Telegraph deputy-editor down plays Clegg smear
The Daily Telegraph today splashed with the headline: Nick Clegg, the Libdem donors and payments into his private account.
Well it must have been a big story since it was on the front page!
Err, possibly not.
Here is the deputy editor Benedict Brogan on his blog:
And we have gone back to Mr Clegg’s un-redacted expenses file where we discovered the records of donor payments to his bank account we report today. So far he has been unable to produce an adequate explanation for them, or the paperwork to back up his justification. The likelihood must be that it is evidence of disorganisation, nothing more, but don’t know that yet.
So if the likelihood is that is is evidence of disorganisation, why not do your research and digging first before leading with innuendo and smears?
[hat tip Mark Pack]
Do Daily Mail journalists cry at night?
The pathetic and desperate hatchet job on Nick Clegg, by our friends at the Daily Mail, was pretty much instantly rebutted last night, in just 140 characters.
@DougSaunders: British journalism in microcosm: 2002 op-ed by Nick Clegg: http://is.gd/bCESl Resulting Daily Mail front pager tomorrow: http://is.gd/bCETh
Merely linking to the article that was the basis for Tim Shipman’s front-page piece shows the real context, debunks the Mail‘s outrage, and exposes their highly partisan agenda. Iain Dale is right: this will backfire on the Conservatives (regardless of whether they actually had a hand in placing the smears), and further highlight The Slow Death of the British Newspaper As We Know It.
Alongside the online rebuttals and link-sharing, we see the rise of the satirical #hashtag, in this case #NickCleggsFault (seeded by Justin McKeating, I believe), and Chris Applegate has updated his seminal Daily Mail Headline Generator to capture the Zeitgeist:
WILL NICK CLEGG GIVE YOUR HOUSE SWINE FLU?
A few questions present themselves. The first is the obvious perennial: how deep does this sort of ridicule penetrate into the national conversation? Are these jokes just a distraction for a insular blogosphere, the “Twitterati”, or does the meme spread out enough to properly counter the spin being spread by the Mail?
Social marketers will spend all election trying to answer this question… but whatever the level of influence right now, I think it is safe to say that it grows on a daily basis. Meanwhile, the tabloids diminish in stature. This is now a given.
But what I really want to know, is this: What do the journalists at these outlets really think about the satirical attacks on their paper? I can well imagine a bunker mentality affecting the editorial team at the Mail, or the Express, or the Telegraph – these are intense and high-stakes positions, after all.
But does this attitude extend to, say, a young journalist working on the news desk? Or the sub-editors? Or the music reviewers? Or the poor chap (or chapess) who has to moderate all the angry comments!? What do they think when they see the Daily Mail Headline Generator and the #NickCleggsFault hastag cluttering up their screens? Just as the Mail’s readership is not a monolith, we know that their staff cannot be either.
I would love to know their reaction to these kinds of online surges – and not out of any sense of schadenfreude, fly-on-the-wall, Downfall-type snigger. I think it would be a genuinely useful insight into how major media operations operate in the second decade of the 21st Century.
Any pseudonomynous contributions in the comments would be gratefully received.
Study: Cameron wrong on abortion science
It’s only a couple of weeks ago that David Cameron was busily buttering up the Catholic vote, telling the Catholic Herald that:
“I think that the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks [for abortion] would be sensible,”
Today the BBC are reporting new research, published in the BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood, which indicates that there has been no overall improvement in survival rates amongst children born prior to the current 24 week limit for legal abortions in the UK over the last 15 years, despite a significant increase in the use of active resusscitation on severely pre-term neonates during the last five years covered by the study.
This new study confirms the findings of a number of earlier studies which also showed that although improvements in neonatal care and treatment options has led to increase in survival rates amongst neonates born at or above 24 weeks gestation, these improvements were not reflected in the outcomes for those born at 22/23 weeks gestation.
Despite a significant increase in the use of active resuscitation, usually at the request of the parents, the average survival time amongst those neonates who did eventually die rose from 11 hours to a mere 4 days and failed to generate an increase in the nunber of newborns surviving to discharge, which remained static at around 20%.
In simple terms, there have been no significant improvements in neonatal survival where birth occurs prior to 24 weeks gestation since the upper time limit for legal abortions in the UK was cut from 28 to 24 weeks, in the early 1990s.
