@CarlottaVance I hadn't appreciated that the Labour conference starts the day after the independence referendum.
I hadn't joined those dots either....as Simon Schama pointed out in his 'History of Britain', the 'English' (sic) Civil War' started in Scotland, and its first missiles were prayer stools.....
Mr. Briskin, and Mr. Richard, have we not already heard something similar?
I recall, vaguely, a Guardian journalist who wrote an article bemoaning Coalition cuts which would see him (think it was a chap) unable to afford violin lessons for one of his offspring.
It provoked a fair bit of mirth here.
My favourite was anti frank's discovery of an article lamenting a cut in funding for ethnic minority poets.
Under 1% of poetry books published in the UK are by black or Asian poets... this is quite simply not fair
And there was me thinking the criteria for whether something should be published was whether it was any good or not
I should book myself in for reprogramming.
I'm offended by the domination of the 100m by black men, and the excessive coverage given to Usain Bolt, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie etc
So what if only one white bloke has ever broken 10 seconds? He should get as much media attention as the rest put together to encourage slow white kids to emulate him...
Oh boo hoo why its all so unfair
Wasn't Ming Campbell the fastest white man on the planet at one time Should definitely get a lot more attention!
@CarlottaVance I hadn't appreciated that the Labour conference starts the day after the independence referendum.
I hadn't joined those dots either....as Simon Schama pointed out in his 'History of Britain', the 'English' (sic) Civil War' started in Scotland, and its first missiles were prayer stools.....
Also the voting and seat allocation is fiendishly complicated.
The electoral system used in the European Parliament elections is the most simple and straightforward system possible for any list system. If you wanted to make it complicated, you could:
(a) use Sainte-Lague divisors instead of D'Hondt (b) apply an arbitrary or artificial threshold for parties to qualify for seats (c) have a multiple-layer top-up system (d) use open lists instead of a closed list (e) have various quotas, thresholds and constraints for the election or selection of candidates according to gender or location (f) have different rules for coalitions of parties than for individual parties and/or lost of other things.
None of these complications apply in the European Parliamant electiosn in Great Britain.
The voting is, admittedly, "fiendishly complicated" because it forces voters to struggle with one X instead of with a simple list of weighted preferences.
From one of the comments in one of the previous threads, it would appear that Rod crosby seems to think that there is a 5% threshold (or "barrage" as he calls it) for parties to win seats in the European elections.
There is no such threshold. There is a 5% threshold for the elections to the greater london Assembly, but not for the European Parliament or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly or anything else.
I think - though I'm happy to be corrected - that Rod meant the d'Hondt maths implied a party needs about 5% to gain a seat, given the number of, and likely size of, the larger parties. It's an effective barrage, rather than a electoral regulation.
Ugh. That's not a pretty sentence I've written. Hopefully you catch my drift regardless.
From one of the comments in one of the previous threads, it would appear that Rod crosby seems to think that there is a 5% threshold (or "barrage" as he calls it) for parties to win seats in the European elections.
There is no such threshold. There is a 5% threshold for the elections to the greater london Assembly, but not for the European Parliament or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly or anything else.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution. The important thing to remember about BT is that it is not a political party and it is not standing for office. It is comprised of members of a range of political parties and probably more who are not members of any. These groupings (and even that might be a generous term) may well have different views about where we go from a no vote.
I might point out that the Yes campaign is similar in that it is broader and more varied than the SNP (which itself has an unusually broad range of views within it come together for the sake of nationalism). A mistake made by the SNP in the early stages of the campaign was to assume the campaign was the SNP. The laughable White Paper was a good example of that sort of thinking. I think Salmond was trying to correct that mistake in Aberdeen at the weekend with his "it's not about me" speech. Old habits die hard however.
What BT should be saying in my opinion is that the path of devolution in the future will be dependent upon the views of the Scottish and rUK peoples and who they vote for. It is a journey, not a fixed point and there is no quid pro quo for a no vote in terms of powers. All that can be said with confidence is that the direction of that journey since 1997 has been increased powers for the Scottish Parliament and it is likely that trend will continue.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution. The important thing to remember about BT is that it is not a political party and it is not standing for office. It is comprised of members of a range of political parties and probably more who are not members of any. These groupings (and even that might be a generous term) may well have different views about where we go from a no vote.
I might point out that the Yes campaign is similar in that it is broader and more varied than the SNP (which itself has an unusually broad range of views within it come together for the sake of nationalism). A mistake made by the SNP in the early stages of the campaign was to assume the campaign was the SNP. The laughable White Paper was a good example of that sort of thinking. I think Salmond was trying to correct that mistake in Aberdeen at the weekend with his "it's not about me" speech. Old habits die hard however.
What BT should be saying in my opinion is that the path of devolution in the future will be dependent upon the views of the Scottish and rUK peoples and who they vote for. It is a journey, not a fixed point and there is no quid pro quo for a no vote in terms of powers. All that can be said with confidence is that the direction of that journey since 1997 has been increased powers for the Scottish Parliament and it is likely that trend will continue.
That's an interesting analysis. But on the same logic, that they may not be able to deliver them, do you think it is legitimate for even a formal political party to promise more powers? The Tories, Labour?
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution. The important thing to remember about BT is that it is not a political party and it is not standing for office. It is comprised of members of a range of political parties and probably more who are not members of any. These groupings (and even that might be a generous term) may well have different views about where we go from a no vote.
I might point out that the Yes campaign is similar in that it is broader and more varied than the SNP (which itself has an unusually broad range of views within it come together for the sake of nationalism). A mistake made by the SNP in the early stages of the campaign was to assume the campaign was the SNP. The laughable White Paper was a good example of that sort of thinking. I think Salmond was trying to correct that mistake in Aberdeen at the weekend with his "it's not about me" speech. Old habits die hard however.
What BT should be saying in my opinion is that the path of devolution in the future will be dependent upon the views of the Scottish and rUK peoples and who they vote for. It is a journey, not a fixed point and there is no quid pro quo for a no vote in terms of powers. All that can be said with confidence is that the direction of that journey since 1997 has been increased powers for the Scottish Parliament and it is likely that trend will continue.
That's an interesting analysis. But on the same logic, that they may not be able to deliver them, do you think it is legitimate for even a formal political party to promise more powers? The Tories, Labour?
