Monday 22nd September

[TheGrimSqueaker]

The EV4EL business is the biggest pile of shit yet promulgated on the back of the vote on the 18th. The West Lothian question is *irrelevant* if you accept that Westminster is the national parliament. Full stop. That's it. What's more, once you start excluding democratically elected MPs from votes in a parliament that they were elected to, where do you stop? HS2: OK, any MP whose constituency isn't directly affected by HS2 may no longer vote on the matter.

And any MP (or member of the House of Lords) who would materially benefit from a Bill may no longer vote on the matter - include that one in it and I'd be more open to supporting it.

[refitman]

Goodnight, everyone.

Goodnight PF

[LadyCentauria]

Excellent news - HT will recommend against going for academy status at Hove Park.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11488340 ... ?ref=var_0

I wish him the very best in fighting to avoid going for academy status. The school where a friend teaches has just launched the process to become an academy, against (apparently) all inclination but because it was the only avenue open to them if they were to get desperately needed funding. They were one of the schools who had been near the top of the waiting-list for rebuilding and repair funding (Schools for the Future fund?) when the current government came in and kiboshed it.

[rebeccariots2]

LabourList ‏@LabourList 19s
Liveblog: trade union delegates walk out of fringe event in protest of Mary Creagh speech on the railways #lab14 http://ow.ly/BMEMR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What on earth has she been saying ... is it that disappointing?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

LabourList ‏@LabourList 19s
Liveblog: trade union delegates walk out of fringe event in protest of Mary Creagh speech on the railways #lab14 http://ow.ly/BMEMR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What on earth has she been saying ... is it that disappointing?

The actual blog tells a tale of classic Lab conference stuff (my emphasis)

There are rumours that trade union delegates walked out of a fringe event that Mary Creagh, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, was speaking at because they felt that she was contradicting the rail policy that was agreed upon at the National Policy Forum.

[citizenJA]

Good afternoon, my friends.

[citizenJA]

Goodnight, everyone.

Goodnight PF

Good night, Refitman.

xx
JA

[citizenJA]

@TGS

And any MP (or member of the House of Lords) who would materially benefit from a Bill may no longer vote on the matter - include that one in it and I'd be more open to supporting it.

But won't someone think of the private sector landlord MPs?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Just heard Tim Farron fielding don't you agree with EV4EL shit from Tory wanker Peter Allen on five live.

He basically said fine, but only after we devolve power to the regions. Said it wasn't acceptable that a bunch of Tories in the South East got to rule the North.

Christ - I find myself agreeing with him. Quelle horreur.

The EV4EL business is the biggest pile of shit yet promulgated on the back of the vote on the 18th. The West Lothian question is *irrelevant* if you accept that Westminster is the national parliament. Full stop. That's it. What's more, once you start excluding democratically elected MPs from votes in a parliament that they were elected to, where do you stop? HS2: OK, any MP whose constituency isn't directly affected by HS2 may no longer vote on the matter.

And on and on it goes. The whole nonsense about EV4EL is simply last gasp gerrymandering. Have an English parliament? No, fuck off - why should the north's fate be decided by southern MPs whose interests may well be diametrically opposed to those of the people living in the north.

I stated my position a day or so back: a UK parliament as we have now passing umbrella national legislation. English regional assemblies - democratically elected - that can vary the bills passed, plus have additional powers over tax, spend, health, investment, etc, etc. Job's a good 'un.

Why wouldn't it work?

.

Regional assemblies, yes, but don't let them be dressed as parliaments, they'll be expected to sink or swim alone. There's been enough larceny already.

Let's give them all the powers of the Scottish Parliament, except law. The problem is finding regions that work. You need about 5-10 million people for economies of scale and they are probably an amalgamation of counties.

Problems start around issues like:

Where do you put lincs, are Notts, Derbs North or Midlands, where does Northants fit.

You need to create economic groupings so Warks is Midlands because of its relationship with Birmingham.

Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wilts are probably a grouping, although Somerset could join Devon and Cornwall.

Devon and Cornwall but Dorset?

Kent,Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, but what about Berks?

Do Bucks, Beds, Herts Cambs work?

What do you do with Oxon?

Or pick city states, but what do you do with the huge swathes of countryside (like middle England).

