@tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.
In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.
Richard.
The key point you have made is that Tories travel to UKIP on return tickets. Labour voters emigrate.
tim will never understand this.
Still, Ed's nailed on the oldie vote with his raid on bus passes.
Today, it's Alan Sugar losing his free seat on the 22.
Tomorrow it's Doris and Sid Bloggs paying on the 78, when the sums are Ballsed up.
I know you aren't the sharpest but bus passes and winter fuel aren't usually confused
I'm drawing up Ed's next plan - but you wouldn't understand, tim.
Today's heating, is tomorrows travel, is next weeks prescription.
We'll leave the TV licenses until last. Mustn't upset one's friends at the BBC.
.Just back from a nice excursion to St James Park. Lovely sunny day, but crowds of tourists and kids, (either not returning to school or bunking off), in droves. As fore the Thread, I just want to say that UKIP will get to all parts of the UK, but some parts more more than others. Have a nice day.
Mr. K
Are you planning to get to all parks of the UK by bus?
I would hurry up if I were you. Ed Balls plans will put a quick stop to such freeloading if you and your friends allow him to slip undeservedly into office.
Does the existence and popularity of UKIP pose a threat to the arguments put forward by the SNP?
The Nats are basically saying: 'Let us not be free. Let us be free of Westminster and instead become the minion of Brussels'.
UKIP are saying: 'To be truly free you need to be truly independent.' I agree with that. If the Jocks want to be free then they should really go for it. Leave Westmister AND Brussels behind. Get themselves a currency (the Thistle?) and be masters of their own penury.
This is an interesting point, but missing a little understanding of the situation.
The SNP are in the don't scare the voters mode and saying nothing much will change. We'll keep the pound, we'll keep the Queen, we'll stay in NATO and EU etc..
The real laugh is that if Salmond had the dangly bits between his thighs that he thinks he has, and said that Scotland would go it alone, kiss Westminster Good Bye, with our own Groat tied to the Euro, no Queen (or Charlie and Camilla) and no NATO while still being in the EU, even to having border posts on the A1 if England went out - the SNP would walk it.
Believe it or not, since the English "hate" the EU, we rather like it ;^)
@tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.
In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.
Richard.
The key point you have made is that Tories travel to UKIP on return tickets. Labour voters emigrate.
tim will never understand this.
Still, Ed's nailed on the oldie vote with his raid on bus passes.
Today, it's Alan Sugar losing his free seat on the 22.
Tomorrow it's Doris and Sid Bloggs paying on the 78, when the sums are Ballsed up.
I know you aren't the sharpest but bus passes and winter fuel aren't usually confused
At the rate Ed Balls is going he will soon be taxing dentures and slapping a fee on hip replacements.
According to the Sun, Ed is the new Neil Kinnock...
'Today, after three shambolic years at the helm, few inside — and almost nobody outside — this deeply divided party shares his delusion. In the past month he has been trashed by Tony Blair, ditched by rich donors and, humiliatingly, rated by voters as even less trustworthy than predecessor Gordon Brown. Through all this Mr Miliband sails on, blithely crooning, “I’ll do it my way”. He means, of course, he will do it the way he is told by the trade unions who bought and paid for his shock leadership victory. Mr Miliband is the prisoner of public sector dinosaurs who now hold Labour's purse strings, dictate policy and choose Labour MPs'.
Balls said "With primary school places in short supply in many parts of the country, and parents struggling to get their children into a local school, can it really be a priority to open more free schools in 2015 and 2016 in areas with excess secondary school places?"
And that becomes a u-turn?
Of course the secret funding plan will appeal to you, so bothered about state spending. How much has been spent so far, any idea?
What Toby omits is the thing that parents really like about Academy and Free schools :
They aren't run by gawd awful LEAs.
They are out of the clutches of the evil lefty ninnys and social planners.
