MSN News.

A man has been killed and two others were taken to hospital with gunshot wounds following a “serious incident” understood to involve a serving soldier.
Several witnesses described seeing a “beheading” while another described seeing a man wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt being attacked with a machete-style knife and dumped in a south-east London street.
One witness, identified as James, said he and his partner saw two black men attack a young man aged around 20 in a Help for Heroes T-shirt with kitchen knives like he was “a piece of meat”. “They were hacking at this poor guy, literally,” he told LBC radio. “They were hacking at him, chopping him, cutting him.” Fighting back tears, he added: “These two guys were crazed. They were just animals. They dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road and left his body there.”
He said after the “horrendous” attack, the two men, in their 20s, just stood around, waving knives and a gun, even asking people nearby to take pictures of them “as if they wanted to be on TV or something”. “They were oblivious to anything, they were more worried about having their photo taken, running up and down the road,” he said. “They had no intention of running off or leaving or anything. In my opinion, they were waiting for the police to arrive to be shot by the police. That’s the only thing I can think. It’s horrendous what they were doing to that guy.” Some “brave” women tried to shield the man on the ground from them, he added.He also said it was 20 minutes before armed police arrived at the scene. “When the armed police came flying around the corner, the man with the beanie hat, the tall guy, he charged at the police vehicle,”

I believe we could so easily do without this kind of enrichment.

Details at this stage are of course sketchy, though the pattern does appear to fit the profile of certain groups who are inordinately fond of guns and knives and even had their own police task force known as Trident, which appears to have been disbanded though the money to deal with such problems still seems to be pouring in despite no real effect as far as I can tell other than enriching those who are doing good and of course various community leaders who appear to lead nothing.

It really does come to something when 123 people are stabbed to death in London a year alone mainly by black youths and/or foreign criminals. 54 Muslim grooming gangs are about to be raided by police around the country for raping white children. Hundreds of white people have been killed by non whites yet the media only want to talk about Stephen Lawrence.

BBC’s Nick Robinson reporting that the “People carrying out the attack were of Muslim appearance and cries of God is Great or Allahu Akbar were heard”.

Amazingly enough though if you point this out, guess who is causing a problem?

Are you feeling enriched yet?

Ukip’s recent rise in popularity and the increased fervour behind talks of an EU referendum has placed the matter of the UK’s future within Europe at the forefront of the mainstream agenda. But when I read these headlines, something just doesn’t ring true. David Cameron’s claim that the people of Britain are unhappy with the relationship between Britain and the EU does not reflect my own experiences – or those of my peers.

Says who?

Selina Nwulu is an environmental and human rights campaigner. She is also a writer and researcher focusing on social justice, politics, education, and gender. She is member of Black Feminists and writes in a personal capacity.

Oh. OK, then…

A recent report from the Fabian Society shows that the majority of the 18- to 34-year-olds surveyed claimed they would vote yes to EU membership in a referendum. Far from donning rose-tinted glasses about the current state of the EU, the report reveals that the majority of young people, despite economic instability and the burgeoning eurozone crisis, still feel positive about the UK’s involvement within the EU.

And why is that? Why do you feel positive, I wonder?

My Erasmus year instantly placed me within a network of young people from 27 countries and reputable universities to study in. To be exposed to so many different opportunities, cultures and people (and given a grant for the privilege) all under the umbrella of “Europe” connected me to the EU in a way that makes the overly simplistic makings of the EU referendum derisory.

Aha! Well, it’s a pity they are throwing their (our) money down the drain, then. Because as you yourself are forced to admit, you can’t trust the youth to actually hold up their end of the bargain:

The reality is that young people are less likely to vote – and issues surrounding Europe are no exception; only 29% of people aged 24 or younger voted in European elections in 2009.

However, it would be lazy to mistake this lacklustre political presence among youth for apathy.

Really? Seems like that’s exactly what it is, to me…

It’s a chilling and all too familiar story, to listen to the constant stream of white middle-class rightwing politicians claiming separation from the EU would be best for the country as they prove time and time again that they do not speak for me or the majority.

