It would be more appropriate to state that Labour promise to extend their "non-jobs" pledge" Anyone who thinks these so called "jobs" might be long lasting needs their head examining.
It's better than the Tory slave-driving, useless workfare effort.
None of these schemes are a silver bullet. That will only come from root and branch reform of the broken UK economic model itself.
But Labour schemes have a much better record than cheapskate Tory ones.
Mr. Barber, whilst not something of which I would approve, a far better proposal to reform the Lords than Clegg's deranged one off 15 year terms would be to make the Upper House the House of Britain and the lower House the House of England. The Upper House would have the position the Commons currently does over devolved bodies, and the Lower House would assume responsibilities equal to those of Holyrood, but for England.
I'm not comfortable with the UK Senate being populated by "peers" Better for there to be democratic accountability.
No doubt that for practical purposes, the Commons would become the English Commons and the Lords would be the seat of the Senate.
Surely all we need is EV4EL? Would that not resoleve all the WLQ issues? (I'd myself prefer a full English Parliament - but if devomax is going to be the compromise result of the impending NO vote for Scotland then simply barring Scottish MPs from votes on devolved matters is the least painful route to a workable way of doing things).
EV4EL doesn't work (at the moment) because of the Barnett Formula, that might be reworked if devo-max comes in.
The other huge issue is one of how the government is formed. If a party has a majority only because of Scottish MPs, then it cannot operate if it has no majority for English laws. Not to mention how Scottish ministers would be possible in that situation.
EV4EL only works on an informal basis, probably not even then...It needs more.
Barnett must be scrapped. It is a ridiculous anomaly.
On your other point - you're probably right. We need a Devolution Equalisation Act which brings in a federal UK. And an English Parliament. Devloved matters run by devolved parilaments and UK matters (defence, foreign, treasury, etc) run by westminster. Plenty of other countries work just fine on a federal / devolved basis.
King Cole, it combines the worst aspects of democratic and appointed/hereditary politics.
They would pander to the electorate for votes, and then be unremovable. And, if they actually were good at their jobs, they'd be unable to remain.
The way to get the best of both is just to ennoble everybody. You don't even need any legislation - just make some procedural tweaks to things like voting procedures and expenses rules to make them better able to handle having 50 million members, then send a copy of the electoral register to The Queen.
So, we would bring back the death penalty and withdraw from the EU?
No, because you'd still have the Commons and they don't seem to want those things. You might get an EU referendum though.
It would be more appropriate to state that Labour promise to extend their "non-jobs" pledge" Anyone who thinks these so called "jobs" might be long lasting needs their head examining.
It's better than the Tory slave-driving, useless workfare effort.
None of these schemes are a silver bullet. That will only come from root and branch reform of the broken UK economic model itself.
But Labour schemes have a much better record than cheapskate Tory ones.
Labour's record on unemployment is dismal. You always increase it. The various Labour schemes are strictly for the birds.
It would be more appropriate to state that Labour promise to extend their "non-jobs" pledge" Anyone who thinks these so called "jobs" might be long lasting needs their head examining.
It's better than the Tory slave-driving, useless workfare effort.
None of these schemes are a silver bullet. That will only come from root and branch reform of the broken UK economic model itself.
But Labour schemes have a much better record than cheapskate Tory ones.
Labour's record on unemployment is dismal. You always increase it. The various Labour schemes are strictly for the birds.
Never been as high as 3m as it was under the Tories.
It's looking more and more likely that the PP will be out of office after the next election, as there does not seem to be a potential coalition partner for them out there. In turn, that should mean that a settlement will be found for the current stand-off over Catalonia. Artur Mas, who leads the regional government there, has restated that there will be a "consultation" on sovereignty later this year, even though it will have no force in law.
If PP is booted out next year (the GE has to be held by 20th December), there will be a relatively swift agreement to grant Catalonia the level of devolved power the Basque country has and this will then be approved by referendum in Catalonia. It should all be done and dusted by the end of 2017, if not before. Should that happen and Scotland has meanwhile voted Yes, that will lead to a fast-tracking of Scottish EU membership, subject to terms being agreed between Scotland and current member states. So an independent Scotland could be a full EU member by the end of 2018.
Thanks, most interesting.
Cheers - note this is my analysis only. It could turn out to be bollocks. But I am pretty good on Spain - much more so than the US!!
It is pretty clear, though, that what Catalonia really wants is Devomax, a bit like Scotland I suspect. Devomax is easier to secure in Spain because there is already a multi-faceted system of devolved power with different regions having different levels, so giving Catalonia more powers would not really affect everyone else that much - except in one area ... The big issue that will need to be resolved with Catalonia is taxation. In theory, Devomax means keeping most of what is raised in a region, but Catalonia generates a lot of tax money, which central government needs. One of the catalysts for the present stand-off is that Catalonia gets back much less than it sends. Devomax will need to change that, but also preserve a level of redistribution. It is doable, but not with the Spanish nationalist PP in power in Madrid.
Cameron would have won hands down if he'd had the guts to face down his backbenchers and go for devomax. The only comment I would have is that the Spanish have already agreed they'd not obstruct indy Scots continuing membership of EU. But not having Mr Cameron's chum I/c, or an even more right wing replacement, would help a lot as you say.
If you are into Iberian politics you might want to look at http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/ - mainly Scottish pols but with a Catalan infusion.
It would be more appropriate to state that Labour promise to extend their "non-jobs" pledge" Anyone who thinks these so called "jobs" might be long lasting needs their head examining.
It's better than the Tory slave-driving, useless workfare effort.
None of these schemes are a silver bullet. That will only come from root and branch reform of the broken UK economic model itself.
But Labour schemes have a much better record than cheapskate Tory ones.
Labour's record on unemployment is dismal. You always increase it. The various Labour schemes are strictly for the birds.
Never been as high as 3m as it was under the Tories.
Twice.
Because unemployment is a lagging factor, and labour break the economy for the tories to sort out...
The debate below shows why, unfortunately, Devomax could not be on the referendum ballot in Scotland this September. Unlike independence - which, in theory, should be a clean break - Devomax means a complete constitutional rework that will involve all parts of the UK in a relatively long process of negotiation. The Scots on their own cannot and should not determine how it should work.
King Cole, it combines the worst aspects of democratic and appointed/hereditary politics.
They would pander to the electorate for votes, and then be unremovable. And, if they actually were good at their jobs, they'd be unable to remain.
