And the Euro?

in a letter to clients late last week, Morgan Stanley warned that Germany may leave the euro and the EMU and that investors should be prepared for this event.

Read the complete article here

To force a consensus on the Greek bailout

Sarkozy demanded a "commitment from everyone to suppport Greece...or France would reconsider its position in the euro," according to one source cited by El Pais.

and

"Sarkozy ended up banging his fist on the table and threatening to leave the euro...This forced Angela Merkel to give in and reach an agreement."

So, perhaps Morgan Stanley was wrong?

Mrs Rigby hasn't a clue what's going on, because there doesn't seem to be much in our newspapers, everybody's distracted by the new coalition government.

....

European meddling?

Europe doesn't seem to want any EU countries to make their own budgets without prior approval - or that's what it looks like.

The European Commission is calling for EU powers to vet budgets of the 27 member states before the draft laws have been presented to the House of Commons, the Tweede Kamer, the Folketing, the Bundestag, the Assemblee nationale, or other national parliaments. It applies to Britain even though we are not in EMU.

Read the rest, it's a long article.

....

Democracy

They really don't understand the results of last week's general election do they?

There's Mr Straw complaining about the English

so-called decent hard-working families

who didn't vote Labour. See, Mrs Duffy, it's all your fault Labour didn't win, it's your kind who let them down - at least according to Mr Straw.

Oh, and it's because you're English too. Mr Straw probably doesn't think much of the English - who turned their electoral map blue. They did it because they could see through the lies, they could see through the threats and they could see through the pleas to vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out, and keep Labour in power.

What part of Conservative 36.1% Labour 29% Liberal Democrat 23% and 'others' 11.9% don't they understand?

Not coming first meant Labour lost. They did not win. They've tried to 'spin' the results to make themselves look good, but if they keep on digging they'll end up with the Aussies.

A free election is called democracy.

But, they don't like that either, not really - as commenter 'Planet me' over at Penny Red says

Democracy does not work

And PennyRed herself says

People won't be patronised or wheedled into behaving. The public are not going to behave. We won't allow it.

Yes Penny, and you'd probably like there to be a law to make sure, wouldn't you?

And that is probably the main reason why millions did not vote Labour a week ago, because they'd had enough of the rulemakers making rules to keep the electorate under control.

A free vote is called democracy - anything else is a dictatorship.

..........
P.S.
Read JonhWardinMedway making a similar point

And an excellent 'Open Letter to Labour Members' by Dizzy

And LegIron

....

Suspended

A Labour general election candidate who said Gordon Brown was the "worst prime minister we have had in this country" has been suspended by the party.

Pity, he was probably the only one who told the truth

....

Pathetic!

more than 1,000 had made formal complaints to the [BBC], angry at the interruption to their television schedule on Tuesday night.

What's the betting that all, or almost all, of these complainants had demanded, and used, a convenient postal vote?

One viewer said: ‘I don't feel that there is any point showing a election broadcast, which is just showing Gordon Brown going to Buckingham Palace.

'If I or any one else wants to see this, theres the BBC News Channel, or online. This has ruined my television pleasure today when I just wanted to watch EastEnders.’

*shakes head*

But, maybe a lot of people couldn't be bothered to try to watch something else, didn't think about channel hopping to find something more 'interesting' than the election broadcast, because

The BBC News Special pulled in a peak audience of 11.5 million on BBC1.

....

Ascension Day

Today is Ascension Day.

Ascension Day commemorates the ascension of Christ into Heaven. Observed generally by Catholics and Anglicans, Ascension Day, also known as the Feast of Ascension, occurs on the Thursday 40 days after Easter.

The History of Ascension Day
According to the accounts in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus appeared to many of his disciples during the 40 days following his resurrection. On the 40th day, he came again to the Apostles and led them out to the Mount of Olives where he instructed them to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit. Then, as they were watching, he ascended into clouds. As they continued to watch, two angels appeared and declared to them that, just as he ascended, Jesus would return in glory. ...

Read more here and here

....

55%

Why is it that a 55% vote to force a general election in during a fixed-term parliament at Westminster is something bad, yet in Scotland the majority needed to achieve the same outcome is 66% - and is good?

In 1995 the Scottish Constitutional Convention reported that

The creation of a new parliament is a rare and exciting moment, one which affords unique opportunity for change and renewal. The Convention sees the establishment of a Scottish parliament as a chance to effect fundamental improvements to the way Scotland is governed. It therefore expects that the parliament will provide through its practices and procedures a form of government in whose accountability, accessibility, openness and responsiveness the people of Scotland will have confidence and pride.

and

The parliament will sit for a fixed term of four years. In exceptional circumstances the parliament may be dissolved before expiry of its full term with the agreement of two-thirds of MSPs.

The Scotland Act 1998, in setting out the legislation controlling the fixed-term Scottish Parliament states that:-

3. Extraordinary general elections

(1) The Presiding Officer shall propose a day for the holding of a poll if—

(a) the Parliament resolves that it should be dissolved and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament

Mr Brown, ex-Prime Minister, was involved in preparing the constitutional framework for Scotland's Parliament. He, and all the others, swore an oath to ensure Scotland's best interests were served.

