They published it before the vote? it's democracy gone mad I tell you.
I know, you'd think a summary leaked to The Sun and a notice that parliament would going to be voting for something would be enough. What if the legislation gets into the hands of terrorists?
The sneaky bit is that the Secretary of State can make an order for any of the reasons in s22(2) of RIPA. These reasons are:
"(a) in the interests of national security;
(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d)in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f)for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g)for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health;
(gA) because I don't like the colour of your hair; or . (h)for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State."
I am not entirely sure about (gA).
gA = ginger Alexander - they've never got on since our Danny made a non-complimentary comment about our Teresa's shoes.
I think the right to intercept all data relating to those with ginger hair is subject to an order under (h) and is not particular to Danny as such. May be wrong though.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Of course they won't leave.
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
The If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
Flash , only a turnip could transpose the conversation into the Gyle closing.The jobs that require the brass plate move , are already working out of London. The Gyle will remain and most likely prosper in an independent Scotland. RBS could not afford the office space , get the staff, move the IT etc that closing the Gyle would involve. Wishful thinking in the minds of thick unionists only.
Why would the majority shareholder (HMG) agree to having most jobs in a foreign capital?
For the same reasons they will agree to a currency union, or to build warships in a foreign yard?
Asking for data retention just after admitting to losing files on a possible network of sexual deviants, and the data on flights that may be of interest on "special rendition"? You have to laugh really, unless of course they make that illegal as well.
On the contrary, it is entirely logical. Since our government cannot keep their own records it makes sense to require third parties to keep records for them.
@DavidL We used to have a running joke about the conspiracy laws. "We charge you that you did knowingly or unknowingly conspire with a person or persons unknown, to commit and unknown act at an unknown place and time"....."How do you plead?.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Of course they won't leave.
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
The If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
Flash , only a turnip could transpose the conversation into the Gyle closing.The jobs that require the brass plate move , are already working out of London. The Gyle will remain and most likely prosper in an independent Scotland. RBS could not afford the office space , get the staff, move the IT etc that closing the Gyle would involve. Wishful thinking in the minds of thick unionists only.
You should have a word with Eck - get his threatening call in to UBS
"In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said."
@DavidL We used to have a running joke about the conspiracy laws. "We charge you that you did knowingly or unknowingly conspire with a person or persons unknown, to commit and unknown act at an unknown place and time"....."How do you plead?.
It got less funny when they decided you were not entitled to hear the evidence.
@Richard_Nabavi Bringing the grievances to the attention of the public. Not that it will work, the media will be full of "inconvenienced public" wailing at the cameras, and calling for strikes to be made illegal. Democracy in action.
Since months worth of parliamentary scrutiny of the Dangerous Logs Act now need to be handled by Twitter over a weekend, here are some suggested emergency follows: JackOfKent LozKaye adambanksdotcom Cybermatron CasparBowden
Bringing the grievances to the attention of the public. Not that it will work, the media will be full of "inconvenienced public" wailing at the cameras, and calling for strikes to be made illegal. Democracy in action.
No, it won't work. Quite apart from anything else, because they've lumped together so many different 'grievances' from different groups, the message is completely unfocused.
Anyone know what this strike is supposed to achieve?
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
Bringing the grievances to the attention of the public. Not that it will work, the media will be full of "inconvenienced public" wailing at the cameras, and calling for strikes to be made illegal. Democracy in action.
No, it won't work. Quite apart from anything else, because they've lumped together so many different 'grievances' from different groups, the message is completely unfocused.
I think their grievance is "Labour were voted out".
Re the 'new' data retention proposals. GCHQ etc will be doing this lot already. Forcing the service providers to retain the data allows the rest of government easy access to it. It is RIPA all over again.
How long do the phone companies keep a record of all my texts, emails, internet use and phone calls so that they can do itemised billing and count my MB use?
Is keeping this information for billing different to the information the government is requesting from them?
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Yes, I agree. I think the Conservative Party is making a mistake on this. It's hard to argue that nowadays unions and strikes cause much damage.
@Richard_Nabavi What would you suggest they do? Have conversations and dialog with the relevant parties? Ask for arbitration? Or would you just prefer them to shut up and take what they are given like good little serfs of the beneficent state? And if they don't, jolly well legislate against the scum?
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
We've debated who gerrymandered whom dozens of times and time doesn't allow another canter round the course today, but I just wanted to pick up this odd passing remark about "whipping Speaker Martin". Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
I received a tory e-mail stating that Ed was on a sponsored silence about the strikes and had already raised £23m. He is not completely useless.
Its main effect on me is that a decision from the Inner House (appeal court) I am expecting has not been issued. This is annoying but not exactly disastrous. Of course in Scotland the schools are already off so no one will know if their staff are striking or not.
@Richard_Nabavi What would you suggest they do? Have conversations and dialog with the relevant parties? Ask for arbitration? Or would you just prefer them to shut up and take what they are given like good little serfs of the beneficent state? And if they don't, jolly well legislate against the scum?
Yes, the first three of those, in that order. Or they could try to get a better pension by moving to the private sector - good luck with that one. What I don't see is what this strike is for. It just seems to be a pointless moan.
Some information coming out on the terrorism emergency, which as speculated on the previous thread turns out to be that the government is being sued by ISPs having been deliberately breaking the law for several months.
But wait a minute, that can't possible be true. Tories on here have been telling us it's all been legal and proper for months.
I can't believe Nick Clegg is going along with all this. Clearly the Lib Dems commitment to liberty only applies to letting criminals off the hook easy. They don't actually give a damn about innocent people being spied on with no probable cause. Can't wait until they get smashed at the next election. They deserve everything that's coming to them.
Well said. I've never witnessed a party that was less 'liberal' or indeed less democratic. Utter shower.
A *superb* move by the Gov't to do this stuff on the same day as the strike, I must say - the entire focus could have been on Ed Miliband/union links today.
Well, the law states they can't access the content of calls or emails without a warrant. I support that position. If they are breaking the law, I deplore that. Not hard to understand, surely?
It is true that you have repeatedly said they are systematically breaking the law. The government, the independent Commissioner, and the Select Committee say they are not. Who to believe?
As the source I have linked explains clearly, there is a loophole in the law, whereby GCHQ isn't supposed to get email content directly from the citizens, but they get it from overseas cables, so it's still technically legal. Thus they can give out statements saying "everything we're doing is proportionate and legal", while still being highly misleading. You'll note they never allow follow-up questions on these matters, because the argument comes apart upon examination.
