They only had that deficit in the first place because they passed a bunch of utterly lunatic ballot propositions. It takes a special kind of mis-government to create a huge deficit in a state containing a bunch of the world's most profitable and fastest-growing companies. And they don't even have decent public transport infrastructure or anything to show for it.
Your argument has so many holes in here. Firstly, the huge deficit has been fixed, and faster than in the UK, so you can't really use it as evidence that the state is ungovernable. Secondly, you point out that the deficit came from ballot initiatives, something completely unrelated to the size of the state, so you can't really claim the alleged poor government is down to state size. Thirdly, you bring up the hugely successful businesses in the state, which is an indication of how well governed the place is. Fourthly, San Francisco, Oakland and LA have some of the best public transport systems in the USA ( http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-with-best-public-transportation-systems-2014-1 )
It was also the lead item on the BBC radio news last night.
Yes, I was going to say, I'm the last person to defend the mainstream media, but this story has been widely reported.
As far as I'm concerned it goes to show, if you're going to hire groups of insurgents to do your dirty work (Libya, Syria etc.) expect them to be just that. Don't expect military discipline, don't expect them to win hearts and minds -expect them to be brutal, greedy, thieving pond life. Therefore don't expect to be thanked for exporting democracy at the barrel of these people's guns.
Good-government-minded people certainly did not try to split it up and all opposed that bonkers proposal. The man behind it was not a good-governance guy but a wealthy venture capitalist that wanted to gerrymander the state so that the wealthy coastal areas could have an electoral majority to support his ideological goals (such as cutting taxes for the rich).
Are you sure about this? I know who Tim Draper is but it's not obvious the state of Silicon Valley would be right-wing... Maybe they'd close all the schools and do everything online though. To the extent that there's a gerrymandering angle I think it's more that you can elect Republicans in the interior?
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Source please. (For the latter, not the former: we know that Romania, Italy, France etc are cesspools of corruption.)
I presume what Alistair means is that the EU has its accounts audited by the EU Court of Auditors, who use various outside accounting firms. The process is much like with a firm's audit, where they take a sample (a few thousand) invoices and claims, and check their veracity.
The UK has the National Audit Office, whose remit is narrower, and which does not tend (as far I'm aware) to use external professional services firms.
The EU Court of Auditors report is here -http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AB_2013/AB_2013_EN.pdf - and is well worth reading. They state that the error rate for payments is 4.7%; that is 4.7% (€7.4bn) of money that was paid out by the EU was not paid out according to proper policy - although this does not mean all of of this is fraudulent.
I am struggling to find the link, I think</i?it was during a parliamentary committee session when the head of the NAO said that if the UK had to prepare a set of unified accounts like the EU does then he would be unable to sign off on the accounts for similar reasons to why the EU can't sign off on theirs.
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
Refusal of an audit certificate would be disastrous for most companies but evidently different rules apply to the EU. I'm wondering just how serious the qualification is? If it was a one-off, long ago, and subsequent accounts have only been qualified because the prior error has not been corrected, it's not great but it does put it into some sort of perspective.
Otoh, if the EU accounting is a perennial shambles there really is a case for closing the whole joint down.
I think a more interesting question is that why the EU mandates a level of audit which they always (19 consecutive years!) fail.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
However, the above might be the sort of hair-splitting to share over a pint. My point is that UKIP come across to me as considerably malcontented. They seem so, well, to put in one word … unhappy. Sure, catch Farage with a fag and a pint (most of the time) and he laughs a lot for camera but the rhetoric is all so whining and whinging. Look at the kippers on here, like Socrates, MikeK, Kent and Tyndall: constant moan bloody moan. Someone needs to tell them to lighten up ffs.
But of course they're unhappy with the political situation as it stands. Otherwise they wouldn't be part of a new party committed to changing it. All the others I mentioned were unhappy (including, I concede, the SDP), that's how they got started. To me, your grumpy old men scenario better describes someone within one of the legacy parties who doesn't like the direction of travel. By getting out of that party, they've done something positive.
