It is depressing to see Tories delight in challenges for Scottish economy and therefore also the British economy.
The big challenge for the Scottish economy is the separatists and their economic illiteracy - like a drunk waving a gun about we can all be glad it didn't go off.
given you have f*** all to do with Scotland, do not live there and keep droning on about how we are parasites living off your JSA, why does it matter to you.
Malc - you already ranted back to that post - imperative that you don't waste your resources double insulting - particularly when it's wasted as we both know you are an MI5 plant.
Two other changes in the update of the draft memo, which are less important than UK now havingto follow single rulebook as interpreted by ECB, but still negative:
- Restates requirement that everyone except Denmark and the UK has to join the Euro. EU don't want the phrase that Euro membership is 'voluntary' being applied to anyone else. Obviously not great for weakening our power relative to Euro caucus vote, albeit expected. - Emergency brake criteria now focus on whether "transitional controls" were not applied. While we did not apply these to A10 countries in 2004, we did apply them to Romania and Bulgaria. Given 2004 was more than 10 years ago, it will be harder to meet this threshold the further away from 2004 we get.
By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB
Any chance of the FT advocating Leave then? Not until hell freezes over.
By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB
Let's see how many donors in the City that steers towards the Tories....
I don't see how anyone who felt protections for City were main concern can advocate for anything but Leave if this goes through. Cameron needs to focus all his efforts on changing back to original language here. Otherwise regulation of UK finance sector has directly passed to Eurozone.
Faintly ridiculous number of Top Gear presenters. One fears it's going to become a programme about cars.
How do you actually even fit that many presenters into one program...it could end up like the clusterf##k of lots of American sport coverage, 4 people talking over one another, now lets go pitch side where 2 more people will repeat the same points made by the other 4 and now to the commentators who again repeat the same points.
The SNP and the UKIP are fundamentally driven by the same thing, national self determination and sovereignty.
That one apes right wing policies whilst the other left is just down to what they consider plays well with their own electorate.
i guess that's why they clash so much, they are so similar and they don't like it
When do you see them clashing , UKIP are non existant in Scotland , nobody gives a toss about them. We only hear about them when they get arrested, otherwise they are invisible.
How do you actually even fit that many presenters into one program...it could end up like the clusterf##k of lots of American sport coverage, 4 people talking over one another, now lets go pitch side where 2 more people will repeat the same points made by the other 4 and now to the commentators who again repeat the same points.
Top Gear was "Last of the Summer Wine" with cars, the comic adventures of 3 ageing blokes.
The new one looks like it might be a remake of Fifth Gear...
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
An absolute cretin posts crap by a fellow cretin who has been proven to not understand how to count , the two of your brain cells added together could not even make you dangerous. I wonder at your stupidity.
Cutting out the chaff on pbc would be like sitting in silence in a Parisian cafe all day in the hope that John Paul and Simone might pop in for a chat.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
How do you actually even fit that many presenters into one program...it could end up like the clusterf##k of lots of American sport coverage, 4 people talking over one another, now lets go pitch side where 2 more people will repeat the same points made by the other 4 and now to the commentators who again repeat the same points.
Top Gear was "Last of the Summer Wine" with cars, the comic adventures of 3 ageing blokes.
The new one looks like it might be a remake of Fifth Gear...
Fifth gear that well loved car show with bugger all audience :-) ...even they didn't have more than 4 presenters if I remember correctly.
The deteriorating financial position of Scotland is
The fact remains that whilst the UK as a whole is a beneficiary of lower oil prices the Scottish economy is seriously suffering with a significant drop in the number of higher rate tax payers. This is a major concern whilst negotiations are taking place which will involve Scotland retaining a much larger share of its tax revenues and in exchange giving up a significant part of its claim on the UK pot. Devolution of the taxes, which I suspect the Nationalists saw as a means of demonstrating how Scotland would be better off on its own is putting services at risk.
The collapse of the oil price has demonstrated how we are better together with shared risks. In the good years Scotland made a massively disproportionate contribution to the UK Treasury and everyone in the UK benefited to a significant extent. By pulling apart the threads that bind us the SNP and Scotland are in danger of getting the worst of both worlds.
Hopefully the Scottish Government will not accept their rigged fiscal framework.
