That the loss of one member of a grouping from one natioon means that they lose their group status, membership of committees and considerable funding is hardly proportionate. Should the Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties be excluded from Parliamentary committees and denied Short Money because they have no MPs in Kent? It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!
If I knew what short money was, I could answer your first question, but I can't.
But I can address your final statement ("It has nothing to do with being byzantine. Its just plain wrong!") by noting it is difficult to defend. Are you saying there should be no threshold? If you are not, then any group will collapse when it falls below the threshold. If you are, then you would end up with "N" groups (where N is the number of MEPs), a plainly unsustainable position.
The groups have a threshold. Ukip's group fell beneath it. So the group collapsed. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it happens all the time.
What is the purpose of the threshold? I see no use for it. Such things can be addressed proportionately surely
Further I do not see why is it unsustainable? The threshold forces parties to either join in larger groupings in which they perhaps do not easily fit (e.g. as the Tories did for years within the EPP) or end up sat in small supposedly 'unsustainable' national groups. The only difference being that the larger groupings and the EU bureaucracy can conveniently ignore and exclude them.
This has to be the slowest thread on PB for years - just 180 posts over the past 6 hours ..... yawn!
Lots of hobby horse riding.
On the subject of hobby horse riding, Pulpstar, do you still follow raceclear? I see they are threatening to go subscription if more people don't sign up to betting accounts via them.
I see Martin Schultz has managed to use the Byzantine rules of the European parliament to deny speaking time to the leader of the largest UK delegation:
What an undemocratic, illiberal place the EU is. I hope every "Liberal Democrat" that supports the UK's subjugation into this awful organisation loses their seat at the next election. They certainly deserve it.
I'm sorry, this is factually incorrect. The rules are not byzantine: you need a certain number of MEPs from a certain number of EU countries. That's not Byzantine by any meaning of the word: quite the opposite, in fact.
You concluding remarks about the EU being illiberal and an awful organisation into which the UK is being subjugated are similarly nonfactual. The UK is in the EU voluntarily: if it doesn't like it, it can leave freely.
People are currently dying of Ebola, Ukraine has had its gas cut off, and the leper population of the planet is still over 200,000. Many people on the planet live lives that we would find appalling. They can legitimately use the words "awful" and "subjugated", but for the EU? The EU is not an awful organisation, it is at worse an officious combination of the IMF and the Boy Scouts. To describe it as illiberal is nonperspectival: if you did that, how would you describe Turkey, Belarus, the Russian Federation, China...in fact, most of the countries in the world?
That the loss of one member of a grouping from one natioon means that they lose their group status, membership of committees and considerable funding is hardly proportionate. Should the Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties be excluded from Parliamentary committees and denied Short Money because they have no MPs in Kent?
It has nothing to do with being byzantine.
Them's the rules and the rules are designed to prevent groups that are focussed on individual countries (and might therefore want to leave) from getting their paws on the sweetie jar. Instead groups that are bland and could form the basis of a cross country grouping diminishing the role of nations and nation states are rewarded.
What did you expect? It is surprising that UKIP got as close as they did. They will miss the money (which they greatly covet) but in the long run examples like this make those on the fence like me think pretty carefully about what side of the fence to jump down on.
Sorry editing this is just too hard.
You've actually largely answered the question yourself. I expect little else from the EU but if one didn't challenge the system people who are not aware of it wouldn't realise what was going on
Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.
10th of 11 at keeping people alive.
Which kinda matters in a healthcare provider.
Yep, as with the original report this is a completely one sided analysis from a US pressure group whose main aim is to show how bad the US health care system is concerned compared to everywhere else.
The fact that patient survival is not the main criteria in the report shows how idiotic it is. Not surprised the idiots on here who think the NHS is the best healthcare system possible in spite of all the evidence to the contrary from Europe are clinging to this garbage.
The NHS is a religion in this country . A religion that no other country in the world has adopted. Anyone wonder why? One day a major party is going to state the truth. Unfortunately UKIP 2010 did, but not UKIP October 2014.
The health care systems in a number of Scandanavian countries, as well as New Zealand are actually very similar to the NHS.
