I find one Ulsterman more than enough to deal with. Having to contend with nearly two million northern Irish is just too horrifying to contemplate.
I was born there and even I could not stand it.
On topic: Initially I really disliked the undemocratic setup of the EU with the Parliament rubberstamping dictats from the bureaucrats and ministers so I was glad to see the EU Parliament asserting itself more a few years back. If the Parliament was the governing body and the bureaucrats and ministers playing second fiddle then I would be happier.
By inclination I am a BOO voter, but pragmatically I can appreciate the advantages of EU membership although I still think that the Euro is a total fudge and best avoided. Unless someone comes up with something spectacular I shall be voting to stay in and holding my nose whilst I do so
I'd agree generally, but my concern is the direction of travel.
While I can tolerate the status quo, without safeguards it is only going to get more integrated in future.
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
Sounds very reasonable - unions are very important, but people should make a positive choice to contribute to a political fund, not have it be automatic unless they choose not to (like others, I thought this was already the case). People who won't choose to opt in would surely not therefore have been actively supporting the activity of the union in that sphere in any case then, it was just am oversight or not something they thought about.
Seems very sensible to hold the vote as soon as possible. Whatever anyone says, uncertainty cannot be a good thing so the decision needs to be made. It will be interesting what the No campaign says about support for agriculture and rural areas which have received European aid. At present, I will be voting aye and it will take a very strong argument for me to vote nay.
While I tend to agree uncertainty is a bad thing, and I think we should have had a vote on this matter a long time ago, for the renegotiation which many say may sway them not to be a farce it needs to have time to actually attempt something substantive. Unlike many Kippers and I think then and the rest of the BOOers and supporting media (for there is some) would be able to challenge the presentation of something in consequential as something substantive, but having the vote next year makes it much more plausible we will get something silly dressed up as important, and if we then vote In it is open season on the EU to claim we were totally fine with the way things are and were planned for the future and so we must stop complaining.
I find one Ulsterman more than enough to deal with. Having to contend with nearly two million northern Irish is just too horrifying to contemplate.
I was born there and even I could not stand it.
On topic: Initially I really disliked the undemocratic setup of the EU with the Parliament rubberstamping dictats from the bureaucrats and ministers so I was glad to see the EU Parliament asserting itself more a few years back. If the Parliament was the governing body and the bureaucrats and ministers playing second fiddle then I would be happier.
By inclination I am a BOO voter, but pragmatically I can appreciate the advantages of EU membership although I still think that the Euro is a total fudge and best avoided. Unless someone comes up with something spectacular I shall be voting to stay in and holding my nose whilst I do so
I'd agree generally, but my concern is the direction of travel.
While I can tolerate the status quo, without safeguards it is only going to get more integrated in future.
Very much in agreement. Even many people who are for In do not want to go further, but the EU does, and that's a problem - it breeds resentment and bitterness from us about being dragged along, and from the others at having to drag us along, it becomes a dark core eating at th heart of their project.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
I hope so. Truss should have resigned in disgust over that. A black mark on her as she was later rewarded with a promotion for keeping quiet. Changing the ratios would bring down costs and improve profits.
So another legacy of the 5 year failed Miliband experiment is a cut in party funding for Labour.
Will this encourage the men in grey suits to actually wield the knife in future?
How can it be both right in principle and "spiteful"?
The latter implies that party-political advantage is the primary motivating factor which (while definitely a bonus) contradicts the "right in principle" line
Reducing the union political funds will improve Labour eventually as the unions will have much less cash to with hold and use for influencing non-Labour activity.
I hope so. Truss should have resigned in disgust over that. A black mark on her as she was later rewarded with a promotion for keeping quiet. Changing the ratios would bring down costs and improve profits.
No, I don't think she should have resigned. It wasn't her fault that voters had given Nick Clegg a veto over sensible reform; it was just one of the costs of being stuck with the LibDems in government. Fortunately voters corrected that mistake at the first opportunity.
Reducing the union political funds will improve Labour eventually as the unions will have much less cash to with hold and use for influencing non-Labour activity.
If a back bencher (or perhaps Carswell) were to amend the government bill to add the right to select the destination of funds as well as an opt-in to the political levy how would the government react do you think?
It would be interesting to see Labour lining up to defend the status quo: I'm curious as to what arguments they would use.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
How about a Child Care Bill that says "You chose to have them - you look after them"?
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I think quite the opposite: every department should be ring-fenced in percentage terms. That way if the economy does well all departments benefit, if it does poorly they all suffer accordingly.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I wasn't referring to you, I don't think you're a numpty. But I see so many people (on Facebook especially) saying that international aid should be abolished. Not cut, but abolished. That we should "look after our own first", as if we don't have any welfare whatsoever for our own.
