FlyTheNest

Following on from Tish's belief that the Lib Dems desire for self preservation would make them support Labour in developing a more thought through and participatory response to English devolution .... it looks as though some think they will be best served by supporting the Tories.

James Forsyth ‏@JGForsyth 14m
Remember English votes for English laws will increase the number of times that the Lib Dems hold the balance of power http://dailym.ai/1v5uLBy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 8m
@JGForsyth Indeed. The LDs look set to be the party that stands to benefit most from #EV4EL

While we have all been concerned with Scotland - DEFRA quietly slipped out the information that they had - yet again - vastly overestimated the number of bovine TB incidents and further revised down their figures since 2012. These are the figures that - according to them - proved that bTB is spiralling out of control and that underpinned the supposed urgency of their case for the mass killing of badgers.

Monumental TB data errors (Defra)
In January we were alerted of Defra's revelation of the fact that the vet agency AHVLA's new computer had been speewing out fictitious reports overstating the number of Herd's which had suffered bovine TB breakdowns. Despite this Defra has decided continuing the Badger Cull , but without Independent oversight.

Now, with no fanfare at all, Defra has released the latest data on bovine TB herd breakdowns. Again admitting they found even more errors, and again they have altered the numbers for previous months and years. The first figures for September 2013. After two revisions to remove bad data the figures now show the first number is a whopping 45% overestimate of the (current) real figure. The first month where things went wrong was January 2012 according to Defra. We imagine that's roughly when the new IT system was brought on line. Initial figures for that month have now been revised down twice.

The largest number of herd breakdown reported was April 2013. This has been revised down, and then again recently by over 27% overestimated.

What is clear is that the overestimates have been getting much bigger, more often. as the months went on. Why did nobody notice these? Did they want to believe herd breakdowns were really getting bigger so quickly? was this just a convenient way of justifying the Badger Cull?

These are GB figures and will hide even larger errors at the county or regional levels. Scotland is officially TB free. Imagine the alarm Scottish beef and dairy farmers felt to see breakdowns increasing to 42 in September 13. This figure has now been revised to18, less than half. That figure has apparently climbed up to 42 in September 2014 - or has it? We can expect that figure to be revised down again. It beggars belief that there could even be a 233% margin of error for such a small sample. ...
http://concernsforenvironment.blogspot. ... a.html?m=1

The current "line" from the LibDems seems to be that they want a proper constitutional settlement, not the quick fix bodge job now offererd by the Tories.

As ever with them, however, this is subject to revision......

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The current "line" from the LibDems seems to be that they want a proper constitutional settlement, not the quick fix bodge job now offererd by the Tories.

As ever with them, however, this is subject to revision......

I have no faith in them to stick to any declared line ... let alone principle ... at all. As many on LDV and elsewhere are pointing out - Clegg has been shuffled out of the way by Cameron - completely sidelined - as he's appointed Hague to head up his commission on the English votes issue. Wasn't Clegg charged with constitutional reform before ... supposedly one of his / Lib Dem's special interests? And in true Lib Dem style there are already some of their most Tory leaning voices arguing that EVEL must be supported by them over at LDV.

The overall tone on LDV is overwhelmingly hostile to the Tory game playing, though.

Constitutional reform is supposedly one of their USP's at the end of the day.

I wouldn't be surprised at anything they do these days, but would still be surprised if they backed the Tories on this. If you know what I mean

Tish wrote:It seems that Andrew Mitchell wasn't quite the poor victim of malicious police officers that some of his friends have been desperate to portray him as. According to lawyers for The Sun he had a history of abusing the police officers who were meant to be protecting him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46501.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Surely some mistake? Didn't they know who he was? Is that really The Sun, with their incredibly deep-pocketed (and very switched on) legal department....defending themselves against one of the Dunce of Downing Streets' Coalition Clowns'? I'm sure a little 'under the radar' chat between Uncle Rupert and Dodgy Dave'll sort it out...no?...oh dear

...and...wow...that was a week, that was

On the point about the 'reform' of Britain, as others have said here - it's not a new idea...if they (the Tories*) had been remotely serious about everything they said before the 2010 election, we'd now have a new electoral system (the 'referendum' on AV, handled properly (or responsibly by someone working for the good of all) would have been successful*), far less lobbying, HoL reform on the way and 'transparent' government.

