FlyTheNest

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Not really worth hanging on to, I'd have thought.

Ahh but, but...but... who would "look after" UC ?

The prime minister was understood to be furious with Freud for slipping up. But Downing Street was loth to lose Freud who is seen to have a full grasp of the universal credit reforms which have run into such trouble.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... nimum-wage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't had a gripe about Julie Bailey for a while, but my word….

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote: That just made me think: did he give him shares in the company of which he made him a director? Did that (quite awful) shares-for-lower-pay thing, proposed by the coalition, actually go through – and is that what the questioner had taken advantage of? That's almost an aside but I'm curious.

Regardless, I agree that it looks like, as you say, "...a deliberate attempt to circumvent wage legislation..." and should be reported as such. And whether or not Freud understood what he was being asked, his reply to the guy's question was an expression of a despicable view on the 'worth' of disabled-people's labour. I think he's a wazzock and has no place in any government – not just based on this episode but on historic evidence...

It was shares for rights. Don't know how many took it up.

The FT report it being used to reduce executive's tax bills in private equity companies.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb93fa00-1c8b ... z3GEikVvF1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can only repeat the (scurrilous but I suspect accurate) gossip I heard from a friend (who I've no reason to doubt and who would know trustworthy people who would hear it) - the number of companies that took up shares for rights was so embarrassingly tiny that the civil servants dealing with it were under strict instructions not even to write down the number anywhere, so that it couldn't then be required to be included in an FoI. I heard barely double figures. And by barely, I really mean barely.

Obviously, lots of gossip goes round in these circles - for example, that two non-cabinet Treasury ministers were apparently going to defect to UKIP if the GE looked unwinnable. This one sounds more like it's a case of mouth > trousers, in that I can imagine a number of Tories saying this at the moment, but that the number who actually would jump ship would be far smaller than those letting it slip that they would.

Evening all, by the way.

Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

It's nice to be here, cheers. I usually lurk; the Beta and the shrillness at the other place is driving me slowly away...

The next by election's the one that's going to catalyse the other possible jumpers, I think. You can see they're all doing career calculus, but Carswell wasn't useful as an indicator of what was in it for the rest of them if they stay/go. It is a fascinating situation (much as I hate the UKIPS) - I think you're right that a few more might well cause a GE early (would the LibDems support that, do you think?). Odd how few of the papers are talking about Cameron's crisis.

Word of warning - on BBCQT tomorrow is... skink-faced homeopath Jeremy Hunt. I might just go out.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: It was shares for rights. Don't know how many took it up.

The FT report it being used to reduce executive's tax bills in private equity companies.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb93fa00-1c8b ... z3GEikVvF1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can only repeat the (scurrilous but I suspect accurate) gossip I heard from a friend (who I've no reason to doubt and who would know trustworthy people who would hear it) - the number of companies that took up shares for rights was so embarrassingly tiny that the civil servants dealing with it were under strict instructions not even to write down the number anywhere, so that it couldn't then be required to be included in an FoI. I heard barely double figures. And by barely, I really mean barely.

Obviously, lots of gossip goes round in these circles - for example, that two non-cabinet Treasury ministers were apparently going to defect to UKIP if the GE looked unwinnable. This one sounds more like it's a case of mouth > trousers, in that I can imagine a number of Tories saying this at the moment, but that the number who actually would jump ship would be far smaller than those letting it slip that they would.

Evening all, by the way.

Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

Ahem....

Meanwhile, Tory MPs have warned that the Prime Minister could face a vote of no confidence if Mark Reckless wins the Rochester and Strood seat for Ukip.
One Cabinet Minister told the Mail on Sunday that "if Reckless wins Rochester, there'll be 46 names', a reference to the number of Tory MPs who would be required to force a leadership contest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

onebuttonmonkey wrote: I can only repeat the (scurrilous but I suspect accurate) gossip I heard from a friend (who I've no reason to doubt and who would know trustworthy people who would hear it) - the number of companies that took up shares for rights was so embarrassingly tiny that the civil servants dealing with it were under strict instructions not even to write down the number anywhere, so that it couldn't then be required to be included in an FoI. I heard barely double figures. And by barely, I really mean barely.

