This court case was never addressing the main issue.

It is not the principle of having penalties for going overdrawn, it is the AMOUNT of penalty that these greedy and grasping banks are taking.

The very concept of a FIXED penalty is the problem. These penalties are set up to penalise the poorest and weakest in our society.

This incompetent Labour government did a huge amount of damage by closing post offices and forcing many people to have benefits, pensions etc paid into bank accounts. They did not understand the consequences of this action, all they could see were cost saving!

People on low incomes should NOT be forced to have a bank account. They are the least able to manage bank accounts and the ones who suffer the most when things go wrong.

Many elderly, sick and low paid workers only have £50 a week available to pay ALL their bills. The moment they get charged £30 plus, their accounts go out of control and they end up owing the banks hundreds of pounds.

Penalty charges MUST be PROPORTIONAL to income.

We cannot have a situation where the money paid to the poorest people in our society and which they need to live on is taken by the banks to increase their profits and add to the bonuses paid to the senior staff!!

Our prime minister did not bother listening to those who forecast exactly what would happen if the government persisted in forcing people to open bank accounts. Gordon Brown made the wrong decision, as usual, and the poorest people in the UK are the ones who are hit the hardest!

I find myself agreeing with a Lib-Dem and a socialist!

I never realised that a post code could be protected by copyright, and that Royal Mail was in the business of selling them or even resorting to litigation to protect their use. Have you considered how many websites there are in the UK that use post codes in their search utilities? You know, shops, supermarkets, online retailers, maps, etc. How many times have you gone to a major retailer’s site and entered your post code to find out where the nearest local branch is?

I find myself in total agreement with Lynne Featherstone MP and Tom Watson MP, free up the use of post codes and make the internet easier to use, more efficient, and more helpful.

Royal Mail’s big stick approach and it’s clumsy licensing system is prattishness of the highest order (in my humble opinion.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

This blog has been consistent in its criticism of Brown’s bank bailouts.

But at least most were open. We now learn that taxpayers’ money was used to bail out, secretly, the HBOS and Lloyds merger, deceiving shareholders.

Concealment is ok where it is reasonable and outweighs the alternative – the greater of two evils.

But deception is wrong and, like Bliar’s Iraq lies, it is becoming a hallmark of this disgusting Government. Time to call it a day, Mr Brown.

• The UK Government white paper responding to Calman is due, and appears from the pre-spin to be pretty positive.

The next question is how the Conservatives respond, given the very unenthusiastic signals sent by Tory front-benchers about the financial proposals.

UPDATE: The Scotland Office’s news statement on the white paper is here.  Jim Murphy’s statement is here.  Still no sign of the white paper itself on the Scotland Office website, though.

FURTHER UPDATE: The white paper is now available at http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/Scotland%27s%20Future%20in%20the%20United%20Kingdom.pdf

• Peter Hain is to appear before the National Assembly (his ‘Queen’s Speech’ appearance), following yesterday’s shenanigans and the knot in which Rhodri Morgan managed to tie himself, and Welsh Labour.

(For those  who managed to miss that – and it moved very fast – the story has been best told on Betsan Powys’s blog: start here and follow it through the next 6 posts.  See also coverage from the Western Mail here and here.)

Simon Jenkins in his Guardian article - We want Blair’s head. But Chilcot won’t give it to us - has a wonderful final sentence about the nature of inquiries into the Iraq war, by Hutton, Butler, and now Chilcot:

“It is to this that democratic accountability is reduced: long periods of silent inertia interrupted by occasional spurts of blood.”

Keep Our Communities Safe!

A backbench Conservative Member of Parliament’s plan to dismantle the registration of rifles and shotguns in Canada became closer to reality on November 4.

That’s when 20 opposition MPs joined with the entire government caucus to send Bill C-391 (which would change the Criminal Code and repeal the long gun registry) to a committee for study before being brought back for a final vote. It was a big setback for public safety.

