[Mr. Sam]

I don't understand the sudden resurgence of this "back room" phrase. Many major political decision(s) have been taken before they reach Parliament, whether it be within one party or two.

[PJV3]

I don't understand the sudden resurgence of this "back room" phrase. Many major political decision(s) have been taken before they reach Parliament, whether it be within one party or two.

The point of the article is that the Lord is to become a rubber stamp.
During the last government it was the only place to really challenge the executive.the actual location where 10 people decided it is not so important, i concede that point.

I just don't like changes to our system being made this way.If Labour had done this we would
have had even more draconian laws than we have now.

[Mr. Sam]

I personally don't like the idea of the (poorly) elected House of Commons being scrutinised by an unelected body. It shouldn't have to be kept that way just to compensate for the shitty way seats are dispersed, allowing powerful governments that can easily stay unchecked in the Commons - barring massive backseat rebellions.

[PJV3]

I personally don't like the idea of the (poorly) elected House of Commons being scrutinised by an unelected body. It shouldn't have to be kept that way just to compensate for the shitty way seats are dispersed, allowing powerful governments that can easily stay unchecked in the Commons - barring massive backseat rebellions.

I agree with you, i just wish they would think these things through.
Creating a majority in favour of the current goverment while waiting for a review to decide
what to do with Lords is back to front.If they dont come to an agreement on reform, what is to stop the next government appointing Lords to create a majority.

[phisheep]

I personally don't like the idea of the (poorly) elected House of Commons being scrutinised by an unelected body. It shouldn't have to be kept that way just to compensate for the shitty way seats are dispersed, allowing powerful governments that can easily stay unchecked in the Commons - barring massive backseat rebellions.

I’m pretty pleased with the way the Lords have behaved over the last 30 years. For all their democratic illegitimacy they have done a robust job of defending us against overenthusiastic governments within the limits they are allowed. If they hadn’t been there doing that we would now be at a point where Ministers could make any law whatsoever without recourse to Parliament.

It is a pretty sorry state our governments got themselves into when we have to rely on the Lords for that.

I agree with you, i just wish they would think these things through. Creating a majority in favour of the current goverment while waiting for a review to decide what to do with Lords is back to front.If they dont come to an agreement on reform, what is to stop the next government appointing Lords to create a majority.

Thing is, if they don’t have that majority they will never come to an agreement on reform. Turkeys voting for Christmas and all that. So I can see that it is necessary.

But they do need to get the reforms through in this Parliament, otherwise it all falls to pieces the way you said.

[sohois]

Didm't Blair introduce some law that allowed the commons to force through whatever they wanted, even if the Lords objected? I was under the impression that the Lords power to limit the House of commons legislature drive was increasingly irrelevant in recent years.

[louis89]

Found this nifty pic just now, will be interesting to see how much the LibCon coalition will cut.

Have the Conservatives not also been going on about scrapping ID cards for years?

[Dark Machine]

The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves. Just like those campaigning against a fairer voting system. Seriously, we have one of the oldest existing political systems in the world, and we still have half of it completely undemocratic and the other half only a bit democratic because of the shanked vote system. The whole reason for this deal is because the Lords is full of Lab supporters from the last government (inc. cash for honours don't forget) and they can't be removed, I mean seriously, if this keeps up every time the government changes they'll run out of room and have them sitting in the aisles.

The Lords should be abolished and reformed as a democratically elected house like nearly every other democracy around. I don't care how great people think they are, I never got the choice on who was there, so they have no right to affect decisions which intrude on my life.

And while we're at it, the Privy Council should go as well, it may not take big decisions, but tell that to those islanders in the Indian Ocean who were evicted by the Privy Council's call on the quiet for a US airbase. Jack Straw deserves lynching for that and other stuff he's done too, he's one of the worst of all New Labour alongside Blair post 9/11.

More unelected toffs in positions they get from doing f**k all, who you know and all that. Get OUT of my legislative system of government NOW.