Oh yes, political parties do stand for office and should have a manifesto which can contain such promises. It might even be possible for some of those parties to come together and have a common platform to add a bit of certainty. But this is the job of the parties not BT which one way or another will cease to exist in September.
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them. That's why the unions are putting out leaflets saying oi, without the EU this and that might happen - true as far as it goes, but the election isn't about membership. On the other hand, it's also why there isn't really a huge public demand to withdraw - people are disgruntled but say readily that they'd be satisfied by a large margin if the PM declared that he'd got some unspecified concessions.
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
As I said it will be a journey and the UK will probably muck about with the balance of devolved powers indefinitely. It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England. I think it would be healthier if localism was not seen in a purely Scottish us against them context but as a way of removing more powers from Whitehall for the benefit of all of the UK.
Mr. L, I feel this is an almost Pavlovian response, but an English regional system would be ****ing despicable. England is one land, and slicing it up into 'regions' is not on. We need an English Parliament, not pathetic little regional assemblies.
Mind you, the way Labour's constitutional meddling is going we might end up with an English Parliament just because the other bits of the UK slope off.
The one thing that a UKIP presence in the EP cannot do is to withdraw from the EU. It is a fundamentally negative vote, indeed the kipper MEPs do very little other than get their allowances and insult other politicians.
UKIP MPs can at least table a withdrawal bill in Westminster.
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them. That's why the unions are putting out leaflets saying oi, without the EU this and that might happen - true as far as it goes, but the election isn't about membership. On the other hand, it's also why there isn't really a huge public demand to withdraw - people are disgruntled but say readily that they'd be satisfied by a large margin if the PM declared that he'd got some unspecified concessions.
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them.
Energy policy is set at an EU level. The price UK residents pay for energy is certainly going to be an issue in the 2015 election.
None of the pro-EU political parties will be campaigning for an end to green energy taxes/subsidies. None of them will want to change current government/EU policy which is to increase the price UK residents pay for energy.
The top comment, now under moderation, was about banning halal/kosher butchery, which it described as a 'cruel death'.
"I'd be less worried about which animal it is and more concerned with how the animal was killed.
Most likely the lamb will have suffered a cruel halal death. It's time we ban this inhumane kosher/halal nonsense."
Given there was no mention of such in the article and the strong support/numerous comments it's a non-scientific but interesting response from various people.
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them. That's why the unions are putting out leaflets saying oi, without the EU this and that might happen - true as far as it goes, but the election isn't about membership. On the other hand, it's also why there isn't really a huge public demand to withdraw - people are disgruntled but say readily that they'd be satisfied by a large margin if the PM declared that he'd got some unspecified concessions.
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
Oh dear, I can't agree with that.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them. That's why the unions are putting out leaflets saying oi, without the EU this and that might happen - true as far as it goes, but the election isn't about membership. On the other hand, it's also why there isn't really a huge public demand to withdraw - people are disgruntled but say readily that they'd be satisfied by a large margin if the PM declared that he'd got some unspecified concessions.
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
Oh dear, I can't agree with that.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
Palmer has expressed his desire to retire to Switzerland or Norway ( both outside the EU ) once he has finished pestering the British electorate. That's called voting with your feet . I suggest you ignore all of his public utterances on the EU question.
Can I point out that you don't have the first idea how money laundering (or indeed real estate transactions) work?
The first step is placement. Turning up to buy a £70m house in Kensington with a suitcase full of cash just isn't going to work. In order to buy the house, the money must already be in the banking system. So the first stage of money laundering will have to have been completed.
The second stage is layering. This aims to conceal the origin of the money through multiple transactions. The UK banks (and solicitors) are all well aware of which are the risky countries and institutions, and would be suspicious of any large transfer from such an institution. The money will most likely have had to be layered before it can be transferred to the UK
The third stage is integration. It is fair to say that, should the property have already been successfully purchased, then you will be able to generate legitimate (integrated) income from it. But you are not going to be able to use it to convert dirty cash into placed funds - if you were to rent a £10m house at a 3% yield, you are talking about £300,000 income a year. Or about £6,000 a week. How do you think that a UK bank would react to someone depositing £6,000 per week in cash?
"Can I point out that you don't have the first idea how money laundering (or indeed real estate transactions) work?"
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
"When Private Eye asked one former policeman why the bankers aren’t getting arrested for money laundering, the answer was simple: ‘They are untouchable’."
Anyone can do a bit of googling and find out for themselves. One of the interesting results you get is the number of London law firms advertising on the basis of their expertise with the money laundering laws.
Like I say it's quite funny in a way. If he wanted to Balls could be making hay over the effect of this economic stimulus package even if it's not the kind of stimulus people generally think of as a good thing.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England.
There is little appetite in England for that:
And what if, in the future, there were different types of institutions in England. Which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
An English Parliament : 30 The UK Government : 30 Stronger local councils : 17 Elected Regional Assemblies: 11
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England.
There is little appetite in England for that:
And what if, in the future, there were different types of institutions in England. Which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
An English Parliament : 30 The UK Government : 30 Stronger local councils : 17 Elected Regional Assemblies: 11
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England.
There is little appetite in England for that:
And what if, in the future, there were different types of institutions in England. Which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
An English Parliament : 30 The UK Government : 30 Stronger local councils : 17 Elected Regional Assemblies: 11
Mr. L, I feel this is an almost Pavlovian response, but an English regional system would be ****ing despicable. England is one land, and slicing it up into 'regions' is not on. We need an English Parliament, not pathetic little regional assemblies.
Mind you, the way Labour's constitutional meddling is going we might end up with an English Parliament just because the other bits of the UK slope off.
I agree with you and Carlotta that an attractive way of developing regional government in England has yet to be found but that does not mean it should not be tried. One of the things that came out of Evan Davies programs about London was the possibility of a balancing conurbation in the north west involving Manchester, Liverpool and, I think, Leeds.
The excessive concentration of power in Westminster is unhealthy. It has driven the desire for devolution and even independence in Scotland. It has resulted in a massive over concentration of investment and infrastructure to service our world city to the detriment of everything else. The north west was once the richest part of the UK, probably one of the richest parts of the world. It needs to get that self confidence back and having a local, democratic say on infrastructure and housing and health priorities would almost certainly help.