Speaking of which :
"Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 1m Cameron declares war on trade union funding for Labour as he unveils plan to create statutory register of lobbyists"
James Chapman tweets: "Govt to use lobbying register to declare war on Labour links to unions: end to self-certification of membership and 3rd party funding rules."
I'd imagine the Free Schools vary a lot, the tiny religious ones where the state now picks up the fees will have a different function to a new primary in an area where places are needed. Thats why I suspect the Labour response will be different.
This morning, the government’s plans for a register of lobbyists were ‘ongoing’. This afternoon, they’re well on their way to becoming law. Number 10 has announced that it will be bringing forward a lobbying bill after all, and before the summer recess. Next time we hear the word ‘ongoing’, perhaps we won’t all be so cynical about a bill’s trajectory.
Ministers have clearly decided to use a scandal about lobbying to crack down on the influence that trade unions hold over the Labour party, which is a non-sequitur. The weekend’s allegations were about MPs and peers behaving badly, not trade union influence, and the government may find that its desire to seize the moment on this issue makes life a bit awkward as the legislation progresses. The current proposal is to control election spending for organisations and affiliates of political parties that give £100,000 or more to that party. The statutory register of lobbyists will also form a part of this bill, but it will be the plans affecting trade unions that will attract the most attention.
Meanwhile if you’re an MP guilty of high jinks while in Parliament, you can rest easy: a power of recall for constituents dissatisfied with their representative’s performance won’t appear until next year, meaning those currently cheesing off their voters can remain until the 2015 general election. It’s not entirely clear that today’s proposals will dramatically increase accountability and standards in Parliament.
The Guardian has interesting story about Israel tying up a deal whereby 'East African countries' will absorb some recent migrants that have sneaked over the border with Egypt in return for provision of agricultural expertise.
I wonder if that's an idea that might catch on elsewhere...
I'd imagine the Free Schools vary a lot, the tiny religious ones where the state now picks up the fees will have a different function to a new primary in an area where places are needed. Thats why I suspect the Labour response will be different.
But how much do they cost, could you tell us?
Find out for yourself you lazy lefty oik
Messiah Gove funds them in secret. Nobody has a clue outside his fervent little clique how much they cost.
I have no idea what the true costs are, tim, but what I can tell you is that they are all value for money.
a). horrified. b). worried about prospect of throat cancer. c). selling story to the Daily Wail. d). disgusted that someone else tipped off the media before you?
What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?
UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.
Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.
Yes, annoying when people quote actual polling numbers, isn't it? Very boring of them.
I ran into trouble too quite recently by quoting empirical evidence to the Watcher. I am too easily swayed by the data, it would seem.
"The most controversial element of the Coalition proposal is aimed at organisations – typically unions – which are affiliated to a political party or make donations of more than £100,000. During elections the full cost of their help will have to be declared and count towards the limit on spending by a party.
For instance, if a union supplies leaflets or posters then the expense of producing them – including overhead expenses such as staff and premises – will have to be included.
Under the new proposals, unions will be required to carry out an annual audit of their membership and demonstrate that the figures they produce are accurate.
The Certification Officer will be given the power to conduct investigations into the numbers produced, which are vital when ballots on strike action are conducted. The move follows controversy over a strike vote by British Airways staff which was later overturned because people who had left the company took part in the ballot."
What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?
UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.
Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.
Yes, annoying when people quote actual polling numbers, isn't it? Very boring of them.
I ran into trouble too quite recently by quoting empirical evidence to the Watcher. I am too easily swayed by the data, it would seem.
a). horrified. b). worried about prospect of throat cancer. c). selling story to the Daily Wail. d). disgusted that someone else tipped off the media before you?
or (e) unsurprised that you had a question dealing with various aspects of criminal law in a crim law exam.
The poor sheltered darlings would be horrfied by Brown (1993) or Boyea (1992) (details not exactly sfw)
Boy George is not only a great Chancellor but he seems also to be a great champion of wealth distribution and fairness too.
Wherever will the Lib Dems go next?
