Saturday 31st January & Sunday 1st February 2015

[rebeccariots2]

Mr Riots and I have been entertaining ourselves (as I prepared the tea) by inventing a new online game / app. We reckon there should be a game where we can pick who to have killed off in the Archers and / or the most fitting ghastly story line for them. My first call is to have a sniper sort out Helen Archer ... she's become (they have made her into) an insult to the sisterhood. Mr Riots is working out who he wants to experience the ultimate Brooks Newmark embarrassment.

[rebeccariots2]

I suspect Hodges is still writing his anti-Ed pieces because it's become almost a cult thing. He started off spitefully but found continuing in that vein earns him the most money and fame of sorts.
The Telegraph wouldn't employ him if he wrote a 'In Praise of Ed' every week. He's doing it for the money, which makes him a contemptible little shit.

I think you are probably pretty spot on Ohso. He's got himself stuck in a rut of his own making ... but seems incapable of any sufficiently original thought or writing that will have an equal pull factor to get himself out of it.

[AngryAsWell]

Mr Riots and I have been entertaining ourselves (as I prepared the tea) by inventing a new online game / app. We reckon there should be a game where we can pick who to have killed off in the Archers and / or the most fitting ghastly story line for them. My first call is to have a sniper sort out Helen Archer ... she's become (they have made her into) an insult to the sisterhood. Mr Riots is working out who he wants to experience the ultimate Brooks Newmark embarrassment.

Got to be creepy Rod

[rebeccariots2]

This is pretty extraordinary.

Croatia wipes out the debts of thousands of its poorest citizens in 'fresh start' scheme
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 16484.html

[AngryAsWell]

Paul Scriven ‏@Paulscriven 16m16 minutes ago
@Tubby_Isaacs @RTaylor_LibDem @JoeOttenX Please don't insult the public. Labour want private provision in NHS

This bloke is a peer.

My insult to the public was reminding him that figures on Coalition privatization only reflected less than 2 years of their Act being in.

He added a link to Lord Darzai who he said was the one really speaking for Labour.

Couple of links to tenders in the offing

http://www.tendersdirect.co.uk/Sector/NHSTenders/#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://online.contractsfinder.business ... ing_page=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rebeccariots2]

Mr Riots and I have been entertaining ourselves (as I prepared the tea) by inventing a new online game / app. We reckon there should be a game where we can pick who to have killed off in the Archers and / or the most fitting ghastly story line for them. My first call is to have a sniper sort out Helen Archer ... she's become (they have made her into) an insult to the sisterhood. Mr Riots is working out who he wants to experience the ultimate Brooks Newmark embarrassment.

Got to be creepy Rod

Yes it has, hasn't it. And it has to be leaked / exposed on the Ambridge facebook page to Jennifer's everlasting horror.

[ohsocynical]

This boycott Boots seems to have gone viral with blame squarely where it should be in the governments camp.

I have managed to get a good laugh out of it imagining Crosby ringing Dave and George and telling them to shut their f*****g friends up

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I suspect Hodges is still writing his anti-Ed pieces because it's become almost a cult thing. He started off spitefully but found continuing in that vein earns him the most money and fame of sorts.
The Telegraph wouldn't employ him if he wrote a 'In Praise of Ed' every week. He's doing it for the money, which makes him a contemptible little shit.

I think you are probably pretty spot on Ohso. He's got himself stuck in a rut of his own making ... but seems incapable of any sufficiently original thought or writing that will have an equal pull factor to get himself out of it.

He simply doesn't have the talent to be able to produce anything better. At that moment what he does produce works for him (insomuch as he gets to ride his perpetual hobbyhorse and get paid for it) and for the Telegraph; come May 8th, whatever the outcome, he ceases to be of any use to them!!

[AngryAsWell]

Mr Riots and I have been entertaining ourselves (as I prepared the tea) by inventing a new online game / app. We reckon there should be a game where we can pick who to have killed off in the Archers and / or the most fitting ghastly story line for them. My first call is to have a sniper sort out Helen Archer ... she's become (they have made her into) an insult to the sisterhood. Mr Riots is working out who he wants to experience the ultimate Brooks Newmark embarrassment.