It can be done better, definitely, but if we and others didn't support the developing world at all then the current stream of migrants would be a lot, lot more.
@michaelsavage: Amazingly brazen raid on Labour union funding in Queen's Speech. But if you get a majority, you can do this stuff. How will Labour respond?
Well. They could ask the SNP and the Lib Dems to vote against it. But since the SNP and the Lib Dems suffer from Labour having most of the union cash....
Absolutely agree. It seems entirely sensible to hold the EU Referendum as soon as possible to lessen the long term uncertainty for the UK economy, especially as its a clear sign of learning the lessons of the Indy Referendum. Also, it will focus minds in the EU about getting around the table to renegotiate a better deal for the UK in much the same it did for Holyrood in the run up to the Indy Referendum.
Seems very sensible to hold the vote as soon as possible. Whatever anyone says, uncertainty cannot be a good thing so the decision needs to be made. It will be interesting what the No campaign says about support for agriculture and rural areas which have received European aid. At present, I will be voting aye and it will take a very strong argument for me to vote nay.
Reducing the union political funds will improve Labour eventually as the unions will have much less cash to with hold and use for influencing non-Labour activity.
If a back bencher (or perhaps Carswell) were to amend the government bill to add the right to select the destination of funds as well as an opt-in to the political levy how would the government react do you think?
It would be interesting to see Labour lining up to defend the status quo: I'm curious as to what arguments they would use.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I think quite the opposite: every department should be ring-fenced in percentage terms. That way if the economy does well all departments benefit, if it does poorly they all suffer accordingly.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
Problem with that is a lot of welfare spending is deliberately counter-cyclical, it literally in nominal terms (not just real terms goes up when the economy crashes and down when the economy is doing well. A ring-fenced welfare budget as a percentage is impossible and would be counterproductive to all economics of the last 80 years.
Plus physical investments (real investments like HS2, not all spending) have a cost that is not a percentage of GDP. Projects like this take years of planning and if the economy grows faster you can't just suddenly magic up new projects that will be done immediately.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I wasn't referring to you, I don't think you're a numpty. But I see so many people (on Facebook especially) saying that international aid should be abolished. Not cut, but abolished. That we should "look after our own first", as if we don't have any welfare whatsoever for our own.
It can be done better, definitely, but if we and others didn't support the developing world at all then the current stream of migrants would be a lot, lot more.
We certainly have an interest in promoting stabilility in foreign countries, and that means spending money. I think we should hard-headed about it, and treat it as an extension of foreign policy. There were a series of reports in the Times recently, about how some of the overseas aid budget is just going to line the pockets of rich people in poor countries.
blockquote>Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I think quite the opposite: every department should be ring-fenced in percentage terms. That way if the economy does well all departments benefit, if it does poorly they all suffer accordingly.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
I can see the argument, but I think that priorities are always going to alter in response to events.
One area which should not be ring-fenced is pensioner benefits. Once upon a time, pensioners tended to be much poorer than average, but that really isn't the case now.
I hope so. Truss should have resigned in disgust over that. A black mark on her as she was later rewarded with a promotion for keeping quiet. Changing the ratios would bring down costs and improve profits.
No, I don't think she should have resigned. It wasn't her fault that voters had given Nick Clegg a veto over sensible reform; it was just one of the costs of being stuck with the LibDems in government. Fortunately voters corrected that mistake at the first opportunity.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I think quite the opposite: every department should be ring-fenced in percentage terms. That way if the economy does well all departments benefit, if it does poorly they all suffer accordingly.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
I think the government needs the flexibility to respond to changing priorities.
Reducing the union political funds will improve Labour eventually as the unions will have much less cash to with hold and use for influencing non-Labour activity.
If a back bencher (or perhaps Carswell) were to amend the government bill to add the right to select the destination of funds as well as an opt-in to the political levy how would the government react do you think?
It would be interesting to see Labour lining up to defend the status quo: I'm curious as to what arguments they would use.
Ooh. They'd vote for it imo.
Assume you are answering the first question, in which case I'd agree.
If I was a master political strategist, however, I'd find a principled backbencher, preferably not a Tory (because that might look like grubby political advantage seeking) to propose this as an amendment to the government bill.
(edit: thinking about it, it's quite possible that *UKIP* might benefit more financially from this than the Tories)
We certainly have an interest in promoting stabilility in foreign countries, and that means spending money. I think we should hard-headed about it, and treat it as an extension of foreign policy. There were a series of reports in the Times recently, about how some of the overseas aid budget is just going to line the pockets of rich people in poor countries.