For those who seek a slightly more nuanced analysis:
I fear that in their summit-fever rush for more powers the SNP made the mistake of believing their own grievance-rousing rhetoric about how badly the Union treats Scotland. The next few days of negotiation are critical: we're about to find out how high a price we're going to pay for the SNP's intemperate haste to seize more powers and weaken the bonds of Union.
I fear that in their summit-fever rush for more powers the SNP made the mistake of believing their own grievance-rousing rhetoric about how badly the Union treats Scotland. The next few days of negotiation are critical: we're about to find out how high a price we're going to pay for the SNP's intemperate haste to seize more powers and weaken the bonds of Union.
Ha Ha Ha , Tory Lady Haw Haw using the same monkey as Labour's Dugdale. A proven unionist lickspittle idiot who cannot count. Your line to CCHQ down today dear.
It is depressing to see Tories delight in challenges for Scottish economy and therefore also the British economy.
The big challenge for the Scottish economy is the separatists and their economic illiteracy - like a drunk waving a gun about we can all be glad it didn't go off.
The other cheek of the arse has joined now
Nothing wrong with the cheeks of an arse malc - its the dark hole and the warm air it exudes that is the unpleasant part - aka the SNP.
Like the one in this delightfully cheerful cartoon?
Mr. Urquhart, if they have 3-4 per episode, it could work on the old lines (more or less). But if they try and have them all in every episode, it would seem to be too many.
if you had read that it was English students from Labour , another one that cannot even find the truth under their noses. Must try harder, poor for a pretendy Scot to get that one wrong.
Mr. Urquhart, if they have 3-4 per episode, it could work on the old lines (more or less). But if they try and have them all in every episode, it would seem to be too many.
Anyway, we'll see.
Or we won't, if we don't bother to watch.
Just had a thought. It may be that The Stig isn't even mute. It may just be that he thinks Clarkson is such a boorish right-wing arsehole that he can't be bothered to speak to him.
OMG. It can't be? Can it? Is The Stig really Jeremy Corbyn???
I can't believe how Cameron got a very poor deal from the EU, got awful criticism from UK press and public, and then had it made WORSE in second iteration. Esp as main area it was worse was on protections for UK finance sector from Eurozone bloc, which was biggest failure first time round. Banking is where we are most exposed to Eurozone domination as 1) its crucial industry for UK 2) other Eurozone countries unlikely to have splits on issue and 3) Eurozone integration already happening here with banking union, single supervisoy mechanism etc.
Mr. Urquhart, if they have 3-4 per episode, it could work on the old lines (more or less). But if they try and have them all in every episode, it would seem to be too many.
Anyway, we'll see.
Or we won't, if we don't bother to watch.
Just had a thought. It may be that The Stig isn't even mute. It may just be that he thinks Clarkson is such a boorish right-wing arsehole that he can't be bothered to speak to him.
OMG. It can't be? Can it? Is The Stig really Jeremy Corbyn???
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
I wonder if at this very moment in the Calais Jungle there are a bunch of migrants whining impotently about the governance of the countries they have left.
Imagine if Labour had elected anyone who wasn't Jeremy Corbyn....they'd have an actual chance on capitalising on this whole EU fiasco by Cameron and co.
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Also interesting comments from foxinsoxuk regarding the Junior Doctors/NHS. It further strengthens my feeling that Hunt's plans won't improve the NHS in the long-term.
I can't believe how Cameron got a very poor deal from the EU, got awful criticism from UK press and public, and then had it made WORSE in second iteration. Esp as main area it was worse was on protections for UK finance sector from Eurozone bloc, which was biggest failure first time round. Banking is where we are most exposed to Eurozone domination as 1) its crucial industry for UK 2) other Eurozone countries unlikely to have splits on issue and 3) Eurozone integration already happening here with banking union, single supervisoy mechanism etc.
Is your position that only full repatriation of powers relating to regulation of financial services would be acceptable to you?
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The collapse of the oil price has demonstrated how we are better together with shared risks. In the good years Scotland made a massively disproportionate contribution to the UK Treasury and everyone in the UK benefited to a significant extent. By pulling apart the threads that bind us the SNP and Scotland are in danger of getting the worst of both worlds.