Heading into the final steps of the law-making process with a 27-vote lead gives C-391 a good chance of succeeding. If that happens, registration of rifles and shotguns would stop and the government would delete the nearly 8 million firearms records used today by police and other law enforcement officials.

Police use those records to keep themselves and our communities safe. Statistics show that gun registry information is accessed as often as 10,000 times a day. Statistics also show a 50% drop in gun-related spousal homicides since records started being kept.

We can still turn things around.

People who think it’s a good idea to keep track of weapons like rifles and shotguns for the sake of public safety need to have their voices heard. That’s the only way to get at least 14 MPs to change their minds about C-391 and stop it from happening.

If your MP is a Conservative, your voice is especially important. That’s because the Conservative Party has a history of strong support for public safety and the police.

It doesn’t make sense that so many Conservative MPs who represent communities where the police say they need the gun registry, and where public support for keeping track of guns remains strong, voted in favour of C-391. They clearly need to hear more about this from the people they represent.

Which is why we’re asking for your help today. We need to convince a few MPs to change their minds about C-391, and vote NO when it returns to the House of Commons for final approval.

You can help us make this happen.

Forward this message to 20 of your friends.
Ask them to do the same.
Join our Facebook page.
Tell all your Facebook friends about it.
Send a post card to the Prime Minister
about how gun control is an important part of any plan to reduce violence against women.

Tell them the law is working. Tell them that gun-related spousal homicide is down 50% since the gun registry was started. Tell them to keep our communities safe. Tell them to vote against C-391 (if you really want to get their attention, add that you won’t vote for anyone who votes in favour of C-391 come the next election).
We know there are more Canadians who support having rifles and shotguns registered for public safety than who want to see this important policing tool dismantled and all of its records destroyed.

That’s why it’s still possible to turn things around and win this one for public safety.

- – - – - – - – -

In case you missed this story.

OFL delegates unanimously condemn colleges for contract imposition and walking away from talks

TORONTO, Nov. 24 /CNW/ – Delegates attending the Ontario Federation of Labour convention today unanimously condemned the province’s colleges for their failure to bargain in good faith in negotiations with 9,000 faculty members.

“It’s union-busting. Imposing a collective agreement is wrong, and it should stop now. If they want a strike, they will get a strike the likes of which they have never seen before,” Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of OPSEU, told hundreds of cheering delegates.

An emergency resolution, brought forward by OPSEU at the convention, attacked the Colleges for unilaterally imposing terms of employment for community college faculty effective Nov. 18, 2009. It called on Premier Dalton McGuinty and Training, Colleges and University Minister John Milloy to direct College negotiators to get back to the table and negotiate in good faith.

The resolution also stated that the Council, representing management at 24 community colleges in Ontario, had suspended all joint union/management committees, effectively preventing all grievances from going to arbitration.

And it noted that the Council refused to take its imposed terms of employment to faculty members for a vote.

More than 15 speakers took to the floor in support of the resolution, including labour representatives from other OPSEU sectors, Steelworkers, CUPE and other major unions.

Neil Kinnock is a traitor if this is true.  And the allegation is serious enough to warrant a thorough investigation into this matter.

Many thanks to ukipwebmaster for uploading.

But of course his European Masters will surely protect him.  For the entire Establishment is crooked, either though fear, blackmail, greed or just a sadistic mentality.

We need a total clear-out of all the Corrupted, no more NuGov, no more Tories and no more Lib Dems.  They have had more than enough time at the helm.  All the old parties are run by the same old men year in, year out so have the same plans year in, year out. Want change you can believe in, vote BNP.  Justice will be fair and swift.

Otherwise, we may have to resort to Mob-rule, plenty of rope and the decoration of our lampposts.  Enough is enough.  For if we cannot trust those who are sworn to protect us, what other option is there?

We’re pleased to announce that Rosie Winterton M.P. will be visiting us on Friday the 27th of November, 2009.