[PJV3]

The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves. Jsut like those campaigning against a fairer voting system. Seriously, we have one of the oldest existing political systems in the world, and we still have half of it completely undemocratic and the other half only a bit democratic because of the shanked vote system. The whole reason for this deal is because the Lords is full of Lab supporters from the last government (inc. cash for honours don't forget) and they can't be removed, I mean seriously, if this keeps up every time the government changes they'll run of room and have them sitting in the aisles. The Lords should be abolished and reformed as a democratically elected house like nearly every other democracy around. I don't care how great people think they are, I never got the choice on who was there, so they have no right to affect decisions which intrude on my life. And while we're at it, the Privy Council should go as well, it may not take big decisions, but tell that to those islanders in the Indian Ocean who were evicted by the Privy Council's call on the quiet for a US airbase. Jack Straw deserves lynching for that and other stuff he's done too, he's one of the worst of all New Labour alongside Blair post 9/11. More unelected toffs in positions they get from doing f**k all, who you know and all that. Get OUT of my legislative system of government NOW.

Agreed, but i don't think Labour has a majority due to the cross benchers.
My worry is only about government creating a majority in the house of Lords without actually reforming it, there are 5 years of this parliament, a long time and potentially a lot of legislation.

[Zenith]

The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves.

It was the Lords that stopped that horrendous "hold people for 42 days with no charge" bill. The elected MPs bent over backwards to pass it again and again.

[phisheep]

Didm't Blair introduce some law that allowed the commons to force through whatever they wanted, even if the Lords objected? I was under the impression that the Lords power to limit the House of commons legislature drive was increasingly irrelevant in recent years.

That's well before Blair - The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, kicked off when the Lords threatened to vote down the Liberal budget.

They've only been used four times, it is a pretty drastic measure. Last time was for the foxhunting bill, which one would scarcely have thought to be of enormous constitutional sugnificance.

It was the Lords that stopped that horrendous "hold people for 42 days with no charge" bill. The elected MPs bent over backwards to pass it again and again.

... and the infamous 'Abolition of Parliament Bill' in 2005/6, which was probably the most antidemocratic bill placed before Parliament in 400 years - and under a Labour Government too, god help us.

EDIT: corrected date of the second Parliament Act - it's 1949, not '47

[RedShift]

That's well before Blair - The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1947, kicked off when the Lords threatened to vote down the Liberal budget. They've only been used four times, it is a pretty drastic measure. Last time was for the foxhunting bill, which one would scarcely have thought to be of enormous constitutional sugnificance. ... and the infamous 'Abolition of Parliament Bill' in 2005/6, which was probably the most antidemocratic bill placed before Parliament in 400 years - and under a Labour Government too, god help us.

I remember a huge thing about this kicking off when Fox Hunting was banned. Didn't the first Parliament Act mean the Lords could only reject a piece of legislation 3 times or something, then later that was used to push through another Parliament reducing it to two times?And some people think this shouldn't be allowed and Fox Hunting shouldn't be banned?

[phisheep]

The Lords is an absolute joke of an establishment and anyone who says it isn't is a damn liar or a joke themselves. Just like those campaigning against a fairer voting system. Seriously, we have one of the oldest existing political systems in the world, and we still have half of it completely undemocratic and the other half only a bit democratic because of the shanked vote system. The whole reason for this deal is because the Lords is full of Lab supporters from the last government (inc. cash for honours don't forget) and they can't be removed, I mean seriously, if this keeps up every time the government changes they'll run out of room and have them sitting in the aisles. The Lords should be abolished and reformed as a democratically elected house like nearly every other democracy around. I don't care how great people think they are, I never got the choice on who was there, so they have no right to affect decisions which intrude on my life. And while we're at it, the Privy Council should go as well, it may not take big decisions, but tell that to those islanders in the Indian Ocean who were evicted by the Privy Council's call on the quiet for a US airbase. Jack Straw deserves lynching for that and other stuff he's done too, he's one of the worst of all New Labour alongside Blair post 9/11. More unelected toffs in positions they get from doing f**k all, who you know and all that. Get OUT of my legislative system of government NOW.

I think maybe a bit overboard on the Lords. Sure, they don’t have any direct democratic legitimacy, but for all that they do seem to work extremely well as a revising and scrutinising chamber.

I’m all in favour of reforming the Lords, but it does need to be done with some care otherwise the Government will become even more powerful. Essentially we need the Lords to be more powerful than the Government but less powerful than the Commons, which isn’t easy to achieve.