If the scope of power in Westminster was sharply reduced (for example abolishing the Minstries for Health and, possibly education, the issues such as the WLQ can be more easily resolved too.
Even if there is a no vote (as I believe, just, there will be) business as usual really is not an option.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
Sure (and conversely so has the power to go and live anywhere else in the EU, as huge numbers of Brits have done).
So why don't millions of people want to vote for parties which have a view on this, one way or another? Because they don't actually care that much. Most people think the EU is mildly useful to exporters and a shared market makes sense in principle, but they're dubious about free movement and other aspects. But these things are way down the list of "issues that affect me and my family personally" so they don't give them a burning desire to rush out and express their views by voting.
The same applies to energy policy. It would be possible to elect MEPs who would work to water down EU green policies if people felt strongly opposed - there are allies in the other EU countries who would help. But they don't feel that strongly - in fact most polls suggest they rather approve, even when explicitly told that it has a significant cost.
Don't you agree that most people don't feel the EU affects their lives very much, contrary to campaigners who feel it impinges massively on every aspect of Britain? Perhaps they should, but they don't. It's also why DavidL may win is £10 bet with me on turnout, but we shall see!
Mr. Briskin, np. I usually don't, but did last race. I *might* do for China. Not sure.
Why d'you ask?
Radio works pretty well for qualifying, but not for the race. You can't see the timings, which reveal more than just the commentary, and there's no substitute for actually seeing events unfold.
Mr. Briskin, I sympathise. The last race was the first I've seen on Sky. The BBC's Judas Iscariot approach to the public was deeply cynical and unimpressive.
Wall Street Journal @WSJ 58m Breaking: Putin: Hope not to have to use military force in Ukraine http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
In other words, be prepared for all hell to break lose.
Be prepared for Russia to stream-roll through half of Ukraine with almost no shots being fired, more like. Then they'll sit there and laugh at the rest of the world impotently stamping their feet.
Big city government is the key. Greater Manchester should override its boroughs and have a big GM mayoralty a la London. This should have happened years ago.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
No is effectively a vote for DevoMax, while Yes is a vote for Crown dependency status. Wise and patient Nationalists will be voting No.
You will forgive most people for finding your statement incredible. Devomax means total repatriation of all powers to the Scottish Parliament, except for defence and foreign policy, in substance. Perhaps you could point us to the clear statements by the Tory, LD, Labour and UKIP parties to this effect?
Its definitely true that not many people are even aware that the EU Elections are taking place. They are meaningless & unimportant to the overwhelming majority of people.
If there were an In/Out referendum on the EU, the public would be a lot more energised to vote I think. Maybe not as much as Scottish Independence, but not far off
I'm sure you're right. But Iit's because people are aware at some level that actually not that much power has been devolved to the EU - they can't readily think of ANY policy that the EU might adopt in the next 5 years that would affect them. That's why the unions are putting out leaflets saying oi, without the EU this and that might happen - true as far as it goes, but the election isn't about membership. On the other hand, it's also why there isn't really a huge public demand to withdraw - people are disgruntled but say readily that they'd be satisfied by a large margin if the PM declared that he'd got some unspecified concessions.
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
Plenty of power is held at EU level. It's just people can't work out where and how elections - and their vote - influence it.
Of course we know that its direction is exercised at an intergovermental level, through meetings of the European Council, and executed by the European Commission, who propose legislation. Just because people can't think of any EU policy that might affect them in the next 5 years doesn't mean there won't be any. Of course, many of those policy decisions have already been taken irrevocably - such as free movement of people - but others may be imposed on the UK through QMV, such as financial regulation. Normally, EU policy decisions are foregone conclusions once treaties conceeding powers to it by member states are signed.
When considering the European Parliament elections, it is more closely comparable to electing a jumped-up transnational House of Lords, without any vote on the equivalent Prime Minister, Cabinet, or House of Commons. No matter which way you vote it doesn't make any difference to its direction or policy any which way.
In that case, voting for a party that wants to withdraw from the lot is a logical response if you want 'out' or to send the whole institution a message.
Mr. L, I feel this is an almost Pavlovian response, but an English regional system would be ****ing despicable. England is one land, and slicing it up into 'regions' is not on. We need an English Parliament, not pathetic little regional assemblies.
Mind you, the way Labour's constitutional meddling is going we might end up with an English Parliament just because the other bits of the UK slope off.
I agree with you and Carlotta that an attractive way of developing regional government in England has yet to be found but that does not mean it should not be tried. One of the things that came out of Evan Davies programs about London was the possibility of a balancing conurbation in the north west involving Manchester, Liverpool and, I think, Leeds.
The excessive concentration of power in Westminster is unhealthy. It has driven the desire for devolution and even independence in Scotland. It has resulted in a massive over concentration of investment and infrastructure to service our world city to the detriment of everything else. The north west was once the richest part of the UK, probably one of the richest parts of the world. It needs to get that self confidence back and having a local, democratic say on infrastructure and housing and health priorities would almost certainly help.
If the scope of power in Westminster was sharply reduced (for example abolishing the Minstries for Health and, possibly education, the issues such as the WLQ can be more easily resolved too.
Even if there is a no vote (as I believe, just, there will be) business as usual really is not an option.
It might appear odd but in a curiously British way the current formula that seems to work is that England as considerably the largest and economically affluent nation in the Union foreswears devolution whereas Scotland, Wales and Ulster continue with it.
Positive opinion on English regional devolution is clearly tepid and that for an English parliament mixed perhaps because as the superpower of the relationship they don't feel the need to flex their muscles.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England.
There is little appetite in England for that:
And what if, in the future, there were different types of institutions in England. Which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
An English Parliament : 30 The UK Government : 30 Stronger local councils : 17 Elected Regional Assemblies: 11
Surely an English Parliament and stronger local councils are not mutually exclusive?
No, but 'regional assemblies' are not high on anyone's list......
Certainly not in the North-East, where if memory recalls they rejected the last government's proposal to introduce regional assemblies by 77.9% - Things could have looked a lot different a decade on if Prescott's plan had been acceptable.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
Sure (and conversely so has the power to go and live anywhere else in the EU, as huge numbers of Brits have done).