Got to be creepy Rod

Yes it has, hasn't it. And it has to be leaked / exposed on the Ambridge facebook page to Jennifer's everlasting horror.

Meanwhile out on the golf course Jason clutched his chest and gave blood curdling scream as he fell to the floor. (Where he lies for 8 hours waiting an ambulance)
Up in Northumberland, Heather collapse in a heap.
Oh Dave..id mums dead, but not to worry pet it will still be nice at the new farm.
What! You don't understand do you? We'll never get anyone else to pay 7mil for Brookfield! And now Jason's dead the road won't be going ahead....
OhNooow - What are we going to tell Kenton, Shula and Elizabeth???

Dum de dum de dumm de dum.....

[AngryAsWell]

‘Vote British, not Bolshie’: election posters that chart a changing Britain
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... manchester" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Housing developers in the UK could gain hundreds of millions of pounds in windfall profits under a new policy that lets them reduce contributions to building affordable housing or even avoid paying altogether, a council has claimed.

Since December, the government has exempted anyone who turns an empty building into private housing from paying for further affordable units, even if they could do so and still make healthy profits.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... y-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Property developers allowed to reduce affordable housing commitments
Government’s new vacant building credit described as ‘insane’, as Westminster council estimates it could lose up to £1bn in housing payments

[ErnstRemarx]

Housing developers in the UK could gain hundreds of millions of pounds in windfall profits under a new policy that lets them reduce contributions to building affordable housing or even avoid paying altogether, a council has claimed.

Since December, the government has exempted anyone who turns an empty building into private housing from paying for further affordable units, even if they could do so and still make healthy profits.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... y-building" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Property developers allowed to reduce affordable housing commitments
Government’s new vacant building credit described as ‘insane’, as Westminster council estimates it could lose up to £1bn in housing payments

Yup. It's insane. Like every other planning change those stupid bastards have made since 2010. I have to live with it, being on the planning committee. Every month, the officers come to us with yet another change, and every time it's utterly stupid and skewed in favour of untrammelled development by commercial house builders. Can't offend them, can we?

[StephenDolan]

Obama will propose mandatory tax on US companies' earnings held overseas

http://gu.com/p/45d4d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Potential $238bn. Not to be sniffed at. Apple must be going nuts at the thought of this. Good.

[ohsocynical]

Obama will propose mandatory tax on US companies' earnings held overseas

http://gu.com/p/45d4d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Potential $238bn. Not to be sniffed at. Apple must be going nuts at the thought of this. Good.

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky if that gets through

[AngryAsWell]

Obama will propose mandatory tax on US companies' earnings held overseas

http://gu.com/p/45d4d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Potential $238bn. Not to be sniffed at. Apple must be going nuts at the thought of this. Good.

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky if that gets through

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

[StephenDolan]

Obama will propose mandatory tax on US companies' earnings held overseas

http://gu.com/p/45d4d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Potential $238bn. Not to be sniffed at. Apple must be going nuts at the thought of this. Good.

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky it that gets through

Executive order is the only way that's happening. Ditto the veto over Keystone pipeline. Now that he's nothing to lose he's acting as he appeared he would from the start. Fingers crossed these actions (and Warren's burgeoning popularity) puts pressure on Clinton to move further left.

[HindleA]

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/inde ... &Itemid=31" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Two councils launch judicial review proceedings over s.106 changes"

In November 2014 Planning Minister Brandon Lewis announced via a written ministerial statement a threshold of developments of 10 homes or fewer beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions through s. 106 obligations should not be sought. In designated rural areas, the threshold was set at five homes or fewer.
Cllr Tony Page, Reading Borough Council's Lead Member for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport said: "These changes would amount to pure profit for landowners and developers at the expense of people looking for affordable places to live. At a time when policy should be moving towards creating more affordable housing, this is yet another slap in the face for residents.
"Similarly, the removal of the ability of local councils to request a financial contribution from developers for developments of fewer than 10 properties for things like improvements to local roads, schools and playgrounds is going to have a significant effect. In Reading we estimate a loss of around £650,000 in local community benefits every year and, again, this money will just be profit for landowners and developers."

