What does 'we should be subsidizing the people who need it'mean. It is the way that the welfare state and state spending warps thinking. Why should the impecunious taxpayer pay for persons to live in housing they cannot afford and even if it is consdiered that the taxpayer is forced to house say an innocent paraplegic why should this housing not be the say the cheapest flats in the Isle of Sheppey but valuable property in the centre of London?

Yes I agree with Angela Ellis Jones. I expect Boris Johnson like Gingrich to rum as a 'moral conservative' with strong emphasis on 'family'. But there is a wall of material out there whish can crash down on him. And dont forget his other murky activities in the p[ast.

It might be good to have some more penentrating threads. For example,exactly what,how etc are British financial commitments to saving the eurozone? Quite an important matter,one might think,but eneveloped in 'nacht und nebel . Another matter is the extraordinary but not particularly ne w fact that criminals never pay court fines.Why are the judiciary not being held responsible for this?

So many good points made by the commenters on Cameron's 'find' which appears to be 'transfer' of funding from other swollen departments. Tim you cant run a society with carrots alone . Look at donkeys and horses given endless carrots. It makes them ill. We need and the 'takers'need to see - -mass repatriation of the foreign unemployed,criminals,illegals etc -the end of our payments to the EU and foreign aid -Climate change scam completely stopped. -an end to permanent unemployment subsidy,one parent family support etc. Even the Singapore government this week has cut back its policy of welcoming'skilled'imigrants because of its perpetual abuse.

Have we got confirmation yet of exactly how much money Cameron agreed to pledge to the IMF to help the eurozone?

I mentioned last week that the official statements at the European Council talked about mnoney to be contributed to the IMF by the'eurozone and othe r member states' and that was an ominous statement that Britain may have agreed to contribute to the IMF roundtrip bailout.(its always a good idea to get the original documents) I see Ambrose Evans Pritchard has now got onto this. Well, we dont know exactly what Cameron has agreed and we may well be saved by the collapse of the whole cockamanie scheme but really-has Cameron even considered a major loan to the IMF? Needless to say MPs did not raise this om Monday.

It is long past time that a massive repatriation programme was launched to include unemployed immigrants,illegals,those with communicable diseases,those committing crimes etc Is there a single Conservative voter who does not consider this plain commonsense.? Some of Mr Netanyahu recent moves are well worth following.

Presumably Hannan is referring to the arrival of enormous numbers of refugees from France at the time of the revolution. Of course all thses Frenchmen led by their king-in-exile returned to France after 1815. I doubt you could quite describe this as an 'oppurtunity' but we certainly dont want a mass influx of population from the rest of the EU.

Bruce Anderson has had 50 years and still does not understand.'We would all want to rejoin the Common Market' and then he blathers on about free trade. You dont need a Common Market for 'free trade',indeed what was called a Common Market but was actually an economic union was of course a customs union and had nothing to do with free trade at all.

Mick Mcgough,there never was a Treaty to veto let alone what Cameron calls a European Treaty. Yet Cameron says 'there was a treaty on the table'. His suggestion is quite incredible that there was a formal Treaty ready to be signed by 27 countries. It is not mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. That is not to say that somebody was not walking around with some draft heads of terms which contained material the British government could not accept.There is also the point that Cameron had already given way on adjustments to the Treaties which were not properly constituted but illegally slipped through by the Council in the past and so they may have thought they could do the same again with what actually turn out to be a bunch of mediocre stabilization measures. What donation shall we make to the Cameron memorial fund if we find a) there was a European treaty 2) it was according to Cameron'on the table' Meanwhile as Tim traces the pressure on Cameron to the 81 MPs voting against him,let us call to mind that the petition on which they voted was organized and submitted by a hardworking independent UKIP MEP,Mikki Sinclaire. Congratulations to Nikki Sinclaire who provided the lever that moved the MPs that moved Cameron.

I note from the Eurozone heads of government statement that 'euro area and other member states....additional rersources for the IMF of up to $200 billion'. I have no idea if the UK is included in this largesse as a member state but it should be verified that it is not.