Good-government-minded people certainly did not try to split it up and all opposed that bonkers proposal. The man behind it was not a good-governance guy but a wealthy venture capitalist that wanted to gerrymander the state so that the wealthy coastal areas could have an electoral majority to support his ideological goals (such as cutting taxes for the rich).
Are you sure about this? I know who Tim Draper is but it's not obvious the state of Silicon Valley would be right-wing... Maybe they'd close all the schools and do everything online though. To the extent that there's a gerrymandering angle I think it's more that you can elect Republicans in the interior?
I oversimplified things. There were three effects:
- To split out the low-income Hispanics among Republican dominated states to weaken their electoral influence - To split off the high income Democrats along the coast from their low income partisans, so that the pro-Silicon valley low-tax Democrats come to the fore - To have more states for low population Republican areas so the GOP get more Senators
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
Refusal of an audit certificate would be disastrous for most companies but evidently different rules apply to the EU. I'm wondering just how serious the qualification is? If it was a one-off, long ago, and subsequent accounts have only been qualified because the prior error has not been corrected, it's not great but it does put it into some sort of perspective.
Otoh, if the EU accounting is a perennial shambles there really is a case for closing the whole joint down.
I think a more interesting question is that why the EU mandates a level of audit which they always (19 consecutive years!) fail.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
Exactly.
Does every i have to be dotted, every t crossed to demonstrate integrity and effectiveness of expenditure?
If you're failing every year for mainly technical reasons why not just lower the bar?
Or else you just invite the kind of hare-brained abuse about accounts not getting signed off you always get from British europhobes.
As for soldiers on the rampage, it's what some of them do. The British have got up to far worse in Cyprus, and many other garrisons.
Incredible. So that's ok then? That young man who was gang raped will no doubt be traumatised for the rest of his life, as too will the other victims of this 'going wild'.
Why does no one seem to give a damn anymore? There was a similar, muted reaction Rotherham.
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
Refusal of an audit certificate would be disastrous for most companies but evidently different rules apply to the EU. I'm wondering just how serious the qualification is? If it was a one-off, long ago, and subsequent accounts have only been qualified because the prior error has not been corrected, it's not great but it does put it into some sort of perspective.
Otoh, if the EU accounting is a perennial shambles there really is a case for closing the whole joint down.
I think a more interesting question is that why the EU mandates a level of audit which they always (19 consecutive years!) fail.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
To be fair to the EU, can you imagine the uproar if they reduced the standard they ask their auditors to meet. Whatever the level of auditing they currently use (and I don't buy this idea that their standards are any higher than other individual countries') lowering the standard would be political suicide.
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
Refusal of an audit certificate would be disastrous for most companies but evidently different rules apply to the EU. I'm wondering just how serious the qualification is? If it was a one-off, long ago, and subsequent accounts have only been qualified because the prior error has not been corrected, it's not great but it does put it into some sort of perspective.
Otoh, if the EU accounting is a perennial shambles there really is a case for closing the whole joint down.
I think a more interesting question is that why the EU mandates a level of audit which they always (19 consecutive years!) fail.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
To be fair to the EU, can you imagine the uproar if they reduced the standard they ask their auditors to meet. Whatever the level of auditing they currently use (and I don't buy this idea that their standards are any higher than other individual countries') lowering the standard would be political suicide.
1) I think you underestimate the chutzpah of your average EU bureaucrat! 2) They'd get the pain out of the way in one hit, rather than suffering it every year 3) If a target was fair, appropriate and achievable then I'd hope to see more effort going into compliance. Knowing you're destined to fail is not motivational.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
It's quite sweet that you think he doesn't already know that. Fish. Barrel.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
it's good optics for Salmond to hold a rural seat instead.
Did any rural seats vote 'Yes'?
No.
That's why it's also good optics for him to stand in a place that said 'No'.
I'm interested to see what happens in places like the South of Scotland that went 30/70 in favour of No. The SNP polled an enormous 12% in Dumfries and Galloway, 9% in the Borders and 10% in Dumfriesshire. some people are blithely assuming Yes=SNP and No=NotSNP. If so then the SNP are going to see some dramatic vote share gains in the South of Scotland.