Apologies if known and" lateness",just thought it worthwhile posting,given previous posts.

[ohsocynical]

Obama will propose mandatory tax on US companies' earnings held overseas

http://gu.com/p/45d4d" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Potential $238bn. Not to be sniffed at. Apple must be going nuts at the thought of this. Good.

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky if that gets through

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

[Tubby Isaacs]

So that's effectively hundreds more schools put into academy chains that have expanded far too fast anyway.

[ErnstRemarx]

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/inde ... &Itemid=31


"Two councils launch judicial review proceedings over s.106 changes"

In November 2014 Planning Minister Brandon Lewis announced via a written ministerial statement a threshold of developments of 10 homes or fewer beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions through s. 106 obligations should not be sought. In designated rural areas, the threshold was set at five homes or fewer.
Cllr Tony Page, Reading Borough Council's Lead Member for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport said: "These changes would amount to pure profit for landowners and developers at the expense of people looking for affordable places to live. At a time when policy should be moving towards creating more affordable housing, this is yet another slap in the face for residents.
"Similarly, the removal of the ability of local councils to request a financial contribution from developers for developments of fewer than 10 properties for things like improvements to local roads, schools and playgrounds is going to have a significant effect. In Reading we estimate a loss of around £650,000 in local community benefits every year and, again, this money will just be profit for landowners and developers."

Apologies if known and" lateness",just thought it worthwhile posting,given previous posts.

No, that's pretty apposite. The new rules are disgusting, as they remove our ability to enforce S106 agreements on developers. There was always lee way for negotiation where profit margins looked tight - planning departments are the epitome of what's achievable over what's ideologiclly desirable - but this latest twistis simply putting the boot in and telling private developers to take the piss as much as they like. I doubt that Section 106 will actually exist if the Tories get back in. It's a hinderance to pure profit and thus I suspect they'll find a reason to kill it altogether, probably on market grounds.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This boycott Boots seems to have gone viral with blame squarely where it should be in the governments camp.

I have managed to get a good laugh out of it imagining Crosby ringing Dave and George and telling them to shut their f*****g friends up

The Mail are onside, and have probably spectacularly misjudged their readers.

Labour war on "Boots the chemist".

[adam]

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky if that gets through

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

The President doesn't have a perogative to make laws - all tax and budget legislation has to come from the House (although the President can send legislation to the House). Obama has a veto that the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn (you need two thirds of each chamber to overturn a presidential veto) so he can stop crazy Republican legislation, but he can't make congress do anything it doesn't want to.

[citizenJA]

The Republicans won't like that. He'll be lucky if that gets through

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

Well done, Mr. President!

[ErnstRemarx]

So that's effectively hundreds more schools put into academy chains that have expanded far too fast anyway.

It's all about taking control of schools out of the hands of the local councils, and into the hands of Jabba the Hut and that new harpy at Education, Nicky Morgan. It is *NOT* to do with educating young people and it is *NOT* to do with democracy in any sense whatsoever, as I'm sure you're aware.

Fuck 'em. Can the population of this country be so stupid as to vote these fuckers back into office? I'm mystified that they'd be stupid enough, but having spoken to the Great British Public on the doorstep, I can assure you that many of them are too dim to pour piss out of a boot, even if you printed instructions on the heel.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is complete bollocks.

David Lindsay retweeted
Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 6m6 minutes ago
The collapse in bond yields is slashing the interest bill on the debt. Will the Chancellor use it for typical pre-election giveaway?

It's not being slashed. There's far more of it than planned, and the falling yield is only on new debt.

Imagine Labour doing this?

[seeingclearly]

This is pretty extraordinary.

