Hope glimmers

There is hope for the closure threatened Newport Warburtons bakery and its 114 jobs.

Brace’s the Wales based bakers are interested in taking over the site. They bid and lost against Warburton’s a few years ago when the business was bought from Rathbones.

I spoke to Scott Richardson of Brace’s this morning and assured him of the enthusiastic support of all the Labour political representatives in Newport.

Warburtons is a UK national firm with £480 millions. Brace’s is based in the Welsh valleys and has £30 million invested. As always it best to have the headquarters of a company based locally rather than the branch factory.

The Welsh Assembly has been approached. Fingers crossed that a deal can be done.

Dependancy Culture.

Hats off to the Independent for casting a bit of daylight into secret places. They report this morning.

"A "financial memorandum" formalising the relationship between the sovereign and ministers also sets out tough terms on how the Queen can spend the £38.2 m handed over by Parliament each year to pay for her staff and occupied palaces.

The document, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, grants ministers the constitutional right to take over the direct management of the Queen's public wealth in the event of a disagreement over how the subsidy is awarded or spent.

It places the Palace in a weak position in its current negotiations with Government for an increase in Royal funding. Last night constitutional law experts said the memorandum could be used by ministers to force the Queen to cut back on her spending or even make her fall back on her considerable private wealth.

The deal follows disputes between the Palace and the Government over the growing costs and management of public money given to the Royal family.

Paul Flynn MP, a member of the House of Commons Public Administration Committee, said: "Someone appears to have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the Royal family from public scrutiny. The more information we have about the public subsidy paid to the Queen the more confidence will we have in the institution.

"The Royal family is part of the dependency culture of Britain in the same way that Mr Cameron spoke about people living in a council house accommodation for life."

 

Nature magazine accused Government of being anti-science.

 

When is a badger cull not a badger cull? The answer, it seems, is when it is one arranged by the new UK government. Faced with growing unease about the coming public-sector cuts, the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government last week sought morale-boosting rural support by floating plans that would allow farmers to slaughter the animals. In doing so, when it comes to setting polices based on science, ministers have managed only to shoot themselves in the foot.

The plans are designed to arrest the spread of tuberculosis (TB) in cattle, a long-standing problem that the government says cost £63 million (US$98 million) in England last year alone.

Announcing the proposal, agriculture minister James Paice said there was no doubt that badgers are a significant reservoir for the disease. He said that action to control the disease in the animals was needed to curb the spread. And he claimed that his decision was based on sound science.  In a paper published in February this year, members of the government's Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), now disbanded, concluded that “badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain”.

Paice has devised a new solution. His cull strategy has not been tested — by anyone. Rather than the RBCT's well-organized teams working to eradicate badgers in a controlled manner, Paice foresees consortia of farmers given licences to blast away as they see fit. Farmers will have to fund the work themselves, and the government's own figures show that the costs to farmers will outweigh the financial gains. This must raise serious doubts about the long-term viability of controlling badgers in this way. Vaccination could be used, but Paice admits that this may not be practical or effective. And, as he reduced planned vaccine studies in June from six sites to one, that situation is unlikely to change soon.

The fate of badgers may not be the most pressing issue facing UK researchers today. But the handling of the situation offers the first clue about how the government will approach scientific advice. It should leave those who promote evidence-based policy feeling anxious. With weightier topics such as climate change, transgenic crops and research funding on their to-do list, ministers need to wise up, and fast.

 

 

 

Comments

[HuwOS]

"I did justify it." - KayTie

"We have millions and millions of civil servants who have time on their hands to invent new laws and regulations to "make things better" - KayTie

In your pretence to justify it you have stated:
"A million public sector workers from across the country could be fired" - no justification, just assertion and while the figure you give here is massively over the top it is still massively short of the "millions and millions" that you claimed.

" I even gave you examples of the useless non-jobs we are still hiring for." KayTie
Yes, 8 of them and even of those 8 you admitted some as being necessary.