That's interesting. I didn't know that drinking water from vases to survive on wards was such an international thing. Are they all more interested in the provider rather than the consumer too?
They run similar systems, just pay for more staff. The wards that I worked on in NZ had twice the nursing staff than the UK wards that I worked on. I had 1/3 the patients to look after also.
Given the pan European nature of the Parliament and its groupings why is it wrong for UKIP and other anti-EU parties to group together and attempt to change or subvert the EU in unison rather than individually in isolation?
You may have misunderstood me: I wasn't saying it was wrong, I'm saying it was inadequate. The thresholds are there to limit the size and number of groups, and given the existence of a threshold it is inevitable that groups will occasionally fall below it and consequently collapse. It's happened before, it'll happen again
As someone who is not only in favour of withdrawal from the EU but also disapproves of its existence as being bad for this country in or out and bad for Europe I am much happier that my party co-operate with other like minded parties across Europe to stop the EU furthering their goals. Its far better than just seeing them sit there in isolation voting against things but having no influence. You could equate it to the Libdems going into Coalition with the aim of abolishing the House of Lords (even though it has numerous Peers who sit in that place).
I consistently hold that a Eurosceptic organisation should not sit in the EP because voting in the EP is inherently Europhilic. I can approve of UKIP's stance of consistent negative voting since that's quite a clever loophole. But even so, to caucus in it is still an implicit acceptance of the concept that panEuropean politics exists and that the EP is a legitimate place to transact it, and hence a legitimisation of the EP.
80% of all beds are public or not for profit aren't they?
Desperate to deflect from the basic fact that our health system, is no where near the best in the world - which is what you were trying to claim
Within Europe
Waiting times, 23rd out of 35 Outcomes, 18th out of 35.
Certainly not #1 in anything.
The report ranks it number 1 overall
It is clearly cost effective and as you observe loved by UK citizens
And of course some of the measures like waiting times/lists to which you refer are getting worse in last few years.
Good luck on persuading voters that your party has the best health policy
Oh that's okay then. The fact that it is worse at actually doing what it is supposed to do - keep people alive and healthy - doesn't matter as long as it is cost effective and popular.
That sums up the sheer lunacy of the NHS religion and why we have such a poor health service in Britain compared to the rest of our European neighbours.
That should be the Labour slogan for the next election
'The NHS - it may not actually make you stop you dying but at least its popular'.
If a system is doing well for cost-effectiveness, but the outcomes (not weighted for cost) are poor, doesn't basic mathematics and common sense say we're not spending enough on it?
No, sorry, what am I thinking? Obviously it means completely reorganise and change the system to better resemble some of its less cost-effective counterparts in other countries without spending any extra.
No it means that what is being measured for cost effectiveness is not what should be measured. The NHS registers as cost effective because the value of outcomes is downgraded. Put simply they are measuring the wrong things in getting to that conclusion.
As long as the attitude you display continues the NHS will continue to kill people who would otherwise live longer lives.
That is the base result of your religious fervour for the NHS.
I can't believe people are still citing that non-peer reviewed advertorial style American toss article by the Commonwealth Fund to justify the continued existence of the NHS. One keeps telling them, but they keep popping up with it again and again like Whac a Mole.
Right, obviously the only truly believable source is Richard's favourite: "Health Consumer Powerhouse".
Given the pan European nature of the Parliament and its groupings why is it wrong for UKIP and other anti-EU parties to group together and attempt to change or subvert the EU in unison rather than individually in isolation?
You may have misunderstood me: I wasn't saying it was wrong, I'm saying it was inadequate. The thresholds are there to limit the size and number of groups, and given the existence of a threshold it is inevitable that groups will occasionally fall below it and consequently collapse. It's happened before, it'll happen again
As someone who is not only in favour of withdrawal from the EU but also disapproves of its existence as being bad for this country in or out and bad for Europe I am much happier that my party co-operate with other like minded parties across Europe to stop the EU furthering their goals. Its far better than just seeing them sit there in isolation voting against things but having no influence. You could equate it to the Libdems going into Coalition with the aim of abolishing the House of Lords (even though it has numerous Peers who sit in that place).