Obviously, lots of gossip goes round in these circles - for example, that two non-cabinet Treasury ministers were apparently going to defect to UKIP if the GE looked unwinnable. This one sounds more like it's a case of mouth > trousers, in that I can imagine a number of Tories saying this at the moment, but that the number who actually would jump ship would be far smaller than those letting it slip that they would.

Evening all, by the way.

Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

Ahem....

Meanwhile, Tory MPs have warned that the Prime Minister could face a vote of no confidence if Mark Reckless wins the Rochester and Strood seat for Ukip.
One Cabinet Minister told the Mail on Sunday that "if Reckless wins Rochester, there'll be 46 names', a reference to the number of Tory MPs who would be required to force a leadership contest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ories.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, but that's bad news for Ed, right?

letsskiptotheleft wrote:

51A wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: I'd hope that money to merge councils could be found from central government. It's investment, and will save money.
But it probably won't. Blah, blah, Labour waste, blah, that's why we do them over in comparison to Scotland.

I think it's due to geography and politics, the plethora of councils here in Wales. For instance, Blaenau Gwent says it will explore merging with Torfaen, both are poor, semi-rural, post-industrial and could merge well. Similarly a lot of Caerphilly would fit with those 2. But no-one wants to merge with Newport because Newport is too aspirational, seen as wanting to be Cardiff, similarly no-one wants to merge with Monmouthshire because that's too tory. People in Wales are concerned that social inclusion measures will cease if Councils get too large. I tend to agree with them. I do get the feeling that I am an individual in my tiny CBC, not someone lost in a great swathe no-one truly cares about.

Good points made there, but there are councils who can merge without too much difficulty, as it is on the cards to be, I certainly couldn't see the problem with reducing them to 12/14, no one is advocating going back to the old West/South/Mid Glam, Powys, Gwynedd days, the councils I grew up with. But as it is now there are 22 heads of education, environment, social services, housing and so on, resources could also be pooled, NPT has a shortfall of 2 million quid next year, the year after that more again, something has to give?

Newport is a nightmare, Monmouthshire lost its headquarters a couple of years ago, building collapsed, (building was in Torfaen anyway) now its base is a bit it Magor, a bit in Abergavenny, a bit in Usk, you can't get an answer but then you never could, when we first moved here it was to Usk, highschool catchment Caerleon, comes under Newport but is Monmouthshire. Needs a total sit down and re-think. Torfaen works, has 2 buildings just across the road from each other, Mon doesn't, it has "hot-desks" wherever they can set down their arse. What has to be remembered is that people have to be able to find them. It is not about the Councils, it is about the people the Councils serve. They forgot that.

someone wrote:I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot.

(Sorry,too many brackets and boxes above, couldn't work out who aid what and am fundamentally lazy).

Carswell said after his victory that we should remember the convention that there's no need to hold a by-election in the lat six months of a parliament and therefore there is no need for MPs switching sides to resign their seats any more. Given that there's no rule that it should happen anyway, I suspect we could well see people citing that 'convention' and crossing the floor without resigning their seats.

Also about Dave's fucking shocking comment about 'don't talk to me about caring for disabled people' earlier, after a little more of a calm think I would say...

I must be unimaginably hard to lose a child, and there is no question at all that the Camerons have a clear and detailed emotional and personal understanding of that loss and the family life that came before it. But they are protected by wealth and privilege from the practical and economic consequences of disability and, so far as it relates to the vast majority of people and their experiences, it is perfectly reasonable to say that he knows nothing of what it is to care for disabled people in economic or practical terms. Nothing. With all due respect to his loss and to the family life he knew with his son.

Also, just for Jeremy rhyming slang, because I was listening it earlier...

[youtube]bBUc_kATGgg[/youtube]

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

It's nice to be here, cheers. I usually lurk; the Beta and the shrillness at the other place is driving me slowly away...