So why don't millions of people want to vote for parties which have a view on this, one way or another? Because they don't actually care that much. Most people think the EU is mildly useful to exporters and a shared market makes sense in principle, but they're dubious about free movement and other aspects. But these things are way down the list of "issues that affect me and my family personally" so they don't give them a burning desire to rush out and express their views by voting.
The same applies to energy policy. It would be possible to elect MEPs who would work to water down EU green policies if people felt strongly opposed - there are allies in the other EU countries who would help. But they don't feel that strongly - in fact most polls suggest they rather approve, even when explicitly told that it has a significant cost.
Don't you agree that most people don't feel the EU affects their lives very much, contrary to campaigners who feel it impinges massively on every aspect of Britain? Perhaps they should, but they don't. It's also why DavidL may win is £10 bet with me on turnout, but we shall see!
Millions of people are saying they are going to vote for a party who have a view on the EU
OGH:"Do punters think that May 22 is not very important?". UK get only10% of the MEPs and the proportional representation system prevents people voting for an individual, you can only vote for a party, with representatives selected from a party list. This means the parties favourite ones near the top of the list get elected whatever happens. There are also no pan european parties giving the voters an opportunity for a party that might get a majority, just huge rainbow coaliations of parties that are centre left or centre right but vary massively in policies. So a voter has virtually zero influence on the makeup of the European Parliament, therefore it is logically not very important to voters.
Big city government is the key. Greater Manchester should override its boroughs and have a big GM mayoralty a la London. This should have happened years ago.
DevoMax for the kingdom of East Anglia would be welcome. Norfolk, Suffolk, The Isle of Ely, and we'd probably want to claim the parts of Lincolnshire bordering the Wash. Never have to suffer Labour government again, and we'd have our identity back. Would work for the Cornish, it would work here,
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
No is effectively a vote for DevoMax, while Yes is a vote for Crown dependency status. Wise and patient Nationalists will be voting No.
You will forgive most people for finding your statement incredible. Devomax means total repatriation of all powers to the Scottish Parliament, except for defence and foreign policy, in substance. Perhaps you could point us to the clear statements by the Tory, LD, Labour and UKIP parties to this effect?
All powers except defence and foreign policy? Do you think DevoMax will give Scotland power over monetary and fiscal policy? If so I fear you are likely to be disappointed.
P.S. Bloody vanila is playing up, I can only see about 60% of the comments box so apologies for any typos.
DevoMax for the kingdom of East Anglia would be welcome. Norfolk, Suffolk, The Isle of Ely, and we'd probably want to claim the parts of Lincolnshire bordering the Wash. Never have to suffer Labour government again, and we'd have our identity back. Would work for the Cornish, it would work here,
Include most of Essex N of the A127, please. Quite funny sometimes listening to people talking about Essex accents when they mean Estuarine!
"The north west was once the richest part of the UK, probably one of the richest parts of the world. It needs to get that self confidence back and having a local, democratic say on infrastructure and housing and health priorities would almost certainly help."
The great cities of the North grew and became rich for reasons of commerce and industry. Those reasons have no gone, unless new ones can be found then continued decline is surely inevitable, no amount of local say (democratic or otherwise) on infrastructure, housing or health will change economic reality.
As yet the Yes campaign has not used the English to campaign for a Yes vote.Until Artist Taxi Driver,who is probably at least the 33rd most influential sweary person on twitter. An "English for Yes" campaign could be a game-changer.
DevoMax for the kingdom of East Anglia would be welcome. Norfolk, Suffolk, The Isle of Ely, and we'd probably want to claim the parts of Lincolnshire bordering the Wash. Never have to suffer Labour government again, and we'd have our identity back. Would work for the Cornish, it would work here,
Include most of Essex N of the A127, please. Quite funny sometimes listening to people talking about Essex accents when they mean Estuarine!
God no, far too Londonesque. If we're going to start colonising it will be into Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, maybe we'll have a hinterland as far as Scunthorpe in the North and Peterborough/Newark in the West. Basically, you all end up getting ruled from Norwich, but were in no rush, just like Putin.
I wonder if the Snowden leaks have revealed enough about the West's military capabilities and doctrines to give Putin the confidence to forge ahead with his Ukrainian campaign?
The people of England do NOT want things decided locally, and only in a few areas (Planning & refuse collection) does localism come close to England-wide:
Below there is a list of policies. Please indicate whether you think each of the following policies should be the same across the whole of England or should be a matter for each local authority to decide itself? (Please tick one option per row)
If this had come out yesterday, I would have done a thread on this polling.
Labour, Tories and Kippers prefer Oasis to Blur. Lib Dems prefer Blur.
On the 20th anniversary of Britpop, British people pick Oasis over Blur by two to one
In April 1994, following the death of Kurt Cobain and the American grunge scene with it, English radio DJ and music critic Stuart Maconie coined the phrase ‘Britpop’.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
No is effectively a vote for DevoMax, while Yes is a vote for Crown dependency status. Wise and patient Nationalists will be voting No.
You will forgive most people for finding your statement incredible. Devomax means total repatriation of all powers to the Scottish Parliament, except for defence and foreign policy, in substance. Perhaps you could point us to the clear statements by the Tory, LD, Labour and UKIP parties to this effect?
All powers except defence and foreign policy? Do you think DevoMax will give Scotland power over monetary and fiscal policy? If so I fear you are likely to be disappointed.
P.S. Bloody vanila is playing up, I can only see about 60% of the comments box so apologies for any typos.
Just so. That is the normal definition of devomax in the Scottish debate - full devolution short of formal independence of foreign policy and external relations. And I don't see it coming from the Unionist side either.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution.
As Professor Adam Tomkins pointed out:
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
No is effectively a vote for DevoMax, while Yes is a vote for Crown dependency status. Wise and patient Nationalists will be voting No.
You will forgive most people for finding your statement incredible. Devomax means total repatriation of all powers to the Scottish Parliament, except for defence and foreign policy, in substance. Perhaps you could point us to the clear statements by the Tory, LD, Labour and UKIP parties to this effect?
All powers except defence and foreign policy? Do you think DevoMax will give Scotland power over monetary and fiscal policy? If so I fear you are likely to be disappointed.
P.S. Bloody vanila is playing up, I can only see about 60% of the comments box so apologies for any typos.
Vanilla is having so many problems, I have this logging out problem and comments vanishing into thin air.
