I believe you are referring to Kenneth Baker, who said that David Cameron has moved too far to the right to win the election.
I do not think he actually referred to lies, although the figures iDS is using for the denial of WFP to France and Spain, falls into that category.
I find your opening remark contentious and in your own words simplistic.
The Greens are so far to the left that they lose credibility, which is a shame as we do need people to maintain pressure on climate change and pollution and similar problems.
Kenneth Baker has had a home in a nearby village here in the Clunysois for many years.
Funny I Googled John Locke Professor of International Law. Result Zilch.
I was heartened to hear a tory peer this week called their manifesto a giant pack of lies (or similar).
Tory policies are based on individual responsibility versus collective responsibility (capitalism versus socialism) which is far too simplistic and I am tired of watching this ball go back and forth in the same old game of tennis. Ukip Policies are based on behaving like a teenager forever - yes, a lot of fun but no work ever gets done and lets face it, not quite nazi but very, very close to the wind.
Yes, I want more say for nations within the UK parliament, which is why I support the SNP and Plaid in their quest for that, but I believe it can be done within the British parliament, not outside it.
Greens get my vote. Not because Natalie Bennet is well versed in debating or presents herself in a slick fashion. She is nervous and too focussed on policy instead of image for a TV debate. BUT, Because sustainability is the key to governing anything. Looking at stuff with a holistic viewpoint is the key to caring for society. Even works on our own tiny minds. Yes it's radical, yes it's a minority view, but it makes sense to me and it always has, since I started watching panorama and world in action aged 7 in 1969.
Ooh nasty. I shall stop following this thread now. Some people really need to get a life!
Really?
Ooooh, nasty !!!
It does because one prefers to respond to someone with a face. Why not post a picture?
I quite agree. I think the point about ages is spot on too.
"You are quite obviously a troll. I fail to understand why anybody is bothering to reply to your puerile 'bating'. We cannot see your face in your profile picture and I would imagine that both your first and second names begin with a capital letter. Your grammar is as awful as your argument : "i am very aware that i am totally disenfranchised .which is the point i was making" . Nobody is taking you seriously - if, god forbid you actually work in a university then I pity your students. The real John Locke was a man worthy of respect."
I was responding to Nicholas Josephs seemingly hypocritical comments about not being able to see a face etc etc The pot calling the kettle black...
I find that it does.
One cannot relate as well to a black square and it does help to have a rough idea of peoples age.
As far as I am aware there is no 'must'. It's suggested that you may like to post your picture but you don't have to. You must put your real name (which I have) and I have put where I am in France. I choose not to put my photo up. Does it make a difference to anyone's comments?
I thought it was a 'must' on SFN for each member to post a picture. I have noticed a large number of faceless members lately. Perhaps a timely reminder by admin is called for.
Is the car his wife's as well poor dear? Must be awful to be maintained in that style by someone else and him only getting an MP's salary and pension. Must be quite a place to heat, never mind heating the pool. We didin't manage to avoid the IHT liability AND I lost the WFP too. Silly old us.
I don't particularly agree with much of what john locke says but at least we can see his face...I expect you will you tell me to f... o.. too ?
No need to stoop to offensive name calling Nicholas.
Not defending IDS (far from it) but the pile is actually owned by his wife... set in three acres with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - is part of the ancestral estate owned by Mr Duncan Smith's in-laws, Lord and Lady Cottesloe. The 5th Baron Cottesloe of Swanbourne and Harwick - who moved to a smaller home nearby when he decided to give up the family pile in favour of his eldest daughter last year.. (thereby one presumes avoiding any inheritance tax liability.)
What a surprise!
This makes his double standards worse.
Jane- I really don't want to upset you as you might have some sort of a seizure when you see this article and an aerial photograph of our hero's modest pad, which the DM (if you believe them) allege is rent free. He's the man who affirmed that anybody could live off £7 a day.
BTW the Morgan + 8 fuel consumption is only 18.2 mpg so it would only take about three tankfuls to get through the WFP formerly paid to expats to warm their homes. Pip! Pip!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-iain-duncan-smith-1794517
The house is at Swanbourne, Bucks, and it and its large swimming pool may be seen on Google Earth
I do not have access to any police computer!
Good luck with that!
Has anyone got access to the police computer so we can find out where he lives?
As everybody knows the UK is much colder than France, in fact its so much colder that it's not worth buying a convertible car. What's that? I don't believe it. It's that Duncan Smith in his Morgan defying the elements Please note that it's the V8 model with the extra powerful (winter) fuel consuming engine version natch!Gotcha!