The way to get the best of both is just to ennoble everybody. You don't even need any legislation - just make some procedural tweaks to things like voting procedures and expenses rules to make them better able to handle having 50 million members, then send a copy of the electoral register to The Queen.
Originally, of course, the HoL was quite small, even allowing for inclusion of some abbots. It’s really only last and this century that it’s become the bloated monster that it is now.
Take you pint Mr Dancer, about electioneering, then being irremovable. In what way is that different to a safe seat now? I agree that we don’t want to recreate that, but I thought that some sort of right of recall was a given.
Because it is a fundamental tenet of international justice that a country wishing to resume its independence can vote for that without being overshadowed by votes from the larger body politic of which it is currently part. What you are (I think) asking is not quite the same thing, I agree - but to my mind the problem is that asking the very question by implication violates that principle, because one of the options (a No to Scottish independence) would be contrary to it.
By the way, I know Gordon Brown called himself North British rather than Scottish on TV once - but less of the "North Britain" please, it's got specific connotations which don't help your argument to be taken seriously (which I have, as I hope is evident). [And to be pedantic also Ulster is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is a much safer usage.]
If one wanted a UK sans Scotland one would presumably have to get England to vote to leave the UK and for Wales and Ireland then to vote to form a new UK with England.
So I get that a region may wish to vote on secession. What I don't get is that a region that wants to secede or accede - or remain a dependency, or whatever - apparently gets to do so without the governing country itself having a say. At what point does the seceding region's right of self determination trump the larger entity's own right to decide whether to keep them or not?
Gibraltar and the Falklands are obvious instances. Both want to remain UK dependencies and I can see why, but their doing so connotes a defence commitment and also the expenditure of UK diplomatic capital. Why is that their call alone? At what point does the principle that "a country wishing to resume its independence can vote for that without being overshadowed by votes from the larger body" outweigh the same right on the part of that larger country?
Historically countries have tended to be acquisitive of other countries but in a more globalised world it seems plausible to me that this might reverse.
Incidentally I should explain that I use 'North Britain' advisedly. It is not at all clear to me that, if we ever got to an English plebiscite on which parts of north Britain should be allowed to remain in the UK, the parts England would vote to part company with would comprise only, or all of, Scotland.
More very poor figures from France. From the Telegraph:
"French industrial production unexpectedly fell for a second month and business confidence declined, indicating the recovery may struggle to build momentum this quarter.
Output dropped 0.2pc in January from December, led by electricity and gas production, the country’s statistics office in Paris said today. Economists had forecast a 0.3pc increase. A separate report showed an index of business sentiment declined to 98 in February from 99 the previous month.
Annalisa Piazza, an analyst at Newedge Group in London, said: "The overall picture is less weak than headline figures suggest but France is certainly struggling to gain momentum. The French factory sector remains extremely fragile. "
Also very poor figures from Japan where monetary boosts have simply sucked in imports and growth is 0.7% for last year.
You might begin to conclude that "plan B" type boosts of public spending really only work in the very short term, if at all. Unless you are Ed Balls of course.
King Cole, safe seats don't always stay safe. Under the deranged Clegg proposals every single 'Senator' would have not merely a safe, but an invulnerable seat.
King Cole, it combines the worst aspects of democratic and appointed/hereditary politics.
They would pander to the electorate for votes, and then be unremovable. And, if they actually were good at their jobs, they'd be unable to remain.
The way to get the best of both is just to ennoble everybody. You don't even need any legislation - just make some procedural tweaks to things like voting procedures and expenses rules to make them better able to handle having 50 million members, then send a copy of the electoral register to The Queen.
Originally, of course, the HoL was quite small, even allowing for inclusion of some abbots. It’s really only last and this century that it’s become the bloated monster that it is now.
Take you pint Mr Dancer, about electioneering, then being irremovable. In what way is that different to a safe seat now? I agree that we don’t want to recreate that, but I thought that some sort of right of recall was a given.
I blame the Liberals. Always breaking things.
(peerages are divided into 'pre' and 'post' Lloyd George)
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
The debate below shows why, unfortunately, Devomax could not be on the referendum ballot in Scotland this September. Unlike independence - which, in theory, should be a clean break - Devomax means a complete constitutional rework that will involve all parts of the UK in a relatively long process of negotiation. The Scots on their own cannot and should not determine how it should work.
Very true. The same is true of course of independence though. The concept of a clean break is fine as a concept, but the negotiations underpinning the settlement will have a huge impact and ramifications for both countries.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
What exactly would be the objections to offering the English a vote on whether Wales, Ulster and North Britain should remain part of the UK?
I know it's not going to happen, but specifically and perhaps constitutionally, why would it not?
We hear all the time of plebiscites among the Falklanders and Gibraltarians about wanting to be ruled from UK. When and how did it become the norm that those you want to rule you don't get consulted?
It is fairly clear what would happen if North Britain or the Crimea voted to become the 51st state; why doesn't the same happen when some godforsaken sub-polar wasteland vote to be British or not?
Because it is a fundamental tenet of international justice that a country wishing to resume its independence can vote for that without being overshadowed by votes from the larger body politic of which it is currently part. What you are (I think) asking is not quite the same thing, I agree - but to my mind the problem is that asking the very question by implication violates that principle, because one of the options (a No to Scottish independence) would be contrary to it.
Re Gib and the Falklands - I assume that you (specifically) don't get consulted because you aren't a citizen but merely a subject of the Crown in Parliament and you'll do what you are dam' well told, or, if you prefer, you have entrusted it to those nice MPs at Westminster to use their judgement on your behalf. And in a political sense it's simply not important enough to rate a referendum.
By the way, I know Gordon Brown called himself North British rather than Scottish on TV once - but less of the "North Britain" please, it's got specific connotations which don't help your argument to be taken seriously (which I have, as I hope is evident). [And to be pedantic also Ulster is not the same as Northern Ireland, which is a much safer usage.]
Carnyx, the poster is just a troll so not worth wasting effort on his drivel
The debate below shows why, unfortunately, Devomax could not be on the referendum ballot in Scotland this September. Unlike independence - which, in theory, should be a clean break - Devomax means a complete constitutional rework that will involve all parts of the UK in a relatively long process of negotiation. The Scots on their own cannot and should not determine how it should work.
Very true. The same is true of course of independence though. The concept of a clean break is fine as a concept, but the negotiations underpinning the settlement will have a huge impact and ramifications for both countries.