As I understand it, Vanilla will soon be renamed "Hannibal"
Carnyx, I don't find that clear. If fiscal is devolved the question is - how much? And if monetary is included, what's the point of a separate defence policy. (I may have mixed up monetary and fiscal.)
I wonder if the Snowden leaks have revealed enough about the West's military capabilities and doctrines to give Putin the confidence to forge ahead with his Ukrainian campaign?
Britain and America off-shored their industrial base and rebuilt their economies around megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio.
Megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio can't do crisis.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
Sure (and conversely so has the power to go and live anywhere else in the EU, as huge numbers of Brits have done).
So why don't millions of people want to vote for parties which have a view on this, one way or another? Because they don't actually care that much. Most people think the EU is mildly useful to exporters and a shared market makes sense in principle, but they're dubious about free movement and other aspects. But these things are way down the list of "issues that affect me and my family personally" so they don't give them a burning desire to rush out and express their views by voting.
The same applies to energy policy. It would be possible to elect MEPs who would work to water down EU green policies if people felt strongly opposed - there are allies in the other EU countries who would help. But they don't feel that strongly - in fact most polls suggest they rather approve, even when explicitly told that it has a significant cost.
Don't you agree that most people don't feel the EU affects their lives very much, contrary to campaigners who feel it impinges massively on every aspect of Britain? Perhaps they should, but they don't. It's also why DavidL may win is £10 bet with me on turnout, but we shall see!
Millions did - and do. Over 7.5 million voters voted for explicitly eurosceptic parties (favouring EU withdrawal or substantial repatriation of powers) in the 2009 Euros in the UK. That was over 55% of all voters in that election. Of course, those with such a sympathy may be even higher: I've not counted anyone who voted Labour/Liberal Democrat/Green/SNP and Plaid as being that bothered. I expect it will be even higher in the 2014 European elections, and UKIP and the Conservatives alone will probably top 50%. The argument that the EU does have a major impact on every aspect of Britain has been increasingly effectively made over the last few years: I expect if you polled, and asked, that exact question to voters now you would get a very clear answer.
Besides which, you asserting something is true does not make it so. Stating that people 'don't care that much' is the standard europhile refrain of the day, now it's clear they will never convince a majority of Britons that their real agenda of ever-closer union is A Good Thing. The argument is straight out of Mike Smithson's hymnbook. I'm not sure it convinces anyone but those who repeat it. Perhaps they hope it (and the EU) will bore people to death, so further integration just happens by stealth.
In many respects it's been a successful strategy so far.
Does the name Christophe Lemaitre mean nothing? Did she die in vain?
Yes he is the only white man to run a sub 10 sec 100m.. that's what I said... what's your point?
The point is that you are (a) completely missing my point (b) completely missing the cultural reference to which I was referring (c) therefore a booliak.
Carnyx, I don't find that clear. If fiscal is devolved the question is - how much? And if monetary is included, what's the point of a separate defence policy. (I may have mixed up monetary and fiscal.)
All fiscal devolved, including oil, while monetary policy per se would be obviously central under devomax within the UK, with Westminster also dealing with foreign and defence policy.
The original reason was someone commenting that of course a vote for No would lead to devo-max, which I found, to put it politely, at odds with the general understanding of the term and the current situation.
I wonder if the Snowden leaks have revealed enough about the West's military capabilities and doctrines to give Putin the confidence to forge ahead with his Ukrainian campaign?
Britain and America off-shored their industrial base and rebuilt their economies around megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio.
Megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio can't do crisis.
It's just simple arithmetic.
Would you care to name the banks operating at those ratios?
Carnyx, I don't find that clear. If fiscal is devolved the question is - how much? And if monetary is included, what's the point of a separate defence policy. (I may have mixed up monetary and fiscal.)
The original reason was someone commenting that of course a vote for No would lead to devo-max
A vote for No will lead to further devolution (already on the books) - but since the Scottish government hasn't exercised all the powers it currently has - where's the hurry?
"The north west was once the richest part of the UK, probably one of the richest parts of the world. It needs to get that self confidence back and having a local, democratic say on infrastructure and housing and health priorities would almost certainly help."
The great cities of the North grew and became rich for reasons of commerce and industry. Those reasons have no gone, unless new ones can be found then continued decline is surely inevitable, no amount of local say (democratic or otherwise) on infrastructure, housing or health will change economic reality.
You create local politicians with real authority and accountability. This removes the need to rent seek from Westminster, and the temptation to blame London.
Create the motive and the ability to seek a new raison d'etre
The people of England do NOT want things decided locally, and only in a few areas (Planning & refuse collection) does localism come close to England-wide:
Below there is a list of policies. Please indicate whether you think each of the following policies should be the same across the whole of England or should be a matter for each local authority to decide itself? (Please tick one option per row)
The story this time dates back to 2004-5 and the setting up of a call-centre in Ashford, Kent to recruit new party members and funds.
Ashford Employment Ltd, a company owned by Mr Bown and run by UKIP, was set up in October 2003 to pay for call centre workers. It spent £158,582 in 2004 and £89,456 in 2005. Once staff and the running costs had been met from donations, any surplus from Ashford was transferred to the southeast branch, according to Terry Quarterman, the centre’s former manager and a director of the company. The branch received £291,931 in donations in 2004, the year of the European elections, and £114,967 in 2005, although it is unclear how much was from Ashford.
Former UKIP members have raised concerns about the two large sums that were paid out of the branch in the same two years. In 2004, the branch recorded a £211,267 withdrawal as “other” running costs. In 2005, £89,996 was spent in the same way. Late in 2005, the call centre’s financial affairs were transferred to UKIP’s head office. UKIP said that accounts for the centre were filed with the Electoral Commission. “They were audited as legally required and found to be in order,” a spokesman said.
UKIP and Farage may have acted perfectly properly in respect of funds raised by the call-centre, but the accounting records released to date are opaque and lacking in detail giving rise to reasonable suspicion that funds may have been misappropriated.
Farage and UKIP need to avoid this story escalating into a major crisis for the party. It is essential and urgent that a full and credible public statement is made on the matter.
The story this time dates back to 2004-5 and the setting up of a call-centre in Ashford, Kent to recruit new party members and funds.