Do you really believe this longwinded propaganda you churn out, day after tedious day? Stick to Rowenna Davis' talent. You are required reading on that topic!
@tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.
In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.
Even if this is true and is repeated at a GE, does this even matter under FPP? Surely Labour would happily give Ukip a few protest votes in its urban strongholds in exchange for a few a former Tory ones where the Tories are defending small majorities from the centre-left parties.
Boy George is not only a great Chancellor but he seems also to be a great champion of wealth distribution and fairness too.
Wherever will the Lib Dems go next?
Do you really believe this longwinded propaganda you churn out, day after tedious day? Stick to Rowenna Davis' talent. You are required reading on that topic!
Reputable figures inform all my posts, Bobajob.
Regrettably not all are researched to my satisfaction.
Rush out a nakedly party-political attack on Labour / the Unions, using the poor excuse of the lobbying scandal, in time for the evening news on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?
GOT to be George Osborne's doing, surely? The Tories are now so Brownesque it's painful to watch.
F1: just a reminder that the early discussion of Canada will be up tomorrow. Apparently rain is possible, but obviously the event's several days away, so that could change.
The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.
@tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.
In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.
Even if this is true and is repeated at a GE, does this even matter under FPP? Surely Labour would happily give Ukip a few protest votes in its urban strongholds in exchange for a few a former Tory ones where the Tories are defending small majorities from the centre-left parties.
Matters if there's Tory tactical voting in those areas.
Apologies if I missed it (latecomer to the thread!) but has Harry missed that UKIP have a local councillor on Newry & Mourne District Council, Northern Ireland.
I'm sure that's the argument labour will be making when they oppose the bill....
Are they actually going to allow consultation and debate on the Bill? I thought they were just making it up as they went along. It's really poor form from them though, terrible stuff.
Cameron has properly lost the plot with his anti TU legislation.
It's almost like he knows he is going to lose and has given up.
Philosophically, why is it wrong that the full value of support given by companies or other organisations to political parties is correctly calculated and set against the limits on total spending?
It seems like a good idea to me: we always see cases where the party leaders (I mainly recall the Tories, but sure the others get them to) get lent private planes during election campaigns, etc. I'm fine with companies and other orgnasations getting involved - providing that the shareholders are ok with it - but why shouldn't it be properly valued?
Rush out a nakedly party-political attack on Labour / the Unions, using the poor excuse of the lobbying scandal, in time for the evening news on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?
GOT to be George Osborne's doing, surely? The Tories are now so Brownesque it's painful to watch.
Yeah, treating the unions like any other organisation rather than allowing their members to vote multiple times in your leadership contest. What on earth are they thinking!
All these PBTories getting excited at some union bashing: have you considered a simple point ? Do you Tories have the numbers to pass any legislation ?
Remember, you did not win the election ! Dave and Gideon goofed it.
Yeah, treating the unions like any other organisation
What other voluntary organisations are regulated in this way?
Why shouldn't unions which (theoretically) act on behalf of their members be regulated in the same way as companies (which also act on behalf of their members)?
Dunno about Wales or NI but i think UKIP in Scotland has a reasonable chance of turning into a reboot of the Scottish Conservatives at some point as IIRC in the past they always had a slightly different political centre of gravity from the English party anyway.
Rush out a nakedly party-political attack on Labour / the Unions, using the poor excuse of the lobbying scandal, in time for the evening news on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?
GOT to be George Osborne's doing, surely? The Tories are now so Brownesque it's painful to watch.
Yeah, treating the unions like any other organisation rather than allowing their members to vote multiple times in your leadership contest. What on earth are they thinking!
You're way out of your depth again, as is Charles. But I'll leave this one to Neil.
Why shouldn't unions which (theoretically) act on behalf of their members be regulated in the same way as companies (which also act on behalf of their members)?