The problem is that 45% of Scotland voted to tell us to get lost. Several million people north of the border decided they hated those south of the border and their "Tory Governments" so much that they voted to break away. As chance happened, they were unlucky, but not for want of trying. Recent polls suggest that a majority of Scots want us to get lost, how is it unfair to expect them to live with the consequences of that.
At the moment the Scots are in the enviable position of seeing some of the consequences of breaking away without having to be bound by it, I think there many on both sides of the EURef vote that would be pleased to have the same arrangement with Brussels!
Obviously those Scots that want to be part of the UK have my sympathy, you cant choose your own countrymen after all
The latest poll from yougov actually had No still narrowly ahead in Scotland in any indyref2
Indigo says 'several million people' It was in fact 1.6 million.
That's all right then, only 1.6m people hated us and wanted to tell us to p155 off.
@paulwaugh: I'm told Jeremy Hunt to make Commons Statement at 11.15am on junior docs contract. Is this it? Imposition? Or more brinkmanship?
The last minute offer on Tuesday seemed a relatively good deal. Can anyone explain to me why the new contract is rubbish? So much mud slinging struggling to see the reasons why.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
The only thing hard to take are the looming budget increases we'll have to meet - for mental health care north of the border....
A cautionary note is that I accidentally started hearing last week's podcast, and that was full of comments about how strong Rubio's position was. The authoritative-sounding commentaries can change, just like the rest of us. But very interesting listening, thanks!
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
Interesting to hear Nick. I'm sure there are quite a few MP's who dip in from time to time. But it must be quite frustrating for those with limited time, wading through 2000 posts a day, maybe 200 of which offer them interesting soundings and insights. What pb.com ideally needs is a Daily Digest of the very best posts of the day. (Or - heaven forbid! - for some of us to rein in our posting about, F1, football, footwear, vegetables and the Punic Wars....)
A thumb-up/down button would enable people to quick find the highest ranked postings, then all it needs is for people to rank up interesting political points and not comments on their favourite historical event
@paulwaugh: I'm told Jeremy Hunt to make Commons Statement at 11.15am on junior docs contract. Is this it? Imposition? Or more brinkmanship?
The last minute offer on Tuesday seemed a relatively good deal. Can anyone explain to me why the new contract is rubbish? So much mud slinging struggling to see the reasons why.
It interferes with the lifestyle preferences of the junior doctors.
A cautionary note is that I accidentally started hearing last week's podcast, and that was full of comments about how strong Rubio's position was. The authoritative-sounding commentaries can change, just like the rest of us. But very interesting listening, thanks!
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
Interesting to hear Nick. I'm sure there are quite a few MP's who dip in from time to time. But it must be quite frustrating for those with limited time, wading through 2000 posts a day, maybe 200 of which offer them interesting soundings and insights. What pb.com ideally needs is a Daily Digest of the very best posts of the day. (Or - heaven forbid! - for some of us to rein in our posting about, F1, football, footwear, vegetables and the Punic Wars....)
A thumb-up/down button would enable people to quick find the highest ranked postings, then all it needs is for people to rank up interesting political points and not comments on their favourite historical event
Except what we would see is the dominant claque upvoting the congenial posts and downvoting the awkward posts.
I can't believe how Cameron got a very poor deal from the EU, got awful criticism from UK press and public, and then had it made WORSE in second iteration. Esp as main area it was worse was on protections for UK finance sector from Eurozone bloc, which was biggest failure first time round. Banking is where we are most exposed to Eurozone domination as 1) its crucial industry for UK 2) other Eurozone countries unlikely to have splits on issue and 3) Eurozone integration already happening here with banking union, single supervisoy mechanism etc.
Is your position that only full repatriation of powers relating to regulation of financial services would be acceptable to you?
No. Would be happy with non-Euro countries as a group being able to red card new Eurozone laws. And especially interpretations by ECB on single rulebook.
A cautionary note is that I accidentally started hearing last week's podcast, and that was full of comments about how strong Rubio's position was. The authoritative-sounding commentaries can change, just like the rest of us. But very interesting listening, thanks!