IIRC, the yes vote was generally more correlated to the highest 20% SIND (deprivation) figures than the 2011 SNP vote. I remember as the council area declarations really got going (after the slight anomaly of clackmannanshire), the betfair punters kept being surprised when places like inverclyde & the lanarkshires posted higher yes% figures than people were expecting.
I made a fair amount of money trading those results
Just to add - I suspect there will be a broadly similar dynamic to any UKindyref vote - after a long nuanced debate, the yes vote % would end up being more correlated to deprivation than the 2015 UKIP constituency vote.
Basically, I think if the UKindyref happens, it will be won or lost in labour safe seats and not the tory shires.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
It's quite sweet that you think he doesn't already know that. Fish. Barrel.
Um, if you are referring to the moronic posts Watcher likes to make then I agree. They are far too easy to shoot down.
As for soldiers on the rampage, it's what some of them do. The British have got up to far worse in Cyprus, and many other garrisons.
Incredible. So that's ok then? That young man who was gang raped will no doubt be traumatised for the rest of his life, as too will the other victims of this 'going wild'.
Why does no one seem to give a damn anymore? There was a similar, muted reaction Rotherham.
It's terrible, but I wonder if certain people would be so animated if the reports were of Paras on the rampage in Aldershot in the really bad old days, or Green Jackets raping and killing in Cyprus. Somehow, I doubt it.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Didn't UKIP at one point have several ( a high ratio of their total MEPS) MEPs who had to resign,investigated ,jailed even for expense claims? Its not just the system its the people
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
I believe the basic story is that after the EU hands the money over to the countries the countries don't keep good enough track of it to satisfy the EU's audit that it has gone to the right target.
As for soldiers on the rampage, it's what some of them do. The British have got up to far worse in Cyprus, and many other garrisons.
Incredible. So that's ok then? That young man who was gang raped will no doubt be traumatised for the rest of his life, as too will the other victims of this 'going wild'.
Why does no one seem to give a damn anymore? There was a similar, muted reaction Rotherham.
It's terrible, but I wonder if certain people would be so animated if the reports were of Paras on the rampage in Aldershot in the really bad old days, or Green Jackets raping and killing in Cyprus. Somehow, I doubt it.
people get 'animated' about different things . Arguing 'whataboutery' is always a weak argument
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
Bah, could only get 8/1 with Paddy Power on Cannock Chase
It helps to get good prices if you think for yourself before polling is announced rather than try to catch a bookie out who hasn't seen it yet
People who solely bet after polls tend to get cut by the bookies. Unsurprisingly.
Fortunately I do bet before polls come out.
Unfortunately for me, some of the bookies know that I'm privy to a lot of (but not all) embargoed polling, even though I don't bet on it until it becomes public, some of them have utterly restricted me to less than tenner or fiver online.
You may not, but I think other people probably do. TIme for opinion polls to be treated the same way as "Price sensitive information" ?
Indeed, it is so frustrating.
Knowing there's a poll due out in a few hours, and seeing people taking advantage of it on betfair and elsewhere, and you can't do eff all and join in
I'd argue the monetary element of an opinion poll far outweighs any journalistic value, they can be reported on and whatnot after they're out - Some people were clearly in possession of, and betting on the latest R&S poll before it was generally available information.
The local "Kent Online" news station should NOT get the polls before anyone else.
Time to bring in the same rules that govern price sensitive data wrt listed companies for all BPC polls.
You'd be surprised by how many times people accidentally break an embargo.
When I guest edit PB the most stressful time for me is when I have an embargoed poll, and am scared of accidentally publishing it before the embargo ends.
The thing is, I'm fairly certain that during the Indyref, some private polling conducted on behalf of financial institutions, and they bet on that polling that was never made public.
Well there is not alot you can do if the polling is not BPC - but I think BPC pollsters should be under obligations as I have labelled above.
I think most of the polling was done by BPC members.
Remember a few years ago I read here I think, in the UK only 10% of the political polling is ever made public.
