Right, moving on to the TUV. 2010 represented the first General election to be fought by Traditional Unionist Voice. How did they do?
A total of 26,300 votes over the 10 seats fought split:

North Antrim
Jim Allister – 7,114 (16.8%)
East Belfast
David Vance – 1,856 (5.4%)
North Down
Mary Kilpatrick – 1,634 (4.9%)
Strangford
Terry Williams – 1,814 (5.6%)
East Antrim
Samuel Morrison – 1,826 (6.0%)
East Derry / Londonderry
William Ross – 2,572 (7.4%)
Lagan Valley
Keith Harbinson – 3,154 (8.6%)
Mid Ulster
Walter Millar – 2,995 (7.3%)
South Down
Ivor McConnell – 1,506 (3.5%)
South Antrim
Melwyn Lucas – 1,829 (5.4%)

So three real categories:
1) Allister on 17%
2) Ross, Harbinson and Millar – 7-9%
3) The rest – 3.5-6.0%

The real disappointing outcome for the TUV is that a similar performance next year will not come close to a quota outside wherever Allister stands as the Category B base is just too small. Parodoxically a similar performance would seem to eliminate the prospect of a Nationalist First Minister as DUP would need to lose half a dozen or so seats before SF have a prospect of overtaking them. Two losses to the Alliance a possibility, boundary changes might mean another net 1 loss and 1 going to Allister should see Robinson returned...UCUNF next....
P.S. Entirely intuitively I suspect TUV candidates in West Tyrone and FST might do better than average in the Assembly elections.

No 10 says Hague enjoys PM's full support as foreign secretary says he wanted to 'put the record straight' about his sexuality

David Cameron declared his "100% support" for William Hague today, as the foreign secretary said he had decided to speak out about his private life because he could no longer put up with allegations about his sexuality.

Hague also received the backing of his local constituency party chair after issuing a statement yesterday in which he denied having had an "improper" relationship with his special adviser, Christopher Myers, who resigned as a result of the "pressure" put on his family due to the "untrue and malicious allegations" circulating on the internet.

At a press conference this morning with the German foreign minster, Guido Westerwelle, Hague refused to be drawn on his decision to appoint Myers, or respond to the suggestion that he had exercised "poor judgment" in sharing a hotel room with his assistant.

Downing Street said today that Hague enjoyed Cameron's full support, after the foreign secretary denied having had any relationships with men and revealed details about his wife's miscarriages to dispel rumours that he had made an "improper" appointment in hiring Myers.

Government sources stressed that the statement was Hague's idea and that it was fully supported by his wife. But Andy Coulson, the Downing Street director of communications, was said to have been heavily involved.

At the press conference, Hague said: "Yesterday, I made a very personal statement, which was not an easy thing to do. I am not going to expand on that today. My wife and I really felt we had had enough of the circulation of untrue allegations, particularly on the internet, and at some point you have to speak out about that and put the record straight."

Asked to comment on a claim made by fellow Tory MP, John Redwood, that he had exercised "poor judgment" in sharing a room with his assistant, Hague insisted that the work of the Foreign Office "has not missed a beat, and will not miss a beat, at any stage. I have not spent many minutes away from all duties of the foreign secretary."

Questioned about Myers's eligibility for the job, Hague claimed this had been covered in his statement of yesterday. However, that statement made no mention of why he had given Myers the job despite already having two special advisers.

There had been unease in Downing Street at Hague's judgment in appointing a 25-year-old graduate with little apparent expertise in foreign affairs.

But asked today whether Hague continued to have the support of Cameron, a spokeswoman for the prime minister said that he was not making any new statement on the issue but had given the foreign secretary his full backing throughout.

The spokeswoman said: "We have always given William our 100% support. That was the case yesterday and it is the case today.

"The prime minister totally understands why William made the statement he did and he backs him 100%."

Ed Balls, one of the candidates for Labour leader, sympathised with the Hagues, but said he did not think making the statement was the "wisest" way to respond to the internet rumours.

Balls said that together with his wife, shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper, he had "put up with" smears and lies from rightwing blogs rather than respond publicly.

The shadow education secretary told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show: "I'm not sure whether going out and making a public statement in that detail is the wisest thing to do. I think it probably gives more credibility to some of these websites and to allegations which aren't true.

"I've no reason to think that there's anything other than complete integrity in what William Hague says and I feel sorry for him and for Ffion in going through this."

Hague's decision to issue a statement was described as "very brave" by Christopher Bourne-Arton, the chair of the Conservative Association in his North Yorkshire constituency of Richmond.

Bourne-Arton told BBC Radio 4's World at One: "Rumour has been created by somebody who makes a living out of blogging and has nothing better to do and so he had to nail it once and for all. The tragedy is that it was made necessary by this media feeding frenzy."

Hague confirmed yesterday that Myers had resigned as a result of the "pressure" put on his family due to the "untrue and malicious allegations made about him".

In his statement Hague said: "Any suggestion that his appointment was due to an improper relationship between us is utterly false, as is any suggestion that I have ever been involved in a relationship with any man."

Hague admitted to "occasionally" sharing hotel rooms with Myers during the election campaign.

But he added: "Neither of us would have done so if we had thought that it in any way meant or implied something else. In hindsight, I should have given greater consideration to what might have been made of that, but this is in itself no justification for allegations of this kind, which are untrue and deeply distressing to me, to Ffion and to Christopher."

Hague acknowledged that releasing the statement would cause "distress" for their families but insisted he had to reveal the "straightforward truth".

Myers was employed by Hague during the general election campaign as a constituency aide and had worked for the foreign secretary as a policy adviser on a salary reported to be £30,000.

Athol Fugard is right: too many playwrights are under pressure to give the audience a good night out

In Monday's Guardian, political playwright Athol Fugard voiced a concern that dramatists are "failing to confront issues of injustice, writing instead for attention spans of 10 minutes between adverts". Monday was also the first day of rehearsal for my play Ugly, which deals frankly with the issue of climate change - it's set in a future where food and water are scarce - and is the most political work I've ever done. So part of me wants to disagree with Fugard. Only, in my heart, I think he's got a point.

I don't think there is enough seriously engaged or oppositional theatre being made. But why does it feel so difficult to do political work when we're living through one of the most critical periods of human history? I suspect the answer may have something to do with a desire (of audiences and theatre-makers alike) to look for distraction rather than reflections of our frightening reality. And, I recognise an urge to self-censor, too. I found writing Ugly difficult because, while I've come to a point where I believe that the only way to confront climate change is to work for radical, systemic change, I'm fearful that by admitting this, I'll be closing my writing career down - that I'll be suspected of being too intense, and not a good laugh. I guess other writers may also sense the prevailing mood out there is: "Keep it light: if you must be informed, be ironic, and most importantly be non-committal about everything, other than the fact that paedophilia is evil." Writing Ugly became a battle against those self-censoring urges.