Agreed completely. Spending money does not fix a problem. Its a complete waste unless it is spent wisely. A lot can be done better. The Gates Foundation especially has done some great work with regards to this.
So another legacy of the 5 year failed Miliband experiment is a cut in party funding for Labour.
Will this encourage the men in grey suits to actually wield the knife in future?
How can it be both right in principle and "spiteful"?
The latter implies that party-political advantage is the primary motivating factor which (while definitely a bonus) contradicts the "right in principle" line
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
How about a Child Care Bill that says "You chose to have them - you look after them"?
Sure, as long as you are OK with the huge increase in immigration required to make up for the enormous drop in the birth rate that would result.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
Some numpties want to remain part of the EU which through its policies regarding fishing and other resources in Africa is helping to contribute to the refugee crisis. Crazy!!
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
I think quite the opposite: every department should be ring-fenced in percentage terms. That way if the economy does well all departments benefit, if it does poorly they all suffer accordingly.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
I think the government needs the flexibility to respond to changing priorities.
You can have flexibility within those budgets, and there is also the contingency percentage.
It might well allow departments to be run more efficiently, as they would know how much money they are getting. I recall seeing an article about a study saying that injections of cash into departments were less efficient than planned spending, which seems fairly obvious.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
Bollocks, given the cost saving that it comes with.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
Is it one of these cases where 'unanimously opposed by parents' means Mumsnet didn't like it?
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
Is that because our education system is so much better than our European neighbours that have bigger ratios?
The parents that were vocal about this bought into the socialist and Lib Dem words that costs per child would not drop. Illogical but that is always the problem with leftie maths.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
How extraordinary. I am gobsmacked. 'Early education experts' opposing sensible reforms. Who'd a thunk it?
As for parents, I really don't think any parent opposes a reduction in burdensome costs, but if they want to pay more for higher ratios of staff to children, then I'm sure the market will provide that option.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
early year education experts oppose measures that will result in fewer jobs for early year education experts
parents oppose measures that will reduce the cost of a service that they don't pay for
So another legacy of the 5 year failed Miliband experiment is a cut in party funding for Labour.
Will this encourage the men in grey suits to actually wield the knife in future?
How can it be both right in principle and "spiteful"?
The latter implies that party-political advantage is the primary motivating factor which (while definitely a bonus) contradicts the "right in principle" line
I think things can be both right in principle and spiteful - even if it is fair to do, if the primary motivating factor is not that it is fair but that it hurts someone, that would be spiteful. The problem comes when opponents argue that because something might be spiteful, that makes it bad, which is not automatically the case. Motivation can be important, but the result is what is more important.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
Some numpties want to remain part of the EU which through its policies regarding fishing and other resources in Africa is helping to contribute to the refugee crisis. Crazy!!
You think the EU will make better policies with us out of it?
European policies on agriculture are a terrible black mark against the EU. They'll only get worse with us out of Europe.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
If they are quick they can even do it under the existing asylum rules 2005/85/EC. We are signed up to that one and those rules apply until 21st July 2015 when the new procedures are adopted - from which we do have an opt out.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
early year education experts oppose measures that will result in fewer jobs for early year education experts
parents oppose measures that will reduce the cost of a service that they don't pay for
Erm, early eduction experts don't work in nurseries...
If you want to dismiss the opinions of experts on matters of policy they specialise in, fine, but I expect to see a similar refrain from quoting economists who support the Tories.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
#gobshite
No , just that Cameron is a dumpling and he will get run rings round by the smart Europeans and come back waving a sheet of paper saying "Peace in our time". History will just repeat , the Germans will make donkeys of our elite effetes.
PS , if he [Cameron] had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
Remind me: in the Scottish referendum thingy, who got 45% and who got 55%?
Yes and it was led by Labour as Cameron was too scared to lead the referendum campaign.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
If they are quick they can even do it under the existing asylum rules 2005/85/EC. We are signed up to that one and those rules apply until 21st July 2015 when the new procedures are adopted - from which we do have an opt out.
All this scaremongering about what might happen is only going to make Out look like the boy who cried wolf when it doesn't come to pass, if it has any effect at all.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
IIUC a few countries have already announced their opposition - I think it's already enough to make a QMV blocking minority.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
Some numpties want to remain part of the EU which through its policies regarding fishing and other resources in Africa is helping to contribute to the refugee crisis. Crazy!!
You think the EU will make better policies with us out of it?
European policies on agriculture are a terrible black mark against the EU. They'll only get worse with us out of Europe.
They will make no difference whether we are in or out. We have singularly failed to stop either the fisheries or agriculture debacles with regard to Africa and indeed have had our voice watered down because as members of the EU we do not have an independent voice on the main International organisations dealing with these issues.