[citizenJA]

I'm developing a deep, simmering hatred for the Guardian and everything it stands for.

The only reason I haven't totally abandoned the Guardian for the Independent is the appallingly bad comments setup at the Indy. I rarely look ATL at the Guardian now; more sense is spoken, and better information provided, BTL than above. Not today though, with the goat munchers swarming all over the place.

Exactly - me too

[RogerOThornhill]

Just watching C4 News about Tesco. If tesco works the same way we used to it's a bit liek this.

1. We'd report monthly results and at the end of each quarter we'd update our forecasts so that HO would know what we'd be forecasting for half year and year end.
2. At the end of month 5 we'd report actual and a 6 month forecast which we were expected to get as close (without cheating!) to what we'd be reporting the following month. It's this forecast which then got reported to the City as a trading update. But...and this is important for PwC...this forecast wouldn't be audited. This is how management could cover up losses but the trouble is that eventually it'd get found out.

3. At the end of month 6 we'd do our usual actual results and the auditors would come in and go through it spending a lot of time over figures where there's an element of subjectivity - stock valuation, asset valuation, accruals etc.

What interests me is why Tesco haven't got their corporate audit department to investigate - that's what they're there for. Unless Tesco don't trust them either.

[frightful_oik]

Let's give them all the powers of the Scottish Parliament, except law. The problem is finding regions that work. You need about 5-10 million people for economies of scale and they are probably an amalgamation of counties.

Problems start around issues like:

Where do you put lincs, are Notts, Derbs North or Midlands, where does Northants fit.

You need to create economic groupings so Warks is Midlands because of its relationship with Birmingham.

Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wilts are probably a grouping, although Somerset could join Devon and Cornwall.

Devon and Cornwall but Dorset?

Kent,Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, but what about Berks?

Do Bucks, Beds, Herts Cambs work?

What do you do with Oxon?

Or pick city states, but what do you do with the huge swathes of countryside (like middle England).

Well, there are the current regions for NHS England Area teams - it would probably help to have some co-terminosity with NHS regions. The current areas are a bit small and are likely to be merged somewhat, but there are the old regions - South East Coast (Kent, Surrey, Sussex), South Central, South West etc etc. These fit in well enough with LA areas. It's not a new idea.

Or the TV areas perhaps. Derbyshire is definitely Midlands btw.

[ohsocynical]

Goodnight, everyone.

Night PF

[citizenJA]

Just back from hitting a few charity shops...

Let no one convince you times are getting better. It's pretty obvious that slightly better off families off are the ones that keep donations ticking over.

Today, I was shocked by how little stock a couple of shops had, and although this was my first visit in over a month, I recognised stuff sitting on the shelves from the last time.
It easily compares to how I remember the last recession and there is absolutely no sign of things getting better.

Yep. That's exactly what I've noticed as well - when charity shops are having a tough time keeping clothing stocked, there's a long-term economic problem. I'm in the Midlands.

[Hobiejoe]

Let's give them all the powers of the Scottish Parliament, except law. The problem is finding regions that work. You need about 5-10 million people for economies of scale and they are probably an amalgamation of counties.

Problems start around issues like:

Where do you put lincs, are Notts, Derbs North or Midlands, where does Northants fit.

You need to create economic groupings so Warks is Midlands because of its relationship with Birmingham.

Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wilts are probably a grouping, although Somerset could join Devon and Cornwall.

Devon and Cornwall but Dorset?

Kent,Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, but what about Berks?

Do Bucks, Beds, Herts Cambs work?

What do you do with Oxon?

Or pick city states, but what do you do with the huge swathes of countryside (like middle England).

Well, there are the current regions for NHS England Area teams - it would probably help to have some co-terminosity with NHS regions. The current areas are a bit small and are likely to be merged somewhat, but there are the old regions - South East Coast (Kent, Surrey, Sussex), South Central, South West etc etc. These fit in well enough with LA areas. It's not a new idea.

Or the TV areas perhaps. Derbyshire is definitely Midlands btw.

TV areas sounds like a good idea - local news coverage, or what there is left of it these days, must already define a region for those within it. Obviously this is more apparent down here in Devon, where the geography is easily delineated, but having said that we're seeing more news from as far afield as Bristol these days. I would guess that a SW region would have to extend at least as far as Gloucestershire to muster a population of 5 million to make a decent sized devolved region.


