If we need a few months to normally debate legislation and DRIP has to be rushed through in an emergency, why doesn't it expire in a few months, rather than in 2016?
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
There's nothing wrong with saying you made a mistake. I'm not against the principle of a bedroom tax for people that have the option of moving somewhere smaller, but it seems very unfair on those that don't have the option to avoid the penalty.
"My understanding is there was an argument inside government between the two halves of the coalition and that argument has gone on for three months. So what the coalition cannot decide in three months this House has to decide in one day. This seems to me entirely improper because of the role of Parliament – we have three roles:
One is to scrutinise legislation, one is to prevent unintended consequences, and one is to defend the freedom and liberty of our constituents.
This undermines all three and we should oppose this motion."
A pity there are not more MPs like him in the Commons.
Sounds good - who was it? blockquote>
David Davis MP. A shame the leader of your party was not saying it.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all.
David Davis MP. A shame the leader of your party was not saying it.
I supported Cameron at the time, but I really regret that support. I wish Davis had won. Eurosceptic, strong on civil liberties, working class. What's not to like?
I don't think the British lawyers drafting the ECHR planned for it to be used to give prisoners the vote.
At Brighton Uni I was in a debate about this where I was the '1' in a 13 vs 1 affair....
Obv the lecturer was one of the 13
Some of the arguments for giving prisoners the vote resembled those on here for letting criminals become policemen, including " haven't they had enough punishment???" " they've already lost their freedom"
But the best was
"What about prisoners that are innocent and shouldn't be in prison?"
Given that he's supporting the odious DRIP legislation that complaint rings pretty hollow, frankly.
Absolutely. Clegg's support for rushing DRIP through without scrutiny really eliminates the last reason anyone would possibly vote for the Lib Dems other than pure tribalist loyalty. They deserve to get hammered at the election.
Instead of dress-down Friday in the office, we have free Coffee and Cakes on Thursdays. As by now most of the staff are hyper on caffeine and sugar, it could prove to be an interesting afternoon, especially with number of very-lightly clad young ladies parading past our windows on their way to the beach. Best draw all the sun blinds (except mine) to ensure work gets done.
David Davis MP. A shame the leader of your party was not saying it.
I supported Cameron at the time, but I really regret that support. I wish Davis had won. Eurosceptic, strong on civil liberties, working class. What's not to like?
His massive ego and unwillingness to be a team player?
David Davis MP. A shame the leader of your party was not saying it.
I supported Cameron at the time, but I really regret that support. I wish Davis had won. Eurosceptic, strong on civil liberties, working class. What's not to like?
I really hoped that the Lib Dems would stand up for liberal values which are not, as so often said, wishy-washy but, properly understood, tough values which underpin our society and which need constant defending against those - and they are many - who would undermine them out of fear or cowardice or a desire for power or a failure to understand why they matter, those who are all too eager to enjoy their rights but wholly unwilling to defend them.
I am looking at the Tory manoeuvring on ECHR with increasing incredulity. I just find it inconceivable that the UK could withdraw from the ECHR. I do not think it is possible for it to do so and remain a part of the EU without changes to the current Treaties either.
All this because of few idiotic decisions like those about giving prisoners the vote? It is madness and frankly not grown up government.
There are problems with the make up and competence of the Court in Strasburg. Some of the judgments, as our own Supreme Court have pointed out, verge on incoherence. Surely this is where the energy needs to be spent. Alternatively we can positively encourage the Supreme Court approach where they have regard to but do not think themselves bound by prior decisions of the Strasburg Court, possibly by amendment of the Human Rights Act.
But at the moment, having sacked some very competent lawyers who were opposed, the Tories are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I quite agree. The way to deal with some of the barmier judgments is to amend the HRA to say that while the UK courts should follow the ECHR they do not need to have regard to each and every judgment issued by the court. Dominic Raab explained a possible way forward in his book.
It is simply not conceivable - and not sensible politics either - to withdraw from a Convention that was largely written by British lawyers.
Agree - these 'inconvenient' problems appear to have begun with the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Rather than leaving the ECHR, which I doubt is possible without major rewriting of various treaties, then changes to the HRA would certainly appear the easier solution.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
What does a government, part of government or a department do if they believe a part of a policy is a dogs breakfast - carry on regardless ?!?
One of the strengths of the Coalition, noted by many including civil servants, is how pragmatic they have been. The nature of a Coalition ensured policies had to be reviewed to be carried by both parties and there has been far less policy on the hoof.
Clearly there are aspects of party politics here but surprise, surprise it's a Coalition in its last months of office before the general election.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
Given that he's supporting the odious DRIP legislation that complaint rings pretty hollow, frankly.