Most of the polling is private polling/message testing by political parties.
"Does every i have to be dotted, every t crossed to demonstrate integrity and effectiveness of expenditure?"
I agree. I'll try that with HMRC next time I fill in a tax return. I'll quote you.
HMRC take much of your return on trust - using common sense and experience to sniff out risky submissions.
They do not dive into the detail of every return and attempt to get you to justify every single penny.
Clearly you have never run a business that had a random inspection. They last so long and are done in such detail that most companies with any sense now take out insurance to cover the many thousands in accountants fees they incur even when - as in the vast majority of cases - they are found to be fully compliant.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Cannock Chase had a significant BNP voting block (4.8%) in 2010 - it would appear that BNP supporters ARE going to vote UKIP.
factoring this in gives some seats such as
Boston & Skegness Basildon South & East Thurrock Pendle Thurrock Dudley North Walsall North (I'll put in Dagenham - but that was exceptional)
Near misses (basically most Labour first)
Rotherham Stoke on Trent North Stoke on Trent Central West Bromwich West Hartlepool Rother Valley Mansfield South Bradford South Stoke on Trent South Don Valley Hyndburn Wolverhampton North East Walsall South Morley & Outwood Great Grimsby Warwickshire North Amber Valley Cannock Chase --> See LA Cleethorpes Bury North ---> See LA Erewash ---> See LA Keighley Dudley South Harlow Burton Leicestershire NW Staffordshire Moorlands
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
I think your comments on Ukip are allowable as they are clearly vulgar abuse.
I'm not a lawyer, but is vulgar abuse not defamatory because it's clearly meant to rile or annoy and not to be taken seriously.
Audrey, by comparison, seems genuinely annoyed at Ukip. I can't see why?
Ukip are collecting support from people who see disadvantages to the European Grand Plan, no matter what the temporary financial benefits. It's a bit like a large company saying that because we're making money, and the CEO has received a large pay rise, the workers on the shop floor (with no pay rise or even a drop in pay) should rejoice.
A reasonable reaction would be two fingers, surely?
I may not totally agree, but I can understand the point.
The most potent weapon in politics - it's not fair.
Vulgar abuse? Bah.
The Kippers on here, have, inter alia, called me a twat and someone who condones child rape so the Tory party can do better (really I have)
I've found it easier to mock those idiots with polling and the facts than responding in kind.
Most of the polling is private polling/message testing by political parties.
It's kind of fun/depressing getting the obviously message testing questions when you're on the YouGov panel and then hearing (or not hearing) those soundbites the next day on the telly.
"This report shows that immigration since 2001 has contributed to the public finances as well as to the economy.
"However, the impact of different kinds of immigration varies and the system needs to be fair - so we need stronger border controls to tackle illegal immigration and stronger action against employers who use immigration to undercut local wages and jobs, but we should welcome international university students who bring in billions."
Not going far enough at all, and I'm sure it won't influence Ed Miliband's "more mass immigration policy", but there seems to be the first sign of accepting different types of immigration vary in their impact. The logical next step is to start limiting the immigrants who are low-skilled, low-income or have a low likelihood of integrating easily. And that includes a fair chunk of family migration.
The EU has a higher level of accountancy standards than many of its constituent countries. If the UK had the same rules then it too would be unable to sign off on its unified accounts.
Does anybody know where I can read a decent, non-partisan account of what went wrong here?
Refusal of an audit certificate would be disastrous for most companies but evidently different rules apply to the EU. I'm wondering just how serious the qualification is? If it was a one-off, long ago, and subsequent accounts have only been qualified because the prior error has not been corrected, it's not great but it does put it into some sort of perspective.
Otoh, if the EU accounting is a perennial shambles there really is a case for closing the whole joint down.
I think a more interesting question is that why the EU mandates a level of audit which they always (19 consecutive years!) fail.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
The EU isn't just one controlling brain - it's a bunch of rival countries and institutions. Most of the audit failures consist of member states failing to administer EU programs the way they're supposed to be administered, so the Commission probably don't want to stop drawing attention to that because: 1) They genuinely don't like the funds being wasted or wrongly accounted for. 2) They'd like to expand their power over the EU programs into areas currently held by the member states, so it's helpful to publicise the way the member states are screwing it up.