In addition, various establishment institutions told us that British troops did little wrong at Bloody Sunday, that the British colonial administration in Kenya did not torture people, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be deployed in 45 minutes and various other things that turned out to be completely untrue. The establishment has always had a strong belief that it must protect itself and its policies, and that lying to the public is necessary on occasion to do that.
It seems to be exactly your logic. I'm sure you have previously said that this stuff is necessary because the government says it is necessary. Thus you believe the right balance on this issue - a matter of state power versus individual privacy - is what the government says. Presumably if the government said something else was required, you'll think that is also necessary.
Those who actually know about the matter, in all Western democracies, disagree with you. Ignorance versus Knowledge: on balance, it's not hard to decide which to favour, is it?
Again, you are being simply inaccurate about saying all Western democracies disagree with me. Germany has directly complained about GCHQ mass surveillance, so you can't pass this off on them just being upset at the Americans:
So what we have is some Western governments doing something, while others disagree. And plenty of Western governments decided invading Iraq was a good idea, and plenty of others thought joining the Euro was a good idea. Many of us, with less access to information, had greater wisdom than they did and thought they were huge mistakes. Many of us were right, while those governments were wrong. This is a similar story.
A *superb* move by the Gov't to do this stuff on the same day as the strike, I must say - the entire focus could have been on Ed Miliband/union links today.
'retention' of the data. Not access to it withoiut the same sort of legal status s a wire tap or inteception of the snail mail. Why should I have the 'freedom' to be blown up? I have grown fed up of 'freedom' loving people who want to deport people on a whim.
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
We've debated who gerrymandered whom dozens of times and time doesn't allow another canter round the course today, but I just wanted to pick up this odd passing remark about "whipping Speaker Martin". Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
Didn't really need whipping with the stupid majority your lot had thanks to the ignoramus brigade 97-05. You could have got away with putting a greedy piggy in the chair. Oh, wait,,,,
Genuine question: Do public sector stikers get paid for days when they are on strike?
If 'No' then we should encourage more strikes.
Do teachers not have a wheeze where they refuse to confirm they are coming in, the head teacher has to close the school and then the teachers turn up and can collect their pay ?
The ability of the government to monitor the content of our web browsing, webcam calls, emails and social messaging is not a "balance". It's a carte blanche to the security services.
Leaving aside the point that the government does not have such power, that is a matter of opinion. What is more, it is one on which no sensible person would form an opinion without assessing the risk which any monitoring is intended to counter. That's hard, verging on impossible, for you or I to do, since we haven't had the security briefings.
However, as I have pointed out, it is very remarkable that, having had those briefings, democratic, liberal politicians in every single Western nation, including countries like Canada and Denmark - hardly bastions of intrusive authoritarianism - seem to come to much the same conclusion on where the balance should be struck.
There are two possible explanations for that remarkable fact. The first is a massive global conspiracy or some form of collective madness which suddenly afflicts people like Ming Campbell or Nick Clegg, across a huge range of countries and different political parties, as soon as they become closer to the actual decision. The second is the rather boring one that the threats are real and the powers of the security services are necessary and proportionate.
The latter is the more likely explanation.
'Massive global conspiracy' is silly language to describe something that is happening all around us in plain sight. Do countries and their leaders collabarate on these issues (read: do what America tells them) behind closed doors? Of course they do. The USA part-funded the building of GCHQ for goodness sake.
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
If I remember correctly, +/- 10% was the old tolerance used (with exceptions for the island constituencies). The new system introduced by the Coalition was for a stricter tolerance of +/-5% (with exceptions still).
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
Labour party policy but not one that they would support the govt on - riiiiight..
The 2010 and current boundaries are drawn up with a tolerance of +/- 10% on the seat size. That is your proposal.
The Coalition changed this to +/-5%, but you apparently agree with Labour about that being too strict.
Given the significant reductions in real earnings suffered by those above minimum wage in the public sector and the almost constant pressure to reduce their pension entitlements the remarkable thing is how rarely this dog has barked.
It shows that the membership are not oblivious to what has happened in the private sector and are perhaps even conscious in some areas at least that they were somewhat overpaid previously.
Year after year of reductions in standard of living is tough though and I suspect there is a good deal of frustration and anger boiling under. The situation is being aggravated the threat to security of employment which used to be one of the most attractive features of the public sector. Certainly in my wife's work ( a college) it has been round after round of redundancies with no obvious end in sight.
There is not much more than tokenism to this strike. I would not make too much of it and would not be entirely unsympathetic to be honest. The tories really do not want to create fights with unions they can avoid. It is in no one's interests.
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
We've debated who gerrymandered whom dozens of times and time doesn't allow another canter round the course today, but I just wanted to pick up this odd passing remark about "whipping Speaker Martin". Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
Then what happened to the convention that it should have been a tory after Labour's Boothroyd.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Of course they won't leave.
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
The If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
Flash , only a turnip could transpose the conversation into the Gyle closing.The jobs that require the brass plate move , are already working out of London. The Gyle will remain and most likely prosper in an independent Scotland. RBS could not afford the office space , get the staff, move the IT etc that closing the Gyle would involve. Wishful thinking in the minds of thick unionists only.
Why would the majority shareholder (HMG) agree to having most jobs in a foreign capital?
For the same reasons they will agree to a currency union, or to build warships in a foreign yard?
Why do they outsource jobs to foreign countries just now then, what about £450M MOD order to Korea, also where do they get the cash to build a yard and get the skills to do it in RUMP. Get a grip , if you are going to pontificate at least do it on something you can defend.
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
We've debated who gerrymandered whom dozens of times and time doesn't allow another canter round the course today, but I just wanted to pick up this odd passing remark about "whipping Speaker Martin". Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
Then what happened to the convention that it should have been a tory after Labour's Boothroyd.
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
If I remember correctly, +/- 10% was the old tolerance used (with exceptions for the island constituencies). The new system introduced by the Coalition was for a stricter tolerance of +/-5% (with exceptions still).
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
Labour party policy but not one that they would support the govt on - riiiiight..
The 2010 and current boundaries are drawn up with a tolerance of +/- 10% on the seat size. That is your proposal.