I also have some residual concerns about even more of our Parliament filling up with the sort of people who think they ought to stand for it – that’s a segment of the population with an unhealthily high proportion of self-important power-hungry nutters who think they know better than everyone else, which is over-represented in Parliament compared to the general population regardless of whether they are toffs or not.

I would much prefer a smaller, democratically elected Lords with the power to invite specialists to sit in their scrutinising committees – sort of temporary non-voting Lords for a month or two at a time. That way there is a fighting chance that legislation will be reviewed by people who actually understand its potential effect rather than yet another swathe of professional politicians with their eyes on promotion.

You’re dead wrong about the Privy Council though. We did vote for them – since (although in theory it is a separate institution) in practice it is just the government of the day acting outside Parliamentary process, and the orders that the Council makes are prepared by Ministers (including in the case you mentioned). It has its uses when things need to be done quickly in national emergencies, but can be too easily used to bypass Parliament, so probably its powers ought to be curtailed a bit. That’s tough to do though since all the authority of the Cabinet derives from the Privy Council, of which the Cabinet is a mere subcommittee.

[phisheep]

I remember a huge thing about this kicking off when Fox Hunting was banned. Didn't the first Parliament Act mean the Lords could only reject a piece of legislation 3 times or something, then later that was used to push through another Parliament reducing it to two times?And some people think this shouldn't be allowed and Fox Hunting shouldn't be banned?

The 1911 Act meant that the Lords could only delay, and not totally prevent legislation. The 1949 (did I say 1947 earlier? - whoops) reduced the maximum delay from 2 years to 1 year.

I think there's a bit of confusion in your last sentence - there are two separate issues:

1) democratic legitimacy of the Lords, and whether they should be able to delay legislation at all - and there's ample evidence of the Lords standing up to Blair Brown and Thatcher to suggest that actually that is a pretty good safeguard

2) whether foxhunting should be banned, and in particular whether the Parliament Acts should have been invoked to push it through. Opinions are of course divided on the first, and on the second it is really a matter of government tactics - they'd have been better off using the Parliament Acts to push Lords reform through first and then go for foxhunting, but they did the populist thing rather than the important thing first. A bad mistake which probably cost them the reform of the Lords they were looking for. Which is why the coalition is going to do it by packing the Lords instead - much safer.

[Mr. Sam]

What will be bizarre is if we get a proportional, representative House of Lords elected by a proper system and the House of Commons, elected by FPTP or AV, retains ultimate power. That would be/will be messed up.

[defel]

What will be bizarre is if we get a proportional, representative House of Lords elected by a proper system and the House of Commons, elected by FPTP or AV, retains ultimate power. That would be/will be messed up.

But its a step in the right direction all the same. I was under the impression that the House of Lords had very little real power but its as much a matter of democratic principle as it is anything else.

[phisheep]

What will be bizarre is if we get a proportional, representative House of Lords elected by a proper system and the House of Commons, elected by FPTP or AV, retains ultimate power. That would be/will be messed up.

Well, it would be very interesting to say the least. In particular the Government would no longer be able to get away with decrying the Lords as 'the unelected house' and any use of the Parliament Acts would be seen a supremely undemocratic.

Unless the Commons is reformed as well I could see that, over the course of 20-50 years or so, the seat of government would migrate to the Lords, leaving the Commons as a virtually powerless revising chamber full of local representatives.

[FabCam]

Some fantastic news today. BA won an injunction to stop Unite's ridiculous and illegal strike. They're spewing the same bullshit as all unions do about "democracy no longer exists in this country" but in the end their failure of a legal department fucked up yet again. It also resembles the company, jurors, judge, public and press putting up the middle finger to a union that has far too much power.

[killer_clank]

Some fantastic news today. BA won an injunction to stop Unite's ridiculous and illegal strike. They're spewing the same bullshit as all unions do about "democracy no longer exists in this country" but in the end their failure of a legal department fucked up yet again. It also resembles the company, jurors, judge, public and press putting up the middle finger to a union that has far too much power.

Thank fuck. I'm all for trade unions but these cunts took it WAY too far.

[FabCam]

Thank fuck. I'm all for trade unions but these cunts took it WAY too far.