Far from improving our voice in the world and allowing us to campaign effectively against the EU policies, our membership of the organisation very effectively neuters us. As was pointed out a few days ago, Norway has a seat on the main international trade bodies. Under the current EU rules the UK has 1/8th of a seat.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
early year education experts oppose measures that will result in fewer jobs for early year education experts
parents oppose measures that will reduce the cost of a service that they don't pay for
Erm, early eduction experts don't work in nurseries...
If you want to dismiss the opinions of experts on matters of policy they specialise in, fine, but I expect to see a similar refrain from quoting economists who support the Tories.
I'm sceptical about generic comments about "experts support A". I'm sure some do. And some don't.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
Is that because our education system is so much better than our European neighbours that have bigger ratios?
The parents that were vocal about this bought into the socialist and Lib Dem words that costs per child would not drop. Illogical but that is always the problem with leftie maths.
Costs per child would not drop significantly because wages re a relatively low portion of the costs of running a nursery (mostly minimum wage.) Overheads such as building costs, training, etc. would stay the same. To most parents (including myself) the difference would not make up for reduced safety and quality of education.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That is balanced. If Labour were in government then all other parties would be opposition parties too. The DUP are also an opposition party so wouldn't change anything.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
I'm sceptical about generic comments about "experts support A". I'm sure some do. And some don't.
Indeed, but more to the point, they are not even answering the right question. Even if they unanimously say 'a higher ratio of staff to children is desirable for the children's development', and even if they are 100% right, and even if the government agrees with them, that doesn't of itself mean the policy should be to impose by regulation a higher ratio of staff to children. You also have to consider the cost vs the degree of benefit, and whether other more cost-effective means to help less well-off children are available.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
If they are quick they can even do it under the existing asylum rules 2005/85/EC. We are signed up to that one and those rules apply until 21st July 2015 when the new procedures are adopted - from which we do have an opt out.
All this scaremongering about what might happen is only going to make Out look like the boy who cried wolf when it doesn't come to pass, if it has any effect at all.
I was simply pointing out that you were wrong about the UK currently having an opt out.
Given that it was I who pointed out that this situation changes for the better on 21st July - something I guess you didn't have a clue about - I would suggest you are talking out of your hat.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
The UK does not necessarily have an opt out. Although we opted out of the Common Asylum Directive of 2013, we are still signed up to and accepted the Directive on Temporary Protection 2001/55/EC. If the EU decided to use this directive for the dispersal of asylum seekers then I am not sure whether or not the UK could refuse.
I can't see them forcing it upon us, they must know that it would be nigh-on suicidal, not only in terms of avoiding Brexit but in fanning the eurosceptic flames across Europe.
If they are quick they can even do it under the existing asylum rules 2005/85/EC. We are signed up to that one and those rules apply until 21st July 2015 when the new procedures are adopted - from which we do have an opt out.
All this scaremongering about what might happen is only going to make Out look like the boy who cried wolf when it doesn't come to pass, if it has any effect at all.
I was simply pointing out that you were wrong about the UK currently having an opt out.
Given that it was I who pointed out that this situation changes for the better on 21st July - something I guess you didn't have a clue about - I would suggest you are talking out of your hat.
No you're being pedantic and not seeing the woods for the trees. Given that all the talk in the media about this and from spokesmen on all sides is about a new policy, not trying to squeeze blood from an obsolete one I don't think its relevant.
If an expiring policy is abused to circumnavigate our opt-out then there would rightly be outrage and I'd join in with that outrage reaction on opposing that. But it isn't happening so this is just silly.
The SNP can wear sequined Burkas and sit on Skinners head for all I care ... they are just another small party facing the Government benches..
Just as you are a small man talking merde
Do you object as merde to the notion that 56/650 is small or that the opposition benches face the government benches?
I suppose more accurately they're just another small party facing the government's backbenchers. Labour face the Cabinet's seats.
Well seen it is half term down there , spotty oicks like you cluttering the place up with your illiterate ramblings. How could it be otherwise you half witted mongrel when only 10% of the population live there.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
early year education experts oppose measures that will result in fewer jobs for early year education experts
parents oppose measures that will reduce the cost of a service that they don't pay for
Erm, early eduction experts don't work in nurseries...
If you want to dismiss the opinions of experts on matters of policy they specialise in, fine, but I expect to see a similar refrain from quoting economists who support the Tories.
I'm sceptical about generic comments about "experts support A". I'm sure some do. And some don't.
I'm sure if you asked education experts: "Would one carer per child be better for a child's safety and development than the current situation", they'd all say "yes". They'd be right too, but doesn't make one-carer-per-child a sensible policy.