The Coalition changed this to +/-5%, but you apparently agree with Labour about that being too strict.
LOL
Why didn't a boundary review go through then ? Labour wouldn't support a 650 review.
David Cameron, he has been jutting his jaw all over the media.
Unions are important. I've always worked in the private sector but there have been a couple of times when I wish I had had a rep.
The problem for me is
1. they never seem to turn their considerable powers against Britain's gangmasters. Its always the public or the government.
2. they poke their noses in where they are not wanted. Seriously, shut the f8ck up about the wider world and get on with the job of representing workers.
@Socrates: Is it or is it not the case that Germany tracks email and phone metadata, exactly as we do? A simple one-word answer will do.
Once you've found out the answer to that (here's a hint: it begins with a 'Y'), you might like to ask the same question about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Sweden.
That is the point I was making. All Western democracies do much the same, and for much the same reasons.
Yes, the Germans have some concerns about what the Snowden stuff purports to show. That doesn't invalidate my point. If your argument is that the UK has the balance marginally wrong and we should adjust it to be the same as Germany's, then fine. But you're not arguing that - you are arguing, as I understand it, that these powers should not exist at all.
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Yes, I agree. I think the Conservative Party is making a mistake on this. It's hard to argue that nowadays unions and strikes cause much damage.
On the other hand a proper vote with a proper turnout with a proper majority would put strikers in a stronger position... certainly so where the employer is a private enterprise and strikers know that in striking they can ruin their own jobs. Likewise in a private enterprise company there is every incentive to deal with workers sensibly and have good industrial relations. Capitalism needs unions - as long as they are not playing politics. Red Robbo was a disaster for the car industry at the time but so was its management.
On the other hand public service workers can strike with impunity and disrupt the public at a relative minimal cost to themselves. There is an argument for making it illegal for public workers to strike !!!!
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
If I remember correctly, +/- 10% was the old tolerance used (with exceptions for the island constituencies). The new system introduced by the Coalition was for a stricter tolerance of +/-5% (with exceptions still).
I'm amused that your proposal is - except for the Highlands and Islands - in agreement with Labour Party policy.
Labour party policy but not one that they would support the govt on - riiiiight..
The 2010 and current boundaries are drawn up with a tolerance of +/- 10% on the seat size. That is your proposal.
The Coalition changed this to +/-5%, but you apparently agree with Labour about that being too strict.
LOL
Why didn't a boundary review go through then ? Labour wouldn't support a 650 review.
I have not heard of any proposal for a post-2010 review of the boundaries on the basis of 650 MPs and a tolerance of +/-10% - that would require a change in the law.
Just admit you made a mistake by proposing the Labour party policy. It happens.
Summary of the bill. If we can't spy on you, you will all die and your children will be handed to pedophiles!
You are not beiong spied on. Date is being retained so that that belongiong to people suspected of terrorism can be investigatred via a court order. If the police suspeted you of robbing a bank they could get a tap put on your phone.
@Flightpath Why not make all strikes illegal? The legislation would be simpler than contriving ever more complex rules to do the same thing. Perhaps we could raise the old "militias" to enforce the law. Conservatives, "The party of Victorian values" could be your new slogan?
I don't think Ed will make a speech at today's Union 'industrial' rally, he got booed last time he tried that. Besides, he's already said he doesn't support the strike.
@Socrates: Is it or is it not the case that Germany tracks email and phone metadata, exactly as we do? A simple one-word answer will do.
Once you've found out the answer to that (here's a hint: it begins with a 'Y'), you might like to ask the same question about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Sweden.
That is the point I was making. All Western democracies do much the same, and for much the same reasons.
Yes, the Germans have some concerns about what the Snowden stuff purports to show. That doesn't invalidate my point. If your argument is that the UK has the balance marginally wrong and we should adjust it to be the same as Germany's, then fine. But you're not arguing that - you are arguing, as I understand it, that these powers should not exist at all.
The most flagrant abuses I am concerned about are the accessing of content of emails, webcam conversations, private messages on social networks and web browsing habits. I have repeatedly and clearly stated this again and again, yet you continue to pick on one increment of the matter in an Alistair Campbell manner.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that BND spies on the electronic metadata of its own citizens. However, the email metadata is a much smaller matter that is not at the crux of my concerns.
In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said.
Bankrupt lame ducks may need to relocate to bankrupt UK to keep getting subsidised. Scotland will be left with only real banks. WE are trembling in our boots.
If Lloyds and RBS move south of the border, what banks are left?
Airdrie Savings Bank.
PS: Joking aside Clydesdale , Santander , TSB at least. Also the others are not going to leave , just scaremongering. Worst case they would revert to Halifax , Nat West etc. They are in lots and lots of other countries so why not Scotland. Just usual Telegraph unionist bollocks.
Of course they won't leave.
But their head offices will move to London. RBS used to have 3,000 (probably less now) well paying jobs in Edinburgh.
The If that's not head office they could probably manage with 500 or so.
I bet you most of their top jobs are already in London, it will mean the square root of nothing.
You think RBS at the Gyle closing would mean nothing ? Aye right.
Flash , only a turnip could transpose the conversation into the Gyle closing.The jobs that require the brass plate move , are already working out of London. The Gyle will remain and most likely prosper in an independent Scotland. RBS could not afford the office space , get the staff, move the IT etc that closing the Gyle would involve. Wishful thinking in the minds of thick unionists only.
You should have a word with Eck - get his threatening call in to UBS
"In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks. "Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said."
Yawn Yawn, how many times have we heard that, just another lapdog unionist scare story , repeated so often it is just laughable.
What could possibly be wrong with a system where one MP represents 21,837 constituents and another 110,924 ?
Ed always wants to see "fairness hardwired in" - well here's an opportunity.
In which case the Western Isles and Isle of Wight would be lumped in with mainland areas which which they have no relationship
Correct they should be - in today's internet age it's almost irrelevant.
Work out the mean no of registered voters in the Uk - divide by 650 (or 600) - that's your target with a max +/- 10% deviation allowed.
Hardly rocket science.
Why registered voters? Why not populations? MPs represent everyone in their constituencies, not just people on the electoral rolls.
Because it should not matter how many children you have. I do not see why that should mean you should have exessive representation, ie fewer voters electing an MP in areas where there were lots of children as opposed to an area where there were lots of old people. I see no reason why it should not be based on the numbers of people who actually vote.