Ashford Employment Ltd, a company owned by Mr Bown and run by UKIP, was set up in October 2003 to pay for call centre workers. It spent £158,582 in 2004 and £89,456 in 2005. Once staff and the running costs had been met from donations, any surplus from Ashford was transferred to the southeast branch, according to Terry Quarterman, the centre’s former manager and a director of the company. The branch received £291,931 in donations in 2004, the year of the European elections, and £114,967 in 2005, although it is unclear how much was from Ashford.
Former UKIP members have raised concerns about the two large sums that were paid out of the branch in the same two years. In 2004, the branch recorded a £211,267 withdrawal as “other” running costs. In 2005, £89,996 was spent in the same way. Late in 2005, the call centre’s financial affairs were transferred to UKIP’s head office. UKIP said that accounts for the centre were filed with the Electoral Commission. “They were audited as legally required and found to be in order,” a spokesman said.
UKIP and Farage may have acted perfectly properly in respect of funds raised by the call-centre, but the accounting records released to date are opaque and lacking in detail giving rise to reasonable suspicion that funds may have been misappropriated.
Farage and UKIP need to avoid this story escalating into a major crisis for the party. It is essential and urgent that a full and credible public statement is made on the matter.
Carnyx, I don't find that clear. If fiscal is devolved the question is - how much? And if monetary is included, what's the point of a separate defence policy. (I may have mixed up monetary and fiscal.)
All fiscal devolved, including oil, while monetary policy per se would be obviously central under devomax within the UK, with Westminster also dealing with foreign and defence policy.
The original reason was someone commenting that of course a vote for No would lead to devo-max, which I found, to put it politely, at odds with the general understanding of the term and the current situation.
Clearly you're confused by the Indy debate, that's understandable given the daily dose of contradictory nonsense spouted by Salmond and his crew. To put it simply, the Scottish people desire DevoMax and voting Yes will make that outcome impossible.
I think it is a mistake for Better Together to be making specific promises about devolution. The important thing to remember about BT is that it is not a political party and it is not standing for office. It is comprised of members of a range of political parties and probably more who are not members of any. These groupings (and even that might be a generous term) may well have different views about where we go from a no vote.
I might point out that the Yes campaign is similar in that it is broader and more varied than the SNP (which itself has an unusually broad range of views within it come together for the sake of nationalism). A mistake made by the SNP in the early stages of the campaign was to assume the campaign was the SNP. The laughable White Paper was a good example of that sort of thinking. I think Salmond was trying to correct that mistake in Aberdeen at the weekend with his "it's not about me" speech. Old habits die hard however.
What BT should be saying in my opinion is that the path of devolution in the future will be dependent upon the views of the Scottish and rUK peoples and who they vote for. It is a journey, not a fixed point and there is no quid pro quo for a no vote in terms of powers. All that can be said with confidence is that the direction of that journey since 1997 has been increased powers for the Scottish Parliament and it is likely that trend will continue.
All fiscal policy should be devolved? Really? Given fiscal policy is normally considered to include borrowing, is this practicable? Why not allow County Councils to borrow as much as they like? It just isn't going to happen. Maybe a deal could be put together where a non-independent Scotland would be allowed to issue bonds up to a limit set by London (with the same for Wales, NI and English County Councils), but no more than that. It will solve next to nothing mind, and will just stir up more resentment.
Scotland can be part of the UK or it can be independent, but the idea that it can be the former whilst running its own fiscal policy is a nonsense.
"Political scientist Matthew Goodwin asks: who is voting for the party [UKIP], why, and what do these changing political loyalties tell us about the current state of British politics and society?"
10 -Not Lesiure 9 - Not 13 8 - Parklife 7 - Don't Believe the Truth 6 - Be Here Now 5 - Standing on the Shoulder's of Giants 4 - Dig Out Your Soul 3 - Modern Life is Rubbish (I've got Lib Dem sympathies) 2 - Blur 1 - (What's the Story) Morning Glory [for the zeitgeist]
Incredible footage from MOTD where, within hours of Hillsborough, they reported the truth - http://youtu.be/ypE5TG2UPNk (via@Markchippers)
Yes, it's quite instructive. You can see from it that only a few hours afterwards the pressure was really mounting on the Police. Operation cover-up was probably already underway by then.
My gold-plated council pension increase came through today,£7.01p per month gross.I'd like to start unpopping champagne corks but I am definitely not going to let it change my life in any way. That will go straight towards paying off the grotesque fuel bills. It's simply a miracle,an economic miracle.Thank you,Gideon.
Populus on UNS gives Labour an unlikely majority on a 1% lead of 6, incumbency and gvt defence voting would probably see Labour half a dozen or so short. 2% swing back to Con largest party
I wonder if the Snowden leaks have revealed enough about the West's military capabilities and doctrines to give Putin the confidence to forge ahead with his Ukrainian campaign?
Britain and America off-shored their industrial base and rebuilt their economies around megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio.
Megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio can't do crisis.
It's just simple arithmetic.
Would you care to name the banks operating at those ratios?
"While the regulators amended how banks should calculate the size of their assets, they didn’t change the percentage of their own funds needed to meet the rule.
The committee will still require banks to hold capital equivalent to at least 3 percent of their assets, without any possibility to take into account the riskiness of their investments."
Labour's 5 and 6 out of 10s are the key to the close Populus. All about the Labour GOTV machine, Con/UKIP supporters will come out come hell or high water relative to Labour. Alot of "Can't be arsed, perhaps on a sunday" in the Labour camp.
Comments
(a) use Sainte-Lague divisors instead of D'Hondt
(b) apply an arbitrary or artificial threshold for parties to qualify for seats
(c) have a multiple-layer top-up system
(d) use open lists instead of a closed list
(e) have various quotas, thresholds and constraints for the election or selection of candidates according to gender or location
(f) have different rules for coalitions of parties than for individual parties
and/or lost of other things.
None of these complications apply in the European Parliamant electiosn in Great Britain.
The voting is, admittedly, "fiendishly complicated" because it forces voters to struggle with one X instead of with a simple list of weighted preferences.
Ugh. That's not a pretty sentence I've written. Hopefully you catch my drift regardless.
https://welections.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/europe-2009-united-kingdom-results/
Anyhow my point stands. A 5% threshold would serve no practical purpose [which must explain why there isn't one!]