Exactly my feelings. Trade Unions are essential to promote employee/employer talks and discussions but Unite don't give a fuck about the greater good, only their ego. The facts are, everyone at BA took pay cuts, freezes, concessions yet the already drastically over paid cabin crew refuse to. It's just ridiculous.

[Dark Machine]

I think maybe a bit overboard on the Lords. Sure, they don’t have any direct democratic legitimacy, but for all that they do seem to work extremely well as a revising and scrutinising chamber.

As I said the first time, I don't give a shit how good people think they are. They aren't elected by the people. They're illegitimate. I don't want people I didn't get a choice in electing having anything to do with making decisions that affect my life or my countries laws. The Lords are a relic of a bygone age, we are past this bullshit, it's the 21st Century. I don't want people to be able to just give Cameron or whoever a ton of cash and be able to become a Lord. That's fucking wrong.

You’re dead wrong about the Privy Council though. We did vote for them – since (although in theory it is a separate institution) in practice it is just the government of the day acting outside Parliamentary process, and the orders that the Council makes are prepared by Ministers (including in the case you mentioned). It has its uses when things need to be done quickly in national emergencies, but can be too easily used to bypass Parliament, so probably its powers ought to be curtailed a bit. That’s tough to do though since all the authority of the Cabinet derives from the Privy Council, of which the Cabinet is a mere subcommittee.

The Privy Council should be abolished. It should not exist. There should not be a way to bypass Parliament. If there is a national emergency, then Parliament can act in the national interest by authorising the PM to have executive powers, and forming a co-operative war cabinet. I point out what you yourself said:

>in practice it is just the government of the day acting outside Parliamentary process

>acting outside Parliamentary process

THIS is what I have a problem with. This is what comes above all other things and outweighs all possible benefits of that ridiculous institution. It needs to go, bypassing the Parliament is utterly ridiculous. Parliament may have problems, part of which is how it is elected in the first place, but it is of the people, by the people (and most of the time FOR the people), this is the 21st Century and damn it, I do not see why I or others should put up with unelected people making decisions on behalf of our nation. You'll probably point to Whitehall etc. making policy decisions and whatever, and as I see it that's wrong too. All decisions on matters of state should go through Parliament and be debated. At least Whitehall works with the elected politicians though, and their policies must go before parliament through their ministers. Parliament eventually makes the decision, and if I'm unhappy I have proper ability to fight it, unlike those Diego Garcia Islanders. Straw having basically said "LOL F U! Screw the rules we're the Privy Council!" when the courts said their decision was mosterous.

[jas0nuk]

LibCon are going to have to flood the Lords with around 100 peers in order to get a majority in there. It's the only way to go, until there is actual Lords reform after which the Lords will probably represent the national voteshare almost exactly, and it'll become more of a Senate.

There is, however, the Salisbury convention, which is that the Lords will not reject any policies which were in the manifesto of the government of the day, given that the governing parties campaigned and were elected on those manifestos. Until the government starts introducing legislation which was not in the manifesto they will not need to mess with the composition of the Lords.

If anyone is at home tomorrow afternoon, Parliament meets for the first time tomorrow and Bercow may or may not be re-elected as Speaker depending on how many Tory MPs shout no when he is proposed. Should be interesting to watch :lol

[phisheep]

There is, however, the Salisbury convention, which is that the Lords will not reject any policies which were in the manifesto of the government of the day, given that the governing parties campaigned and were elected on those manifestos. Until the government starts introducing legislation which was not in the manifesto they will not need to mess with the composition of the Lords.

That'll be interesting in this scenario, where the government didn't actually have a manifesto but was negotiated into existence afterwards.

[Dark Machine]

That'll be interesting in this scenario, where the government didn't actually have a manifesto but was negotiated into existence afterwards.

Wouldn't the Coalition document that they've released count in this case then? Since that outlines what the government stands for.

Also Laws on Newsnight, Liam Byrne left him a note in the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's desk. It read thus;

Dear new Chief, Terribly sorry to inform you of this, but there's no money left. Good Luck, Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury

I lol'd.

[Mr. Sam]

That'll be interesting in this scenario, where the government didn't actually have a manifesto but was negotiated into existence afterwards.

Maybe they could exploit a loophole there and cherry pick any Tory or Lib Dems election promises they want through.