Absolutely. Clegg's support for rushing DRIP through without scrutiny really eliminates the last reason anyone would possibly vote for the Lib Dems other than pure tribalist loyalty. They deserve to get hammered at the election.
Whilst I absolutely see the need for a thorough overhaul of the law in this regard, the DRIP legislation is not the massive grab of powers that some would like to believe. It is an extension of existing powers for a time-limited period to deal with a decision taken by a European court that could have interrupted ongoing investigations. No new powers have been taken - and indeed the number of public bodies who can use the powers has been reduced. Plus the sunset clause forces the next Parliament to take a proper look at this area.
Perhaps more time could and should have been given to this - but it is not the Big Brother piece of legislation that some would have you believe. If you look at the detail and not the hype, it is actually essentially the only way that we could have dealt with the situation.
I am looking at the Tory manoeuvring on ECHR with increasing incredulity. I just find it inconceivable that the UK could withdraw from the ECHR. I do not think it is possible for it to do so and remain a part of the EU without changes to the current Treaties either.
All this because of few idiotic decisions like those about giving prisoners the vote? It is madness and frankly not grown up government.
There are problems with the make up and competence of the Court in Strasburg. Some of the judgments, as our own Supreme Court have pointed out, verge on incoherence. Surely this is where the energy needs to be spent. Alternatively we can positively encourage the Supreme Court approach where they have regard to but do not think themselves bound by prior decisions of the Strasburg Court, possibly by amendment of the Human Rights Act.
But at the moment, having sacked some very competent lawyers who were opposed, the Tories are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I quite agree. The way to deal with some of the barmier judgments is to amend the HRA to say that while the UK courts should follow the ECHR they do not need to have regard to each and every judgment issued by the court. Dominic Raab explained a possible way forward in his book.
It is simply not conceivable - and not sensible politics either - to withdraw from a Convention that was largely written by British lawyers.
Agree - these 'inconvenient' problems appear to have begun with the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Rather than leaving the ECHR, which I doubt is possible without major rewriting of various treaties, then changes to the HRA would certainly appear the easier solution.
Posturing on human rights is pathetic. And particularly pathetic for a Conservative PM. It's no use wittering about rolling back the state or cutting taxes or taking back powers from Europe or the importance of Magna Carta if at the same time you're unwilling to accept that there need to be constraints on the power of the British state in favour of the British people.
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
I quite agree. The way to deal with some of the barmier judgments is to amend the HRA to say that while the UK courts should follow the ECHR they do not need to have regard to each and every judgment issued by the court. Dominic Raab explained a possible way forward in his book.
It is simply not conceivable - and not sensible politics either - to withdraw from a Convention that was largely written by British lawyers.
This written by British lawyers argument is rather misleading bordering on the disingenuous. The original convention was indeed largely a product of British lawyers expressing ideas that had been taken for granted in the UK for centuries. That was shortly after WW2 and the UK was a signatory and upholder of the convention without any problems for a long time.
However, in recent years the convention has been expanded and is being interpreted in ways that would be quite alien to the original authors and is alien to English and Welsh legal tradition. Furthermore, some of the decisions of the Court are seen as perverse and are having a downright damaging effect on public policy. For example: the Australian lady co-habiting for five years with one of our posters who, despite being hard working and law abiding, was slung out of the country while she applied for a new visa (which may not be granted) whilst serious criminals cannot be removed because of a right to a family life.
The idea expressed by Mr. Surbiton that that sort of nonsense would have been supported by Churchill and the Conservative party of old is frankly laughable. Indeed who in the Atlee government would have gone along with the make up and decisions of the current court?
As a fine point of interest the HRA was, as is true with so much legislation tied in with Europe, sold to the Brits on a false prospectus. I remember Blair telling us that it was a tidying up exercise and would allow human rights cases to be decided in British courts rather than abroad and furthermore there would only be a handful of cases a year. Whilst he was peddling that line his wife was setting up a chambers intended to specialise in human rights cases.
Anyway, I think that the current situation is having such a deleterious effect on public policy and regard for the law that something has to be done. The debate is what.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
What does a government, part of government or a department do if they believe a part of a policy is a dogs breakfast - carry on regardless ?!?
One of the strengths of the Coalition, noted by many including civil servants, is how pragmatic they have been. The nature of a Coalition ensured policies had to be reviewed to be carried by both parties and there has been far less policy on the hoof.
Clearly there are aspects of party politics here but surprise, surprise it's a Coalition in its last months of office before the general election.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
THe ultimate example of facing upto the inevitable was the sacking of the Minister of Silly Walks.
I am looking at the Tory manoeuvring on ECHR with increasing incredulity. I just find it inconceivable that the UK could withdraw from the ECHR. I do not think it is possible for it to do so and remain a part of the EU without changes to the current Treaties either.