Re no boundary review - it's worth noting that the fastest growing part of the UK is London - indeed 25% of all population growth is now in London.
The majority of seats in London are Lab and almost all inner London seats where the population growth is strongest are Lab.
Also the euros showed Lab doing best (in terms of swing) in its strongest areas - which will lead to greater Lab vote inefficiency.
The combined effect of both of the above is that the vote to seat conversion distortion is being mitigated - the distortion is still there but it isn't going to be great as many people appear to think.
We started to see the early effects of this in 2010 when Con outperformed UNS and the same should happen again - with Con also having the first time incumbency bonus which didn't apply last time.
Remember Kellner is forecasting Lab to get 25 seats less than per the UNS seat calculator. If Kellner is right the distortion is going to be pretty small.
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Yes, I agree. I think the Conservative Party is making a mistake on this. It's hard to argue that nowadays unions and strikes cause much damage.
On the other hand a proper vote with a proper turnout with a proper majority would put strikers in a stronger position... certainly so where the employer is a private enterprise and strikers know that in striking they can ruin their own jobs. [...]
On the other hand public service workers can strike with impunity and disrupt the public at a relative minimal cost to themselves. There is an argument for making it illegal for public workers to strike !!!!
In my opinion, trade union legislation is creaking at the seams. During the previous Conservative government, there was a perception that the overall level of strike activity was too high. Apart from the idea of industrial democracy - which can only go so far - the imposed conditions on strike action were largely arbitrary. They weren't directed at any particular form of strike activity (secondary action aside) or any particular sector of the economy. Then in the New Labour years a few things were relaxed at the edges, and a similar thing is happening with Article 11 and the trivial mistake exception(s). If the system was arbitrary on the way up, it's becoming even more so on the way down.
If you look at public opinion, it's not that the overall level of strike activity is too high, it's that strikes in particular sectors cause costs to the general public who are not the employer and have no influence over him or her. The underground and school strikes are both good examples. Similarly this is the same thing in Cameron and Maude's speeches. (I don't think other strikes, like civil servants, are nearly so objectionable.) Yet at current, none of the rhetoric surrounding solutions makes are such distinction. (One almost unused provision, the individual's right to object to strike activity, does actually speak to this.)
Other countries have far more sectors where strike activity is, by virtue of being in that sector only, heavily circumscribed. That would be one option, but it goes against the grain of the last twenty years. Personally I would favour a reform of the labour injunction and move towards an ombusdman who could balance the interests of the strike (including the seriousness of the complaint and the level of support) against the wider public interest.
The most flagrant abuses I am concerned about are the accessing of content of emails, webcam conversations, private messages on social networks and web browsing habits. I have repeatedly and clearly stated this again and again, yet you continue to pick on one increment of the matter in an Alistair Campbell manner.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that BND spies on the electronic metadata of its own citizens. However, the email metadata is a much smaller matter that is not at the crux of my concerns.
In that case we largely agree (except for web browsing, which I think is an important part of the meta-data).
Edit: And yes, the BND does spy on the electronic metadata of its own citizens.
Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
Then what happened to the convention that it should have been a tory after Labour's Boothroyd.
IIRC there was a huge new intake who didn't feel particularly bound by supposed past conventions - generally speaking, Buggins' turn conventions are a bad idea unless the position is just a formality like a non-executive mayor.
But my main point was that the suggestion that there was some sort of whip, official, unofficial or whatever, is simply wrong. I voted for a Tory (the then deputy Speaker), but not because he was a Tory but because I thought he was the best candidate.
@Flightpath Why not make all strikes illegal? The legislation would be simpler than contriving ever more complex rules to do the same thing. Perhaps we could raise the old "militias" to enforce the law. Conservatives, "The party of Victorian values" could be your new slogan?
Set in place solid legislation on workers rights and ban strikes, thereby cutting the legs off the greedy fat cat union bosses. Ban unions and ban the theft of workers money to fund them. Everyone is happy, workers are protected. Win/win
For those of a voting system / psephological bent (I'm guessing a fair few here on PB) there are some lovely youtubes by CGP Grey (just google that) explaining voting systems and their relative strengths / weaknesses.
One issue covered is the inevitable tendency over time for FPTP systems to revert to a somewhat evenly balanced two party system with safe seats. It's just the natural evolution of things mathematically that this happens. It's all but imposible for third parties to survive let alone thrive over the long term. And coalitions / FPTP don't mix (over long term).
When a new player comes along they can upset things for a while or join coalitions but the system will eventually destroy them. For those not of a centre left / centre right view this presumably sucks. So bad luck LibDEms, UKIP, Greens, Loonies, Nats, etc - you're never going to amount to anything. (Until the public vote for a different system).
The 'big two' political parties themselves are coalitions that periodically agree on a manifesto. The alternative is to cobble something up after an election (which no one voted for) and then have friction all the way through govt. The libdems have hardly been a good advet for coalitions. So any sympathy I might have had with some form of PR has faded.
@Flightpath Why not make all strikes illegal? The legislation would be simpler than contriving ever more complex rules to do the same thing. Perhaps we could raise the old "militias" to enforce the law. Conservatives, "The party of Victorian values" could be your new slogan?
Set in place solid legislation on workers rights and ban strikes, thereby cutting the legs off the greedy fat cat union bosses. Ban unions and ban the theft of workers money to fund them. Everyone is happy, workers are protected. Win/win
Public sector workers could award themselves a nice pay rise by stopping paying their union fees tomorrow.
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Yes, I agree. I think the Conservative Party is making a mistake on this. It's hard to argue that nowadays unions and strikes cause much damage.
On the other hand a proper vote with a proper turnout with a proper majority would put strikers in a stronger position... certainly so where the employer is a private enterprise and strikers know that in striking they can ruin their own jobs. [...]
On the other hand public service workers can strike with impunity and disrupt the public at a relative minimal cost to themselves. There is an argument for making it illegal for public workers to strike !!!!
Other countries have far more sectors where strike activity is, by virtue of being in that sector only, heavily circumscribed. That would be one option, but it goes against the grain of the last twenty years. Personally I would favour a reform of the labour injunction and move towards an ombusdman who could balance the interests of the strike (including the seriousness of the complaint and the level of support) against the wider public interest.
Is there not a popular ditty that has a line in it to the effect that "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" ?