I agree that the theory of independence as a clean break is much more compelling than the reality, but constitutionally it would have been impossible to justify not having a referendum and it would have been plain wrong too. The Act of Union is a voluntary arrangement and has to be based on consent. There is a big difference with, say, Spain here: less than 40 years ago the Catalans specifically voted overwhelmingly in favour of a constitution that guarantees the unity of Spain and which states this can only change if a majority of all Spaniards agree.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
The debate below shows why, unfortunately, Devomax could not be on the referendum ballot in Scotland this September. Unlike independence - which, in theory, should be a clean break - Devomax means a complete constitutional rework that will involve all parts of the UK in a relatively long process of negotiation. The Scots on their own cannot and should not determine how it should work.
I can't think of anyone ever preventing a politician asking a stupid question before.
King Cole, it combines the worst aspects of democratic and appointed/hereditary politics.
They would pander to the electorate for votes, and then be unremovable. And, if they actually were good at their jobs, they'd be unable to remain.
The way to get the best of both is just to ennoble everybody. You don't even need any legislation - just make some procedural tweaks to things like voting procedures and expenses rules to make them better able to handle having 50 million members, then send a copy of the electoral register to The Queen.
Originally, of course, the HoL was quite small, even allowing for inclusion of some abbots. It’s really only last and this century that it’s become the bloated monster that it is now.
Take you pint Mr Dancer, about electioneering, then being irremovable. In what way is that different to a safe seat now? I agree that we don’t want to recreate that, but I thought that some sort of right of recall was a given.
I blame the Liberals. Always breaking things. (peerages are divided into 'pre' and 'post' Lloyd George)
As a Liberal party agent some 40 years ago I was told that I’d been party to spending the last of the "Lloyd George" money.
@TSE That trial is going to be a circus, by the looks of it.
It was always going to be a circus, but doubly so with that list of prosecution witnesses.
Whatever the result of the trial, I can't imagine Nigel Evans will want to continue as an MP, imagine if he is found not guilty, would you want to go back to work where several of your colleagues/friends have testified against you?
@TSE That trial is going to be a circus, by the looks of it.
It was always going to be a circus, but doubly so with that list of prosecution witnesses.
Whatever the result of the trial, I can't imagine Nigel Evans will want to continue as an MP, imagine if he is found not guilty, would you want to go back to work where several of your colleagues/friends have testified against you?
Much depends what they are saying.
I noted with interest the suggestion last week that Nigel Evans being called by the Speaker again was a demonstration of solidarity with him. So much for that theory.
I am in sunny Switzerland. Busy day ahead and I jolly well hope that there aren't people on my plane home flying on stolen passports.
Since I was last on I have been promoted, which is nice - though the workload is as heavy as ever, alas.
My predictions: the Republicans will choose someone unelectable (again), Labour will (just) win and the Scots referendum will be very close. I rather hope the Yes campaign win simply because the No campaign has been so uninspiring and because a nation should decide its laws for itself in a grown up way but not really my fight. Also it would make politics fun again.
Off now to catch fraudsters.......
Congratulations Cyclefree. Is this a follow up to the grace period given to those who might have "overlooked" savings etc that are now being disclosed by the Swiss banking system under the new treaty?
No - think further East - even a part of the world which is currently in the news.
Are there votes in giving England a voice? I would have thought so.
Seems even the one eyed scottish idiot is going to propose something along these lines today. I suspect we are inexorably heading towards a more federal UK - as the alternative will be fragmentation.
What would happen if Dave or Redward spoke up and said 'actually an Equal Devolution Act would be very sensible and remove 99% of the pain from the Scotland debate'. Will one of the major parties get ahead of this?
Or is my own view getting ahead of a considered judgment on how this would play? Does the PB commentariat think there are votes to be won proposing a federal UK that gives England a presence and allows Scots deeper devloution?
@TSE That trial is going to be a circus, by the looks of it.
It was always going to be a circus, but doubly so with that list of prosecution witnesses.
Whatever the result of the trial, I can't imagine Nigel Evans will want to continue as an MP, imagine if he is found not guilty, would you want to go back to work where several of your colleagues/friends have testified against you?
Hell yeah. There must be all kinds of ways to abuse the parliamentary procedures to cause trouble for the bastards.
Mr. Patrick, I think an English Parliament would go down very well with the English.
Regional assemblies much less so (they've already been voted against).
Politicians don't seem to want an English Parliament because it would reduce the Westminster Government to Foreign and Defence matters, and some Treasury areas.
And the 'lopsided' argument is codswallop, in my view. If they didn't want devolution they shouldn't have started it. Giving Scotland and Wales complete political bodies but carving England up into little pieces is unacceptable.
It is the job of the Crown to put the relevant evidence before the court. Some of this may be exculpatory but what is significant here, given the nature of the charges, is that the evidence of the witnesses is thought to be relevant. That would indicate that they were aware or had witnessed at least some aspects of the accused's conduct with the alleged victims. What that might indicate one way or another, we will have to wait and see.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
Why am I not surprised?
Bookie websites are blocked from work and I never get around to looking at them at home, but I'd love to have a few quid with somebody that Yes will not just lose, but will lose thumpingly - I reckon not just south of 40% but well south, like low 30s.
Mr. Patrick, I think an English Parliament would go down very well with the English.
Regional assemblies much less so (they've already been voted against).
Politicians don't seem to want an English Parliament because it would reduce the Westminster Government to Foreign and Defence matters, and some Treasury areas.
And the 'lopsided' argument is codswallop, in my view. If they didn't want devolution they shouldn't have started it. Giving Scotland and Wales complete political bodies but carving England up into little pieces is unacceptable.
But it would be fabulous move for Dave.
Keeps UK together. Solves WLQ and Barnett. More deomcratic accountability where it counts. The pols who want to play in the devolved matters pools (you know the really vital issues like health and education) could spend their time there and the pols who wanted to play statesmen could play in the UK pool. Much less chance of England getting devolved solutions on the back of thin UK majority votes. 'Westminster' would come to mean both 'England' and also 'UK'.
Hell, he's got pretty much nothing to lose outside England anyway. And it is the right thing to do. And when Dave has decided something is right he's actually pretty good at defending it.
It is the job of the Crown to put the relevant evidence before the court. Some of this may be exculpatory but what is significant here, given the nature of the charges, is that the evidence of the witnesses is thought to be relevant. That would indicate that they were aware or had witnessed at least some aspects of the accused's conduct with the alleged victims. What that might indicate one way or another, we will have to wait and see.
The Crown has played some pretty bizarre tricks in recent high profile sex prosecutions. It will be interesting to see why it considers the evidence of so many MPs to be admissible and relevant. Obviously, for legal reasons, it cannot be reported whether they are being tendered as witnesses pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. One does not envy King J.
