FlyTheNest

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 7:31 am**

Morning all. Tories lead by 2 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 20th January -

Con 32%, (nc)
Lab 30%, (-2)
LD 8%, (nc)
UKIP 15%, (-3)
GRN 10%; (+3)

APP -18 (+2)

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 7:51 am**

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/jou ... ee-8477253" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morning folks,
A short opinion piece from The Journal, rightly panning Durham Free School and Gove.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 8:25 am**

refitman wrote:Morning all. Tories lead by 2 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 20th January -

Con 32%, (nc)
Lab 30%, (-2)
LD 8%, (nc)
UKIP 15%, (-3)
GRN 10%; (+3)

APP -18 (+2)

Morning! And boo

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 8:28 am**

This is interesting

SCOTTISH MPs would be banned from voting on parts of the Westminster budget if the Tories form the next government.

George Osborne lobbed a hand-grenade into the constitutional debate yesterday by flatly contradicting the recommendations of the all-party Smith Commission on devolution.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... or-5013619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 8:33 am**

I unusually picked up a paper copy of the Groan to read this morning.

I got to the end of a pretty annoying piece by Rafael Behr arguing that Westminster isn't all bad and that a lot of MPs mean well and thought, well possibly, but the media are the problem and don't communicate the interests of those well meaning MPs.

Then on the next page there was an excellent and blistering attack by George Monbiot on the media. Great stuff. May already have been linked here, but....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ournalists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 8:54 am**

Morning all. Caught up with the File on Four podcast on the way in. Excellent piece. Kinda fuming now though!

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 8:58 am**

Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:06 am**

StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'

So essentially the demands for publication before the election are down to election politics rather than a desire to know the truth.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:12 am**

Spacedone wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'
So essentially the demands for publication before the election are down to election politics rather than a desire to know the truth.

Wintour and Watt aren't political journalists. They're partisan political fuckwit spinmeisters.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:13 am**

StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'

Which is why the delay on publication makes little sense. If the Coalition powers stand to gain so much from this report, why haven't they been pushing the report along? I haven't really been following this. The delay seems shrouded in mystery. We had someone on R4 this morning guessing why it's been delayed. Has Chilcott not given some kind of statement on the progress? The idea it's people who gave evidence holding things up is instantly countered by the suggestion there was a delay in giving them the report to respond to in the first place. It all seems highly irregular. Of course publishing now would probably contravene the gagging law as it has cost thousands and would influence how people might vote so having got to this late point I don't see how it could be published now before the election.....

Morning All.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:14 am**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
refitman wrote:Morning all. Tories lead by 2 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 20th January -

Con 32%, (nc)
Lab 30%, (-2)
LD 8%, (nc)
UKIP 15%, (-3)
GRN 10%; (+3)

APP -18 (+2)
Morning! And boo

Not the sort of news you want to wake up to on a wet, cold, miserable morning.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:18 am**

Paul Flynn ‏@PaulFlynnMP 3m3 minutes ago
BBC's Tory Nick at it again-rewriting history of Iraq War as monopoly Labour blunder. All but 6 Tories voted for it. 139 Lab MP opposed it.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:18 am**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I unusually picked up a paper copy of the Groan to read this morning.

I got to the end of a pretty annoying piece by Rafael Behr arguing that Westminster isn't all bad and that a lot of MPs mean well and thought, well possibly, but the media are the problem and don't communicate the interests of those well meaning MPs.

Then on the next page there was an excellent and blistering attack by George Monbiot on the media. Great stuff. May already have been linked here, but....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ournalists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I read George Monbiot's article yesterday on their webpage. Agree.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:26 am**

I thought I would share this from Michael Rosen because it's exactly how I feel when listening to the media talking as if austerity is the only possible option rather than a choice:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/ ... l?spref=tw

Argentina has been cited by Syriza as an example of life after default. They have a very good point. The world won't stop turning just because austerity is rejected - the problems will just be different ones and in a democracy people have the right to choose different problems!

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:32 am**

Willow904 wrote:I thought I would share this from Michael Rosen because it's exactly how I feel when listening to the media talking as if austerity is the only possible option rather than a choice:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/ ... l?spref=tw

Argentina has been cited by Syriza as an example of life after default. They have a very good point. The world won't stop turning just because austerity is rejected - the problems will just be different ones and in a democracy people have the right to choose different problems!