You either believe that or you don't but I think the right to strike is pretty important and should not be further curtailed. The use of injunctions to prevent strikes because of incredibly minor alleged infractions of the polling procedure was a bad thing and should not have been encouraged by the courts to the extent it was.
According to the ONS:
•There were 248,800 working days lost through labour disputes in 2012, which compares to 1,389,700 in 2011.
•There were 131 stoppages of work because of labour disputes in 2012. This compares with 149 stoppages in 2011 and 92 stoppages in 2010.
•The majority of working days lost (79 per cent) were in the public sector, while the number of total stoppages (131) was more evenly split with 52 per cent in the Private sector with the remaining 48 per cent in the Public sector.
•68 per cent of working days lost were due to wage disputes.
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Yes, I agree. I think the Conservative Party is making a mistake on this. It's hard to argue that nowadays unions and strikes cause much damage.
On the other hand a proper vote with a proper turnout with a proper majority would put strikers in a stronger position... certainly so where the employer is a private enterprise and strikers know that in striking they can ruin their own jobs. [...]
On the other hand public service workers can strike with impunity and disrupt the public at a relative minimal cost to themselves.
Other countries have far more sectors where strike activity is, by virtue of being in that sector only, heavily circumscribed. That would be one option, but it goes against the grain of the last twenty years. Personally I would favour a reform of the labour injunction and move towards an ombusdman who could balance the interests of the strike (including the seriousness of the complaint and the level of support) against the wider public interest.
Is there not a popular ditty that has a line in it to the effect that "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" ?
You either believe that or you don't but I think the right to strike is pretty important and should not be further curtailed. The use of injunctions to prevent strikes because of incredibly minor alleged infractions of the polling procedure was a bad thing and should not have been encouraged by the courts to the extent it was.
According to the ONS:
•There were 248,800 working days lost through labour disputes in 2012, which compares to 1,389,700 in 2011. [...]
This is no longer a major problem.
I don't have any problem with the overall level of strike activity. Actually that was part of my point - I don't think the public wants fewer strikes, per se. What they want, and me with them, is a different set of strikes. Fewer in sectors with a very significant public impact, but more in others affecting private businesses.
In return for a renewed public interest test (the current "balance of convenience" is unfit for this purpose) the arbitrary restrictions on exactly who is balloted, some of the employee and employer notification, could be relaxed and the "small accidental failures" (232B TULRCA) provisions widened in scope and in depth.
Hmm, I'm not sold on this new drive to restrict strikes by the Tories. Withdrawal of one's labour in response to poor working conditions is surely a reasonable idea. Any restriction would surely ggive employers too much power to exploit their employees. If public sector employees want to strike then that's up to them, the world will keep turning and the nation will continue to function as normal.All they are doing is showing how useless some of them really are as normal operations continue.
Other countries have far more sectors where strike activity is, by virtue of being in that sector only, heavily circumscribed. That would be one option, but it goes against the grain of the last twenty years. Personally I would favour a reform of the labour injunction and move towards an ombusdman who could balance the interests of the strike (including the seriousness of the complaint and the level of support) against the wider public interest.
Is there not a popular ditty that has a line in it to the effect that "Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" ?
You either believe that or you don't but I think the right to strike is pretty important and should not be further curtailed. The use of injunctions to prevent strikes because of incredibly minor alleged infractions of the polling procedure was a bad thing and should not have been encouraged by the courts to the extent it was.
According to the ONS:
•There were 248,800 working days lost through labour disputes in 2012, which compares to 1,389,700 in 2011. [...]
This is no longer a major problem.
I don't have any problem with the overall level of strike activity. Actually that was part of my point - I don't think the public wants fewer strikes, per se. What they want, and me with them, is a different set of strikes. Fewer in sectors with a very significant public impact, but more in others affecting private businesses.
In return for a renewed public interest test (the current "balance of convenience" is unfit for this purpose) the arbitrary restrictions on exactly who is balloted, some of the employee and employer notification, could be relaxed and the "small accidental failures" (232B TULRCA) provisions widened in scope and in depth.
Or to put it another way, I think some of the current retrictions are bit like asking job applicants to do a hundred star jumps to qualify as an accountant. It'll help shortlist, but it doesn't speak to what it should do.
Hmm, I'm not sold on this new drive to restrict strikes by the Tories. Withdrawal of one's labour in response to poor working conditions is surely a reasonable idea. Any restriction would surely ggive employers too much power to exploit their employees. If public sector employees want to strike then that's up to them, the world will keep turning and the nation will continue to function as normal.All they are doing is showing how useless some of them really are as normal operations continue.
Anyone who: A. Worries about the deficit; and B: Thinks public sector terms and conditions (and absolute numbers employed) enjoyed years and years of lefty largesse at taxpayers' expense and are overdue a reversion to the norm; and C: Thinks the state just does too much and does much of what it does do inefficiently
should be welcoming more and more strikes. We save money and get to expose how well life goes on without many civil servants.
Saw a piece (forget which station) about the strikes last night. No comparison whatsoever with private sector pay rises/declines over the corresponding period, or consideration of the payment half of the equation (ie the private sector entirely funds the public).
Some unions do seem to have a better case than others, but the reporting wasn't great.
I'm surprised it's as low as only 73% higher. Is this because of despair at living in Scotland or despair at having ginger hair? Post a Yes vote, we would find out, I suppose; if the rate went higher it would be through despair at living in Scotland and no longer having "The England Out". If it stayed the same it's probably the hair problem.
According to Dr Matthew Ashton, a politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, thinks the strikes are aimed as much at Ed Miliband as the government.
“The strike today seems to be about sending a message to Ed Miliband and Labour as much as shifting current government policy," he said. "The Conservatives already know that the teachers' vote isn’t one they can rely on come 2015. What it might do though is bring more pressure to bear on Miliband as he and his party draw up their new manifesto.
In March 2004, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that significant portions of the eavesdropping law infringed the Constitution, or Basic Law, especially Article 1 on human dignity and Article 13 on the inviolability of private homes. The court held that certain communications are protected by an absolute area of intimacy wherein citizens can communicate privately without fear of government surveillance. This includes conversations with close family members, priests, doctors and defense attorneys, but excludes conversations about crimes that have already been committed or the planning of future crimes. However, to justify surveillance between the target and such persons of trust, competent law enforcement agency must show that "there is strong reason to believe that the content of conversation does not fall in the area of intimacy," and that the crime is "particularly serious." Once a specially protected conversation begins, the eavesdropping must stop immediately and any recordings of that portion of the conversation must be erased...