I consistently hold that a Eurosceptic organisation should not sit in the EP because voting in the EP is inherently Europhilic. I can approve of UKIP's stance of consistent negative voting since that's quite a clever loophole. But even so, to caucus in it is still an implicit acceptance of the concept that panEuropean politics exists and that the EP is a legitimate place to transact it, and hence a legitimisation of the EP.
But the European parliament is used by Europhile politicians as a platform to promote their insidious world views. It is only reasonable that Eurosceptic politicians also get the same platform. That's why it's very wrong that you are forced to caucus in order to get your due of speaking time.
But the SNP MEPs *do* caucus with other Regionalists in the EP (please don't make me look the group up, life is too short). If they wanted to do that in the UK Parliament, they could do so by creating a group with UKIP and Plaid Cymru, and even the nonviolent NI separatists.
But not in the UK parliament, where we would regard such a requirement as being hugely undemocratic. If you have X number of MPs then you should get the same power whether you get them in one nation or scattered across the whoel polity.
What kind of speaking rights do small parties have in the UK parliament, exactly?
It was never obvious from the Government benches, but my impression was that the small party leaders were fairly readily called when they wanted to speak, but mainly if it was on a subject that they were known to be especially interested in - the SNP on Scotland, Lucas on environmentalism, and so on. The backbenchers of small parties took their chances like all backbenchers.
I'd think that any debate especially relating to Britain ought to include a UKIP contribution, but their lack of pan-European organisation makes them seem less relevant if discussing, say, rules for cattle transports across Europe.
I'd describe the frequent reorganisations, changes, and other politician meddling as an inherent feature of our system, unfortunately.
If we're going to have a monolithic monopoly controlled by the politicians, they're going to try to affect it. After all, hand a politician a large set of controls, levers and dials attached to something seen as crucially important by the electorate and tell him or her that there are serious issues coming down the track (and when haven't there been serious issues either coming down the track for the health service or here already) and that the electorate are very interested in this, and he/she is inevitably going to end up hauling on a lever as hard as possible and spinning a couple of dials wildly.
The continental systems that seem to distance the politicians from the systems somewhat have a real advantage there.
But if we insist on having a system with politicians controlling it, we can't complain about the politicians exercising that control, so we're always going to see meddling and reorganisations.
Yes, I think there's something in that - I saw it in private industry too. No new manager/Minister is respected for saying "Things seem to be going as well as can be expected while the last changes bed down, let's just carry on for a while with minor tweaks". But I think you'd get the phenomenon with a hands-off organisation too - for instance, is the Environment Agency free of costly reorganisations? (Genuine question - I don't actually know)
Given the pan European nature of the Parliament and its groupings why is it wrong for UKIP and other anti-EU parties to group together and attempt to change or subvert the EU in unison rather than individually in isolation?
You may have misunderstood me: I wasn't saying it was wrong, I'm saying it was inadequate. The thresholds are there to limit the size and number of groups, and given the existence of a threshold it is inevitable that groups will occasionally fall below it and consequently collapse. It's happened before, it'll happen again
As someone who is not only in favour of withdrawal from the EU but also disapproves of its existence as being bad for this country in or out and bad for Europe I am much happier that my party co-operate with other like minded parties across Europe to stop the EU furthering their goals. Its far better than just seeing them sit there in isolation voting against things but having no influence. You could equate it to the Libdems going into Coalition with the aim of abolishing the House of Lords (even though it has numerous Peers who sit in that place).
I consistently hold that a Eurosceptic organisation should not sit in the EP because voting in the EP is inherently Europhilic. I can approve of UKIP's stance of consistent negative voting since that's quite a clever loophole. But even so, to caucus in it is still an implicit acceptance of the concept that the EP is a legitimate place to transact panEuropean politics, and hence a legitimisation of the EP.
So do you disapprove of the Libdems sitting in the House of Lords and the SNP and PC sitting in the House Of Commons?
