Salmond Budget claims' bluff and bluster' says Miliband

Talking in Clydebank, Mr Miliband said the only folks composing a future Labour Budget would be shadow chancellor Ed Balls and himself.
He included:
Mr Miliband said he was working for a Labour majority.
"Should you hold the equilibrium, then you definitely hold the power," he said. That's patently clear.

But talking to Labour activists on Monday, Mr Miliband said: "Honestly, Alex Salmond is at it again. And it's a mix of bluster and bluff."
Mr Salmond also said on Sunday that he considered a "vote-by-vote arrangement" between a minority Labour government as well as the SNP is the most likely results of the election.
But Mr Miliband said he needed a majority Labour government.
He said: "The only style that I'm really going to be the prime minister altering this state is if you vote Labour. This is the easy choice at this election."

He included: "How other parties determine to vote on the grounds of a Labour Queen's Address is up to them."
As a fresh survey indicated Labour could lose the majority of its own seats north of the edge, Mr Miliband was talking
Mr Miliband also repeated a pledge his party will provide more power for the Scottish Parliament.
He said: "We'll give a home rule bill for Scotland in our first Queen's address. More powers over social security, through occupations, through income tax.
He attacked the strategies of the SNP for complete financial autonomy for Scotland, saying they'd expand austerity north of the border.

 "That means the SNP fight this election still proposing to stop the sharing of resources to the other side of the UK, the rule of redistribution.
"They're campaigning for the ending of the Barnett Formula, replacing it using a reliance on high-risk and unpredictable petroleum revenues - sales which even Nicola Sturgeon acknowledges are astonishingly difficult to call."
Media caption The deputy leader of the SNP says he CAn't comprehend why Ed Miliband was "saying these daft things"
And he said Labour will put a stop to "Tory austerity".
"Tory austerity makes it so much more difficult for us to teach the young," he said. "Tory austerity makes life risky for the old, Tory austerity sabotages our NHS and our essential public services in each and every element of the UK.
'Boost Scotland'
"So we'll put paid once and for all to Tory austerity using a Labour government."
His remarks came as a fresh ICM/Guardian survey indicated Labour faces losing most of its 41 seats in Scotland on 7 May.
"If we're in a status to help we're ready to help a Labour government, but that will come at a cost," he told the BBC's Daily Politics.
"If it's a trust and supply arrangement, we must agree on several stuff at the start.
"It it's a vote-by-vote basis then there should be discussions through the course of the parliament."

Has Louise Mensch been caught lying? Time for her to resign?

Speaking on BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, the Conservative MP Louise Mensch said the issue of whether Murdoch was a fit and proper person had not been discussed by the committee before an amendment was tabled on Monday. However it has now been revealed that she did not tellthe truth and in fact it was discussed six weeks ago. It seems Lousie is now up her neck in news corps mud and it does seem that she has lied to try and protect news corps, it is now time for her to resign or explain why she lied.

Are the conservatives now blatantly in the pockets of the Murdochs? Is Louise Mensch unfit to serve in Parliament?

The conservatives are no longer being subtle about their support for the Murdoch’s and BSkyB. Louise Mensch, blatantly shilling for Murdoch by calling the recent report partisan. Either the Murdochs misled parliament and are therefore corrupt and unfit to run a media company or they are highly incompetent and therefore unfit to run a media company. Either way the inescapable truth is that the Murdoch’s and BSKYB are not fit to hold a media license. Therefore the other inescapable truth is that Louise Mensch and her conservative colleagues are either incompetent or in the pocket of the Murdochs either way they are unfit to serve in parliament.

Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company", MPs have said.

MPs have come to the rather obvious conclusion that Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company" unsurprisingly the Tories have inevitably tried to protect Rupert Murdoch. The real surprise in this is that Labour and the Lib Dems have had the bravery to stand up to Rupert Murdoch.

No to AVs three dishonest claims, actually they are outright lies.

