Thanks for the vigorous discussions - I have enjoyed taking part! And from the middle of September, look out for BBCLauraK on Twitter if you are so inclined.

I'll be trying to make 140 characters count from the start of the conference season - events kick off with the TUC in Liverpool.

Figures out today from the Office of National Statistics about worklessness have been seized on by the Conservatives.

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May says they are "scandalous".

They show that the number of people of working age who live in homes where no one has a job has gone up by half a million in the past year. That sounds like a sharp rise and takes the total to 4.8 million.

And for all the people who have lost their jobs, leaving their household without income from work, the effects can of course be devastating.

The figures also show a rise in the number of children living in households where there is no earner - up 170,000 to 1.9 million - an increase which puts the government's target of cutting child poverty further out of reach.

For any government, a rise in the number of people not earning, not contributing tax to the Treasury's coffers, and perhaps requiring financial support from the state is a concern - especially at a time when the screw on public spending is tightening.

But what might surprise you is that while unemployment has been growing fast, the figures show that the increase in the rate of workless households (the proportion of homes in which no adults work) is not in fact so rapid - it's increased by only 1.1 percentage points in the last twelve months to 3.3 million.

That may be the highest year on year increase since 1997, but 1.1% doesn't sound like a lot.

So what does that really tell us? Is this a rise due to recession or a more long term problem?

Well, one social policy expert suggested to me is that what is striking about the figures is how high they were before the recession really began to bite - even this time last year, in roughly one in six homes no one had a job.

So given that, it's hard for the government to blame the number of homes where no one has a job simply on the results of the recession.

But what is a realistic level to expect? It may help to take a closer look at which households are counted in the "workless" totals?

For instance, they don't include households where the occupants are only pensioners. Nor do they include homes where people don't work but live with someone that does, for example a mother or father who stays at home and cares for children while their partner goes out to work.

But the figures do include people who care for a relative at home full time in a household with no other earner, and single parents who don't work (although there's been an increase of more than 10% in the rate of single parents going out to work since 1997).

They also include people who can't work because of disability, people who are recuperating after illness and those who have been lucky enough to be able to choose to retire early.

So, taking that into account, it is clear that there are always going to be households that qualify as workless. But experts suggest that if everyone who could work was working the remaining households might only represent about one in 10, significantly fewer than the current level even before the recession.

Out of the three million or so people claiming out of work benefits on the grounds of disability, research has suggested that at least third of them could do some form of work, and want to.

The employment minister Jim Knight says the government has made real progress in tackling worklessness and points out that there are 2.5 million more people in work than in 1997.

Yet today's figures show that major obstacles clearly still exist for any future government to tackle, if and when the current downturn ends.

PS Theresa May will be attacking the government on its welfare record in a speech tomorrow. But a word of caution - the research the Conservatives are circulating ahead of the speech uses figures from the 2001 census.

Of course she may well still make a compelling argument, but the figures she's using are eight years old. No political party though can quibble with today's stats from the ONS.

In fact, the figures just published by the Electoral Commission show that donations given between April and June this year were the fourth highest ever in any quarter.

The most generous donor was David Rowland, a financier, who gave more than a million pounds to the Conservatives.

The next five donors in order of largesse were all unions, giving money to the Labour party. You can take a look at the figures here. We'll be looking out for any interesting names - more later.

Update, 13:16: The money men...(and woman).

For all the political grumbling about "unacceptable" levels of bonuses in the City and tough words for irresponsible City practices, the list of the top donors to the political parties is still populated by plenty of people who earned their money in the City.

The top donor is David Rowland who gave more than a million pounds to the Conservative party.

He has told the BBC that he's planning to channel plenty more cash to the Tories in the next two years because he has a "passionate concern for liberty and the economic future of Britain".

He says Cameron's Conservatives will "set the people free" and has given them a cheque for a million pounds to make their mission that bit easier.

He says he is now living in London so that he can support the party rather than Guernsey where he had been based.

Others giving large amounts of money to the Conservatives - Michael Hintze and Michael Farmer for instance - have both made money from hedge funds.