You also said:
"A good fifth could be lost with no discernible detriment to the services provided."
That's 1/5th of 6 million, and even though it is assertion without justification it STILL falls far short of "millions and millions"

Honestly I have wasted too much time trying to get the tiniest iota of sense out of you and I should have stopped trying long ago.
You just spew out anything that happens to fall out of your peanut sized brain, when challenged insist on it's truth, insult anyone who challenges you, dodge, abuse and finally move the goalposts to another continent as you did when you decided that you could include anyone who might follow any regulations anywhere, ever with
"Perpetuating them too, you know"

If you have no shame, it will not bother you to know that anyone who has suffered through your nonsense is undoubtedly embarrassed on your behalf.

It even makes me feel like someone whose just found out that they've beaten up someone with a mental age in the pre-teens, a distinctly unpleasant feeling.

[Kay Tie]

I did justify it.

[HuwOS]

"Perpetuating them too, you know"

Stop dodging, withdraw the nonsensical comment, justify it or keep quiet.

[Kay Tie]

"Now the vast majority of them have nothing to do with inventing laws or regulations of any kind."

Perpetuating them too, you know. Or do you think those bin inspectors do it for love?

"the embarrassment that a healthy normal intelligent person would suffer"

Never noticed your chagrin on the nonsense "rich get richer, poor get poorer" comments you repeat endlessly, snug in your little world view where everyone is "exploited" by top-hat wearing capitalists.

[HuwOS]

"What complex words for such a simple mind. One day you might even spell them correctly!"

I typoed, you've typoed, trying to gain points by pointing out a typo while still utterly failing to even attempt to justify your "millions and millions" comment make it clear that you are still working in distraction mode.

Because it is so long ago and so far back in the thread I will remind you of your comment.

"We have millions and millions of civil servants who have time on their hands to invent new laws and regulations to "make things better""

To be generous to you, I have taken the widest possible understanding of civil servants to include all public servants a figure that is roughly 6 million people.
Being generous to you again, that requires a minimum of 1/3rd, two million people, to be engaged in the activities you ascribed to them.

Now the vast majority of them have nothing to do with inventing laws or regulations of any kind.
Your task is to justify your comment that there are "millions and millions" of these 6 million people who are involved in inventing laws or regulations.

You are welcome to withdraw it as the wilful and grotesque exaggeration that it clearly is.
But if you do not do so, then at least attempt to justify it.
Your performance so far has been pathetic but luckily for you, you seem immune to the embarrassment that a healthy normal intelligent person would suffer if they pretended to justify such a nonsensical imbecilic comment.

[Kay Tie]

"although you arbitrarily decided that they were overpaid"

And yet you think you (or a socialist state) have the right to judge my salary, despite the fact I haven't coerced my money from anyone. What hypocrisy!

"which is unsurprising as it is idealogical cant"

What complex words for such a simple mind. One day you might even spell them correctly!

It's not cant to suggest the state is far too large: it needs to employ millions fewer workers. We have already seen how many quangos need to be shut, and we can see from "virtual council" proposals how the state can reduce spending on public services without affecting the provision of those services. The largest money savings come from eliminating the highest paid non-jobs and disengaging from some services altogether, such as privatising the Tote and the Post Office.

[HuwOS]

"I already did. I even gave you examples of the useless non-jobs we are still hiring for."

You listed 8 jobs, some of which even you said were necessary although you arbitrarily decided that they were overpaid.
You have come nowhere near justifying your comment of "millions and millions", which is unsurprising as it is idealogical cant and hyperbole with no relationship to reality.

You are welcome to present data to prove your claim. So you have 3 choices.
1 do so
2 do not do so and shut up
3 continue lying.

History tells us you prefer option 3.
Lets see if you can turn a new page.

[Kay Tie]

"justify your comment that "millions and millions" of public servants are unnecessary regulation generators."