When will Ed Miliband and his interlocutors in the media understand that tax revenues are fungible?
If a new government programme is introduced it will almost always increase departmental administration costs. If the purpose of the new programme is to distribute resources to a favoured group then the additional spending can be substantial.
The jobs for unemployed youth scheme proposed by Miliband will increase government spending on both administration costs and in the subsidies provided to employers and employees.
The scheme should be costed on this basis alone.
Attempting to hide additional government spending by claiming costs will be covered by raising additional tax is simply deceitful.
Similarly an increase in taxes on bonus income and a restriction of tax relief on pension savings is increasing the tax burden imposed on the economy. It is simply putting taxes up and suppressing demand in the economy.
The Labour Party's "Job Guarantee" should therefore be reported and costed for what it is:
1. A new programme which increases government spending; and, 2. An increase in taxation.
The two are separate. Job subsidies are no more financed by bonus taxes than they are by Air Passenger Duties or Inheritance Tax or any other source of government revenue.
Further, if a new government programme is introduced at a time when aggregate public sector spending is not covered by aggregrate government revenues then the funding of any new government programme will require additional government borrowing. This condition will apply throughout the next term of Parliament.
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
Mr. Antifrank, London's English. You cannot argue for a Parliament of England which doesn't include the English capital.
London is the English capital, but it's becoming less and less like the country of which it is capital.
Given that my preferred solution of London independence is unlikely to eventuate in the very short term, my preference would be for a regional approach, though I doubt we need as many as we have. I'd suggest "London", "the South", "the Midlands" and "the North". If you put East Anglia with the Midlands, this would even look reasonably geographically sensible.
At the end of the day, we are always going to be be a small island, with a incredible city which provides wonderful, huge advantage for us as a country.
Let's embrace that, not tear it down.
" Great Britain is the ninth largest island in the world; the UK has the sixth largest economy"
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 1h UKIP taking 14% of 2010 CON voters while LAB takes 36% of 2010 LDs in latest Populus poll Both figs have to come down for CON to have chance. Putting both figures into the Calder Valley constituency,where it's Lab 4-5,Con Evens,and no other factors it gives Lab 41.32%,Con 33.89% as the position currently.Is a Tory win a 50% chance in 2015?
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
Indeed so Avery.
Yet I do not recall you similarly frothing about increasing overseas aid, HS2, windmill subsidies, house price subsidies, ringfenced government spending, bonuses for public sector fatcats and the handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets.
According to the BBC, one of the MPs that the Crown intends to call is Sir John Randall (Con-Uxbridge), the former deputy chief whip, who was prominent in the Mitchell affair. It was to him that former Police Constable Wallis sent the false account in which he claimed to witness the "plebgate" incident, for which he was jailed at the Central Criminal Court. So far the political composition of the Crown's witnesses is as follows: Speaker (1), Conservative (6), Labour (1), ex-Liberal Democrat (1), and ex-Plaid Cymru (1).
According to the same BBC link, King J is alleged to have charged the jury as follows:
This case involves a public figure. It involves a politician. It involves Members of Parliament. Don't be overawed by that. Be dispassionate throughout the case. Try Mr Evans only on the evidence. Put out of your mind any political views or prejudice you may have. Try this case only on the evidence.
This extraordinarily patronising way of addressing juries, currently in vogue among the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division*, is to be thoroughly deplored.
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
Indeed so Avery.
Yet I do not recall you similarly frothing about increasing overseas aid, HS2, windmill subsidies, house price subsidies, ringfenced government spending, bonuses for public sector fatcats and the handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets.
1) Overseas aid at 0.7% of GDP: good. It's exactly what we should be doing.
2) HS2: again, this is exactly what governments should be considering, building infrastructure for the future, rather than doling out handouts today. Besides, the majority of the costs will not occur until/when construction starts. I also note that you ignore Crossrail, as most anti-HS2 people do.
3) Ringfenced government spending: again, reasonable in most cases. What's your problem with it?
4) Bonuses for public sector fatcats. What system would you prefer? No bonuses? Central government strictly controlling bonuses? And how do you define fatcats?
5) Handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets: source, please.
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
Indeed so Avery.
Yet I do not recall you similarly frothing about increasing overseas aid, HS2, windmill subsidies, house price subsidies, ringfenced government spending, bonuses for public sector fatcats and the handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets.
At least with HS2 we get a railway rather than filled holes in fields, the probable outcome of Labour's gimmick.
Wells there is a shock. The BBC commission a "blue-sky" investigation into possible funding and comes up with more money please using the same funding method, plus also use our monopoly position to expand our commercial income i.e have their pie and eat it.
I could have saved us all a lot of wasted time / money and told you this exactly what the BBC will want to happen.
The reality is the licence fee is out-dated and unenforceable and they have are just trying to kick the moment of real change down the road for another 5 years, while also begging for more money.
Mr. Urquhart, I'm still waiting for the BBC to suggest anyone with an online device capable of using the iPlayer or accessing the website should be subject to the licence fee.
On the BBC today, Rachel Reeves claimed a variant of the jobs scheme is up and running in Wales, and operating well. Does anyone have any linkies?
She also mentioned that a software company was using the scheme. Since software is at least semi-skilled, and mostly vastly skilled and specific, it would be interesting to see what the people on the scheme were doing for that company. Even testers need a fair bit of knowledge in most cases - I have experience of trying to get work experience kids in test roles, and it rarely works, and can be extremely disruptive for the rest of the department.
My biggest concerns about this scheme are the jobs: either they are brand new jobs (good), are existing jobs and replace existing workers (bad), or non-jobs (somewhere between bad and terrible).
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
Monica lying again. I have bets placed with people I am interested in betting with. Must be a sad life just trolling and lying all the time.
Increasingly students like me - and a growing breed of young homeowners - will simply abandon live-broadcast TV, as we know it. I certainly have (I watch sports down a local bar) and my grandmother, who watches less, still pays. It is a system that is increasingly unworkable. Personally, I favour direct funding from the general taxation. No costly licence fee disputes. Progressive payment. However when I've floated this online it doesn't seem to be a popular opinion, perhaps because it is loathed by those who want the BBC qua state broadcaster axed and received only lukewarmly by the majority. The BBC consultation dedicated, I think, one sentence to the possibility.
Mr. Urquhart, I'm still waiting for the BBC to suggest anyone with an online device capable of using the iPlayer or accessing the website should be subject to the licence fee.