Surely then if you take your argument to its logical conclusion UKIP should not even contest the Euro elections etc in the first place which ideologically is all very well but in the real world doesn't really get you anywhere. For example, the fact that Sinn Fein do not sit in Westminster means the concept of Northern Ireland leaving the Union is never considered whereas the presence of the SNP in Westminster has in part contributed to the ever increasing devolution that could well result in independence some time in the future.
Just because you oppose some institution doesn't mean you should turn your back on it and pretend it doesn't exist. Often the best approach is to tackle it head on
"Popular" is a value judgment, but "popular enough" is easy to judge. Did it meet the threshold? No. Then it's not popular enough. And Schultz didn't twist the rules (unless you're saying he's changed them since this term started?).
But they are popular enough. They meet the threshold for the number of MEPs. It's not lack of popularity that is costing them their group. It's the lack of dispersion of popularity across different EU countries. It's a nastily designed threshold to boost pan-European views and hold back nation-specific views, even when those nation-specific views are as popular.
NPXMP It was never obvious from the Government benches, but my impression was that the small party leaders were fairly readily called when they wanted to speak, but mainly if it was on a subject that they were known to be especially interested in - the SNP on Scotland, Lucas on environmentalism, and so on. The backbenchers of small parties took their chances like all backbenchers.
False memory syndrome? I did not realise you were in Parliament at the same time as Lucas?
Karen Davis and colleagues from the US-based Commonwealth Fund have examined eleven healthcare systems in this new version of a report previously published in 2010. They have ranked the UK first overall and first across a whole host of categories encompassing quality care (effective, safe, coordinated and patient-centred), access (cost-related problems) and efficiency.
This is the same NHS that a couple of years ago Ed said the Tories would have killed off within 90 days?
Many of you pb tories would kill off the NHS within 9 days let alone 90 . You have a blind hatred of it .
mhhh - leaving aside the obvious rubbish you are spouting, you really are not the one to be talking to others re blind hatred.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
ET?
In fact Ed is crap does a good impression ive heard
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
Realistically what choice does he have?
His policies have failed to materialise.
His gimmicks are seen through.
And his speech fell flat.
Exactly what else has he got apart from shouting: Nasty Tories!
Ed has lots of policies. You may not like them. You may dismiss them as gimmicks. You make yourself look like a prize fool by repeating the line that he has no policies.
Ed has lots of policies. You may not like them. You may dismiss them as gimmicks. You make yourself look like a prize fool by repeating the line that he has no policies.
False memory syndrome? I did not realise you were in Parliament at the same time as Lucas?
You're right! I was remembering what happened to minor party leaders, and then separately thinking "what minor party leaders can I think of?" Well spotted.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
It's a particularly silly thing to do as it now enables Freud and the government to put the case that he meant to make, having given it due thought and preparation. That, as opposed to the out-of-context mis-speak, is a position the public is likely to have some sympathy with. By contrast, Labour will be stuck parroting a stolen sound-clip.
As far as I'm aware, the criticism of Burnham wrt Mid-Staffs ties him quite unfairly to much that happened before he assumed the role of Health Sec. Any criticism of him on this should specifically state what he did wrong, otherwise it's in the same league as the Milibluff* attack on Freud. Unless anyone has anything solid on Burnham they ought to stop going on about it, it smells of Labour tactics.
*nb this is not a name for Miliband, it's an adjective combining his name and the word bluff to describe the next word. I'm not Gideoning or Carsewelling
Ed has lots of policies. You may not like them. You may dismiss them as gimmicks. You make yourself look like a prize fool by repeating the line that he has no policies.
That's it? That's the best you can manage?
*sighs*
I'm being kind. I'm trying to help you not to appear like such a pillock on a public discussion board.
I hold no candle for Ed Miliband and have no particular desire to defend him from criticism, but I find it irksome to view such a moronic meme repeated so often.
Given the number of times I have been corrected on pb.com I suggest that if you can not deal with being corrected for making factual mistakes on here you would do better to stay silent.
With the reaction to Angela Eagle on Question Time on this matter, this has the potential to blow up in Labour's face. Milking this for Party Political advantage is going to do them no good.