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
Interesting to hear Nick. I'm sure there are quite a few MP's who dip in from time to time. But it must be quite frustrating for those with limited time, wading through 2000 posts a day, maybe 200 of which offer them interesting soundings and insights. What pb.com ideally needs is a Daily Digest of the very best posts of the day. (Or - heaven forbid! - for some of us to rein in our posting about, F1, football, footwear, vegetables and the Punic Wars....)
A thumb-up/down button would enable people to quick find the highest ranked postings, then all it needs is for people to rank up interesting political points and not comments on their favourite historical event
Except what we would see is the dominant claque upvoting the congenial posts and downvoting the awkward posts.
How can Remainers accept an amendment which requires our banks to be regulated by a Central Bank on which we have no representation?
This isn't keeping our seat at the table; this is sitting in the room next door while the people in the other room make decisions and then send us memos confirming what they are.
If you meet him again, please get him to post. Of course we bite, but that's half the fun.
I told him to - he paled at the thought. The problem is that there isn't really an upside for a young upwardly-mobile MP. If he posts 100 comments and one is mildly controversial, it'll be used against him forever and his card will be marked as "unsafe". If all 100 are on-message, he'll be derided here and ignored elsewhere. I've always posted here because I enjoy it and open discussion is good, but I was never (pace SeanT, who STILL thinks I'm a careerist) - under many illusions about my career as a new MP pushing 50.
I think there's scope for MPs to post under pseudonyms, merely saying that they're MPs, but they does unleash a guessing game - there was endless speculation about the pro-Labour snowflake, who posted intelligent economic commentaries. I think the general view was that it was Yvette, but she certainly told me that it wasn't, and she'd barely heard of the blog. Who knows?
No, I happily accept you are no longer a careerist. I now think you are a pernicious, hypocritical imbecile, in the light of your support for Corbyn and McDonnell. Hope that's better.
Unnecessary SeanT. No need to behave like a hard line leftie.
I can't believe how Cameron got a very poor deal from the EU, got awful criticism from UK press and public, and then had it made WORSE in second iteration. Esp as main area it was worse was on protections for UK finance sector from Eurozone bloc, which was biggest failure first time round. Banking is where we are most exposed to Eurozone domination as 1) its crucial industry for UK 2) other Eurozone countries unlikely to have splits on issue and 3) Eurozone integration already happening here with banking union, single supervisoy mechanism etc.
Is your position that only full repatriation of powers relating to regulation of financial services would be acceptable to you?
No. Would be happy with non-Euro countries as a group being able to red card new Eurozone laws. And especially interpretations by ECB on single rulebook.
I have more sympathy with the last point than the first point.
A cautionary note is that I accidentally started hearing last week's podcast, and that was full of comments about how strong Rubio's position was. The authoritative-sounding commentaries can change, just like the rest of us. But very interesting listening, thanks!
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
Interesting to hear Nick. I'm sure there are quite a few MP's who dip in from time to time. But it must be quite frustrating for those with limited time, wading through 2000 posts a day, maybe 200 of which offer them interesting soundings and insights. What pb.com ideally needs is a Daily Digest of the very best posts of the day. (Or - heaven forbid! - for some of us to rein in our posting about, F1, football, footwear, vegetables and the Punic Wars....)
A thumb-up/down button would enable people to quick find the highest ranked postings, then all it needs is for people to rank up interesting political points and not comments on their favourite historical event
Except what we would see is the dominant claque upvoting the congenial posts and downvoting the awkward posts.
Mr. Blue, hey. Cameron negotiated a veto on the colour of the zips on the gimp suit. If that isn't a powerful statement of intent, I don't know what is.
Mr. Die, I'm not. There's a huge number of male victims, who rarely get mentioned, when it comes to domestic violence. (In a similar way to the third of Rotherham victims being boys hardly ever getting mentioned).
A cautionary note is that I accidentally started hearing last week's podcast, and that was full of comments about how strong Rubio's position was. The authoritative-sounding commentaries can change, just like the rest of us. But very interesting listening, thanks!
I was in the Commons giving a briefing yesterday, and an MP who I won't name said to me that he really likes PB, though he never posts - the best forum for interesting cross-boundary debate.