I already did. I even gave you examples of the useless non-jobs we are still hiring for. You may not like it when data confronts your everything-into-the-maw-of-the-omniscient-state ideology, but all the same reality trumps your beliefs.

[HuwOS]

I know you hate it KayTie, but put all your attempts to distract aside and justify your comment that "millions and millions" of public servants are unnecessary regulation generators.

That is the point of this thread, your inability to do so is noted and your tantrums ignored.

[Nike Shox Turbo]

If it is a scenery, I appreciate! If communication is a kind of friendship, I desire! If the friend is a kind of heart, I treasure! Once I met, destined to chance! A visit to life, friendship! A blessing, with all sincerity!

[Kay Tie]

"People in families could pretend to give more control to the members of their family by putting their children out of the house.
But it's not something that most people would praise nor would it genuinely mean smaller families at least not until the children died which to be fair that course of action would render more likely."

As non sequiturs go, that has got to take the biscuit. Give power to the Trots because otherwise babies will be killed by their parents.

I do seriously question your sanity. You're not a product of Care In The Community are you?

"Which by implication means you found them difficult to understand yourself."

No it doesn't. You don't understand lots of things. That doesn't imply the ignorance of anyone else. Are you quite sure you know what "imply" means? Have you any education in logic? I'd be happy to explain it to you if you like.

[D.G.]

"I suspect you feel no need to bend your knee to them at all DG"

Stiff patellas, y'see ;)

"That family however does generate a hell of a lot of money for newspapers, magazines and television, perhaps they should simply be funded by them.
Given the column inches etc, it would quite possibly give them even more money than they get now."

Good idea. It's cruel to keep people as pets; let's set the poor goldfish free so they can roam wild with all the other Rahs.

[HuwOS]

"It was a feature of Thatcherism"

"Black is white. Up is down." Kaytie

Oh? Are you saying Quangos were not increased enormously under Thatcher, to take power away from people and subsume them to the state and her ideology.

Your argument is I imagine that as she also dumped a great many things that were government responsibility, that somehow balances it out and means a smaller state.
Well there is some merit to that claim.

People in families could pretend to give more control to the members of their family by putting their children out of the house.
But it's not something that most people would praise nor would it genuinely mean smaller families at least not until the children died which to be fair that course of action would render more likely.

Nothing like care in the community for example and she also rolled back the state with things like section 28.
But the trouble with a "smaller" state is that such people do tend to focus on how people choose to live, it doesn't cost money to be bigoted after all.

"No, I said I thought YOU probably wouldn't understand them" - KayTie
Which by implication means you found them difficult to understand yourself.
If so, just click on the links you provided and you will often find quite detailed descriptions of what the roles entail.
Perhaps you didn't understand those descriptions either.

Honestly KayTie, it is completely pathetic of you to consider that your own ignorance is reflected even in part in everyone else.
You are a unique individual, your failings are your own and apparently many.

[Kay Tie]

"And your principle objection to them was that you didn't understand them."

No, I said I thought YOU probably wouldn't understand them.

I understand them. Most are non-essential jobs, some are actively harmful, and some are necessary but nowhere near at the salaries paid.

[Kay Tie]

"It was a feature of Thatcherism"

Black is white. Up is down.

Any doctors reading? Just two needed to section this madman.

[HuwOS]

"but they could equally be applied to any number of people that we don't feel the need to bend our knees to." DG

I suspect you feel no need to bend your knee to them at all DG

That family however does generate a hell of a lot of money for newspapers, magazines and television, perhaps they should simply be funded by them.
Given the column inches etc, it would quite possibly give them even more money than they get now.

[HuwOS]

"And I listed just 8 examples found at the click of a mouse"

And your principle objection to them was that you didn't understand them.

Well you may be surprised to know that people have noted many times that you have an utter inability to understand much of what happens in the real world.
So you will find me and no doubt many others who are not surprised at your comprehension failure.