Edited to add that the Cornish won't be too happy with the idea of sharing power with the edge of the Cotswolds......

[seeingclearly]

Christ - I find myself agreeing with him. Quelle horreur.

The EV4EL business is the biggest pile of shit yet promulgated on the back of the vote on the 18th. The West Lothian question is *irrelevant* if you accept that Westminster is the national parliament. Full stop. That's it. What's more, once you start excluding democratically elected MPs from votes in a parliament that they were elected to, where do you stop? HS2: OK, any MP whose constituency isn't directly affected by HS2 may no longer vote on the matter.

And on and on it goes. The whole nonsense about EV4EL is simply last gasp gerrymandering. Have an English parliament? No, fuck off - why should the north's fate be decided by southern MPs whose interests may well be diametrically opposed to those of the people living in the north.

I stated my position a day or so back: a UK parliament as we have now passing umbrella national legislation. English regional assemblies - democratically elected - that can vary the bills passed, plus have additional powers over tax, spend, health, investment, etc, etc. Job's a good 'un.

Why wouldn't it work?

.

Regional assemblies, yes, but don't let them be dressed as parliaments, they'll be expected to sink or swim alone. There's been enough larceny already.

Let's give them all the powers of the Scottish Parliament, except law. The problem is finding regions that work. You need about 5-10 million people for economies of scale and they are probably an amalgamation of counties.

Problems start around issues like:

Where do you put lincs, are Notts, Derbs North or Midlands, where does Northants fit.

You need to create economic groupings so Warks is Midlands because of its relationship with Birmingham.

Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wilts are probably a grouping, although Somerset could join Devon and Cornwall.

Devon and Cornwall but Dorset?

Kent,Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, but what about Berks?

Do Bucks, Beds, Herts Cambs work?

What do you do with Oxon?

Or pick city states, but what do you do with the huge swathes of countryside (like middle England).

Middle England shouldn't be a special case, if it has to work with the cities that's a benefit, I'm not sure how you split things but we don't need too many regions, people need to work together find common cause, as Gordon put it. Be inclusive. Stop thinking I, me, mine. Become us, we, our. Put some of the geographically close but socially disparate together. Shake the comforting stereotypes up a bit so they start seeing each other's humanity.

[seeingclearly]

Just back from hitting a few charity shops...

Let no one convince you times are getting better. It's pretty obvious that slightly better off families off are the ones that keep donations ticking over.

Today, I was shocked by how little stock a couple of shops had, and although this was my first visit in over a month, I recognised stuff sitting on the shelves from the last time.
It easily compares to how I remember the last recession and there is absolutely no sign of things getting better.

Yep. That's exactly what I've noticed as well - when charity shops are having a tough time keeping clothing stocked, there's a long-term economic problem. I'm in the Midlands.

It's not just clothes. Furniture took do other household. I've been looking for a couple of items freely available brand new, but I prefer pre-used when possible. Both items are lower end, and I'm in no hurry, couldn't help but notice the dearth in general at the cheap end, also the glut of expensive stuff which makes me think people higher up the ladder are also finding it a lot harder. That's on and off line. A local charity used to be stocked to the ceiling, it's pretty sparse now.

[seeingclearly]

TV regions is a great idea, it avoids so many problems. Defining boundaries is harder, but not insurmountable.

[ohsocynical]

@LadyCentuaria: CitizenJA: SeeingClearly:

One charity shop we visit is a one off for a local charity. We've been going there for years and they've always kept their prices in line with the fact it's second hand goods they're selling. It's always heaved at the seams with stock, but even they are looking a a bit bare.
They do small electrical items that have been properly inspected and checked. I found a hairdryer today for £2. So that'll join the electric jug, and toaster both £3, that are in the garage if we need a spare. I'm sick of buying new and having it go home, usually just as the guarantee expires.
There is one of those hospice shops literally yards away that recently opened, and we went there once, but came out reeling at the prices...We don't bother any more.

I particularly go for books but stopped buying when they got to £2:85 for a paperback. It was silly. Thankfully they've all dropped back to £1.50 for a spotless hardback and a pound for a paperback.
It's still a lot of money when you're on a small income and get through as many books as I do in a month. I miss jumbles sales but they're always the first victims of the recession.