"Does every i have to be dotted, every t crossed to demonstrate integrity and effectiveness of expenditure?"
I agree. I'll try that with HMRC next time I fill in a tax return. I'll quote you.
HMRC take much of your return on trust - using common sense and experience to sniff out risky submissions.
They do not dive into the detail of every return and attempt to get you to justify every single penny.
they do if they investigate you!! I would think the EU is rather a prime candidate for a good investigation wouldn't you?
We're using tax returns, not investigations, as analogies here.
No, the EU is not a prime candidate for investigation. Some transactions though probably are.
So change analogy. A tax return would be an excellent analogy if there were hundreds of thousands of EU lookalikes all filling in the same form every year, which isn't the case. Better would be, let's say, a FTSE 100 uk domiciled company.
Most of the polling is private polling/message testing by political parties.
It's kind of fun/depressing getting the obviously message testing questions when you're on the YouGov panel and then hearing (or not hearing) those soundbites the next day on the telly.
My favourite one was the if Dave/Ed/Nick/Nigel were an animal/drink/tv shows which ones would they be.
Windlestone Hall, near Rushyford in Durham, was sold by Durham County Council for £241,000 in 2012
Council says they had 'good value' for the sale given its condition and the £3 million in repairs that were needed
The birthplace of former Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden is now on sale for £2.5 million
Something doesn't look quite right about all that.
L.Rahman & Co weren't the Estate Agents were they?
My wife used to work there - it was used as a school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In fact we moved to Bishop Auckland to be nearer as it was THE county school for children with EBD. She was outraged at the cost - especially as it appeared the fact that it was for sale was kept out of sight.
Are you suggesting that the "Britischers" are a) non-European, or b) self-hating phobics? Do you not identify different "Britischers": English, Scots, Welsh, Ulster-Scots, Cornish or 'Just-British' as a representative population within-their-own-right; or is their only one "Master-Eurorace"...?
Edit: You were supposed to have to click through to the status since it was a bit rude and lowered the tone but vanilla decided to display it inline in big letters.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
Are you suggesting that the "Britischers" are a) non-European, or b) self-hating phobics? Do you not identify different "Britischers": English, Scots, Welsh, Ulster-Scots, Cornish or 'Just-British' as a representative population within-their-own-right; or is their only one "Master-Eurorace"...?
:you-are-better-than-your-post-suggests:
You're an AI undergoing a Turing test, aren't you. Keep it up!
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
2 out of 22. How does that compare to the other parties?
Most of the polling is private polling/message testing by political parties.
It's kind of fun/depressing getting the obviously message testing questions when you're on the YouGov panel and then hearing (or not hearing) those soundbites the next day on the telly.
My favourite one was the if Dave/Ed/Nick/Nigel were an animal/drink/tv shows which ones would they be.
It was a genuine WTF moment.
In the grand scheme of things getting a online panel survey done is pretty cheap, if I had a few bunches of 5 grands to blow I'd totally do some comedy surveys.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
well it was a high proportion of the total UKIP MEPS . Others beyond those two seem to have been investigated as well. I think its appalling for a party that claims to be for the common man to have a high proportion of their representatives expense fiddling
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
That's what always happens to whistleblowers if the people above them can get away with it. If Kinnock had wanted that particular whistle blown he'd presumably have rather blown it himself and taken the credit.
That's what always happens to whistleblowers if the people above them can get away with it.
And why does it happen to them? Because they genuinely don't care about the funds being wasted or wrongly accounted for. Thus negating your claim entirely.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
well it was a high proportion of the total UKIP MEPS . Others beyond those two seem to have been investigated as well. I think its appalling for a party that claims to be for the common man to have a high proportion of their representatives expense fiddling
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
well it was a high proportion of the total UKIP MEPS . Others beyond those two seem to have been investigated as well. I think its appalling for a party that claims to be for the common man to have a high proportion of their representatives expense fiddling
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
That's what always happens to whistleblowers if the people above them can get away with it.