"Millions and millions" you said, you have yet to justify the figure you gave with any evidence.
You have failed to do so because you have no evidence, just the prejudice of your inane ideology, which not only requires you to constantly state falsehoods as facts and attempt to mislead but also to assign to others motives that are figments of your overheated imagination such as
"your sole goal is to expand the state at any cost."

It is no goal of mine, and no goal of anyone I know.
It was a feature of Thatcherism and was continued by New Labour, both of which I call right wing, but somehow you feel that calling it socialism makes it so, only in your head KayTie, only in your head.

[Kay Tie]

"Equally, the private sector is full of overpaid non jobs, without those, neither new labour nor the tories would have every had much of a constituency."

Tiny difference: we are not forced to pay for them.

And I listed just 8 examples found at the click of a mouse. I've already explained how other jobs could be saved by shutting down the DWP. But you aren't interested in any of this: your sole goal is to expand the state at any cost.

[HuwOS]

Gosh KayTie, you seem to have fallen back on the creationist style of argument that if you don't understand something then it must somehow not be real.

Interesting that you make two major errors here on top of that.

1) In justifying your "millions and millions"
You say one million could be let go

2) In furtherance of your argument you then list 8 jobs whose titles you object to.

"Millions and millions" as you claimed must total at least 2 million, although you can go higher if you like.
But you must reach somewhere even vaguely close to 2 million if your initial comment isn't to be reneged on completely.

"You, however, maintain that every single one of the million new employees is a vital cog in the state infrastructure"

No I don't and haven't said so anywhere, always spinning and lying KayTie, you truly are a natural New Labourite, no wonder you voted for them in 97 and no doubt voted for their successors in the current coalition.
The right wing do have a tendency to prefer managerial non roles to actual workers, who they rarely value in accordance to their contribution and New Labour were right wing so no doubt there are some jobs they created in the public sector that could be done without, but they won't total in their hundreds of thousands, never mind the millions and millions that you claimed.

Equally, the private sector is full of overpaid non jobs, without those, neither new labour nor the tories would have every had much of a constituency.

[D.G.]

"The Queen, Charles and William generally come across as decent people. Lots of people like and respect them not just in the UK but throughout the commonwealth and the Church of England. They do a fair bit of work as goodwill ambassadors, charity work, ceremonies etc."

These are true statements, but they could equally be applied to any number of people that we don't feel the need to bend our knees to.

[Kay Tie]

"A clear non answer from KayTie."

Not at all, you simply don't listen. A million public sector workers from across the country could be fired. Hundreds of thousands of workers in the NHS, the police, the military, all could be let go. Without a single nurse, doctor, policeman or fireman. And by letting these people go, those who actually do work will be able to get on with their jobs without interference.

You, however, maintain that every single one of the million new employees is a vital cog in the state infrastructure. You're the one who wants to take our money by force and give it to people doing useless non-jobs. You've not said a single word justifying the employment of these people. Come on, tell us why we need:

£33,000 a year to an Inclusion Coordinator:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1028349/inclusion-co-ordinator/

£59,000 to the Head of Safeguarding:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1027280/head-of-safeguarding/

£77,000 to a director of museums:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1026077/director-tyne-and-wear-archives-and-museums/

£30,000 on an arts marketing and information officer:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1025287/arts-marketing-and-information-officer/

£113,000 on the director of lifelong learning:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1025133/director-of-education-and-lifelong-learning/

£400 a day to a strategy lead officer:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1025140/strategy-lead-officer/

£45000 for a corporate publications editor:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1028878/corporate-publications-editor/

£45,000 for a digital engagement manager

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/1026464/digital-engagement-manager/

If you can even work out what these people do, I'd be amazed. Look at the salaries of just this random selection, then tell me that your priority for cuts is to sack nurses and policemen. The salaries are in some cases obscene, yet you're quite happy to take money from people on minimum wage to line the nests of these useless people. It's time you justified this to us all.

[HuwOS]

A clear non answer from KayTie.