Interesting to hear Nick. I'm sure there are quite a few MP's who dip in from time to time. But it must be quite frustrating for those with limited time, wading through 2000 posts a day, maybe 200 of which offer them interesting soundings and insights. What pb.com ideally needs is a Daily Digest of the very best posts of the day. (Or - heaven forbid! - for some of us to rein in our posting about, F1, football, footwear, vegetables and the Punic Wars....)
A thumb-up/down button would enable people to quick find the highest ranked postings, then all it needs is for people to rank up interesting political points and not comments on their favourite historical event
Except what we would see is the dominant claque upvoting the congenial posts and downvoting the awkward posts.
I can't believe how Cameron got a very poor deal from the EU, got awful criticism from UK press and public, and then had it made WORSE in second iteration. Esp as main area it was worse was on protections for UK finance sector from Eurozone bloc, which was biggest failure first time round. Banking is where we are most exposed to Eurozone domination as 1) its crucial industry for UK 2) other Eurozone countries unlikely to have splits on issue and 3) Eurozone integration already happening here with banking union, single supervisoy mechanism etc.
Is your position that only full repatriation of powers relating to regulation of financial services would be acceptable to you?
No. Would be happy with non-Euro countries as a group being able to red card new Eurozone laws. And especially interpretations by ECB on single rulebook.
I have more sympathy with the last point than the first point.
Sorry. Clumsy language. By "Eurozone laws" I mean "EU laws passed by Eurozone majority".
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
So IndyRef2 nailed on for the SNP Holyrood manifesto then?
Again why the f##k a former teacher turned comedian on QT...they rarely seem to have non-politician folk of shall we say high standing from the world of academia or business. It is always an actor or comedian.
No, I happily accept you are no longer a careerist. I now think you are a pernicious, hypocritical imbecile, in the light of your support for Corbyn and McDonnell. Hope that's better.
Or, to put it in vaguely civilised terms, you disagree with me about something. Sure, had gathered that. Much better.
Among hundreds of people who have worked for major think tanks, six are now in groups supporting Leave? This is supposed to be some sort of conspiracy??
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
something upsetting the primate enclosure today , they seem frenzied in their Scottish posts today. Baw face must be concerned about something to have set them off.
Majority for indy with Brent at $30 a barrel must be hard to take..
Again why the f##k a former teacher turned comedian on QT...they rarely seem to have non-politician folk of shall we say high standing from the world of academia or business. It is always an actor or comedian.
Worse than that, he's an Arsenal supporter. One imagines the idea is that a panellist from the glamorous world of showbiz will attract casual viewers and not be camera-shy.
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Well so much for the theory that opposites attract, then...
Among hundreds of people who have worked for major think tanks, six are now in groups supporting Leave? This is supposed to be some sort of conspiracy??
It's a direct copycat of the insane Leaver argument that the EU's tendrils financially contaminate every criticism of the Out campaign. The connections here look rather more substantial than those alleged by the wilder-eyed BOOers. But I can't say I'm desperately impressed by either line of attack.
Miss Plato, diverts attention from the deal being a crock of shit?
Mr. Mark, I rather like the brevity of Twitter. I think some people are concerned it's becoming more politicised, though [hard to say myself as I try to refrain from political posts there].
It's a direct copycat of the insane Leaver argument that the EU's tendrils financially contaminate every criticism of the Out campaign. The connections here look rather more substantial than those alleged by the wilder-eyed BOOers. But I can't say I'm desperately impressed by either line of attack.
It says something about the world-view of the people making the accusation that they perceive think-tanks as capable of making scientific, impartial pronouncements in the first place.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Miss Plato, diverts attention from the deal being a crock of shit?
Mr. Mark, I rather like the brevity of Twitter. I think some people are concerned it's becoming more politicised, though [hard to say myself as I try to refrain from political posts there].
I see no sign of Twitter becoming more politicised. My feed consists mostly of posts about cats, hill farming in the lake district, diverse history topics and some funnies (some bloke called Edric does an amusing if occasional input). I see very little about politics and what I do see comes almost exclusively from denizens of this site.
What one gets from twitter is pretty much governed by what one asks for. As a method of gauging public opinion or conducting a debate it is not awfully useful. As a way of publicising, for example, what you your sheep are doing to people who are interested it is very good.
@paulwaugh: I'm told Jeremy Hunt to make Commons Statement at 11.15am on junior docs contract. Is this it? Imposition? Or more brinkmanship?