[diGriz]

@LadyCentuaria: CitizenJA: SeeingClearly:

One charity shop we visit is a one off for a local charity. We've been going there for years and they've always kept their prices in line with the fact it's second hand goods they're selling. It's always heaved at the seams with stock, but even they are looking a a bit bare.
They do small electrical items that have been properly inspected and checked. I found a hairdryer today for £2. So that'll join the electric jug, and toaster both £3, that are in the garage if we need a spare. I'm sick of buying new and having it go home, usually just as the guarantee expires.
There is one of those hospice shops literally yards away that recently opened, and we went there once, but came out reeling at the prices...We don't bother any more.

I particularly go for books but stopped buying when they got to £2:85 for a paperback. It was silly. Thankfully they've all dropped back to £1.50 for a spotless hardback and a pound for a paperback.
It's still a lot of money when you're on a small income and get through as many books as I do in a month. I miss jumbles sales but they're always the first victims of the recession.

I'll chip in and say AgeUK. Much more reasonable prices. Hi all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but Scotland has just been rather embarrassingly begged to stay in the Union by Cameron. No mention there of Scottish MPs losing powers.

How can he now reduce those powers?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but Scotland has just been rather embarrassingly begged to stay in the Union by Cameron. No mention there of Scottish MPs losing powers.

How can he now reduce those powers?

It is the equivalent of hiding in the girls toilets from a gang of big angry boys outside looking for blood. Those backbenchers aren't happy, and Cameron fears he is in for a beating.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Talking of which that Cameron summit has gone quiet. This from the BBC may explain why.

Coffee questions
So that is the position, at least for now.

Scottish devolution is not dependent on English devolution.

But that is not what many Conservative MPs believed on Friday and believe now is the case.

For many of them, it is both or nothing.

The PM has invited the following MPs to Chequers on Monday to hear their views about this: Peter Lilley, John Redwood, Margot James, Graham Brady, Bernard Jenkin, Heather Wheeler, Dominic Grieve, Rory Stewart, Guto Bebb and James Wharton.

Some of those MPs have told me already that they were worried about the gap between the PM's tough language and what they see as William Hague's cautious equivocation on Friday.

I imagine now they will have one or two pressing questions for the prime minister over coffee on the terrace at Chequers.

[ErnstRemarx]

Talking of which that Cameron summit has gone quiet. This from the BBC may explain why.

Coffee questions
So that is the position, at least for now.

Scottish devolution is not dependent on English devolution.

But that is not what many Conservative MPs believed on Friday and believe now is the case.

For many of them, it is both or nothing.

The PM has invited the following MPs to Chequers on Monday to hear their views about this: Peter Lilley, John Redwood, Margot James, Graham Brady, Bernard Jenkin, Heather Wheeler, Dominic Grieve, Rory Stewart, Guto Bebb and James Wharton.

Some of those MPs have told me already that they were worried about the gap between the PM's tough language and what they see as William Hague's cautious equivocation on Friday.

I imagine now they will have one or two pressing questions for the prime minister over coffee on the terrace at Chequers.

I'm sure they will.

I can't help feeling that in his eagerness to put Labour in a difficult position over 'English votes', he's done his usual thing and failed to think it through properly - as usual. So now he's got everyone on his back, including the FibDems, Labour, his backbenchers, The Telegraph (Oborne) to mention but a few.

That's what you get when you rule by sound byte and think up 'policy' over a steak and a bottle of ChateauNeuf du Pape, rather than doing it properly. Oh, and it makes him look even more shallow and shifty than ever.

Didn't you just know that this would be the outcome?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Wintour is still hyping up "Labour crisis" over this for all its worth, though.....

[TechnicalEphemera]

Wintour is still hyping up "Labour crisis" over this for all its worth, though.....

Yes he is, but Wintour is an arse.

Satisfying to see the BBC leading with the NHS story rather than this rubbish.

[RogerOThornhill]

I'm guessing that after his meeting - and after the Cabinet Secretary has had a word and told not to be so damn silly - Cameron will come over all Prime Ministerial and say "Of course, we are always going to have all party talks on this. That was never in doubt".