Thank you.

And thank you to Stephen Dolan too.

It's a 'kinda fuming' day I think.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:34 am**

Gran always used to say take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves. I didn't understand it properly when I was young - probably because there were never enough pennies to go around, let alone make a pound.

Hagues purchased a 2 million pound house and Mandelson's gone one better at 8 million, but neither agrees with the mansion tax.
We've also read about how they'll claim pennies for a paper clip on their expenses.

Gran was right.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:35 am**

StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'

Oh. Please.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:40 am**

ohsocynical wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
refitman wrote:Morning all. Tories lead by 2 points on Yougov:

Latest YouGov / The Sun results 20th January -

Con 32%, (nc)
Lab 30%, (-2)
LD 8%, (nc)
UKIP 15%, (-3)
GRN 10%; (+3)

APP -18 (+2)
Morning! And boo
Not the sort of news you want to wake up to on a wet, cold, miserable morning.

Everyone be cool. Mercury is retrograde.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 9:41 am**

citizenJA wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'
Oh. Please.

Hah. Cameron didn't sound agonised to me when he was supporting the invasion of Iraq. He sounded ~~quite~~ positively enthusiastic.

Edited to exchange quite for positively.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:07 am**

Jeez...look at the end of Cameron's letter to Chilcott.

Had the previous government established this inquiry when I first called for it, we would not be in this position today. But that cannot now be undone.

Take a look at the end of the letter and the signature!

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/553 ... hilcot.pdf

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:09 am**

norman smith @BBCNormanS · 30m 30 minutes ago
Job vacancies hit record 14 year high at 700,000.

Oh please.

(Divide in half to cover all the duplicates in the system - then another half for all the part time / temporary jobs - then another half for all the zero hours and purely commission based jobs - and then another half for those that are really self employed or you, the one without the job and any money, actually paying someone up front to do something for them.)

BBC journalists keeping up the tradition of simply repeating government guff.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:14 am**

The tories said at the time that they would support war even if there was no WMD. So they can't complain they were lied to about WMD.

But all our 'journalists' are busy forgetting to remember that fact.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:18 am**

RogerOThornhill wrote:Jeez...look at the end of Cameron's letter to Chilcott.

Had the previous government established this inquiry when I first called for it, we would not be in this position today. But that cannot now be undone.
Take a look at the end of the letter and the signature!

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/553 ... hilcot.pdf

What the .....

What on earth has happened there then ?! Incompetence knows no bounds in the No 10 office it would seem

Do we know when Cammo started demanding an inquiry ? To my mind, we've waited this long so another 3 months won't hurt & those that want to believe the report is a whitewash won't be convinced otherwise, if it says something other than to back up their opinion, even when it is released.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:19 am**

Oh God! I may end up sticking my fingers down my throat today. Twitter is full of upbeat figures about the economy, wage rises, lower cost of living, employment figures, yada, yada, yada.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:31 am**

StephenDolan wrote:
Spacedone wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'
So essentially the demands for publication before the election are down to election politics rather than a desire to know the truth.
Wintour and Watt aren't political journalists. They're partisan political fuckwit spinmeisters.

Morning.

I just read that very section, completely incredulous, and came right here. And then I see that tweet from Paul Flynn (re Nick Robinson) further down the page.

I am deeply pessimistic about the next four months. Sorry. The mainstream media has gone completely.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:32 am**

pk1 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Jeez...look at the end of Cameron's letter to Chilcott.

Had the previous government established this inquiry when I first called for it, we would not be in this position today. But that cannot now be undone.
Take a look at the end of the letter and the signature!

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/553 ... hilcot.pdf
What the .....

What on earth has happened there then ?! Incompetence knows no bounds in the No 10 office it would seem

Do we know when Cammo started demanding an inquiry ? To my mind, we've waited this long so another 3 months won't hurt & those that want to believe the report is a whitewash won't be convinced otherwise, if it says something other than to back up their opinion, even when it is released.

Given that Richard Ottaway wrote to Chilcott asking him for an update, I suspect these letters were a rush job and nobody had time to proofread them before they were released.

I suspect that if they'd had time, that bit of political sniping at the end would have come out to - that's very party political on what's supposed to be a letter from a PM.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:32 am**

pk1 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Jeez...look at the end of Cameron's letter to Chilcott.