The next by election's the one that's going to catalyse the other possible jumpers, I think. You can see they're all doing career calculus, but Carswell wasn't useful as an indicator of what was in it for the rest of them if they stay/go. It is a fascinating situation (much as I hate the UKIPS) - I think you're right that a few more might well cause a GE early (would the LibDems support that, do you think?). Odd how few of the papers are talking about Cameron's crisis.

Word of warning - on BBCQT tomorrow is... skink-faced homeopath Jeremy Hunt. I might just go out.

If I lived in Rochester/strood I think I would entertain the thought of tactically voting UKIP. Not much damage they can do in several months, I think voters from most parties will think the same. One in Cameron's eye.

Excuse me, I need to bathe.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:From AS Blog
Number 10 has made it clear that Lord Freud will not be sacked for his comments about some disabled people not being worth the full minimum wage. Following Freud’s apology, the prime minister’s spokesman said David Cameron had full confidence in Freud. (See 4.13pm.) But Labour has said Freud should be sacked (see 4.02pm) and Jo Swinson, a Lib Dem business minister, has condemned him in the Commons. Swinson said:
Members on all sides of the House have been understandably shocked by the remarks by Lord Freud which I would stress absolutely do not reflect the government’s position and are clearly offensive and unacceptable. And I am glad he has issued a full apology.

So .... will he go tomorrow or last the weekend?

Spot on: he's doomed.

BBC News said that another Minister will be speaking in his place in the HoL tomorrow...

YouGov/Sun

Lab 33
Con 31
UKIP 19 (another new record, up point by point)
Lib Dem 7
Green 5

adam wrote:YouGov/Sun

Lab 33
Con 31
UKIP 19 (another new record, up point by point)
Lib Dem 7
Green 5

Those Lib Dems look really really sick.

onebuttonmonkey wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:
Hi Michael, nice to see you round these parts. 'shares for rights' has to count as one of the most stupid ideas in the history of weapon's grade stupid and seems to have mysteriously fallen off the Tories' collective radar. Funny that.

I rather think that there will be a lot of Tory MPs looking very carefully at the result of Rochester and Strood. If UKIP get in, I would expect a general election before May 2015. My view is that Tories will be spooked if they lose, and start to reason that they will only retain their seats by defecting. This of course would start a haemorrhaging of by electoral defeats for Cameron, and it wouldn't take many either before his credibility was utterly shot. Can you imagine Cameron going into May 2015 having shed about 4-5 seats to UKIP with more in prospect? I can't. He'd have to cut and run with a late 2014 election.

It's nice to be here, cheers. I usually lurk; the Beta and the shrillness at the other place is driving me slowly away...

The next by election's the one that's going to catalyse the other possible jumpers, I think. You can see they're all doing career calculus, but Carswell wasn't useful as an indicator of what was in it for the rest of them if they stay/go. It is a fascinating situation (much as I hate the UKIPS) - I think you're right that a few more might well cause a GE early (would the LibDems support that, do you think?). Odd how few of the papers are talking about Cameron's crisis.

Word of warning - on BBCQT tomorrow is... skink-faced homeopath Jeremy Hunt. I might just go out.

Good to have you along. Your QT previews are great to read and your mastery of invective is as developed as your political nous, IMHO.

I expect a UKIP success in R&S to be a disaster for Ed Miliband, and for 'good news' stories about the Tories to mysteriously multiply thereafter. The meeja aren't stupid. They want to goad and wound Cameron, not bring down the Tories, and they'll turn on UKIP like lightning if it looks like Nige's "People's army" is likely to derail the 2015 (or perhaps 2014) GE. You can put money on that.

@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his ‘red line’ price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal


Ukip if you want to, Cam will too !

Good grief, talk about the tail wagging the dog……..

So...after Morgan's abject display in front of the Select Committee that had MPs looking at each other at times in bemusement, what headlines did it generate given that it was on the subject of extremism in schools:

BBC - Don't shy away from British values in schools - Morgan

Guardian - Education secretary in row with MPs over academy schools inspections

Telegraph - 'Trojan Horse' teachers banned from the classroom


The BBC story doesn't mention the fact that committee members were less than impressed with Morgan's attempts to state exactly how schools were supposed to teach it. The extremism bits can be summed up as "Nothing much has happened yet because we delayed putting someone in charge of Birmingham schools...because it was summer"

edit - they appointed Tomlinson in September when clearly they could have got hold of him months earlier and had his appointment ready to go as soon as the Clarke report came out.