The meeting is open to anyone who’s interested, and will take place at 12.30 at Sheffield Students’ Union, in the Sat Pal Ram room, upstairs off the Gallery.

Rosie has been involved in Labour Politics for many years, having served as an advisor to John Prescott for many years, and as a Minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. She’s currently Minister for Regional Economic Development and (more importantly) Minister for Yorkshire.

This should be a really good opportunity to hear an interesting speaker, and get your questions about the future of the region, the Labour Party, or politics in general, answered.

Her Wikipedia entry assures us she’s not related to Tories Sir Nicholas or Ann Winterton.

Push, Oxfam's Climate Change Campaigner, (left) with friend Abbas

Push, Oxfam’s Global Climate Change Campaigner, is walking from his home in Oxford to the Copenhagen for the crunch UN climate change talks happening in two weeks time.

On Sunday I joined Push on one day of his walk, an 11mile stretch from Hertford to Bishop’s Stortford in Hertfordshire. Push has always been an inspritation to those around him, and has in my mind one of the best jobs in the world – helping to mobilise people at the grassroots around the world to take action against poverty.

In 2005, he and his team supported local organisations to mobilise millions of farmers and workers in the global South as part of the Make Trade Fair campaign around the World Trade talks, and Oxfam has been hard at work with others to do the same this year ahead of the climate change talks in Copenhagen.

It’s crucial that in these global talks the voices of the world’s poorest people are heard – they are the least responsible for climate change and yet are being hit hardest the worst. Oxfam and others in the Tck Tck Tck campaign are doing great work in mobilising people across the world to speak up for themselves and be heard.

In the UK, I’m proud of what our Labour Government is doing to push for a deal that is ambitious, effective and above all fair – putting forward extra aid to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change. I hope Ed Miliband and the UK delegation do all they can to bring the US & the rest of the EU on board to get the deal we need out of Copenhagen.

I’d really recommend following Push’s walk on his blog – goPushgo.com – it’s an inspiring journey. Here is a link to his article in The Guardian.

Other great ways to support a just deal on climate change:

• Take action with Push at Oxfam
• Sign up to Ed’s Pledge – Ed Miliband’s campaign to get a fair climate deal
• Join other Labour people on The Wave – a massive climate demo on the 5th December

Earlier today, the Welsh Labour Party released a statement indicating that progress on a referendum would not be made before a UK general election.  In consequence of that, there have been serious ructions within the Labour-Plaid coalition, and even talk of its collapse.  Martin Shipton’s story from Wales Online (the Western Mail’s online service) is here, and the BBC’s is here.

What struck me reading this was not the delay in itself, but the reason for it.  The Labour Party statement says

Because a ‘No’ vote in a referendum could set back devolution for several decades, triggering the referendum process needs to be based on a firm prospect that public opinion is ready to respond positively in the referendum.

The implication is that this hasn’t yet been done.  But that’s exactly what the All Wales Convention was set up to do – and did.  Chapter 5 of the report is a careful and detailed survey of the state of public opinion, based on polling commissioned by the Convention.  That is what it has spent the last 18 months doing.  This position of Labour’s amounts to second-guessing the Convention it set up.  It’s a very odd position indeed.

This isn’t, sadly, the first time that Rhodri Morgan has commissioned a large-scale report on devolution and then reacted to it in a confused way, unclear how to handle party considerations and balance those with the requirements of his government and the larger project of securing effective devolved government for Wales.  The same thing happened in spring 2004, following publication of the Richard Commission’s report.  Once again, a comprehensive survey of the working of devolution and what the public think about it has come up with conclusions that are too difficult for Labour Party politicians to handle, so they seek to unpick.  It looks horribly as though history is repeating itself.

I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Bielby, quoted in the Northern Echo, 19 Nov 2009, that the Feethams (former Darlington FC ground) site should have been preserved for sporting purposes and not converted into yet more housing, which many local people cannot even afford.

