'quote'.sorry!

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:36 am

Thinking about social media with regards to postal voting, it's going to be interesting how those initial tranche of actual voters vote is managed, spun, spread.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:43 am

pk1 wrote:Deleted, to prevent another row kicking off

Spoilsport.

Goodmorfternoon, everyone.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:47 am

StephenDolan wrote:Thinking about social media with regards to postal voting, it's going to be interesting how those initial tranche of actual voters vote is managed, spun, spread.

When do the postal votes get sent out ?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:54 am

Rebecca wrote:Many people are suffering through disabilities and/or unemployment,of course,but those of them complaining about labours stance and doing the card cutting up/never voting for labour thing need to ask themselves a really,really simple question.
If by not voting labour/voting green etc/not voting at all they usher in 5 more years of this punitive govt,will their anger keep them warm and fed?Because that's what they will have left

But the meme is that Labour are no better, no different, you can't put a fag paper between the policies etc. Ephe hit the nail on the head, people need to be reassured and this interview doesn't achieve that, Reeves never has achieved that; I stand by my comment, I think she is being (at best) selectively quoted here but that isn't the point - this interview is another hostage to fortune, whatever she does or says now will be overshadowed by it.

Will their anger keep them warm and fed? No. Will they listen to that argument? No. Do I blame them? No, not really.

Post by **refitman** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:56 am

pk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:

Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?

Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.

Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.

If someone just posts a URL into their comment, the board automatically makes it a link and also abbreviates it in the final post (when you get the '...' in the middle). These links will automatically open in another window/tab (depending on your settings).

If they add the

Code: Select all

[url] link [/url]

tags around the URL it shows the full link on the screen. These are the links that will open in the same window.

I would recommend people not use the URL tags unless the system doesn't recognise the original link (it will sometimes do this when copying from twitter, or linking to documents).

Hope this helps.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:56 am

Compare the inflammatory headline with the detail in the article:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/03/ ... h-collapse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:56 am

The discussion over where to get your news stories from is proving rather amusing at the other place!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:58 am

refitman wrote:
pk1 wrote:I have a question for our IT specialists:

Why is it that sometimes I can click on a link in a post & it opens in a new tab & at other times, I'm directed there from this tab ?

Today, I have clicked on yahyah's post to Wales Online & it opened a new tab but all of Lonewolfies links open from this page thus forcing me to remember to click the back button to get back here.

Why is it different & what can I do to make sure every link opens in a new tab ? My pc settings are for links to automatically open in new tabs so it has to be something unique to this site.
If someone just posts a URL into their comment, the board automatically makes it a link and also abbreviates it in the final post (when you get the '...' in the middle). These links will automatically open in another window/tab (depending on your settings).

If they add the
Code: Select all
[url] link [/url]
tags around the URL it shows the full link on the screen. These are the links that will open in the same window.

I would recommend people not use the URL tags unless the system doesn't recognise the original link (it will sometimes do this when copying from twitter, or linking to documents).

Hope this helps.

A huge help - thank you !

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:58 am

Ashcroft's marginal polling out any minute..

12 seats I believe, here we go again then.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 11:59 am

pk1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Thinking about social media with regards to postal voting, it's going to be interesting how those initial tranche of actual voters vote is managed, spun, spread.
When do the postal votes get sent out ?

In theory, any date after 9th April.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:01 pm

Grant 'V' Shapps: another pseudonym for the marketer and Tory party chair?

There was no sign of the “V” on his birth certificate from 1968 or his marriage certificate in 1997.

But for the 2001 and 2005 elections he became “Grant V Shapps” and, according to the electoral roll, is still registered under that name at his home address in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.

Asked about the puzzling middle initial, Shapps was quoted in the Sun: “Jokingly, my parents once suggested I call myself ‘Five’ because I don’t have a middle name.

“I am aware ‘V’ has appeared as my middle initial, for example on Wikipedia. But I have never used it myself.” Guardian, my emphasis)

Who fills in his forms for him, then? What a strange person he is. His default position on everything seems to be to, um, (please complete the sentence using whatever weird term he uses for lying).

Edited to be even more bold.

(As you can see, I've found the edit button - I was looking in the wrong place.)