The Guardian has it right in that the exchanges between Graham Stuart and others, and Morgan over inspecting the chains when LAs are already inspected. And the bit where he slapped her down when she claimed that academy trust schools were autonomous was marvellous - having watched previous hearings on academies/free schools, that's something that has come up time after time.

There was another bit where there was raised eyebrows -

AWonlocation @AWonlocation · 12h 12 hours ago
Pat Glass asks how many free school applications raised concerns about extremism? Morgan - I can't share that info

Pat Glass: how many wave 6 schools have been withdrawn? Morgan: I'm not able to say that

Why? graham Stuart asks "I don't have the details and I couldn't share that information", Morgan says

Pat Glass and Graham Stuart seem a bit miffed by that (lack of) response by Morgan

They were clearly not impressed.

One for you Roger/Tubby

@burgesshillnews: @antiacademies Can you help stop Oakmeeds in Burgess Hill, West Sussex? They've decided to convert in Sept 2015. No parent consultation.

pk1 wrote:@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his ‘red line’ price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal


Ukip if you want to, Cam will too !

Good grief, talk about the tail wagging the dog……..

Oh, Lord!* :head/hands:

*Jon Lord. Not an imaginary deity...

Pat Glass is good.

pk1 wrote:One for you Roger/Tubby

@burgesshillnews: @antiacademies Can you help stop Oakmeeds in Burgess Hill, West Sussex? They've decided to convert in Sept 2015. No parent consultation.

They'll be one who's had a call..."Psst! Convert and I can get you lots of dosh!"

Come the revolution, I want to know exactly how much has been spent on this academies scheme to get schools to convert.

And then send Michael Gove the bill.

One of the union people (Chris Keates from memory) yesterday said that under Gove, walking into the DfE was like 1984 - the propaganda bigging up free schools and academies all around the building was that bad.

FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Agreed, that was blatant shite.

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Only problem is that some right wing tosser would buy it and trade on BBC 'impartiality' to sell a right wing message to viewers. I don't doubt Murdoch would want to buy BBC1, shut down BBC2, flog on BBC3 and organise a detah squad to kill anyone who worked at BBC4, given that it's the only remaining BBC TV channel that isn't fucking mince 99% of the time.

55DegreesNorth wrote:

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Agreed, that was blatant shite.

Oh well, it'll give rusty something to whine about tomorrow...just like this morning.

ErnstRemarx wrote:

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Only problem is that some right wing tosser would buy it and trade on BBC 'impartiality' to sell a right wing message to viewers. I don't doubt Murdoch would want to buy BBC1, shut down BBC2, flog on BBC3 and organise a detah squad to kill anyone who worked at BBC4, given that it's the only remaining BBC TV channel that isn't fucking mince 99% of the time.

Actually, those of us who don't do telly wouldn't miss any of that. But hands off Eddie Mair, on record right here!

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Out of touch!

Kirsty would have known all about them. She wouldn't have blundered on and said "Where's Dirty Den then? Is Martin Kemp still in it?"

RogerOThornhill wrote:

pk1 wrote:One for you Roger/Tubby

@burgesshillnews: @antiacademies Can you help stop Oakmeeds in Burgess Hill, West Sussex? They've decided to convert in Sept 2015. No parent consultation.

They'll be one who's had a call..."Psst! Convert and I can get you lots of dosh!"

Come the revolution, I want to know exactly how much has been spent on this academies scheme to get schools to convert.

And then send Michael Gove the bill.

One of the union people (Chris Keates from memory) yesterday said that under Gove, walking into the DfE was like 1984 - the propaganda bigging up free schools and academies all around the building was that bad.

I said the other day that Cameron's commissioners sacking headteachers on the spot was making it all like football.

Then I remembered we already have academy agents going round stirring up shit. Except for in Lancashire where the Tory council leader told them to get out of his county.

Marklu took the football analogy a bit further. More sterile, utilitarian, style-less education to get the points on the board.