All this because of few idiotic decisions like those about giving prisoners the vote? It is madness and frankly not grown up government.
There are problems with the make up and competence of the Court in Strasburg. Some of the judgments, as our own Supreme Court have pointed out, verge on incoherence. Surely this is where the energy needs to be spent. Alternatively we can positively encourage the Supreme Court approach where they have regard to but do not think themselves bound by prior decisions of the Strasburg Court, possibly by amendment of the Human Rights Act.
But at the moment, having sacked some very competent lawyers who were opposed, the Tories are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I quite agree. The way to deal with some of the barmier judgments is to amend the HRA to say that while the UK courts should follow the ECHR they do not need to have regard to each and every judgment issued by the court. Dominic Raab explained a possible way forward in his book.
It is simply not conceivable - and not sensible politics either - to withdraw from a Convention that was largely written by British lawyers.
Agree - these 'inconvenient' problems appear to have begun with the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Rather than leaving the ECHR, which I doubt is possible without major rewriting of various treaties, then changes to the HRA would certainly appear the easier solution.
Posturing on human rights is pathetic. And particularly pathetic for a Conservative PM. It's no use wittering about rolling back the state or cutting taxes or taking back powers from Europe or the importance of Magna Carta if at the same time you're unwilling to accept that there need to be constraints on the power of the British state in favour of the British people.
Surely the point should be that, as a sovereign nation, it should be Parliament and our courts that have supremacy. There have been too many examples of the HRA and ECHR being used to justify decisions which appear to run contrary to natural justice (as viewed by a lay person)
A rebalancing of the powers is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
This written by British lawyers argument is rather misleading bordering on the disingenuous. The original convention was indeed largely a product of British lawyers expressing ideas that had been taken for granted in the UK for centuries. That was shortly after WW2 and the UK was a signatory and upholder of the convention without any problems for a long time.
However, in recent years the convention has been expanded and is being interpreted in ways that would be quite alien to the original authors and is alien to English and Welsh legal tradition. Furthermore, some of the decisions of the Court are seen as perverse and are having a downright damaging effect on public policy. For example: the Australian lady co-habiting for five years with one of our posters who, despite being hard working and law abiding, was slung out of the country while she applied for a new visa (which may not be granted) whilst serious criminals cannot be removed because of a right to a family life.
The idea expressed by Mr. Surbiton that that sort of nonsense would have been supported by Churchill and the Conservative party of old is frankly laughable. Indeed who in the Atlee government would have gone along with the make up and decisions of the current court?
As a fine point of interest the HRA was, as is true with so much legislation tied in with Europe, sold to the Brits on a false prospectus. I remember Blair telling us that it was a tidying up exercise and would allow human rights cases to be decided in British courts rather than abroad and furthermore there would only be a handful of cases a year. Whilst he was peddling that line his wife was setting up a chambers intended to specialise in human rights cases.
Anyway, I think that the current situation is having such a deleterious effect on public policy and regard for the law that something has to be done. The debate is what.
I don't disagree - and said much of this myself. The interpretation of many of the rights by laywers not trained in the common law tradition has been one of the issues together with how the HRA was drafted. There are ways of dealing with that which have been ably set out by better lawyers than me but which do not involve withdrawing from the Convention or trying to override it, which would not work in any event. Some of those changes could have been made by now. Instead of which we are - apparently - going to get a speech this autumn. FFS!
I am looking at the Tory manoeuvring on ECHR with increasing incredulity. I just find it inconceivable that the UK could withdraw from the ECHR. I do not think it is possible for it to do so and remain a part of the EU without changes to the current Treaties either.
All this because of few idiotic decisions like those about giving prisoners the vote? It is madness and frankly not grown up government.
There are problems with the make up and competence of the Court in Strasburg. Some of the judgments, as our own Supreme Court have pointed out, verge on incoherence. Surely this is where the energy needs to be spent. Alternatively we can positively encourage the Supreme Court approach where they have regard to but do not think themselves bound by prior decisions of the Strasburg Court, possibly by amendment of the Human Rights Act.
But at the moment, having sacked some very competent lawyers who were opposed, the Tories are in danger of making fools of themselves.
I quite agree. The way to deal with some of the barmier judgments is to amend the HRA to say that while the UK courts should follow the ECHR they do not need to have regard to each and every judgment issued by the court. Dominic Raab explained a possible way forward in his book.
It is simply not conceivable - and not sensible politics either - to withdraw from a Convention that was largely written by British lawyers.
Agree - these 'inconvenient' problems appear to have begun with the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Rather than leaving the ECHR, which I doubt is possible without major rewriting of various treaties, then changes to the HRA would certainly appear the easier solution.