The last minute offer on Tuesday seemed a relatively good deal. Can anyone explain to me why the new contract is rubbish? So much mud slinging struggling to see the reasons why.
I think rather than imposition, the Govt should simply say "we tried and failed to reform the NHS in England to bring in a 7 day NHS in the interests of patients, against the vested interests of the politically motivated BMA, for whom this was never about safety and the best interests of patients. This needs to come to a conclusion. So the conclusion is we'll stick with what we have got, a 5 day NHS with patched-up cover at weekends. It is not satisfactory, people will suffer, people will die, but there is nothing else we can do, as we will not impose new working practices on the NHS against the will of doctors and their union. The blame, let it be seen, lies firmly at the door of the stubborn and ideologically motivated BMA. The Government did everything it could to negotiate a reasonable and fair settlement, but we were stymied at every turn."
And then announce a Royal Commission to look into the future of the healthcare provision in the UK, look at models adopted by every other developed and civilised country in the world, and how the UK can in future meet the needs of a growing and ageing population with the finite available resources.
Instead, Hunt will just ratchet it all up another notch, impose the contracts, and there will be more strikes, anguish and suffering.
Today might just be this Government's Black Wednesday....
As a distraction from Yoon migrants' sterile and repetitive perorations, an informative, even-handed and (as is usual with Ian Jack) beautifully written piece on Trident in all its complexity.
@paulwaugh: I'm told Jeremy Hunt to make Commons Statement at 11.15am on junior docs contract. Is this it? Imposition? Or more brinkmanship?
The last minute offer on Tuesday seemed a relatively good deal. Can anyone explain to me why the new contract is rubbish? So much mud slinging struggling to see the reasons why.
I think rather than imposition, the Govt should simply say "we tried and failed to reform the NHS in England to bring in a 7 day NHS in the interests of patients, against the vested interests of the politically motivated BMA, for whom this was never about safety and the best interests of patients. This needs to come to a conclusion. So the conclusion is we'll stick with what we have got, a 5 day NHS with patched-up cover at weekends. It is not satisfactory, people will suffer, people will die, but there is nothing else we can do, as we will not impose new working practices on the NHS against the will of doctors and their union. The blame, let it be seen, lies firmly at the door of the stubborn and ideologically motivated BMA. The Government did everything it could to negotiate a reasonable and fair settlement, but we were stymied at every turn."
And then announce a Royal Commission to look into the future of the healthcare provision in the UK, look at models adopted by every other developed and civilised country in the world, and how the UK can in future meet the needs of a growing and ageing population with the finite available resources.
Instead, Hunt will just ratchet it all up another notch, impose the contracts, and there will be more strikes, anguish and suffering.
Today might just be this Government's Black Wednesday....
Healthcare funding? Easy peasy. A £2k pa poll tax on everyone over 60 except those who are members of the Conservative Party.
That piece does explain the problem quite well but is slightly less good on the answers.
Put very simply there have been 2 conflicting trends as a result of the Barnett formula applying to the Scottish bloc grant for some years now. On the one hand the original differentials which reflected the need for higher spending on average in Scotland (as a result of low population density and a variety of other factors) have been diluted by the principle that the overall growth in public spending is shared equally on a per capita basis. This means the differential part should have played a smaller and smaller part in the overall grant.
In practice, however, this has been more than offset by the differential growth rates of population in the UK. The population of Scotland has been broadly static for a time when the population of England has increased by nearly 10m. Because the ratios between the countries in relation to the differential part have been fixed the consequence has been that the per capita spending on those parts has fallen by much more in England than it has in Scotland with the result that the Barnett squeeze referred to above has been offset and public spending per capita in Scotland has remained comfortably ahead of the UK average.
Those in England may well think this is a problem in itself in that per capita the Scots have continued to get more public spending than the English. The counterargument has been, until very recently, that we also generated more tax per capita because of the contributions of North Sea Oil and that the problems that the original Barnett differentials recognised have not gone away.