How to talk about issues without preaching? No audience wants to be handed a manifesto when they come to the theatre. But if political theatre doesn't produce some kind of action, what's the point? I had to remind myself that I don't have to have the answers: writing a play is about creating a drama, which in its unfolding makes space for questions. The stage is one of the few places left where it is still possible to inspire challenging and exciting conversation. Writing this play became about attempting to chew on some big questions, while hoping that I wouldn't choke during the process.

But isn't theatre about giving people a smashing night out? Shouldn't writers entertain? Is it possible to do that when you're writing a dark-as-night comedy about - among other things - a disgraced home economics teacher who survives by selling her body and her memories of the meals she once cooked, when food was not scarce? After a lot of soul-searching, I realised the answer is yes. The bar is not lower when we make political work, it is higher. Entertainment and engagement is my aim for Ugly. As for finding hope in all of this? I believe that lies with the audience. One of the things I love about working with Red Ladder theatre company is that their shows always have a forum for discussion after the performance. During these, I hope people will feel inspired to share their thoughts. I also hope that some will feel inspired enough to take those thoughts back into their lives and turn them into action. But, I have no interest in telling people what to do. For me, the show has done its job if it gets people thinking and discussing.

I think Athol Fugard has a good point, for all that he overlooks plenty of examples of provocative and political work. For writers and theatre companies everywhere, perhaps his words are a wake-up call. Not only do we need to do this work, but maybe we need to get better at letting people know about it.

Former prime minister issues statement explaining how he and his wife, Sarah, are to embark on a number of charitable projects

Gordon Brown today broke his silence to set out his plans for the future announcing that he is to embark on a number of charitable projects and will set up an Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown to coordinate his work, paid for by a string of lucrative speaking engagements.

In a move designed to rise above the furore surrounding the avalanche of criticisms contained in Tony Blair's memoirs, Brown issued a statement setting out his "priorities for the future" and how both he and his wife plan to contribute to public life in the future.

He confirmed he had spent the summer finalising his book on global economic affairs and visiting local schools, businesses and charities. He announced three new appointments: as convenor of the Global Campaign for Education working with Queen Rania of Jordan, working on a new programme to bring the internet to Africa and joining the board of Tim Berners Lee's World Wide Web Foundation.

 The statement said: "Each of these positions are pro bono and Mr Brown will not accept any remuneration.

 "He will continue to write on global issues, as he has been doing recently with articles on the desperate plight of those in Pakistan and Niger. 

"To facilitate their ongoing public policy work, the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown has been set up to employ a number of staff to work on the projects they are committed to. 

"Gordon and Sarah have always made clear they are determined to continue to make their contribution to public life and these latest initiatives are a sign of Gordon's priorities for the future."

A spokesman confirmed Brown has put his name on the books of the Washington Speeches Bureau in order to fund the salaries of his staff, which has been cleared by the advisory committee on business appointments.

The former prime minister wearing a poppy in Jonathan Yeo's portrait was no coincidence. It was the first step in a deliberate plan to influence his political legacy

In January 2008, a portrait of Tony Blair by Jonathan Yeo was unveiled in which the former prime minister wore a poppy. Reviewing it for the Guardian, I was skeptical about the notion that, somehow, the artist had subversively caught his subject off guard or conned him into wearing this unmistakable reminder of the wars that have bloodied his reputation. Blair is an experienced manipulator of his own image, I opined: if he wears a poppy it is because he wants it that way. Would Blair, I wondered, one day find the words to match this apparently guilt-stricken image?

Well, here come 700 pages of them. The quotations already published from his book, and the reactions to it, should remind us that Blair is one of the most virtuous - in Machiavelli's sense of the word, meaning effective - politicians of modern times. On the front page of yesterday's Daily Mail, a photograph homed in on Blair's eyes. Making them look icy, it seemed to unconsciously ape the "Demon Eyes" poster the Tories used against Blair in the 1997 election, in which he is portrayed with a gash cut through his face to reveal the devil within. The interesting thing about this visual echo is that the Tory campaign poster failed to damage Blair, back in the day.

Words and images match - the Mail front page headline attacking Blair's "crocodile tears" seems hysterical and forced. The fact is Blair, in the quotes published from his memoir underneath the picture, sounds like someone who knows the enormity of ordering soldiers to die in a war. They are dead and he is alive. He knows that. At least admit these are articulate words: "I feel words of condolence and sympathy to be entirely inadequate. They have died, and I, the decision-maker in the circumstances that led to their deaths, still live". Where is the comparable quote from Margaret Thatcher about the Falklands, from Lyndon B Johnson about Vietnam, or even from president Obama about Afghanistan?

I have no idea if Blair means these words, if his charitable gesture is sincere or tactical, if he really loses sleep, or if it makes a difference that he does. But Blair is remaking his own image faster than critics can deface it. I think you could already see, in Blair's decision to wear a poppy for his portrait two years ago, how he was going to get to grips with history.

Tony Blair's achievements may be undervalued in Britain, but his role in our independence makes him a political giant in Kosovo

"The king is dead, long live the king" is an expression about monarchy, but it rings true in modern democracy. Some in Britain appear to have forgotten that Tony Blair led their country on the world stage for 10 years and that moreover, that they gave him a large mandate to do so on three occasions. As the prime minister of Europe's youngest country, I have been fortunate in feeling the UK's unshaken support under the governments that have succeeded Blair, both Gordon Brown and David Cameron. But, on a personal basis, I cannot help feeling that Blair's own extraordinary energy and considerable achievements are now being undervalued at home.

Given the tremendous role that Blair played in helping my country forge its independence, I hope his book will not only bring a personal perspective to some important global events but remind people why they admired the man in the first place. Political power is not really aggrandising at all. There is something deeply humbling about public service and the trust that a nation places in the individuals it charges to lead. Blair knows this. Meanwhile, as Kosovo seeks to consolidate its position on the European stage, Tony Blair's conduct and commitment is a powerful example to me personally - and all of us in Kosovo owe him and British people a considerable debt.

Although we declared independence two years ago, it was only last month (22 July) that the international court of justice finally ratified Kosovo as a sovereign, independent state. The decisive 10 to four majority concluded that our declaration did not violate international law or UN security council resolution 1244, nor did it compromise the constitutional framework established by the UN to guide the interim stabilisation of Kosovo. Crucially, the court reaffirmed Kosovo's place in the international community, something which 69 countries have already recognised.

Since we need more recognitions to achieve our seat at the UN general assembly, I am calling on those states that have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo. I am grateful to the current British government for its constructive efforts in allowing Kosovo to take its place among other nations. In addition, Tony Blair is making similar representations to the same countries on our behalf.