Posturing on human rights is pathetic. And particularly pathetic for a Conservative PM. It's no use wittering about rolling back the state or cutting taxes or taking back powers from Europe or the importance of Magna Carta if at the same time you're unwilling to accept that there need to be constraints on the power of the British state in favour of the British people.
There absolutely should be constraints on the power of the British state. If we leave the ECHR we should replace this with a British Bill of Rights which is interpreted by the courts.
One of the first prescribed rights should be the following:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all.
Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed.
I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now?
One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Hague sounds as if he is likely to enjoy his final months
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
Oh right sorry! It went over my head
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all.
Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed.
I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now?
One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Ooof !
Great call on England @ 2.66 btw.
Still worried it will flatten out in the sun and end up being a draw.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all.
Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed.
I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now?
One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Ooof !
Great call on England @ 2.66 btw.
Still worried it will flatten out in the sun and end up being a draw.
Yeah I'm out the betting for the moment with a £1 loss - this is harder than some day 5 pitches to bat on right now in terms of difficulty. India would take being 150-3 at close right now I suspect.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Ooof !
Great call on England @ 2.66 btw.
Still worried it will flatten out in the sun and end up being a draw.
Yeah I'm out the betting for the moment with a £1 loss - this is harder than some day 5 pitches to bat on right now in terms of difficulty. India would take being 150-3 at close right now I suspect.
Today and tomorrow will be hot and mainly dry - but Saturday could well be rained off, or at least significantly interrupted. How that alters the pitch, hard to tell at this stage, I guess
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
Oh right sorry! It went over my head
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
Ooof !
Great call on England @ 2.66 btw.
Still worried it will flatten out in the sun and end up being a draw.
I'm on the win at the moment. The early wicket after I did that was helpful too.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all.
Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed.
I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now?
One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
There was a celebrated case of this when I grew up in Denmark. The PM did a complete U-turn on some policy; when pressed, he said suavely, "What is the problem? I have a policy until I have a different policy." The response was a mixture of amusement and irritation, and I think Clegg will find the same.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
There was a celebrated case of this when I grew up in Denmark. The PM did a complete U-turn on some policy; when pressed, he said suavely, "What is the problem? I have a policy until I have a different policy." The response was a mixture of amusement and irritation, and I think Clegg will find the same.
Perhaps so.
However it's indicative on how the complete adversarial nature of British politics works. Political parties and individual politicians are loathe to concede a mistake. Broadly speaking the voters are more forgiving as they certainly are aware politicians are not infallible.
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
Oh right sorry! It went over my head
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
"How shallow can you be? You agree a policy. You vote for a policy. An election hoves into view. So without any consultation with your colleagues in government, you ditch the policy.
Self-interest. Duplicity. Shallowness. All of Clegg’s perceived negatives neatly collated into a single neat tabloid headline."
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
There was a celebrated case of this when I grew up in Denmark. The PM did a complete U-turn on some policy; when pressed, he said suavely, "What is the problem? I have a policy until I have a different policy." The response was a mixture of amusement and irritation, and I think Clegg will find the same.
Perhaps so.
However it's indicative on how the complete adversarial nature of British politics works. Political parties and individual politicians are loathe to concede a mistake. Broadly speaking the voters are more forgiving as they certainly are aware politicians are not infallible.
Haven't you noticed that PB is exactly the same as that, without needing to be as there is no face to save?
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all. Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed. I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now? One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Welcome back Plato. Clegg is mocking the focus on Conservative female MPs getting more senior roles in Govt. Clegg of course has no female LDs in Cabinet. Perhaps he should be looking into the reasons why his party has not nurtured female talent as well as Lab or the Conservatives? One of the destructive causes is the effect of Rennard who has driven some of the talented female LDs out of the LD party. But instead Clegg thinks it better to spend his time mocking the paper that is the most popular read amongst ..... LD voters.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
There was a celebrated case of this when I grew up in Denmark. The PM did a complete U-turn on some policy; when pressed, he said suavely, "What is the problem? I have a policy until I have a different policy." The response was a mixture of amusement and irritation, and I think Clegg will find the same.
Perhaps so.
However it's indicative on how the complete adversarial nature of British politics works. Political parties and individual politicians are loathe to concede a mistake. Broadly speaking the voters are more forgiving as they certainly are aware politicians are not infallible.
Haven't you noticed that PB is exactly the same as that, without needing to be as there is no face to save?
Denying the wonder of PB is an automatic yellow card.
Must say, Clegg looks quite dapper in that tweet. Unlike Cameron who looks like a bit of a knob high-fiving Junker. What possessed him?