Had the previous government established this inquiry when I first called for it, we would not be in this position today. But that cannot now be undone.
Take a look at the end of the letter and the signature!

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/553 ... hilcot.pdf
What the .....

What on earth has happened there then ?! Incompetence knows no bounds in the No 10 office it would seem

Do we know when Cammo started demanding an inquiry ? To my mind, we've waited this long so another 3 months won't hurt & those that want to believe the report is a whitewash won't be convinced otherwise, if it says something other than to back up their opinion, even when it is released.

Are there two signatures on that letter? And can anyone tell me what is scrawled above "David"? Looks like 'Iain' to me – he was very gung ho about heading into the second Iraq War, as I remember it. And is it normal practise for Downing Street letters to put the recipient's name immediately below any signatures?

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:38 am**

NonOxCol wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
Spacedone wrote: So essentially the demands for publication before the election are down to election politics rather than a desire to know the truth.
Wintour and Watt aren't political journalists. They're partisan political fuckwit spinmeisters.
Morning.

I just read that very section, completely incredulous, and came right here. And then I see that tweet from Paul Flynn (re Nick Robinson) further down the page.

I am deeply pessimistic about the next four months. Sorry. The mainstream media has gone completely.

The only positive to take from that is that it suggests that they believe Ed Miliband really will stand up to vested interests, including implementing the Leveson recommendations in full. Having interviewed him many times, I suspect political journalists are best placed to decipher whether Ed is the real deal or not and their reaction suggests he is. They seem very worried about him winning a majority, very different to Blair who they adored. Says it all really. Ed took a big risk when he decided not to court Murdoch's favour and pushed for the Leveson enquiry and it may still cost him the election but if he hadn't it probably wouldn't have made a difference if Labour won or not to ordinary people so I'm glad he took the honourable course. If by a miracle he wins and he applies that kind of honest bravery to being PM our politics are going to look very different, I think.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:41 am**

LadyCentauria wrote: Are there two signatures on that letter? And can anyone tell me what is scrawled above "David"? Looks like 'Iain' to me – he was very gung ho about heading into the second Iraq War, as I remember it. And is it normal practise for Downing Street letters to put the recipient's name immediately below any signatures?

I think that is supposed to be "Yours" above "David" but the end bit is weird as it's normally the name of the person writing the letter.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:45 am**

norman smith @BBCNormanS · 19m 19 minutes ago
Bank of England monetary policy committee say inflation will "temporarily dip below zero in first half of 2015"

norman smith @BBCNormanS · 20m 20 minutes ago
Bank of England monetary policy committee predict inflation will go negative

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:45 am**

RogerOThornhill wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote: Are there two signatures on that letter? And can anyone tell me what is scrawled above "David"? Looks like 'Iain' to me – he was very gung ho about heading into the second Iraq War, as I remember it. And is it normal practise for Downing Street letters to put the recipient's name immediately below any signatures?
I think that is supposed to be "Yours" above "David" but the end bit is weird as it's normally the name of the person writing the letter.

Copy paste error, careless.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 10:48 am**

StephenDolan wrote:Guardian Chilcot piece.
' Although Ed Miliband was not in parliament at the time of the invasion, and has said he would have opposed the war, Labour probably has least to gain from the reopening of the debate about the basis of the invasion and its continuing consequences, including the rise of Islamic State, or Isis.

The Conservatives, including an agonised Cameron, backed the invasion at the time, but the Tories subsequently said they had been misled about the intelligence. Although Cameron pushed through military action in Libya, and, in principle, air strikes to punish Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, the prime minister has generally been a sceptic about humanitarian military action. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war and probably would gain most politically from publication.'

That is truly utterly beyond parody - worthy, without any exaggeration, of Goebbels.

I hope that at least Watt/Wintour are being totallly slaughtered on social media for it?

