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?
Wrong again.
We are not taking any of the 40,000 who landed before April 15th but are now liable a proportion for those who are en route or who arrived after April 15th. Whilst that is currently 20,000 it does not preclude future liability under the EU resettlement scheme.
And no we should not be taking them. The EU is now in the ludicrous position of providing both part of the push (through their criminal agricultural and fishing policies in Africa) and the pull for migration across the Mediterranean whilst at the same time trying to sink the boats bringing the migrants.
It is sheer lunacy - which is just about the norm for the EU.
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).
Only if you believe the SNP do not take a long term view. I suspect they do.
If Labour admitted to themselves that their core principles do not make them a natural party of government but that under PR Labour/Liberal would have (at least till very recently) a near lock on government as a coalition then both those parties would not be facing an irrelevant future, in one case for at least a decade and in the other case probably forever.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
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.
Spurious argument about Scotland not withstanding, the options of the AV Referendum were : -
Non PR Options on the Ballot - 100% PR Options on the Ballot - 0%
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
Prove that the way people vote and the composition of the 'big tent' parties in a FPTP system has any relevance to how things would work in a PR system.
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.
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.
It's not actually a contradiction.
One is the core system which determines the outcome. The other is a result of that outcome. It is perfectly legitimate, where the rules as are they are and appear unchangeable, to then expect those rules to be applied fairly in the aftermath.
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.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
Prove that the way people vote and the composition of the 'big tent' parties in a FPTP system has any relevance to how things would work in a PR system.
They don't. You can prove this just by analysing any AMS system.
That was my point. Sunil's assertion was a meaningless non-sequitur.
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.
The Treatment Time Guarantee law was broken almost 5,000 times, worse than the previous year and on a worsening trend. A repeatedly broken law which carries no sanctions is not worthy of the Statute Book....
...enacted via a statutory instrument called The Patient Rights (Treatment Time Guarantee) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, which says the same at greater length and has as its signatory "Nicola Sturgeon, A member of the Scottish Executive."
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.
It's not actually a contradiction.
One is the core system which determines the outcome. The other is a result of that outcome. It is perfectly legitimate, where the rules as are they are and appear unchangeable, to then expect those rules to be applied fairly in the aftermath.
If we had PR, though, the outcome of the election (assuming the same vote shares) would be something like Con 240, Lab 200, UKIP 85, Lib Dem 50, SNP 30, Green 25, Others 20. The likeliest outcome would be the Conservatives remaining in office, with supply and confidence from UKIP.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
Prove that UKIP are a lefty, happy-clappy, progressive bunch.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP /ˈjuːkɪp/) is a radical right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom
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.
US Attorney General Loretta Lynch is holding a press conference on FIFA at 1030 ET. This is looking increasingly like a primarily US DOJ investigation, with Swiss help on the World Cup awards of 2018 and 2022. There was a raid in Miami at the same time as the Swiss arrests, focusing on something called CONCACAF. There have been 9 (I think) arrests, several indictments and a guilty plea in the US.
The DOJ investigation has obviously been going on for a long time. The Feds don't move unless they are virtually certain of conviction, and they are patient.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
If you add in the LibDems economic policies then its probably more like 55/45 in favour of continuing austerity, and of the remainder Labour seemed to be the Hokey Cokey party as far as austerity was concerned, so possibly could add in a proportion of that. Even in Scotland the anti austerity parties would have had a bare majority.
Face it Dair: the SNP helped the Cons gain a majority, possibly deliberately, possibly unintentionally. Rather than write Labours budget, Alex Salmond and his cohorts can just watch like eunuchs from the opposition benches.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
Prove that the way people vote and the composition of the 'big tent' parties in a FPTP system has any relevance to how things would work in a PR system.
They don't. You can prove this just by analysing any AMS system.
That was my point. Sunil's assertion was a meaningless non-sequitur.
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.
It's not actually a contradiction.
One is the core system which determines the outcome. The other is a result of that outcome. It is perfectly legitimate, where the rules as are they are and appear unchangeable, to then expect those rules to be applied fairly in the aftermath.
If we had PR, though, the outcome of the election (assuming the same vote shares) would be something like Con 240, Lab 200, UKIP 85, Lib Dem 50, SNP 30, Green 25, Others 20. The likeliest outcome would be the Conservatives remaining in office, with supply and confidence from UKIP.
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.
40-45 is better, but hardly significantly better in terms of overall fairness. As I've made clear before, I want a more proportional and, I believe, fairer system, but that does not in itself make the Tories now or Labour then or anyone else imposing their manifestos 'illegitimate' as the system permits that and the system is not illegitimate, it is just unfair.
