''The wider issue of an unintegrated and hostile Muslim population - or a part of it - is more difficult I agree. But even there a one step at a time approach may be helpful.''
I guess so. A better economy would help France, too. I'm not sure how opportunities for muslims compare between Britain and France, I wonder if Paris will be getting a muslim mayor any time soon.
Another thing I think governments can do is better support apostasy, and champion the right of those who want to leave the religion they were born into.
Mark Austin ITV A load of sport bodies clear Russia for Rio. The state sponsored doping now replaced by state sponsored laughter at the world. #Rio #doping
Such a farce."Russia systematically doped athletes in a complex scam for years. But no, it's fine".
At least a third of Russian Olympians won't be allowed to participate.
Mark Austin ITV A load of sport bodies clear Russia for Rio. The state sponsored doping now replaced by state sponsored laughter at the world. #Rio #doping
Such a farce."Russia systematically doped athletes in a complex scam for years. But no, it's fine".
At least a third of Russian Olympians won't be allowed to participate.
Not enough. Nations need to know it isn't worth the risk to dope, and athletes need to know that they have a responsibility to root out a culture of doping as well, and if you can have such a massive doping system, which more than 1/3 of athletes had to have been aware of or my name is Susan, an 2/3 still get to participate, other places will think they can get away with it and if they don't they still aren't that punished.
So, for instance, in France's case - and speaking with no special knowledge:-
1. Looking at better information-sharing/co-ordination amongst the security/police services. 2. Possibly looking at what they can learn from the UK's Prevent programme - assuming they don't have something similar already. 3. Reviewing sentencing guidelines/rules/recommendations for terrorism offences. 4. Tightening up the use of electronic tags. 5. Reviewing immigration policies for non-EU countries and, specifically, countries where there is a known terrorism risk (e.g. Tunisia and Algeria) 6. Resources for the monitoring of those on the terror watch list.
From what I've read about the subject France is doing quite a lot, particularly at a structural level of the various police and security forces, but they started in earnest in 2015. The UK made changes after the 7th July bombings, and we arguably had more experience anyway even taking into account France's own considerable experience dealing with terrorism.
Another thing to remember is that we tend to recall the attacks that succeeded, not those thwarted. The French police are arresting people at a similar rate to police in the UK, and many lives have undoubtably been saved.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Would be an interesting test. Of course, the whole point of ceding some sovereignty is you accept someone else can tell you what to do, but everyone comes up against lines they don't want crossed, even if others say they implicitly accepted it would be.
I know its a subsample, but have the Tories ever been more than double Labour (and more than half the SNP(!)) before?
Not quite half the SNP score, but next year's Scottish council elections are going to be fun.
Still can't get over those Scottish YouGov leader ratings from yesterday
Tory fanboys wetting their pants on a subsample
It seems to be pretty much unarguable now that the Tories are the party on the march in Scotland, and are best placed to hoover up the SNP when their arrogance and incompetence finally smashes them on the rocks.
The SNP's current complacency reminds many of SLab's a decade ago. So smug and so stupid.
So the SNP are due a comeuppance in 7-10 years? We can hope I guess.
The unkind might suggest they had a marginal comeuppance only 2 months ago with the loss of their majority ...
Still the most popular party in any individual country of the UK, just really the voting system flatters the Conservatives in Westminster compared to the SNP in Holyrood.
Compare like for like results. The voting system hasn't changed, only the results changed.
Tories went from no majority to a majority under the same voting system. SNP went from a majority to no majority under the same voting system.
Using the FPTP system, the SNP won 95% of the seats in scotland in GE, and 59 out of 73 in the 2016 elections, so both majorities.
If the last UK election had been fought under scottish rules, the tories would have had ~40% of seats at best, so no majority at all.
Read an interesting calculation from a US bank this morning. JP Morgan (I think) have said that the ECB QE programme will be larger than the Fed programme by the end of the year and reach 35% of EMU GDP. To put it into context our QE programme is about 20% of GDP and most people think we have reached the limiter on what is now possible.
Does the UK economy benefit from ECB QE? If so why do we need to do it ourselves if we can ride on their coat tails?
Mark Austin ITV A load of sport bodies clear Russia for Rio. The state sponsored doping now replaced by state sponsored laughter at the world. #Rio #doping
Such a farce."Russia systematically doped athletes in a complex scam for years. But no, it's fine".
At least a third of Russian Olympians won't be allowed to participate.