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:10 am**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
norman smith @BBCNormanS · 19m 19 minutes ago
Bank of England monetary policy committee say inflation will "temporarily dip below zero in first half of 2015"

norman smith @BBCNormanS · 20m 20 minutes ago
Bank of England monetary policy committee predict inflation will go negative

Success! The economy is saved. The useless EU have deflation but we have a temporary dip below zero which is entirely different.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:11 am**

I've just had a look on the Public Whip website from which I gather that, in the debate on the Iraq War of 18th March 2003, the two main parties voted as follows:

Party Majority (Aye) Minority (No) Both Turnout
Con 146 2 (+1 tell) 0 91.4% (Approx. 14 were absent that day)
Lab 254 (+2 tell) 84 (+1 tell) 0 83.2% (Approx. 60 were absent that day)

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... llpossible

The absentee numbers are approximate as I was swiftly calculating them in twos – and sums were never my strongest point

But 144 Labour MPs either voted against or absented themselves for some reason which almost matches the numbers of Conservative MPs who voted 'aye'...

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:25 am**

Morning all. I may be duplicating ... but have only just read this.

Lesson one from the Hinchingbrooke hospital scandal: beware the ‘mutual’

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... CMP=twt_gu

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:34 am**

RobertSnozers wrote: But if you'd have asked me two years ago I'd have said a Labour majority was a near certainty. Now I'd have to say I think it's an outside chance and any majority will be of the hair's breadth variety

Though I am generally considered an optimist, I have never considered a Labour majority in May that likely tbh.

The elephant in the room here is how rare it is for defeated opposition parties to return to power after just one term - many people still blame the previous administration for any problems the new government experiences. And that's even before taking into account our profoundly unbalanced MSM.

As far as YouGov's methodology goes, I don't think the change you refer to had a huge effect (though it was slightly adverse for Labour) - what may be more relevant right now is that they still have newspaper readership as a major determinant of their panels and weighting. Even as sales of the "dead tree" press continue to plummet almost by the week......

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:38 am**

Rent rise of 2.2 per cent for Reading council tenants
Investment of £15m in council homes in the coming year alongside the rent-rise in line with national policy
The proposed rent increase has been discussed and supported by tenant groups.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local- ... nt-8485810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 11:59 am**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: But if you'd have asked me two years ago I'd have said a Labour majority was a near certainty. Now I'd have to say I think it's an outside chance and any majority will be of the hair's breadth variety
Though I am generally considered an optimist, I have never considered a Labour majority in May that likely tbh.

The elephant in the room here is how rare it is for defeated opposition parties to return to power after just one term - many people still blame the previous administration for any problems the new government experiences. And that's even before taking into account our profoundly unbalanced MSM.

As far as YouGov's methodology goes, I don't think the change you refer to had a huge effect (though it was slightly adverse for Labour) - what may be more relevant right now is that they still have newspaper readership as a major determinant of their panels and weighting. Even as sales of the "dead tree" press continue to plummet almost by the week......

Reminded me to check today's newspaper weighting:

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/d ... 200115.pdf

Newspaper Type

Express / Mail 245 223
Sun / Star 204 316
Mirror / Record 126 138
Guardian / Independent 136 69
FT / Times / Telegraph 101 126
Other Paper 199 181
No Paper 559 518

so again, the Scum is up-weighted by 100+ !

Maybe need to watch the approval figures too. Today it's at -18 which is an improvement on the -20+ we were used to seeing last year.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:10 pm**

Kevin Maguire ‏@Kevin_Maguire 3m3 minutes ago
Miliband opposed Iraq War but wasn't MP in 2003. Cameron voted for it and recall him saying he'd do so again after no WMDs found #PMQs

He was soooo agonised about it though.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:12 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:Might I make a request? When people link to stories in the Guardian, I'd be most grateful if they could post the headline and perhaps the first para, just to give a flavour to those of us who insist on not giving Rusbridger a single click? Thanks

I try to do that - as mindful that sometimes people either don't want to go there ... or don't see enough from the link to know if they want to go there. But increasingly I'm trying to find the stories elsewhere.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:14 pm**

Owen Smith MP ‏@OwenSmithMP 18m18 minutes ago
Interesting interventions from English Tories at Welsh Qs. My favourite was the call for the Welsh Gov to support farmers in Wiltshire.

Eh?

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:17 pm**

Do punitive approaches to unemployment benefit recipients increase welfare exit and employment? A cross-area analysis of UK sanctioning reforms

http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/working-p ... forms.html

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:18 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote: Are there two signatures on that letter? And can anyone tell me what is scrawled above "David"? Looks like 'Iain' to me – he was very gung ho about heading into the second Iraq War, as I remember it. And is it normal practise for Downing Street letters to put the recipient's name immediately below any signatures?
I think that is supposed to be "Yours" above "David" but the end bit is weird as it's normally the name of the person writing the letter.
Copy paste error, careless.