One might argue that any system that is unfair is illegitimate, but that I think is a more abstract point which, while not irrelevant, does not directly impact the actual illegitimacy of the system as it is, as much as I believe it should be changed. If the people have not elected in representatives to change that system, they have implicitly accepted the outcomes made possible by that system as legitimate.
Maybe we are close the point where enough people will vote for representatives who do want to change the system that the legitimacy can be challenged, but at present as unfair as it appears to me, I cannot question the legitimacy of this government or the past Blair government to govern as they did onthe vote they received.
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)
Prove that the racist Kipper vote were actually voting for right wing economic policies (which are the core of the Tory manifesto).
Prove that UKIP are a lefty, happy-clappy, progressive bunch.
The UK Independence Party (UKIP /ˈjuːkɪp/) is a radical right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom
It's perhaps the most bizarre outcome of the narrow two-dimensional classification of parties into right and left that then race hate parties are someone grouped as being "right wing" due to their race hate.
It is truly bizarre because the race hate is a typically authoritarian policy, as socially left wing as anything from Labour, Tory or, sadly, the SNP.
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 a tactic that worked so well for labour. Good luck with it LDs
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.
Since when was Cameron considered Scottish? It was a Scottish referendum not an English one.
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.
The Treatment Time Guarantee law was broken almost 5,000 times, worse than the previous year and on a worsening trend. A repeatedly broken law which carries no sanctions is not worthy of the Statute Book....
...enacted via a statutory instrument called The Patient Rights (Treatment Time Guarantee) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, which says the same at greater length and has as its signatory "Nicola Sturgeon, A member of the Scottish Executive."
Waiting a bit is a lot better than we see if we compare with events south of the border, ie spend some waiting time in Scotland versus being patient in Stafford hospital. Idiots in glasshouses should beware of casting stones.
Comments
We are not taking any of the 40,000 who landed before April 15th but are now liable a proportion for those who are en route or who arrived after April 15th. Whilst that is currently 20,000 it does not preclude future liability under the EU resettlement scheme.
And no we should not be taking them. The EU is now in the ludicrous position of providing both part of the push (through their criminal agricultural and fishing policies in Africa) and the pull for migration across the Mediterranean whilst at the same time trying to sink the boats bringing the migrants.
It is sheer lunacy - which is just about the norm for the EU.
If Labour admitted to themselves that their core principles do not make them a natural party of government but that under PR Labour/Liberal would have (at least till very recently) a near lock on government as a coalition then both those parties would not be facing an irrelevant future, in one case for at least a decade and in the other case probably forever.
Non PR Options on the Ballot - 100%
PR Options on the Ballot - 0%
One is the core system which determines the outcome. The other is a result of that outcome. It is perfectly legitimate, where the rules as are they are and appear unchangeable, to then expect those rules to be applied fairly in the aftermath.
That was my point. Sunil's assertion was a meaningless non-sequitur.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/a-treatment-time-sanction-that-is-illusory.127218046
The Treatment Time Guarantee law was broken almost 5,000 times, worse than the previous year and on a worsening trend. A repeatedly broken law which carries no sanctions is not worthy of the Statute Book....
...enacted via a statutory instrument called The Patient Rights (Treatment Time Guarantee) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, which says the same at greater length and has as its signatory "Nicola Sturgeon, A member of the Scottish Executive."
The UK Independence Party (UKIP /ˈjuːkɪp/) is a radical right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party
The DOJ investigation has obviously been going on for a long time. The Feds don't move unless they are virtually certain of conviction, and they are patient.
Face it Dair: the SNP helped the Cons gain a majority, possibly deliberately, possibly unintentionally. Rather than write Labours budget, Alex Salmond and his cohorts can just watch like eunuchs from the opposition benches.
We currently have 331. Not far off!
One might argue that any system that is unfair is illegitimate, but that I think is a more abstract point which, while not irrelevant, does not directly impact the actual illegitimacy of the system as it is, as much as I believe it should be changed. If the people have not elected in representatives to change that system, they have implicitly accepted the outcomes made possible by that system as legitimate.
Maybe we are close the point where enough people will vote for representatives who do want to change the system that the legitimacy can be challenged, but at present as unfair as it appears to me, I cannot question the legitimacy of this government or the past Blair government to govern as they did onthe vote they received.
It is truly bizarre because the race hate is a typically authoritarian policy, as socially left wing as anything from Labour, Tory or, sadly, the SNP.