lefties 7:compare the tory.com

[HerHonesty]

sorry couldnt think of anything else. gideon in charge of the economy..

Been waiting for a big Guardian front page apology here too. I'm lost without the quick crossword before bed.

Argh. Am wrong about Universities moving back to education: still under Business heading.

One small crumb of comfort is Willetts is generally regarded as a sane supporter of universities.

afternoon lefties, no time to catch up right now and I'm sure I've missed loads, just wanted to say hello

and bloody hell @ the smuggery on display yesterday at the Nick'n' Dave press conference yesterday, most vomit-inducing

DC's tied them into his administration just far enough hasn't he

bleuurgh

What do you want the Guardian to apologise for though? The LibDem inclinations?

inclinations I don't mind- it was the coming out in favour of the LDs a week before the election. Had they done it a while before, I wouldn't have minded half so much

Seemed a bit shabby to me...

I'm only messing really. Did seem like a last min turn coat though. Although I think they originate from the Manchester school of liberalism (I could be very wrong there) so should not have been so shocked.

I just hope Labour can get their grass roots back (the ones Tony mowed down) and we can get back to a proper bottom up not top down labour party and I will be happy to reenter the fold

The Guardian justified coming out in favour of Clegg due to its long-standing support of PR. If it is going to be consistent it should certainly be going at Clegg now rather than and I think should admit that it did get carried away rather.

But Labour doesn't own the Guardian. The G has always had a lot of time for the LDs. It's not like they suddenly published an editorial endorsing the Tories.

I still think AV is a step in the right direction - it would have resulted in a clear LibLab majority in this parliament, for a start. And (if the referendum is won) it would break the crucial mental barrier of the principle of voting reform.

Fixed-term parliaments are also a good thing IMO - a long-term objective of electoral reformers of all stripes.

Urgh, just caught up with the conference...NC looked like some pathetic schoolchild gazing in adoration at the class bully who'd made him hand over all his sweeties so he'd be his friend.

Ninjacat- that's what I hope too, and if the rumbles on MN and FB (both well-known yardsticks of political tendencies ) are anything to go by, I think there's a strong chance it can happen. Depends on who takes over I suppose.

Off to look at Guardian.

ROFL at you outraged Guardian readers

Well the Labour party isn't the only left of centre party, y'know. The paper is allowed to come out in favour of other parties. And most if not all declared in the fortnight running up to the election.

article here about FTPs - from biased source obv. but makes interesting point - gov can still fall on motion of no convidence. Guess that means the opposition gets to cobble together a minority administration?

ah policy was just about to post this from the Grauniad Live blog
'But Robert Hazel, from UCL's Constitution Unit, has briefed Left Foot Forward that people are confusing a confidence motion with a dissolution resolution:

'This is intended to strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems: Cameron could not call an early election without the consent of his coalition partners, because the Conservatives command only 47% of the votes in the Commons.'

I agree that the Guardian can support whoever they like and it is not a bad thing if they have ruffled some feathers as not being 'Labour's paper' (a la Murdoch for some of the right wing media are for the Tories).

I have a question which I've been wondering about for a while and something on another thread has prompted me to ask you all about it.

Why do people mind so much about ID cards? I can see that the expense is an issue but why are they considered such an infringement on civil liberties? Just wondering because I live in France where everyone has an ID card (or a passport) and it doesn't occur to anybody to mind. You can (and are) stopped in France in your car and asked to show identity, insurance papers, be breathalysed, etc even if you haven't done anything wrong. Is this the sort of thing people are worried about or do the UK ID cards carry some info in an electronic chip or summat?

am not that bothered about ID cards on a personal level, but did think they were a waste of money as I couldn't really see what they were meant to achieve or how they could actually have prevented any of the terrorist stuff that has happened. Seemed rather pointless.

It's seen as just more intrusion into your personal life and therefore an erosion of your civil liberties.

I don't really get it either - I'd be happy to carry one around and, frankly, it would make life a lot easier for DS1. Now he's 18 he would like, occasionally, to go out for a drink, but unless he has identification with him it's quite difficult. And I'm not really wild about him carrying his passport with him in case he loses it.

GOML - I'm in my 3rd year of studying Mandarin and am supposed to be taking a GCSE next year (wibble). I only have one 2 hour class a week though, so progress is pretty slow!

Ah, good point about dissolution versus no confidence. I was confused about it, so thanks for that . Bit like a pre nuptial between NC/DC

CatIsSleepy, if ID cards were pointless, why are Labour so keen on them? Even to the point of insisting on them when they are expensive, unpopular, and when it may have contributed to being a deal-breaker with the LibDems. Labour want them very much. Why?

Wasn't the ID card proposal much more complicated than the German/French system? With bio-whatsit fingerprints and all sorts of info stored on the card?

DH wa most amused to be asked to bring in a couple of bills as proof of identity when we wanted to get a video card from the local videothek near my parents. He could not believe this was the norm.

I am for simple ID cards. Ones that fit in a wallet/purse , credit card sized ones. Would be much easier than hauling my passport around.

Parents arrived safely, although it was a bit of a crush in the phaeton. Had lunch and now setting off for a ramble through the fields (otherwise known as a walk to the footie grounds where there is a tournament taking place)

I was Outraged of East Anglia when the Guardian came out for the Lib Dems - how very DARE they, etc - but actually now I see it as fair enough, and it makes me value the Guardian and its stubborn independence more.

Re ID Cards - I'm of the camp that has never really understood the problem, other than the apparently unnecessary waste of money. I don't have a problem having an ID card, I don't have a problem not having an ID card. I'm clearly missing something big.

Anyway What should we call our new Government?

I just don't get the point of ID cards, particularly if they are going to cost a small fortune.

I guess we need to confirm our identity quite frequently, for money laundering purposes. I would've thought it would more difficult to fake a number of items, like utitilty bills, passports, drivers licence, birth certificates etc, than just one ID card, so not sure what advantage they'd bring? What other information were the ID card intended to hold that isn't already covered by these documents?

Not sure what people without these documents do though?

Thanks for responses folks, claig do you think there is something sinister about ID cards? Your post suggests so.

Hassled - from your link on what to call the new government:

"Cynics, on the other hand, might suggest that from the Conservative party we should take "Conservative" and from the Liberal Democrats the word "party"."

Hassled, you're missing something huge. There is nothing wrong with ID, we all use it all the time, it's not a new thing. Biometric ID cards are the first step in a series of steps. That's why both the Tories and the LibDems are against them. Boris Johnson has said that he will shred his and feed it to his children on their cornflakes. Together with the DNA databse, all of your genetic code will be easily available. Imagine if Hitler had that sort of information available. We know that there will be possible problems of obtaining insurance if you have medical problems. Your medical history will all be available. They say now that there will be safeguards, but we already know that companies share credit information between them. It will be easy to predict if you will get diseases in the future, it will be possible to say it's not worth treating so and so, because they will suffer from such and such in 10 years' time.
It could lead to racial profiling and profiling by IQ and certain people may be treated as less worthy than others.

The Stasis or the Communists or the fascists would love to hold all of this information on their citizens. It will curtail freedom, and in the future it could seriously be harmful to certain people, if the leadership decides that they are not as worthy as others.

If it is such a good, harmless thing, why are the Tories and LibDems so opposed to it, and why are Labour so enamoured of it?

That's just been lifted straight from a spitting image sketch about the sdp and the liberals. No original thinking in the Guardian ...