The SNP can wear sequined Burkas and sit on Skinners head for all I care ... they are just another small party facing the Government benches..
Just as you are a small man talking merde
Do you object as merde to the notion that 56/650 is small or that the opposition benches face the government benches?
I suppose more accurately they're just another small party facing the government's backbenchers. Labour face the Cabinet's seats.
Well seen it is half term down there , spotty oicks like you cluttering the place up with your illiterate ramblings. How could it be otherwise you half witted mongrel when only 10% of the population live there.
It could have been otherwise if Salmond had won and Cameron had lost last year. But Salmond lost and Cameron won, so now you're still in the UK and the SNP are still just a small party of opposition in the UK.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
The ratio changes were almost unanimously opposed by parents and early years education experts, not just the LibDems.
Is that because our education system is so much better than our European neighbours that have bigger ratios?
The parents that were vocal about this bought into the socialist and Lib Dem words that costs per child would not drop. Illogical but that is always the problem with leftie maths.
Costs per child would not drop significantly because wages re a relatively low portion of the costs of running a nursery (mostly minimum wage.) Overheads such as building costs, training, etc. would stay the same. To most parents (including myself) the difference would not make up for reduced safety and quality of education.
Wages are a large part of the running costs. Now if you prefer to have a lower ratio of children to teacher higher than Holland for example , then you could choose those schools. You would pay more but that is your choice. Other parents may prefer a higher ratio and may also choose a degree educated teacher. It is called choice.
I suppose it is not too much of a sartorial leap to go from a neatly ironed,many pleated tartan skirt, worn with a small leather bag slung at the front, to a full Burka..and the little white rose is sooo becoming..
What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?
As currently formulated, nothing. Works both ways.
It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-EU vote in Wales turns out to be higher than in England. Not sure about Scotland.
I certainly think it's a lazy assumption that the Scots or Welsh are ideologically committed to the EU. The remaining 1975 "no" adherents on the left must be somewhere - worried about pressure on wages, etc.
A large chunk of the 1975 No's will be dead (low life expectancy in Scotland and Wales) and those that are still alive are probably no longer working, so don't care.
Its about time MP's were told by broadcasters that if they interrupt someone while they are speaking, their mike will be turned off. Todays chat on R4 TWAO was terrible.
No you're being pedantic and not seeing the woods for the trees. Given that all the talk in the media about this and from spokesmen on all sides is about a new policy, not trying to squeeze blood from an obsolete one I don't think its relevant.
If an expiring policy is abused to circumnavigate our opt-out then there would rightly be outrage and I'd join in with that outrage reaction on opposing that. But it isn't happening so this is just silly.
Its about time MP's were told by broadcasters that if they interrupt someone while they are speaking, their mike will be turned off. Todays chat on R4 TWAO was terrible.
Might be nice if interviewers had theirs cut off the same then. Too many "journalists" now think its their job to cut off and interrupt the person they're interviewing. You don't need to do that.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That is balanced. If Labour were in government then all other parties would be opposition parties too. The DUP are also an opposition party so wouldn't change anything.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
It was the same on BBC TV's coverage of the opening, the main panel was Labour, Conservative and SNP while the Liberals got a brief statement in a "go to" piece alongside UKIP and the Greens.
Not sure what Radio 4 are playing at but it's indefensible. Will be interesting to see if Miranda Who turns up on This Week tomorrow.
Its about time MP's were told by broadcasters that if they interrupt someone while they are speaking, their mike will be turned off. Todays chat on R4 TWAO was terrible.
Might be nice if interviewers had theirs cut off the same then. Too many "journalists" now think its their job to cut off and interrupt the person they're interviewing. You don't need to do that.
I'd put all the MP's into different cages and give them a peanut if they behaved if not a cold bucket of water.,, but I take your point about cutting off people in mid sentence.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
No you're being pedantic and not seeing the woods for the trees. Given that all the talk in the media about this and from spokesmen on all sides is about a new policy, not trying to squeeze blood from an obsolete one I don't think its relevant.
If an expiring policy is abused to circumnavigate our opt-out then there would rightly be outrage and I'd join in with that outrage reaction on opposing that. But it isn't happening so this is just silly.
So we won't be taking any of the tens of thousands going fowards using today's policy then, good. We've been talking of tens of thousands in future years coming in by boats and the EU is not going to use a runaround to make us be obliged to take them in.
We will be asked to take just over 2,000 - which compares to eg over 23,000 people claiming asylum in the UK in 2013 (the last numbers I could find) or a peak of over 84k in 2002. That sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it to you?