Kosovans did not arrive at the decision to declare independence lightly, or by default through political vacuum. Indeed, as the ICJ acknowledged, the circumstances that led to Kosovo's declaration of independence were unique. The narrowness of the court's ruling on this issue should reassure any country reluctant to recognise Kosovo to date. Our declaration did not set a precedent, and any suggestions that the court's ruling opens a Pandora's box are wrong. Countries still opposing our sovereignty, typically because of secessionist concerns within their own borders, should accept this.

Today's Serbian government has a different complexion from the one that terrorised my people 11 years ago. All the same, some influential elements within it are still trying to pick holes in the ICJ's decision, hoping to open another UN general assembly resolution to contest Kosovo's status. The legal question about Kosovo's independence was asked and the court's answer was unambiguous. The Serbian government may not have liked the answer it received from the court, but if it maintains aspirations of its own to be part of the greater European family, it must surely accept the rule of law.

Frankly, Kosovars see the ruling as an opportunity to put the past behind us and move forward with all the countries of the Balkans, including Serbia, towards true Euro-Atlantic integration. My country looks forward to working with Serbia and discussing practical issues that would improve the lives of all of our citizens. We are neighbours and we face common challenges. Our police forces must work together to combat the ravages of international crime. Our two countries need to co-operate on practical issues such as energy, telecommunications, and education. We have a common interest in working together to identify the fate of missing persons - both Albanian and Serb - from the sad period of the war we both experienced.

Our Serbian neighbours may not recognise Kosovo's independence just yet, but co-operation between the two independent states is inevitable. Meanwhile Kosovo will continue to build on the firm foundations it has laid since 2008. We will complete implementation of the Ahtisaari plan - now enshrined in our new constitution - with its far-reaching guarantees for a secular society that protects the rights of members of all ethnic groups in Kosovo, including Serbs. We will continue to strengthen our democratic institutions and we will take the decisions necessary to promote long-term, private sector-led economic growth.

There is much to do, but Kosovo is already open for investment, business and tourism. As Tony Blair declared in his speech to our parliament in July: "There is a dream for you now. That one day, Kosovo takes its place as a member of the European Union, a proud independent state, not just directing its own affairs, but playing its part in those of the largest political and commercial union in the world."

Yes, Kosovo will continue the reforms necessary to secure its rightful place in the UN, in Nato and the EU, and we are delighted that Mr Blair continues to champion our cause. His role in Kosovo's history will be recognised as an important example in a great legacy. Kosovo has honoured him with the Golden Medal of Freedom, and Kosovans will forever remember him as one of their heroes.

Polly Curtis explains the role of the confidants and spinners at the heart of government

Industrial action on London Underground to start on 6 September in protest against plans to cut 800 jobs

Talks aimed at averting a series of strikes by London Underground workers from next week have broken down and the industrial action will go ahead as planned, union leaders said today.

The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union said LU had failed to remove the threat of cuts to safety and safe staffing levels that would have allowed "meaningful discussions" to take place.

Thousands of Tube staff are due to launch the walkouts from next Monday evening, 6 September, in protest against plans to cut 800 jobs, threatening travel chaos in the capital.

The RMT accused LU management of "sabotaging" talks today at the conciliation service Acas with officials from the union, and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association.

The RMT's general secretary, Bob Crow, said: "LU management knew very well that meaningful talks could not proceed while the threat of cuts to safety and safe staffing levels hung over our members' heads - their failure to remove that threat sabotaged any prospect of making progress.

"RMT and TSSA negotiators completely demolished the LU line that the cuts are simply about new technology and the Oyster card. The planned cuts are part of a multibillion black hole facing the mayor due to the costs of the failure of Tube privatisation and an attack on funding levels from the ConDem government.

"Not only are ticket offices and ticket staff jobs threatened but hundreds of other station staff posts are also on the line. It was the presence of those very staff that averted potential disaster in recent incidents involving fires at Euston and Oxford Circus.

"RMT and TSSA have been presented with a stark choice. We could sit back and wait for a major disaster while safety cuts are bulldozed through, turning the Tube into a death trap, or we can stand up and fight for passenger and staff safety.

"On Monday we will be making a stand on safety and safe staffing levels on behalf of all Londoners."

Myers was appointed on 24 May but the official list naming all special advisers and their salary brackets did not include his name when it was published on 10 June

Downing Street failed to include the aide who has been at the centre of the row over William Hague's private life when it published an official list of special advisers in June designed to demonstrate how the coalition was cutting back on political appointments.

Hague's office today confirmed that Myers, who yesterday quit citing the pressure of speculation surrounding the nature of his relationship with the foreign secretary, was appointed on 24 May. But the official list naming all special advisers and their salary brackets did not include Myers when it was published on 10 June.

The cabinet office said that Myers's name was not included because although he had been appointed, he had not started the job by 10 June.

Hague spoke out as David Cameron's office confirmed that the prime minister had full confidence in his foreign secretary. Hague said he had made yesterday's "very personal statement", in which he denied allegations that he was gay, that his marriage was in trouble and that he was romantically linked to Myers, in order to end the speculation over his private life.

The statement also revealed that he and his wife Ffion had suffered a series of miscarriages. However, that statement - including the admission that he and Myers had shared twin bedrooms during the election campaign - drew new criticisms from Tory colleagues who questioned his judgment.

Hague told a Foreign Office press conference today: "Yesterday, I made a very personal statement, which was not an easy thing to do. I am not going to expand on that today. My wife and I really felt we had had enough of the circulation of untrue allegations, particularly on the internet, and at some point you have to speak out about that and put the record straight."

Asked about his colleague John Redwood's suggestion that Hague himself now acknowledged he had exercised "poor judgment" in sharing a room with his assistant, Hague said that his work "has not missed a beat, and will not miss a beat, at any stage. I have not spent many minutes away from all duties of the foreign secretary."

Lord Tebbit, the former Tory minister, said that Hague had been "naive at best, foolish at worst".

Redwood wrote on his blog: "His [Hague's] statement confirms that he has shared hotel rooms with a young male assistant, and argues that this assistant was well qualified to become a special adviser to the Foreign Office. Mr Hague has now accepted the resignation of this special adviser, Mr Myers. Mr Hague tells us he did not have an inappropriate relationship with this young man.

"Let us hope this is now an end to the matter. Mr Hague himself now seems to believe that it was poor judgement to share a hotel room with an assistant."

Hague was forced to issue yesterday's extraordinarily personal and detailed statement yesterday under mounting pressure from reports in political blogs and investigations by newspapers over the past few weeks speculating about the appointment of the 25-year old graduate.