There's also more than £300,000 from IPGL, a financial services business chaired by Michael Spencer, the treasurer of the Conservative party.

There's also a large donation from Susan Anstey, otherwise known as Lady Ashcroft, the wife of Michael Ashcroft, who is funding the Conservatives' work in marginal constituencies and has a desk in Tory HQ.

Labour is also receiving money from financiers - Sir Ronald Cohen, close to Gordon Brown, has given another quarter of a million pounds, along with Nigel Doughty a private equity man.

Labour has also been given cash by Hillside New Media, Ltd - the company behind the online gambling site Bet 365.

Labour might not be that impressed to know that the site is currently offering odds of 1/2 that the Conservatives will win the next election - Alan Johnson is the 1/1 favourite to be the next leader of the Labour party.

But their donations from the private sector are dwarfed by contributions from their union supporters - their top five donors were all unions, giving nearly £3m between them.

The Liberal Democrats biggest donors are Lord Alliance, the textiles millionaire, and the Joseph Rowntree Trust. Between them they gave nearly half a million pounds.

In an answer that appeared to have been carefully planned as you would expect, Mr Brown said that his first thoughts were always with the families of those who lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.

And on the reception that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi received in Libya, the PM said he had been "angry and repulsed".

But on the inevitable question over what he thought of the decision to release of Megrahi well we are not any clearer.

Mr Brown said he had told Colonel Gaddafi that the Westminster government had no role in the decision over Megrahi.

And that as it was a matter for the devolved parliament, and a quasi judicial one at that (not something that Downing Street has chosen to highlight in recent days) the UK government "had no control and could not interfere".

The PM denied that UK relations with other nations had been undermined by Kenny MacAskill's decision.

So will it stop the opposition parties asking what the PM thinks of the decision?

Probably not, but by taking questions on the controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber, Mr Brown can no longer be accused of being the invisible man.

PS Due to a mistyping, an earlier version of this post read "Lebanon" where it should obviously have read "Libya". Apologies.

While the Conservatives and the Lib Dems clamour for him to speak, he seems more focused on the obvious risks to him of making a statement. If he was perceived to support the decision, he would incur American wrath, but the opposite could infuriate the Libyans. Not an easy position to be in.

Incidentally, the explanation given by Downing Street for the lack of comment on the decision has consistently been that it is a devolved matter. But what happens when Mr Brown is next in Scotland and wants to take on the SNP? What happens during the next election campaign for the Scottish Parliament? Will he and other Labour figures refuse to comment on SNP decisions on issues that are devolved? That's hardly likely, but is the logical conclusion of this stance.

Dear Andrew
 
I wanted to write to congratulate you and the entire England squad on regaining the Ashes. The series has been yet another wonderful showcase for cricket and for all that is great about sport. It has provided high sporting drama throughout the summer that has yet again gripped the entire nation, and to win the Ashes with your magnificent display at the Oval - and coming back from the defeat at Headingley in the Fourth Test - shows great determination and commitment.
 
There have been many outstanding performances this summer on both sides, but throughout the series you have led England from the front, with patience, resolution and courage. The country is extremely proud of what you have achieved this summer.
 
I would like to invite the England squad in to Downing Street for a reception to celebrate your victory. We will be in touch to arrange this very shortly.

That's despite repeated calls from the Conservatives, and some voices from the United States, demanding that he speak out.

No 10's insistence that it would be improper for Mr Brown to speak on Lockerbie is given some support by the former Liberal leader Lord Steel this morning, who says the PM is right to keep quiet, given the constitutional responsibility for the decision lies with Holyrood.

But as former Labour minister and Scottish MP Tom Harris told me last night on Radio 4's Westminster Hour, there is no fixed principle that dictates that UK ministers keep quiet on devolved issues. He said that during his time as a minister he was in frequent contact with his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't quite chime with ministers' repeated assertions that they had no involvement whatsoever in this decision. And given its magnitude, and obvious wider consequences for UK-wide policy, if they weren't involved, shouldn't they have been?

