OK you've taken the mick, now how practically do you propose to deal with the consultation? I'm afraid three things mean the profession will lose big time. Firstly it no good talking about striking, secondly you're in a dream world if you think there will be solidarity within or between the professions, and finally PCT is government policy. Tesco/G4S/Virgin will be happy to take the Ministry of Justice cash. Though I believe there are already large solicitors firms preparing to enter into the consultation with a view to bidding. Doing nothing or standing on the sidelines shouting a las barricadas is a recipe for disaster The President of the Law Society lives in the real world. In op-ed piece in on line version of the Gazette is on the right track! http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/solicitors-must-engage-pct-consultation

1) My recollection is that the Law Society argued that franchising would destroy the independent high street lawyer. Once the government was involved, then it would use its contracting power to squeeze prices to such an extent that it would be difficult for small firms to survive on legal aid alone.The Society has not been proved wrong. In my local area all three firms offering Legal Aid have closed. 2) No contract has been offered yet, so it's difficult to predict just what the ultimate reaction of firms like Tuckers would be. The idea they would not be involved in negotiating within the consultation with the result the firm would cease trading , is fanciful. If no solicitors were prepared to tender then the field would be left open to the ABSs and/or the Public Defender Service. The latter has clearly been tested by the Ministry of Justice 'as a safeguard against market failure' see para #467 3rd bullet point. 4) Of course the Tories didn't get a majority in 2010. That hardly matters.The coalition has a majority in Parliament. The LibDems will have agreed to the consultation document. It has been robustly supported by their Minister, Lord MacNally. This is what is reported he warned last week "that while the MoJ would listen to feedback from the consultation, it wants to ‘maintain the momentum for the reforms’ and will not turn back. ‘The profession will undergo a restructuring – it will be painful and there will be resistance, but it is inevitable,’ he said. PCT is a Labour concept, and although there is a lot of grandstanding by a few of their MPs, it is hard to see them voting it down.

I'm surprised no one on the statutory backstop side hasn't mentioned the protection offered to the press by Art 10 of the European convention, now incorporated into the HRA. Of course most of the media rubbishing Leveson want to withdraw from the convention

for genuine libertarians,tax, except for pretty limited uses is worse than theft, it's forced labour and forced labour is slavery! t

@matt, there's a paper by monica threlfall from the royal statistical society on your point http://www.radstats.org.uk/no088 Threlfall88.pdf t

nice to see you again ronnie. prisoners on remand already vote. they have a postal vote. i suspect this will happen when convicted prisoners are given the vote. the summary of evidence from the house of commons political and constitutional reform committee can be found here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpolcon/776/77602.htm

yep, just love those rhymes

chris, is your definition of productivity gdp/hours worked? if not, what difference,if any, would that make? t

don't lose any sleep,there's nothing jammed. and there's me thinking it was the content that was important. have you seen this? http://thelowercaseblog.blogspot.com/

Adam, the difficulty with your assertions is that there is absolutely no evidence that this nonsense works. those who support its effectiveness must produce some evidence. don't waste your time looking for research- there is none t

the acpo guidelines are clear. i'm simply inviting a careful study. t

nope on these figures, brown will try to form a government.

sam_m is that better? t

Roger, I'm suprised that Sizer has not as yet claimed his piece has been used by AAAGH, without his authority/knowlege. Most bloggers are aware that their stuff can be used on other sites, sometimes out of context. Often this goes unnoticed, but in this case the piece was pointed out to the author. Had that happened to me,I would have e-mailed the site involved and asked them to remove the offending piece. Had they not done so, my next step would have been to complain to their web host. If those actions had failed I would have been in a position to explain what had happened to any interested enquirer. No way would I complain to the police let alone then go on to lie that one of my correspondants had been 'cautioned' by the police when I knew, or ought to have known, the truth. t t

i remember the bishop of carlisle blaming the floods in yorkshire on homosexuals. not presumably in yorkshire though! t