More problems with the general election administration have come to light in Wolverhampton South West, with the news that one of the marked registers has gone missing. An investigation is already taking place into a mismatch between the number of ballot papers counted and the number issued, with more having been recorded as counted than were officially issued.

The latest news has been reported by the Wolverhampton Express & Star:

A register containing the names and addresses of hundreds of Wolverhampton voters has gone missing...

It contains names and addresses of up to 500 voters along with a mark to say whether or not they received a ballot paper.
Park ward falls in the same Wolverhampton South West constituency, where it appears more than 200 extra people voted than ballot papers were issued.

That discrepancy is still unexplained more than three months since the elections. It emerged today the register was revealed to be missing after Liberal Democrat campaigners asked to inspect it.

Colin Ross, the Lib Dem candidate in Wolverhampton North East, said: "We asked to see it so we could get a picture of which areas had voted.

"I am not suggesting that it is connected with the discrepancy in the number of votes compared to ballot papers, but I am concerned that it is missing and would like it to be found as soon as possible."

Although marked registers should provide an important safeguard against electoral fraud and the law lays down specific rules for their safekeeping, the 2005 general election saw many marked register problems and during the last Parliament the complete Glentrothes by-election marked register went missing. For more on both of those see my post from 2009.

More problems with the general election administration have come to light in Wolverhampton South West, with the news that one of the marked registers has gone missing. An investigation is already taking place into a mismatch between the number of ballot papers counted and the number issued, with more having been recorded as counted than were officially issued.

The latest news has been reported by the Wolverhampton Express & Star:

A register containing the names and addresses of hundreds of Wolverhampton voters has gone missing...

It contains names and addresses of up to 500 voters along with a mark to say whether or not they received a ballot paper.
Park ward falls in the same Wolverhampton South West constituency, where it appears more than 200 extra people voted than ballot papers were issued.

That discrepancy is still unexplained more than three months since the elections. It emerged today the register was revealed to be missing after Liberal Democrat campaigners asked to inspect it.

Colin Ross, the Lib Dem candidate in Wolverhampton North East, said: "We asked to see it so we could get a picture of which areas had voted.

"I am not suggesting that it is connected with the discrepancy in the number of votes compared to ballot papers, but I am concerned that it is missing and would like it to be found as soon as possible."

Although marked registers should provide an important safeguard against electoral fraud and the law lays down specific rules for their safekeeping, the 2005 general election saw many marked register problems and during the last Parliament the complete Glentrothes by-election marked register went missing. For more on both of those see my post from 2009.

THE council is working in partnership with Shoreline Housing Partnership and The Freemen of Grimsby in finalising a plan for the regeneration of Freeman Street. 

A Neighbourhood Development Framework, providing exciting plans for the area is currently out to consultation. 

The framework identifies four projects that will kickstart the overall regeneration. These are the development of the Freeman Street district shopping centre, the creation of a public park, housing renewal around Thesiger Street and a Freeman Street Business and Enterprise Zone. 

Discussions will soon be taking place with the partners and the Homes and Communities Agency to look at funding opportunities for these and the wider future regeneration of Freeman Street. 

Councillor Geoff Lowis, portfolio holder for regeneration and housing said: "This is a very exciting time, we are confident that that we will soon see the start of what will be a long term, but worthwhile, project. The regeneration of Freeman Street is a main priority for North East Lincolnshire Council and our partners. We hope the gradual transformation will make the borough a better place to live, invest, work and visit."

There is not much that would bring me to feel sympathy with a professional Conservative. However the treatment of 25-year-old Christopher Myers – who this week resigned from his post as special adviser to William Hague – has been utterly appalling.

To cut a long story short, the delightful Guido Fawkes set off a huge wave of gossip when he posted some innuendo-stuffed articles querying Myers' qualifications post for his special adviser post. Initially he said it was odd that Durham Graduate Myers "should go from driving William Hague (49) around his constituency during elections, where according to the Mirror, "although he never worked at Tory HQ in London... they became close during campaigns", to become his third Special Adviser at the Foreign Office." Above he posted a picture of his FOI request asking, amongst other things, whether Myers had joined Hague on any foreign trips involving "overnight stays.

Next he explicitly mentioned that Myers was young and gay before deliver the killer punch: that Hague and Myers had "at least once".... shared a twin hotel room. Iain Dale has done a fairly good job of illustrating how ridiculous all this speculation was. Yet the frenzied atmosphere was such that Myers felt compelled to resign, (understandably) citing pressures on his family. Hague, meanwhile, released a deeply personal statement discussing his longstanding marriage, and categorically denying any relationship with Myers.

It seems clear that this frenzied atmosphere – with which Myers felt unable to cope – was drenched in homophobia. It is difficult to imagine such flimsy speculation creating such a stir, had it not tapped into the widespread misconception that gay men carry an air of salciousness and impropreity wherever they go. Or to put it very bluntly, this wouldn't have mattered if more people fully understood that a gay man can share a room with another male without fucking him.

What is dissapointing, then, is how reticent the Tory party have been about defending one of their own in the face of such homophobic crap. William Hague released a statement in which he stood his ground impressively. On the subject of Myers he defended his right to a private life. But nothing more. No assertion that it is OK to be young, gay and involved in high politics. No condemnation of homophobia. Not even the use of the word gay. Todays statement from number 10 follows the same form.

But what is most disconcerting is the number of people who seem to be backing Hague, while saying that it was naive or ill-judged to share a hotel room with Myers. This line has beeen taken by a number of unnamed Tory sources along with John Redwood Since it is perfectly normal for (straight) men to occasionally end u sharing sleeping quarters with other men, such criticism effectively asserts that young gay men should be treated as social lepers, that intimacy and proximity with them should be limited to avoid giving off the "wrong idea".

By accepting the resignation of Myers, and by failing to properly speak up for his right to be gay the Tory Party have sent out a grim message to young gay men who have aspirations of getting involved in politics.

My opinion of Cruddas has gone thru the floor, with his backing D.Miliband. Thank heavens Cruddas didn't stand for the Labour leadership himself: with such poor judgement, he wld have made a terrible Leader, evidently!
Cruddas says he is backing DM because of some warm words DM has uttered concerning communitarianism. Well, I'm a communitarian too - but that is no reason to prefer DM to the only two remotely leftish and greenish candidates in the race, namely EM and Abbott.

For all things Rupert, goto
www.rupertread.net

Helloo there lovely peeps! It's nice to be back writing again, hope you've had a really great summer and managed to enjoy at least a few rays of sun.

Life for me has been very manic, lots of music (yay) and lots and lots of travelling around (not so yay lol). I've been to Germany, Bristol, back to Germany again (lol), then it's been Woking, Oxford, Bristol, Plymouth, Witney, Cheltenham, Bath, Bournemouth, Brixham, Bath (outside in the pouring rain!!), Newton Abbot, Bristol and Honiton... phew!