The No to AV campaign has 3 main reasons to vote no to AV. One a complete distortion the other two are outright lies. But the whole no to AV campaign has been one of dishonesty and fear mongering from the start.

AV is costly

“The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns. With ordinary families facing tough times can we really afford to spend a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money bringing in a new voting system? Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote – that's the choice in this referendum.”

If they think a onetime £250 million cost is going to stop education or health care they have not got a clue about how much those actually cost. Healthcare costs £110 Billion a year or about 440X the one of cost for AV. Education costs are approximately £84 billion a year about 336X the one of cost of AV Clearly the claim that it is schools and hospitals or AV is a complete and disgraceful lie.

Cancelling the unnecessary trident replacement at a minimum would save a £24 Billion one of cost and who knows how much per year in maintenance. By doing so you could spend £250million on AV and have over £23 Billon extra to spend on schools and hospitals. Or use that money to buy conventional military equipment that has a genuine use and is under our control unlike trident and its potential replacement.

AV is complex and unfair

“The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected. That’s why it is used by just three countries in the world – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter.”

Under AV the most popular candidates win First past the post allows for unpopular and weak leaders who are elected with less than majority support. The reason only three countries use it is because it is an anathema to weak careerist politicians who rely on the first past the post system It would have taken heavy campaigning from the non political class to get AV passed in those countries. The suggestion that the politician who comes second or third gets in is ludicrous. Under AV a politician must get a substantive majority (over 50% of the vote) and therefore be a true winner, a truly popular leader. First past the post means a politician can get in with an un-substantive majority (under 50% of the vote) now that is a real losers charter.

AV is fairer and the suggestion it is too complicated is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this country. Filling out the census form is a lot more complicated and it’s not hard. Australians have been using it successfully sin 1918 they don’t think it is complicated at all.

AV is a politician's fix

“AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises like the Lib Dem tuition fees U-turn. Instead of the voters choosing the government, politicians would hold power. Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. We can't afford to let the politicians decide who runs our country.”

Australia introduced to alternative vote in 1918 since then they have had 2 hung parliaments in 1940 and 2010. Since 1918 our first past the post has also produced three hung parliaments in 1929, 1974 and 2010. Looking at the facts it shows a hung parliament is slightly less likely under AV not more likely. Therefore political deals are actually more likely under first past the post but that is why career politicians and extremists oppose AV. As for the suggestion that the only vote that counts is Nick Clegg is just a bizarre and outright lie.

Av is to the careerist and extremist politician as garlic is to a vampire that is why so many of the UK’s political failures and extremists are against it.
So there you have it the no to campaigns three main arguments against AV one distortion of reality two outright lies

Rattled David Cameron loses the plot has mini temper tantrum at Ed balls.

David Cameron dubbed shadow chancellor Ed Balls "the most annoying person in modern politics" during angry Commons exchanges. "I wish the shadow chancellor would occasionally shut up and listen to the answer," said Mr Cameron. This is rather immature of the PM and is a classic example of not having answers to his questions. Rather than say "I wish the shadow chancellor would occasionally shut up and listen to the answer," answer him again if it is a good answer he will look bad. But by acting the way he did he ends up looking bad because it looks like he is avoiding the question. This is not way a Prime minister or national leader and certainly not a British one should behave. Ultimately he looked out of his depth and rattled, No Wonder Ed Balls was grinning at David Cameron’s reply.

Tory MP Greg Hands wants to waste government time and money

Tory MP Greg Hands seems to believe that there is nothing important going on in the UK or world. He has asked ministers to take the completely unnecessary step of declaring Foxes vermin.
Mr Hands said "Last summer a number of my constituents were attacked in their own homes by urban foxes," “Could you liaise with the Communities Secretary (Eric Pickles) to see if we could change the law so that urban foxes could be treated as vermin in the same way as rats and mice are?" This is a complete waste of time it is lawful for people to kill foxes by shooting, snaring or trapping them in a baited cage - although poisoning is not allowed. Declaring Foxes vermin would make no difference to this whatsoever and would just waste government time and money.