I think the one thing I'd like to add to the discussion about devolution is state funding of political parties...take the business/money out of politics (as Occupy Everything have been saying for years) and things get a lot easier...and of course, implement Leveson in full, to allow recourse against the lies and obfuscation.

I do think we're in for an interesting few months though...more Newcorpse trials on the way...the Coalitions' entire program (I'm saying 'entire' as I can't think of anything they've done that has actually worked) in meltdown, Gordon Brown rehabilitated and probably (with luck and a good wind) impervious to further Murkydochian character assassination, the UKIP effect and....lest we forget...Ed has 'vowed' (and I do believe him when he says it (and not in the Irritable-Dipped-in-Shit kind of way)) to make this personal about the 'PR PM' - meaning he's going to go on the attack directly against CMD ...popcorn at the ready...


* Don't worry - I knew it was window dressing, as my oft repeated links about the support withdrawn from disabled children in the same circumstances as 'little Ivan' shows - for me it's the stark (and now, very obvious) contrast between what they said they believed(TM) in and what is now plain that they actually believe(TM) in...and that includes the Yellow ones.

* Sorry - another footnote - just to be clear - I support electoral reform but not necessarily AV - so when asked the question 'do you want to change the voting system to AV?' the answer is 'no'...or is it?...I SUPPORT electoral reform - as our Dear Leader says....'thinking is hard'

Edited to add: Morning all!!

rebeccariots2 wrote:While we have all been concerned with Scotland - DEFRA quietly slipped out the information that they had - yet again - vastly overestimated the number of bovine TB incidents and further revised down their figures since 2012. These are the figures that - according to them - proved that bTB is spiralling out of control and that underpinned the supposed urgency of their case for the mass killing of badgers.

Monumental TB data errors (Defra)
In January we were alerted of Defra's revelation of the fact that the vet agency AHVLA's new computer had been speewing out fictitious reports overstating the number of Herd's which had suffered bovine TB breakdowns. Despite this Defra has decided continuing the Badger Cull , but without Independent oversight.

Now, with no fanfare at all, Defra has released the latest data on bovine TB herd breakdowns. Again admitting they found even more errors, and again they have altered the numbers for previous months and years. The first figures for September 2013. After two revisions to remove bad data the figures now show the first number is a whopping 45% overestimate of the (current) real figure. The first month where things went wrong was January 2012 according to Defra. We imagine that's roughly when the new IT system was brought on line. Initial figures for that month have now been revised down twice.

The largest number of herd breakdown reported was April 2013. This has been revised down, and then again recently by over 27% overestimated.

What is clear is that the overestimates have been getting much bigger, more often. as the months went on. Why did nobody notice these? Did they want to believe herd breakdowns were really getting bigger so quickly? was this just a convenient way of justifying the Badger Cull?

These are GB figures and will hide even larger errors at the county or regional levels. Scotland is officially TB free. Imagine the alarm Scottish beef and dairy farmers felt to see breakdowns increasing to 42 in September 13. This figure has now been revised to18, less than half. That figure has apparently climbed up to 42 in September 2014 - or has it? We can expect that figure to be revised down again. It beggars belief that there could even be a 233% margin of error for such a small sample. ...
http://concernsforenvironment.blogspot. ... a.html?m=1

Thanks for that, Rebecca! Makes you wonder just how they could have got things so very very wrong, accidentally...