Don't joke. At least the BBC are waking up to the dangers of on-line content for their funding model. But as I've said passim, I doubt any amount of tinkering will save that model long-term.
Are there votes in giving England a voice? I would have thought so.
Seems even the one eyed scottish idiot is going to propose something along these lines today. I suspect we are inexorably heading towards a more federal UK - as the alternative will be fragmentation.
What would happen if Dave or Redward spoke up and said 'actually an Equal Devolution Act would be very sensible and remove 99% of the pain from the Scotland debate'. Will one of the major parties get ahead of this?
Or is my own view getting ahead of a considered judgment on how this would play? Does the PB commentariat think there are votes to be won proposing a federal UK that gives England a presence and allows Scots deeper devloution?
Patrick , only a fool would believe Brown , he had many opportunities to do the right thing but chose not to. Now he is a ridiculed has been he suddenly has a Damascene revelation and suddenly is interested in Scotland.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
Why am I not surprised?
Bookie websites are blocked from work and I never get around to looking at them at home, but I'd love to have a few quid with somebody that Yes will not just lose, but will lose thumpingly - I reckon not just south of 40% but well south, like low 30s.
Happy to bet re YES being higher than low 30's. State what you want
According to the same BBC link, King J is alleged to have charged the jury as follows:
This case involves a public figure. It involves a politician. It involves Members of Parliament. Don't be overawed by that. Be dispassionate throughout the case. Try Mr Evans only on the evidence. Put out of your mind any political views or prejudice you may have. Try this case only on the evidence.
This extraordinarily patronising way of addressing juries, currently in vogue among the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division*, is to be thoroughly deplored.
*Cf. Sweeney J.
One friend of mine is a barrister, who practises (among other places) at Chelmsford Crown Court. He defended a man charged with burglary. While he gave his closing speech, the trial judge was pulling faces, rolling his eyes, and smirking at the jury. He then virtually directed the jury to find the Defendant guilty, and greeted them on their return with the words "what took you so long?"
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
TVs will never disappear but their number may well diminish as people use PCs, laptops, phones and tablets more.
I think such a move might prove monumentally unpopular, on the not unreasonable grounds that it's demented and indefensible.
Totally agree.
It'd be a shame as (whispers quietly) I quite like the BBC, and think the licence fee is good value for us as a couple. But I just cannot see how the licence fee will continue in anything like its current form in twenty years time. Technology is changing.
On the BBC today, Rachel Reeves claimed a variant of the jobs scheme is up and running in Wales, and operating well. Does anyone have any linkies?
She also mentioned that a software company was using the scheme. Since software is at least semi-skilled, and mostly vastly skilled and specific, it would be interesting to see what the people on the scheme were doing for that company. Even testers need a fair bit of knowledge in most cases - I have experience of trying to get work experience kids in test roles, and it rarely works, and can be extremely disruptive for the rest of the department.
My biggest concerns about this scheme are the jobs: either they are brand new jobs (good), are existing jobs and replace existing workers (bad), or non-jobs (somewhere between bad and terrible).
Every office has cleaners... Joking aside, a software house will probably have roles from cleaning through sales and HR where office juniors are appropriate. But yeah, I don't see it working at the code-face.
It is not clear to me how big a problem the Labour proposal is trying to attack. Is it worth the money to be spent on it? Arr there better ways to raise tax?
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Agree. Much more likely to be a crew or technical failure atm.
On a side note, I was perhaps wrong to be surprised wreckage has not yet been found. Adam Air flight 574 wasn't found for a week, despite an extensive search, so this is not the first time this has happened. And it was not too far from where it was expected. Perhaps certain types of crashes into sea do not leave much floating wreckage?
Whatever, I can see the publicity behind this case increasing security checks of passenger credentials, and also improving the emergency locator transmitters in some way. At least, if the authorities can get international agreements ...
TVs will never disappear but their number may well diminish as people use PCs, laptops, phones and tablets more.
I think such a move might prove monumentally unpopular, on the not unreasonable grounds that it's demented and indefensible.
I think it should be noted that to have a TV is not to pay the licence fee. You could want the TV for your DVD/Blu-ray player or games console. Even excluding that possibility, I watch recorded TV on my TV and therefore do not require a TV licence. In other words, live broadcast is being replaced quicker that the hardware once considered synonymous with it.
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Why?
The evidence is that Al Quaeda is a insanely frugal (and bureaucratic) organisation, with receipts demanded for expenses as little a pound.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
Why am I not surprised?
Bookie websites are blocked from work and I never get around to looking at them at home, but I'd love to have a few quid with somebody that Yes will not just lose, but will lose thumpingly - I reckon not just south of 40% but well south, like low 30s.
Happy to bet re YES being higher than low 30's. State what you want
That would be money for old rope
malcolm
I was thinking of splitting the difference versus what you reckon.
Eg I think Yes will score 33%.
If you think Yes will get 53% then we could have it so that I pay you x for every point above 43 and you pay me for every point below. I win big on 33%, you win big on 53%.
Or at some other presumed mid point, eg 38%. For every point below 38 you pay me 5 up to a total possible loss of 35 (stopped out at 33). For every point above 38 I pay you £3 stopped out at 53%. Maximum loss to either party £25, greatest cost for being most wrong.
Wrong. It's London vs England. London already has a very sound regional government - more power to that please and no upper layer of bureaucracy from an English parliament thanks (this can govern areas outside London).
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Agree. Much more likely to be a crew or technical failure atm.
On a side note, I was perhaps wrong to be surprised wreckage has not yet been found. Adam Air flight 574 wasn't found for a week, despite an extensive search, so this is not the first time this has happened. And it was not too far from where it was expected. Perhaps certain types of crashes into sea do not leave much floating wreckage?
Whatever, I can see the publicity behind this case increasing security checks of passenger credentials, and also improving the emergency locator transmitters in some way. At least, if the authorities can get international agreements ...
I think a bomb on board is also a strong possibility. With careful planning it might have been possible to find a way to get one past security.
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Why?
The evidence is that Al Quaeda is a insanely frugal (and bureaucratic) organisation, with receipts demanded for expenses as little a pound.
Sorry, I didn't express myself very well with that comment. The point is if they requested the cheapest possible tickets, they wouldn't have known which flight(s) they would be booked on. Unless of course they were planning to attack whichever flight they were put on, which seems a bit unlikely. Usually terrorists would plan the whole thing further in advance, with a particular flight in mind.
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Why?