As many peeps who know me know I love being so busy, especially with oodles of lovely musical type stuff. I'm one of these odd creatures that get a real buzz out of playing one venue, having about two hours sleep and then whizzing off to the next musical adventure. Having not much sleep would usually make me pretty cranky, but for musical purposes it's perfectly fine with me.

Doing so much travelling has also allowed me to do lots of thinking, which with me is not necessarily a good thing! I'm one of these peeps who's a real worrier. I worry about the craziest of things. If I've nothing to worry about then I'm worried. And yes, it is as annoying as it sounds.

So during my travels I was pondering about all sorts of things. But there was one major thing that was playing on my mind more than usual - and that was the question, am I really good enough? It's something that I've never properly thought about before, because I've always been so driven by my love and passion for music that I've not stopped too long to think about it.

I'm really proud of everything I've managed to achieve over the years and I'm also so grateful for all the amazing peeps I've met along the way. But how do you know when you're good enough? I learnt long ago that music is a never-ending journey and a very steep learning curve that you will never, ever reach the end of. Sounds slightly depressing, but I actually find it a real positive thing as there will *always* be new lessons to learn and new musical stuff to play!

‘But are you good enough?' My mind kept asking. ‘How do you know you're good enough? Hmm??' Actually, I'm not too sure now I think about. What if I'd become so driven by my passion and love for the process of doing and playing music that I'd not actually stopped to think about whether what I was doing was any good or not? It appeared my mind had opened up a whole fresh can of stupid scary thoughts and was having lots of fun emptying the entire contents out me. Bugger.

About a week or so went by and I still couldn't come up with a suitable answer to my question. ‘Just because I am' didn't seem like a good enough response to put my mind at rest. So I carried on my day-to-day stuff, hoping that I'd either find the answer or that the question would just fade away and I'd find something far more constructive to think about... sadly neither happened.

Just at the point where I thought my poor little head would explode off my shoulders, I had a gig with Nicky Swann in Plymouth. The venue where we played was really lovely and we had lots of fun. Even though I was talking and playing and drinking the question was still lurking in the back of my mind and it really did seem like nothing at all was going to make it go away.

At the end of the night we packed up all our things and loaded up ready to depart. Nicky and I were walking up the hill towards the car, chatting about various episodes of TV programs when from out of the blue this very very (very!) drunk woman grabbed my arm and said, ‘I heard what you were saying, about not being good enough!' After I'd got over the shock of being grabbed by some crazy drunk lady in the dark I just laughed as I could see she was a bit worse for wear (to say the very least).

She released her grip around my arm and began to point like her life depended on it. ‘You don't think you're good enough do you?' She then wobbled about a bit and continued, ‘Stop thinking you're not good enough because you're amazing at what you do.' Then the reality of what she was saying suddenly hit home. ‘Holy crap,' I thought, how on earth could this apparently bonkers and hammered woman know so much?

I just starred in amazement that she seemed to know what was playing in my mind. ‘You need to let go of the fear and stop worrying about whether you're good enough or not,' she carried on, still struggling to keep upright. ‘You're a star and if you let go of you're fear and just focus on your passion for what you do you'll really go far.'

I thought it only fair to help her get back to her flat, which luckily was only a few steps away (but for her I think it seemed like a few miles!). I thanked her for all she had said, but she was so pissed I don't think she'll remember any of it, hey ho.

When I got home I just sat on the sofa trying, with my mug of tea, trying to understand what had just happened. Most of the people I told this story to just said ‘oh she's just some crazy old pissed bird, don't take any notice of her!' But to be so accurate was very bizarre.

So thanks to the crazy drunken lady from Plymouth I was able to finally answer this question that had been bugging me for days on end. For me the answer is not to wonder about whether you're good enough, but to just focus on being the very best you can and to always know you can do anything you put your mind to. But I think the most important thing is to let everyone else make their own minds up as to whether you're good enough or not, don't try and guess for them - otherwise you'll end up like me and have a stupid question whizzing round you're brain for days on end.

And let's face it, there's far more important thing to do... like sitting out in this lovely sunshine. Which is exactly what I'm going to do now See ya next week!

Good news for Scotland:

The bank has told staff that up to 12 offices could close in England, with some jobs added in Greenock and Edinburgh.

The centres set for closure or downsizing in 2011 are Leeds, Bolton, Enfield and Harrogate.

The following year, Norwich, Bradford, Telford, Plymouth, Milton Keynes, Liverpool, Bristol and Borehamwood have been earmarked.

The Leicester, Southampton and Nottingham centres are under review.

The English taxpayer owns the majority stake in Royal Bank of Scotland.

Press Complaints Commission confirms it was told two months ago that journalist was under investigation over new claim

The News of the World is facing a fresh allegation of phone hacking against one of its journalists, the Press Complaints Commission confirmed today.

The commission was informed by the paper just over two months ago about the allegation, and the journalist involved has been "suspended from reporting duties".

Stephen Abell, the PCC director, confirmed today that the press regulator was informed in by the paper in June "of the existence of the recent allegation of phone-message hacking against the reporter". Abell said that the PCC was prevented from launching its own investigation because the allegation was "the subject of legal action".

The new claim was revealed late yesterday in a New York Times article on the News of the World phone-hacking affair. The paper reported that the News of the World was conducting a new phone-hacking investigation and had suspended a reporter, after a "television personality" had been alerted by her phone company to a "possible unauthorised attempt to access her voicemail" and the number was traced back to a journalist at the paper.

Bill Akass, the News of the World managing editor, confirmed in a response to the New York Times that an internal investigation was under way and that a journalist had been "suspended from reporting duties".

It is understood that the News of the World was first made aware of the phone-hacking claim around Easter this year and that the internal investigation is ongoing.

"A serious allegation has been made about the conduct of one of our reporters. We have followed our internal procedures and the reporter has been suspended from reporting duties, and a very thorough and extensive investigation carried out into that allegation (involving, for example, external forensic specialists)," Akass said.

"The allegation is the subject of litigation and our internal investigation continues in tandem with that, which means I am unable to comment further. If the conclusion of the investigation or the litigation is that the allegation is proven, the reporter will be dismissed for gross misconduct without compensation.

"We have a zero-tolerance approach to any wrong-doing and will take swift and decisive action if we have proof of any wrong-doing."

Abell said: "The PCC was informed by the News of the World in June of the existence of the recent allegation of phone message hacking against the reporter. This is currently the subject of legal action, which has prevented the PCC from becoming formally involved at this stage.