Labour MP opposes Democracy wants to keep small parties small.

Labour MP and Shadow Cabinet member Caroline Flint has decided to oppose her newly elected leader Ed Milliband and launch an unofficial labour no campaign to AV. Most telling is her comments at 0:55 in this video from the BBC “It’s about not allowing fringe parties to have more a say in our elections and i think that is very important” That is disturbing and Sounds like someone does not want small minority parties to ever have the chance of growing without one of the big two collapsing. We nearly have effectively a two party system like in the USA and ultimately that results in a complete lack of ideas resulting in malaise and apathy. Then you end up with the situation where personality counts more than policy. We are not far off from presidential style elections where it is all about making the other person look bad.
Caroline Flint has a history of opposing democratic and open governance. After the expenses scandal she was one off 98 MPS who voted in favour of legislation that would have kept MP’s expenses secret truly disgraceful. Caroline Flint would appear to a classic example of the self entitled careerist who we need to remove from parliament
The AV system is far from perfect but is a damn site better than the current situation.
According to a YouGov poll yes to AV is slightly ahead of no by 37% to 32%. 24% are unsure how they will and 7% saying they will not vote in the referendum. Expect these figures to change as we get closer and more people learn what AV is and change their mind or make their minds up. If you are unsure what AV is and what you will be voting for here is a guide.

Clegg pledges to defend NHS

Deputy prime minister spoke at the lib dem party conference Saturday vowing to protect the NHS from privatisation.
This is a pledge that Nick Clegg must keep to we do not want an American style system where health care is provided to only those who have money and at a far greater cost than what we currently pay.

Alternative vote referendum

In two months time there will be a referendum on new voting systems. You can find out what is being voted for here and how the parties stand here.

Which way are you going to vote? I’m in favour as a step towards stronger democracy. Altough we need a non of the above option as well.

MP’s narcissism and David Camerons poor judgement

The News of the World phone “hacking”* is still being discussed in parliament. Surely this is another example of MP’s Narcissism. The alleged hacking of MP’s phones is not something for the house to discuss until the police finish their investigation. If the investigation is unsatisfactory in its thoroughness or it is clear that phones where “hacked” but the police cannot prosecute because it is not illegal, Then it is time for a debate and new laws** not before. The cynical side of me thinks that certain labour Mp’s are trying to Pre-judge Andy Coulson and the News of the World to score a cheap political point.

I can have little sympathy for David Cameroon in all this, what on earth was David Cameron thinking appointing a tabloid editor as an advisor! They will always have undesirable skeletons in there closet especially as the news of the world is infamous for its creation of news rather than reporting it. He Clearley was never fit to hold the post of Director of communications. This is like appointing Libya to the UN human right watch dog or Tony Blair Middle east peace envoy. Ohh they did do those things, damn.

*The accusation against Coulson and the news of world are not technically hacking but I use the word for convenience.
** Reading someone’s private messages should always be illegal unless there is a genuine threat to the country and if there is it should be passed to the police before publication.

Who is the right choice for labour leader?

The Guardian has chosen to support right of centre David Miliband for the labour leadership. Now considering it is the right to far right of centre policies that got Labour kicked out of office does the Guardian really think that David Miliband is the man to regain Labours lost support?

I would not agree he is a self evident career politician -ok they all are but his desire is more obvious than most- who will say anything to get elected. He would most likely be a Tony Blair II not quite the same policies but certainly the same superficial charm on the service but an amoral machine underneath unable to think of people as individuals with their own dreams and desires and completely unable to grasp the reality that these dreams and desires may be different from his own just like his old master Blair. Finally how can the Guardian a supposed liberal paper support fro Labour leadership a man who as foreign secretary spent his time lying about government complicity in torture and defending the Iraq war. Is this really the man they want as Labour leader and presumably future prime minister?