Croatia wipes out the debts of thousands of its poorest citizens in 'fresh start' scheme
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 16484.html

I couldn't cut and paste one of the final lines in this article, but thought it bore recording here. It's been done before, debt forgiveness, but not often. By wiping out these debts, which account for approx 1% of all the debt, it frees 20% of Croatias debtors. That's staggering. As these are, relatively speaking, small debts, it made me wonder what it would cost to free the next 20%, and how big their average debt load would be. Because by my way of thinking, in a fairer world people would not need debt, or not debt in the modern sense. Good on the Croatians, for seeing the necessity, and doing something honourable. Will Syriza follow?

[ErnstRemarx]

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/inde ... &Itemid=31


"Two councils launch judicial review proceedings over s.106 changes"

In November 2014 Planning Minister Brandon Lewis announced via a written ministerial statement a threshold of developments of 10 homes or fewer beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions through s. 106 obligations should not be sought. In designated rural areas, the threshold was set at five homes or fewer.
Cllr Tony Page, Reading Borough Council's Lead Member for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport said: "These changes would amount to pure profit for landowners and developers at the expense of people looking for affordable places to live. At a time when policy should be moving towards creating more affordable housing, this is yet another slap in the face for residents.
"Similarly, the removal of the ability of local councils to request a financial contribution from developers for developments of fewer than 10 properties for things like improvements to local roads, schools and playgrounds is going to have a significant effect. In Reading we estimate a loss of around £650,000 in local community benefits every year and, again, this money will just be profit for landowners and developers."

Apologies if known and" lateness",just thought it worthwhile posting,given previous posts.

No, that's pretty apposite. The new rules are disgusting, as they remove our ability to enforce S106 agreements on developers. There was always lee way for negotiation where profit margins looked tight - planning departments are the epitome of what's achievable over what's ideologiclly desirable - but this latest twistis simply putting the boot in and telling private developers to take the piss as much as they like. I doubt that Section 106 will actually exist if the Tories get back in. It's a hinderance to pure profit and thus I suspect they'll find a reason to kill it altogether, probably on market grounds.

This is serious shit. If S106 were axed, then a lot of councils' spends would go with it. Recreation facilities? Gone. Childrens' play parks? Gone. Adult recreation? Gone, gone, gone. The lot gone, because business is more important than people's lives. When those contirbutions are gone - and the Tories will get rid of them I am sure - then that's it in most councils. No new recreation spaces and what's left will simply rot away.

Raise you kids in that if you want. I think it's fucking disgusting.

[citizenJA]

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

The President doesn't have a perogative to make laws - all tax and budget legislation has to come from the House (although the President can send legislation to the House). Obama has a veto that the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn (you need two thirds of each chamber to overturn a presidential veto) so he can stop crazy Republican legislation, but he can't make congress do anything it doesn't want to.

He shoots, he scores! Something like the following below.

An offshoot of the implied powers doctrine is the The Presidency A to Z executive order.

This critical instrument of active presidential power is nowhere defined in the Constitution but generally is construed as a presidential directive that becomes law without prior congressional approval.

It is based either on existing statutes or on the president's other constitutional responsibilities. Executive orders usually pertain specifically to government agencies and officials, but their effects often reach to the average citizen.

For example, in 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required companies that win federal government contracts to create programs for hiring more minorities, significantly affecting private sector employment practices.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/consti ... owers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ohsocynical]

So that's effectively hundreds more schools put into academy chains that have expanded far too fast anyway.

It's all about taking control of schools out of the hands of the local councils, and into the hands of Jabba the Hut and that new harpy at Education, Nicky Morgan. It is *NOT* to do with educating young people and it is *NOT* to do with democracy in any sense whatsoever, as I'm sure you're aware.

Fuck 'em. Can the population of this country be so stupid as to vote these fuckers back into office? I'm mystified that they'd be stupid enough, but having spoken to the Great British Public on the doorstep, I can assure you that many of them are too dim to pour piss out of a boot, even if you printed instructions on the heel.

Well, they do say Gove is still pulling the strings and Nicky Morgan is a mere mouthpiece. It fits with the rest of his crazy reforms.

