So, the boy George will pay us with our own money to go on a shopping spree as a reward for good behaviour! How daft is that?
It would be quite difficult to measure how well people recycle, and I don't think we want yet more surveillance from the Nanny State (eg electronic sensors in our wheelie bins)
Perhaps a better answer would be a two tier system, with a small reduction in council tax for those who use a recycling bin, and a higher charge for people who don't. (But even this would be difficult to monitor)
Also, as reported by Nick, the idea of the Treasury cutting budgets of Whitehall departments who don't meet 'emission targets' is equally daft. If a department has its budget slashed as a 'punishment', it is the public that will suffer, not the civil servants. Some budgets do need to be reduced - but these must be done to improve efficiency and to provide better value for money. It should not be based on some sort of 'competition' or failure to complete a bushtucker trial.
But is this story really true, as reported breathlessly by the BBC?
In Osborne's speech which can be read here, he mentions rewarding those who recycle "with £130 a year on average for every family that does their bit". I can't find any reference to 'shopping vouchers' as reported
Note, this was not a vote on the treaty, but whether to hold a referendum - which the LibDems had promised in their own manifesto.
There was another vote in the House of Lords on 11th June 2008 on a motion to hold a referendum. This time the Lib Dems voted against it. In other words, the LIbDem peers didn't want a referendum - despite the fact that it was part of their manifesto.
So my point was, both Labour and LibDems betrayed their own manifesto pledges.
But, after France and the Nethrlands both voted "no" in 2005, the whole project was put on hold because the treaty could not go ahead unless it was ratified by all EU member states.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the Labour Government originally said it would still go ahead with its own referendum, but later changed its mind saying there was "no point".
The constitutional treaty was then re-written and re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish voted "no" to this, but were persuaded to vote again after several gaurantees were offered.
The French and Dutch were not given an opportunity to vote again even though they had already voted "no" the first time.
The UK did not get a referendum because the Labour government knew the answer would be "no" (the same as the French and Dutch). They justified this by claiming Lisbon was totally different to the original treaty. Of course that was not true.
One of the main people responsible for drafting the document, Valery Giscard d'Estaing admitted the old and the new treaties were really the same thing, and the new Lisbon Treaty was still intended to be a new constitution.
So, you ask "If it is your case that the proposed Constitution was effectively the same thing as Lisbon, say so"
The answer is yes! This has been stated many times! They are effectively the same (even Giscard d'Estaing says so - see the links above). That is why UK citizens are angry that Brown signed the treaty without giving us the promised referendum.