You mean, your small, narrow, unrepresentative circle?

Instead of flailing and jumping to the drum of Ukip, it’s time the Conservatives listened. We need Europe and future generations should not be left bearing the consequences of decisions they did not make and outcomes they did not vote for.

Sounds like they don’t really care about voting so much, no matter what. And…somehow that’s all the grown-up’s fault?

Children’s Minister Aileen Campbell

Let’s remain calm about this one, let’s not jump to conclusions. Surely it’s a spoof, a wind-up, surely it’s not serious:

Unfortunately, this dystopian future has arrived a little faster than I imagined, as last week the Scottish Government’s plan to give every child a state guardian from birth was launched. This state-appointed overseer will be a specific, named individual, and every child will have one, from birth. The responsibility for creating this named guardian will fall on the heads of the health boards for the first five years of a child’s life, before being transferred to councils. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this development is that it clearly comes in large part as a mechanism to target and prevent child abuse.

Concerns about this new statutory initiative built into the Children and Young People Bill have been raised by some MSPs, but largely on technical grounds: Can the state afford to have a “supporter” for every child? How will the child get to know this person and how will they develop a trusting relationship with them?

Children’s minister Aileen Campbell has said the approach would be useful in that a specific individual will have the responsibility of overseeing the wellbeing of specific children. As she put it, this will “make sure there is someone having an overview of what is happening to that child, to make sure that early indicators of anything that would pose a threat or risk to that child are flagged up”.

Part of the plan is that professionals increasingly share information with one another so as to nip problems in the bud. Like the “every child matters” approach in England and Wales, “safeguarding” children is now the priority of anyone working with children, be that a teacher, a dentist, a youth worker, a swimming instructor and so on. And at one level this sounds OK – anything that stops child abuse…

On the other hand, it can be seen as having little to do with the problem of abused kids and more to do with our culture of suspicion.

Ian PJ remarked:

WTF! What kind of person would write this into law, and what kind of person would even listen to the argument giving guardianship of each and every child born in Scotland to a state guardian.

Ian, assuming it’s for real and not just a journalistic joke, then look carefully for a start at that parachutee, the young lass in the pic. Did she dream this one up or did she think she dreamt it up but finds it is in line with Mentoring bills around the world the global left are forcing into place?

http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2012/01/23/the-same-old-tired-rhetoric-wrapped-around-a-sales-pitch/

If we Google “mentoring”, “mentoring partnerships” and “state mentoring”, it’s instantly clear just how far this thing has gone. Exploring who the people are behind it – what else they’re involved in, what their political records are – is equally jawdropping yet predictable.

So, here’s the prospect of every Scottish child a potential ward of the State on the say-so of a young Aileen and her Common Purpose mentor at the local council. The principle of parenthood now becomes parenthood if we, the State, deem you worthy.

Aren’t you glad Aileen is in charge of this? Aren’t you glad, dear Scots, that Alex is taking you from the despised UK and you can have Brussels masters instead?

Welcome, Scotland, to your Brave New World.

………..

Incidentally, at the time of writing, my own site is down or at least closed to me accessing it. Don’t know how long that will be for.

“Global warming schedule has slipped and as for climate change, the climate is hardly changing at all,” the Professor announced as soon as we were comfortably seated at his solid mahogany brain-storm table as he calls it.

“We need a new term to reflect the fact that the climate has become seriously confused,” he added.

“Confused?” I asked, sipping my perfectly brewed coffee.

“Certainly. The climate is failing to obey scientific laws. Simple logic tells us it must be confused. Obviously we can’t prosecute the climate for breaking scientific laws with such impunity, but surely we have a solemn duty to cure it of such behaviour.”

“Cure the climate – is that the new name for your latest findings, Professor?”

“Actually it isn’t, although it conveys what we are trying to do well enough. The name climate confusion has also been suggested, but I opted for climate dementia. It conveys the right message I think.”