In February 2008, in a landmark decision, the Federal Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the North-Rhine Westphalia Law on the domestic intelligence service that allowed for secret online searches of private computers. The Court interpreted the German Constitution (Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1)) as containing a fundamental right for every citizen to have the integrity and confidentiality of systems of information technology guaranteed by the state. The decision is considered to be the most important on privacy issues since the census decision of 1983. However, the Court did not categorically rule out the possibility of secret online searches of computers by law enforcement agencies. However, such measures can only be justified under strict preconditions (such as a judicial warrant) and only where concrete facts indicate that there is an imminent threat to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons, or to the foundations of the state or the existence of mankind.Furthermore, the exercise of such a secret information technology system search is subject to judicial oversight.Without those conditions, any regulation on online searches – at the federal and at the federal state (Länder) level - would be unconstitutional.
Judicial oversight, probable cause, warrants. That's what we badly need in the UK.
Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself.
The security services are a state within a state in this country.
I'm surprised it's as low as only 73% higher. Is this because of despair at living in Scotland or despair at having ginger hair? Post a Yes vote, we would find out, I suppose; if the rate went higher it would be through despair at living in Scotland and no longer having "The England Out". If it stayed the same it's probably the hair problem.
If the stock markets were all rigged with automated front-running computer programs buying and selling then as the people involved in the rigging would all be crooked and therefore would expect everyone else to be crooked also you could imagine the programs being written to buy any stock whose price shoots up rapidly on the basis that it would likely be due to inside information.
If so someone could scam the scammers by having a worthless stock and buy it rapidly, wait for the programs to kick in and start buying it too pushing the price up even more and then sell quick.
The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, came out strongly infavour of the public workers strike in an interveiw on the news. Also in favour of big salary increases for public sector workers and everyone to be be paid at least the 'loving wage' rate.
So the Green party is going where Labour fear to tread and might steal a few votes from Labour.
Of course there will be a number of people who vote Green thinking they are a nice soft, cuddly party without realising they are a radical, anti-business, socialist party. So they may also lose a few of these votes in future.
But the manner in which they did it was to overturn a fundamental principle: that the Boundary Commission's report is received as neutral and passed through on the nod.
Once again - like with whipping Speaker Martin after Speaker Boothroyd stepped. - its politicises something that historically has been non partisan and would be better to remain so
We've debated who gerrymandered whom dozens of times and time doesn't allow another canter round the course today, but I just wanted to pick up this odd passing remark about "whipping Speaker Martin". Do you mean that you think there was a whip to vote for Martin? There was no such thing. I didn't vote for him and nobody expressed a view to me whether I should or not.
Then what happened to the convention that it should have been a tory after Labour's Boothroyd.
Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself..
That's actually wrong. Oversight is carried out by the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner and also by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), and of course by ministers. So it's not 'within the service itself'.
Look, if you are arguing that we need more powerful oversight, better definition of powers, and more safeguards, then I'd agree with you, and I suspect so would many MPs of all parties. The Snowden stuff has thrown up some concerns (although I think the US rather than the UK is the principal focus of those).
But don't kid yourself that the end result would be very different. We would still need data to be stored. We would still need computers trawling through meta-data to look for clusters of links which point to where the intelligence services need to look more closely.
The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, came out strongly infavour of the public workers strike in an interveiw on the news. Also in favour of big salary increases for public sector workers and everyone to be be paid at least the 'loving wage' rate.
So the Green party is going where Labour fear to tread and might steal a few votes from Labour.
Of course there will be a number of people who vote Green thinking they are a nice soft, cuddly party without realising they are a radical, anti-business, socialist party. So they may also lose a few of these votes in future.
Yes, it is rather surprising that in the UK we don't have a party focused on the environment without the loony-left big-state accoutrements.
"We would still need computers trawling through meta-data to look for clusters of links which point to where the intelligence services need to look more closely."
One day you must let me buy you a drink while you tell me about these miraculous algorithms that can tell just from who is calling who type data that the services need to look closer at a particular cluster.
"We would still need computers trawling through meta-data to look for clusters of links which point to where the intelligence services need to look more closely."
One day you must let me buy you a drink while you tell me about these miraculous algorithms that can tell just from who is calling who type data that the services need to look closer at a particular cluster.
The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, came out strongly infavour of the public workers strike in an interveiw on the news. Also in favour of big salary increases for public sector workers and everyone to be be paid at least the 'loving wage' rate.
So the Green party is going where Labour fear to tread and might steal a few votes from Labour.
Of course there will be a number of people who vote Green thinking they are a nice soft, cuddly party without realising they are a radical, anti-business, socialist party. So they may also lose a few of these votes in future.
Yes, it is rather surprising that in the UK we don't have a party focused on the environment without the loony-left big-state accoutrements.
Ouch, Richard, that's the most I've ever seen you criticise Dave! Given he is leading the "greenest government ever" you must be doubting his small-state credentials!
Comments
For the same reasons they will agree to a currency union, or to build warships in a foreign yard?
They could have saved paper by just saying "we can spy on you for whatever reason we decide at the time"
On the contrary, it is entirely logical. Since our government cannot keep their own records it makes sense to require third parties to keep records for them.
"make different provision for different purposes."
Can't get clearer than that.
We used to have a running joke about the conspiracy laws.
"We charge you that you did knowingly or unknowingly conspire with a person or persons unknown, to commit and unknown act at an unknown place and time"....."How do you plead?.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10956525/UBS-predicts-savings-flight-from-Scotland-in-the-event-of-yes-vote.html
"In fact, UBS said, both Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland would be likely to have to move south in the event of a "yes" vote, due to the Government's stakes in the banks.
"Politically it does not seem feasible to us that banks like RBS or Lloyds could remain Scottish companies," it said."
Bringing the grievances to the attention of the public.
Not that it will work, the media will be full of "inconvenienced public" wailing at the cameras, and calling for strikes to be made illegal.
Democracy in action.
Since months worth of parliamentary scrutiny of the Dangerous Logs Act now need to be handled by Twitter over a weekend, here are some suggested emergency follows:
JackOfKent
LozKaye
adambanksdotcom
Cybermatron
CasparBowden
Even as a thatcherite don't think making the union laws tougher is correct. People have the right to organise and withdraw their labour if they wish. Many trade unionists vote conservative.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Democracy in action as they say.