[Kay Tie]

"The public wanted more police, do you mean a fifth of them."

And here we see the strategy of the left. As soon as cuts are to be made and budgets shrunk, around they go handing out redundancy notices in taxis. "Now look what you made us do!" they cry. Playing politics with people's lives.

[HuwOS]

Basically it is time to put up or shut up KayTie.

You've said "millions and millions" point them out, lets not have a repeat of that time you claimed a regular car was more green than a prius only to eventually admit that in fact you meant a specifically green version of that model, despite being asked if that was the case over and over and over again.

Who are the "millions and millions" of regulation generating civil servants KayTie

[HuwOS]

"A good fifth could be lost with no discernible detriment to the services provided."

A good fifth of who KayTie?
Who are the groups who make up "millions and millions" of these regulation generating civil servants.

The public wanted more police, do you mean a fifth of them.
Very few people want fewer teachers and larger class sizes, is it a fifth of teacher s you want to get rid of.
People wanted quicker access to doctors, nurses and medical treatment, is it a fifth of these people.

Who are these "millions and millions" KayTie

[Kay Tie]

"Ah I see now KayTie, this all springs from the putrid well that considers public servants to be do nothings, so that if there are more in absolute terms while percentages might be the same, because they aren't doing anything real anyway they will just draw up endless regulations and can impose them without the government knowing about it never mind approving them in any way."

You're starting to catch on. Does the government intend for the health and safety culture to be taken to ludicrous extremes? No. Did it pass laws to make it so? No. Did it allow a malign culture of self-interest to develop across the public sector? Yes.

[Kay Tie]

"All of them or are the police excluded, how about the nurses or doctors, the prison service, teachers or university staff maybe?"

A good fifth could be lost with no discernible detriment to the services provided. This is only as many as were added by the final splurge under New Labour. By setting priorities right - tackling youths throwing stones at people rather than arresting hate-crime suspects - it's pretty easy to deploy resources usefully. Firing people responsible for creating the grievance industry would be a start towards this.

[HuwOS]

Ah I see now KayTie, this all springs from the putrid well that considers public servants to be do nothings, so that if there are more in absolute terms while percentages might be the same, because they aren't doing anything real anyway they will just draw up endless regulations and can impose them without the government knowing about it never mind approving them in any way.

So, how many of the roughly 6 million public servants that there are in the UK are involved in this heinous making up of unnecessary regulations.
All of them or are the police excluded, how about the nurses or doctors, the prison service, teachers or university staff maybe?
I really want you to specify which groups make up the "millions and millions" who you say have time on their hands and rather than usefully spending it on facebook or youtube, instead draw up regulations designed to irritate you.
Do you even know how many people in the public sector are civil servants in the regulation drawing up kind of way?

Come on KayTie, lets see these "millions and millions of civil servants who have time on their hands to invent new laws and regulations"

[Kay Tie]

"It is of course meaningless and ludicrous but gosh darn it, you've still managed to make it."

The point was that regulations are produced in proportion to the absolute number of civil servants, not the relative size of country. Smaller countries tend to have fewer rules. I know you have trouble with relative vs. absolute like all your socialist brethren, but if you concentrate really hard, furrow your brow and strain your brain, you might be able to understand.

[HuwOS]

Well KayTie, if your point was that one country has in absolute numbers more civil servants than another country with less than one tenth of its population, while acknowledging that as a percentage of the workforce or of the total population they are equivalent then your point is made.
It is of course meaningless and ludicrous but gosh darn it, you've still managed to make it.

What will your next pearl of wisdom be?
That it is colder in the arctic than at the heart of the sun and will you also somehow tie that into socialism.

[Kay Tie]

"And you want to compare absolute numbers for this, this seems to you to be reasonable?"

It was my entire point. That you can't follow it speaks volumes about your weak intellect.