Which rather begs the question, who is advising Ed to do this??
It's a particularly silly thing to do as it now enables Freud and the government to put the case that he meant to make, having given it due thought and preparation. That, as opposed to the out-of-context mis-speak, is a position the public is likely to have some sympathy with. By contrast, Labour will be stuck parroting a stolen sound-clip.
Exactly! The wheels have already come off this wagon as we saw last week at Question Time. These matters are not simple and milking the plight of such very vulnerable people for partisan advantage is pretty sickening. If Labour have any sense, they will drop this idea.
Surely then if you take your argument to its logical conclusion UKIP should not even contest the Euro elections etc in the first place which ideologically is all very well but in the real world doesn't really get you anywhere.
I've acknowledged the validity of UKIP's consistent negative voting. It's not the way I would do it if I was an Eurosceptic, but the logic does hold.
Just because you oppose some institution doesn't mean you should turn your back on it and pretend it doesn't exist. Often the best approach is to tackle it head on
It's a slippery slope argument: I understand it but disagree with it. They should not stand. If they do stand, they should not sit. If they do sit, they should not accept money other than that necessary for survival. If they do accept money as individuals, they should not accept it as a group...and so on. The further down the road they go, the more they become indistinguishable from the other Europols...and they show no signs of halting. I accept we will not agree on this point.
Ed has lots of policies. You may not like them. You may dismiss them as gimmicks. You make yourself look like a prize fool by repeating the line that he has no policies.
That's it? That's the best you can manage?
*sighs*
I'm being kind. I'm trying to help you not to appear like such a pillock on a public discussion board.
I hold no candle for Ed Miliband and have no particular desire to defend him from criticism, but I find it irksome to view such a moronic meme repeated so often.
Given the number of times I have been corrected on pb.com I suggest that if you can not deal with being corrected for making factual mistakes on here you would do better to stay silent.
"No Policies" is short for "no viable, practical policies that make real statement about what Labour stand for".
Ed has lots of policies. You may not like them. You may dismiss them as gimmicks. You make yourself look like a prize fool by repeating the line that he has no policies.
That's it? That's the best you can manage?
*sighs*
I'm being kind. I'm trying to help you not to appear like such a pillock on a public discussion board.
I hold no candle for Ed Miliband and have no particular desire to defend him from criticism, but I find it irksome to view such a moronic meme repeated so often.
Given the number of times I have been corrected on pb.com I suggest that if you can not deal with being corrected for making factual mistakes on here you would do better to stay silent.
"No Policies" is short for "no viable, practical policies that make real statement about what Labour stand for".
Well, I'm sure there are plenty of partisans who would put the case for the Coalition failing that test on the basis of the policies implemented being impractical.
The criticism was first made of Miliband when he didn't have any policies, after he talked about a "blank sheet of paper". To stretch the meaning as you attempt is to denude the phrase of any meaning.
We currently - even with a fire at Didcot and some of our nuclear power plants capped at 75% of max output - have very large reserve margins. See: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The UK 'power squeeze' (which we probably won't have anyway) is all the way out in 2017 and beyond, after a bunch of planned (but so far unimplemented) shutdowns.
Daily Mail turning focus on Labour run Welsh NHS. Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 29s30 seconds ago Monday's Daily Mail front page - Labour's NHS shame exposed
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
Daily Mail turning focus on Labour run Welsh NHS. Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 29s30 seconds ago Monday's Daily Mail front page - Labour's NHS shame exposed
Lets see if the windmills of their minds will warm their feet.
My money's on us making it through the winter without a blackout. Happy to take your cash - 10/1?
Well I have known blackouts in the past but don't expect them this winter. Unless that is, we have a winter like we suffered in 1947/48 or 1963 and/or Russia cuts the gas off to Europe.
Daily Mail turning focus on Labour run Welsh NHS. Twitter PoliticsHome @politicshome 29s30 seconds ago Monday's Daily Mail front page - Labour's NHS shame exposed
I think the lib dems will be put off when Cameron goes nuclear on the immigration issue with the EU ;-)
Lets see if the windmills of their minds will warm their feet.