This somewhat cosy consensus that this was probably more trouble than it was worth has been undone by the idea that a significant proportion of Scottish taxes will be taken out of the UK pool and retained in Scotland. The arrangement is coming at a time when Scottish tax revenues are falling sharply. The Scottish Government therefore face the risk of a disproportionate squeeze on Scottish public spending because it will be disproportionately affected by the North Sea Oil collapse. This is not a PRT issue but the associated IT losses from over 80K of the better paid jobs in Scotland disappearing.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
'By far the biggest change is page 5 on protections for non-Euro economies in the finance sector. Rather than confirm that the UK can operate outside EU's single rule book for banks when Eurozone integrates, it now says that UK has to operate by the "corresponding rules" of the ECB.
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
Dave hasn't tried to polish a turd. He has tried to polish diarrhoea and the resulting mess is disgusting to all except a few die hard party loyalists.
Comments
Faintly ridiculous number of Top Gear presenters. One fears it's going to become a programme about cars.
- Restates requirement that everyone except Denmark and the UK has to join the Euro. EU don't want the phrase that Euro membership is 'voluntary' being applied to anyone else. Obviously not great for weakening our power relative to Euro caucus vote, albeit expected.
- Emergency brake criteria now focus on whether "transitional controls" were not applied. While we did not apply these to A10 countries in 2004, we did apply them to Romania and Bulgaria. Given 2004 was more than 10 years ago, it will be harder to meet this threshold the further away from 2004 we get.
Not until hell freezes over.
@JohnRentoul: SNP grievance-peddling over "no detriment" explained, by @kevverage https://t.co/TB7RKa0T6q
That one apes right wing policies whilst the other left is just down to what they consider plays well with their own electorate.
i guess that's why they clash so much, they are so similar and they don't like it
The new one looks like it might be a remake of Fifth Gear...
I wonder at your stupidity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10062846/Nigel-Farage-barricaded-in-Scottish-pub-and-rescued-by-police-riot-van.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/no-need-for-concern-on-europe-banks-ecs-dombrovskis.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/socgen-profit-rises-sets-aside-more-for-litigation.html
The problem for the Zoomers is that he uses real numbers, not invented Swinney maths
http://tinyurl.com/zzmb646
Your line to CCHQ down today dear.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/scindependent3-460x290.jpg
Anyway, we'll see.
Just had a thought. It may be that The Stig isn't even mute. It may just be that he thinks Clarkson is such a boorish right-wing arsehole that he can't be bothered to speak to him.
OMG. It can't be? Can it? Is The Stig really Jeremy Corbyn???
CarlottaVance Posts: 14,270
TGOHF Posts: 13,512
Theuniondivvie Posts: 4,507
Some are more repetitive than others..
I wonder if at this very moment in the Calais Jungle there are a bunch of migrants whining impotently about the governance of the countries they have left.
Domestic abuse in Eng/Wales estimated LOWEST since crime survey began. Still 1.1m female & 0.5m male victims but encouraging. @ONS
Regarding the previous thread on Stephen Pound and Rees-Mogg's comments. I know quite a few people who wouldn't date a Conservative, funnily enough. I myself would probably want to be with someone with a similar political outlook to mine as well.
Also interesting comments from foxinsoxuk regarding the Junior Doctors/NHS. It further strengthens my feeling that Hunt's plans won't improve the NHS in the long-term.
An article riddled with inaccuracies.
'less in the case of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is owned by a consortium of two American companies and Serco)'
Except it's owned by the British Government, who also hold the golden share in AWE plc, the operators of the site under a 25 year contract.
This isn't keeping our seat at the table; this is sitting in the room next door while the people in the other room make decisions and then send us memos confirming what they are.
Mr. Die, I'm not. There's a huge number of male victims, who rarely get mentioned, when it comes to domestic violence. (In a similar way to the third of Rotherham victims being boys hardly ever getting mentioned).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35461265
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/02/lord-ashcroft-if-britain-leaves-well-be-left-behind-with-all-these-losers-what-the-dutch-make-of-brexit.html
Very amusing and informative, well worth a read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35549478
'Independent' research & think-tanks used by @Vote_Leave closely linked to their campaign: https://t.co/l3GIKcHS0X https://t.co/QiR1g02sR5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/12151444/Johnston-Press-confirms-24m-talks-to-buy-the-i-newspaper.html
Strange one. Sell of the i that makes money and keep the Indy that loses money and has f##k all readers.