What possessed Cameron? God knows but another little illustration that he has the gravitas and strategic acumen of a hamster.
I assume that's a typo/auto-correct thing
You meant Hannibal instead of a hamster?
'Fraid not, Mr. Eagles. Hamster I said and hamster I meant. Not even Hannibal, loser that he was, would have indulged in such silly American dance moves with his enemy. Cameron might just as well get the huskies out of storage and how did he get on hugging those hoodies? If he is prepared to use American dance routines I don't see why I should not use American expressions. Your man is a jerk.
Must say, Clegg looks quite dapper in that tweet. Unlike Cameron who looks like a bit of a knob high-fiving Junker. What possessed him?
What possessed Cameron? God knows but another little illustration that he has the gravitas and strategic acumen of a hamster.
I assume that's a typo/auto-correct thing
You meant Hannibal instead of a hamster?
'Fraid not, Mr. Eagles. Hamster I said and hamster I meant. Not even Hannibal, loser that he was, would have indulged in such silly American dance moves with his enemy. Cameron might just as well get the huskies out of storage and how did he get on hugging those hoodies? If he is prepared to use American dance routines I don't see why I should not use American expressions. Your man is a jerk.
Far be it from me to defend Clegg but surely he has a case that he has changed his view on the Bedroom Tax in light of the evidence showing it is failing?
It's less an embarrassment for the Liberals - despite Rachel Reeves sticking her well manicured talons in - more a complete field day for Labour who will use it as vindication of their being right all along. Tricky one for the government.
"There's a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease"
Mr. Jones, Please do not bring health scare stories on to this fine site. We have our own resident quacks should they be needed, what we don't need is scare stories.
Over the years I have been forced to take a daily salt pill and told that taking salt on my food is bad for me, both on the best medical advice. A moderate ration of booze is good for me, say one group of quacks. Alcohol is a killer even in small quantities, say another. An egg a day was good for us said the Government medical advisers, right up to the time they said eggs are bad for us. Ditto milk: anyone else remember "drink a pint of milk a day"? That was proper milk too, none of your skimmed muck (HMG used to pay a premium for high fat milk because it was so good for us). Carbohydrates bad, then carbohydrates good, the list on conflicting advice goes on and on.
The list of conflicting "expert" opinion goes on and on and on. I think I have now heard government advice in favour of just about anything (HMG used to issue fags to its troops) and against just about everything. To what benefit? My mother who used to listen to all this advice fell off her perch at aged 60 when her elder brother (who went through WW2 at the very sharp end) ate what he liked, drank what he liked (and no 28 units a week either) and smoked what he liked (at aged 85 his doctor was still trying to make him give up, God knows why) and snuffed it at 88.
This month sugar is bad for you. Next year the Mail will be publishing stories about how sugar is a wonder ingredient with life enhancing abilities.
Must say, Clegg looks quite dapper in that tweet. Unlike Cameron who looks like a bit of a knob high-fiving Junker. What possessed him?
What possessed Cameron? God knows but another little illustration that he has the gravitas and strategic acumen of a hamster.
I assume that's a typo/auto-correct thing
You meant Hannibal instead of a hamster?
'Fraid not, Mr. Eagles. Hamster I said and hamster I meant. Not even Hannibal, loser that he was, would have indulged in such silly American dance moves with his enemy. Cameron might just as well get the huskies out of storage and how did he get on hugging those hoodies? If he is prepared to use American dance routines I don't see why I should not use American expressions. Your man is a jerk.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all. Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed. I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now? One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Welcome back Plato. Clegg is mocking the focus on Conservative female MPs getting more senior roles in Govt. Clegg of course has no female LDs in Cabinet. Perhaps he should be looking into the reasons why his party has not nurtured female talent as well as Lab or the Conservatives? One of the destructive causes is the effect of Rennard who has driven some of the talented female LDs out of the LD party. But instead Clegg thinks it better to spend his time mocking the paper that is the most popular read amongst ..... LD voters.
"Perhaps he should be looking into the reasons why his party has not nurtured female talent as well as Lab or the Conservatives?"
'Far be it from me to defend Clegg but surely he has a case that he has changed his view on the Bedroom Tax in light of the evidence showing it is failing?'
After spending so much time in the media supporting it,debating it and then voting for it, he now does a complete u-turn ,no surprise he is so toxic and his party has dropped as low as 6% in the polls.
Morning all and oh dear the LibDems attempt to distance themselves from the Government Spare Room subsidy is bombing big style. Eamonn Holmes slagged Simon Hughes off to his face. How much longer can the Orange Book LibDems put up with this nonsense?
I've just seen this and thought WTF? It's pathetic mealy-mouthed stuff - arguing against your own enacted policy as part of HMG within the SAME parliament. Spineless from the Yellows - who's going to believe them?