The study also contradicts claims made by Professor John Wyatt of University College London in evidence submitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology (SciTech) Committee’s 2007 review of medical advances in relation to abortion.
Wyatt also failed to disclose the fact that he is a member of the Christian Medical Fellowship to the SciTech until he was challenged by a committee member during the oral evidence session.
So, er, what is Cameron’s message?
contribution by Tim Fenton
One could forgive the electorate for not knowing what Young Dave and his jolly good chaps are trying to tell them: yesterday brought yet another series of posters, the message being that a Cameron Government would be tough on anyone who chose to remain on benefits rather than take a job.
But this isn’t an original idea, and nor does it follow logically from any other recent Tory poster campaign. And thereby hangs the problem: the message keeps changing. First we had Young Dave in honestly-not-airbrushed mode, followed by the apparently less than successful “I’ve never voted Tory before …” series. Then with the arrival of M&C Saatchi there was a change to attack adverts featuring Pa Broon smiling.
And now we have Cameron apparently endorsing a crackdown on the lazy and unemployed (an easily demonised and therefore soft target). To all these changes of tack can be added the hurriedly changed Party Election Broadcast from earlier this week, the original being pulled and replaced by Young Dave basically pleading with the public to vote Tory, and not, repeat not, for anyone else.
There does not appear to be any underlying strategy to the Tory campaign, something that Alistair Campbell has been banging on about regularly. And this is something that the Tory cheerleaders do not, or cannot, address: moreover, there is no thought that what appeals to them might not even register with the average voter.
The latest poster was rapturously received by Tim Montgomerie and all those other clever people at ConservativeHome who talk loudly in restaurants. They could do worse than heed the wise observation of Lyndon Johnson when reflecting on the subject of economics: “Did y’ever think … that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg? It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else”.
The thought of Montgomerie, Isaby and the rest getting sore legs to no purpose is one to savour.
#LibelReform event tonight – live streaming
The Libel Reform Campaign is hosting the official “Free Speech Hustings” of the General Election 2010 and you can watch or listen to the live stream here.
The speakers tonight are: Dominic Grieve from the Conservatives; Evan Harris from the Liberal Democrats and Michael Wills from Labour.
The event starts at 6:30pm.
You can also discuss or post questions via Twitter using the hashtag: #libelreform
Video stream
.
Audio stream 1
.
Audio stream 2
Link: http://ipad.io/IkJ
Also embedded at the Pod Delusion blog
Why’s Ken Clarke scaremongering about the economy?
I am one of those people who go around saying ‘You know what, if that Ken Clarke was Shadow Chancellor my decision to not be a Tory would be much more difficult. That Ken’s alright. Knows how to cut a deficit, does Ken, and did it with a chuckle’. That sort of thing.
And he is not afraid of speaking economic orthodoxies at a time when every commentator seems to be going all nef.
Which makes it all the sadder to see how he has gone a bit doolally about the IMF and a need to support the UK if there is a hung Parliament.
“Sterling will wobble. We have seen even minor flickers in the opinion polls causing problems with interest rates in the recent past. If the British don’t decide to put in a government with a working majority, and the markets think that we can’t tackle our debt and deficit problems, then the IMF will have to do it for us.”
Really? When in the recent past have we had problems with interest rates?
Ironically, Anatole Kaletsky in the Times provides an indirect explanation for why the IMF is not going to be needed now (ironically, because it is in a column pointing out how difficult things would have been had we been in the Euro. Fair cop; that would have been a bad call). Here is Anatole:
Why, then, are financial pressures so much more intense in Greece? Mainly because the British Government borrows in its own currency and can therefore simply print more money in order to repay its debts if required. This, in fact, is exactly what the Bank of England did last year, creating new money to the tune of around £170 billion.
The ability to print money can create inflation if the Bank of England miscalculates; inflation rose to 3.4 per cent in March. But the independence of monetary policy gives the British Government a freedom to set taxes and public spending in response to the decisions of British voters, instead of the demands of international organisations or bond market investors
We borrow in sterling, we are legally allowed to print sterling. If the IMF were called up to ‘help us out’ they would look rather quizzical, search through the locker for some pounds, and then turn around to us and ask for them.
Yes, this was the situation we were in back in 1976 – but back then, with inflation running at 15% or so, money-funding the deficit was adding fuel to a fire – whereas now it is a generally popular stimulative tool (read my piece on QE).