Whilst there is plenty of genuine brownfield land available in other parts of Darlington, why destroy yet another piece of green land, which could have become the town’s equivalent to Durham’s Soccarena? Why is the Council so shortsighted in its planning policy?

Local people, who have the common sense that has long departed the Council and its planning committee, know that the land would have provided sporting facilities for the children who are the future of Darlington. Kids tell us that they have few sports facilities in this town, despite the Council’s spin, and yet when a golden opportunity arises to meet this need, the Council is yet again found wanting.

It is time for our local leaders to listen to Mr Bielby and to do something about this appalling lack of sporting facilities in our town. They should think about the sporting needs, the health and personal development of our youngsters, rather than the wishes of developers. Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air? If only.

The Iraq Inquiry committee

The Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry is Sir John Chilcot is a retired career civil servant who was permanent under-secretary of state at the Northern Ireland Office until 1997. Prior to his work at the Northern Ireland Office Sir John served in a variety of posts in the Home Office, the Civil Service Department and the Cabinet Office, including private secretary appointments to both Labour and Conservative Home Secretaries, and to the head of the civil service.

Chilcot was a member of the Butler Review which many people feel was too lenient towards Blair and the Labour government. There are some doubts about Chilcot’s bottle when it comes to questioning former Labour cabinet ministers. Gordon Brown wanted the Iraq inquiry to be held in secret behind closed doors, Chilcot to his credit said it must be held in public so Brown U turned once again and the inquiry will be mostly held in public; one is left wondering how many times the “National Security” and “Official Secrets Act” cards will be played.

Brown shied away from making people give evidence under oath which will prevent any subsequent charges for perjury; Chilcot is thinking about making witnesses give a “formal undertaking” whatever that is. The Inquiry is not due to publish it’s findings until the end of 2010, though Chilcot has said there is the possibility of an interim report which is likely to very damaging to Gordon Brown if it is published before the General Election.

Chilcot has said:

“Guilt or innocence will not be the focus”

“We do not intend to ask questions… that will involve evidence that might harm national security or other important public interests as described in the protocols we have published”

“My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine the evidence.”

Other member of the inquiry are Sir Roderic Lyne, historian Sir Martin Gilbert, academic Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, and legal expert Baroness Usha Prashar

There are questions being asked about the suitability and impartiality of some of the committee members Lyne was a special adviser to BP which has significant interests in Iraq.

Former British Ambassador to Libya Sir Oliver Miles has criticised the appointment of 2 leading Jews to the inquiry.

There are many questions to be answered not least those of the families of soldiers killed in the fighting, so they can try a make sense of their sad and terrible loss.

One is left wondering what the purpose of the inquiry is, if guilt or innocence are not parameters.

Blair and Brown must both give evidence to the inquiry, it is common knowledge that Blair knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq but still went ahead with the war to effect the regime change scenario he and Bush had been denying for over a year. Gordon Brown supported Blair all the way and must have been privy to the same knowledge as Blair.

The UN and NATO are quick enough to send people to the War Crimes Court for trial, will we send Blair?

Not a chance as soon as anything damaging appears the “National Security” card will be played and the whitewash sprayed with vigour.

Side-wiki is a newish tool from Google that allows members of the public to place unmoderated comments onto a web page using the google toolbar. Every company needs to start monitoring this new tool,which theoretically can open a pandora’s box. Comments could range from the very positive, to the down-right insulting although, it is too early to say if it could have a real effect on a company’s brand image as it can only be accessed and viewed if you have the Google toolbar and you can only add a comment through a Google login and username. Both however, are very easy to get.

If Google starts indexing comments as part of their search result list, then there could be significant issues.

Below are a few high profile names that have been hit by negative or off-message side wiki posts which include the Labour and Conservative Parties’ home pages. The Liberal-Democrat website has no comments at all.

My particular favourite are the comments on the Sun.