"However, once the legal action has been concluded, the commission will consider the matter further. It was right that the News of the World disclosed the existence of this claim to the PCC, and we will address the issues when it is possible for us to do so. The PCC has made publicly clear on a number of occasions that phone message hacking is deplorable and that view - of course - remains."

The News of the World's editor, Colin Myler told the Commons culture select committee last year that he had introduced new procedures to avoid a repeat of this behaviour. Myler became editor in 2007, when Andy Coulson resigned over the Clive Goodman phone-hacking affair.

Myler told the committee that all staff were ordered to follow the PCC code of conduct and warned that failure to comply could result in disciplinary proceedings. Stricter controls on cash payments and sources were also introduced and all staff had to attend workshops on the PCC code, he added.

The committee called several current and former executives from the News of the World's publisher, News International, including Coulson, last year as part of its inquiry into privacy, press standards and libel.

This fresh round of hearings was prompted by the Guardian's revelation that News International had paid £700,000 to settle a breach of privacy claim from Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, after a private investigator working for the News of the World hacked into his phone.

o To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

o If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

Downing Street and Cabinet Office unable to explain omission of man at centre of allegations over foreign secretary's private life

Downing Street failed to include the aide who has been at the centre of the row over William Hague's private life when it published an official list of special advisers in June designed to demonstrate how the coalition was cutting back on political appointments.

Hague's office today confirmed that Myers, who yesterday quit citing the pressure of speculation surrounding the nature of his relationship with the foreign secretary, was appointed on 24 May. But the official list naming all special advisers and their salary brackets did not include Myers when it was published on 10 June.

The disclosure that his name was not included will raise new questions about whether his appointment was official, or whether the list, hailed as a sign that the coalition was cracking down on spin in government, was incomplete. Downing Street and the Cabinet Office could not immediately explain the omission.

Hague spoke out as David Cameron's office confirmed that the prime minister had full confidence in his foreign secretary. Hague said he had made yesterday's "very personal statement", in which he denied allegations that he was gay, that his marriage was in trouble and that he was romantically linked to Myers, in order to end the speculation over his private life.

The statement also revealed that he and his wife Ffion had suffered a series of miscarriages. However, that statement - including the admission that he and Myers had shared twin bedrooms during the election campaign - drew new criticisms from Tory colleagues who questioned his judgment.

Hague told a Foreign Office press conference today: "Yesterday, I made a very personal statement, which was not an easy thing to do. I am not going to expand on that today. My wife and I really felt we had had enough of the circulation of untrue allegations, particularly on the internet, and at some point you have to speak out about that and put the record straight."

Asked about his colleague John Redwood's suggestion that Hague himself now acknowledged he had exercised "poor judgment" in sharing a room with his assistant, Hague said that his work "has not missed a beat, and will not miss a beat, at any stage. I have not spent many minutes away from all duties of the foreign secretary."

Lord Tebbit, the former Tory minister, said that Hague had been "naive at best, foolish at worst".

Redwood wrote on his blog: "His [Hague's] statement confirms that he has shared hotel rooms with a young male assistant, and argues that this assistant was well qualified to become a special adviser to the Foreign Office. Mr Hague has now accepted the resignation of this special adviser, Mr Myers. Mr Hague tells us he did not have an inappropriate relationship with this young man.

"Let us hope this is now an end to the matter. Mr Hague himself now seems to believe that it was poor judgement to share a hotel room with an assistant."

Hague was forced to issue yesterday's extraordinarily personal and detailed statement yesterday under mounting pressure from reports in political blogs and investigations by newspapers over the past few weeks speculating about the appointment of the 25-year old graduate.

The Scottish government wants to set a 45p-a-unit minimum price for alcohol. Is this the way to tackle excessive drinking?

How much should you pay to drink a little too much? The Scottish government has just proposed a minimum price of 45p for one alcohol unit in an effort to curb excessive alcohol consumption.

The move is the latest in an attempt to tackle Scotland's dangerous levels of drinking: a study in January found that adults in Scotland were drinking the equivalent of 46 bottles of vodka a year each, 25% more than people in Wales or England. The government claims that the plan would save the Scottish NHS £5.5m every year.

Opposition parties at Holyrood have criticised the proposal, saying that it would unfairly affect responsible drinkers. What do you think? Would increasing the price of alcohol make you less likely to drink? Is this an appropriate job for government? And why does Britain - and especially Scotland - have a problem with excessive drinking in the first place?

Former Tory leadership contender who fell out with foreign secretary over Welsh language row becomes most senior Tory to speak out about Hague's current troubles

John Redwood, the former cabinet minister and failed Tory leadership contender, became the most senior Conservative to criticise William Hague today.

On his blog, which usually covers weighty economic matters, Redwood said Hague had shown "poor judgment" in sharing a hotel room with his former special adviser, Christopher Myers.

This is what Redwood wrote:

His statement confirms that he has shared hotel rooms with a young male assistant, and argues that this assistant was well qualified to become a special adviser to the Foreign Office. Mr Hague has now accepted the resignation of this special adviser, Mr Myers. Mr Hague tells us he did not have an inappropriate relationship with this young man.

Let us hope this is now an end to the matter. Mr Hague himself now seems to believe that it was poor judgement to share a hotel room with an assistant.

Redwood then returns to high policy matters as he concludes his blog saying that the "bigger issue of judgment" for Hague is how he handles the EU.

How does he intend to win over Euroceptics to his tenure at the Foreign Office?

Redwood is reflecting the widespread feeling in the Tory party that Hague once again made an error of judgment when he appointed a 25 year old with little knowledge of foreign affairs as a special adviser.

But there is history here. Hague replaced Redwood as Welsh secretary in 1995 when the latter resigned from the cabinet to challenge John Major for the Tory leadership after the former prime minister's "put up or shut up" challenge to the Eurosceptic right.

Redwood's worst moment as Welsh secretary came when he was filmed struggling to keep up with the Welsh national anthem. The footage emerged during the 1995 the leadership contest.

Here it is in its full glory:

Hague made sure that he was not caught out in the same way. He took Welsh lessons with a bright young civil servant, Ffion Jenkins. She is now his wife.

contribution by Carl Miller

On Sunday, Demos released a report, The Power of Unreason. We looked at the role conspiracy theories play in extremism, violence, and terrorism.

Extremist groups use conspiracy theories to recruit, to justify violent acts and to maintain an ideology that sees violence as the answer to the world they find themselves within.

Conspiracy theories can therefore be dangerous.

They have an important functional value for extremist groups and they play into the social dynamics of radicalization. They create 'the other' that the group defines itself against. They inspire something we call a 'self-aggrandizing siege mentality': where the group sees itself as a tiny colony of true believers pitted against an entirely hostile world.

Overall, they divide and isolate, and it is in these conditions of alienation that extremism and violence find fertile soil. Outside of extremist groups they also drive a powerful wedge of distrust between communities and their elected governments.