And good morning, all

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 5m
Alex Salmond refers to older voters who democratically voted No as a "blockage" to aspirations of younger voters on @MurnaghanSky

Yet more politics of division - seems to be the basis of everything these days.

Surely there were also older YES voters - and younger NO voters?

Spacedone wrote:Bizarre situation this morning seeing Labour being kicked on Twitter by some prominent left-wingers (Artist Taxi Driver for example) for pledging to increase the minimum wage to something close to the Living Wage (accounting for inflation) by 2020. Reaction is "£8? Is that all? We want £10! NOW!!!"

As one person on ATD tweet says, Labour are pledging to increase the NMW three times as fast as it has increased 2010-2015.

It's the same on the G. And they are all missing the point.

What Labour are actually saying is that they want to lift the share of wages more equitably. They are planning to introduce legislation which pegs lower wages to a percentage of the median - in other words, if the median rises, the lowest rises with it at an ever-increasing percentage.
If they did this right now, NMW would be £8/hour - ie. 58% of the median.
It will be £6.50/hour from 1st.October. That's 54% of the median now.

This would represent an increase in NMW of at least 4% but it would increase as time goes on, because as the lowest rate rises, so does the median. As the median rises, so does the lowest. In time, they will become closer.

NMW rose in October 2010 from £5.80 to £5.93; in 2011 to £6.08; in 2012 to £6.19; 2013 to £6.31.
The rises under the coalition are - £0.13p; £0.15p; £0.11p; £0.12p; and in October £0.19p.
At no point since the coalition took office has NMW risen by more than 3%.
Some rates, eg. for people under 18, were frozen during this time on occasion.

Labour's proposal would mean a minimum 4% increase to start with and better as time goes on due to the peg to median wages.
That strikes me as fair - although I think there should also be a limit on rises for higher earners too.

Perhaps this is all a bit too complicated for the ranters.....

ephemerid wrote:
This would represent an increase in NMW of at least 4% but it would increase as time goes on, because as the lowest rate rises, so does the median. As the median rises, so does the lowest. In time, they will become closer.

NMW rose in October 2010 from £5.80 to £5.93; in 2011 to £6.08; in 2012 to £6.19; 2013 to £6.31.
The rises under the coalition are - £0.13p; £0.15p; £0.11p; £0.12p; and in October £0.19p.
At no point since the coalition took office has NMW risen by more than 3%.
Some rates, eg. for people under 18, were frozen during this time on occasion.

Labour's proposal would mean a minimum 4% increase to start with and better as time goes on due to the peg to median wages.
That strikes me as fair - although I think there should also be a limit on rises for higher earners too.

Perhaps this is all a bit too complicated for the ranters.....

Thanks for the explanation Ephemerid. Maybe Labour needs to find a different way of putting the message across. The simple '£8 by 2020' is what has been seized on by the media and the ranters.

If it is a pegged percentage increase - Labour might have been better to stay away from using the absolute £8 figure. I assume that might have been used because it would have been assumed to provide a favourable comparison with Osborne's £7 ....?

Have the tories given up on Scotland entirely? Surely one option for them is to rebuild their organisation and support there, but that doesn't seem to have been part of the equation at all.

Instinctively they turn to constitutional gerrymandering rather than good old fashioned political campaigning. They are too weak to win democratically.

Yes, the minimum wage rise propsed isn't enough, so it should stay where it is???

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 5m
Alex Salmond refers to older voters who democratically voted No as a "blockage" to aspirations of younger voters on @MurnaghanSky

Yet more politics of division - seems to be the basis of everything these days.

Surely there were also older YES voters - and younger NO voters?

Of course there were.

And a large part of this narrative is built on a poll sample from Ashcroft which was comprised of a massive 14 people

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 5m
Alex Salmond refers to older voters who democratically voted No as a "blockage" to aspirations of younger voters on @MurnaghanSky

Yet more politics of division - seems to be the basis of everything these days.

Surely there were also older YES voters - and younger NO voters?