Gordon Brown will make a fleeting appearance in London this week - will he insist on holding his tongue? Or will this be another episode where days of prime ministerial silence ends in an answer having to be dragged out of Mr Brown to try to close down a row?

She says Mr Cameron's efforts to get more women into parliament threaten to fill the House of Commons with "second class citizens". After gaffes last week by Alan Duncan and Daniel Hannan that threatened to ruin the end of the party leader's holiday, it's not exactly helpful to the Conservative high command. But the Tories aren't alone in having to deal with internal struggles over positive discrimination.

Labour's had its own disputes too, with ructions in some constituencies over the creation of all women shortlists - with some complaints that Harriet Harman is doggedly trying to enforce her preferred policy that women should be fielded in half of all winnable seats in any area.

And rest assured, as we get nearer and nearer the general election, gripes about how prospective MPs will be chosen for seats will get louder. With more MPs expected to announce they are standing down next year, this is a battle that will be fought time and time again.

And the decision by the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, to release him has provoked a very strong response from David Cameron. He said:

"I think this is wrong and it's the product of some completely nonsensical thinking in my view. If there's a view that the conviction is in some way unsafe, then the proper process is an appeal and the presentation of new evidence. But if this is about genuine release on compassionate grounds I think it is wrong. This man was convicted of murdering 270 people. He showed no compassion to them. They weren't allowed to go home and die with their relatives in their own bed and I think this is a very bad decision."

Of course it's easier to speak in such terms in opposition, but it's fascinating that he's chosen to intervene in such an impassioned and public way, rather than allowing the Conservative leader in Scotland, Annabel Goldie, to lead on the issue.

On top of what is no doubt a genuine anger, it may also suit him to be seen standing alongside the United States rather than the SNP.

It's certainly a sharp contrast to Alistair Darling, who, stepping in for Gordon Brown while he continues his holiday in Scotland, pointedly resisted an invitation to comment on the merits of the decision.

He told the BBC:

"[Y]ou either devolve responsibility for criminal justice or you don't. And I bet you if I'd been saying to you what Kenny McAskill ought to do many people would have cried foul and said, you've devolved...why are you interfering."

But that doesn't mean there is no Labour view on the decision - quite the contrary. The Labour leader in Scotland, Iain Gray, has said that if he had been leading the Scottish administration, Megrahi would not be going back to Libya.

That chimes with the view of the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, Tavish Scott, who described the SNP verdict as "disappointing". The Lib Dem's Cowley Street operation in Westminster left it to him to give their view.

PS One or two people questioned my assertion yesterday that before devolution this decision would have been taken by the UK government because the Scottish legal system has always been separate. But my understanding is that ultimately the decision would have still fallen to a politician, which pre-devolution would have been someone who was part of the same administration as the occupant of No 10.

But the eagle eyed among you might have noticed the government borrowing figures published today. They were always going to be bad, but this bad?

The deficit of £8bn for July is the worst figure for that month since modern records began in 1993.

You can have a look at them for yourself here [311KB PDF].

Why? In simple terms, tax revenues have slumped and the amount being paid out in benefits is up.

That was to be expected but the fact that the figures are so bad appears to undermine further the chancellor's predictions on how fast the economy will recover.

And it reduces still further any flexibility the winners of next year's general election will have as the strings of the public purse get tighter and tighter.

The Tories are well aware of this and accuse the government of denying there is a debt problem, calling that an "outright deception". The Lib Dems say the figures suggest we're heading for even higher levels of debt.

Despite that the chancellor told the BBC this lunchtime that the figures were "still broadly in line with what we were expecting", although he hinted again at spending cuts in the medium term, saying the government will have to "live within its means".

That's one way of putting it given that borrowing is already expected to hit £175bn in this financial year.

PS From your posts last night, it's obvious that plenty of this blog's readers really object to the government's DNA database, although there are strong arguments in support of its importance as a crime fighting tool.

Well you might be interested to know that since the December 2008 court ruling that said the blanket gathering of DNA from people arrested in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was illegal, 301, 469 profiles have been added to the computer anyway.