And why does it happen to them? Because they genuinely don't care about the funds being wasted or wrongly accounted for. Thus negating your claim entirely.
No, it doesn't mean that. Whistleblowing is nearly always unwelcome to people above the whistleblower because either: a) It implicates the people in charge in the mistake, which they obviously don't want to happen. (This doesn't mean they actively support the mistake.) b) It doesn't particularly implicate them, and they'd rather blow the whistle themselves and take the credit.
It would be travesty enough to see Ed Miliband, the bloke that NOBODY wants to be PM (probably not even himself), get a majority or a workable minority on 32-35% of the vote. To do so when the combined Tory/UKIP vote was pushing 50% would be totally unthinkable.
There simply has to be some accomodation between the Tories and UKIP before next May. A formal pact is obviously a non-starter, but there has to be some bargain struck and an agreement on where UKIP will stand and where it won't / where each party will focus its resources and efforts. It would appear that this is what UKIP voters want anyway.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
well it was a high proportion of the total UKIP MEPS . Others beyond those two seem to have been investigated as well. I think its appalling for a party that claims to be for the common man to have a high proportion of their representatives expense fiddling
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
The common man doesn't mind a fiddle!
oo-er!
but correct under any interpretation.
fnar!
Yes, like a cleaner in a high rise building, my point works on many levels!
1. Lord Ashcroft is approaching the upper boundary of Labour gains, but not there yet, with 38 Labour gains from the Tories so far.
2. There is a UKIP stronghold in the midlands, Cannock Chase is the second midlands seat with UKIP close to the winning post and is neighboring Walsall North, so that suggests a strong local UKIP presence.
3. Aidan Burley's chances of being the next defector to UKIP suddenly become severe.
Kippers shrieking about EU audits, whilst Farage and chums trouser unaccounted allowances, for 'banks of computers' and family on the payroll.
You've got to laugh.
That is the system set up by the EU. Blame them. At least Farage and UKIP are trying to get the UK out of it entirely. You seem content to let it carry on as is.
Absolutely no hypocrisy there...
You would have them refuse to accept the legitimate allowances and do their work for free? Its a thought I suppose and if we could get all MEPs to work for free then maybe I might be a little more sympathetic to them.
UKIP MEPS have an appalling record for expense fraud in the EU . ITs only right people are sceptical of claims from that party
If by appalling record you mean two cases - that of Tom Wise and Ashley Mote - then your definitions are clearly out of kilter.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
well it was a high proportion of the total UKIP MEPS . Others beyond those two seem to have been investigated as well. I think its appalling for a party that claims to be for the common man to have a high proportion of their representatives expense fiddling
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
Perhaps because they are frightened of having their own MEPs looked at too closely.
1. Lord Ashcroft is approaching the upper boundary of Labour gains, but not there yet, with 38 Labour gains from the Tories so far.
2. There is a UKIP stronghold in the midlands, Cannock Chase is the second midlands seat with UKIP close to the winning post and is neighboring Walsall North, so that suggests a strong local UKIP presence.
3. Aidan Burley's chances of being the next defector to UKIP suddenly become severe.
Walsall North you say?
One of the best bets according to my Hit list published in Spring 2013, when 18/1 was available
Bar chart of Con to Lab swings at Westminster by-election since GE 2010:
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 20h20 hours ago #Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
It would be travesty enough to see Ed Miliband, the bloke that NOBODY wants to be PM (probably not even himself), get a majority or a workable minority on 32-35% of the vote. To do so when the combined Tory/UKIP vote was pushing 50% would be totally unthinkable.
There simply has to be some accomodation between the Tories and UKIP before next May. A formal pact is obviously a non-starter, but there has to be some bargain struck and an agreement on where UKIP will stand and where it won't / where each party will focus its resources and efforts. It would appear that this is what UKIP voters want anyway.
A UKIP pact of any kind with the Tories before the election may well push up the Labour vote share and depress the UKIP one. If UKIP is serious about winning in Labour heartlands it needs to avoid the Tories at all costs until after polling day.