[phisheep]

Maybe they could exploit a loophole there and cherry pick any Tory or Lib Dems election promises they want through.

The danger is the other way round, that the Labour peers will vote down any legislation that isn't in both. Probably why they are so keen to pack the Lords quickly.

[jas0nuk]

I lol'd.

I'd lol if it wasn't so true, and if it wasn't our goddamn money.

In fact it's an understatement, there isn't just no money left, there's a NEGATIVE amount of money left. We need £90 billion cuts over this Parliament to start getting back to a position where we can reduce our national debt.

What Labour have done is disgraceful, especially in the last few weeks when they knew the game was up:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127819.ece

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments. The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear. The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include: - A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers. - £420m of school building contracts, many targeting Labour marginals, signed off by Ed Balls, the former schools secretary, weeks before the general election was called. - The troubled £1.2 billion “e-borders” IT project for the immigration service, which, sources say, is running even later and more over-budget than Labour ministers had admitted. - A crisis in the student loans company where extra cash may be needed to prevent a repeat of last year’s failure to process tens of thousands of claims on time. - The multi-billion-pound cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants, which ministers claim has not been properly accounted for in Whitehall budgets. - A £600m computer contract for the new personal pensions account scheme rushed through by Labour this year, which will still cost at least £25m even if it is cancelled.

[defel]

Labour left the toilet without flushing...

[PJV3]

I'd lol if it wasn't so true, and if it wasn't our goddamn money. In fact it's an understatement, there isn't just no money left, there's a NEGATIVE amount of money left. We need £90 billion cuts over this Parliament to start getting back to a position where we can reduce our national debt. What Labour have done is disgraceful, especially in the last few weeks when they knew the game was up: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127819.ece

I am not going to argue about all the figures but that 13 billion aircraft deal was signed in March 2008

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...raftSigned.htm

Crazy money though i agree.

[jas0nuk]

I guess that has been misreported as being signed very recently then, but it still remains that it looks like the Treasury were "astonished and baffled" by it.

[D4Danger]

edit: already posted. dammit.

[Empty]

• Funny, noted Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, that as Philip Hammond made his debut as transport secretary on the Today programme yesterday, he seemed much more comfortable answering questions on the economy. Maybe, as Nick pointed out, this had something to do with the fact that Hammond has no obvious expertise on transport. His shadow responsibilities spanned health, trade and industry and the Treasury. And could it be just a coincidence, asks reader Tim Gresty, that his near neighbour (in the parliamentary sense), is the similarly named Stephen Hammond, Conservative MP for Wimbledon, who was a respected, knowledgeable and vocal shadow minister for transport until the election. Did Dave get his wires crossed? Well, there was a lot going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...central-office

this sounds actually quite plausible and though a little funny, it's super unfortunate if true as cameron can't exactly own up to screwing that up.

[jas0nuk]

No, Phil Hammond was the Shadow Chief Sec to the Treasury for about 5 years, and was shifted out of that position to Transport Sec to make way for the Lib Dem, David Laws. He is obviously more comfortable with economics but will slowly pick up the Transport brief and become better at it. Phil Hammond was always going to be in the Cabinet - he's been in the "inner circle" for years - so he took precedence over the other guy.

Remember what the PM gives the ministerial positions out he literally calls them into his office and says "Hello xxx, I'm giving you xxx Secretary..." There's no way in a million years he'd accidentally give out the wrong job.

[Empty]

my life was way more fun when i thought there was some chance of that being true. curse you jas0nuk with your spoilsporty facts and solid reasoning. curse you.

[PJV3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688860.stm

"During the election Mr Cameron described the "big society" - based around encouraging greater personal and family responsibility and community activism - as the "only big idea" on offer.
Policies put forward by the Conservatives included a National Citizenship Service for 16-year olds, giving people the right to veto council tax rises and for new providers to be able to set up so-called "free schools" in the state sector".

I wonder how the council tax veto would work. If it ends up like California where people want everything but don't want to pay for it, things could get very messy.

[PJV3]

my life was way more fun when i thought there was some chance of that being true. curse you jas0nuk with your spoilsporty facts and solid reasoning. curse you.