My advice to all organisations, post something on your side-wiki now. You can’t stop people from making comments, but youcan at least try and push them past the fold. There is no way to moderate either.

Labour Party side-wiki comment

Conservative Party side-wiki comment

The Sun side-wiki comment

Tesco side-wiki comment

Walmart side-wiki comment

We shouldn’t be surprised to read this, but it’s still depressing and infuriating as all hell.

Officers will arrest individuals for "everything" because they then have to power to take DNA samples, even if they wouldn’t have been detained under other circumstances.

The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) warned the alarming practice, which was revealed by a retired senior police officer, was creating a "spiral of suspicion" over the DNA database.

Mr theClown recently posted about the rising costs and diminishing efficacy of the DNA database. It appears the HGC have noticed too.

The Commission, an independent Government advisory body, also questioned the effectiveness of the database in helping to solve crimes and called for a detailed examination of its success.

A public debate and proper scrutiny of the system was needed as there was "very little concrete evidence" as to how useful the database was in investigating crime.

Quite. Sickening. Cunts.

AJ

I so hope that the Liberals and Nationals errupt into a fist-fight tomorrow. With Tuckey’s failed leadership spill and with the vote to come, things are hardly going to cool down. None of the Nats and half of the Libs it would seem are so opposed to their leadership at the moment that Warren Truss could well stand a chance of leading the Coalition at the moment. Update: It’s reported that Turnbull has got the Coalition to agree to back the ETS bill that’s been negotiated and is coming up for a vote. Early reports indicate that it was a split down the middle of the party room. Shakey ground for the leader, me thinks.

I Tweeted what I saw as the odds of potential leaders should Turnbull be booted this week. Abbott has firmed up as favourite due to his past fortnight  of press (where he has been extremely anti-climate change) and his ‘elder’ status. I’d give him 7/1. Andrew Robb has bounded up from well behind (after the revelation of his unfortunate fight with depression) with his public statement that the Liberals shouldn’t support Labor’s bill to 8/1 odds. Joe Hockey is the favourite of the moderates, as well as being the only member of the party to try and bring back both feuding sides of this debate for discussions tonight. I give him 12/1 at the moment, but I think they are far too generous. 20/1 would be closer to the mark because there’s no way he will seek the leadership through this chaos (he has a ‘good guy’ image publicly, which will be very strong in 2 elections time), while people like Abbott and Robb would and need to take an opportunity like this. Julie Bishop would be the only other viable option – as lacking as she might be as an eventual leader. I’m not too sure what her true position is on climate change, but I imagine she has been threading needles behind Turnbull’s back much the same way she was probably doing it behind Nelson’s back. I’d give her 15/1 odds.

Going to be an interesting few days if the sparks ignite the bonfire.

Then again, it could all be for naught.

Thomas.

So, the bin strike in Leeds is over and as is usual when industrial disputes end both sides claim a measure of victory. The workers have by and large successfully protected their wages (good news) and the council have an acceptance of their productivity targets.

Everybody must be happy then? Well, kind-of because serious questions have to be asked about the long-term electoral consequences for our party in the Leeds area. As I have pointed out before the Labour Party has gained much political capital (and rightly so) by supporting the strikers. It has stepped-forward and surely reminded some of it’s erstwhile jaded voters that it can still represent working class interests. I have  no doubt this will be reflected at a local level even if the governments national unpopularity will cause it other problems.

Nationally, Labour still has alot to answer for; Sundar Katwala says that the country would best be served by a coalition of ourselves and Labour.  However, such a coalition would be hard to sustain while the attitude of some within our party remains so basically antagonistic to working class interests and representation. However, such a coalition would doubtless to my mind bring great benefits to both parties.

Meanwhile, locally the Liberal Democrat Party is tainted when it comes to a serious claim to represent working class interests. It has also shown itself intolerant of dissent and incapable of debate;  mysteriously after I published articles reflecting the unions standpoint I vanished off an internal activist mailing list.