“So the climate is effectively suffering from dementia?” I asked. “It has forgotten to keep warm. As old people do when they think about their winter fuel bills.”

“Exactly. I intend to launch my climate dementia programme by promoting what I call Breathless Earth Day. On this day, everyone should stop breathing for as long as possible. Just imagine! The beauty of it! For a single precious moment the whole human race refrains voluntarily from breathing out a single molecule of CO2.”

“Is that really practical, Professor?” I asked.

“Of course it is. I have been demonstrating the idea on the London streets by holding my breath in public for as long as physically possible. It attracts quite a crowd, so there is plenty of interest in climate dementia.”

“I’m sure there is. What usually happens when you hold your breath for as long as physically possible?” I asked.

“I’m totally, totally committed, so I always fall over. Many people take photos of me with their mobiles as I lie there on the pavement, writhing around gasping for breath. So I know my crucial message is going global on TwitterFace and so forth.”

“Isn’t it dangerous to hold your breath until you fall over?” I asked, wondering if it was time to bring the interview to a close.

“Isn’t it far more dangerous to allow the climate to go on breaking scientific laws?” The Professor beamed. “Allow me to demonstrate.” He grasped his neck with both hands and squeezed, apparently trying to strangle himself.

“All we have to do is control our emissions… glurk… and by doing so… ghaaa…” the Professor gurgled. His knuckles turned white as his face began to turn red.

I legged it. There was a loud crash but by then I was through the door and off down the corridor.

Fine, then leave, Jimmy.

That’s really rich, given West Lothian and the Barnett formula but let’s not dwell on such things now. If Scotland goes, then that’s that many less Lib Dem and Labour MPs in parliament, which gives a new Sanity party, maybe called UKP, a sporting chance to take out 2015.

I can see a scenario where the new party takes 10-15% of the country as former Tory voters, 22% already UKIP and maybe quite a few socially conservative Labourites, as against tribal Labour – maybe 30%, Pink Tory – maybe 25% and then others. However, let’s not dwell on that either.

The system’s the thing

It’s quite clear that the current system doesn’t work, it’s captured by the globalists and PCists and party preselections are a closed shop. When we vote at GEs, there’s no choice, we’ve been through all that. Personally, I think AV better but the referendum showed most don’t agree.

Fine, we run with what we have – practical politics. So let’s look at Daniel‘s proposal and also at the Swiss system, not forgetting Ivan’s proposal to return the Lords to a pre-Blair state. Those with short memories should note that there had already been considerable reform by that point.

Daniel

Labour should not get 55% of the seats from 35% of the vote (that bothered to turn-out). I would prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water, lets get the boundaries fixed and make sure they can’t become so warped again in future.
After the boundaries are fix we need to take a look at the Lords on how that chamber can be made up in a way to help balance that out, which is an entirely different and much more complex situation altogether.

Ivan says:

The Lords is the simplest thing to fix – just take it back to what it was. why not look at what the Swiss have, it works very well and everyone gets a say in all the main concerns of the country. The only reason it would never be considered in the UK is that it relies on SMALL government that keeps out of peoples lives as much as possible.

Still, we’ll look at that next. Back to Daniel:

Can’t HoL reform be tied into election reform? A HoC keeping the present FPTP electoral system (properly reformed so constituencies are composed of roughly equal numbers of electorate and a HoL based on PR electing a number of time serving Lords … [Time Lords? JH] … with a constituency based on the counties, the number each County returns based on its population.

This way a link is kept between the electorate and the representative and the more spread out minority vote has a chance to be represented. On the plus side, the potential for deadlock as each house claims democratic legitimacy might draw all the current excess law making to a stuttering halt.

I would not have voted out the hereditary system, but I am not sure I would vote them back in either (in either case, of course I did not/will not have a vote on the matter). The 1911 Parliament Act acknowledged via it’s preamble that the restrictions placed on the Lords were step 1 to moving to an elected chamber:

“Whereas it is intended to substitute the House of Lords as it presently exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation.”

So we restricted the role of the Lords as it was an undemocratic chamber, then never moved to an elected chamber and left the upper house restrained.