Of course, we expect Osborne to join such hysteria (watch this debate; Darling does well IMHO; Vince’s point about cross party consensus is bang on as well). George has form from November 2008.
But from sensible, pragmatic Ken? Tsk. There must be something funny in those big cigars he likes to smoke.
Tory surrogates attack Libdems on, er, expenses
The Conservative high command is naturally sticking with its strategy of staying ‘positive’.
But that hasn’t stopped Tory surrogates from trying to attack their newest foes for being hypocritical.
This is the video published today by ConservativeHome
The FT’s Robert Shrimsley says:
The content is pretty rich really especially from the party of the duck houses and moat-cleaners. The shadow cabinet are no angels on expenses. ConservativeHome is hugely influential and it is filled with people from the Tebbit Tendency who want to go negative on the Liberal Democrats. But it is not an official mouthpiece so it is conveniently arms length.
As I pointed out on a short piece written at LC Westminster: this is likely to be the new attack-tactics for the Tories. Their aim is to try and build up Clegg and then call him ‘holier than thou’ in not so many words.
The ad won’t go out to millions of people, but it may inform the Westminster bubble narrative. Clegg should figure out a counter-strategy.
Have the Tories really embraced ‘equality’?
If you’ve looked in at Left Foot Forward at any time in the last 24 hours then you’ll already know that David Cameron has finally got around to repudiating Chris Grayling’s recent B&B gaffe.
Nevertheless, there is something in Cameron’s reported remarks that, frankly, sent the needle on my personal bullshit detector right off the end of the scale, and it’s this comment:
“I mean the truth is that, you know, the Conservative Party now accepts wholeheartedly the equality agenda for people, whether you’re black or white or straight or gay, man or woman, is really important. That’s the bedrock of our manifesto.”
Let’s take a look at the Tory’s manifesto and see if we can find where it mentions this particular bit of ‘bedrock’:
This vision demands a cultural change across the country. Our success will depend not just on the actions we take but on society’s response. By promoting equality and tackling discrimination, our policies, like recognising civil partnerships as well as marriage in the tax system and helping disabled people live independently, will give everybody the chance to play their part. This way, we can make Britain fairer and safer; a country where opportunity is more equal.
And that’s your lot…
Seriously, that is only paragraph in the Tory’s 131 page manifesto in which the words ‘equality’ or ‘discrimination’ appear.
‘Civil partnerships’ does make a second appearance, later on in the manifesto, but only as part of a one line statement about the Tories’ pitiful tax break for married couples, while ‘inequality’ appears a total of seven times but only ever in concert with a reference to poverty.
So, if it’s bedrock you’re after, it looks like you’ll have more luck with the Flintstones.
If you really want to see the bedrock on which the Tory manifesto is founded then you have to look beyond the manifesto at one or two other sources, the most important of which, as we’re talking here aboutsocial policy, is the output of Iain Duncan Smith’s ‘Centre of Social Justice’ and, in particular, the Conservative Social Policy Justice Group which produced the CSJ “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain” reports.
It’s here that we find a very different view of this ‘equality agenda’ being expressed:
Since the 1960’s there has been a constant flow of primary and secondary legislation affecting divorce, sexual freedom, abortion rights, homosexual lifestyles, tax & benefits and more. In combination these laws have undermined the value of marriage as an institution, mainly by elevating the value of other relationship structures now generally considered to lack the longevity and strength that marriage brings to the family unit.
‘Fractured Families’ (Dec 2006), Conservative Social Policy Justice Group/Centre for Social Justice, pp 92.
For once, we can skip over the ridiculous proposition that the long and rather tortuous road from legalising homosexuality to equalising the age of consent and putting civil partnerships in place has undermined marriage and focus rather more closely on the choice of language.
In truth, just about the only place you’ll ever encounter the phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle’, at the present time, is within the rhetoric of the religious right – I doubt that its a phrase that even a bona fide gay lifestyle magazine would resort to. Just try searching Google and you’ll see exactly what I mean – the vast majority of the results that Google returns are condemnatory articles by religious groups/individuals, although there is a rather nice personal article on coming out at the top of the current list that’s well worth reading.