The smell of rattiness increases all the time but on Monday we will no doubt be shown the terms of the terrible Treaty that Cameron professes to have 'effectively vetoed' not 'vetoed '.. Amazingly the details of the veto are not reported in the Minutes of the European Council and neither does it record the introduction of a proposed treaty for discussion. The awful truth is that all this talk about the extraordinary Cameron's veto is only verified by the word of D.Cameron. I urge all Conservatives to check the exact facts before jumping to any conclusion. What was it Jeff Randall said about 'any word Cameron may say'?

Mark-where is this Treaty you say Cameron has vetoed? Incidentally you do not veto or even consider a Treaty at a meeting of a European Council-you might discuss a proposed draft treaty or more likely the Heads of Terms of what might be later a possible draft Treaty.

Where is this Treaty Cameron is supposed to have vetoed?Is this the greatest con even for the the Tory MPs who will be appauding on Monday.

You are quite correct to draw attention to the Treaty of the ELysee whereby France and Germany agree common positions before EU Councils quite contrary to the EU treaties. There is a huge problem with allowing the creation of a eurozone bloc which will determine a common position before any European Council meeting and then vote their proposals through. This will transfer the decision making to the eurozone meetings preceded of course by the Traety OF Elysee meetings. This is all contrary to the EU treaties and should be vetoed without further discussions. There is no question of'wishing them well'

On the procedural approach,does it not appaer fantastic that our Prime Minister is going to sign up to any major change in our EU position without having a clear written statement of what is proposed and the oppurtunity to consider this over a reasonable time.? AFter all, consumer credirt legislation allows a 'cooling off 'period when customers can consider a deal and repudiate it. Should this principle apply even more to fundamental changes to the interests of the UK? No British Prime Minister should even entertain signing up to a rushed agreement with a gun to their head.

Would you tell us the approximate number of migrants to the EUK from Turkey during the first ten years of Turkey's membership of the EU which you flew to Ankara to support.

Ok lets have a poll- should Iain Duncan Smith be brought back as Conservative Leader?

I like this. It is in Britain's interests to keep the eurozone crisis going as we can continue to borrow at low rates. Leaving aside the fact that we should be slashing the defcit to nil forthwith,the advocacy of realpolitik is the best thing I have heard from a Conservative MP for a long time.

'Bring back Bonar'-that was the move that got rid of the Lloyd George coalition. I believe the contours of future necessity are being revealed and that there is now an alternative to David Cameron and that alternative is Iain Duncan Smith. IDS certainly has had his problems in man mangement,political direction etc but he is honest and patriotic. He needs a strong political Director who could play the role of John Hoskyns in the early Thatcher years and no one is better suited for that role than Tim Montgomerie who of course has worked with IDS in the past.

Just a question,Tim. What would it require on Cameron's part for you to call for his resignation?

It is a pity you cannot have a one to one with Cameron-it is said you visit Downing Street- and inform him of the facts of life-there is no respect in the EU or elsewhere for the weak and those unprepared to stand up for their stated principles. Niceness just does not cut any ice with the EU leaders ,they only respect competence, will and firmness. I am sure you share the widespread concern in the party that we are close to a MUNICH sellout.

Yes,yes so these newspapers want a referendum but surely this is getting the cart before the horse. The question will be -are you in favour of staying in the EU?(in one form or another) and from these great organs answer came there none. The question of the EU is a binary one-are you in favour albeit a reformer -or do you wish to leave? In the first category fall all the usual politicians,the CBI,the TUC etc but also John Redwood,Bill Cash and others who still believe in EU reform. On the other side are the Better Off OUT group,Dan Hannan, Roger Helmer,UKIP,Tim Montgomerie etc. At present the Telegraph, Mail and Sun all belong in the pro-EU camp.

No sane person outside government would answer this question without proper accounts including a balance sheet in their hand. The government does not keep proper accounts therefore they cannot take decisions as they do not have the information to hand-nor the experience as as MPs prepare them for cost accounting. Incidentally you do realize ,Tim ,that EU contributions and ovewrseas aid payments are in a different category to most other government spending as they represent resources leaving the UK and being spent in other countries. If we employ a use less ministerial assistant in the UK it may be wasteful but his salary circulates in the UK. If you employ a useless Brussels bureaucrat his salary does not contribute to others income in the UK. I regret therefore that your post PS does not comprehend the true dimensions of governmeent spending

Tim,you should not confuse poverty with low declared for tax incomes. Governments do not give money to the poor,they give it to those with low declared for tax incomes. Plenty of pensioners are income poor and asset rich.