(That figure includes those who have been arrested and never charged, as well as those who have been arrested and charged and then cleared, as well as those who are still in the legal system and of course those who have already been convicted.)

The National Policing Improvement Agency which keeps these statistics says that figure covers the period from 5 December 2008 to 8 July 2009.

So whatever the merits of holding samples from people who is not convicted, many thousands are being added to the database on a weekly basis while the Home Office considers its next move.

That's on top of the many thousands of those never convicted - the Conservatives estimate it to be about 800,000 - whose DNA is already on there.

Well although he was never charged with anything, like many thousands of others in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, his DNA details were kept by the police. Tonight he's told the BBC that his details are to be erased, after appeals from his solicitor.

Yet for many others, never convicted of a crime, having your personal profile removed from the giant DNA database proves nearly impossible.

We've spoken to someone whose 18-month legal battle to get his name removed has so far failed, for tonight's Ten O'Clock News.

Mr Green is now calling for other records to be expunged and says, if in government, the Conservatives would follow the model of Scotland.

There, out of those arrested but not convicted, only those questioned about sexual or violent offences have their DNA stored.

The Home Office has already been told by the European Court that keeping the DNA of anyone who is arrested indefinitely is illegal. That was back in December. But despite a consultation on what to do next, don't expect any changes in the guidelines soon.

A letter passed to me, written to chief constables by the Association of Chief Police Officers, says the new guidelines won't come into effect until 2010.

So in the meantime, they've been told to carry on as normal.

As the Home Office told me, clearly, DNA can be a critical tool for detectives. But after Damian Green's experience, the Conservatives aren't likely to let this drop.

Not the row over the representation of the NHS in the United States, but the possible release of the only person ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the UK's worst ever terrorist attack.

I won't seek here to add to discussion of the mechanics of the decision, or its likely outcome. My colleague, Brian Taylor has written comprehensively about the Scottish government's decision making process here.

Yet whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, and whether or not Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is released, it creates an interesting conundrum in the post devolution world.

The decision on whether to give him his freedom will be made finally by Kenny MacAskill, the SNP Scottish Justice Minister, and member of the Holyrood Parliament.

Not Gordon Brown, not the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, not anyone at the Foreign Office, not anyone in Westminster.

We have heard considerably more from the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton on the subject than any of our Westminster politicians - she's made her views plain again today.

That's because despite the massive interest, and its potential impact on foreign policy, in the end this is a legal decision, and as such under devolution it is the Scottish Parliament that has jurisdiction over the law.

Foreign policy is not devolved, and power over matters relating to the UK's relation to the world is retained by the UK government. And of course the decision over Megrahi does have consequences for the UK's relationship with Libya.

There has been a lot of speculation over what role the rapprochement between the two governments has played in all of this. (You might remember Colonel Gaddafi met Tony Blair in a Bedouin tent in 2004, signalling his move from pariah to international partner).

But no matter. This is a decision for the Scottish government in Edinburgh despite the foreign policy implications. And given the hostility between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, a word in the ear from London would hardly be welcome.

And just in the last hour, the International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander, has made it clear, this is not a Westminster decision.

To my mind this is a striking consequence of devolution.

It's no surprise that decisions over health, for example, can have immediate consequences for the border regions of the UK, and have led to some levels of resentment in England where some things have to be paid for that are still free in Scotland or Wales.

But this case shows starkly that Holyrood and Cardiff can still have massive influence even over areas of policy that are not technically in their gift.

When Mr MacAskill takes to the podium to pronounce his final decision, expected tomorrow, he will be all too aware of that.

Labour is clearly enjoying this recently-rare chance to stick the knife into the Conservatives - they believe that the massive online defence of the NHS shows that they're on the right side. The health service is tribal for them.

And the Conservative leadership is so determined not to be seen as the enemy of the health service that some of their comments today read a bit like NHS fanmail!

One recent poll showed the Conservatives and Labour equally trusted to run the health service: David Cameron doesn't want to throw that away. But with both sides engaged in such a black-and-white argument, I wonder whether either is really achieving very much.