GCHQ etc will be doing this lot already.
Forcing the service providers to retain the data allows the rest of government easy access to it.
It is RIPA all over again.
Is keeping this information for billing different to the information the government is requesting from them?
What would you suggest they do? Have conversations and dialog with the relevant parties? Ask for arbitration? Or would you just prefer them to shut up and take what they are given like good little serfs of the beneficent state?
And if they don't, jolly well legislate against the scum?
Its main effect on me is that a decision from the Inner House (appeal court) I am expecting has not been issued. This is annoying but not exactly disastrous. Of course in Scotland the schools are already off so no one will know if their staff are striking or not.
God bless Britannia.
Great wicket, especially as I laid the draw a touch more after lunch.
First three have already been tried, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. (government refused to allow arbitration)
This strike is turning out to be a bigger sympathy win for the tories than for the strikers.
Who would want to stop that?
"Who would want to stop that? "
David Cameron, he has been jutting his jaw all over the media.
If 'No' then we should encourage more strikes.
In addition, various establishment institutions told us that British troops did little wrong at Bloody Sunday, that the British colonial administration in Kenya did not torture people, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be deployed in 45 minutes and various other things that turned out to be completely untrue. The establishment has always had a strong belief that it must protect itself and its policies, and that lying to the public is necessary on occasion to do that. It seems to be exactly your logic. I'm sure you have previously said that this stuff is necessary because the government says it is necessary. Thus you believe the right balance on this issue - a matter of state power versus individual privacy - is what the government says. Presumably if the government said something else was required, you'll think that is also necessary. Again, you are being simply inaccurate about saying all Western democracies disagree with me. Germany has directly complained about GCHQ mass surveillance, so you can't pass this off on them just being upset at the Americans:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/25/germany-uk-gchq-internet-surveillance
So what we have is some Western governments doing something, while others disagree. And plenty of Western governments decided invading Iraq was a good idea, and plenty of others thought joining the Euro was a good idea. Many of us, with less access to information, had greater wisdom than they did and thought they were huge mistakes. Many of us were right, while those governments were wrong. This is a similar story.
Why should I have the 'freedom' to be blown up?
I have grown fed up of 'freedom' loving people who want to deport people on a whim.
You could have got away with putting a greedy piggy in the chair.
Oh, wait,,,,
Do teachers not have a wheeze where they refuse to confirm they are coming in, the head teacher has to close the school and then the teachers turn up and can collect their pay ?
Cynical.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-futures-plunge-as-fed-minutes-sink-in-2014-07-10
The Coalition changed this to +/-5%, but you apparently agree with Labour about that being too strict.
LOL
It shows that the membership are not oblivious to what has happened in the private sector and are perhaps even conscious in some areas at least that they were somewhat overpaid previously.
Year after year of reductions in standard of living is tough though and I suspect there is a good deal of frustration and anger boiling under. The situation is being aggravated the threat to security of employment which used to be one of the most attractive features of the public sector. Certainly in my wife's work ( a college) it has been round after round of redundancies with no obvious end in sight.
There is not much more than tokenism to this strike. I would not make too much of it and would not be entirely unsympathetic to be honest. The tories really do not want to create fights with unions they can avoid. It is in no one's interests.
Unions are important. I've always worked in the private sector but there have been a couple of times when I wish I had had a rep.
The problem for me is
1. they never seem to turn their considerable powers against Britain's gangmasters. Its always the public or the government.
2. they poke their noses in where they are not wanted. Seriously, shut the f8ck up about the wider world and get on with the job of representing workers.
Once you've found out the answer to that (here's a hint: it begins with a 'Y'), you might like to ask the same question about Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Sweden.
That is the point I was making. All Western democracies do much the same, and for much the same reasons.
Yes, the Germans have some concerns about what the Snowden stuff purports to show. That doesn't invalidate my point. If your argument is that the UK has the balance marginally wrong and we should adjust it to be the same as Germany's, then fine. But you're not arguing that - you are arguing, as I understand it, that these powers should not exist at all.
On the other hand public service workers can strike with impunity and disrupt the public at a relative minimal cost to themselves. There is an argument for making it illegal for public workers to strike !!!!
Just admit you made a mistake by proposing the Labour party policy. It happens.
This probably helps Dave, though. Germany is going to be desperate for friends with cheque books if there is another crisis.
Why not make all strikes illegal? The legislation would be simpler than contriving ever more complex rules to do the same thing.
Perhaps we could raise the old "militias" to enforce the law.
Conservatives, "The party of Victorian values" could be your new slogan?
For what it's worth, I do not believe that BND spies on the electronic metadata of its own citizens. However, the email metadata is a much smaller matter that is not at the crux of my concerns.
My summary of the bill was only half serious, but it is basically the excuse Theresa used to defend rushing it through.
The majority of seats in London are Lab and almost all inner London seats where the population growth is strongest are Lab.
Also the euros showed Lab doing best (in terms of swing) in its strongest areas - which will lead to greater Lab vote inefficiency.
The combined effect of both of the above is that the vote to seat conversion distortion is being mitigated - the distortion is still there but it isn't going to be great as many people appear to think.
We started to see the early effects of this in 2010 when Con outperformed UNS and the same should happen again - with Con also having the first time incumbency bonus which didn't apply last time.
Remember Kellner is forecasting Lab to get 25 seats less than per the UNS seat calculator. If Kellner is right the distortion is going to be pretty small.
If you look at public opinion, it's not that the overall level of strike activity is too high, it's that strikes in particular sectors cause costs to the general public who are not the employer and have no influence over him or her. The underground and school strikes are both good examples. Similarly this is the same thing in Cameron and Maude's speeches. (I don't think other strikes, like civil servants, are nearly so objectionable.) Yet at current, none of the rhetoric surrounding solutions makes are such distinction. (One almost unused provision, the individual's right to object to strike activity, does actually speak to this.)
Other countries have far more sectors where strike activity is, by virtue of being in that sector only, heavily circumscribed. That would be one option, but it goes against the grain of the last twenty years. Personally I would favour a reform of the labour injunction and move towards an ombusdman who could balance the interests of the strike (including the seriousness of the complaint and the level of support) against the wider public interest.