Twitter lost users in the last three months, the company said on Wednesday, and the news sent share prices into a nosedive.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/10/twitter-share-price-falls-losing-users
What's the purpose of it? Just weird, and says much more about them.
Mr. Mark, I rather like the brevity of Twitter. I think some people are concerned it's becoming more politicised, though [hard to say myself as I try to refrain from political posts there].
So in short, it now confirms that the City of London will be completely at the mercy of rules set by the ECB'
I expect Richard N will still have that down as 'real progress'.
The no detriment principle is not a one way insurance policy that protects only Scottish taxpayers. It protects rUK taxpayers too.
There are numerous different reasonable ways in which no detriment could be modelled and applied
There is no one right way of doing this. Different countries use different methods.
At its core, no detriment is about aligning powers with risks and responsibilities.
That is, governments should carry the risks associated with their policies, just as they enjoy the benefits that may accrue from them.
Demographics (population) are part of that risk. What we need is a fair share of the relevant risks between the Scottish and UK governments.
Some risks are better borne by the UK as a whole. Eg the volatility of North Sea revenues, and the state pension.
Other risks have to be borne by Scottish Ministers. Eg the £50 million shortfall caused by Mr Swinney's land transactions tax hike.
That £50 million hole is a detriment to Scotland. But it would be manifestly unfair to expect rUK taxpayers to fill the hole.
The argument is about *how* population risks are shared fairly.
The Scottish Govt have numerous powers to encourage the Scottish population to grow.
What the FM has been saying about attracting junior doctors to leave England and move to Scotland is an example!
Once this is understood, it's plain that risks over population need to be shared between the govts and not shouldered only by the UK.
What one gets from twitter is pretty much governed by what one asks for. As a method of gauging public opinion or conducting a debate it is not awfully useful. As a way of publicising, for example, what you your sheep are doing to people who are interested it is very good.
And then announce a Royal Commission to look into the future of the healthcare provision in the UK, look at models adopted by every other developed and civilised country in the world, and how the UK can in future meet the needs of a growing and ageing population with the finite available resources.
Instead, Hunt will just ratchet it all up another notch, impose the contracts, and there will be more strikes, anguish and suffering.
Today might just be this Government's Black Wednesday....
A Royal Commission is a good idea. Won't happen, though. Some people treat the NHS like a religion.
Job done
Put very simply there have been 2 conflicting trends as a result of the Barnett formula applying to the Scottish bloc grant for some years now. On the one hand the original differentials which reflected the need for higher spending on average in Scotland (as a result of low population density and a variety of other factors) have been diluted by the principle that the overall growth in public spending is shared equally on a per capita basis. This means the differential part should have played a smaller and smaller part in the overall grant.
In practice, however, this has been more than offset by the differential growth rates of population in the UK. The population of Scotland has been broadly static for a time when the population of England has increased by nearly 10m. Because the ratios between the countries in relation to the differential part have been fixed the consequence has been that the per capita spending on those parts has fallen by much more in England than it has in Scotland with the result that the Barnett squeeze referred to above has been offset and public spending per capita in Scotland has remained comfortably ahead of the UK average.
Those in England may well think this is a problem in itself in that per capita the Scots have continued to get more public spending than the English. The counterargument has been, until very recently, that we also generated more tax per capita because of the contributions of North Sea Oil and that the problems that the original Barnett differentials recognised have not gone away.
This somewhat cosy consensus that this was probably more trouble than it was worth has been undone by the idea that a significant proportion of Scottish taxes will be taken out of the UK pool and retained in Scotland. The arrangement is coming at a time when Scottish tax revenues are falling sharply. The Scottish Government therefore face the risk of a disproportionate squeeze on Scottish public spending because it will be disproportionately affected by the North Sea Oil collapse. This is not a PRT issue but the associated IT losses from over 80K of the better paid jobs in Scotland disappearing.
My guess is that the SG will conclude, correctly, that it is not in Scotland's interests to break away from the UK pot at a time when we are being adversely affected in this way. The consequence of that is that they will not do the deal. But they have to find a way to make that Cameron's fault rather than a recognition that Scotland is safer and more prosperous within a larger, more stable economic unit.
A truly shitty deal.