IMHO The hereditary [neutered] system favoured the old establishment, the current arraignment suits the new establishment. I would prefer we saw a system where by the wisdom of wise and experienced people is heard as part of debate, but ultimately is democratic and accountable to the electorate.

In fact, Daniel, you’ve noted the bad of the new and so why does it need to be wholly elected in the Lords? Whre is the true review function if the members are beholden to the government of the day? Leave the Lords part elected, part appointed along traditional lines.

Back to you:

-HOC reformed down to 500/550 ish seats all of approx. equal size by population

-Automatic trigger of boundary reform after each census to re-equalise seat sizes

-HOL – 180(ish) FPTP Elected seats, 1 seat per county and each city (plus for a select number of sizable metropolises that are of an agreed size but don’t/don’t yet have city status (i.e. Milton Keynes)

[Nor should it - those bstds took my football team.]

- 179 (total elected seats less 1) of appointed/hereditary & CofE Lords.

This should lend balance to Parliament, whereby a large number of the HOC seats are city based there is a natural “metropolitan” Liberalism that does not necessarily resonate throught the whole country – is similar to the US notion.

179 Lords get to debate on all 3 readings, but can only vote in readings 1 & 2… This is specifically so that the wisdom of the old system and quality of debate is preserved, and so that Democratic legitimacy is in play to allow the HOL’s powers/responsibilities be increased allowing it to more ably act as a balance to the power of the HOC (in particular the Government).

HOL to look after the Judiciary and look after election of High Court and Appeal Court Judges.

HOL can vote down money bills.

HOL can introduce legislation in agreed areas.

If elected to HOL, eligible for seat in Cabinet.

Elected Lords sit in opposite benches nearer the speaker, unelected on the benches further down the chamber.

Elected HOL seats are fixed terms per seat of terms of 3 years for first election, 5 for return and 7 years for any subsequent return (not a deal-breaker, but means untested reps have to go back to the ballot box sooner, and terms lengthened each time returned). Right of recall in the constituency to force a by-election on that seat for misconduct/criminal behaviour.

Would be happy to hear if there is any bright idea how the whipping system could be made less effective in the upper house.

HOL specifically tasked to keep HOC in check (budgets, MP’s expenses etc) power to convene committees etc available. HOC also to keep HOL in check.

We could probably do away with the very unBritish Supreme Court and restore the HOL as the superior court of the land (probably not as straight-forward and unpicking the mess now though)

Numbers/sizes based on current UK make up. If countries leave the union adjustments need to be made.
West Lothian question requires an equalising of the powers and remits of the devolved assemblies in the different areas so that in the same powers can be devolved down from UK to the counties. If something is done at Scottish level for eg but not in Wales they could devolve this to the county or local assembly. if something can not be devolved to county level across the board it should be reassumed at UK level so there is a level playing field.

[I've already mentioned that the Scots can leave and that gives a new party a sporting chance but of course, many will not like that.]

While were (I’m) at it, no more district or regional councils or whatever the EU administrative bodies are called now – Councils for City and County will mirror the new HOL boundaries with lower town, borough and/or parish as makes sense. All locally funded; our exit from the EU (did I not mention that already…) allowed for VAT to be scrapped so VAT, local rates, flat tax etc can be levied to fund local government.

OK, OK but methinks there’s a bit too much prejudice against PR in this country. Agreed it couldn’t be used for lower house but for the Lords, it would seem to be ideal. They’re not there for popular representation.

I would add that we really need a beefed up constitution initially based on 1689 but with checks and balances in there on how boundaries can change – that sort of thing.

The Swiss system

Here’s a quick reference.

The politics of Switzerland take place in the framework of a multi-party federal parliamentary democratic republic, whereby the Federal Council of Switzerland is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by the government and the federal administration and is not concentrated in any one person. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland.

The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. For any change in the constitution, a referendum is mandatory; for any change in a law, a referendum can be requested. Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland the closest state in the world to a direct democracy.