Something for the evening if the tories are getting you down,

[youtube]UNftrsCMiQs[/youtube]

ErnstRemarx wrote:

pk1 wrote:FFS, Kirsty Wark signing off with a dig about Ed researching Eastenders prior to meeting the actors last night.

Fuck em, I'm fed up sticking up for the state broadcaster, sell it.

Only problem is that some right wing tosser would buy it and trade on BBC 'impartiality' to sell a right wing message to viewers. I don't doubt Murdoch would want to buy BBC1, shut down BBC2, flog on BBC3 and organise a detah squad to kill anyone who worked at BBC4, given that it's the only remaining BBC TV channel that isn't fucking mince 99% of the time.

Funnily enough, his own Sky Arts is often excellent.

Temulkar wrote:Something for the evening if the tories are getting you down,

[youtube]UNftrsCMiQs[/youtube]

That from Skip James Today?

That and its companion Devil Got My Woman are classic blues albums.

pk1 wrote:@tnewtondunn: BREAKING: Cameron to demand limits on European immigration as his ‘red line’ price to stay in the EU, Sun can reveal


Ukip if you want to, Cam will too !

Good grief, talk about the tail wagging the dog……..

Close the door behind you, Dave.

No quotas will be one of their red lines, once Empty has left and tries the old "come on, you want to sell us BMWs" line.

All about the General Election. Weak Ed Miliband says he won't try and limit quotas.

The Times front page for Thurs 16th October 2014:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/£/limited-free-subs

David Cameron is considering demanding that Britain be given an “emergency brake” on the number of European jobseekers after promising MPs a “game-changing” new immigration policy. The prime minister has so far said only that he wants to curb benefit tourism and extend blocks on migrants from newly joined EU countries. Under increasing pressure from Ukip’s poll surge, however, Downing Street is now drawing up more radical options.

LadyCentauria wrote:The Times front page for Thurs 16th October 2014:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/£/limited-free-subs

David Cameron is considering demanding that Britain be given an “emergency brake” on the number of European jobseekers after promising MPs a “game-changing” new immigration policy. The prime minister has so far said only that he wants to curb benefit tourism and extend blocks on migrants from newly joined EU countries. Under increasing pressure from Ukip’s poll surge, however, Downing Street is now drawing up more radical options.

Desperate times call for desperate measures...and he knows that he won't get net migration down to the tens of thousands by the election/

The weird thing is that they were against labour's so-called target culture...yet this is a target...and one they got so wrong it's untrue - mainly because they didn't think about what made up net migration.

When you can't control 3 out of 4 factors (EU in and out, non EU out) you're never going to hit a target number.

This wouldn't at all lead to loads more moving to Britain to beat the break.

Dim,dimmer,dimmest,dimmest plus -to be continued.

LadyCentauria wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote:

AngryAsWell wrote:From AS Blog
Number 10 has made it clear that Lord Freud will not be sacked for his comments about some disabled people not being worth the full minimum wage. Following Freud’s apology, the prime minister’s spokesman said David Cameron had full confidence in Freud. (See 4.13pm.) But Labour has said Freud should be sacked (see 4.02pm) and Jo Swinson, a Lib Dem business minister, has condemned him in the Commons. Swinson said:
Members on all sides of the House have been understandably shocked by the remarks by Lord Freud which I would stress absolutely do not reflect the government’s position and are clearly offensive and unacceptable. And I am glad he has issued a full apology.

So .... will he go tomorrow or last the weekend?

Spot on: he's doomed.

BBC News said that another Minister will be speaking in his place in the HoL tomorrow...

£2 an hour?

HindleA wrote:

LadyCentauria wrote:

ErnstRemarx wrote: Spot on: he's doomed.

BBC News said that another Minister will be speaking in his place in the HoL tomorrow...

£2 an hour?

Probably more like £2 a minute. Naturally on top of the existing £300 per day tax-free...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nimum-wage

Features people in wheelchairs at the oars of a galley, with The Gimp beating the drum and the back of a mottled-green GIDS supervising, under a banner reading Helping Vulnerable People Into The World Of Work...