[citizenJA]

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/inde ... &Itemid=31


"Two councils launch judicial review proceedings over s.106 changes"

In November 2014 Planning Minister Brandon Lewis announced via a written ministerial statement a threshold of developments of 10 homes or fewer beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions through s. 106 obligations should not be sought. In designated rural areas, the threshold was set at five homes or fewer.
Cllr Tony Page, Reading Borough Council's Lead Member for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport said: "These changes would amount to pure profit for landowners and developers at the expense of people looking for affordable places to live. At a time when policy should be moving towards creating more affordable housing, this is yet another slap in the face for residents.
"Similarly, the removal of the ability of local councils to request a financial contribution from developers for developments of fewer than 10 properties for things like improvements to local roads, schools and playgrounds is going to have a significant effect. In Reading we estimate a loss of around £650,000 in local community benefits every year and, again, this money will just be profit for landowners and developers."

Apologies if known and" lateness",just thought it worthwhile posting,given previous posts.

No, that's pretty apposite. The new rules are disgusting, as they remove our ability to enforce S106 agreements on developers. There was always lee way for negotiation where profit margins looked tight - planning departments are the epitome of what's achievable over what's ideologiclly desirable - but this latest twistis simply putting the boot in and telling private developers to take the piss as much as they like. I doubt that Section 106 will actually exist if the Tories get back in. It's a hinderance to pure profit and thus I suspect they'll find a reason to kill it altogether, probably on market grounds.

This is serious shit. If S106 were axed, then a lot of councils' spends would go with it. Recreation facilities? Gone. Childrens' play parks? Gone. Adult recreation? Gone, gone, gone. The lot gone, because business is more important than people's lives. When those contirbutions are gone - and the Tories will get rid of them I am sure - then that's it in most councils. No new recreation spaces and what's left will simply rot away.

Raise you kids in that if you want. I think it's fucking disgusting.

I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone read some of the posts underneath the article linked in the post? Interesting outrage. I'm impressed.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... y-building

[AngryAsWell]

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has been accused of “not knowing what was going on” in primary schools.

Labour’s David Blunkett said her demands that all children aged 11, should know up to their 12 times table was already covered by a numeracy programme introduced in 1997.

And the same applied to her announcement that they should also be able to write a short story with accurate punctuation, spelling and grammar and read a novel.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ohsocynical]

@Adam & JA

Thanks to both of you. I'm abysmally ignorant of American political processes.

[citizenJA]

I think he plans using the President prerogative (or something) where he just rubber stamps things without house approval (?)

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

The President doesn't have a perogative to make laws - all tax and budget legislation has to come from the House (although the President can send legislation to the House). Obama has a veto that the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn (you need two thirds of each chamber to overturn a presidential veto) so he can stop crazy Republican legislation, but he can't make congress do anything it doesn't want to.

I understand, Adam. He can bypass Congress if he decides it's going to be done. It's an act of personal will combined with ambiguous powers given the Executive Branch of US government.

[rebeccariots2]

Tomorrow's Indy front page leading on 'Labour facing crisis in Scotland'. Predicting the SNP to take up to 45 of Labour's current 59 seats.

Small wonder lots of people here are feeling down ... it does feel like there's no let up in the damning.

We have to hope that - as with the referendum - there are quite a lot of people playing things close to their chests.

[adam]

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about that. He's taken an awful lot of stick over the last eight years. If that's what he does it'll be divine retribution in spades. Good on him.

The President doesn't have a perogative to make laws - all tax and budget legislation has to come from the House (although the President can send legislation to the House). Obama has a veto that the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn (you need two thirds of each chamber to overturn a presidential veto) so he can stop crazy Republican legislation, but he can't make congress do anything it doesn't want to.

He shoots, he scores! Something like the following below.

An offshoot of the implied powers doctrine is the The Presidency A to Z executive order.

This critical instrument of active presidential power is nowhere defined in the Constitution but generally is construed as a presidential directive that becomes law without prior congressional approval.