My money's on us making it through the winter without a blackout. Happy to take your cash - 10/1?
Well I have known blackouts in the past but don't expect them this winter. Unless that is, we have a winter like we suffered in 1947/48 or 1963 and/or Russia cuts the gas off to Europe.
Why would Russia cutting off the gas to Europe cause a blackout in the UK? there would be much more of an issue if they stopped delivering coal to the UK. (that being said, the international coal markets have a lot of slack, so even if they did we could import from the US, latin America or south Africa)
Lets see if the windmills of their minds will warm their feet.
My money's on us making it through the winter without a blackout. Happy to take your cash - 10/1?
Well I have known blackouts in the past but don't expect them this winter. Unless that is, we have a winter like we suffered in 1947/48 or 1963 and/or Russia cuts the gas off to Europe.
We used to have them in the 70s courtesy of the miners....
Lets see if the windmills of their minds will warm their feet.
My money's on us making it through the winter without a blackout. Happy to take your cash - 10/1?
Well I have known blackouts in the past but don't expect them this winter. Unless that is, we have a winter like we suffered in 1947/48 or 1963 and/or Russia cuts the gas off to Europe.
Why would Russia cutting off the gas to Europe cause a blackout in the UK? there would be much more of an issue if they stopped delivering coal to the UK. (that being said, the international coal markets have a lot of slack, so even if they did we could import from the US, latin America or south Africa)
Yeh Man! I can see all that railway rolling stock specially built to carry coal up to those fire burning maws, quenching any urgent demand. LOL
MikeK/Socrates/Speedy A recent CNN poll had Romney beating Obama in a rematch 53%-44% (though I believe a similar rematch in 2006 had Kerry beating Bush).
Because we have so much influence over the EU when we do engage, like with Blair's push on CAP reform, or Osborne's campaign against the bank bonus regulations, etc etc. Farage could have turned up to every damn meeting - it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
The Kursk was rammed by a US sub, the Russians agreed to not make an issue out of it, cover it up and not start a war. Some countries are responsible like that.
Because we have so much influence over the EU when we do engage, like with Blair's push on CAP reform, or Osborne's campaign against the bank bonus regulations, etc etc. Farage could have turned up to every damn meeting - it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
Taking the view you do, shouldn't UKIP just do a Sinn Fein - and not turn up at all?
Because we have so much influence over the EU when we do engage, like with Blair's push on CAP reform, or Osborne's campaign against the bank bonus regulations, etc etc. Farage could have turned up to every damn meeting - it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
Taking the view you do, shouldn't UKIP just do a Sinn Fein - and not turn up at all?
Ah yes. Expenses......
Not turning up didn't stop Sinn Fein claiming expenses
Sinn Fein under fire over Westminster expense claims
"No Policies" is short for "no policies that I agree with".
Fixed it for you.
Perhaps you would be so good as to explain labours policy on the deficit then because your glorious leader, weird Ed seems to have forgotten all about it.
I don't usually watch The Andrew Marr Show, but I've just noticed that the opening titles show Marr riding his scooter through London and then - seemlessly and instantaneously - arriving at the BBC offices in Salford in Upnorthsomewhere. Isn't that about 200 miles away? Anyway.
(OT) Yesterday we were visited by my septuagenarian cousin, who was telling us about her recent holiday to Yakutsk and the Lena river in Siberia.
It inspired me to check the list of the longest rivers in the Guinness Book of Answers. It says that the Lena is the 9th longest river in the world, and also the 9th biggest in terms of the area of the drainage basin.
But I was surprised to discover that the world's 2nd largest river (in terms of drainage basin area) is not the Mississipi-Missouri-Red-Etcetera, but the Paraná-Paraguay-Plata. Even the Nile has a bigger basin than the Mississippi.
MikeK/Socrates/Speedy A recent CNN poll had Romney beating Obama in a rematch 53%-44% (though I believe a similar rematch in 2006 had Kerry beating Bush).