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:01 pm

http://www.conservativehome.com/platfor ... y-one.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My bad, eight, not twelve.

Post by **adam** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:02 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Ashcroft's marginal polling out any minute..

12 seats I believe, here we go again then.

It's on smithson's twitter feed now - looks pretty good - all but one of the labour leads extended since last time he polled in October '14

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:06 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Many people are suffering through disabilities and/or unemployment,of course,but those of them complaining about labours stance and doing the card cutting up/never voting for labour thing need to ask themselves a really,really simple question.
If by not voting labour/voting green etc/not voting at all they usher in 5 more years of this punitive govt,will their anger keep them warm and fed?Because that's what they will have left
But the meme is that Labour are no better, no different, you can't put a fag paper between the policies etc. Ephe hit the nail on the head, people need to be reassured and this interview doesn't achieve that, Reeves never has achieved that; I stand by my comment, I think she is being (at best) selectively quoted here but that isn't the point - this interview is another hostage to fortune, whatever she does or says now will be overshadowed by it.

Will their anger keep them warm and fed? No. Will they listen to that argument? No. Do I blame them? No, not really.

Afraid I do a bit.And they will be the first and loudest to start complaining 2 months after a new Tory govt that labour are not doing enough for them.
My daughter will never be able to work,or live independently,and of course I would like things to be better for her,but it isn't just about us is it.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:07 pm

adam wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Ashcroft's marginal polling out any minute..

12 seats I believe, here we go again then.
It's on smithson's twitter feed now - looks pretty good - all but one of the labour leads extended since last time he polled in October '14

Ta ra McVey

35% v 42%.

Wasn't this down as a 'hold' by Ian Dale?

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:08 pm

Wirral West, Labour increasing their lead.

Now, if that don't put a smile on your chops I don't know what will?!

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:08 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 24s24 seconds ago
80% of 2010 LD to LAB switchers tell Ashcroft poll that they are satisfied with Ed & want him as PM. Highest yet

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:09 pm

Put a smile on Stephen's chops I see..

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:11 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Grant 'V' Shapps: another pseudonym for the marketer and Tory party chair?

There was no sign of the “V” on his birth certificate from 1968 or his marriage certificate in 1997.

But for the 2001 and 2005 elections he became “Grant V Shapps” and, according to the electoral roll, is still registered under that name at his home address in Hatfield, Hertfordshire.

Asked about the puzzling middle initial, Shapps was quoted in the Sun: “Jokingly, my parents once suggested I call myself ‘Five’ because I don’t have a middle name.

“I am aware ‘V’ has appeared as my middle initial, for example on Wikipedia. But I have never used it myself.” Guardian, my emphasis)
Who fills in his forms for him, then? What a strange person he is. His default position on everything seems to be to, um, (please complete the sentence using whatever weird term he uses for lying).

Apologies for giving attention to this person but if he's on the electoral register with that name he'd better fix it if he wants his vote to count. God damned, sloppy, lying Tories.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Put a smile on Stephen's chops I see..

Just a tad.

There's an increasing prevalence of "No fracking in the Dee estuary" posters popping up on the Wirral.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Wirral West, Labour increasing their lead.

Now, if that don't put a smile on your chops I don't know what will?!

That's a fine day indeed.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm

Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:13 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
adam wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Ashcroft's marginal polling out any minute..

12 seats I believe, here we go again then.
It's on smithson's twitter feed now - looks pretty good - all but one of the labour leads extended since last time he polled in October '14
Ta ra McVey

35% v 42%.

Wasn't this down as a 'hold' by Ian Dale?

Yes, it was!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:15 pm

Rebecca wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Rebecca wrote:Many people are suffering through disabilities and/or unemployment,of course,but those of them complaining about labours stance and doing the card cutting up/never voting for labour thing need to ask themselves a really,really simple question.
If by not voting labour/voting green etc/not voting at all they usher in 5 more years of this punitive govt,will their anger keep them warm and fed?Because that's what they will have left
But the meme is that Labour are no better, no different, you can't put a fag paper between the policies etc. Ephe hit the nail on the head, people need to be reassured and this interview doesn't achieve that, Reeves never has achieved that; I stand by my comment, I think she is being (at best) selectively quoted here but that isn't the point - this interview is another hostage to fortune, whatever she does or says now will be overshadowed by it.

