Howridiculous.

At this stage, there are no plans afoot for a full redesign, but we took his suggestions (and those of other contributors) on board in refreshing the site and improving the functionality.

Thanks for your reply; but it did not answer my question about what happened to Liam’s offer to help and the suggestions he made.

Howridiculous.

Our priority is to make it easier for people to navigate around the site, providing better search and archive facilities.

Further decisions regarding design are pending.

Anyway – thanks for noticing!

Laura Miller – Hansard Society

I think this is a very important point that you have made! But how do you think that Parliament should regulate the regulator’s though? A Regulatory Committee which solely looks into regulators, or something more creative?

I suppose it’s a question of how far do you needed to go? I mean, if you are not careful things could take a large leap in the bureaucratic direction, dont you think?

I am not sure this is the right place but I just wanted to say how much I liked the new design!! A wonderfully atmospheric shot for the ‘troubled’ times in which we live.

Is this one of the designs suggested by one of the blog readers, was it Liam? If not, what happened about his suggestions and offer to help?

Howridiculous.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/11/multi-faith-prayers-for-parliament.html

I now read that there are plans to dispense with this. Is this a plan to remove the Lords Spiritual by stealth ? I’m not sure that removing the prayers altogether is going to help anyone [expect maybe Richard Dawkins] as surely having respect for religion generally starts with having respect for one specifically ?

I understand that at the moment when billions [trillions?] are being thrown around there is a danger of control being lost as every ‘good case’ jumps on the bandwagon which will then hurtle down the road to perdition.. and yet.. and yet..

These are not all ‘comfortable middle-class’ people. Many are people who, if the Government still provided for old people with a pension linked to average earnings, would never have ‘dabbled on the stock market’. They did so because the Government urged them to put their money in investments they might not fully have understood because they would protect themselves against the ravages of inflation.

Surely a moral obligation is owed at the very least to provide a hardship fund for the hardest hit ?

I can understand the view that they cannot be compensated because it is a ‘market failure’ which is somewhat distinct from the BCCI [Bank of Credit & Commerce International ] as it might set a dangerous precedent, and make people think that whatever they invest in, if it goes ‘pear-shaped’ the taxpayer will be there to pick up the tab.

Indeed, balancing risk vs reward is something we all have to learn to do in life. But I have to say that while my head told me this was ‘correct’ it didn’t feel right in my ‘heart’.

The Government had invested considerable sums of money persuading people to ‘save more’, ‘prepare for the future’, ‘Do not rely on the State for your pension and retirement’. And these people had ‘wisely’ followed this advice by not spending all their dosh on fancy holidays and cars. And their ‘reward’ for this was to lose their nest egg, and be told they would have to pursue legal action against Equitable Life and the regulator.