I guess the bad boy made them do it and then ran away...
Clegg will take a hit now for flip flopping and then another when Labour highlight it isn't a u-turn at all. Brainless.
Quite. And which constituency is Clegg playing for here? I'm perplexed. I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now? One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Welcome back Plato. Clegg is mocking the focus on Conservative female MPs getting more senior roles in Govt. Clegg of course has no female LDs in Cabinet. Perhaps he should be looking into the reasons why his party has not nurtured female talent as well as Lab or the Conservatives? One of the destructive causes is the effect of Rennard who has driven some of the talented female LDs out of the LD party. But instead Clegg thinks it better to spend his time mocking the paper that is the most popular read amongst ..... LD voters.
"Perhaps he should be looking into the reasons why his party has not nurtured female talent as well as Lab or the Conservatives?" The Tories only have 48 women MPs. About 1/7.
Lds have 7 female MPs from 57 = 12% . Conservatives have 48 = 16%.
Far be it from me to defend Clegg but surely he has a case that he has changed his view on the Bedroom Tax in light of the evidence showing it is failing?
It's less an embarrassment for the Liberals - despite Rachel Reeves sticking her well manicured talons in - more a complete field day for Labour who will use it as vindication of their being right all along. Tricky one for the government.
1. Plato joined the site shortly after Socrates left in BC whenever:) 2. Clegg is being duplicitous over the spare room subsidy end of. If the LDs wanted the policy tweaked - as I read - they should say so. To allow a story to develop that they want to abandon it is pathetic and attracting all of the derision it deserves. 3. Of course we know that Hattie Harman wants everyone in the 'squeezed middle' to pay more tax in order to allow for claimants to occupy properties greater than their needs.
How come it says Hugh joined this month? He posted loads at the start of the year, joining the site the day after Tim left
Re. all the hypothetical reincarnations of tim, it's not enough to be repetitive and gratuitously offensive, the second coming will also need to be a) witty; b) astute and c) a good tipster. For me none of the so far suggested candidates stack up on those terms.
How come it says Hugh joined this month? He posted loads at the start of the year, joining the site the day after Tim left
Don't be silly. tim was too astute to think that most foreigners die in childbirth because they don't have the NHS.
Hugh is more akin to compouter, though without the legendary sense of humour (thank God). At least they have both read the same daily mirror article on Circle Health.
Plato is a long standing contributor to PB.com and in 2011 was voted ‘Poster of the Year (POTY) – She has recently taken a sabbatical to peruse other interests, but pops back occasionally to say hi.
As a relative newbie you were not to know that and so your courteous warm ‘welcome’ is not diminished in anyway as a result.
My outside bet for next Tory leader announces he will not be silenced.Owen Paterson has a few furlongs to catch up with front-runners but I'm not tearing up my ticket just yet. Speak up and speak out as much and as often as you like,Mr Paterson.
My outside bet for next Tory leader announces he will not be silenced.Owen Paterson has a few furlongs to catch up with front-runners but I'm not tearing up my ticket just yet. Speak up and speak out as much and as often as you like,Mr Paterson.
"At this critical moment in our nation’s history, I have clear ideas on the future of the UK and its place in the world. I intend to continue to serve my country and constituents from the backbenches" does not sound angry nor should it, since it was put out by 10 Downing Street.
Can we please refrain from calling the Bedroom Tax the 'Spare Room Subsidy'?
Call it by its proper name please ;-)
Hitting the Poor Tax ! On the other hand, this has been Recruiting Sergent for the Labour Party. I do not want to compare it to the Poll Tax but it is close.
Can we please refrain from calling the Bedroom Tax the 'Spare Room Subsidy'?
Call it by its proper name please ;-)
Hitting the Poor Tax ! On the other hand, this has been Recruiting Sergent for the Labour Party. I do not want to compare it to the Poll Tax but it is close.
Did you have any problems when Labour did this to those renting in the private sector?
I note the Tim hero worship has begun again in earnest.
It has been clear to me for some time that this 'witty brilliant leftie' poster, as the PB Tories eulogise him, is simply Sean T masquerading under another name ;-)
Can we please refrain from calling the Bedroom Tax the 'Spare Room Subsidy'?
Call it by its proper name please ;-)
Hitting the Poor Tax ! On the other hand, this has been Recruiting Sergent for the Labour Party. I do not want to compare it to the Poll Tax but it is close.
Did you have any problems when Labour did this to those renting in the private sector?
Labour did not do the same for those renting in the private sector . They only applied it to new tenancies not existing ones .