Things I noted on first reading:

Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether to accept or reject the law.

Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative is formulated as a precise new text (general proposal initiatives have been canceled in 2009 [1]) whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government.

After a successful signature gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day as the original proposal.

Uh huh.

The Swiss Federal Council is a seven-member executive council that heads the federal administration, operating as a combination cabinet and collective presidency. Any Swiss citizen eligible to be a member of the National Council can be elected;[2] candidates do not have to register for the election, or to actually be members of the National Council. The Federal Council is elected by the Federal Assembly for a four-year term.

Tricky to dismantle our bureaucratic, quango-ridden state.

The Swiss executive is one of the most stable governments worldwide. Since 1848, it has never been renewed entirely at the same time, providing a long-term continuity.

The Swiss government has been a coalition of the four major political parties since 1959, each party having a number of seats that roughly reflects its share of electorate and representation in the federal parliament.

But:

This “magic formula” has been repeatedly criticised: in the 1960s, for excluding leftist opposition parties; in the 1980s, for excluding the emerging Green party; and particularly after the 1999 election, by the People’s Party, which had by then grown from being the fourth largest party on the National Council to being the largest.

Well done if it excludes the encroachment of the global left – Barosso/Blair/Cameron but not so good if it excludes direct democracy parties.

Switzerland has a bicameral parliament called the Federal Assembly, made up of:

• the Council of States (46 seats – members serve four-year terms) and
• the National Council (members are elected by popular vote on a basis of proportional representation to serve four-year terms)

Uh huh.

Political extremism is not a widespread phenomenon in Switzerland, although far-left extremism has increased slightly since the turn of the century in 2000 has resulted in improved organization of the far left, but it has no noticeable impact on parliamentary or direct democracy.

Good that it sees leftism, being Statist, as antithetical to direct democracy.

OK, what do you think? Could any part of that serve in the UK?

Harrogate Agenda

EU Referendum
Autonomous Mind
Witterings from Witney

The smoking ban is iniquitous, along with minimum price liquor and various other things. The sight of those poor sods having to go outside in all weathers for a puff is one of the blights on our society and what for?

Another PC fascist “oh I don’t like this, quick, let’s ban it”.

Having said all that, I’ll not be well liked for this but a number of things happened to me in childhood which were not the best. One of them was that I was sexually assaulted by gays four times so that colours the thinking a bit on this whole gay issue.

Another was that my father used to insist the windows were wound up on our trips and he chain smoked. My mother developed severe bronchitis though I didn’t until a few years back now.

As for my father, he developed emphysema and was one of those who went to the doc and came home with bags of sweets he then sucked on the rest of his days.

I have no political issue with smoking whatever, quite the opposite and fully support the lads and lasses who wish to overturn the iniquitous ban. However, dot, dot, dot.

The trouble is, you see, I love pubs and see nothing better than a convivial pint or four but there’s also an issue of rhinitis and I can’t take the smoke in there more than half an hour. In Russia, I remember once taking the gf to a pizzeria and whether it was the smoke or her perfume, I don’t know, but I had a violent attack of rhinitis which almost took me out.

These days, even chocolate and red wine can set it off – the things I love. E number additives in food always do, especially cakes and pastries.

OK, so that’s me out but equally, that’s no reason to turn around and say others can’t do that. I mean, where does this get off? If I go to a pub, I look for a non-smoking area. Now, because I do that, it does not automatically follow that I want everyone around me to do this or that. My condition needs a fairly smoke free area, that’s all.

Why oh why couldn’t pubs just be allowed to run smoking and non-smoking areas? I’m sure many a smoky-drinky has asked that. And don’t even get us started on health fascists, even though I think it’s a good idea to eat healthily.

BAN on smoking could be the death knell for Tasmania’s agricultural shows, the chief of the Hobart Show says.

Royal Agricultural Society of Tasmania chief executive Scott Gadd says his staff will not police the new rule at the Hobart Show in October.