Edit: And yes, the BND does spy on the electronic metadata of its own citizens.
But my main point was that the suggestion that there was some sort of whip, official, unofficial or whatever, is simply wrong. I voted for a Tory (the then deputy Speaker), but not because he was a Tory but because I thought he was the best candidate.
Everyone is happy, workers are protected.
Win/win
Great idea, they could rush the legislation through tomorrow perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_zur_Beschränkung_des_Brief-,_Post-_und_Fernmeldegeheimnisses
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/german-intelligency-service-nsa-internet-laws
It's in your own hands comrades !
You either believe that or you don't but I think the right to strike is pretty important and should not be further curtailed. The use of injunctions to prevent strikes because of incredibly minor alleged infractions of the polling procedure was a bad thing and should not have been encouraged by the courts to the extent it was.
According to the ONS:
•There were 248,800 working days lost through labour disputes in 2012, which compares to 1,389,700 in 2011.
•There were 131 stoppages of work because of labour disputes in 2012. This compares with 149 stoppages in 2011 and 92 stoppages in 2010.
•The majority of working days lost (79 per cent) were in the public sector, while the number of total stoppages (131) was more evenly split with 52 per cent in the Private sector with the remaining 48 per cent in the Public sector.
•68 per cent of working days lost were due to wage disputes.
This is no longer a major problem.
http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/joinunite/contributionrates/
In return for a renewed public interest test (the current "balance of convenience" is unfit for this purpose) the arbitrary restrictions on exactly who is balloted, some of the employee and employer notification, could be relaxed and the "small accidental failures" (232B TULRCA) provisions widened in scope and in depth.
I think limiting the time frame is fair enough (say, a strike has to be held within 1 year of a vote).
A. Worries about the deficit; and
B: Thinks public sector terms and conditions (and absolute numbers employed) enjoyed years and years of lefty largesse at taxpayers' expense and are overdue a reversion to the norm; and
C: Thinks the state just does too much and does much of what it does do inefficiently
should be welcoming more and more strikes. We save money and get to expose how well life goes on without many civil servants.
Some unions do seem to have a better case than others, but the reporting wasn't great.
Still think it is an Indian win.
Suicide rate among Scots men 73% higher than England
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http://news.stv.tv/206504-scots-more-likely-to-commit-suicide-than-those-in-england-and-wales/&ei=tZ2-U7CPLI2SyASL94DABg&usg=AFQjCNH1HWVsNZTbUIbGUf5G1ppmsA66MA
I'm surprised it's as low as only 73% higher. Is this because of despair at living in Scotland or despair at having ginger hair? Post a Yes vote, we would find out, I suppose; if the rate went higher it would be through despair at living in Scotland and no longer having "The England Out". If it stayed the same it's probably the hair problem.
In this picture of malcolm g, it's unclear whether he has ginger hair or not:
http://www.bitterwallet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/blakey.jpeg
According to Dr Matthew Ashton, a politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, thinks the strikes are aimed as much at Ed Miliband as the government.
“The strike today seems to be about sending a message to Ed Miliband and Labour as much as shifting current government policy," he said. "The Conservatives already know that the teachers' vote isn’t one they can rely on come 2015. What it might do though is bring more pressure to bear on Miliband as he and his party draw up their new manifesto.
Well, it's an opinion I guess..!
https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/germany/ii-surveillance-policies
In March 2004, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that significant portions of the eavesdropping law infringed the Constitution, or Basic Law, especially Article 1 on human dignity and Article 13 on the inviolability of private homes. The court held that certain communications are protected by an absolute area of intimacy wherein citizens can communicate privately without fear of government surveillance. This includes conversations with close family members, priests, doctors and defense attorneys, but excludes conversations about crimes that have already been committed or the planning of future crimes. However, to justify surveillance between the target and such persons of trust, competent law enforcement agency must show that "there is strong reason to believe that the content of conversation does not fall in the area of intimacy," and that the crime is "particularly serious." Once a specially protected conversation begins, the eavesdropping must stop immediately and any recordings of that portion of the conversation must be erased...
In February 2008, in a landmark decision, the Federal Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional provisions of the North-Rhine Westphalia Law on the domestic intelligence service that allowed for secret online searches of private computers. The Court interpreted the German Constitution (Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1)) as containing a fundamental right for every citizen to have the integrity and confidentiality of systems of information technology guaranteed by the state. The decision is considered to be the most important on privacy issues since the census decision of 1983. However, the Court did not categorically rule out the possibility of secret online searches of computers by law enforcement agencies. However, such measures can only be justified under strict preconditions (such as a judicial warrant) and only where concrete facts indicate that there is an imminent threat to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons, or to the foundations of the state or the existence of mankind.Furthermore, the exercise of such a secret information technology system search is subject to judicial oversight.Without those conditions, any regulation on online searches – at the federal and at the federal state (Länder) level - would be unconstitutional.
Judicial oversight, probable cause, warrants. That's what we badly need in the UK.
or despair at football/rugby teams?
Of the three countries they looked at, the authors said checks and balances in Britain are the weakest. Neither parliament nor the courts are involved in regulating or authorising surveillance programmes. Oversight is limited exclusively to within the service itself.
The security services are a state within a state in this country.
Some better news for the tories in London?
If so someone could scam the scammers by having a worthless stock and buy it rapidly, wait for the programs to kick in and start buying it too pushing the price up even more and then sell quick.
So the Green party is going where Labour fear to tread and might steal a few votes from Labour.
Of course there will be a number of people who vote Green thinking they are a nice soft, cuddly party without realising they are a radical, anti-business, socialist party. So they may also lose a few of these votes in future.
Look, if you are arguing that we need more powerful oversight, better definition of powers, and more safeguards, then I'd agree with you, and I suspect so would many MPs of all parties. The Snowden stuff has thrown up some concerns (although I think the US rather than the UK is the principal focus of those).
But don't kid yourself that the end result would be very different. We would still need data to be stored. We would still need computers trawling through meta-data to look for clusters of links which point to where the intelligence services need to look more closely.
Are India's bowlers better at batting than the England openers?
"We would still need computers trawling through meta-data to look for clusters of links which point to where the intelligence services need to look more closely."
One day you must let me buy you a drink while you tell me about these miraculous algorithms that can tell just from who is calling who type data that the services need to look closer at a particular cluster.