This kind of disengagement is not just a problem; it is a danger. Today.

One of the big culprits for the spread of conspiracy theories is the internet. Of course, conspiracy theories like JFK and the moon landings long pre-date the digital age, but the recent explosion of conspiracy theories does coincide with widespread internet use, especially the latest revolution of social media.

Conspiracy theories live in these lawless arenas where peer-review, journalistic standards, and source attribution are largely absent. They are the creatures of youtube, chat rooms and discussion groups.

What to do? Any kind of censorship, or information campaign is wrong and will not work. We can't and shouldn't restrict the information that people encounter. It's a given that we all will be daily bombarded with thousands of pieces of 'counter-knowledge', misinformation packaged to look like fact.

But, although we can't tell people what to think, we can teach people how to think better for themselves.

One of the most important ways to increase our resilience to conspiracy theories is to equip young people with the skills to tell the different between credible claims, and their many imposters. Education must move into this vacuum: what are their sources?

What is the evidence, and how can we tell good evidence from bad? What evidence is being missed out? These are questions every young person must be educated to habitually ask. If people really want to get to the truth, bypassing the basic standards of journalism and open argument is not a good route.

—-
Carl Miller is co-author of the Demos report: The Power of Unreason

“We are at the bottom of the barrel, as are most local authorities.” That's the grim conclusion reached by David Tosh, head of Information & Customer Services at Swansea City Council as he contemplates the increasingly prominent role of ICT professionals in the public sector: looking for savings. 

read more

The debate on whether to replace First Past the Post with AV for elections to the House of Commons certainly seems to be warming up. Both sides are seeking increasing media coverage, bloggers from both sides are debating on the internet, and public interest seems to be growing on the issue.

Yet there seems to me one thing missing - an appreciation of the role of the House of Lords, and how it might be reformed.

The reason for this is quite important - the House of Commons does not exist in a vacuum. The AS-level course I teach on Government and Politics stresses the importance of a second chamber as a revising chamber. In particular, there is a constitutional principle that the second chamber should not be a copy of the first.

This raises several questions.

The first is an obvious question for the Liberal Democrats. Having advocated STV for the House of Commons, they appear to also advocate the STV for the House of Lords. Such a position is untenable in my opinion. An elected Lords should not simply be a copy of the Commons, with some different electoral boundaries or different terms of office.

This is where the Alternative Vote (AV) could be useful to the Lib Dems. A logical compromise position would be AV for the Commons, and STV for the Lords (sorry, Senate!). The strength of such an arrangement would be the constituency link is kept in the lower chamber. Meanwhile, the Upper Chamber would have a wide diversity of opinion, with more Lib Dems, and Green and UKIP groups.

Yet this raises an interesting second question. We're about to have a referenda on the alternative vote for the Commons. Why not the Lords at some stage as well?

There seems to be a consensus amongst the political parties about having an elected House of Lords. However, there is also a constitutional consensus that major constitutional changes should be put to the British people It's difficult to argue when the North-East gets a referendum on a regional assembly, there shouldn't be one on Lords reform.

Which leads me to the third question - what happens if we vote in a referendum to keep first past the post but then make the Lords elected by STV with no referenda? Those in favour of First Past the Post will argue that they've won a referendum, and so the system should not be changed, and the Commons remain dominant. Those in favour of STV will argue that a Senate elected by STV is more representative than the Commons, and therefore the new Senate should be the more powerful of the two chambers. Constitutional deadlock could well then ensue.

There seems a sensible balance of power here between two revised chambers, which the Liberal Democrats could sell to other parties. AV in the Commons plus STV in the Lords might just be the right balance of power for a reformed Parliament.

Simon Foster is a Lecturer in Politics in the West Midlands, and the author of several citizenship textbooks.

Harry Potter star, actor Daniel Radcliffe, was one of the Lib Dems' star supporters in the lead-up to the election — and it seems he's sticking by Nick Clegg and the party in government, according to the Voice's favourite online political read, ShowbizSpy.com:

"I'm a very big fan... I don't agree with everything he says, but of all the party leaders, he was the one I voted for," Daniel said. "I thought he was a great speaker and very charismatic and very statesmanlike.

"I'm glad that he is still in a prominent position in British politics because I think he could make a great contribution. He comes from absolutely the right place in terms of what his values are."

It's nice to know the sorting hat still reckons Dan belongs in the Lib Dem house.

So says the New York Times in its detailed report on what the News of the World got up to with phone hacking during Andy Coulson's time as editor:

A dozen former reporters said in interviews that hacking was pervasive at News of the World. "Everyone knew," one longtime reporter said. "The office cat knew."

One former editor said Coulson talked freely with colleagues about the dark arts, including hacking. "I've been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy" when the subject came up, said the former editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The editor added that when Coulson would ask where a story came from, editors would reply, "We've pulled the phone records" or "I've listened to the phone messages."

Sean Hoare, a former reporter and onetime close friend of Coulson's, also recalled discussing hacking. The two men first worked together at The Sun, where, Hoare said, he played tape recordings of hacked messages for Coulson. At News of the World, Hoare said he continued to inform Coulson of his pursuits. Coulson "actively encouraged me to do it," Hoare said.

You can read the full story here.

Top officers in Stoke-on-Trent City Council were the first casualties in the Authorities bid to save £30million.

14 of its 37 directors and heads of department are to be axed as a part of a major rationalisation programme enabling a saving of some £1million.

The number of Directorates will be cut form 6 down to 4 and they will encompass regeneration, children and young people's services, business services and adult and neighbourhood services.

Cabinet members and councillors were briefed by Chief Executive John van de Laarschot. Council staff were informed by email.

A UK government's decicion to use ODF (Open Document Format) for its electronic documents, would help public administrations overcome vendor lock-in for office applications, says Liam Maxwell, councillor for Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead.

The Sun this morning has some polling from YouGov on attitudes towards Tony Blair three years after his departure. 47% of people think that Blair was a good Prime Minister, 46% that he was a bad one – probably not a bad record. On balance, people tended to think that Blair was likeable (by 57% to 35%), principled (by 43% to 39%) and a good representative for Britain abroad (by 50% to 37%), he fell down on honesty – 44% thought he was dishonest as PM.

Asked what his greatest achievements were as Prime Minister, the minimum wage and bringing peace to Northern Ireland came top by some distance (interestingly, the minimum wage was seen as Blair's greatest acheivement even by Conservative voters, whereas things like his record on the economy and public services were mainly picked by Labour supporters). His greatest failures were seen as failing to tackle immigration and, unsurprisingly, the invasion of Iraq.

