Sunday, 9 January 2011

Slow news day today?

Is it really? An (apparent) nutter kills six and wounds thirteen in a random shooting in Tucson, AZ and amonst the wounded is the Democratic Congresswoman for Arizona's Eighth District. Amongst the more prominent stories in the main media outlets today was this one about the queens head which will remain on the Uk's stamps even though the Royal Mail is likely to be sold off.

Unfortunately the bloggosphere is no better than the mainstream when it comes to this 'nothing story', with O'Neill (Pint of Unionist Lite) lamenting his loss of sleep should the queens head not be on our stamps anymore. This is what he said:
We can all sleep a little bit easier tonight:
A law is set to be passed guaranteeing that UK stamps will continue to feature the Queen's head - even if Royal Mail enters foreign hands.

At present, there is no legal obligation to show the monarch's image, although Royal Mail has always done so.

Postal Affairs Minister Ed Davey said any potential buyer would have to be "mad" to drop it, but the new law would provide a "safeguard" just in case.

Haven't we got anything better or more important to talk about?


Anonymous said...

Excellent radio coverage for no campaign yesterday - rachel banner gave convincing argument

Leaderman said...

When Yes for Wales makes page 31 of the Leader today - shows how much interest the Leader have in it.

Plaid Whitegate said...

In contrast to the huge coverage the Leader has given of the No campaign, presumably? In the great point-scoring contest, this must score Nul Point.

Barrie Jones said...

The Leader is past its sell by date, the Daily Post is going east west editions which will hopefully give us proper news reporting in the North East.

Len Gibbs said...

Sorry I didn't hear the Rachel Banner discussion, what was that on? Radio 4? Heard the one where Lee Waters took that Nigel Dix apart on Radio Wales. The Yes campaign is miles ahead.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Banner was fantastic and used some very reasoned arguments for a No Vote.

Plaid Whitegate said...

There is no reasoned No argument.
The vote on March 3 is not a vote to abolish the Assembly, despite what most No campaigners would like.
A No vote will ensure the current unworkable, expensive and bureaucratic law-making system is maintained and that the UK government will continue to have a veto on laws made in Wales for Wales.

caia allotment holder said...

Veto should be replaced with scrutinised.

Its interesting how Plaid love scrutiny on Wrexham Council (when they turn up!) and how they hate anyone wanting to scrutinise the introduction of Welsh laws. To turn the argument that a no vote will mean the end of the assembly is misleading the public. Typical of Plaid Councillors though!

Without scrutiny they could make a bigger balls up of Wales than it is now!

Plaid Whitegate said...

@Caia allotment holder (aka Tory boy John Broughton)

So many smears in one little posting - excellent work.

Welsh laws get scrutinised by AMs in the same way UK laws get scrutinised by UK MPs. The UK parliament is capable of passing bad laws - e.g. the Dangerous Dogs Act - but I don't see you arguing for another institution to have a veto on its decision making.

I explained that a No vote was not about abolishing the Assembly. What bit of that sentence didn't you understand?

Finally, you confuse the Assembly as an institution with the Welsh Government as its executive.

What are the reasoned arguments for the status quo?

John Broughton said...

I think you should dust down your lawyers if you confuse me with an anonymous allotment holder.

Incidentally the assembly and Welsh government are inextricably linked.

Plaid Gwersyllt said...

Same as Parliament, Westminster Government and House of Lords...bureaucratic, cumbersome, inefficient.

Don't you want to dismantle the London establishments instruments of power John.

It's quite easy really; you just need to train yourself to look to Cardiff rather than to London.

Plaid Whitegate said...

John - if you're going to make threats, at least make coherent threats. Caia allotment holders are fine upstanding people, so to be described as one is no libel.