The evidence is that Al Quaeda is a insanely frugal (and bureaucratic) organisation, with receipts demanded for expenses as little a pound.
Sorry, I didn't express myself very well with that comment. The point is if they requested the cheapest possible tickets, they wouldn't have known which flight(s) they would be booked on. Unless of course they were planning to attack whichever flight they were put on, which seems a bit unlikely.
Reports that the two people travelling on stolen passports requested the cheapest possible flight from KL to Amsterdam, which obviously lessens the chances that they were responsible for a terrorist attack on board.
Why?
The evidence is that Al Quaeda is a insanely frugal (and bureaucratic) organisation, with receipts demanded for expenses as little a pound.
Sorry, I didn't express myself very well with that comment. The point is if they requested the cheapest possible tickets, they wouldn't have known which flight(s) they would be booked on. Unless of course they were planning to attack whichever flight they were put on, which seems a bit unlikely. Usually terrorists would plan the whole thing further in advance, with a particular flight in mind.
After what they probably paid for the passports,I'd guess that they were just incredibly unlucky.
Another example of what happens when the debate is real. During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:
Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)
At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.
There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%
This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.
Someone on one of the plane discussion forums was pointing out how ridiculous it is that passengers can make phone calls and access the web, but at the same time the plane doesn't send out real-time information on its location. Absolute madness.
These are two of them (thanks to a PBer for pointing one of them out yesterday, I can't remember who it was):
Someone on one of the plane discussion forums was pointing out how ridiculous it is that passengers can make phone calls and access the web, but at the same time the plane doesn't send out real-time information on its location. Absolute madness.
It does, I've seen the position on a little map on the seat screen...
Another example of what happens when the debate is real. During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:
Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)
At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.
There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%
This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.
malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.
In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
Mr. G, any such changes as Brown has called for would also have consequences outside Scotland. We can't give Scotland ever increasing devolution whilst denying the English any (and regional assemblies are a ****ing indefensible idea).
MD, it will not matter, Brown and Labour just lie to try and keep the status quo and in any event it will be a YES vote come September so not an issue.
What odds are you offering on Yes? I'll probably have some.
Sadly for your pocket book, you'll find Malcolm is all mouth and no trousers. Bluff, bluster, bollocks, bull and bile.
Why am I not surprised?
Bookie websites are blocked from work and I never get around to looking at them at home, but I'd love to have a few quid with somebody that Yes will not just lose, but will lose thumpingly - I reckon not just south of 40% but well south, like low 30s.
Happy to bet re YES being higher than low 30's. State what you want
That would be money for old rope
malcolm
I was thinking of splitting the difference versus what you reckon.
Eg I think Yes will score 33%.
If you think Yes will get 53% then we could have it so that I pay you x for every point above 43 and you pay me for every point below. I win big on 33%, you win big on 53%.
Or at some other presumed mid point, eg 38%. For every point below 38 you pay me 5 up to a total possible loss of 35 (stopped out at 33). For every point above 38 I pay you £3 stopped out at 53%. Maximum loss to either party £25, greatest cost for being most wrong.
Open to offers re levels.
Happy to go with £5 per each 1% either side of 38% with max payout at £25. Rounding if above or below 0.5% mark. If you are happy with that we can send to Peter the Punter.
I recall the Question Time edition when teachers were, I think, having a big strike. The audience was packed with them (many said they were teachers or lecturers) but Liam Fox and Norman Lamb were faced by the oratorical colossus of Sadiq Khan, who somehow managed to lose the audience. That didn't mean most teachers necessarily sided with the Coalition.
On that sort of note, I do hope the Clegg-Farage doesn't have the worm.
Another example of what happens when the debate is real. During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:
Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)
At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.
There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%
This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.
malcolmg - I would note that had I been there I would have voted for independence.
In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
A debate on independence is going attract people who give a stuff about it. It shouldn't be confused with a poll.
Happy to go with £5 per each 1% either side of 38% with max payout at £25. Rounding if above or below 0.5% mark. If you are happy with that we can send to Peter the Punter.
Sorry, that post mine was riddled with fat fingers.
Wouldn't it be more reflective of your view to say that you can win £25 off me if it's 50% or better, and I'd win it off you if it's as low as 33%?
So then if you're right and it's Yes you collect £25, and if I'm right I do. At 47% you'd collect 9/13ths of £25.
Otherwise it feels like we're agreeing it's going to be No and betting only on the margin Yes loses by!
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
Indeed so Avery.
Yet I do not recall you similarly frothing about increasing overseas aid, HS2, windmill subsidies, house price subsidies, ringfenced government spending, bonuses for public sector fatcats and the handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets.
1) Overseas aid at 0.7% of GDP: good. It's exactly what we should be doing.
2) HS2: again, this is exactly what governments should be considering, building infrastructure for the future, rather than doling out handouts today. Besides, the majority of the costs will not occur until/when construction starts. I also note that you ignore Crossrail, as most anti-HS2 people do.
3) Ringfenced government spending: again, reasonable in most cases. What's your problem with it?
4) Bonuses for public sector fatcats. What system would you prefer? No bonuses? Central government strictly controlling bonuses? And how do you define fatcats?
5) Handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets: source, please.
My point, which is obviously lost on you, is that you can't start pontificating that one party's pet projects will increase taxes and borrowing when you've shown no concern about the effect on borrowing and taxes on the other party's pet projects.
The person you should be addressing your comments to is Avery as its him who wants every proposal for government spending to be first recognised as an increase in borrowing and taxation.
Or at least he does when its a Labour proposal to increase government spending.
Comments
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77817b66-a7b6-11e3-baa8-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2vYRT0xUc
None of these schemes are a silver bullet. That will only come from root and branch reform of the broken UK economic model itself.
But Labour schemes have a much better record than cheapskate Tory ones.
On your other point - you're probably right. We need a Devolution Equalisation Act which brings in a federal UK. And an English Parliament. Devloved matters run by devolved parilaments and UK matters (defence, foreign, treasury, etc) run by westminster. Plenty of other countries work just fine on a federal / devolved basis.
Twice.
If you are into Iberian politics you might want to look at http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/ - mainly Scottish pols but with a Catalan infusion.
You really do make this too easy.
Take you pint Mr Dancer, about electioneering, then being irremovable. In what way is that different to a safe seat now?
I agree that we don’t want to recreate that, but I thought that some sort of right of recall was a given.
So I get that a region may wish to vote on secession. What I don't get is that a region that wants to secede or accede - or remain a dependency, or whatever - apparently gets to do so without the governing country itself having a say. At what point does the seceding region's right of self determination trump the larger entity's own right to decide whether to keep them or not?