Of course there were.

And a large part of this narrative is built on a poll sample from Ashcroft which was comprised of a massive 14 people

14 people‽‽‽ Joins you in

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 5m
Alex Salmond refers to older voters who democratically voted No as a "blockage" to aspirations of younger voters on @MurnaghanSky

Yet more politics of division - seems to be the basis of everything these days.

Surely there were also older YES voters - and younger NO voters?

Of course there were.

And a large part of this narrative is built on a poll sample from Ashcroft which was comprised of a massive 14 people

And which also showed a majority of 'No' voters in the 18-24 age group, but that doesn't suit the "A big boy frightened the pensioners and ran away" narrative.

One of the real positives of the whole referendum was the engagement by so many, the so-called "vibrant democracy", but it is looking less like a positive now with all of these recriminations being thrown around; one side could certainly claim the moral high ground before Thursday, not so sure they can any longer.

So looking at the press Cameron has unleashed the headbangers on constitutional reform. Very quickly he will lose control of the agenda and be left with a complete mess.

Tactics before strategy is always fatal.

Labour needs to keep the conference itself simple.

NHS, Living standards, keeping profit out of education, Tory Sleeze.

Repeat.

The media has to report it.

Meanwhile prepare an all out assault for the week of the Tory Conference. Get a real story on devolution out there, hammer home the message to every region a vote for Dave is a vote for Southern domination.

Labour can afford to write off most of the South East - but they get devolution too.

Essex votes for Essex laws.

Good afternoon.

I've been watching (on BBC Parliament, Ch 131) the Labour Party Conference which is now in lunchtime recess until 2.15pm. I remain impressed by Angela Eagle. Her delivery and style are almost perfect. I wish I could say the same for Gloria De Piero with her arm waving, "Breakfast Television" schtick. I suppose it's been adjudged that that's what appeals to a lot of people - as it may well do. But it doesn't work for me.

PorFavor wrote:Good afternoon.

I've been watching (on BBC Parliament, Ch 131) the Labour Party Conference which is now in lunchtime recess until 2.15pm. I remain impressed by Angela Eagle. Her delivery and style are almost perfect. I wish I could say the same for Gloria De Piero with her arm waving, "Breakfast Television" schtick. I suppose it's been adjudged that that's what appeals to a lot of people - as it may well do. But it doesn't work for me.

To be fair to Gloria, she has earned her right to be there and not just because of her TV background; she is defending a tiny majority in Ashfield of just 192, the seat nearly going to the Lib Dems in 2010 because of the controversy surrounding Geoff Hoon. But she has worked hard for her constituents and she now has probably one of the safer seats in that part of the country; and she's taken the lessons learned there into her work on the Doorstep team, to great effect apparently.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Essex votes for Essex laws.

Would you mind if I steal this line?

Spacedone wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Essex votes for Essex laws.

Would you mind if I steal this line?

Why not.

Do with it what you will.

Osborne should take note, never mess with Ed Balls!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09 ... K+Politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's what the last Tory manifesto said:

Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved.

A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and
Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.

Anyone understand what that means and is it the same as simply refusing to have non-English-seated MPs not voting?

COUNCIL leaders are set to make compulsory purchase orders (CPO) to safeguard the land for a new 420-pupil primary school in west Reading.

Residents were invited to view the plans at the Fairview Community Centre at an open afternoon on Thursday, but once detailed plans are drawn up they will go out for statutory consultation. Cllr Page stressed that the small site would be large enough for the three-storey building which will have recreational space for the pupils on the roof.

http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... s-academy/

Caged in I presume

ephemerid wrote:

Spacedone wrote:Bizarre situation this morning seeing Labour being kicked on Twitter by some prominent left-wingers (Artist Taxi Driver for example) for pledging to increase the minimum wage to something close to the Living Wage (accounting for inflation) by 2020. Reaction is "£8? Is that all? We want £10! NOW!!!"

