I gather French aircraft come with a bribe these days (viz the Dassault affair) - could offset some of the costs.

Roger pre-empted me! I was going to point to the option of joining the PES...

One of the items I hope might be discussed as part of the selection process would be chivvying CCHQ over increasing the size of the group, since I understand there are sensible and appropriate candidates who have declared an interest in joining, but the response in London has been one of disinterest. Why the issue has been kicked into the long grass is a matter of some concern. If Dr Tannock made this a plank of a leadership bid it would be a real advance for the Conservatives and the ECR group.

This article is certainly fair comment one sense: Mr Milband jr hails from the party of form fillers. If he has here displayed one example of not appreciating it, are there others; and would he intend to avoid the principle were he to run Government?

Mr Tomlinson is recorded in Hansard as having walked through both lobbies; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100714/debtext/100714-0003.htm#10071434000003

Hi Anthony. If you explore the links on the site it should take you to the story covering the ministerial answer to the original PQ. The £30 billion of course is the total across Government of which c. £9 billion is ascribed specifically to the EU. And yes, (i) it is an astonishing figure, (ii) it is for a one year period of new legislation, and (iii) you are absolutely right to highlight this, it indeed doesn't give us a figure for existing red tape costs from preceding legislation, which is why we need a full, frank and fair cost-benefit analysis of the UK's terms of EU membership.

The problem doesn't end with tax simplification. The Reagan lesson was that after you simplify, the natural tendency is for recomplicating them again: this has to be constantly fought against.

Some people still love Stalin. Before someone explodes with outrage, I'm not comparing like with like. It's another observation on human nature. Commitment to a cause seen in retrospect to have been hugely flawed triggers in some people a blindly defensive posture. All the more credit to those former cheerleaders who openly admit wrong calls in the past in order to avoid similar blunders in the future.

Well let me make myself absolutely clear then. People are conflating personal views of Lord Black and separately Lord Ashcroft with the issue of non-domicile or non-UK peerages. I actually think Lord Ashcroft's case has certain similarities more with Strathcona. Lord Ashcroft has done a lot for the UK and that is most admirably symbolised with the VC collection. His association with party politics of any hue is actually a negative given his other contributions! I'll take a chance and even say that historians in future years may reflect slightly more kindly on Lord Black. Everything is tarnished by the finances scandal, so we have forgotten the part the Telegraph played in keeping us out of the Euro and other follies. I might also add that I remember corresponding with him 20 years ago on Maurice Duplessis and he was very helpful towards a mere postgrad. But as I say, these positives all subsequently overtaken.

Include all development aid in Afghanistan as part of the 0.7 per cent.

Steve, This statistic is somewhat out of date, but puts the matter into context and is readily to hand; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5741371/Knife-crime-is-on-the-rise.html There is more data and analysis in the Kids Count Knife Crime Report, into which a lot of people on the front line put a huge amount of work.

Perhaps First Class MP travel was vaguely justifiable when Sir Nicholas joined. After all, that would have been a case of cross-subsidy by the taxpayer, since at that time the railways were state owned and large amounts of public money were already being thrown at them. Not now, as a rule of thumb.

Since both are correct forms of the accusative plural,and it was quoted from memory, I hope you will excuse me this once!

Foreign Secretaries speak softly. Defence Secretaries carry the big stick.

That's already long been online and trawled through, and your assumption is off the mark.

JHL, Already planning another challenge under the Human Rights Act/ECHR?!

I'd be interested in Roger Evans' take.

Top credit to Pavel Stroilov for all his work on this. He definitely deserves a One-to-Watch statuette come the next ConHome awards.

"That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament" It's stretching it to say that 'Proceedings in Parliament' includes financial activities outside of the Chamber, even if it includes parliamentary funds. Even if you argue the toss, in any event the recalcitrant MPs could presumably then be called to the Bar by the Speaker. Not Bellamy's though as he's apparently trying to replace that with a creche.

All four countries have territory considered (to be diplomatic) as contentiously occupied. In Russia's case there is, for instance, the territory held that's disputed under the terms of the Treaty of Tartu. You can argue the toss over each case. The point is that if you are running an ethical foreign policy, be consistent.

My first impression is that it's unlikely the Commission will approve anything; the Government knows this; and they are simply pandering to part of the traditional Labour electorate. Or are similar plans on the way for products from China, India, Russia, or Morocco? No, I thought not.

It's quite fair for Mr Hamilton to point out the plank in the Labour party's eye on this matter.

Hardly Tim's fault is it now?!

Agreed: a peculiar overstatement. Though as a metaphor in the Bukovsky context (as per his book), it can have its uses strictly when exploring the political survival of former Eastern Bloc politicians (especially in the PES world) today.

Juicy meat but very boney.