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Suck it up mate The Tories have 331 seats. Do the maths, if you don't like the format get enough MPs on your side to change it.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Until such time as we vote 37% who want to change the electoral system (but will have to use the broken system and their tyranny of the minority to impose the change), we can do little but whinge about it. I'm not holding my breath. The only limited solace is it is not more in princple unfair than previous governments.
No you're being pedantic and not seeing the woods for the trees. Given that all the talk in the media about this and from spokesmen on all sides is about a new policy, not trying to squeeze blood from an obsolete one I don't think its relevant.
If an expiring policy is abused to circumnavigate our opt-out then there would rightly be outrage and I'd join in with that outrage reaction on opposing that. But it isn't happening so this is just silly.
Are the EU going to lead the referendum 'out' campaign? If they know that a boat left port X, then return everyone on it to port X. Allowing people rescued from these boats to be EU resident will only lead to more unseaworthy and overloaded boats trying to make the journey.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
If only more of the northern Brits had voted Yes. My wish for a separate Scotland would have been achieved. In the mean time we have a FPTP election and you have twice the number of seats that your vote share "justifies". Que serra.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Funny. The SNP were happy to take nearly 100 % of Scottish seats on 50% of the vote.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That is balanced. If Labour were in government then all other parties would be opposition parties too. The DUP are also an opposition party so wouldn't change anything.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
It was the same on BBC TV's coverage of the opening, the main panel was Labour, Conservative and SNP while the Liberals got a brief statement in a "go to" piece alongside UKIP and the Greens.
Not sure what Radio 4 are playing at but it's indefensible. Will be interesting to see if Miranda Who turns up on This Week tomorrow.
I never listen to BBC Radio so couldn't comment on Radio 4 but it depends upon how they normally shape up their panel. If its normally just three and they made room for the SNP but kept the Lib Dem that's wrong. If they would have had an "other" there previously then that's more acceptable. Eg Question Time has typically had the big 3 plus one other, the Lib Dems should be cycled with the Others but seem to have a permanent seat still. The permanent seat should go to the SNP.
Those odds are mad. Not only is she doing well on MP nominations, she also seems to have the best-organised campaign, and hasn't alienated a good chunk of Labour activists as Liz Kendall has.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Funny. The SNP were happy to take nearly 100 % of Scottish seats on 50% of the vote.
To be fair to the SNP they've always supported PR.
That was from a selfish interest though. Whether they continue do so now is another question, I suspect their MPs would find a way to gracefully kick it into the long grass if it came up now (which it won't so they don't have to).
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Right-wing Parties 50.6% of the UK vote (Con + UKIP) Right-wing Parties 50.9% of seats at Westminster (Con + UKIP)
I've just seen a few excerpts from the FIFA press conference. He almost explicitly said that FIFA chose to hand over documents which implicated the people who've been arrested, which begs the question of what they held back.
The lesson for corrupt international sports is that it's not worth trying to crack the US market as you might attract the attention of the FBI.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Until such time as we vote 37% who want to change the electoral system (but will have to use the broken system and their tyranny of the minority to impose the change), we can do little but whinge about it. I'm not holding my breath. The only limited solace is it is not more in princple unfair than previous governments.
Only Blair's third term comes close to being as lacking in legitimacy. All other UK governments have held over 40% of the popular vote, the vast bulk of them well over 45%.
But that's almost beside the point. The point is that anyone claiming the Tories have a legitimate claim to impose their manifesto on the UK because it was voted for fall at this simple test. After all 45% of Scotland voted for Independence, a significantly higher level of support than the current UK government has.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Funny. The SNP were happy to take nearly 100 % of Scottish seats on 50% of the vote.
The SNP support PR and have not changed that position, they introduced PR for local elections in Scotland and would vote for it at Westminster. Unlike, for example, the Fib Dems who claimed to support PR for decades only to turn their back on it and chose to go for a gerrymander of FPTP.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Until such time as we vote 37% who want to change the electoral system (but will have to use the broken system and their tyranny of the minority to impose the change), we can do little but whinge about it. I'm not holding my breath. The only limited solace is it is not more in princple unfair than previous governments.
Only Blair's third term comes close to being as lacking in legitimacy. All other UK governments have held over 40% of the popular vote, the vast bulk of them well over 45%.
But that's almost beside the point. The point is that anyone claiming the Tories have a legitimate claim to impose their manifesto on the UK because it was voted for fall at this simple test. After all 45% of Scotland voted for Independence, a significantly higher level of support than the current UK government has.
67% of the UK chose to keep First Past The Post during the last Parliament. 55% of Scotland chose to stay in the UK during the last Parliament.