[HuwOS]

"I didn't talk about type, I talked about SIZE. We have millions and millions of civil servants who have time on their hands to invent new laws and regulations to "make things better". Even under the most ardent left-wing government in Ireland there simply wouldn't be the resource to fund millions of these people." - KayTie

And we are to take it that you believe that the way to compare between two countries of vastly different populations, is to go by absolute numbers.

The latest figures I have for Ireland have roughly 350,000 working in the public sector out of a total workforce of 1,857,400 (so roughly 20% are employed in the public sector) in a nation with a total population of appx 4 million.

And you want to compare absolute numbers for this, this seems to you to be reasonable?
We could potentially imagine you would as you often seem to be far from understanding what reason is, never mind being able to use it.

In Britain with a workforce of around 29 million, about 6 million work in the public sector, so if you wish to stick to absolute numbers then you would be right, the republic would never employ that number, given that its greater than their population.
As a percentage of their population however it is roughly similar.
As a "burden" on taxpayers, it is therefore roughly similar.
On any reasonable comparison, any sane person would have to conclude that the two countries have comparable public sector employment.

That you don't understand this KayTie, is no surprise, that you don't understand it and try to claim that other people don't understand you is the whine of the spoilt brat, the drunk or the addict.

[Kay Tie]

"negotiated national pay agreements"

Those overpaid public sector employees In Scotland and the North are very grateful for their high standard of living at the expense of their comrades in London and the South-East, and all because the socialists didn't press for national house and food price agreements.

This is what is called "equality" apparently. Having crowded out the private sector in these deprived areas, we then see all the whining about how these areas are hard hit when the useless public sector non-jobs are cut.

Socialism: making things worse then complaining that things are worse.

[Kay Tie]

"Ireland has much the same type and extent of civil service as the UK does."

I didn't talk about type, I talked about SIZE. We have millions and millions of civil servants who have time on their hands to invent new laws and regulations to "make things better". Even under the most ardent left-wing government in Ireland there simply wouldn't be the resource to fund millions of these people.

You should learn about fixed costs, scalable costs, dminishing returns, etc. Huw. But since you've never run a business I doubt you have the aptitude for these concepts. Much easier for you ti sit in your armchair and pine for thte glory days when industry and the economy was wrecked by your socialist ideas unanchored in reality.

[HuwOS]

On the other hand, in Ireland, the biggest difference between the two main political parties is which side of the civil war they were on.
So they got to meaningless division long before Britain did, but never mind, Britain has now caught up.

[HuwOS]

"I dunno - seemed quite sensible to me. Ireland has had good presidents. I do think small countries tend to be better run than large ones simply because they can't afford a massive civil service that then makes mischief."

Ireland has much the same type and extent of civil service as the UK does.
Admittedly the Irish state, like the UK moved more towards the US style unregulated economic system and also enjoyed the illusory and temporary wealth that that brought and is now suffering for it.

On the other hand, they didn't ever feel the need to break the unions as the US and UK did.
During their good years, government, business and unions negotiated national pay agreements and for some reason didn't require the services of the KayTie-likes who scream socialist evil at anything that they take against.
Ireland does of course also have a national health service, tv licence and all those other terrible creeping evil things that cause KayTie to wake up in cold sweats about.
And the Irish political party that KayTie would most have liked, thankfully went to it's grave just a couple of years ago.
Ahh, the poor PD's.

[Paul Flynn]

Things will change at the demise of the Queen. I'm not sure that Charles will survive for long. Far too opinionated to be an independent Head of State.

[Kay Tie]

"she'd be horrified to be associated with any of my comments."

I dunno - seemed quite sensible to me. Ireland has had good presidents. I do think small countries tend to be better run than large ones simply because they can't afford a massive civil service that then makes mischief.

[Ad]

'I've yet to hear a strong moral argument for the monarchy. Economic argument, yes - usually one that conveniently overlooks the costs of security - but then, there was an economic argument for slavery, too.'