The proposal isnt to treat trade unions in the same way as companies are treated. Trade unions have to have audited accounts as companies do. The proposals for the new powers for the Certification Officer go beyond any equivalent requirements most companies would be subjected to.
But don't unions possess certain legal privileges (and rightly so) that other voluntary organisations do not?
Yes and they are already held to account for those privileges (too tightly in my view - clear cases of members voting for industrial action have been overturned on legal technicalities). These further proposed regulations are disproportionate.
Why shouldn't unions which (theoretically) act on behalf of their members be regulated in the same way as companies (which also act on behalf of their members)?
The proposal isnt to treat trade unions in the same way as companies are treated. Trade unions have to have audited accounts as companies do. The proposals for the new powers for the Certification Officer go beyond any equivalent requirements most companies would be subjected to.
Company directors are required by law to maintain an accurate register of company members. I would need to check, but suspect that Companies House could challenge them if the records were not accurate.
Rush out a nakedly party-political attack on Labour / the Unions, using the poor excuse of the lobbying scandal, in time for the evening news on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?
GOT to be George Osborne's doing, surely? The Tories are now so Brownesque it's painful to watch.
Yeah, treating the unions like any other organisation rather than allowing their members to vote multiple times in your leadership contest. What on earth are they thinking!
You're way out of your depth again, as is Charles. But I'll leave this one to Neil.
Because you don't have an answer to my question?
Primarily because you don't understand why you asked such a stupid question. But hey, as with mumps I'm sure your family has been involved in it for 800 years or so.
I know exactly why I asked the question: I don't like any organisation having too much influence over the political process. Money is one of the most powerful ways that influence can be obtained. (I'd be very happy to cap donations from individuals as well as organisations). In any event "soft money" can be the most invidious of all as it is hard to track and monitor.
Can you tell me why you are happy for privately run organisations to be able to influence the outcome of a democratic election?
But don't unions possess certain legal privileges (and rightly so) that other voluntary organisations do not?
Yes and they are already held to account for those privileges (too tightly in my view - clear cases of members voting for industrial action have been overturned on legal technicalities). These further proposed regulations are disproportionate.
Can't say I'm personally too fussed one way or the other about this proposal but if unions do enjoy extensive legal protection (and I'm not sure your partially valid point about some ballots being overturned on procedural grounds is germane to the argument) then it's not fundamentally objectionable that membership numbers declared have a solid basis, is it?
it's not fundamentally objectionable that membership numbers declared have a solid basis, is it?
I'm not sure it's right to display PB Tory disunity to all and sundry, JohnO...
.. but my objection probably doesnt amount to being "fundamental", accounts have to be audited, the membership numbers are a part of that process, requiring a higher threshold which will impose a burden to no benefit to members (have you ever met any calling for this?!) smacks of being a gratuitous attack on a group the government doesnt like. Maybe it's to kill the Bill as IOS says or maybe it's to make up for not toughening the strike ballot laws. Either way I definitely find it objectionable.
More seriously - surely unions are the ultimate lobbyists? I wouldn't be surprised if they do more lobbying than all other organisations put together. Nearly every union website will tell you about the campaigns they are working on and financing. That's one of the things they are for, right?
I chose an example at random - which happens to be the biggest union of all - and what do I find on their home page? A big banner: 'Lobby of parliament, Tuesday 11th June'
'A Unite spokesman said the union was "fully confident that in relation to Falkirk West, as in all seats where our members are active in the Labour Party, our conduct is correct and fully compliant with the rules of the party".'
Bit like the suspended Lords who were only working within the rules. Shame on The Telegraph for catching them out like that, particularly the ex copper.
There's nothing wrong with lobbying. It's also important not to clog it up too tightly - every individual who writes to their MP about a topic is lobbying. And why shouldn't individuals and private organisations either band together to lobby more effectively or employ professionals to help them lobby more effectively?
The problem is with corrupt legislators. While I accept that relatively few MPs and Lords are corrupt, those that are not are too tolerant of those that are. Honest legislators need to start putting country above party on this front.