I might point out that the Yes campaign is similar in that it is broader and more varied than the SNP (which itself has an unusually broad range of views within it come together for the sake of nationalism). A mistake made by the SNP in the early stages of the campaign was to assume the campaign was the SNP. The laughable White Paper was a good example of that sort of thinking. I think Salmond was trying to correct that mistake in Aberdeen at the weekend with his "it's not about me" speech. Old habits die hard however.
What BT should be saying in my opinion is that the path of devolution in the future will be dependent upon the views of the Scottish and rUK peoples and who they vote for. It is a journey, not a fixed point and there is no quid pro quo for a no vote in terms of powers. All that can be said with confidence is that the direction of that journey since 1997 has been increased powers for the Scottish Parliament and it is likely that trend will continue.
Edit ok I cheated. She is a he and a white sprinter who has run under 10s for the 100m. So what?
The choice before us in September is not “independence versus the status quo”; “change versus no change”. A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012.
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/reforming-devolution-deepening-union/
Morris raises the point that as it's an EU-wide election, what we do in the UK won't decisively influence the result. But that's true of all elections - is there anyone who doesn't vote in Birmingham because Birmingham doesn't decide the result of General Elections by itself?
As I said it will be a journey and the UK will probably muck about with the balance of devolved powers indefinitely. It would help if there was a stronger regional system in England. I think it would be healthier if localism was not seen in a purely Scottish us against them context but as a way of removing more powers from Whitehall for the benefit of all of the UK.
Mind you, the way Labour's constitutional meddling is going we might end up with an English Parliament just because the other bits of the UK slope off.
UKIP MPs can at least table a withdrawal bill in Westminster.
None of the pro-EU political parties will be campaigning for an end to green energy taxes/subsidies. None of them will want to change current government/EU policy which is to increase the price UK residents pay for energy.
Indeed. In this age of (4th/5th//6th? wave) feminism - I for one feel no should mean no
The top comment, now under moderation, was about banning halal/kosher butchery, which it described as a 'cruel death'.
"I'd be less worried about which animal it is and more concerned with how the animal was killed.
Most likely the lamb will have suffered a cruel halal death. It's time we ban this inhumane kosher/halal nonsense."
Given there was no mention of such in the article and the strong support/numerous comments it's a non-scientific but interesting response from various people.
Open door immigration from the EU affects millions of people here, and the right to control our borders is a power we have given away.
It seems today's Google doodle commemorates my beloved Peak District National Park - 63 years old today!
https://www.google.co.uk/
And Vanilla is behaving very oddly.
Me? In case you hadn't noticed I was quoting.
I'll repeat a couple of the original quotes.
http://rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/london-money-laundering-capital-of.html
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/08/09/london-is-the-global-capital-of-money-laundering/
"When Private Eye asked one former policeman why the bankers aren’t getting arrested for money laundering, the answer was simple: ‘They are untouchable’."
Anyone can do a bit of googling and find out for themselves. One of the interesting results you get is the number of London law firms advertising on the basis of their expertise with the money laundering laws.
Like I say it's quite funny in a way. If he wanted to Balls could be making hay over the effect of this economic stimulus package even if it's not the kind of stimulus people generally think of as a good thing.
And what if, in the future, there were different types of institutions in England. Which of the following do you think SHOULD have the most influence over the way England is run?
An English Parliament : 30
The UK Government : 30
Stronger local councils : 17
Elected Regional Assemblies: 11
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n7j4epfe7j/University of Cardiff_England sample Results 121128.pdf
The excessive concentration of power in Westminster is unhealthy. It has driven the desire for devolution and even independence in Scotland. It has resulted in a massive over concentration of investment and infrastructure to service our world city to the detriment of everything else. The north west was once the richest part of the UK, probably one of the richest parts of the world. It needs to get that self confidence back and having a local, democratic say on infrastructure and housing and health priorities would almost certainly help.
If the scope of power in Westminster was sharply reduced (for example abolishing the Minstries for Health and, possibly education, the issues such as the WLQ can be more easily resolved too.
Even if there is a no vote (as I believe, just, there will be) business as usual really is not an option.
So why don't millions of people want to vote for parties which have a view on this, one way or another? Because they don't actually care that much. Most people think the EU is mildly useful to exporters and a shared market makes sense in principle, but they're dubious about free movement and other aspects. But these things are way down the list of "issues that affect me and my family personally" so they don't give them a burning desire to rush out and express their views by voting.
The same applies to energy policy. It would be possible to elect MEPs who would work to water down EU green policies if people felt strongly opposed - there are allies in the other EU countries who would help. But they don't feel that strongly - in fact most polls suggest they rather approve, even when explicitly told that it has a significant cost.
Don't you agree that most people don't feel the EU affects their lives very much, contrary to campaigners who feel it impinges massively on every aspect of Britain? Perhaps they should, but they don't. It's also why DavidL may win is £10 bet with me on turnout, but we shall see!
Breaking: Putin: Hope not to have to use military force in Ukraine http://on.wsj.com/1oOslWm
In other words, be prepared for all hell to break lose.
Why d'you ask?
Radio works pretty well for qualifying, but not for the race. You can't see the timings, which reveal more than just the commentary, and there's no substitute for actually seeing events unfold.
At least the highlights are fairly extensive.
Might I plug my own F1 blog? It's geared towards betting, and I usually write 3 articles per race weekend: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/
I've been writing the articles since midway through 2009 [but only shifted to my blog relatively recently] and have a reasonable record.
You just did
I find the highlights extremely extensive on Suzi's BBC
Big city government is the key. Greater Manchester should override its boroughs and have a big GM mayoralty a la London. This should have happened years ago.
Of course we know that its direction is exercised at an intergovermental level, through meetings of the European Council, and executed by the European Commission, who propose legislation. Just because people can't think of any EU policy that might affect them in the next 5 years doesn't mean there won't be any. Of course, many of those policy decisions have already been taken irrevocably - such as free movement of people - but others may be imposed on the UK through QMV, such as financial regulation. Normally, EU policy decisions are foregone conclusions once treaties conceeding powers to it by member states are signed.
When considering the European Parliament elections, it is more closely comparable to electing a jumped-up transnational House of Lords, without any vote on the equivalent Prime Minister, Cabinet, or House of Commons. No matter which way you vote it doesn't make any difference to its direction or policy any which way.