Will their anger keep them warm and fed? No. Will they listen to that argument? No. Do I blame them? No, not really.

Afraid I do a bit.And they will be the first and loudest to start complaining 2 months after a new Tory govt that labour are not doing enough for them.
My daughter will never be able to work,or live independently,and of course I would like things to be better for her,but it isn't just about us is it.

I hear you.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:16 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.

Sizeable UKIP VI.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:18 pm

This is simplified.

In the days before there was any sort of control over decent wages for the working class, the young frequently went hungry and shoeless. Grandparents, once they couldn't work to support themselves ended up in the workhouse. Physical care by their families wasn't a problem. Feeding them and overcrowding often was.

Once an able bodied man was able to earn a fair wage thanks to the Labour movement and Unions, those problems mainly disappeared.
The NHS provided a fitter work force and healthier old age. Men lived longer, and were better providers than before. Workhouses became a thing of the past.

I guess what I'm trying to say is society relies heavily on a productive and well paid work force.
Looking at it cold heartedly until ZH and the low paid are done away with, the Welfare state will depend on the better paid workforce. It's crucial they're brought on board. It'll repay them many times over, but you have to get them there first.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:20 pm

Interesting to see the numbers for preferences for choice of PM - so much for Ed 'not looking the part' !

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:23 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.
Sizeable UKIP VI.

Chester is interesting too, swing to Labour of 8.5% since 2010 and UKIP slipping away, LibDems down 12%.

I'd have had Chester a much closer race than that, still could be of course.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:30 pm

Paul Goodman has made the point, via twitter that Cons could be winning the air war, but Labour are winning at ground level.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:32 pm

Where's the edit button gone? I feel much diminished.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:33 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.
Sizeable UKIP VI.

But the conventional wisdom was that UKIP were hurting Labour at least as much as the Tories there.

I know for a fact that several Labour people "in the know" have been quite worried about this seat, and these findings will be welcome.

No complacency, though

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:37 pm

pk1 wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 24s24 seconds ago
80% of 2010 LD to LAB switchers tell Ashcroft poll that they are satisfied with Ed & want him as PM. Highest yet

Get In.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Lynton.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:49 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
pk1 wrote:
Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 24s24 seconds ago
80% of 2010 LD to LAB switchers tell Ashcroft poll that they are satisfied with Ed & want him as PM. Highest yet

Get In.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Lynton.

and you Dan F H

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:51 pm

Found edit button - panic over, I was looking in the wrong place. Sorry!

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 12:58 pm

Favourable post meridiem to you all.

It's interesting reading on here today.

Re Reeves: - Discussion of differing perspectives is always educational and on FTN it's sensible discussion not mindless trolling insults like at the 'other place'.
I can agree where the 'sod the unemployed' angle is seen in Reeves comments but I tend to think that she is addressing the point that without a large working population there can be no effective benefit system.

Re Shapps: - What a 1st class spiv.

Nothing else to say really.

Re Ashcroft: - Nice. Hopefully accurate but there is only one 'polling result' that counts. It will be a long night, beer and snacks are already waiting and I'm looking forward to it.

Re FTN kitchen: - After the blackpudding/banana fritters can we try an Umunna Innovation Cluster?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:04 pm

Swarthlander wrote:Favourable post meridiem to you all.

It's interesting reading on here today.

Re Reeves: - Discussion of differing perspectives is always educational and on FTN it's sensible discussion not mindless trolling insults like at the 'other place'.
I can agree where the 'sod the unemployed' angle is seen in Reeves comments but I tend to think that she is addressing the point that without a large working population there can be no effective benefit system.

Re Shapps: - What a 1st class spiv. Nothing else to say really.

Re Ashcroft: - Nice. Hopefully accurate but there is only one 'polling result' that counts. It will be a long night, beer and snacks are already waiting and I'm looking forward to it.

Re FTN kitchen: - After the blackpudding/banana fritters can we try an Umunna Innovation Cluster?