Although it may seem innocuous enough, the phrase ‘homosexual lifestyle’ is almost exclusively used in ‘popular culture’ in a pejorative sense and only then by people who, for primarily religious reasons, cannot or will not accept that homosexuality is anything other than an aberration and/or a moral defect; an unnatural and disordered state of mind that must be either ‘cured’ or suppressed with the help of a big old dose of god, lashings of prejudice and emotional blackmail and, if all else fails, a couple of hundred volts across the temples.
This is nor the language of acceptance, nor even the language of mere tolerance.
This is the language of people who, in the United State, are happily shipping the kids off to religious re-education camps of the type that that are every bit as repressive as any Stalinist gulag, in order to have them effectively ‘straightened’ out…
A desperate re-telling of British political history
contribution by Tim Fenton
As the fallout from the first Leaders’ Debate continues, the Tory cheerleaders within the blogosphere have been reduced to a state of desperation: they don’t want to appear nasty towards Corporal Clegg but their belief that Young Dave only had to turn up and look confident has been shot apart.
The prospect of a hung parliament, and potential coalition Government, is clearly causing distress, so much so that creative retelling of history to frighten voters back to the Tories has begun.
And yesterday’s singularly desperate storyteller was Iain Dale, a compliant and reliable conduit for Tory propaganda. Dale has exhumed David Low’s caricature of Lloyd George as coalition Prime Minister (after the “coupon election” of 1918) riding a two headed donkey.
He says that this Government was “possibly the worst … of the 20th Century”, which fails to explain why Lloyd George was, by 1922, at the height of his personal popularity. He summons the memory of Michael Foot in telling what did for LG.
What sunk Lloyd George was partly that he had no party by 1922: the coalition had ended (so the two headed donkey was no more), and the Liberals, something that Dale’s simplistic analysis omits, were split between those backing LG and the followers of Herbert Asquith, with the latter having been part of the opposition after 1918.
When the election came in 1922, LG and those of like mind stood as a party separate to the Liberals, and suffered as a result. The Tories, who had formed the bulk of the 1918 coalition, emerged if anything stronger (the lesson of what happens to a politician who has no party was not lost on LG’s friend Churchill in 1940).
And the Tories did it again in 1931: Ramsay MacDonald and a group of Labour and Liberal MPs went into a coalition “National Government” with them, the Tories emerging by 1935 as a party with a parliamentary majority of around 200. MacDonald was, on one occasion, discovered by Lloyd George wandering around the House of Commons looking lost: he left LG with the impression that he had come to realise he had been duped.
If there is one lesson to learn from recent peacetime coalition Governments in the UK: you go in with the Tories, and you end up getting screwed over.
The Liberal Party suffered most, though they inflicted much of the damage by their infighting and indiscipline. Labour were rescued by their contribution to Churchill’s wartime Government, and the desire of the electorate not to go back to the policies that had failed so many of them in the 30s.
Nick Clegg, an Asquith Liberal, and the likes of Chris Huhne, who leans towards LG, will know their history well enough to hold together, and treat the Tory cheerleaders with the contempt they deserve.
The Citizens’ Campaign: Time for Change
As the United Kingdom’s political laws dissolve into a volcanic sunrise, how do we start to make sense of this moment? Some may blame it on the ash-cloud, others on reality television. But the truth is that the history of the present is being written today: not by the politicians on our television screens, nor yet by shadowy forces, but by us, the British people. This chance doesn’t come along too often.
As Hobhouse for the next few weeks, I can call it as I see it. Anyone who swims around the delta of politics has loyalties; assumptions; even vows of omerta. This baggage has its place. But in moments of real change it can stop us from seeing or voting straight. So let’s ditch the baggage, and connect a few dots: from Cleggmania to the skin-shedders of the two-party system, from TV to a deeper electronic democracy — and the growing Citizens’ Campaign.
Conventional wisdom doesn’t take long to solidify. This is the TV election, it says. The leaders’ debates introduced Nick Clegg to the nation, and granted him the same podium as the big boys. 90 minutes of X-Factor reality TV changed everything and gave birth to Cleggmania.
I’m not so sure. Firstly, this election is about much more than the Liberal Democrats (of which more later.) And their big poll surge began before Nick Clegg won the first leaders’ debate on ITV (the ICM poll showing the Lib Dems on 27% was all but complete by then).
How do you make sense of that?
The only explanation I’ve come up with is this. We the people had been going through the motions, tuning out politics as usual for quite awhile – but early last week, the election broke through our jamming fields and got us thinking.