OT - saw the hugely entertaining "Handbagged" in London last night -Queen vs Maggie - with two sets of actors playing recent and historical versions of themselves - very well done, but old Queen and Young Maggie walk away with it....
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
Oh right sorry! It went over my head
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.
I have spoken out against the policy since the start both on here and at ConHome where I received a somewhat surprising amount of support .
Am I looking at the right picture of Clegg? Looks exactly the same as always. What am I missing?
I think Clegg is trying to back up his point – earlier he had attacked the Daily Mail over what he deemed as a "sexist" double-page spread on the fashion choices of nine female MPs promoted in a government reshuffle.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
Oh right sorry! It went over my head
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
Comments
Brainless.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Obv the lecturer was one of the 13
Some of the arguments for giving prisoners the vote resembled those on here for letting criminals become policemen, including " haven't they had enough punishment???" " they've already lost their freedom"
But the best was
"What about prisoners that are innocent and shouldn't be in prison?"
Isn't that all of them?!
Instead of dress-down Friday in the office, we have free Coffee and Cakes on Thursdays. As by now most of the staff are hyper on caffeine and sugar, it could prove to be an interesting afternoon, especially with number of very-lightly clad young ladies parading past our windows on their way to the beach. Best draw all the sun blinds (except mine) to ensure work gets done.
One of the strengths of the Coalition, noted by many including civil servants, is how pragmatic they have been. The nature of a Coalition ensured policies had to be reviewed to be carried by both parties and there has been far less policy on the hoof.
Clearly there are aspects of party politics here but surprise, surprise it's a Coalition in its last months of office before the general election.
I'd rather the Coalition face up to mistakes rather than blithely turn it face against the inevitable.
Bloody Hell that pitch though.
Greentop !
Perhaps more time could and should have been given to this - but it is not the Big Brother piece of legislation that some would have you believe. If you look at the detail and not the hype, it is actually essentially the only way that we could have dealt with the situation.
However, Esther McVey, one of the women featured in the article laughed it off saying: - it was “great news that people are talking about powerful women walking up in to Downing Street".
Could be wrong of course but I think the feMail knows its readership better the clegg.
However, in recent years the convention has been expanded and is being interpreted in ways that would be quite alien to the original authors and is alien to English and Welsh legal tradition. Furthermore, some of the decisions of the Court are seen as perverse and are having a downright damaging effect on public policy. For example: the Australian lady co-habiting for five years with one of our posters who, despite being hard working and law abiding, was slung out of the country while she applied for a new visa (which may not be granted) whilst serious criminals cannot be removed because of a right to a family life.
The idea expressed by Mr. Surbiton that that sort of nonsense would have been supported by Churchill and the Conservative party of old is frankly laughable. Indeed who in the Atlee government would have gone along with the make up and decisions of the current court?
As a fine point of interest the HRA was, as is true with so much legislation tied in with Europe, sold to the Brits on a false prospectus. I remember Blair telling us that it was a tidying up exercise and would allow human rights cases to be decided in British courts rather than abroad and furthermore there would only be a handful of cases a year. Whilst he was peddling that line his wife was setting up a chambers intended to specialise in human rights cases.
Anyway, I think that the current situation is having such a deleterious effect on public policy and regard for the law that something has to be done. The debate is what.
A rebalancing of the powers is absolutely necessary in my opinion.
I see Clegg's making Miliband look good.
Mr. Simon, I quite agree.
Seeing as Gove was only sacked because it was government by opinion poll, it's hardly a surprise that an opinion poll shows the decision to popular
One of the first prescribed rights should be the following:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Daniel Cambers @dcambers 1m
Hague on bedroom tax: "I don't think we'll be able to have an emergency debate every time (the Lib Dems) change their policy."
I've nothing against a party changing its mind sometime after the event re legislation if it causes unexpected consequences or times move on socially, but within the SAME parly is just daft - it makes them sound weak and stupid - why did the same people agree to it only 2yrs ago if its such a bad idea now?
One would think Cleggers would have better things to witter about then this.
Great call on England @ 2.66 btw.
Well the women in the reshuffle were obviously just filling a quota that Cameron has set... He left it until the very last moment to install them, once all the policies had been made and implemented. The ultimate in window dressing
Maybe a chat about cats to get things started?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Would be quite amusing to watch.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/delayed-report-finds-bedroom-tax-is-failing/7004691.article
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ultimate high five
1) Hattie's "Middle income more tax"
2) Clegg's U-Turn on the *"Spare room subsidy removal"*
3) Cameron high fiving Junker.
Do any of them have any impact at all ?
Clegg's "Spare room subsidy removal"* U-Turn is giving Labour an absolute field day for Labour on Twitter right now.