[LadyCentauria]

@LadyCentuaria: CitizenJA: SeeingClearly:

One charity shop we visit is a one off for a local charity. We've been going there for years and they've always kept their prices in line with the fact it's second hand goods they're selling. It's always heaved at the seams with stock, but even they are looking a a bit bare.
They do small electrical items that have been properly inspected and checked. I found a hairdryer today for £2. So that'll join the electric jug, and toaster both £3, that are in the garage if we need a spare. I'm sick of buying new and having it go home, usually just as the guarantee expires.
There is one of those hospice shops literally yards away that recently opened, and we went there once, but came out reeling at the prices...We don't bother any more.

I particularly go for books but stopped buying when they got to £2:85 for a paperback. It was silly. Thankfully they've all dropped back to £1.50 for a spotless hardback and a pound for a paperback.
It's still a lot of money when you're on a small income and get through as many books as I do in a month. I miss jumbles sales but they're always the first victims of the recession.

I'll chip in and say AgeUK. Much more reasonable prices. Hi all.

Some excellent bargains to be had up your way, @ohso! I am usually after books, too.

@diGriz: There is no AgeUK shop nearby but credit to the Missing Persons' shop, here – they have one (under a fiver!) price for trousers/jeans, one for jumpers, one for shirts/t-shirts/blouses, one for kids' clothing, and good prices on books, too. Plus they always do great topical window-displays, usually relating to sporting events or national occasions.

[ErnstRemarx]

I'm guessing that after his meeting - and after the Cabinet Secretary has had a word and told not to be so damn silly - Cameron will come over all Prime Ministerial and say "Of course, we are always going to have all party talks on this. That was never in doubt".

It depends on whether there are any remaining vestiges of propriety in the Tory party, and any sense that the constitution (unwritten, I'm aware) of the UK is rather too precious to fuck about with for party advantage. Some MPs will get that completely, but the Osbornes of this world won't care. Cameron doesn't care, mainly because he's too shallow to understand that screwing about with the fundamental building blocks of the British state isn't about him winning in 2015; it's about the people of the UK winning - something that he would be unable to comprehend.

To most Tories, I suspect, politics and so forth is a zero sum game: I've got more power and wealth, ergo you must have less of both. If I delegate powers to the provincials, I'll have less for me and less influence. If I am less desirable as a political figure then I am less employable and my earning capacity is harmed.

That's what they'll be thinking.

That, and can they screw over other parties by appealing to Daily Star readers in this manner (answer: DS readers probably don't give a fuck about the West Lothian question or the British constitutional settlement, unless she's got nice tits).

Should be interesting to see how it works out, but my contempt for those pretending that Labour is 'anti English' is already healthily off the scale. Their antics disgust me and their partisanship has no place in such a debate.

[RogerOThornhill]

I'm guessing that after his meeting - and after the Cabinet Secretary has had a word and told not to be so damn silly - Cameron will come over all Prime Ministerial and say "Of course, we are always going to have all party talks on this. That was never in doubt".

It depends on whether there are any remaining vestiges of propriety in the Tory party, and any sense that the constitution (unwritten, I'm aware) of the UK is rather too precious to fuck about with for party advantage. Some MPs will get that completely, but the Osbornes of this world won't care. Cameron doesn't care, mainly because he's too shallow to understand that screwing about with the fundamental building blocks of the British state isn't about him winning in 2015; it's about the people of the UK winning - something that he would be unable to comprehend.

To most Tories, I suspect, politics and so forth is a zero sum game: I've got more power and wealth, ergo you must have less of both. If I delegate powers to the provincials, I'll have less for me and less influence. If I am less desirable as a political figure then I am less employable and my earning capacity is harmed.

That's what they'll be thinking.

That, and can they screw over other parties by appealing to Daily Star readers in this manner (answer: DS readers probably don't give a fuck about the West Lothian question or the British constitutional settlement, unless she's got nice tits).

Should be interesting to see how it works out, but my contempt for those pretending that Labour is 'anti English' is already healthily off the scale. Their antics disgust me and their partisanship has no place in such a debate.

Interesting that Bernard Jenkin is on that invite list - he's pretty solid on procedural stuff.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Wintour is still hyping up "Labour crisis" over this for all its worth, though.....