Update 1617: Central to this transatlantic furore is David Cameron's determination for his party to be seen as a safe pair of hands for the health service. So how has he done? And has New Labour's spendfest on the NHS paid off politically?

Here is some intriguing evidence from the pollsters Ipsos Mori about who voters think has the best health policies. The numbers relate to voters who name health as an important issue.

It shows a real slide in support for Labour's policies - from 62% in 1995, down to 31% in 2007 (the way the poll was done changed in 2008). That was during all the time that the NHS was seeing a massive increase in its budget.

That's mirrored by a steady rise in the belief that the Conservatives have the best recipe: from a tiny 8% in 1995 (an extraordinarily low base), to a healthier 20% in 2007.

Interestingly, that is very slightly lower than it was when Michael Howard took the party into the last general election. And although it's certainly higher than it was back in the late 1990s, it's nothing like the level of support this particular group of respondents gave Labour in the years before the 1997 landslide.

I would emphasise that this is just one set of poll results from one group of people - but nevertheless a fascinating snapshot.

Andrew Lansley joined his boss in trying to hold the party leadership's line this morning, defending the party's commitment to the NHS after Daniel Hannan's distinctly off-message comments.

And of course, Labour have jumped in feet first. Lord Mandelson, the "other PM" while Gordon Brown's away, claimed that the "two faces" of the Conservative Party had been exposed. And the health secretary Andy Burnham said Mr Hannan's intervention was Mr Cameron's "worst nightmare".

Now, Daniel Hannan would be regarded by the majority of Tories as on the right of the party - his views aren't typical and any attempt from Labour to portray them as such should be seen in that light. But after David Cameron's particular efforts to portray his party as sincere supporters of the NHS, the Conservatives did not want to be having this conversation now.

Pundit and punter Mike Smithson speculates about this row at Political Betting: in the quiet summer period, might it just push things a little towards Labour? We'll see.

PS: Incidentally, whatever you think of the Republican campaign criticising the NHS, it has certainly caught the imagination of thousands of Americans. Sunny at Pickled Politics has written an interesting post about its effectiveness as a campaign [some mildly strong language]: are there discipline lessons for British politicians?

Daniel Hannan, the right-wing Conservative MEP who scored his own hit on YouTube earlier this year, appeared on Fox News in the United States last Friday to talk about the NHS - you probably know that America is engaged in a torrid debate about President Obama's proposals to introduce an element of public provision in healthcare.

In his interview on Fox, Mr Hannan made disparaging comments about the health service: as well as earning him a telling-off from the Conservatives' shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, a growing number of people have since joined a Twitter campaign lending support to the NHS.

Those posting include the prime minister, his wife and various cabinet ministers. "#welovethenhs" has become one of Twitter's "trending topics" - which, for those us who are not technologically savvy, means it's a subject that's gathering pace.

Rumour has it that Graham Linehan, the author of Father Ted, started the groundswell. Whoever it was, it's another fascinating example of how quickly, and how directly technology can respond to political events, and how it can help people to take part.

And Paul Goodman - a colleague of Mr Duncan who will escape Westminster when he stands down at the next election - has written an interesting warning for candidates hoping to become MPs.

As we saw in the US last year, with more people carrying phones with cameras and with more of us reading and writing blogs and using instant communication, it is increasingly hard for politicians to have moments when they are genuinely "off-duty".

Recordings of candidates who believe they are off-duty can be very damaging: remember Obama's "God and guns" remark, made when he thought he was talking only to a private audience?

But is this development a good or a bad thing? Is Mr Goodman right when he suggests that politicians, like everyone else, need to be able to "let off steam"?

Or should levels of scrutiny be so intense that every word that comes out of their mouths is beyond reproach?

We understand that David Cameron is pretty peeved by what Mr Duncan said - but, given the shadow leader's speedy apology yesterday, will Mr Cameron go any further?

I wonder if you can really be sacked for saying aloud what many of your colleagues might think.