Cameron is related to the queen, so i am hoping he has Porphyria and he is/goes fucking bonkers like George III. And that is why he cannot tell people apart(sod facts and reasoning).

[jas0nuk]

my life was way more fun when i thought there was some chance of that being true. curse you jas0nuk with your spoilsporty facts and solid reasoning. curse you.

:lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all! ;)

A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome:

- ID cards out
- Biometric passports stopped
- No e-mail control without specific need
- CCTV regulated
- Innocent people off the DNA database
- No ContactPoint
- No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent
- Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
- Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people
- Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to “great British freedoms”
- Defend trial by jury

Excellent stuff.

[Mecha_Infantry]

:lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all! ;) A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome: - ID cards out - Biometric passports stopped - No e-mail control without specific need - CCTV regulated - Innocent people off the DNA database - No ContactPoint - No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent - Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest - Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people - Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to “great British freedoms” - Defend trial by jury Excellent stuff.

He's still my party's leader..even though I doubted you Cleggy <3

[ghst]

:lol Tory logic and reasoning wins all! ;) A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome: - ID cards out - Biometric passports stopped - No e-mail control without specific need - CCTV regulated - Innocent people off the DNA database - No ContactPoint - No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent - Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest - Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people - Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to “great British freedoms” - Defend trial by jury Excellent stuff.

yeah, not seeing anything about the debill. but i guess the tories were all in favour of that one.

[SmokyDave]

Anyone else wondering where Chinner is?

I wonder if he went on a bender after his exams and forgot the way back to his pond?

[avaya]

Merkel just banned all naked shorts on vanilla as well as OTC :D

ONe country doing it is not enough. Time for Davey boy to step up to the plate so EU get the lockdown, Bams will follow immediately after.

[Sage00]

Ed Balls is about to announce his candidacy for Labour leadership.

A Venn diagram to show the current situation:

[IMG]http://i47.************/ann7tv.jpg[/IMG]

Or, as I saw someone put it: Big Ed, Little Ed, Nob Ed.

[Zenith]

naked shorts on vanilla as well as OTC :D

What does that even mean?

[Sage00]

What does that even mean?

Traditional short selling requires you to borrow a share from a lender -> sell that share at the current market price (which you bet on dropping) -> buy share back at new cheaper market price -> give lender back share, pay them a fee and pocket the rest. Naked shorting is when you sell a share you don't actually have (at current market price), but because there is a period of time between the sale and when you actually have to deliver their share there's time for you to wait for the price to drop below the price you 'sold' it for, buy it, then deliver it and pocket the difference. If the shorter can't get it in time (or as some people would play it, don't try to deliver on time) it's called a "fail to deliver". You can tip the balance of failures (creating an impression of tight stock) to sales that go through (creating the impression of ample supply even though the stock you're selling doesn't "exist" yet, driving the price down) without that much effort and affect its price. What we're looking at is essentially market manipulation that profits when companies go down.

OTC just means outside of the exchange.

Edit: Better explanation.

[jas0nuk]

David Cameron has this afternoon tried to further marginalise the right-wing elements of his party by trying to dilute the voting power of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers by allowing it to include the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party rather than just Tory MPs who don't have government jobs and want to hold the government to ransom.
This could be his Clause 4 moment.

[Sage00]

Good on Dave. If he passes this, it'll kick the right wing (real, American-style right wing loonies) out of politics for good.

[killer_clank]

Wow, it seems like Dave is definitely trying to pull a New Labour here. Except they're going slightly to the left. :lol

[Varion]

A summary of what Nick Clegg announced this morning when talking about the Great Repeal Act (aka the bonfire of New Labour's totalitarian regime) courtesy of ConHome

David Cameron has this afternoon tried to further marginalise the right-wing elements of his party by trying to dilute the voting power of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers by allowing it to include the entire Parliamentary Conservative Party rather than just Tory MPs who don't have government jobs and want to hold the government to ransom. This could be his Clause 4 moment.

I love this new government.

:D

[killer_clank]

I hope some of the loonies in the Conservatives go to UKIP if this happens. Of course, we'll have some UKIP MP's, but at least the government will have a nice range of views.

[Sage00]

They can just run to be MEPs like Hannan and co, they'll fit in well with the Polish homophobes.