All of the letters addressed to my Dad (RAF) from MoD, Pensions, etc., had his name (and address) at the foot of the letter. When I was on a tempsec job (thank goodness it was) at the old Min of Ag in London, I found it really difficult to follow that procedure there as well, having been formally trained that the name and address on a letter goes after the date! (Makes it easier to fold and put in envelope apparently).

My own thoughts are, therefore, that the letter was rushed (so it could get out there to the supporting right wing press) and there should have been a few more para lines put in after leaving space for PR PRICK Cameron to write "David".

I hope that makes some sense!

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:18 pm**

PMQs going to form.

Chris Bryant ‏@ChrisBryantMP 2m2 minutes ago
Cameron is a bully.

R. Blackman-Woods ‏@robertabwMP 2m2 minutes ago
Cameron at his most shouty today & getting redder by the second. Does he think shouting nonsense louder makes it any more believable #pmqs

Tom Blenkinsop ‏@TomBlenkinsop 2m2 minutes ago
Hahahah! Cameron attacks UKIP's policy to privatise the NHS. UKIP will only follow up & support the Tories Top-Down privatisation #pmqs

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:24 pm**

And on that G article where Clegg says

However, neither administrative processes nor a constant back and forth between the inquiry and witnesses criticised should frustrate an independent report so important to the country’s future from being published as soon as possible.

My bold - why is it important for the country's future? Because, of course, it's another nail to hammer in to Ed Miliband (unjustifiably) but will enable the sh1tty little bastard to stay in coalition with Cameron. He's so effing transparent.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:25 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: But if you'd have asked me two years ago I'd have said a Labour majority was a near certainty. Now I'd have to say I think it's an outside chance and any majority will be of the hair's breadth variety
Though I am generally considered an optimist, I have never considered a Labour majority in May that likely tbh.

The elephant in the room here is how rare it is for defeated opposition parties to return to power after just one term - many people still blame the previous administration for any problems the new government experiences. And that's even before taking into account our profoundly unbalanced MSM.

As far as YouGov's methodology goes, I don't think the change you refer to had a huge effect (though it was slightly adverse for Labour) - what may be more relevant right now is that they still have newspaper readership as a major determinant of their panels and weighting. Even as sales of the "dead tree" press continue to plummet almost by the week......

Are the newspaper readerships based on people who actually buy a physical paper or people who read on line? Becouse I don't know anyone who just reads "one paper" on line, everybody just flicks from one to the other looking for something interesting. If somebody asked me which newspaper I read, I honestly wouldn't know what to answer, I probably spend more time on the Telegraph site these days than I do on the Guardian, but would that make me a "Telegraph reader" as far as the pollsters are concerned? And I never buy either of them physically, if I need a real paper for a train journey or to take to a cafe I inveriably buy the I, mainly becouse its so much cheaper than the big papers. The way media is consumed has changed so much that it just doesn't make sense to rely on that as a way of weighting views anymore.

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:26 pm**

Christ, Diane Abbot being cheered by Cons in the Commons.

She should feel shame but I doubt she does.

According to Andrew Sparrow, in response to what she said:

Cameron says there is nothing sinister in the delay. He does not believe that anyone is trying to delay, or dodge this report.

So, his protestations earlier were just hot air !

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:32 pm**

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 18m 18 minutes ago
Today at PMQs David Cameron focussed on a burned carpet from 10 years ago. Behold, people of Britain, the mighty House of Commons #PMQS

Did he really sink that low?

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:32 pm**

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 7m 7 minutes ago
Cameron AGAIN takes credit for there being more GPs than in 2010. He’s been PM for 4 years. It takes SEVEN to train a doctor #PMQs

Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk · 15m 15 minutes ago
Cameron says he won’t privatise the NHS. But before the last election he said he wouldn’t do any top-down reorganisations of the NHS #PMQS

Posted: **Wed 21 Jan, 2015 12:37 pm**

Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 14h 14 hours ago
How to pronounce Syriza: like Syria but with a Z

I think that might have been aimed at Emily Maitliss. Pronunciation of 'foreign' names - something else the BBC used to be hot on ... not so now.

FlyTheNest

Wednesday 21st January 2015

Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015

Re: Wednesday 21st January 2015