And many of us found that when we thought about it just a bit, we were far from thrilled by the choices on offer. A pair of parties who had both let us down before. Churning out hackneyed spin and untrustworthy homilies. Led, to be unkind, by an obsessive, violent hermit and an airbrushed Etonian car salesman.
Perhaps that’s when the buried dissatisfaction, from expenses to Iraq, started to rise. The finest blog comment of the election so far nails it (from Liberal Conspirator John Q Publican): this has been a long time coming. We started to cast around a little more, beyond our grudging habits of allegiance, abstention and see-saw swinging – and the Lib Dems jumped into contention before the debate.
Then the TV cameras came on in Manchester, where Nick’s low profile may ironically have proved an asset. Suddenly here was a new character on the stage – but more than that, the right new character, an X Factor that pre-dates Cowell. He robustly personified the longed-for change which felt out of reach, but at the same time his “transparency”, his negative capability, his intelligent and passionate ordinariness, opened up the space for people to follow their hearts and hopes for change.
The debate affected the 9.4 million who watched, of course. But its greatest effect was in the nationwide echo chamber of the media — and the millions of chance conversations this sparked, falling on fertile ears, just as the pre-debate ICM poll was released. This is when the Lib Dems started to go viral. There is something a little hysterical about it — the Princess Diana analogies are not all wrong. It’s the state we’re in. But the speed with which Nick Clegg’s win flipped the narrative of this election is testament to how weak and vulnerable the “Cameron coronation” story was. The real Great Ignored — the turbulent undercurrents of public dissatisfaction with politics as usual — proved stronger than anyone thought.
Now, turning to the skin-shedders of the two parties: Nick Clegg’s debate win was so clear partly because it was immediately recognised as such by the Labour spin operation – from Mandelson to Campbell and the rest.
That recognition was dramatic, however tactical it was. It might not have been offered so generously after the ICM results had been released. And it marked a wider trend. Some of the sharpest organisers, ideologues and innovators from Labour and the Conservatives alike have scented the winds of change blowing through the system, and they seem to like what they smell. This is true of the cunning and unscrupulous, but also of the principled (the line between the two is not always clear…).
It’s tragic watching Labour big beasts contort themselves into new shapes for a hung parliament and a progressive coalition while hacking away at the Lib Dems, stretching vainly for a Labour majority and sliding in the polls. Particularly so if you hold a membership card. Some of them have known they needed to make this shift for years, some have even chafed for it, but few seem to know how to do it. You can see how Ed Balls hates it.
Labour, Labour, Labour… they’re not finding the best notes to play so far, and they’re sliding painfully. The need for renewal has never looked clearer or more urgent. Whatever the final result, the Blair/Brown era is over.
By contrast, the Obama-inspired tribunes of the Labour blogosphere, Anthony Painter and Alex Smith of LabourList, have both written important, honest paeans of praise to Cleggmania. They like these winds of change: they’ve felt them before. This is particularly courageous from Alex, who’s up against Lib Dems in the Islington council elections. But Anthony asks the real question for Labour. “This is a change election. There doesn’t seem to be any way of re-framing that. So what’s the change narrative?” Even Alastair Campbell’s post-debate musings had a touch of this honesty, before he took fright at the polls and re-discovered his baying partisan.
On the other side of the aisle, it only took populist-libertarian Tory cheerleader Guido Fawkes a day or two longer to start publicly revelling in the rise of Clegg and fantasising about a Liberal-Tory coalition.
True, the party faithful of ConservativeHome take the opposite view, as do many party spokespeople; and the camp of the nasty hit-men seems to be strengthening.
But David Cameron’s hastily re-arranged party political broadcast on Monday sent another skin-shedding message. As he doubled down on his “Big Society” story and did his best to ape Clegg, it felt like he was struggling to ride the same transforming and clarifying wave the Lib Dems have caught. You glimpse what the Tory party might start to look like if they had to forge a broader coalition — as they will if the voting system changes. This isn’t an inept campaign. It’s an existential crisis.
Still, Cameron’s offer to “join the government of Britain” and his claim to “blow apart the old way of doing things” are mostly spin. His localism, direct democracy and enthusiasm for civic services are real; but at root he wants a loyal supporters’ club, and a band of volunteers to do everything from coaching the kids to cleaning the toilets.
