Those "cuts" in full...

Can Someone "Nudge" these two in front of a bus?

So it's interfering, or even more interfering for our own good

It's time to Chew bubblegum....

Petty and Childish, that's Gordo!

Gordon Brown 'blocked knighthood' for Steve Jobs

The then-Prime Minister refused to knight Mr Jobs in 2009 because he turned down an invitation to speak at the Labour Party conference, a former senior Labour MP said.

Quote of the day.

bureaucrats would rather kill people than their own pet projects.
Glenn Reynolds

Happy Birthday Guido

How to ruin your cause.

No more Nanny State?

Let's Hope we see something like this up on Order-Order soon.

MacShame

 

Seperated At Birth?

Ed Milliband

Edgar Bug

Shocking News (not!)

Rent Seeking Incumbent dislikes competition.

Americas Ruling Class sounds like the British Rent-seeker class.

Americas Ruling Class

Deportation Policy Declared Unlawful

 Arggh!

A Home Office policy allowing the speedy deportation of foreign nationals refused permission to remain in the UK has been declared unlawful.

Source: Sky

A Method for dealing with the MelonWar protestor on the House of Commons.

How I feel

I feel like I've been kicked for 13 years, and I've just seen the kicker break his foot.

Nick Cleggs Britannia

The three-party voting paradox

Take a closer look at the mathematics behind a three-way race – and particularly at the Condorcet paradox, the technical name of the situation I (almost) described.
Named after the Marquis de Condorcet (an 18th-century French nobleman who, Fisher writes, “had more fun with voting systems than most politicians”), the simplest Condorcet paradox occurs when there are three voters and three political parties A, B and C:
Voter 1 prefers A to B, but would rather have B than C
Voter 2 prefers B to C, but would rather have C than A
Voter 3 prefers C to A, but would rather have A than B

In these circumstances, no matter who is declared the winner, two-thirds of the electorate will have preferred someone else. There is no “Condorcet winner” – no party which, when compared to all others, is preferred by more people.

Source: Condorcet Paradox

£28m backlog of perfectly driveable vehicles waiting to be SCRAPPED

Keysianism = Broken Windows Fallacy

From the comments at WattsUpwithThat

Unbelievable!

In the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, Response to Comment 2-111, EPA says this (Volume 2 of Responses to comments available here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html)
In the April version of the TSD, EPA stated: “Antarctic sea ice extent shows no statistically significant average trends according to IPCC (2007d). However, the U.S. National and Snow and Ice Data Center [NSIDC] states that Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase from 1979 to 2007 (NSIDC, 2009).” EPA acknowledges these two sentences, taken together, may confuse the reader. And we are also aware of updated data from NSIDC. So we have revised the TSD to provide more clarity. It now reads: “For the period 1979––2008, Antarctic sea ice underwent a not statistically significant increase of 0.9% (about 100,000 km^2; 42,000 mi^2) per decade (NSIDC, 2009).”

97% of Icelanders say no..

I wonder will they be given another chance to get it right?

This is what a nepotist looks like!