It would be travesty enough to see Ed Miliband, the bloke that NOBODY wants to be PM (probably not even himself), get a majority or a workable minority on 32-35% of the vote. To do so when the combined Tory/UKIP vote was pushing 50% would be totally unthinkable.
There simply has to be some accomodation between the Tories and UKIP before next May. A formal pact is obviously a non-starter, but there has to be some bargain struck and an agreement on where UKIP will stand and where it won't / where each party will focus its resources and efforts. It would appear that this is what UKIP voters want anyway.
I don't think that you can bunch CON & UKIP together. That is oldthink.
70% of voters in this latest round of polling did not vote CON at GE10.
Comments
As far as I'm concerned it goes to show, if you're going to hire groups of insurgents to do your dirty work (Libya, Syria etc.) expect them to be just that. Don't expect military discipline, don't expect them to win hearts and minds -expect them to be brutal, greedy, thieving pond life. Therefore don't expect to be thanked for exporting democracy at the barrel of these people's guns.
My search skills are failing me though.
If the system is inherently unable to comply then the audit is largely meaningless, and the differentiation between "just failed" and "cesspool of corruption" (to borrow a phrase) is largely lost.
- To split out the low-income Hispanics among Republican dominated states to weaken their electoral influence
- To split off the high income Democrats along the coast from their low income partisans, so that the pro-Silicon valley low-tax Democrats come to the fore
- To have more states for low population Republican areas so the GOP get more Senators
Does every i have to be dotted, every t crossed to demonstrate integrity and effectiveness of expenditure?
If you're failing every year for mainly technical reasons why not just lower the bar?
Or else you just invite the kind of hare-brained abuse about accounts not getting signed off you always get from British europhobes.
Why does no one seem to give a damn anymore? There was a similar, muted reaction Rotherham.
You've got to laugh.
Windlestone Hall, near Rushyford in Durham, was sold by Durham County Council for £241,000 in 2012
Council says they had 'good value' for the sale given its condition and the £3 million in repairs that were needed
The birthplace of former Conservative Prime Minister Anthony Eden is now on sale for £2.5 million
Something doesn't look quite right about all that.
2) They'd get the pain out of the way in one hit, rather than suffering it every year
3) If a target was fair, appropriate and achievable then I'd hope to see more effort going into compliance. Knowing you're destined to fail is not motivational.
"Does every i have to be dotted, every t crossed to demonstrate integrity and effectiveness of expenditure?"
I agree. I'll try that with HMRC next time I fill in a tax return. I'll quote you.
Basically, I think if the UKindyref happens, it will be won or lost in labour safe seats and not the tory shires.
What a stupid opening to a question by Michael Meacher? Detracted totally from substance of his question.....
Why are ex Labour MPs so much more likeable I wonder...
They do not dive into the detail of every return and attempt to get you to justify every single penny.
doubt you have anything constructive to add anyway given your usual poor standard of trolling.
Must try harder.
Remember a few years ago I read here I think, in the UK only 10% of the political polling is ever made public.
Most of the polling is private polling/message testing by political parties.
factoring this in gives some seats such as
Boston & Skegness
Basildon South & East Thurrock
Pendle
Thurrock
Dudley North
Walsall North
(I'll put in Dagenham - but that was exceptional)
Near misses (basically most Labour first)
Rotherham
Stoke on Trent North
Stoke on Trent Central
West Bromwich West
Hartlepool
Rother Valley
Mansfield South
Bradford South
Stoke on Trent South
Don Valley
Hyndburn
Wolverhampton North East
Walsall South
Morley & Outwood
Great Grimsby
Warwickshire North
Amber Valley
Cannock Chase --> See LA
Cleethorpes
Bury North ---> See LA
Erewash ---> See LA
Keighley
Dudley South
Harlow
Burton
Leicestershire NW
Staffordshire Moorlands
Miliband - stuff the people.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_eu_budget_rejected_auditors_18_years-28593
No, the EU is not a prime candidate for investigation. Some transactions though probably are.