* Also known as the bedroom tax
However it's indicative on how the complete adversarial nature of British politics works. Political parties and individual politicians are loathe to concede a mistake. Broadly speaking the voters are more forgiving as they certainly are aware politicians are not infallible.
You meant Hannibal instead of a hamster?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100280491/bedroom-tax-u-turn-is-nick-clegg-actually-trying-to-remind-people-why-they-hate-him/
"How shallow can you be? You agree a policy. You vote for a policy. An election hoves into view. So without any consultation with your colleagues in government, you ditch the policy.
Self-interest. Duplicity. Shallowness. All of Clegg’s perceived negatives neatly collated into a single neat tabloid headline."
"Michael Gove 'got stuck in Commons toilet'"
In the U bend? Or is it a plan to keep him away from the voters?
Boring version here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28341980
And Prior drops a dolly off the last ball before lunch ....
Balls up? they must have misheard you?
"There's a stronger link between sugar consumption and heart disease"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13669826
Far be it from me to defend Clegg but surely he has a case that he has changed his view on the Bedroom Tax in light of the evidence showing it is failing?
It's less an embarrassment for the Liberals - despite Rachel Reeves sticking her well manicured talons in - more a complete field day for Labour who will use it as vindication of their being right all along. Tricky one for the government.
I regularly apologise and concede points on here. Maybe that's becausey points are so shit in the first place!
@PBmoderator
How come it says Hugh joined this month? He posted loads at the start of the year, joining the site the day after Tim left
Over the years I have been forced to take a daily salt pill and told that taking salt on my food is bad for me, both on the best medical advice. A moderate ration of booze is good for me, say one group of quacks. Alcohol is a killer even in small quantities, say another. An egg a day was good for us said the Government medical advisers, right up to the time they said eggs are bad for us. Ditto milk: anyone else remember "drink a pint of milk a day"? That was proper milk too, none of your skimmed muck (HMG used to pay a premium for high fat milk because it was so good for us). Carbohydrates bad, then carbohydrates good, the list on conflicting advice goes on and on.
The list of conflicting "expert" opinion goes on and on and on. I think I have now heard government advice in favour of just about anything (HMG used to issue fags to its troops) and against just about everything. To what benefit? My mother who used to listen to all this advice fell off her perch at aged 60 when her elder brother (who went through WW2 at the very sharp end) ate what he liked, drank what he liked (and no 28 units a week either) and smoked what he liked (at aged 85 his doctor was still trying to make him give up, God knows why) and snuffed it at 88.
This month sugar is bad for you. Next year the Mail will be publishing stories about how sugar is a wonder ingredient with life enhancing abilities.
The Tories only have 48 women MPs. About 1/7.
'Far be it from me to defend Clegg but surely he has a case that he has changed his view on the Bedroom Tax in light of the evidence showing it is failing?'
After spending so much time in the media supporting it,debating it and then voting for it, he now does a complete u-turn ,no surprise he is so toxic and his party has dropped as low as 6% in the polls.
Conservatives have 48 = 16%.
2. Clegg is being duplicitous over the spare room subsidy end of. If the LDs wanted the policy tweaked - as I read - they should say so. To allow a story to develop that they want to abandon it is pathetic and attracting all of the derision it deserves.
3. Of course we know that Hattie Harman wants everyone in the 'squeezed middle' to pay more tax in order to allow for claimants to occupy properties greater than their needs.
Hugh is more akin to compouter, though without the legendary sense of humour (thank God). At least they have both read the same daily mirror article on Circle Health.
Can we please refrain from calling the Bedroom Tax the 'Spare Room Subsidy'?
Call it by its proper name please ;-)
Plato is a long standing contributor to PB.com and in 2011 was voted ‘Poster of the Year (POTY) – She has recently taken a sabbatical to peruse other interests, but pops back occasionally to say hi.
As a relative newbie you were not to know that and so your courteous warm ‘welcome’ is not diminished in anyway as a result.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/10634081/John-Yudkin-the-man-who-tried-to-warn-us-about-sugar.html
Speak up and speak out as much and as often as you like,Mr Paterson.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10973427/Owen-Paterson-tells-Cameron-I-wont-be-silenced.html
"At this critical moment in our nation’s history, I have clear ideas on the future of the UK and its place in the world. I intend to continue to serve my country and constituents from the backbenches" does not sound angry nor should it, since it was put out by 10 Downing Street.
It has been clear to me for some time that this 'witty brilliant leftie' poster, as the PB Tories eulogise him, is simply Sean T masquerading under another name ;-)
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/oct/02/handbagged-review-queen-margaret-thatcher
Is there any one in the country who still supports this dog of a policy? All credit to the Liberals for seeing sense on it. Politicians should be allowed to change their minds in the light of new evidence.