It is based either on existing statutes or on the president's other constitutional responsibilities. Executive orders usually pertain specifically to government agencies and officials, but their effects often reach to the average citizen.

For example, in 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required companies that win federal government contracts to create programs for hiring more minorities, significantly affecting private sector employment practices.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/consti ... owers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point, well made

But the constitution says

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

So he can't use executive orders to change tax laws.

[citizenJA]

@Adam & JA

Thanks to both of you. I'm abysmally ignorant of American political processes.

I can't speak for Adam. I've studied US government a bit.

I've been waiting a long time to witness some justice from the current President of the US.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That golden goose North Sea Oil that would have funded Nordic public services. Um, it dies if the government stops spending money on it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Tomorrow's Indy front page leading on 'Labour facing crisis in Scotland'. Predicting the SNP to take up to 45 of Labour's current 59 seats.

Small wonder lots of people here are feeling down ... it does feel like there's no let up in the damning.

We have to hope that - as with the referendum - there are quite a lot of people playing things close to their chests.

See the level of nationalist bullshit exposed re fracking.

And the oil farce continues...

[AngryAsWell]

@Adam & JA

Thanks to both of you. I'm abysmally ignorant of American political processes.

Thanks from me as well, also a bit numpty on American political processes

[ErnstRemarx]

No, that's pretty apposite. The new rules are disgusting, as they remove our ability to enforce S106 agreements on developers. There was always lee way for negotiation where profit margins looked tight - planning departments are the epitome of what's achievable over what's ideologiclly desirable - but this latest twistis simply putting the boot in and telling private developers to take the piss as much as they like. I doubt that Section 106 will actually exist if the Tories get back in. It's a hinderance to pure profit and thus I suspect they'll find a reason to kill it altogether, probably on market grounds.

This is serious shit. If S106 were axed, then a lot of councils' spends would go with it. Recreation facilities? Gone. Childrens' play parks? Gone. Adult recreation? Gone, gone, gone. The lot gone, because business is more important than people's lives. When those contirbutions are gone - and the Tories will get rid of them I am sure - then that's it in most councils. No new recreation spaces and what's left will simply rot away.

Raise you kids in that if you want. I think it's fucking disgusting.

I wholeheartedly agree. Anyone read some of the posts underneath the article linked in the post? Interesting outrage. I'm impressed.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... y-building

Oh, rest you assured, those of us who have to grapple with it know what those fuckers are up to - they're trying to loosen planning rules to the extent where they don't really exist. They genuinelly want a free market, and I suspect that the moans of a Tory supporter shafted by the new regime will be unheard, despite the fact that the daft bastards will still vote Tory.

[citizenJA]

The President doesn't have a perogative to make laws - all tax and budget legislation has to come from the House (although the President can send legislation to the House). Obama has a veto that the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn (you need two thirds of each chamber to overturn a presidential veto) so he can stop crazy Republican legislation, but he can't make congress do anything it doesn't want to.

He shoots, he scores! Something like the following below.

An offshoot of the implied powers doctrine is the The Presidency A to Z executive order.

This critical instrument of active presidential power is nowhere defined in the Constitution but generally is construed as a presidential directive that becomes law without prior congressional approval.

It is based either on existing statutes or on the president's other constitutional responsibilities. Executive orders usually pertain specifically to government agencies and officials, but their effects often reach to the average citizen.

For example, in 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required companies that win federal government contracts to create programs for hiring more minorities, significantly affecting private sector employment practices.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/consti ... owers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good point, well made

But the constitution says

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

So he can't use executive orders to change tax laws.

He can create an instrument that will effectively take fiscal proceeds out of the assets of whomever/whatever has business to do with the USA.

[adam]

@Adam & JA

Thanks to both of you. I'm abysmally ignorant of American political processes.

I can't speak for Adam. I've studied US government a bit.

I've been waiting a long time to witness some justice from the current President of the US.

I have a degree in American Studies but it was a worryingly long time ago and it's a bit rusty.