It is they who decided that a 66% vote would be needed to call an 'extraordinary general election' - and that percentage was greeted with approval.

Yet, it means that the reins of control remain largely with those in power - because it would be quite difficult to persuade 2/3 (66%) of MSPs to vote together against the leading party/parties, which means it's unlikely to happen.

We have seen, in Westminster, a government clinging by its' well-bitten fingernails to the constitutional framework. They had sufficient parliamentary majority to easily defeat any attempted simple majority votes of no confidence that might have triggered an election. In short, the last government could do what they liked, and the rest of us had to sit back and take it - and be told it was good.

This is what's proposed for Westminster

Legislation introducing fixed-term parliaments would also provide for dissolution if 55 percent or more of the House votes in favour

Mrs Rigby believes that this proposal actually appears to limit the powers of any leading party to choose/try to call an 'extraordinary general election' - whilst slightly enhancing the chances of opposition to demand one, especially with current figures because, according to Mrs R's calculator (and discounting Sinn Fein), if all the opposition parties (the rainbow) got together plus just 2 MPs from the government benches, they would have that 55% majority.

Yet the media is complaining about it killing democracy, Jack Straw is moaning and Tom Harris, who is usually quite reasonable, actually wrote, in response to somebody who thinks the same as Mrs R

That being the case, why not simply make votes of confidence illegal or unconstitutional? After all, if the top priority is to make it to the end of a fixed parliament, what is the point of a vote of no confidence in the first place?

Surely that can't be right Tom?

Surely you wouldn't approve a law that says a vote of no confidence is illegal or unconstitutional?

Anyhow, it's turning into one of those 'long days' here in Rigby Town, so if Mrs R has got it all wrong, please use the comments to explain where, why, and how.
..........

P.S.

Thanks to JohnWardinMedway here's a link to LibDemVoice where there's more discussion of this issue, including the question

Is 55% high enough?

Go and read it, and all the comments.

....

Delusional?

Great I get a Tory Government and my Income is still taxed at 50% and if I sell my holiday home, any of my funds or my business the gain gets taxed at 50% too . Oh and I'd better not die as my kids inheritance will taxed to the max as well. And now VAT is going to 20%.

So much for the party of lower taxes. I was better off before last Thursday!

So says commenter THX1138.

This person may be 'real' or not, may be 'troll' or not, but let's take this statement at face value - because that's what they seem to be hoping.

It indicates an ostrich-like quality of ignoring, and failing to accept or understand, the cataclysmic economic legacy left by the outgoing government. In short, it is delusional.

Mrs R believes that, had Labour been re-elected, their redistributive policies would have continued, and escalated. Holiday homes, whether a one-bedroom flat or a luxury dwelling, would have been targetted as being unfair - after all, how could anybody reasonably have have two homes whilst some are homeless, or living in single room B&B? Would holiday homes, perhaps, have become illegal?

As for income? The direct and indirect take from earned income would have continued rising and rising, with documentation becoming ever more complex and long-winded, so much so that it would be barely comprehensible to the layman. The ability to reclaim a few quid in 'credits' would have become an even worse administrative nightmare - deliberately - so that the main beneficiaries would have been those tasked with administering the process, who earn minimum wage.

Inheritance tax would have remained, set at £300k which barely covers the price of either a small terraced house or a semi in many parts of the country - hardly the realms of the super-rich.

Added to IHT would have been the flat-rate death surcharge of £20k - charged on every single estate - claimed to be to fund elderly care, whether or not it had been needed.

THX1138's financial nest egg, or whatever they might choose to call it, would have been well and truly scrambled.

And those were only the plans we knew about.

....

Wrong?

Cherie Blair even took to sitting in on Cabinet meetings

*shakes head*

Says it all really.

Mrs R penned her usual few hundred rambling words saying more, but there's no point, except to say she thinks this seems to show that they really did treat the process of government with contempt.

And then, of course, they always found it so hard to tell the truth. It's habit-forming.

Thanks to Anna Raccoon we learn of one last lie. So,

we are to have another Ted Heath, a glowering, sulking, petulant, bad tempered presence on the back benches, demanding the right to ask questions and reeling out his tractor stats.

Great!

But really, did we expect anything different?

....

Odd

It's an odd sort of feeling isn't it, the silence?

There's no haranguing, no nagging, no belittling, no criticizing and no demeaning comments from those elected to government. Instead there's a mixture that's mid way between being a party atmosphere and the lull at the centre of a whirlwind.

Mrs Rigby notes the Liberal Democrat Conservative Coalition plans to repeal lots of laws, including this

-restoration of rights to non-violent protest

Now Mrs Rigby has 'gone on' about this before. She notes they haven't used the same wording, but in last November's Queen's Speech of the Labour government said they would repeal

...legislation limiting protests around Parliament. Generally extends to whole UK.

Except they didn't. That law had meant that any protests had to pass Police scrutiny - so there weren't many.