Surbiton Warren would not even run against Hillary as she has said, and Hillary would trounce her anyway, Sanders would probably be her main challenger. But if the Democrats are stupid enough not to pick Hillary they will deserve the thumping they will receive
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
The Kursk was rammed by a US sub, the Russians agreed to not make an issue out of it, cover it up and not start a war. Some countries are responsible like that.
That would be impressive if it were true.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
Kursk was sunk by one of its own torpedoes exploding. It exploded because it used hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide (HTP in this case) is energetic and cheap and was used in the (sadly) aborted 1960s/70s British space programme. And it was bloody dangerous even then. This is why ICBMs have solid fuel propellants (they are safe to store and leave unmaintained for long periods.
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
The Kursk was rammed by a US sub, the Russians agreed to not make an issue out of it, cover it up and not start a war. Some countries are responsible like that.
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
The Kursk was rammed by a US sub, the Russians agreed to not make an issue out of it, cover it up and not start a war. Some countries are responsible like that.
That would be impressive if it were true.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
Kursk was sunk by one of its own torpedoes exploding. It exploded because it used hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide (HTP in this case) is energetic and cheap and was used in the (sadly) aborted 1960s/70s British space programme. And it was bloody dangerous even then. This is why ICBMs have solid fuel propellants (they are safe to store and leave unmaintained for long periods.
Yes, very interesting. Not all the Russian Submarine Fleet is in great condition and i wonder if something has failed. I hope that we are not going to see another "Kursk" with a crew full of sailors trapped on the bottom. The Russians denied that until it was too late as well!
The Kursk was rammed by a US sub, the Russians agreed to not make an issue out of it, cover it up and not start a war. Some countries are responsible like that.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money
As you will see the Greens even get Short Money.
What is the purpose of the threshold? I see no use for it. Such things can be addressed proportionately surely
Further I do not see why is it unsustainable? The threshold forces parties to either join in larger groupings in which they perhaps do not easily fit (e.g. as the Tories did for years within the EPP) or end up sat in small supposedly 'unsustainable' national groups. The only difference being that the larger groupings and the EU bureaucracy can conveniently ignore and exclude them.
I see they are threatening to go subscription if more people don't sign up to betting accounts via them.
But all systems have their scandals:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2781712/Drunk-doctor-C-section-death-British-mum-Anaesthetist-three-times-drink-drive-limit-wrongly-inserted-tube-causing-mother-suffer-heart-attack.html
Or this French near contempory of Mid Staffs:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/08/heat-a22.html
I'd think that any debate especially relating to Britain ought to include a UKIP contribution, but their lack of pan-European organisation makes them seem less relevant if discussing, say, rules for cattle transports across Europe. Yes, I think there's something in that - I saw it in private industry too. No new manager/Minister is respected for saying "Things seem to be going as well as can be expected while the last changes bed down, let's just carry on for a while with minor tweaks". But I think you'd get the phenomenon with a hands-off organisation too - for instance, is the Environment Agency free of costly reorganisations? (Genuine question - I don't actually know)
Surely then if you take your argument to its logical conclusion UKIP should not even contest the Euro elections etc in the first place which ideologically is all very well but in the real world doesn't really get you anywhere. For example, the fact that Sinn Fein do not sit in Westminster means the concept of Northern Ireland leaving the Union is never considered whereas the presence of the SNP in Westminster has in part contributed to the ever increasing devolution that could well result in independence some time in the future.
Just because you oppose some institution doesn't mean you should turn your back on it and pretend it doesn't exist. Often the best approach is to tackle it head on
If Mr Carswell retains his seat, it could be very lucrative for UKIP
"From 1 April 2008, eligible parties receive £14,015 for every seat won at the last election plus £27.99 for every 200 votes gained by the party."
27 million voted in the last Election - say 4 million vote UKIP in this - that comes out at £575,000.
It was never obvious from the Government benches, but my impression was that the small party leaders were fairly readily called when they wanted to speak, but mainly if it was on a subject that they were known to be especially interested in - the SNP on Scotland, Lucas on environmentalism, and so on. The backbenchers of small parties took their chances like all backbenchers.