Finally, in the context of the leadership election, we asked whether Labour should distance itself from Blair's legacy to get back into power, or whether it would be a mistake for them to turn their back on the legacy of a PM who won three elections. It was a pretty even divide, 30% said Labour should distance themselves, 34% it would be a mistake. Amongst Labour supporters, 59% said it would be a mistake for Labour to turn their back on Blair's legacy.

Meanwhile, there were mixed results on the daily trackers. Government disapproval was the lowest yet for the coalition on minus 4 (38% approve, 42% disapprove). However, voting intention was far more positive for the Conservatives, CON 43%, LAB 37%, LDEM 12%. 6 points is the biggest Tory lead for a fortnight.

Also worth noting is the AV referendum voting intention question from yesterday, which I overlooked at the time. NO is now ahead by 39% to 37%. Still within the margin of error and a huge distance to go, but it suggests the YouGov poll a fortnight ago showing No ahead for the first time was not just a blip.

Anyone whose career or job involves direct contact with members of the public, [ and I include myself in this group] as opposed to being hidden away in the corner of an office with a keyboard his/her only contact with the outside world, is well aware of the pressures that can arise when confronted with irrational, bad tempered, depressed, ignorant or violent people and that`s on a good day.

When that job is as a police officer the temptations to use the authority of the uniform when, as is a major part of policing, in a confrontational situation, must be considerable. More than once I have encountered rude police officers who have adopted a threatening attitude because I have politely questioned an instruction whether sitting in a car whilst somebody is emptying the boot or some other equally innocent and seen to be innocent activity. It is when in contact with law abiding citizens that a police officer is most likely to be perceived as unnecessarily aggressive. The trouble is that when the job requires dealing with villains who could be peaceful one moment and uncontrollably violent the next a distinction between them and the rest of us must be difficult.

And so it seems for 2000 of the men in blue. According to reports in today`s Belfast Telegraph and the BBC that is the number of police officers who have had three or more complaints made against them in the last year. There are about 160,000 police officers in the U.K. so it is a fairly small proportion of the whole.

This information was made under a Freedom of Information request. Why on earth do authorities such as the police force in general not make public this type of information without its having to be dragged out of them? That truly would increase people`s respect for those organisations complying.

I note that a certain Mr T.Blair has been quoted from his newly published memoir that of his time as Prime Minister the F.O.I. Act is one of his regrets. He says it is not practical for good government. Given that most libertarians would assert that the F.O.I. Act was one of the most significant innovations of recent times for the ability of the individual to challenge an authority gone awry this revelation is quite amazing for a Prime Minister who presided over the most authoritarian government since 1945 that Act being a notable exception which did not prove the rule.

Comments

The Electoral Commission has just published its report on Cheryl Gillan's proposed question for the referendum on primary lawmaking powers, and ended up by making a suggestion of its own.

     Summary of Report
     Full Report

However the question they have come up with is, quite bluntly, wrong.

The National Assembly for Wales:
what happens at the moment

The Assembly has powers to make laws on 20 subject areas, such as:

•  agriculture
•  education
•  the environment
•  health
•  housing
•  local government

In each subject area, the Assembly can make laws on some matters, but not others. To make laws on any of these other matters, the Assembly must ask the UK Parliament for its agreement. The UK Parliament then decides each time whether or not the Assembly can make these laws.

The Assembly cannot make laws on subject areas such as defence, tax or welfare benefits, whatever the result of this vote.

If most voters vote 'yes'
The Assembly will be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for, without needing the UK Parliament's agreement.

If most voters vote 'no'
What happens at the moment will continue.

Question
Do you want the Assembly now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?

Yes
No

It is misleading because, even after a Yes vote, the Assembly will not be able to make laws on "all matters" in the 20 subject areas it has powers for.

There are, in fact, many things within those 20 subject areas that the Assembly will still not be able to pass laws on. There is a long list of exceptions and exclusions, as set out in Schedule 7 of the GoWA 2006.

As one example of this, look at Highways and Transport (Subject 10). The basic area of competence seems clear enough:

Highways, including bridges and tunnels. Streetworks. Traffic management and regulation. Transport facilities and services.

But then we get the exceptions:

Exceptions—

Registration of local bus services, and the application and enforcement of traffic regulation conditions in relation to those services.

Road freight transport services, including goods vehicles operating licensing.

Regulation of use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads, their construction and equipment and conditions under which they may be so used, apart from regulation of use of vehicles carrying animals for purpose of protecting human, animal, fish or plant heath, animal welfare or the environment.

Road traffic offences.

Driver licensing.

Driving instruction.

Insurance of motor vehicles.

Drivers' hours.

Traffic regulation on special roads, pedestrian crossings, traffic signs and speed limits.

International road transport services for passengers.

Public service vehicle operator licensing.

Documents relating to vehicles and drivers for purposes of travel abroad and vehicles brought temporarily into Wales by persons resident outside the United Kingdom.

Vehicle excise duty and vehicle registration.

Provision and regulation of railway services, apart from financial assistance
which—
(a) does not relate to the carriage of goods,
(b) is not made in connection with a railway administration order, and
(c) is not made in connection with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/69 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1893/91 on public service obligations in transport.

Transport security.

Railway heritage.

Aviation, air transport, airports and aerodromes, apart from—
(a) financial assistance to providers or proposed providers of air transport services or airport facilities or services,
(b) strategies by the Welsh Ministers or local or other public authorities about provision of air services, and
(c) regulation of use of aircraft carrying animals for purpose of protecting human, animal, fish or plant heath, animal welfare or the environment.

Shipping, apart from—
(a) financial assistance for shipping services to, from or within Wales, and
(b) regulation of use of vessels carrying animals for purpose of protecting human, animal, fish or plant heath, animal welfare or the environment.

Navigational rights and freedoms, apart from regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation.

Technical and safety standards of vessels.

Harbours, docks, piers and boatslips, apart from—
(a) those used or required wholly or mainly for the fishing industry, for recreation, or for communication between places in Wales (or for two or more of those purposes), and
(b) regulation for the purposes of protecting human, animal, fish or plant health, animal welfare or the environment.

Carriage of dangerous goods (including transport of radioactive material).

With such an extensive list of exceptions it is ludicrous to make out that the Assembly will be able to make laws on all things that fall under the subject heading of Highways and Transport. Yet the EC's question clearly states that the Assembly will "be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for".

It even puts the "all" in bold letters. It's their emphasis, not mine.

-

So I despair. To put the question in this form is misleading. As I've said before, there is no way in which any form of question can encapsulate the complexity of the primary lawmaking powers the Assembly will get after a Yes vote unless it makes reference to Schedule 7 of the GoWA 2006.

Yes, I do recognize that they are attempting to make the question understandable—and that, of course, is a good thing—but they are in fact doing exactly the opposite. They are fuelling confusion.