The British people don’t want to join in politics as usual. We don’t aspire to be ants rebuilding our country in the Cameroonian vision.
We want to change the government of Britain to its core.
That’s why a third factor — the growing tide of non-party campaigns around this election — is so fascinating and extraordinary.
Relatively speaking, the remarkable Lib Dem surge (which may yet recede) and Labour-Conservative skin-shedding are familiar ground.
But there’s a new Citizens’ Campaign out there in the country, and it’s bigger than anyone. Day after day in the polls, more people want to elect a parliament with no overall majority than support solo government by either of the main parties. Part of this is a hanging instinct, part is more deliberate and positive. By my count, well over two-thirds of a million citizens will be directly connected to this election through non-party internet movements pressing for a balanced outcome and a reforming parliament, and casting their votes for that. Vote for a Change are 50,000-strong, POWER2010 around the same – and the Rage Against the Machine Facebook campaign to vote Lib Dem is passing 120,000 members. This is far from the X Factor’s manufactured pap.
Now the heavyweights are limbering up: according to my inbox this week, the MoveOn-inspired 38 Degrees (125,000-strong) and Avaaz (380,000!) are both polling their UK members on such a direction. More on all of these another day, as their strategies coalesce. The “Hang ‘em” New Statesman article and subsequent campaign aggressively opened the space, with support from commentators like Timothy Garton-Ash (a centrist voice that swing seats will listen to, and no stranger to velvet revolutions).
Hundreds of thousands more are reading the progressive blogs, where this debate is taking off, and using Twitter — where instant reaction for everyone has broken some of the media’s lock on the narrative. This internet wave may feel chaotic, but in an election where 100,000 votes can determine the outcome, it could have a huge impact. Let’s see if the media start paying attention.
Arguably, the Lib Dem surge is part of the Citizens’ Campaign and not vice versa. This Campaign is only starting to go viral. But it taps the public energy perhaps more directly than any of the parties can. And all this provides a powerful counterforce to the tabloid barons who are pouring poison and fear in the ears of the electorate in an attempt to stop this wave. They know how much this transformation threatens the strange and deformed vision of Britain which they’ve been carving out for decades, and they’re playing dirty – but they don’t own this country, and it’s time they found that out.
It’s anyone’s guess where all this goes next. It depends on what we all do — from party campaigners to bloggers, from journalists to citizens. The second TV debate, on foreign policy, could break or re-energise the Clegg momentum. (His policies on Iraq, Afghanistan and yesterday, his frank talk on the end of the special relationship will resonate from the inner cities to the shires –the toxin of Europe runs deep, but is not yet impervious to refreshing common sense).
But just for a moment, let’s raise our sights and see what this election is really about: a cleansing surge of energy to change the way we run this country.
Let’s make sure we tell that story of hope positively, with passion and open hearts and ideas for what to change on the other side of this decisive vote.
And above all, let’s not bottle it. We won’t get a better chance to forge a twenty-first century democracy and a twenty-first century Britain — or to cast off the undead millstone of our imperial past.
Speak again soon.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote
» Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest?
» To win London, Ken Livingstone has to step outside his comfort zone
» This trade agreement with India will destroy thousands of lives
» UK debt hasn’t hit £1 trillion – mostly because of QE
» The benefits of being a “burden” on society
» Today’s economic figures will simply confirm UK’s “lost decade”
» Have Labour realised the election is more than three years away?
» Violence in the office
» Want a more responsible capitalism? Reform how pensions work
» The world is entering the third phase of the crisis, warns ILO
|
19 Comments 33 Comments 59 Comments 18 Comments 15 Comments 25 Comments 38 Comments 7 Comments 64 Comments 11 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Max posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Sunny Hundal posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Sally posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Flowerpower posted on Diane Abbott resigns from abortion panel » Tom (iow) posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Anne posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Ian M Davies posted on Week of action against Atos begins Monday » Robert2012 posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » G.O. posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Dave posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Schmidt posted on Even by economic standards Hester's £1m bonus is unworthy » Link: “govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote” | Help Me Investigate Health posted on Revealed: govt to restrict abortion counselling despite Nadine Dorries vote » Planeshift posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? » Makhno posted on The benefits of being a "burden" on society » Trooper Thompson posted on Would raising the tax threshold actually help the poorest? |