The UK has just had a First Past The Post election as the public voted (twice in the Scot's case) to keep last term. It doesn't get more legitimate than that.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That is balanced. If Labour were in government then all other parties would be opposition parties too. The DUP are also an opposition party so wouldn't change anything.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
It was the same on BBC TV's coverage of the opening, the main panel was Labour, Conservative and SNP while the Liberals got a brief statement in a "go to" piece alongside UKIP and the Greens.
Not sure what Radio 4 are playing at but it's indefensible. Will be interesting to see if Miranda Who turns up on This Week tomorrow.
I never listen to BBC Radio so couldn't comment on Radio 4 but it depends upon how they normally shape up their panel. If its normally just three and they made room for the SNP but kept the Lib Dem that's wrong. If they would have had an "other" there previously then that's more acceptable. Eg Question Time has typically had the big 3 plus one other, the Lib Dems should be cycled with the Others but seem to have a permanent seat still. The permanent seat should go to the SNP.
You are right. But the BBC failed so far with Question Time, both editions since the election have failed to include the SNP.
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That was one of the most point less discussions to be held. No acknowledgement by the 3 opposition parties that the Govt was elected by the UK to implement its manifesto. Farron clearly very comfortable smearing the tories with inflamatory language, let us hope that the Lib Dems choose him and be led to a new descent into oblivion.
It was not elected by the UK. It polled 37% of the vote and a broken and corrupt electoral system let it impose the Tyrany of the Minority.
Right-wing Parties 50.6% of the UK vote (Con + UKIP) Right-wing Parties 50.9% of seats at Westminster (Con + UKIP)
Dair is being his usual stupid self. The system is the same system which gives the SNP all its seats and swept Labour away. The best tho get for holyrood would be to revert to FPTP.
Seems the old goon Skinner can't cope when someone stands up to his bullying.
“Mr Skinner and some other Labour MPs have been queuing up hours before the Commons chamber opens at 8am to put name holders in seat places and thwart the SNP. "
What a bunch of towering intellectual collusi. Still at least they have these small diversions to keep them from doing any real harm.
BBC balance on R4 WATO 3 v 1. Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person. If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
That is balanced. If Labour were in government then all other parties would be opposition parties too. The DUP are also an opposition party so wouldn't change anything.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
It was the same on BBC TV's coverage of the opening, the main panel was Labour, Conservative and SNP while the Liberals got a brief statement in a "go to" piece alongside UKIP and the Greens.
Not sure what Radio 4 are playing at but it's indefensible. Will be interesting to see if Miranda Who turns up on This Week tomorrow.
I never listen to BBC Radio so couldn't comment on Radio 4 but it depends upon how they normally shape up their panel. If its normally just three and they made room for the SNP but kept the Lib Dem that's wrong. If they would have had an "other" there previously then that's more acceptable. Eg Question Time has typically had the big 3 plus one other, the Lib Dems should be cycled with the Others but seem to have a permanent seat still. The permanent seat should go to the SNP.
You are right. But the BBC failed so far with Question Time, both editions since the election have failed to include the SNP.
Haven't there been three editions? There was one on the Friday after the election and then the traditional next two Thursday's and I think the Friday one had an SNP rep from memory. But all three have (I think) had a Lib Dem one. I fail to see an excuse for such a disregard to how the public have elected their MPs.
Of course, that's only if you accept the FPTP result as legitimate. It seems odd to decry the result as illegitmate and then knock the BBC for including a party that scored a million more votes than yours.
Comments
While I can tolerate the status quo, without safeguards it is only going to get more integrated in future.
The latter implies that party-political advantage is the primary motivating factor which (while definitely a bonus) contradicts the "right in principle" line
It would be interesting to see Labour lining up to defend the status quo: I'm curious as to what arguments they would use.
It would also make the public choice in elections easier: the parties could present their percentages for each department, and the public could easily compare them. It'd stop all this farce about 'giving' £8 billion extra to the NHS, etc.
I'd also like to see there being a certain percentage of contingency; the ruling party could use this for any emergency that crops up, or for other purposes (e.g. paying off the debt).
It can be done better, definitely, but if we and others didn't support the developing world at all then the current stream of migrants would be a lot, lot more.
Plus physical investments (real investments like HS2, not all spending) have a cost that is not a percentage of GDP. Projects like this take years of planning and if the economy grows faster you can't just suddenly magic up new projects that will be done immediately.
If I was a master political strategist, however, I'd find a principled backbencher, preferably not a Tory (because that might look like grubby political advantage seeking) to propose this as an amendment to the government bill.
(edit: thinking about it, it's quite possible that *UKIP* might benefit more financially from this than the Tories)
Although I'd disagree with some of the policies she wants, this isn't a bad article at all from Polly Toynbee.
