Mid Sussex massive win for Conservatives!

We have taken wards that were safe as houses for the Liberal Democrats!

In short, Conservative hold in Mid Sussex with increased majority.

More later.

Update. 19:57.

So far the Conservatives have 40 seats, Labour 1 and the Liberal Democrats 7. That looks like 14 losses for the Liberal Democrats.

Update 23:01

Final result:

Conservatives: 45 (+15)

Liberal Democrats 8 (-15)

Labour 1 (No change).

Fred Goodwin, mentioned in Parliament.

Apparently Fred Goodwin was mentioned in parliament on the 10th of march by John Hemming.

He apparently objects to being referred to by his previous profession, and so got a super injunction according to the speech in Parliament.

Well, I don't think of him as one of those, but a w*nker. And no that is not rhyming slang.

A footballer on question time?

Ridiculous!

Except Clarke Carlisle makes some intelligent and articulate points. Well done!

How hard does the VAT increase hit?

Well the short answer is it depends on how much you spend on what.

However I have seen some fascinating rubbish on the issue.

VAT is going up 2 and 1/2 pennies in the pound, but this rate does not apply to food*, rent, mortgages, domestic gas and electricity, children's clothes, books and newspapers. It does apply to petrol, cigarettes and alcohol**, food at restaurants etc.

So how much do you spend on VATable goods a week that will be going up?

To give you some idea, to beat the £1.30 a week extra some are claiming the poorest would have to pay in VAT you would have to be spending £52 a week on goods and services which attract VAT at the full rate. This does not include heating, lighting, food, children's clothes.

Some say it will hit the "average" family by £300 a year. That is paying £5.77 a week extra in VAT or, in terms of spending on VATable goods and services, £231 a week. This is where I really start to scratch my head as I just can see that level of income after I have paid for things like the house, the bills council tax and food all of which is not vatable. In fact if you look at it, that applies to a household income of £23 K (presumably after tax) which equates to a weekly income of £442. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a household with that level of income is blowing well over half of it on VATable goods? That would leave only £211 a week (£915) to pay for the house, council tax, utility bills (excluding telephone which is charged at the full rate) and food. Credible? I don't think so.

The BBC has this.

That said I would rather tax wasn't going up, but then I would rather not have had 13 years of a Labour government flying the economy into the ground whilst pushing up public sector inflation through the roof.

Tenant's finances to be checked after two years!

Apparently tenant's finances are to be checked after two years, and if they don't need or rather qualify for social housing they will be asked to move on.

Great plan, should free up lots of social housing. In fact Labour came up with a similar very stupid idea before the election. They also ditched it, because whilst on the face of it, it is attractive, it is also very very barking mad.

If you are going to check someone's finances and on the result of that check make them move, then they will never breach what arbitrary number you have set. We already have this problem with the rest of the welfare state where people can't afford to take jobs because they would lose money doing so. The net result will be a very anti Conservative squashing of aspiration which is one of the driving forces of the party.

It does however get worse. If, as intended people who succeed move on, and those who don't stay, then estates and housing stock will fill with a homogeneous lack of achievement and ambition further stifling aspiration and ambition and directly counteracting the effect of allowing council house tenants the right to buy which broke up estates of despair.

The government wants to help the 1.8 million households on the waiting list. That is easy, we no longer have a dismal Labour government which utterly failed to build as many houses as any other government so anything will be an improvement.

The BBC has this.

The great big cyber security threat!

Apparently, according to a review of national security, there is regular massive attacks, with 1000 malicious emails targeted at government a month! See the BBC report here.

I laughed my head off. I see that on some clients systems (depending on how you count the stats) either in 1 second, and certainly in one day. With a bit of luck they refer to very carefully crafted and directed attacks, not the run of the mill stuff than business face daily, because law enforcement is not that interested in combating cyber crime.

Apparently these threats can bring down air traffic control, the national grid and other critical systems. True, which is why these systems should be nowhere near the internet, should not have USB ports or CD drives, and also be tied down tighter than a very tight thing. They should be able to operate autonomously if their interconnections break, and then their communications should not be over the internet or lines of communications that could be compromised by a cyber attack.

All that is easy to say though, the problem with the internet though is that it is easy and cheap.

Should Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill appear before a US senate committee over the early release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi?

Well... they have appear to have refused.. according to this BBC article.

But should they have appeared?

NO!

They are the elected representatives of the Scottish parliament, and answerable to them alone. They are, as is The British Prime minister accountable to their own house, and in no way, shape manner or form are they accountable to any other house.

Can you imagine George W Bush being, former President of the USA being called before a select committee of parliament?

Ridiculous.

UK politicians are in no shape, way manner or form accountable to the USA, and therefore should refuse on principle, refuse to appear before any committee of any elected body there. The same applies to appearing before the EU parliament or any where else. The reverse is also the case, I would expect an elected US politician to refuse the same.