The former top public servant is angry at the smoke-free directive announced by Public Health boss Roscoe Taylor at the weekend.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/05/21/379639_most-popular-stories.html

Mr Gadd said the added level of bureaucracy was one of the biggest issues facing rural shows, which have suffered dramatic falling attendances in the past 10 years.

“Agricultural shows are run by volunteers. We have very few paid staff,” he said.

Last year he had unsuccessfully tried a designated smoking area at the Hobart Show.

“The public didn’t go anywhere near it,” Mr Gadd said.

Not that this paragon of sense had the sense when he was a ‘top public servant’ now in a sinecure gained from being  a top public servant. He presided over the implementation of the ‘smoking bans’ legislations when they were elsewhere. Under his leadership cafes and pubs went out of business. Not that he cared then. He wasn’t employed by them.

Ridiculous government imposed rules about insurance cover and ‘elf n safety’ in ‘food preparation’ was the death-knell for having a cuppa or a sandwich at the village hall or children’s footy game. He didn’t raise his finger at that either. He wasn’t running the club cake stall.

Nor did he say anything when ‘volunteers’ were obliged to be vetted by the Police for as little as helping an old lady across the street. You cannot volunteer for anything in Tasmania util you are ‘registered’ and ‘vetted’. The interference in public life by ‘Top Public Servants’ digs deep and makes a huge pile.

Tasmania is an agricultural place as the Arse End of the World.  Industry avoids it like the plague due to the work-intolerant Labour-Green-Feminist government. Farmers struggle under arcane rules that include being fined for storing water in ponds.

Agricultural shows are the last gasp of an industry that persists in trying to grow edible plants and animals. But we must be herded by the Government when we look at their products.

Cigarette smoke is evil. Wicked. We don’t grow tobacco in Tasmania. (We do grow half the world’s legitimate supply of heroin though. Our poppy fields are protected by hedgerows.) We must not breath in other people’s smoke. BY Order. But it is still OK to breath in animal faeces. Pig shit, cow shit, horse shit, chicket shit.  Presumably they will go next.

Or maybe protection from breathing shit will have to wait for more pressing matters. Like banning babies from public places, as having a baby with you is a tacit criticism of  Abortion, which in Tasmania  you are NOT ALLOWED to speak against.

If these figures can be believed:

Survation Poll out now – General Elections 2015 Voting Intention:

LAB 35%
CON 24%
UKIP 22%
LDEM 11%

Survation – European Elections 2014 Voting Intention:

LAB 31%
UKIP 30%
CON 20%
LDEM 8%

Mike Smithson of Political Betting also saying that before Survation reallocated the ‘dont knows’ UKIP was only 0.5% behind the Tories.

Survation also showing that among the 55+ age group (those least likely to change their minds, and those most likely to vote) the polls are as follows for 2015 -

UKIP 33%
CON 27%
LAB 25%
LDEM 8%

… then were, say, 100 MPs to leave in disgust, there is still the resistance to UKIP and Farage. Essentially, there would be party-less MPs and rank and file who would be looking to form a new party.

I believe Farage must be prepared to ditch the name UKIP and make it something like the United Kingdom Party, broaden the policies and bring the disgruntled Tories on board in a free way, not by imposing impossible conditions of entry – remember, they are MPs already.

By 2015, the new party must be functioning like a government in waiting, with a set of quality shadow ministers. The ball would then be in their court as an opposition. Farage must ensure that no more gaffs designed to turn off the average voter eventuate.

It would still be an upward battle, even with momentum. Labour’s tribal vote will still have it around 28-30% so the new party needs to be in the 35% range. That would leave the Faux Tories around 20 something percent but as they’ll join Labour in coalition, they could still call on 50 plus percent.

That would mean the remaining Tories in the Faux Party would need to examine whether they leave or not. If they leave, they have upheld their conservative credentials. If they don’t, they are red.

For libertarians, the issue is a practical one. There is little chance in the immediate of a total breakdown and a new system of governance unless it’s one the EU brings in. In practical terms, the least worst option for libertarians is to go for this new party, carefully not calling itself conservative.