Gibraltar and the Falklands are obvious instances. Both want to remain UK dependencies and I can see why, but their doing so connotes a defence commitment and also the expenditure of UK diplomatic capital. Why is that their call alone? At what point does the principle that "a country wishing to resume its independence can vote for that without being overshadowed by votes from the larger body" outweigh the same right on the part of that larger country?
Historically countries have tended to be acquisitive of other countries but in a more globalised world it seems plausible to me that this might reverse.
Incidentally I should explain that I use 'North Britain' advisedly. It is not at all clear to me that, if we ever got to an English plebiscite on which parts of north Britain should be allowed to remain in the UK, the parts England would vote to part company with would comprise only, or all of, Scotland.
"French industrial production unexpectedly fell for a second month and business confidence declined, indicating the recovery may struggle to build momentum this quarter.
Output dropped 0.2pc in January from December, led by electricity and gas production, the country’s statistics office in Paris said today. Economists had forecast a 0.3pc increase. A separate report showed an index of business sentiment declined to 98 in February from 99 the previous month.
Annalisa Piazza, an analyst at Newedge Group in London, said:
"The overall picture is less weak than headline figures suggest but France is certainly struggling to gain momentum. The French factory sector remains extremely fragile. "
Also very poor figures from Japan where monetary boosts have simply sucked in imports and growth is 0.7% for last year.
You might begin to conclude that "plan B" type boosts of public spending really only work in the very short term, if at all. Unless you are Ed Balls of course.
(peerages are divided into 'pre' and 'post' Lloyd George)
New Populus VI: Lab 38 (+1); Cons 34 (=); LD 9 (=); UKIP 12 (=); Oth 7 (-1) Tables: http://popu.lu/s_vi140310
Mike McCarthy @skynewsnorth 3m
Jury told speaker of House of Commons John Bercow to be called as prosecution witness in trial of Nigel #Evans.
Mike McCarthy @skynewsnorth 3m
Jury told Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin MP to be called as prosecution witness. #Evans
Mike McCarthy @skynewsnorth 1m
Former MP Lembit Opik named as prosecution witness in trial of former deputy speaker Nigel #Evans.
MPs Conor Burns, Tom Blenkinsop and Michael Fabricant named as prosecution witnesses in trial of Nigel #Evans.
Whatever the result of the trial, I can't imagine Nigel Evans will want to continue as an MP, imagine if he is found not guilty, would you want to go back to work where several of your colleagues/friends have testified against you?
I noted with interest the suggestion last week that Nigel Evans being called by the Speaker again was a demonstration of solidarity with him. So much for that theory.
Seems even the one eyed scottish idiot is going to propose something along these lines today. I suspect we are inexorably heading towards a more federal UK - as the alternative will be fragmentation.
What would happen if Dave or Redward spoke up and said 'actually an Equal Devolution Act would be very sensible and remove 99% of the pain from the Scotland debate'. Will one of the major parties get ahead of this?
Or is my own view getting ahead of a considered judgment on how this would play? Does the PB commentariat think there are votes to be won proposing a federal UK that gives England a presence and allows Scots deeper devloution?
Regional assemblies much less so (they've already been voted against).
Politicians don't seem to want an English Parliament because it would reduce the Westminster Government to Foreign and Defence matters, and some Treasury areas.
And the 'lopsided' argument is codswallop, in my view. If they didn't want devolution they shouldn't have started it. Giving Scotland and Wales complete political bodies but carving England up into little pieces is unacceptable.
With the usual caveats, no speculation on their guilt or on the reliability of the accusers.
And ideally with a timely link from reputable UK based news organisations, for the avoidance of doubt, links from order-order.com do not count.
It is the phone hacking trials that is verboten because Mike doesn't want more legal letters from m'learned friends.
Edit: Anything Operation Yewtree related also is off limits.
Bookie websites are blocked from work and I never get around to looking at them at home, but I'd love to have a few quid with somebody that Yes will not just lose, but will lose thumpingly - I reckon not just south of 40% but well south, like low 30s.
Mike McCarthy @skynewsnorth 4m
Nine MPs and two former MPs named as prosecution witnesses against former deputy speaker Nigel #Evans
Huge win for the government and the country. This could turn into a massive industry and getting in early is very important.
Keeps UK together. Solves WLQ and Barnett. More deomcratic accountability where it counts. The pols who want to play in the devolved matters pools (you know the really vital issues like health and education) could spend their time there and the pols who wanted to play statesmen could play in the UK pool. Much less chance of England getting devolved solutions on the back of thin UK majority votes. 'Westminster' would come to mean both 'England' and also 'UK'.
Hell, he's got pretty much nothing to lose outside England anyway. And it is the right thing to do. And when Dave has decided something is right he's actually pretty good at defending it.
If a new government programme is introduced it will almost always increase departmental administration costs. If the purpose of the new programme is to distribute resources to a favoured group then the additional spending can be substantial.
The jobs for unemployed youth scheme proposed by Miliband will increase government spending on both administration costs and in the subsidies provided to employers and employees.
The scheme should be costed on this basis alone.
Attempting to hide additional government spending by claiming costs will be covered by raising additional tax is simply deceitful.
Similarly an increase in taxes on bonus income and a restriction of tax relief on pension savings is increasing the tax burden imposed on the economy. It is simply putting taxes up and suppressing demand in the economy.
The Labour Party's "Job Guarantee" should therefore be reported and costed for what it is:
1. A new programme which increases government spending; and,
2. An increase in taxation.
The two are separate. Job subsidies are no more financed by bonus taxes than they are by Air Passenger Duties or Inheritance Tax or any other source of government revenue.
Further, if a new government programme is introduced at a time when aggregate public sector spending is not covered by aggregrate government revenues then the funding of any new government programme will require additional government borrowing. This condition will apply throughout the next term of Parliament.
So let's call the "Jobs Guarantee" out for what it really is:
A proposal to increase government spending; to raise taxes; and, to increase borrowing.
Once this is established, and only then, should we start to consider the proposal on its merits.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100255182/britain-is-not-a-small-island-few-countries-have-a-longer-reach/
twitter.com/skynewsnorth/status/442982069820731392
UKIP taking 14% of 2010 CON voters while LAB takes 36% of 2010 LDs in latest Populus poll
Both figs have to come down for CON to have chance.