First was in 1715
Second in 1719
Third in 1745.
(of fifth if you count 1689-92).
It might well allow departments to be run more efficiently, as they would know how much money they are getting. I recall seeing an article about a study saying that injections of cash into departments were less efficient than planned spending, which seems fairly obvious.
The parents that were vocal about this bought into the socialist and Lib Dem words that costs per child would not drop. Illogical but that is always the problem with leftie maths.
As for parents, I really don't think any parent opposes a reduction in burdensome costs, but if they want to pay more for higher ratios of staff to children, then I'm sure the market will provide that option.
parents oppose measures that will reduce the cost of a service that they don't pay for
European policies on agriculture are a terrible black mark against the EU. They'll only get worse with us out of Europe.
I can assure everyone that I am not a wanted fugitive when I am out on a trail:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32856626
If you want to dismiss the opinions of experts on matters of policy they specialise in, fine, but I expect to see a similar refrain from quoting economists who support the Tories.
Lib Dems Farron, Labour's Chuka and an SNP lady all attack the one Conservative person.
If its ok to have a party of 8 (LDs) then what about the DUP?
Far from improving our voice in the world and allowing us to campaign effectively against the EU policies, our membership of the organisation very effectively neuters us. As was pointed out a few days ago, Norway has a seat on the main international trade bodies. Under the current EU rules the UK has 1/8th of a seat.
To the victor goes the spoils. Enjoy seeing your MPs sitting on the opposition benches still in our country Cameron is busy running.
I thought it was good on Sky News this morning they had outside Westminster a spokesman from Conservatives, Labour and the SNP. The Lib Dems were (rightly) absent from the discussion.
Nick Clegg has succeeded in making his party an "Other".
I suppose more accurately they're just another small party facing the government's backbenchers. Labour face the Cabinet's seats.
Given that it was I who pointed out that this situation changes for the better on 21st July - something I guess you didn't have a clue about - I would suggest you are talking out of your hat.
If an expiring policy is abused to circumnavigate our opt-out then there would rightly be outrage and I'd join in with that outrage reaction on opposing that. But it isn't happening so this is just silly.
[Edit: Richard N and I are NOT related]
Next time, try to win.
Now if you prefer to have a lower ratio of children to teacher higher than Holland for example , then you could choose those schools. You would pay more but that is your choice. Other parents may prefer a higher ratio and may also choose a degree educated teacher. It is called choice.
"well, just because you claim to be ... one nation ... doesn’t make it so. "
Slow. Hand. Clap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11632857/EU-asks-member-states-to-take-40000-asylum-seekers.html
I would get my outrage ready if I were you.
Not sure what Radio 4 are playing at but it's indefensible. Will be interesting to see if Miranda Who turns up on This Week tomorrow.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/yvette-cooper-snaps-up-six-more-mp-supporters/
We will be asked to take just over 2,000 - which compares to eg over 23,000 people claiming asylum in the UK in 2013 (the last numbers I could find) or a peak of over 84k in 2002. That sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it to you?
If they know that a boat left port X, then return everyone on it to port X. Allowing people rescued from these boats to be EU resident will only lead to more unseaworthy and overloaded boats trying to make the journey.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11633240/Dennis-Skinner-SNP-battle-left-me-too-tired-to-heckle-during-Queens-Speech.html
Seems the old goon Skinner can't cope when someone stands up to his bullying.
That was from a selfish interest though. Whether they continue do so now is another question, I suspect their MPs would find a way to gracefully kick it into the long grass if it came up now (which it won't so they don't have to).
Right-wing Parties 50.9% of seats at Westminster (Con + UKIP)
The lesson for corrupt international sports is that it's not worth trying to crack the US market as you might attract the attention of the FBI.
But that's almost beside the point. The point is that anyone claiming the Tories have a legitimate claim to impose their manifesto on the UK because it was voted for fall at this simple test. After all 45% of Scotland voted for Independence, a significantly higher level of support than the current UK government has.
55% of Scotland chose to stay in the UK during the last Parliament.
The UK has just had a First Past The Post election as the public voted (twice in the Scot's case) to keep last term. It doesn't get more legitimate than that.
“Mr Skinner and some other Labour MPs have been queuing up hours before the Commons chamber opens at 8am to put name holders in seat places and thwart the SNP. "
What a bunch of towering intellectual collusi. Still at least they have these small diversions to keep them from doing any real harm.
Of course, that's only if you accept the FPTP result as legitimate. It seems odd to decry the result as illegitmate and then knock the BBC for including a party that scored a million more votes than yours.