@Edward Huxley: envy?

So they don't turn up in the European Parliament when they need to be there to defend British interests, pocket the money and then put it in a tax avoiding trust fund for the kids. Real mould breakers UKIP!

Nuclear subsidies?

Londoners will want to know how much they will have to cough up, given the vast amounts that the tax payer has already contributed, and also how much West Ham will be contributing. http://glaconservatives.co.uk/blog/west-ham-stadium-deal-londoners-deserve-to-know-how-much-theyll-have-to-cough-up/

Promoted by the United Kingdom Independence Party, at Lexdrum House, Unit 1, King Charles Business Park, Heathfield, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6UT

Legalise the lot.

Stand corrected. Though it doesn't detract from the fact that we could leave the eu tomorrow (which would be nice) but it wouldn't affect our relationship with the ECHR. ps: I'm not a legislator.

Nope, that's the European Court of Justice. Spends its time talking about fish quotas and straight bananas.

So getting evidence by torture is OK as long as it's used against people we don't like.

I agree but the ECHR is not an EU institution.

Bye bye UKIP

@fred I think you're probably right. A new design should learn from the examples in other countries and apply it to a London context. I do not think that just looking where accidents were, which is Jennie Jones' proposal, would have been enough: we shouldn't wait around for fatalities to happen before taking action. A design guide would provide a template for all junctions so that we can anticipate where accidents are likely to happen.

@tommi - It certainly is not the status quo - TfL are remarkably opaque when it comes to revealing raw data, road designs pop out of nowhere after being considered by 'experts' and the LCC are not involved at a design level but are just consultees. As to the design guide, there are guides, standards and technical manuals but no one place to test good practice in design that can not only be used to design new junctions but reveal the weaknesses in existing ones.

I'm astonished that there is an impression that the unanticipated rescheduling of some motions has any effect at all on the improving safety record for cyclists. If we thought for one millisecond that the absence of the debate today was going to result in the safety record of London's roads getting worse we simply wouldn't have taken the action we took. Quite frankly, the narrow motion that was presented could do with a period of reflection; the motion as presented just requested information from the Mayor- our group wanted action. The walkout was about democracy, pure and simple. We do not have a majority on the Assembly, we do not seek a majority of the say in the direction of Assembly business. What we are seeking is that 40% of Londoners are not maliciously cut out of a full role of scrutiny of the Mayor. It's about fairness and representation. To disguise it as anything else is simply wrong.

We walked out on item 6 where once again the other parties decided to deprive the 40% of Londoners who voted for us a voice. The motion by a member on cycling was the very last debate at item 11. It cannot reasonably be argued that the action was about that issue. That motion amounted to a collection of freedom of information requests concerning only 10 accident spots. This can still be pursued without a motion. We did not refuse to debate - indeed we proposed an amendment which would have read: This Assembly deeply regrets the deaths of cyclists on London's road network and wishes to express its condolences for the loss felt by their relatives and friends. We are concerned that, despite a falling accident rate amongst cyclists, more should be done to increase the confidence that cyclists have in the road network and calls on the Mayor to: Publicly engage with cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign on a review of all future major schemes on the TLRN; Review the design of the major junctions on the Cycle Superhighways and publish the findings; Ensure that raw accident data is made publicly available; Prepare and publish a design guide to inform and instruct all future schemes. Despite the positive nature of this motion and call for Mayor's action, as opposed to just information, Jennie Jones, whose support it would require, rejected this. We regret that the members of other parties have decided to fix the democratic process so that only they get to chair major committees, unlike the practice in the House of Commons where such committees are chaired by all parties. And, as a reminder, the London Assembly is a scrutiny body with no executive powers.

Experiences from Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney and even London suggest that Salford would be very unwise. Democracy is not improved by concentrating power in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

What an excellent choice! This guy WORKS!

The party with the largest eurosceptic membership is the Conservative Party. Some of us think that leaving the EU next Tuesday is not soon enough but we just happen to have views on other things as well. UKIP are a pressure group who, by splitting the eurosceptic vote, are prolonging the agony of our EU membership.

If it's not natural, who invented it? Could you also provide a list of those documents and a comparison with the state of the evironment in those countries where capitalism has been expunged.

Why not have a debate about the morality of the weather.

It's about the extent to which a two-thirds majority should be required to change legislation. http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29016-E.pdf

If not now, when? Give us a date.

This is all about national vanity. Grassroots sport would gain so much if Government would stop being obsessed about hosting world championships. Government's insistence on the athletics track being retained at the Olympic Stadium is all about hosting the 2017 World Athletics Championship which it is backing to the tune of another £25 million. This means that the stadium is now unattractive to any bidders who may want to give it a sustainable use. The justification for this is that, if they win the bid, this could mean £95 million worth of earnings for the UK. This figure is in a confidential report so we can't test that highly dubious assumption. Spending half the money on encouraging grass-roots sport would reduce the number of fat kids and may give us those champions of the future from their number. Spending money on TV sporting events just sells more sofas and take-outs. Unfortunately, the political class don't think like that - for them it's about reputation, national pride and the hope of getting snapped at the opening ceremony.

We should come back to this debate at a time when heads are a little clearer, crisis is not on our doorstep and we have allowed time for the Government to make the changes on the mandates on which we were elected. By then and only then will we have the time and space for a reasoned debate on Europe. Date? Time?

Replacing the Big Society with a streetwise description of compassionate conservatism. Otherwise written as replacing "doing good with people to make them feel better" with "doing good at people to make us feel better".