Putting both figures into the Calder Valley constituency,where it's Lab 4-5,Con Evens,and no other factors it gives Lab 41.32%,Con 33.89% as the position currently.Is a Tory win a 50% chance in 2015?
Reputable?
UK based?
news?
or organisation?
Perhaps 4 out of 4?
Yet I do not recall you similarly frothing about increasing overseas aid, HS2, windmill subsidies, house price subsidies, ringfenced government spending, bonuses for public sector fatcats and the handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets.
John Bercow
Conor Burns
Tom Blenkinsop
Michael Fabricant
Sarah Wollaston
Patrick McLoughlin
Alex Randall
Mark Hoban
Former MPs
Lembit
Adam Price
*Cf. Sweeney J.
2) HS2: again, this is exactly what governments should be considering, building infrastructure for the future, rather than doling out handouts today. Besides, the majority of the costs will not occur until/when construction starts. I also note that you ignore Crossrail, as most anti-HS2 people do.
3) Ringfenced government spending: again, reasonable in most cases. What's your problem with it?
4) Bonuses for public sector fatcats. What system would you prefer? No bonuses? Central government strictly controlling bonuses? And how do you define fatcats?
5) Handouts Cameron gives to every foreign leader he meets: source, please.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26513597
Wells there is a shock. The BBC commission a "blue-sky" investigation into possible funding and comes up with more money please using the same funding method, plus also use our monopoly position to expand our commercial income i.e have their pie and eat it.
I could have saved us all a lot of wasted time / money and told you this exactly what the BBC will want to happen.
The reality is the licence fee is out-dated and unenforceable and they have are just trying to kick the moment of real change down the road for another 5 years, while also begging for more money.
Mr. Urquhart, I'm still waiting for the BBC to suggest anyone with an online device capable of using the iPlayer or accessing the website should be subject to the licence fee.
She also mentioned that a software company was using the scheme. Since software is at least semi-skilled, and mostly vastly skilled and specific, it would be interesting to see what the people on the scheme were doing for that company. Even testers need a fair bit of knowledge in most cases - I have experience of trying to get work experience kids in test roles, and it rarely works, and can be extremely disruptive for the rest of the department.
My biggest concerns about this scheme are the jobs: either they are brand new jobs (good), are existing jobs and replace existing workers (bad), or non-jobs (somewhere between bad and terrible).
That would be money for old rope
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26513324
The fences guarding those sorts of sites tend to be spiky. It can't be too fun to sit on them. ;-)
*Cf. Sweeney J.
One friend of mine is a barrister, who practises (among other places) at Chelmsford Crown Court. He defended a man charged with burglary. While he gave his closing speech, the trial judge was pulling faces, rolling his eyes, and smirking at the jury. He then virtually directed the jury to find the Defendant guilty, and greeted them on their return with the words "what took you so long?"
TVs will never disappear but their number may well diminish as people use PCs, laptops, phones and tablets more.
I think such a move might prove monumentally unpopular, on the not unreasonable grounds that it's demented and indefensible.
It'd be a shame as (whispers quietly) I quite like the BBC, and think the licence fee is good value for us as a couple. But I just cannot see how the licence fee will continue in anything like its current form in twenty years time. Technology is changing.
Joking aside, a software house will probably have roles from cleaning through sales and HR where office juniors are appropriate. But yeah, I don't see it working at the code-face.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/young-people-in-the-labour-market/2014/rpt-young-people.html
It is not clear to me how big a problem the Labour proposal is trying to attack. Is it worth the money to be spent on it? Arr there better ways to raise tax?
On a side note, I was perhaps wrong to be surprised wreckage has not yet been found. Adam Air flight 574 wasn't found for a week, despite an extensive search, so this is not the first time this has happened. And it was not too far from where it was expected. Perhaps certain types of crashes into sea do not leave much floating wreckage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air_Flight_574
Whatever, I can see the publicity behind this case increasing security checks of passenger credentials, and also improving the emergency locator transmitters in some way. At least, if the authorities can get international agreements ...
The evidence is that Al Quaeda is a insanely frugal (and bureaucratic) organisation, with receipts demanded for expenses as little a pound.
I was thinking of splitting the difference versus what you reckon.
Eg I think Yes will score 33%.
If you think Yes will get 53% then we could have it so that I pay you x for every point above 43 and you pay me for every point below. I win big on 33%, you win big on 53%.
Or at some other presumed mid point, eg 38%. For every point below 38 you pay me 5 up to a total possible loss of 35 (stopped out at 33). For every point above 38 I pay you £3 stopped out at 53%. Maximum loss to either party £25, greatest cost for being most wrong.
Open to offers re levels.
In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643
Wrong. It's London vs England. London already has a very sound regional government - more power to that please and no upper layer of bureaucracy from an English parliament thanks (this can govern areas outside London).
During a live debate between Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar at the university of strathclyde 9th March 2014, a panel with the following make up:
Humza Yousaf(Yes campaign), Shabnam (no campaign), Naeem Raza (host), Yvonne Ridley (yes campaign) Anas Sarwar (no vote)
At the beginning of the event, everyone was asked to vote whether they were in favour of an independent Scotland or not – 52% of the audience voted in favour of independence and 41% voted against with 7% undecided.
There was another vote which took place after the debate and the results were – 68% in favour of independence and the no vote had decreased to 20%
This continues to demonstrate the positive change towards a Yes vote when people have the facts laid out in front of them.
These are two of them (thanks to a PBer for pointing one of them out yesterday, I can't remember who it was):
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6016620#menu127
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-69.html
In fact, as a general principle in life I find that simply disagreeing with Yvonne Ridley and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard ensures I rarely make errors.
I recall the Question Time edition when teachers were, I think, having a big strike. The audience was packed with them (many said they were teachers or lecturers) but Liam Fox and Norman Lamb were faced by the oratorical colossus of Sadiq Khan, who somehow managed to lose the audience. That didn't mean most teachers necessarily sided with the Coalition.
On that sort of note, I do hope the Clegg-Farage doesn't have the worm.
Wouldn't it be more reflective of your view to say that you can win £25 off me if it's 50% or better, and I'd win it off you if it's as low as 33%?
So then if you're right and it's Yes you collect £25, and if I'm right I do. At 47% you'd collect 9/13ths of £25.
Otherwise it feels like we're agreeing it's going to be No and betting only on the margin Yes loses by!
Unspoofable.
The person you should be addressing your comments to is Avery as its him who wants every proposal for government spending to be first recognised as an increase in borrowing and taxation.
Or at least he does when its a Labour proposal to increase government spending.