As one person on ATD tweet says, Labour are pledging to increase the NMW three times as fast as it has increased 2010-2015.

It's the same on the G. And they are all missing the point.

What Labour are actually saying is that they want to lift the share of wages more equitably. They are planning to introduce legislation which pegs lower wages to a percentage of the median - in other words, if the median rises, the lowest rises with it at an ever-increasing percentage.
If they did this right now, NMW would be £8/hour - ie. 58% of the median.
It will be £6.50/hour from 1st.October. That's 54% of the median now.

This would represent an increase in NMW of at least 4% but it would increase as time goes on, because as the lowest rate rises, so does the median. As the median rises, so does the lowest. In time, they will become closer.

NMW rose in October 2010 from £5.80 to £5.93; in 2011 to £6.08; in 2012 to £6.19; 2013 to £6.31.
The rises under the coalition are - £0.13p; £0.15p; £0.11p; £0.12p; and in October £0.19p.
At no point since the coalition took office has NMW risen by more than 3%.
Some rates, eg. for people under 18, were frozen during this time on occasion.

Labour's proposal would mean a minimum 4% increase to start with and better as time goes on due to the peg to median wages.
That strikes me as fair - although I think there should also be a limit on rises for higher earners too.

Perhaps this is all a bit too complicated for the ranters.....

Thank you for that post Ephemerid.

One of the reasons I am glad you didn't leave FTN recently is your posts on topics like this are second to none for clearly put information & would be sorely missed.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Here's what the last Tory manifesto said:

Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved.

A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and
Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.

Anyone understand what that means and is it the same as simply refusing to have non-English-seated MPs not voting?

I've read it five times.

So they want to pass a law that would exclude 'foreign' MPs[Welsh, Scots, Irish,] but these same MPs will vote on the legistlation to exclude themselves. Is that what it means?

I know I moaned about sweary posting recently but feel an 'Oh ****' moment myself on reading this.

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h
SNP take 16% lead in post-IndyRef 2016 Holyrood election (const) from Survation has %:-
SNP 49.2
LAB 32.7
CON 13.4
LD 3.4
UKIP 0.2
GRN 0.6

There was me dreaming of Gordon Brown as First Minister.
Not good for the Lib Dems though, and interesting to see how low the Greens are compared to their 5 to 6% nationally.


Edited to add:

Holyrood - Constituency results 2011
SNP 45.4%
Labour 31.7%
Tories 13.9%
Lib Dem 5.2% [they were on 11.3% in 2007]

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good afternoon.

I've been watching (on BBC Parliament, Ch 131) the Labour Party Conference which is now in lunchtime recess until 2.15pm. I remain impressed by Angela Eagle. Her delivery and style are almost perfect. I wish I could say the same for Gloria De Piero with her arm waving, "Breakfast Television" schtick. I suppose it's been adjudged that that's what appeals to a lot of people - as it may well do. But it doesn't work for me.

To be fair to Gloria, she has earned her right to be there and not just because of her TV background; she is defending a tiny majority in Ashfield of just 192, the seat nearly going to the Lib Dems in 2010 because of the controversy surrounding Geoff Hoon. But she has worked hard for her constituents and she now has probably one of the safer seats in that part of the country; and she's taken the lessons learned there into her work on the Doorstep team, to great effect apparently.

Hello.

Thanks for the reply. Yes - she's been successful and effective. That can't be taken away from her. Please view my post as more of an art or drama critique! She just doesn't do anything for me (presentationally). In fact, I find her presentation off-putting. Superficial, I know. I find her far more palatable in writing (ie Labour Party e-mails). So it's not her views or ideas that I object to.

PorFavor wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good afternoon.

I've been watching (on BBC Parliament, Ch 131) the Labour Party Conference which is now in lunchtime recess until 2.15pm. I remain impressed by Angela Eagle. Her delivery and style are almost perfect. I wish I could say the same for Gloria De Piero with her arm waving, "Breakfast Television" schtick. I suppose it's been adjudged that that's what appeals to a lot of people - as it may well do. But it doesn't work for me.