I was told privately that I risked ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ by making my views public on this blog. I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions about what this says about internal democracy within the local party. Would somebody be loyal if they watched as somebody they professed loyalty too wandered off a cliff? I think not. However, local party instinct is so tribal it shames the football terrace which catcalls every time a decision goes against their team. Is that what democracy is within this party? I sincerely hope not because if it is then the electoral consequences of the actions of Leeds Liberal Democrats is just and well-deserved indeed.

Wow, two talentless children on the verge of manhood are dropped out of an entirely fabricated, manufactured singing competition and suddenly everyone is riffing on the same theme;  the fact that Jedward (of awful Saturday night viewing X-Factor fame) rhymes with Deadwood and that everyone looks like an idiot with that hairdo.

The Tories launched a new poster last night after the result show depicting Gordon and Alistair as the twins.  All I would say is that Gordon Brown looks suspiciously as if he is about to either say “Suits You, Sir” or spit/slobber in the manner of Harry Enfields “Tory Boy.”  I particularly enjoyed the joyless Labour response of:

“As with so many things the only original idea Cameron and Osborne have come up with was to leave bank savers to lose their deposits, to let the recession take its course and to leave the British people alone to suffer the consequences.”

Boom Boom.  And yes, Labour had produced the idea only ten days earlier with Cameron and Osborne as the irksome twosome, although Osborne looks suspiciously good with that hairstyle.  I think he should keep it, although he may run the risk of being cast as a Dr Who Villain.  Or as the next Master perhaps?

The Sun followed the Tories this morning, comparing two football managers with the twins complete with photo (I feel sullied having linked to the Sun website and now have to go and have three showers just to feel clean again).

Conservative political poster

Labour political poster

I despair.

This is not just a rhetorical flourish, I really am thinking of emigrating. Some country where they don’t have Cameron, Brown or Jedward.

Possibly Afghanistan?

(story and title lifted from WSC’s messageboard)

So many things wrong with Nick Clegg’s recent comments regarding coalitions that it is hard to know where to actually start. Clegg said that he would offer to his support to whichever party ‘had the strongest mandate’ from the British people. Most obviously, the current electoral system does not make that immediately clear and it is by no means true that the largest party will necessarily have the ’strongest mandate’. Even if we take Clegg’s comments to mean that he would weigh the votes cast this is by no means an indication of a strong mandate.

If David Cameron’s Conservatives fail to win a Parliamentary majority then there is a strong case that the British people are not sure in significant numbers to hand them the reins of power and neither should we. For example, although Chole Smith formally won a by-election for the Conservatives the reduction of the Conservative vote hardly implied a ringing vote of confidence.

Secondly, such remarks now mean that our opportunity for horse trading has been radically diminished; there is simply no incentive now for us to be offered, say, a referendum on electoral reform since we have already told  both parties what they need is a strong mandate.

Electoral reform is the most likely casualty of Clegg’s comments because, quite simply, the Conservative Party is unlikely to swallow it and support for it within that party is restricted to the fringes. However, at least with the Labour Party, we can look to support from the Labour left for this historic opportunity to make a lasting difference in British politics.

Thirdly, our key target voters ie, those coming from Labour have essentially been told that a vote for the Liberal Democrats is most likely a vote for a Conservative government. Something that is likely to encourage them not to shift their vote as this government threatens to be one of the most right-wing in history. If we end up in coalition with the Conservatives then we are most likely to find ourself in the role of the ‘acceptable face’ of swinging cutbacks; something that you can see in microcosm in council coalitions with the Conservatives.

It seems odd and inherently wrong that we would demand nothing as a price of a coalition and as it is unlikely that the Conservatives will deliver any of our substantial manifesto commitments the wisdom of offering them that encouragement seems at best tactically unwise. In the long-run  it could well split the Party…..if the party does split then Clegg only has himself to blame.