Meh. Wintour is a very limited creature, journo equivalent of a pit bull; once he gets his teeth into something he won't let go, up to (and including) the point where the oncoming train hits him. Even the trolls don't take him seriously any more.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Interesting that Bernard Jenkin is on that invite list - he's pretty solid on procedural stuff.

Yes he is. Had he not been so anti-Europe, he'd have be in the Cabinet.

Charles Walker has also been good and non-partisan as chair of the procedures committee. Hammered Gove.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's exactly what they'll be thinking, because that's how Tories think. When I had the misfortune to have to work with the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2008-10, the Tory councillors were emphatically not small government. The leader of the council wanted to take over the NHS and wrote gleeful newspaper editorials insisting that was what he was going to do after the election. He got in trouble by mouthing off about free schools because they were going to take his power over education away. The Tories loved the word 'localism', rolling it around their mouths like a Werther's Original, but what they meant by localism was that they, as 'local' councillors, should have more power. Their slogan was 'Conservatives Locally'.

Of course, what happened when the Tories got into power was a massive centralisation. Health and education were both substantially raided for powers by central government (a few tidbits were thrown back with health to appease the LibDems), while police and crime commissioners and changes to the planning laws substantially weakened local government grip.

So basically, you're spot on. Tories want to have power. They don't even want other Tories to have power, they want it themselves. No wonder the Tory party has been unmanageable for so much of its recent history - it's made up of rampant individualists.

Funnily enough, I had good experience of a Tory chairing a scrutiny committee, Eric Ollerenshaw, on Hackney Council.

I expect he's a good MP.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I'm guessing that after his meeting - and after the Cabinet Secretary has had a word and told not to be so damn silly - Cameron will come over all Prime Ministerial and say "Of course, we are always going to have all party talks on this. That was never in doubt".

It depends on whether there are any remaining vestiges of propriety in the Tory party, and any sense that the constitution (unwritten, I'm aware) of the UK is rather too precious to fuck about with for party advantage. Some MPs will get that completely, but the Osbornes of this world won't care. Cameron doesn't care, mainly because he's too shallow to understand that screwing about with the fundamental building blocks of the British state isn't about him winning in 2015; it's about the people of the UK winning - something that he would be unable to comprehend.

To most Tories, I suspect, politics and so forth is a zero sum game: I've got more power and wealth, ergo you must have less of both. If I delegate powers to the provincials, I'll have less for me and less influence. If I am less desirable as a political figure then I am less employable and my earning capacity is harmed.

That's what they'll be thinking.

That's exactly what they'll be thinking, because that's how Tories think. When I had the misfortune to have to work with the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2008-10, the Tory councillors were emphatically not small government. The leader of the council wanted to take over the NHS and wrote gleeful newspaper editorials insisting that was what he was going to do after the election. He got in trouble by mouthing off about free schools because they were going to take his power over education away. The Tories loved the word 'localism', rolling it around their mouths like a Werther's Original, but what they meant by localism was that they, as 'local' councillors, should have more power. Their slogan was 'Conservatives Locally'.

Of course, what happened when the Tories got into power was a massive centralisation. Health and education were both substantially raided for powers by central government (a few tidbits were thrown back with health to appease the LibDems), while police and crime commissioners and changes to the planning laws substantially weakened local government grip.

So basically, you're spot on. Tories want to have power. They don't even want other Tories to have power, they want it themselves. No wonder the Tory party has been unmanageable for so much of its recent history - it's made up of rampant individualists.

Lock a group of Tories in a room and it is like watching a remake of Highlander .... "There can be only one!". Mind you, locking them in a room could well be the most sensible solution.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Miliband described on ITV as being under pressure, though they did say he'd made well-regarded speeches before and his party were ahead in polls. Lots on his personal ratings though, and a shot of him getting something out of his pocket while sitting down when something was being set up.

[ErnstRemarx]

That's exactly what they'll be thinking, because that's how Tories think. When I had the misfortune to have to work with the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2008-10, the Tory councillors were emphatically not small government. The leader of the council wanted to take over the NHS and wrote gleeful newspaper editorials insisting that was what he was going to do after the election. He got in trouble by mouthing off about free schools because they were going to take his power over education away. The Tories loved the word 'localism', rolling it around their mouths like a Werther's Original, but what they meant by localism was that they, as 'local' councillors, should have more power. Their slogan was 'Conservatives Locally'.