An unconnected thought on trades union*: Len McCluskey was elected on a turnout broadly comparable with that of Police Commissioners. Following Labour policy on Police Commissioners, should we abolish elections for union officials and instead have them appointed by the Business Secretary?
Off topic - does anyone know what the Turkish rioting is about? I just watched BBC News and there was an interview with some Turkish journalist. She stated at least twice that people want "more democracy" and "freedom of speech" but the interviewer didn't seem to think it was relevant as to what sort of additional democracy was required in a country with an elected government, or where speech is being curtailed.
Off topic - does anyone know what the Turkish rioting is about? I just watched BBC News and there was an interview with some Turkish journalist. She stated at least twice that people want "more democracy" and "freedom of speech" but the interviewer didn't seem to think it was relevant as to what sort of additional democracy was required in a country with an elected government, or where speech is being curtailed.
The riots started off as a demo against plans by Istanbul to redevelop one of their major open spaces.
Dunno about Wales or NI but i think UKIP in Scotland has a reasonable chance of turning into a reboot of the Scottish Conservatives at some point as IIRC in the past they always had a slightly different political centre of gravity from the English party anyway.
UKIP have a local councillor on Newry & Mourne District Council, Northern Ireland.
Comments
Today's heating, is tomorrows travel, is next weeks prescription.
We'll leave the TV licenses until last. Mustn't upset one's friends at the BBC.
Are you planning to get to all parks of the UK by bus?
I would hurry up if I were you. Ed Balls plans will put a quick stop to such freeloading if you and your friends allow him to slip undeservedly into office.
The SNP are in the don't scare the voters mode and saying nothing much will change. We'll keep the pound, we'll keep the Queen, we'll stay in NATO and EU etc..
The real laugh is that if Salmond had the dangly bits between his thighs that he thinks he has, and said that Scotland would go it alone, kiss Westminster Good Bye, with our own Groat tied to the Euro, no Queen (or Charlie and Camilla) and no NATO while still being in the EU, even to having border posts on the A1 if England went out - the SNP would walk it.
Believe it or not, since the English "hate" the EU, we rather like it ;^)
Be afraid. Be very afraid, tim.
They can elevate themselves to El Presidente status whilst still being able to blame London for the economy,
Labour loathes free schools with a vengeance. They just can't bring themselves to say it.
Goodness....one of those lower middle class upstarts could take Ewan or Jocasta's PPE place at Balliol...!!! Perish the thought.
'Today, after three shambolic years at the helm, few inside — and almost nobody outside — this deeply divided party shares his delusion.
In the past month he has been trashed by Tony Blair, ditched by rich donors and, humiliatingly, rated by voters as even less trustworthy than predecessor Gordon Brown.
Through all this Mr Miliband sails on, blithely crooning, “I’ll do it my way”.
He means, of course, he will do it the way he is told by the trade unions who bought and paid for his shock leadership victory.
Mr Miliband is the prisoner of public sector dinosaurs who now hold Labour's purse strings, dictate policy and choose Labour MPs'.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4952212/KAVANAGH-Why-Red-Ed-will-never-lead-Britain.html#ixzz2VAXwDH7Z
They aren't run by gawd awful LEAs.
They are out of the clutches of the evil lefty ninnys and social planners.
Speaking of which :
"Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 1m
Cameron declares war on trade union funding for Labour as he unveils plan to create statutory register of lobbyists"
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-06-03/ben-daniels-the-favourite-for-doctor-who/
I think he'd do well.....an edge of menace to him.....
Of course, it will be somebody else not currently featuring in the betting....
I wonder if that's an idea that might catch on elsewhere...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22753017
Would you be:
a). horrified.
b). worried about prospect of throat cancer.
c). selling story to the Daily Wail.
d). disgusted that someone else tipped off the media before you?
Of course, it will be somebody else not currently featuring in the betting...."
