Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Undefined discussion subject.

13»

Comments

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mr. Stodge, it's been convention for a century that the Lords not vote down matters of finance.
  • Options
    Slimeball Kaufman at work.
    http://order-order.com/2015/10/28/kaufman-jewish-money-buying-tory-policy/
    “More than half the stabbing claims were definitely fabricated”
  • Options
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)
    I suspect the tax credits farrago will be quickly forgotten though not perhaps the Conservative reaction. It seems curious that when any group (the BBC, the Church, the Lords etc) tries to stand up to or argue against Conservative power, they are threatened with oblivion, destruction, abolition and extermination (not necessarily in that order).
    It's curious for a supposedly democratic party to want to negate any and all forms of Opposition save that which is self-generated within its own ranks.
    ....

    Why should the BBC be speaking up against the elected Government? Their role should be just to report on an impartial basis.
  • Options

    The electoral reform society did a report and said that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
    The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)

    Thanks. My guess of a Con/UKIP coalition would look the most likely outcome. But who would be the PM?
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,921


    Why should the BBC be speaking up against the elected Government? Their role should be just to report on an impartial basis.

    No, I thought the BBC's role was to inform, educate and entertain. One of the aspects of "informing" debate is to carry opposing views so both sides of an issue can be heard.

    Inevitably that will mean those opposed to the Government will be heard as well as those in support. There may be those who argue the voice of the former is disproportionately heard but that's a question of "balance" which is always a tough one to call.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mr. Stodge, one eagerly anticipates hearing views opposing global warming.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,921

    Mr. Stodge, it's been convention for a century that the Lords not vote down matters of finance.

    I thought the problem here was how the measure was put before the Lords (as a Statutory Instrument).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,028
    @Notme A coffee shop would have the barrista's costs "absorbed" into the Cost of sales, but not as Phil Thompson points out say the shop accountant. Supervision/management staff can be either, depending on whether or not they actually make the coffee or not... I guess would be the criteria.

    The actual salaries will be presented in overhead, but there'll also be a line "recharge to Cost of Sales" where the absorbed cost is taken out again.

    This is along the lines of how the business I work for does it anyway with staff involved directly in the cost of selling our gubbins.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    Mr. Stodge, apparently, there have only previously been four or five SIs voted down in the last 70 years or so, and none of them were finance-related.
  • Options
    stodge said:


    Why should the BBC be speaking up against the elected Government? Their role should be just to report on an impartial basis.

    No, I thought the BBC's role was to inform, educate and entertain. One of the aspects of "informing" debate is to carry opposing views so both sides of an issue can be heard.
    Inevitably that will mean those opposed to the Government will be heard as well as those in support. There may be those who argue the voice of the former is disproportionately heard but that's a question of "balance" which is always a tough one to call.
    A balance is one where the views for and against have equal time.
  • Options

    Mr. Stodge, it's been convention for a century that the Lords not vote down matters of finance.

    and some of them were around when it was first settled as a principle.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    stodge said:


    Why should the BBC be speaking up against the elected Government? Their role should be just to report on an impartial basis.

    One of the aspects of "informing" debate is to carry opposing views so both sides of an issue can be heard.

    They lost sight of that a long time ago, Climate Change being one of the most obvious examples.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,022

    Proves what I've been saying for years AV is superior to FPTP

    I must have missed that thread!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,028
    New thread.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,812

    The electoral reform society did a report and said

    that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.

    The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)

    http://electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/report-launch-2015-general-election-voting-system-crisis

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

    Cheers TSE! Off to see Spectre now so will check in later. Excited and nervous!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,671

    Shock, not http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article4598493.ece

    Sepp Blatter: World Cup 2018 was going to Russia regardless of vote

    How would that work then?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,912

    The electoral reform society did a report and said

    that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.

    The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)

    http://electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/report-launch-2015-general-election-voting-system-crisis

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807

    EICIPM
Sign In or Register to comment.