During the term of the previous Conservative government there were quite a lot of street protests, and quite a lot of street violence too. That was brought to an abrupt end by Labour - who made a law against it. Some protests were okay - such as those against capitalism - but they were heavily policed, whilst others seemed to slip through the net and made a few headlines which were blithely ignored by parliament. It was all a bit odd, to say the least.

Anyhow, last weekend we saw what may have been the first 'protest' against this new government. Those protesters were calling for 'fair votes' - that's all, just 'fair votes'. The same people seemed to have turned up outside Downing Street on Tuesday night too, and booed the new Prime Minister, which sort of sets the scene.

Yesterday, at the Cameron/Clegg press thingy they said there would be a referendum on "Alternative Vote". It was true, and it's confirmed in the coalition agreement - so surely it would satisfy these protesters?

Probably not though, because amongst the organisers were those who want only one thing - to be in charge of the country. But they aren't, so it's tough luck. There are winners and losers for every election, time they got used to it, and time they had to make do with rules made by other people too.

The odd thing is that, apparently, lots of Lib Dems are moaning* about the coalition as well. (* See comments with article)

It's hard to understand what they really want, and it's hard to believe these people have a firm grasp of reality.

Phew! This is why it's so odd.

You see, almost everybody we Rigbys know is delighted to see the back of the Labour government. The only exceptions are those who are active members of the Labour Party and staunch Union members, but even they are being realistic and have acknowledged that they didn't win the election, they came second, and the leaders of their party weren't able to form a government of all the colours.

There's no longer any point in bleating about, "Oh, they didn't really win because they didn't get a proper majority," because nor did Labour, who came second. The Lib Dems came a poor third in terms of seats, although they didn't do so badly in terms of votes cast - but they got 3,878,709 votes fewer than the Conservatives - who came first.

So the party that came third is now in active government. It's the first time the Liberals have been anywhere near government since the Lib/Lab pact of the 1970s, and that fell into disarray rather quickly. The last Liberal Prime Minister was Asquith, and he left office in 1915.

So, Mrs Rigby thinks it's really odd that some Lib Dems don't seem pleased to see Nick Clegg in a working coalition. She thinks it's odd that these people don't seem to realise that the existing constituency boundaries were a stitch up, and they should know they would never, ever, have been able to do anything about it - until now, when they can, because their party is in a proper coalition and will be able to give instructions to the Boundary Commission.

So, why aren't they pleased?

Mrs Rigby thinks it's really odd that these people aren't they delighted to see some of their flagship policies on the political agenda. It couldn't/wouldn't have happened any other way.

Can't these people understand compromise? Can't they understand that this is their very best chance, for almost a hundred years?

Can't these people also see that the Conservatives - who got the most votes and won the most parliamentary seats at the election - have also dropped some of their key policies? Can't they see that some Conservatives have been pushed aside to make sure that Lib Dem politicians are in high office?

Did they truly think Mr Clegg could have won the election? Did they believe all the media hype and the opinion polls?

Or would these people have preferred Mr Clegg to go into some uneasy relationship with Labour, along with all the other parties with one or two MPs, each of which would have had to lose many, if not all, of their own policies in order to 'power share' with Messrs Brown/Balls/Mandelson/Campbell?

All these people voted against Labour. Yes, they also voted against the Tories, and the Greens, and UKIP, and BNP and so on, and so on - but the brutal reality is that the people they voted for didn't have a snowball's chance of being in government. Absolutely none at all, no chance. Zero.

So, Mrs Rigby wants to ask some straight questions of all the Lib Dems who are moaning ...

Firstly she asks you to look at the facts.

Your political party is in the most powerful position it's been in for donkey's years.

Your leader is Deputy Prime Minister - a position he couldn't have dreamed of holding, not even if he'd agreed to make a pact with Labour because others with power would have demanded a share.

Your leader knows very well he'd never have made it to government without a fair bit of help from another politician/political party.

The coalition programme/agenda/agreement is a mixture of policies, some are Conservative and some are Lib Dem - which is a heck of a coup.

What is it you're moaning about?

Lib Dems - why aren't you shouting from the rooftops? Why aren't you partying?

The oddest possible answer is quite unpleasant.

Is it possible that these so-called Liberal Democrats only joined the Liberal Democrats because they didn't like the Conservatives, so were using underhand 'tactics'?

Were/are these people really Labour supporters after all? Were they people who would, truly, have preferred to see Labour still in government, all on their own.

But that's the stuff of the conspiracy theorists, not necessarily part of the real world, so Mrs Rigby will dismiss it.

She'd like to know if you're complaining because you don't really like the idea of compromise, and don't like the idea of making a deal?

Or is it that you enjoy complaining and only thrive on moaning?

Is it that you like to think up hare-brained ideas that you know think will never happen - but like to whine about not having a say?

You've got your say now. You and your party are in government and will, probably, stay in government until 7th May 2015.

Why don't you like it?

Come on, tell us - or be quiet and stop moaning. Give us all a break!

....