Looks like he's trying not to laugh. I bet the interviewer had dared him not to use the word "inquiry"

OK.. so I heard David Cameron mentioned lots, but I can't vote for him as this is local elections. They mentioned the NHS lots too which is also national (clue's in the name) What was this for again?

UKIP have escape the confines of the 'Others' bar on the BBC News graphic - They gotta be happy with that; seeing their name on telly and all.

On the face of it the description doesn't sound bad, but there's a big risk they will be spending a lot of our money just to keep these people where they are. So as soon as the co-ordinator goes away they'll just go back again. Chances are these "problem families" are jobless or on low-paid depressing jobs. If the money came from businesses (through choice, not taxes) then they could send people in and help people set up their own businesses - things like that and not the equivalent of charities helping Africans just be better subsistence farmers.

"Of the 1,328 recorded cases of suspension"... You go on to mention some reasonable actions to cause suspension (although not for 70+days!) but what was the bulk of them? Failure to use newspeak?

Well you could just say "Dennis"

no... blinds! But that's more to either keep the light out, to prevent people seeing what they don't want to see (I don't wanna be arrested) or for basic security. This is anonymous data we're talking about so it's not like curtains hiding my big pile of gold and scientific experiments to take over the world - it's the equivalent of just letting people know that in a flat somewhere they exist. (like I just did, if I wasn't lying)

I often think I'm a data communist where all data is free (although it's right to pay to create it) so this is great. I may even cross off one of my "Reasons to not vote Conservative" because of this. Perhaps the one about threatening to shut down social networks seems apt. It's nice to see them standing up to people for a change, both the EU and those noisy luddite-types that think having your photo taken (or giving away patient data) is stealing your soul.

Do we know if clegg would have said No too? he may have not been there to avoid that question.

It's interesting to see it from another side - I guess you might have to be British to really understand why most people here think it was a good thing. But then it's a good thing we are all different! I think in Europe it isn't particularly left wing to be all moralistic about people having too much money, whereas here it's only lefties (albeit the noisy ones) who would deny the bankers their champagne if they've earned it. In the end it may just be a question of numbers and everyone has their price. Financial services earns us £54bn a year but the EU costs us £40bn. You'd have to have some pretty strong morals to mess with that - or pretty low ones to expect us to give it away (Sarkozy!)

For labour I think it was choosing balls as shadow chancellor rather than milliband for leader. Cameron has simply just redeemed himself for the EU referendum 3line whip and is back to neutral, pending further action.. he's whussed out on too many things when the going got rough to change everything with one veto. Although I think clegg just got bad press for the tuition fees and for me was the euro thing which gave the image, I agree the 2 faced hat fits

Stop listening to Radio4 - It's only making you angry! Watch the News channel or something - Yeah, it's a bit negative and biased but nothing like the stories I hear about R4, which is hardly where someone who isn't already set in their views goes to hear the news. Perhaps they BBC News should do an audio feed over the radio.

Yesterday we thought the FTT was just a straw man that he could easily knock down and claim victory to save face that he couldn't repatriate owt, and we were all prepared to slate him for it. Today he's probably not even got that, yet somehow he's a hero. How long he "sustain" it, I'm not sure - I'll give it 4 hours.

In/Out Referendum... If not now, when?

Should we get in the way of their deal as much as possible so that we either get what we want (good for us) or the Euro collapses (good for everyone)? ... or just leave the EU to let them do what they want.

There were some that were moaning that it would mean pay cuts for those in the north. I don't think it would, but new staff could be got in at lower rates. If you explain the system of national pay rates to someone in the private sector they often don't believe you as it's so absurd. My main complaint about Osborne's statement on it is that he's just announced another review. Like the one into merging NI with Income tax or the one looking into reducing the 50p rate .. does it ever go anywhere? The fraying at the edges isn't enough.

Very topical about what she says on europe too! What has surprised me is that a large amount of people would prefer the poor to be poorer, as long as the rich are poorer too. An example of this is shown by the people that want to keep the 50p tax even if it is shown to be losing us money. It's the politics of those that say they are thinking of others but are defining their help by the sacrifices they make, howevermuch harm it causes.

I'm not sure how they're permitted to put up permanent signs already - is that not against planning laws? The same laws that mean there has to be someone holding the 'Golf Sale' signs. - I'd have no problems if the protesters did that 24/7 if they wanted. Do we still have to register if we want to protest on the green, or have they permanently spoiled it for the rest of us now too?

Many people would see the collapse of the Euro as beneficial for everyone. But you're correct in saying that there's a chance they'd do it on their own and we'd get nothing - but just because we can't get everything we want doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for anything. Of course it does seem like we're blocking the hydrant, which I don't like either (except that it's for their own good) but given many of their plans, I'm sure they'd do the same to us. Which is why we'd be better off out so we weren't being pushed into doing something nasty.

Not having a referendum on this (if there is a treaty etc) is not the same way the "cast iron" pledge ... it's much worse. On the constitution, it had already been signed and so a referendum on it would have been useless. Now, it is before it is signed and after all the assurances of the "Referendum Lock" Still, it's no less predictable that we won't have one - I'm not sure the lock fooled anyone

I hope they do sell if they can but perhaps do that on a no-drug no fee loan basis for some so they can repay only after they are producing something worthwhile from the data. If you could go further into what these "real privacy concerns" are then please let me know. .. are you talking about data security such as it could be hacked, or that if they were particularly minded the receiver of the data could somehow decypher that someone has a particular disease? You mention ID cards which had the missing link between them and the terrorism they are meant to solve. Outrage over this policy also appears to be missing the link between that and privacy issues. Is it the same people whinging about this who are also against organ donation?

Hoisting by their own petard.. I like it. Is it possible to prosecute them now for not doing this for the recent strike? It's somewhat better than the 50% vote rule as that appears a bit like moving their goalposts when government keeps theirs in the same place. ie. there's no 50% rule for voting for MPs etc. Perhaps by a similar tactic, the government negotiators can go on strike occasionally. On strike just when they were going to give some concessions too. oh dear, what a pity!

I wonder if they could get an EU grant to run one nationally

Perhaps if they did it with a separate ballot like I mention above then it could also ask how much should be given per year and then the average taken. That might be interesting to see the result! Non-votes would default to £5

Your making a big assumption on how the taxpayer funding would work. Many others would too which would explain the result. The method I saw proposed was to have a separate ballot at election day to decide who gets the money and so you can support the smaller party, whilst still doing the tactical voting to get around the FPTP issues. If you put that option in the survey, and confirmed that it goes to the local candidate/party not a central fund and there's an option for 'none' then perhaps opinion would appear different. Not much different though probably as it's still an extra tax.