To be fair to Gloria, she has earned her right to be there and not just because of her TV background; she is defending a tiny majority in Ashfield of just 192, the seat nearly going to the Lib Dems in 2010 because of the controversy surrounding Geoff Hoon. But she has worked hard for her constituents and she now has probably one of the safer seats in that part of the country; and she's taken the lessons learned there into her work on the Doorstep team, to great effect apparently.

Hello.

Thanks for the reply. Yes - she's been successful and effective. That can't be taken away from her. Please view my post as more of an art or drama critique! She just doesn't do anything for me (presentationally). In fact, I find her presentation off-putting. Superficial, I know. I find her far more palatable in writing (ie Labour Party e-mails). So it's not her views or ideas that I object to.

Body language is an important part of getting a speech across. Unfortunate if it's off putting.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Here's what the last Tory manifesto said:

Labour have refused to address the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’: the unfair situation of Scottish MPs voting on matters which are devolved.

A Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and
Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.

Anyone understand what that means and is it the same as simply refusing to have non-English-seated MPs not voting?

It appears to mean that if a Bill relating to (for example) HS2 was passed, but more English MPs voted against it then total MPs from all countries voted for it then the vote would be invalid. Nonsensical, probably not workable (which is why it stayed in the manifesto and never made it to the House) and manifestly not the same as banning non-English MPs, simply that you can ignore their vote when it suits you.

But I could be wrong of course.

yahyah wrote:I know I moaned about sweary posting recently but feel an 'Oh ****' moment myself on reading this.

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h
SNP take 16% lead in post-IndyRef 2016 Holyrood election (const) from Survation has %:-
SNP 49.2
LAB 32.7
CON 13.4
LD 3.4
UKIP 0.2
GRN 0.6

There was me dreaming of Gordon Brown as First Minister.
Not good for the Lib Dems though, and interesting to see how low the Greens are compared to their 5 to 6% nationally.


Edited to add:

Holyrood - Constituency results 2011
SNP 45.4%
Labour 31.7%
Tories 13.9%
Lib Dem 5.2% [they were on 11.3% in 2007]

It is a long time to 2016, the SNP are riding the crest of the independence wave.

Has Nick Clegg said anything yet about David Cameron's attempted stitch-up, and reneging on, the "Pledge" to Scotland? I haven't seen anything. (I've seen Paddy Ashdown's comments which are over on Andrew Sparrow's blog in the Guardian - but Nick Clegg is conspicuous by his absence (I think).)

PorFavor wrote:Has Nick Clegg said anything yet about David Cameron's attempted stitch-up, and reneging on, the "Pledge" to Scotland? I haven't seen anything. (I've seen Paddy Ashdown's comments which are over on Andrew Sparrow's blog in the Guardian - but Nick Clegg is conspicuous by his absence (I think).)

Clegg has sounded vaguely supportive, Alexander has basically said FO.

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Has Nick Clegg said anything yet about David Cameron's attempted stitch-up, and reneging on, the "Pledge" to Scotland? I haven't seen anything. (I've seen Paddy Ashdown's comments which are over on Andrew Sparrow's blog in the Guardian - but Nick Clegg is conspicuous by his absence (I think).)

Clegg has sounded vaguely supportive, Alexander has basically said FO.

They'll capitulate and support Cameron. Something will be being promised in Dodgy Dave's back room. Clegg won't give a monkeys about what his grassroots think if he thinks there is something in it for him and his cohort. Can write the script now really ... got valuable amendments and safeguards to ensure fairness and curb excesses, blah, blah, blah. Roughly translated as Dave hinted I might be able to sit next to him sometimes at some time in the future and enjoy a second hand power hit from the whiff of his posh body odour.