[ErnstRemarx]

Tomorrow's Indy front page leading on 'Labour facing crisis in Scotland'. Predicting the SNP to take up to 45 of Labour's current 59 seats.

Small wonder lots of people here are feeling down ... it does feel like there's no let up in the damning.

We have to hope that - as with the referendum - there are quite a lot of people playing things close to their chests.

Let#s be fucking clear ('scuse gwidge), in the period 1997 to 2005, it wouldn't have made a difference to Labour's majority because England voted that way. That's the issue. Not Scotland, though the seats count. The majority must come from all sources, but England will be the battleground.

[citizenJA]

The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an extraordinary organisation. Those belonging to it don't holler, they don't make dreadful scenes, they don't have to. They are more powerful than the US military. Yes. Yes, they are. They arrive & make what needs to happen, happen. Their powers are perhaps too great; but since I stand no chance against this body, I will always comply with their demands. For they are mighty. And they aren't typically known for hurting regular people. Really, they have nothing to prove so they don't have arrogance problems.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Doubtless all these new enforced academies would be Labour's fault, or something.

And Tristram Hunt won't put all schools back in LA, so he's just as bad, or something.

[citizenJA]

Tomorrow's Indy front page leading on 'Labour facing crisis in Scotland'. Predicting the SNP to take up to 45 of Labour's current 59 seats.

Small wonder lots of people here are feeling down ... it does feel like there's no let up in the damning.

We have to hope that - as with the referendum - there are quite a lot of people playing things close to their chests.

Let#s be fucking clear ('scuse gwidge), in the period 1997 to 2005, it wouldn't have made a difference to Labour's majority because England voted that way. That's the issue. Not Scotland, though the seats count. The majority must come from all sources, but England will be the battleground.

I love your spirit & I share your evaluation.

[citizenJA]

@Adam & JA

Thanks to both of you. I'm abysmally ignorant of American political processes.

I can't speak for Adam. I've studied US government a bit.

I've been waiting a long time to witness some justice from the current President of the US.

I have a degree in American Studies but it was a worryingly long time ago and it's a bit rusty.

I've no exact idea what the US President is going to do. I know what former US Presidents have done although I can't name the statutes & years, exc. I've been wondering when or if the current President was going to do something great benefiting the regular people. I don't know if he will. I know he probably can. It'll cost him though.

edited to hopefully make better sense.

[citizenJA]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That golden goose North Sea Oil that would have funded Nordic public services. Um, it dies if the government stops spending money on it.

Good job we've got all that on & off shore wind turbine capacity! Seriously. I love this country. There is so much capacity for good things for everyone.

[pk1]

Copied from UKPR & just to warn you of what's to come:

CHATTERCLASS

I was called randomly by Populus on Friday. A little bit of push polling with leading questions. After asking the usual, I was asked ‘Which of these would make you less likely to vote for Labour?’ I was expecting the ‘more likely to vote’ question, but it never came. Neither did a question about less likely policies for any of the other parties. So, I am waiting for the negative result – ‘voters say x would make them less likely to vote Labour’ to be published. I don’t see how such leading questions can every be valid….

It’s heading for a dirty election campaign…

@Ephe - happy birthday. Sorry to hear you're so down, hope it gets better soon xx

[giselle97]

Rushing from page 5 to page 7 to add my birthday wishes to Ephemerid and sympathetic and

also to SeeingClearly - wishing you less stress on Monday and Tuesday and a safe journey home and back.

I've removed the Guardian App, the BBC News App and the Sky News App from my mobile and of all the tabs I currently have open to read on my laptop, not one of them takes me to any of those "news" sites.

I'm cleansing myself and getting ready to do battle with the bastards.

And yes, what sort of man have we got in charge of the Labour Party who can take all of the effing shit which is being flung at him? A brave, principled, intelligent and decent man. My hero - Ed.

And thanks to FTN and FTNers for being there to read.

I agree - RebeccaRiots2 should write a blog. I wish I could find someone like Mr Riots. Not to put anyone else's nose out of place, of course, but ......

Back to page 5 now.