Of course, what happened when the Tories got into power was a massive centralisation. Health and education were both substantially raided for powers by central government (a few tidbits were thrown back with health to appease the LibDems), while police and crime commissioners and changes to the planning laws substantially weakened local government grip.

So basically, you're spot on. Tories want to have power. They don't even want other Tories to have power, they want it themselves. No wonder the Tory party has been unmanageable for so much of its recent history - it's made up of rampant individualists.

Funnily enough, I had good experience of a Tory chairing a scrutiny committee, Eric Ollerenshaw, on Hackney Council.

I expect he's a good MP.

You've been lucky Tubs. My experience is rather like Robert's: these are people who are in it for themselves and will do as they are told if they think that it will lead to them empowering or enriching themselves. I've seen it up here it council, where the Tories are quite shameless in trying to corrupt the overview and scrutiny committee into being a purely political occasion.

The Tories were given the Chair of O&S by the Leader (big mistake in my opinion) and the leader of the Tory group put himself in the Chair. First meeting, he invokes a little visited rule to demand whether the Labour members had been whipped to vote in a particular way. The answer of course was 'no' and I'm sure e looked a bit bewildered. We don't whip O&S members to get them to vote - they are there to fulfill a job of work and to scrutinise policy as presented, not to grandstand and make a political point. Something that the Tories appear to be singularly incapable of grasping. It was the same last year, and in 2012, and if we're daft enough to give them the Chair in 2015, it will be the same then.

They act that way because they have no conception of public service. They only have a conception of self service. And that is how the Tory party works, has always worked and will always work.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ed Balls - you ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

I wish. I really think he should be moved. I actually quite like him as a man but he's doing Labour no favours.
Reeves is a bean-counter by trade. Umunna understands business. Why not them, if Labour insist on neo-liberal policies?
I just don't understand it - Miliband is good, but he gets let down by his choices of senior cabinet people. He needs to reshuffle.
.

I like Sadiq Khan, and think he's a bit wasted at Justice- Andrew Slaughter could do that.

I know Khan has London mayor ambitions, but think he should be in a top Shadow Cabinet brief.

[ErnstRemarx]

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

I'm not usually one for Polly Toynbee's version of the world, as something generally goes astray between her thoughts and the paper, but this is a pretty sober effort and, pleasingly, hasn't been opened up to Trollsville, AZ, for comments. I usually check out PT's articles to see who amongst the trolls can get the phrase "Tuscan villa" in once comments are opened. Usually happens in about 5 minutes or so. Bless.

[RogerOThornhill]

I see the Express is reporting that UKIP will go into the election promising the end of Inheritance tax. Massive irrelevance for 95% of people but it sounds good.

Express...isn't that where their new PR man came from? Oh...

[Tubby Isaacs]

Seamus Milne is good.

Really? His articles on the Falklands are festering tripe with an aversion to fact

I've never understood the aversion of the far left to the Falkland Islanders.

One of them on another board called them "in bred farmers". Another chap replied "Chigi Islanders- in bred fishermen".

I wish the Thatcher government had followed through on its first instincts to do a leaseback arrangement with Argentina. But having invaded, under a group of horrible people who made Thatcher look like Gandhi, that can't be appropriate now.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see the Express is reporting that UKIP will go into the election promising the end of Inheritance tax. Massive irrelevance for 95% of people but it sounds good.

Express...isn't that where their new PR man came from? Oh...

I'd have thought the old Osborne policy was quite sufficient.

Of course none of these rich people will have done well out of mass immigration or anything....

[55DegreesNorth]

Tristram Hunt facing the poisonous Kuernssberg on Newsnight and doing a pretty good job. Of convincing me that he might be worth a cabinet post, but not Education, about which he always sounds lukewarm.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Tristram Hunt facing the poisonous Kuernssberg on Newsnight and doing a pretty good job. Of convincing me that he might be worth a cabinet post, but not Education, about which he always sounds lukewarm.

I think he's all right in Education. Glad he's getting better in the media.

I saw him have some problems with Andrew Neil over what would you do with your kids sort of stuff, but policy detail he's OK.

[JustMom]

Just back from hitting a few charity shops...

Let no one convince you times are getting better. It's pretty obvious that slightly better off families off are the ones that keep donations ticking over.