It will be well worth watching Channel 4 news tonight for those interested in the ongoing badger cull shambles and Defra ... yet another government department completely unfit for purpose and in total chaos ...

rebeccariots2 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Has Nick Clegg said anything yet about David Cameron's attempted stitch-up, and reneging on, the "Pledge" to Scotland? I haven't seen anything. (I've seen Paddy Ashdown's comments which are over on Andrew Sparrow's blog in the Guardian - but Nick Clegg is conspicuous by his absence (I think).)

Clegg has sounded vaguely supportive, Alexander has basically said FO.

They'll capitulate and support Cameron. Something will be being promised in Dodgy Dave's back room. Clegg won't give a monkeys about what his grassroots think if he thinks there is something in it for him and his cohort. Can write the script now really ... got valuable amendments and safeguards to ensure fairness and curb excesses, blah, blah, blah. Roughly translated as Dave hinted I might be able to sit next to him sometimes at some time in the future and enjoy a second hand power hit from the whiff of his posh body odour.

No, I think Cameron's decision to run this as a stitch up for his own right wing has killed this off for the Lib Dems. Their Scottish MPs won't have it either.

The thing with all the opinion polls on this is that, yes having a go at the Scots is popular, but no it doesn't change how people vote.

Janet Wise, South West Devon CLP: "Vulnerable people will not survive another Tory Government." ... "In the name of the hundreds of people who have died while on the fit-for-work list, stop the march to the workhouse, elect a Labour Government in 2015."

(I hope I've quoted her exactly. Will try to check later, when this session of the Labour Party Conference is available on iPlayer.)

You have to register to read this Economist article (you can get 3 articles a week free) but it is an interesting read.

Tom ‏@TwitTommyTom 41m
Interesting idea > “@JeremyCliffe How Labour could get out of its English votes bind AND turn the tables on Cameron: http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/ ... only-votes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …”

rebeccariots2 wrote:It will be well worth watching Channel 4 news tonight for those interested in the ongoing badger cull shambles and Defra ... yet another government department completely unfit for purpose and in total chaos ...

The behaviour of Defra under this Government has been nothing less than shocking; but a Tory Government was always going to go easy on the farming industry, considering how many of them make money from that field (so to speak) themselves and how much they rely on those rural constituencies.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/new-sho ... fund-savei" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@yahyah - thank you.

@Roger/TGS -

Re. the Conservative manifesto doublespeak.......it means (I think) that if legislation pertaining to, say, Wales only is to be introduced, that can only be legitimate if MPs representing constituencies in Wales agree the to that legislation being introduced. Doesn't say all or a few....

Suppose a decision was taken to drown a Welsh village so that an area in England can have water (it's happened quite recently, in Capel Celyn, in 1965). The theory is that MPs from other countries would not be able vote on it unless MPs from Wales agree; it does not say ALL MPs from the relevant country, so presumably if that knob David Davies from Monmouth approved, it could.

Well, that's how I read it, anyway....

It doesn't matter, does it? It's not like the Tories have stuck to their manifesto, is it?

LadyCentauria wrote:Janet Wise, South West Devon CLP: "Vulnerable people will not survive another Tory Government." ... "In the name of the hundreds of people who have died while on the fit-for-work list, stop the march to the workhouse, elect a Labour Government in 2015."

(I hope I've quoted her exactly. Will try to check later, when this session of the Labour Party Conference is available on iPlayer.)

Sounds about right to me, so far as I can remember.

David Cameron’s rush to rewrite the rules in wake of Scottish referendum result is absurd, says his former Oxford tutor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46555.html

Yes, it's absurd. But then just about every policy introduced by this rabble has been absurd - and it hasn't stopped them yet.

rebeccariots2 wrote:You have to register to read this Economist article (you can get 3 articles a week free) but it is an interesting read.