That gets through 2015 if enough Faux Conservatives decide not to commit the shame of joining Labour as they’re doing tonight.

The obvious complication is Scotland departing, which many are sure will not happen but still – imagine it did. That’s the Lib-Dems and Labour much reduced and that’s a better chance for the new party.

Either way, the Conservative Party as it was is toast tonight.

Most libertarians don’t want ANY parties but direct democracy but that’s not a practical proposition yet – there’s two-thirds of a population to bring over on that one. It has more chance under the new party than under any of the others.

For those who wouldn’t want a bar of such a party or for those who have been waiting for UKIP as UKIP to win 2015 – good luck and my vote will be in there somewhere but it’s a big ask to get UKIP MPs past the gerrymander without some sort of accommodation somewhere.

This week’s crisis is brought to you by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has released a report showing that attitudes of the British public towards poverty have hardened – and the most marked shift has been among Labour voters.

Whoops!

These days only 27% of Labour supporters cite social injustice as the main cause of poverty, down from 41% in 1986. Conversely, Labour supporters identifying laziness and lack of willpower as the main cause of poverty rose from 13% to 22% in the same period.

Is she surprised? She claims she isn’t:

… allow me to suggest for a moment that this news isn’t surprising at all. In fact, I’d say it would be more surprising if this shift in attitude hadn’t happened.

For a start, we wouldn’t expect Tory voters to suddenly harden their attitudes towards people living in poverty, because presumably their attitudes were pretty hard to begin with… So the only significant shift in attitudes on poverty we could realistically expect would come from Labour party supporters, who didn’t hold these opinions in the first place.

Or maybe didn’t feel like expressing them before, what with the risk of being labelled as bigots by the leadership, eh, Ellie?

More importantly though, unity of public opinion is what happens when political parties develop a consensus around a certain issue. People generally agree that benefit claimants are responsible for their own poverty because in the past 30 years, Labour has generally agreed with the Tories on that too.

Yes. Clearly, to Ellie, you think what you do because that’s what politicians tell you to think.

Well, it works for her, right? Why not extrapolate?

After Labour’s identity crisis comes the inevitable speculation about how Ed Miliband should respond. It seems to me he has very little choice in the matter. He can’t promise to get tough on benefits because that’s prime Tory territory, and attempting to out-Tory the Tories will only end in failure. He can’t occupy the middle ground (the political term given to “trying to second guess what the electorate think and then saying that”) because the middle ground on this issue, as we’ve established, is basically Conservative.

So, what should he do, Ellie? Lose? He’s already doing that!

Ed Miliband must be brave enough to fight this narrative, not just for tactical reasons, but because what’s the point of the Labour party if it won’t defend ordinary people?

Oh, Ellie, Ellie, Ellie…

You just don’t realise it, do you? The ‘ordinary people’ are the ones who are saying ‘Enough!’.

Two second-graders from Driver Elementary School in Suffolk, Va., were suspended. The 7-year- old boys’ crime: using pencils as “guns.” They pointed the writing instruments at each other and made “shooting noises,” which violated the school’s zero tolerance policy prohibiting “look-alike guns.”

That’s “intimidating and threatening,” said school spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw. “It doesn’t have a place in the classroom.” She added that doing the same thing with fingers is also forbidden, as is drawing a picture of a gun. “It’s an effort to try to get kids not to bring any form of violence, even if it’s violent play, into the classroom,” Bradshaw said. “There has to be a consequence because it’s a rule.”

(RC/Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot) …As a rule, I’m beginning to dislike government school spokesdroids.

I grew up playing cops and robbers, cowboys and indians. As far as I was concerned, the issue was not the label cowboy or the label indian, however dubious those shows were. As a kid, the issue was the action and yes, we made “shooting noises”, which seems to be preferable to shooting bullets.

Last time I checked, I don’t appear to have grown up as a psychopathic killer, I don’t hate indians and don’t particularly love cowboys. I don’t even feel any great need to have a gun although the right to be able to get one if necessary to protect myself and my family is an important one.