Today, I was shocked by how little stock a couple of shops had, and although this was my first visit in over a month, I recognised stuff sitting on the shelves from the last time.
It easily compares to how I remember the last recession and there is absolutely no sign of things getting better.

Yep. That's exactly what I've noticed as well - when charity shops are having a tough time keeping clothing stocked, there's a long-term economic problem. I'm in the Midlands.

It's not just clothes. Furniture took do other household. I've been looking for a couple of items freely available brand new, but I prefer pre-used when possible. Both items are lower end, and I'm in no hurry, couldn't help but notice the dearth in general at the cheap end, also the glut of expensive stuff which makes me think people higher up the ladder are also finding it a lot harder. That's on and off line. A local charity used to be stocked to the ceiling, it's pretty sparse now.

Yes,we have been looking for a washing machine in the charity shops,it's really hard to find anything......

[TechnicalEphemera]

Read Jenkins article in the Guardian. He is a grade A1 knobhead.

[seeingclearly]

The Monstering of Human Rights

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/09/22 ... an-rights/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm wondering why Hague agreed to take this constitutional job on. It's clear already what his party want.

That's not ex-Foreign Secretary level work.

[refitman]

Read Jenkins article in the Guardian. He is a grade A1 knobhead.

Which one? That doesn't really narrow it down.

[pk1]

Yes,we have been looking for a washing machine in the charity shops,it's really hard to find anything......

Have a look at the Facebook selling page of your nearest town ie. I look at Brighton Selling Page.

Sometimes there are some right good bargains to be had. A nearly new 6" fridge/freezer was for sale at £50 last week !

[seeingclearly]

RR2, about the revised badger statistics.... It a damning story, I kept wondering who profited from it all. Perhaps because as an artist I know what happens elsewhere to demised badgers. I'll freely admit to not keeping a close eye on figures, I'm a visual thinker, and find it all very disturbing. Globally there's a big trade and potentially a lot of profit. How does this story impact on this years cull? It seems far fetched that it was a mistake, computers act on the data you give them, they don't randomly generate their own. Some one did the inputting, and it's usually obvious when there are huge discrepancies.

The IT systems at Defra are in utter chaos and have been for about 3 years now. We lived with no statistics being produced for over a year and then we started to get them from their new 'SAM' system - but in restricted form so much less useful than before. Then they had to admit they were hideously wrong - twice - and now we've just had another admission they are wrong again - yet another retrospective revision downwards.

It's all part of Defra being totally unfit for purpose. Totally infiltrated and politicised - like every other govt dept these days. And not helped by Spelman offering up massive budget cuts at Defra when she was SoS there - in a bid to cosy up to Dave. Fat lot of good that did her.

The blinkered zeal for badger culling has nothing to do with TB IMO - there is so much evidence that it doesn't work, isn't worthwhile and could actually make it worse. It is about a certain type of landowner wanting to be able to kill whatever they want to wherever they want to on their land ... The mythical narrative that is put out all the time about badgers and TB spiralling out of control is - similar to IDS and his families where no one in several generations has ever worked - something that is perpetuated in order to hang the bloodlust on. You only have to be on the ground in the cull zones to see how few of the farms, land holdings have any cattle. It is extraordinary that we have never even seen a milk lorry in the lanes in all our time there. It's pheasants, horses, fruit farms in the main. Shame on them for participating.

The TB stats and their gross overestimation were very convenient. Incompetence working in the killers favour.

Rant over. I am now a firm believer in direct action. It is immensely satisfying to actually do something about it.

I knew it wasn't about TB , because by an odd coincidence I came across a parliamentary document relating to animal conditions where healthy animals are rendered vulnerable to infection due to specific lack of minerals in the soil, TB being the main cause for concern. IIRC the mineral is selenium, and the way to keep animals healthy is by injecting b12. It was very detailed, by livestock veterinarians who also explained why those soil conditions occurred. It impacts human health as deficient animals lead to deficient humans. I probably have made some error in describing this as I'm no scientist, it came my way because I have very severe b12 deficiency, nothing to do with bovine deficiencies, and was researching it. I was quite surprised to find cattle could be treated more regularly than humans.

Edited to add - forgot to say the geological area in which this deficiency occurs is practically the same as the cull area, it read as though it had been known about for years.