Yes, Paterson Joseph was the favourite last time, until just before the announcement when Matt Smith suddenly became favourite out of nowhere.
Unless of course Daniels has already been picked.
If I were the Labour high command I would be seriously concerned!
Meanwhile, I take it my fellow PB brethren have logged in to Dan's website danhodges.com
It's similar to his Telegraph blog, only with more intellectually honest billing.
"The most controversial element of the Coalition proposal is aimed at organisations – typically unions – which are affiliated to a political party or make donations of more than £100,000. During elections the full cost of their help will have to be declared and count towards the limit on spending by a party.
For instance, if a union supplies leaflets or posters then the expense of producing them – including overhead expenses such as staff and premises – will have to be included.
Under the new proposals, unions will be required to carry out an annual audit of their membership and demonstrate that the figures they produce are accurate.
The Certification Officer will be given the power to conduct investigations into the numbers produced, which are vital when ballots on strike action are conducted. The move follows controversy over a strike vote by British Airways staff which was later overturned because people who had left the company took part in the ballot."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/downing-street-brings-forward-plans-for-statutory-register-of-lobbyists-to-july-8642757.html
The poor sheltered darlings would be horrfied by Brown (1993) or Boyea (1992) (details not exactly sfw)
Regrettably not all are researched to my satisfaction.
Rush out a nakedly party-political attack on Labour / the Unions, using the poor excuse of the lobbying scandal, in time for the evening news on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?
GOT to be George Osborne's doing, surely? The Tories are now so Brownesque it's painful to watch.
It's almost like he knows he is going to lose and has given up.
'on the day Labour make a big / symbolic speech on the economy?'
What the £100 million raid on pensioners?
whiff of panic in the labour ranks?
Afraid of examination of union membership numbers?
They almost look like they are desperate for the electorate to put them out of their misery.
LOL - fair enough, I'm sure that's the argument labour will be making when they oppose the bill....
It seems like a good idea to me: we always see cases where the party leaders (I mainly recall the Tories, but sure the others get them to) get lent private planes during election campaigns, etc. I'm fine with companies and other orgnasations getting involved - providing that the shareholders are ok with it - but why shouldn't it be properly valued?
It won't get that far. My only logical conclusion is they want the bill dead and are going to try and make sure that Labour get some of the blame.
Do you Tories have the numbers to pass any legislation ?
Remember, you did not win the election ! Dave and Gideon goofed it.
Most interesting that.
"UKIP want to become the voice of the people that Labour has forgotten"
Some rough edges to the clips, but a simple message simply expressed. I wonder how well they'll do.
Can you tell me why you are happy for privately run organisations to be able to influence the outcome of a democratic election?
Have to run as have a flight to catch.
I'll check back later tonight or tomorrow though to see your well thought through answer.
Happy scrabbling.
.. but my objection probably doesnt amount to being "fundamental", accounts have to be audited, the membership numbers are a part of that process, requiring a higher threshold which will impose a burden to no benefit to members (have you ever met any calling for this?!) smacks of being a gratuitous attack on a group the government doesnt like. Maybe it's to kill the Bill as IOS says or maybe it's to make up for not toughening the strike ballot laws. Either way I definitely find it objectionable.
After all, Labour agree with the Tories on the need to deal with union shenanigans:
http://news.stv.tv/stirling-central/225836-labour-suspends-process-of-selecting-successor-to-eric-joyce-in-falkirk/
I chose an example at random - which happens to be the biggest union of all - and what do I find on their home page? A big banner: 'Lobby of parliament, Tuesday 11th June'
http://www.unitetheunion.org/
Bit like the suspended Lords who were only working within the rules. Shame on The Telegraph for catching them out like that, particularly the ex copper.
The problem is with corrupt legislators. While I accept that relatively few MPs and Lords are corrupt, those that are not are too tolerant of those that are. Honest legislators need to start putting country above party on this front.
*For the benefit of Fluffy Thoughts.