In that case, voting for a party that wants to withdraw from the lot is a logical response if you want 'out' or to send the whole institution a message.
Positive opinion on English regional devolution is clearly tepid and that for an English parliament mixed perhaps because as the superpower of the relationship they don't feel the need to flex their muscles.
£400 million of that loss was from non-banking parts of the business.
What a disaster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27049101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mayoral_referendums,_2012#Manchester
As did 9 of the 11 cities asked (only Bristol said 'Yes', and Darlington said 'keep')
P.S. Bloody vanila is playing up, I can only see about 60% of the comments box so apologies for any typos.
The great cities of the North grew and became rich for reasons of commerce and industry. Those reasons have no gone, unless new ones can be found then continued decline is surely inevitable, no amount of local say (democratic or otherwise) on infrastructure, housing or health will change economic reality.
An "English for Yes" campaign could be a game-changer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u79g053bWK4&feature=youtu.be
Basically, you all end up getting ruled from Norwich, but were in no rush, just like Putin.
Below there is a list of policies. Please indicate whether you think each of the following policies should be the same across the whole of England or should be a matter for each local authority to decide itself? (Please tick one option per row)
England/Local:
Nursery & Child Care: 71 / 24
Primary School Education: 79 / 16
Secondary School Education: 80 / 15
Planning approvals: 51 / 44
Public Transport: 59 / 36
Refuse Collection/Recycling: 49 / 47
Housing: 54 / 41
Social services: 74 / 22
Museums & Galeries: 56 / 39
Which may be why Miliband's big 'localism' drive has sunk without trace....
Source: Cardiff YouGov
If this had come out yesterday, I would have done a thread on this polling.
Labour, Tories and Kippers prefer Oasis to Blur. Lib Dems prefer Blur.
On the 20th anniversary of Britpop, British people pick Oasis over Blur by two to one
In April 1994, following the death of Kurt Cobain and the American grunge scene with it, English radio DJ and music critic Stuart Maconie coined the phrase ‘Britpop’.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/17/20-years-oasis-beats-blur/
As I understand it, Vanilla will soon be renamed "Hannibal"
I'm getting nostalgic for Disqus.
Megabanks operating at a 33:1 capital ratio can't do crisis.
It's just simple arithmetic.
Besides which, you asserting something is true does not make it so. Stating that people 'don't care that much' is the standard europhile refrain of the day, now it's clear they will never convince a majority of Britons that their real agenda of ever-closer union is A Good Thing. The argument is straight out of Mike Smithson's hymnbook. I'm not sure it convinces anyone but those who repeat it. Perhaps they hope it (and the EU) will bore people to death, so further integration just happens by stealth.
In many respects it's been a successful strategy so far.
(a) completely missing my point
(b) completely missing the cultural reference to which I was referring
(c) therefore a booliak.
The original reason was someone commenting that of course a vote for No would lead to devo-max, which I found, to put it politely, at odds with the general understanding of the term and the current situation.
Create the motive and the ability to seek a new raison d'etre
Apparently governments are allowed to borrow money
''The Co-operative Group has announced losses of £2.5bn for 2013, marking the worst results in the group's 150-year history.'
Ed's model bank!
What happened to the £287,000 donated to Farage’s local branch?
see: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4065507.ece
The story this time dates back to 2004-5 and the setting up of a call-centre in Ashford, Kent to recruit new party members and funds.
Ashford Employment Ltd, a company owned by Mr Bown and run by UKIP, was set up in October 2003 to pay for call centre workers. It spent £158,582 in 2004 and £89,456 in 2005. Once staff and the running costs had been met from donations, any surplus from Ashford was transferred to the southeast branch, according to Terry Quarterman, the centre’s former manager and a director of the company. The branch received £291,931 in donations in 2004, the year of the European elections, and £114,967 in 2005, although it is unclear how much was from Ashford.
Former UKIP members have raised concerns about the two large sums that were paid out of the branch in the same two years. In 2004, the branch recorded a £211,267 withdrawal as “other” running costs. In 2005, £89,996 was spent in the same way. Late in 2005, the call centre’s financial affairs were transferred to UKIP’s head office. UKIP said that accounts for the centre were filed with the Electoral Commission. “They were audited as legally required and found to be in order,” a spokesman said.
UKIP and Farage may have acted perfectly properly in respect of funds raised by the call-centre, but the accounting records released to date are opaque and lacking in detail giving rise to reasonable suspicion that funds may have been misappropriated.
Farage and UKIP need to avoid this story escalating into a major crisis for the party. It is essential and urgent that a full and credible public statement is made on the matter.
Incredible footage from MOTD where, within hours of Hillsborough, they reported the truth - http://youtu.be/ypE5TG2UPNk (via@Markchippers)
Meanwhile here is an equally impartial link
http://www.socialist.net/farage-and-ukip-anti-establishment-or-anti-working-class.htm
New Populus VI: Lab 35 (=); Cons 34 (+1); LD 9 (-2); UKIP 14 (+1); Oth 8 (=) Tables http://popu.lu/s_vi140417 "
Scotland can be part of the UK or it can be independent, but the idea that it can be the former whilst running its own fiscal policy is a nonsense.
http://youtu.be/e3L-aBgNL1w
Here's my combined top ten-
10 -Not Lesiure
9 - Not 13
8 - Parklife
7 - Don't Believe the Truth
6 - Be Here Now
5 - Standing on the Shoulder's of Giants
4 - Dig Out Your Soul
3 - Modern Life is Rubbish (I've got Lib Dem sympathies)
2 - Blur
1 - (What's the Story) Morning Glory [for the zeitgeist]
My gold-plated council pension increase came through today,£7.01p per month gross.I'd like to start unpopping champagne corks but I am definitely not going to let it change my life in any way.
That will go straight towards paying off the grotesque fuel bills.
It's simply a miracle,an economic miracle.Thank you,Gideon.
2% swing back to Con largest party
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-12/banks-get-scaled-back-rule-on-debt-limit-from-basel-regulators.html
"While the regulators amended how banks should calculate the size of their assets, they didn’t change the percentage of their own funds needed to meet the rule.
The committee will still require banks to hold capital equivalent to at least 3 percent of their assets, without any possibility to take into account the riskiness of their investments."