Tom ‏@TwitTommyTom 41m
Interesting idea > “@JeremyCliffe How Labour could get out of its English votes bind AND turn the tables on Cameron: http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/ ... only-votes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …”

Their idea for PEVEL (proportional English votes for English laws) within the Westminster system doesn't really work, as their acknowledgment that they'd have to create some unelected MPs for the minor parties shows.

However for an English Parliament or Regional Assemblies having the same proportional voting system is pretty much essential. If the point is to give England the same as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then it'll require PR for those elected representatives.

As the article says if Miliband starts talking about proportional votes as part of this process then that will undermine the Tory attempt at English hegemony. It'll probably undermine Labour somewhat as well but frankly it's up to them to build public support in that case.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

David Cameron’s rush to rewrite the rules in wake of Scottish referendum result is absurd, says his former Oxford tutor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 46555.html

Yes, it's absurd. But then just about every policy introduced by this rabble has been absurd - and it hasn't stopped them yet.

Yes, indeed. I read that article. Desperate attempt at the end to back-pedal, by Vernon Bogdanovich (apologies if I've got the name wrong). David Cameron is usually so measured and sensible (or words to that effect), he claimed. Wildly inaccurately, as it happens.

No 10 states David Cameron will deliver on Scottish devolution promise
Downing Street moves to clarify intent after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenge PM on voting rights for Scottish MPs

No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs. [My Bold]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... on-promise

Hark - do I hear the thunder of back-pedalling emanating from the corridors of power?

I've been sort of enjoying this thread / exchange today - in an appalled kind of way.

Jim Sillars
‏@NaeFear
Let Yes assert new indy rule – no more ref – majority votes and seats at Holyrood 2016 enough #the45

Kevin Schofield ‏@schofieldkevin 2h
Spoken like a true democrat .... " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Kevin Schofield ‏@schofieldkevin 2h
For Jim Sillars' strategy to work, the SNP's manifesto would have to say a vote for them is a vote for Indy. Good luck with that.

Jim Sillars ‏@NaeFear 2h
Queenie intervened for No as she did in 1979. So no more softly-softly – we go for Republic #the45

Kevin Schofield ‏@schofieldkevin 2h
If you're anywhere near Jim Sillars right now, unplug his laptop. It's for his own good.

Did I hear that right? The pay freeze in local government has led to the lowest paid council workers falling under the NMW? How has that not been national news?

Spacedone wrote:Did I hear that right? The pay freeze in local government has led to the lowest paid council workers falling under the NMW? How has that not been national news?

How long have you got?

PorFavor wrote:

Spacedone wrote:Did I hear that right? The pay freeze in local government has led to the lowest paid council workers falling under the NMW? How has that not been national news?

How long have you got?

For years my husband worked as a groundsman for the local council...His wages were never more than a few pounds a week above the poverty line. We got so hard up, we had to discontinue his extra pension payments.
As I understand it, our council has now tendered out the work to a French company and the men remaining - lots of redundancies - have had to take wage cuts. So God knows how they're managing now.

ohsocynical wrote:No 10 states David Cameron will deliver on Scottish devolution promise
Downing Street moves to clarify intent after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenge PM on voting rights for Scottish MPs

No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs. [My Bold]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... on-promise

Hark - do I hear the thunder of back-pedalling emanating from the corridors of power?

No, but an ambiguity that was of some benefit to CMD has been removed.

Dave always intended the two issues would not be linked, however he allowed backbenchers to think they would be linked.

He faces a kicking now.

I want to see Parliaments of the regions, elected on FPTP with constituencies 1/3 the size of Westminster ones and elections every two years. To be held May. Regions would have all policies related to education, health, transport, welfare and industry devolved. Tax raising powers would be allowed, tax cutting powers not.

The UK parliament would allocate funding, set the budget including minimum tax rates in the UK, look after defence, law (Scottish law being an anomaly we have to live with) and broad cross region issues where required. This would include strategic UK transport infrastructure.