False memory syndrome? I did not realise you were in Parliament at the same time as Lucas?
I am an extra-terrestrial life form using his log-on whilst testing for intelligent life on Earth.
I've finished my tests now and can report back to base. Sorry for the disturbance.
Test
You're kidding! I thought we were the only ones here.
You have ruined our sub-samples. Back to Mars I guess.
In fact Ed is crap does a good impression ive heard
Bit less lovable though
Realistically what choice does he have?
His policies have failed to materialise.
His gimmicks are seen through.
And his speech fell flat.
Exactly what else has he got apart from shouting: Nasty Tories!
Look who has posted on this thread
Currently only being fought by those phonies, UKIP.....
*sighs*
Does that buy a stamp these days?
*nb this is not a name for Miliband, it's an adjective combining his name and the word bluff to describe the next word. I'm not Gideoning or Carsewelling
I hold no candle for Ed Miliband and have no particular desire to defend him from criticism, but I find it irksome to view such a moronic meme repeated so often.
Given the number of times I have been corrected on pb.com I suggest that if you can not deal with being corrected for making factual mistakes on here you would do better to stay silent.
"No Policies" is short for "no viable, practical policies that make real statement about what Labour stand for".
"Major fire at Didcot B power station"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29684205
Well the people living nearby will be warm...
The criticism was first made of Miliband when he didn't have any policies, after he talked about a "blank sheet of paper". To stretch the meaning as you attempt is to denude the phrase of any meaning.
The UK 'power squeeze' (which we probably won't have anyway) is all the way out in 2017 and beyond, after a bunch of planned (but so far unimplemented) shutdowns.
Twitter
PoliticsHome @politicshome 29s30 seconds ago
Monday's Daily Mail front page - Labour's NHS shame exposed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/11173033/Sweden-hunts-for-suspected-Russian-submarine-in-Cold-War-style-drama.html
Perhaps if UKIP had bothered turning up at the normal fisheries committee meetings?
"Mr Farage attended only just one of 42 Fisheries Committee meetings in the three years to January 2013."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337307/Nigel-Farage-says-entitled-lunchtime-pint-figures-UKIP-laziest-party-Brussels.htm
A recent CNN poll had Romney beating Obama in a rematch 53%-44% (though I believe a similar rematch in 2006 had Kerry beating Bush).
Hillary however beats Romney 55%-42%
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/cnn-poll-romney-tops-obama-but-loses-to-clinton/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004/2004_re_match
19/10/2014 12:22
EU chief warns 'no possibility' of UK reducing immigration ind.pn/1rRTUvE pic.twitter.com/RKKDHgywB6
Ah yes. Expenses......
Sinn Fein under fire over Westminster expense claims
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/sinn-fein-under-fire-over-westminster-expense-claims-28763068.html
Why is it Tories are so rubbish at attack lines?
It inspired me to check the list of the longest rivers in the Guinness Book of Answers. It says that the Lena is the 9th longest river in the world, and also the 9th biggest in terms of the area of the drainage basin.
But I was surprised to discover that the world's 2nd largest river (in terms of drainage basin area) is not the Mississipi-Missouri-Red-Etcetera, but the Paraná-Paraguay-Plata. Even the Nile has a bigger basin than the Mississippi.
Unfortunately, it isn't.
Kursk was sunk by one of its own torpedoes exploding. It exploded because it used hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide (HTP in this case) is energetic and cheap and was used in the (sadly) aborted 1960s/70s British space programme. And it was bloody dangerous even then. This is why ICBMs have solid fuel propellants (they are safe to store and leave unmaintained for long periods.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sidon_(P259)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-test_peroxide
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Unfortunately, it is not true
Unfortunately, it isn't.
Kursk was sunk by one of its own torpedoes exploding. It exploded because it used hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide (HTP in this case) is energetic and cheap and was used in the (sadly) aborted 1960s/70s British space programme. And it was bloody dangerous even then. This is why ICBMs have solid fuel propellants (they are safe to store and leave unmaintained for long periods.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sidon_(P259)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-test_peroxide
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Unfortunately, it is not true