Ha! After Eights are so passé.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:05 pm

Apparently there was a flirty love in between Susanna 'I've got legs and ain't afraid to use 'em' Reid and Cameron when a TV interview was filmed at No 10.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:07 pm

Bet he'll be sleeping in the spare room tonight.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:13 pm

As for EU referrendum - I live in a rural community and around here (like all rural areas) there are many folk who do quite nicely from various EU grants (anyone with over 5 hectares qualifies for something). The down-side is that a lot of small-holdings are being bought up but that's another discussion.

If Dave goes for a referrendum he will be putting a lot of rural second incomes in jeopardy and that will not be welcome in the Tory Shire core vote. So I recon any EU referrendum will be discouraged, it certainly won't happen this year and it's unlikey in the near future no matter what Dave says publically.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:25 pm

Another instalment up regarding the spiv like activities of the very spiv like chancer Grant Shapps, would link but on my phone.

Remarkable how many careers there are to be made in spouting "how to make yourself irresistible to the opposite sex" "how to find brain cells you didn't know you had" bollocks. Or in Tory speak entrepreneurship!

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:33 pm

Oy! I've just had me lunch. I don't need to see filth like that, it might bring it back.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:38 pm

Electoral Calculus has similar results for Wirral West and Southampton Itchen. It gives bigger labour leads in some places but is completely at odds with Ashcroft regarding Worcestor, giving Labour a strong lead not found by LA.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:43 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.

I never really believed that Southamton Itchen was at risk in the first place. If the Tories couldn't take it in 2010, why on earth would they now? In fact, I'd say that's true for most Labour seats, unless there's some kind of local issue with a candidate or some kind of scandal (like the child grooming thing in Rotheram), why would the Tories take any seat off Labour when they're polling less now than they were then?

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:56 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
letsskiptotheleft wrote:Hell of a jump for Labour in Southampton Itchen too.
Sizeable UKIP VI.
But the conventional wisdom was that UKIP were hurting Labour at least as much as the Tories there.

I know for a fact that several Labour people "in the know" have been quite worried about this seat, and these findings will be welcome.

No complacency, though

I know a few people in Itchen who are planning to vote UKIP this time, but none of them voted Labour last time (although a couple of them did vote for Blair in 2005). They are all either dissafected Tories or people who've never bothered voting before. I'm not saying that's a scientific view of what's going on but that's my experience. I don't doubt that UKIP are picking up some Labour voters, but I suspect that the number of ex Tories going their way dwarves that number. So in the end it won't matter to the result.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

Just been wading through some of the bile & abusive comments over at the Graun & came across this from RClayton:

Just to note that the Security and Intelligence Agencies are either having an emergency spending programme or are very bad at budgeting.

Government departments are normally expected to seek Parliamentary approval well in advance for the total amount they will spend by 31 March. Today in a written statement, Francis Maude on behalf of the agencies has had to announce that the Agencies are having to be given £66.8 million from the Treasury's back pocket (technically the Civil Contingencies Fund) in order to meet either costs which either they have underestimated or (possibly, though I doubt Parliament sees much fine detail) spending within budget but on different things to those which Parliament has formally agreed to.

Bloody pity there isn't a journalist worth their salt who would follow what happens in Parliament & report on it instead of the tittle tattle that fills the pages of even the broadsheets.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 17 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

From AS blog:

The court of appeal has decided that the former Conservative party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas corruptly offered access to David Cameron and other leading members of the Government in exchange for donations. As the Press Association reports, three judges reduced a £180,000 libel award made to the 61-year-old businessman against Times Newspapers in July 2013 to £50,000, and ordered him to repay the £130,000 plus interest by the end of the month. Cruddas had brought the claim against the group and two members of the Sunday Times’s Insight team, masquerading as potential donors, over three articles which appeared in March 2012. Today, Lord Justice Jackson said that the trial judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat got it wrong in one of his findings in relation to the truth of the meanings of the articles. The appeal judge said:

On a proper reading of the transcript of a meeting on March 15 2012, the following is clear. Mr Cruddas was effectively saying to the journalists that if they donated large sums to the Conservative Party, they would have an opportunity to influence government policy and to gain unfair commercial advantage through confidential meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. That was unacceptable, inappropriate and wrong. Therefore meaning one was substantially true. The defendants are not liable for libel or malicious falsehood in respect of meaning one.