The Queen, Charles and William generally come across as decent people. Lots of people like and respect them not just in the UK but throughout the commonwealth and the Church of England. They do a fair bit of work as goodwill ambassadors, charity work, ceremonies etc. So I don't think it likely that the UK will become a republic any time soon.

I do question the status of the extended royal family and the aristocratic class who own the majority of land in this country. Much of it is subsidised and is little more than hunting parkland. A waste of land and an obstacle to economic progress.

[DG]

I want an award too, voley. Can't we have an award for best post of the day? Must we always reward failure? ;)

[plashing vole]

Er, Tom:
firstly, Kay didn't make any comment about Ireland, and she'd be horrified to be associated with any of my comments.

Secondly - thanks for your casual racism. I wouldn't ever refer to 'typical' British/English/Welsh/Scots attitudes because you're all very complex people. We Irish are not all the same.

As to the so-called 'substance' of your post - how about some evidence. How, exactly, has the UK 'supported' Ireland? As far as I recall, you've invaded several times, taken everyone's land, starved and expelled a lot of people and then left (most) the country. It's certainly true that Ireland was treated well by the EU, but that doesn't come anywhere near fixing the economic and social problems caused by colonial rule, and Ireland's been self-sufficient for quite a long time now - you may have noticed that per capita earnings are rather higher than the UK, even now. Don't forget that some areas of the UK are desperately poor too - the South Wales valleys, parts of Glasgow and many more.

As to your ludicrous claims about dole, I'd imagine that the figure is rather low. Additionally, the Irish built rather a lot of your infrastructure, staffed your hospitals etc. etc. - and paid a lot of tax.

Thanks for your equally racist patronising comments about Ireland - it sounds uncomfortably close to 'some of my friends are black'.

You win an award for dumbest post of the day.

[DG]

I've yet to hear a strong moral argument for the monarchy. Economic argument, yes - usually one that conveniently overlooks the costs of security - but then, there was an economic argument for slavery, too.

[Patrick]

Tom Langley
Having just read your 'inspirational' hyperbole i can only hypothesize that you indulged in a heavy drinking binge last night and have yet to sober up.

[Tom Langley]

Kay Tie's comments are typical of many Irish, They refuse to recognise that without British support they would be the beggars of Europe. How many Irish nationals are earning a living or on the dole in the UK? As a monarchist I fully suport the Queen and as for Buckingham Palace I have seen many worse buildings in Eire. having written that, I do have quite a few Irish friends and have spent many a pleasant hour enjoying a drop of beamish in Cork.

[Paul Flynn]

The President of Ireland are wonderful examples of elected presidents - especially the last two.

[Paul Flynn]

Loyal to the country and to my constituents not to a family, Kay Tie. the oath I take has a preamble.

[plashing vole]

Good riddance to Warburtons: Tory-funding scum.

As to the Royals - they've got a cosy nest-egg, time to let them slip away into obscurity. I'd even let them keep Buck House - it's an appalling piece of architecture (unless you share Charles's Know-Nothing taste.

I'm from Ireland, where we elect our President. Anyone can run, and for the last 20 years, we've had much better Presidents than prime ministers. I'm (obviously) ambiguous about Cromwell, but it's so sad that you had the chance of founding an early, excellent Republic and blew it.

[Kay Tie]

"The Royal family is part of the dependency culture of Britain"

It is Her Majesty's government you know. And you are supposed to be a member of her loyal opposition. Get too uppity and royal prerogative might well decide that your head should be in a basket six feet from your shoulders.

[Paul Flynn]

Absolutely right DG. I can speak for my Labour colleagues but never for those of other parties. Thanks

[DG]

Would it not be incredibly rude and presumptuous for Paul to make such assurances on behalf of any other parties?

[Ralph Gibson]

"I spoke to Scott Richardson of Brace’s this morning and assured him of the enthusiastic support of all the Labour political representatives in Newport."

I'm sure political representatives of all political persuasions would enthusiastically support such a move. Why try to make people's jobs a party-political issue?