The Kippers on here, have, inter alia, called me a twat and someone who condones child rape so the Tory party can do better (really I have)
I've found it easier to mock those idiots with polling and the facts than responding in kind.
They choose not to.
My choice of footwear will be dependent on your attendance.
"This report shows that immigration since 2001 has contributed to the public finances as well as to the economy.
"However, the impact of different kinds of immigration varies and the system needs to be fair - so we need stronger border controls to tackle illegal immigration and stronger action against employers who use immigration to undercut local wages and jobs, but we should welcome international university students who bring in billions."
Not going far enough at all, and I'm sure it won't influence Ed Miliband's "more mass immigration policy", but there seems to be the first sign of accepting different types of immigration vary in their impact. The logical next step is to start limiting the immigrants who are low-skilled, low-income or have a low likelihood of integrating easily. And that includes a fair chunk of family migration.
1) They genuinely don't like the funds being wasted or wrongly accounted for.
2) They'd like to expand their power over the EU programs into areas currently held by the member states, so it's helpful to publicise the way the member states are screwing it up.
It was a genuine WTF moment.
[Src.: http://www.millon.net/taxonomy/masochistic.htm]
Are you suggesting that the "Britischers" are a) non-European, or b) self-hating phobics? Do you not identify different "Britischers": English, Scots, Welsh, Ulster-Scots, Cornish or 'Just-British' as a representative population within-their-own-right; or is their only one "Master-Eurorace"...?
:you-are-better-than-your-post-suggests:
https://twitter.com/kerihw/ status/529977127538798592
Edit: You were supposed to have to click through to the status since it was a bit rude and lowered the tone but vanilla decided to display it inline in big letters.
By comparison the EU had a whole Commission forced to resign due to fraud.
If that was the case, why did this happen?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3742148.stm
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSAl2-vWIH0
Not sure why the other parties don't throw this back in UKIPS face when they pretend to be whiter than white
See? Anyone can just make up stupid claims of racism.
No surprise that the weakist-link would crack!
:books-shave-for-skull:
[whack]
but correct under any interpretation.
"LOTO saying to the Conservatives 'you're useless'...
The PM saying to Labour 'you're useless'...
and the public agrees with them because both are struggling to get to 30% in the polls which is unprecedented"
a) It implicates the people in charge in the mistake, which they obviously don't want to happen. (This doesn't mean they actively support the mistake.)
b) It doesn't particularly implicate them, and they'd rather blow the whistle themselves and take the credit.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n965i9mzb8/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-311014.pdf
There simply has to be some accomodation between the Tories and UKIP before next May. A formal pact is obviously a non-starter, but there has to be some bargain struck and an agreement on where UKIP will stand and where it won't / where each party will focus its resources and efforts. It would appear that this is what UKIP voters want anyway.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukips-mark-reckless-colonel-gaddafi-good-halting-immigration-1473253
"Tory defector Reckless said the deposed leader had stopped boats from making the hazardous voyage across the Mediterranean sea to Italy.
He said: "Whatever people say about Gaddafi, one thing is he didn't allow those boats to come across."
Yes, like a cleaner in a high rise building, my point works on many levels!
1. Lord Ashcroft is approaching the upper boundary of Labour gains, but not there yet, with 38 Labour gains from the Tories so far.
2. There is a UKIP stronghold in the midlands, Cannock Chase is the second midlands seat with UKIP close to the winning post and is neighboring Walsall North, so that suggests a strong local UKIP presence.
3. Aidan Burley's chances of being the next defector to UKIP suddenly become severe.
There was an ICM that had the Tories and Lab (and the Lib Dems) on 30% in 2004.
Also there was the time when the Tories and Lab were polling less than 30% and the Alliance was polling around 50%
One of the best bets according to my Hit list published in Spring 2013, when 18/1 was available
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 20h20 hours ago
#Conservatives to #Labour swings at Westminster by-elections since GE 2010. Inverclyde only case of Lab to Con =0.03%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/529682180784816128
70% of voters in this latest round of polling did not vote CON at GE10.