That doesn't punish the Russian state, and the state in the form of the FSB was directly involved in the doping operation at the Sochi Winter Olympics.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
That's one reason. Another is that people perceive risk differently when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have a measure of control. That's why after 7/7 lots of people took to cycling instead using the London Underground despite the fact that riding a bike around London is demonstrably more dangerous than taking the tube. People don't like to feel helpless and nothing makes people feel more helpless than a bold from the blue like a terrorist attack.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
If the Poles are interested, I'd be happy to tell the Commission to fuck off on their behalf as well.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
That is right: you cannot just treat all deaths from whatever cause as being equivalent. It may be that more people died in 1939-45 in road traffic accidents than in the holocaust, but I wouldn't want to follow any argument starting from that premise. At the very least, I imagine that Hollande will shortly discover that terrorist-caused deaths punch well above their weight electorally speaking.
Mark Austin ITV A load of sport bodies clear Russia for Rio. The state sponsored doping now replaced by state sponsored laughter at the world. #Rio #doping
Such a farce."Russia systematically doped athletes in a complex scam for years. But no, it's fine".
At least a third of Russian Olympians won't be allowed to participate.
That doesn't punish the Russian state, and the state in the form of the FSB was directly involved in the doping operation at the Sochi Winter Olympics.
National Federation of Self Employed & Small Businesses????
I've been relatively open towards Owen Smith, but I don't understand his 'smash her' line. Is it an actual expression that I've not heard of, or just some rather unpleasant imagery? I doubt he would have referred to "smashing him back on his brogues" if a man had become PM for example.
Read an interesting calculation from a US bank this morning. JP Morgan (I think) have said that the ECB QE programme will be larger than the Fed programme by the end of the year and reach 35% of EMU GDP. To put it into context our QE programme is about 20% of GDP and most people think we have reached the limiter on what is now possible.
Does the UK economy benefit from ECB QE? If so why do we need to do it ourselves if we can ride on their coat tails?
Not that much, if anything it has made it tougher for us as Sterling appreciated after the start of their QE programme and sent our trade deficit with the EU to record levels.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities?
It seems to be a feature of Government and its long arm that they want to control all of those on our behalf as well.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Would be an interesting test. Of course, the whole point of ceding some sovereignty is you accept someone else can tell you what to do, but everyone comes up against lines they don't want crossed, even if others say they implicitly accepted it would be.
However, the Polish people voted for this government and an unelected bunch of Eurocrats are trying to subvert the will of the people. I find it disgusting. Hopefully some remainers will have their eyes opened.
Yes - but it is unlikely to continue like that. There is a significant May 'honeymoon' factor in the figures which will be flattering the Tories at the moment but that will inevitably fade with time. By September we could well be seeing headlines of 'Tory lead slashed to 5%' or something similar. I expect polling figures to return to roughly pre-Brexit levels long before Xmas.
She's a month into the job, but Corbyn is only nine months in. He's in the process of going backwards still himself and I think will continue to do so for a while as these perceptions of Labour's unelectability under his leadership sink in further. If May does fade in due course, and a lot will depend on whether she is perceived to having broken with Osborne's trajectory, Corbyn's personal ratings are nonetheless so bad already that there's no reason to expect those presently drawn to the Conservatives to favour Corbynite Labour over UKIP, the Lib Dems, SNP/Plaid or even the Greens.
Oppositions by this stage in the electoral cycle should be enjoying substantive polling leads, whether they win or lose. With ICM and YouGov, in terms of Labour's position relative to the Conservatives Miliband was by this stage between 15% and 20% ahead of where Corbyn is now, and still lost.
She has actually only been there 2 weeks so the honeymoon is probably at its peak. Precedent strongly suggests that within a couple of months - sometimes less - support for the Government party will fall back to its more natural underlying level . At the moment everybody will be giving May the benefit of any doubt , but that mood does not last long.
There is nothing written in stone that says that 15 months into a Parliament the Opposition should be streets ahead in the polls. It does happen - but not always. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories maintained a clear lead until mid-1989 and by early 1990 Labour was over 20% ahead. The Tories ditched Thatcher and went on to win again in 1992 - but Labour still gained 42 seats and would have gained far more had Thatcher not been removed. In the 1959 Parliament , Labour did not move into the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964. In 2001 Parliament , Labour was leading the Tories by 9 - 15% in Autumn 2002 but only managed to win in 2005 by 3%. I am,therefore, far persuaded that because Labour is in trouble today that it is doomed to lose badly in 2020.
"The news comes as the company invests £275 million in its plants across the UK despite GSK chief executive Andrew Witty backing the Remain campaign during the European Union referendum."
Lies by the Remainiacs.
When do we get the extra £350million/week for ht NHS?
Over the next 10-15 years, we never said what time frame.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
If the Poles are interested, I'd be happy to tell the Commission to fuck off on their behalf as well.
I'd love to take on that role as well! Though I think our leave votes did just that.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
That's one reason. Another is that people perceive risk differently when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have a measure of control. That's why after 7/7 lots of people took to cycling instead using the London Underground despite the fact that riding a bike around London is demonstrably more dangerous than taking the tube. People don't like to feel helpless and nothing makes people feel more helpless than a bold from the blue like a terrorist attack.
All those patently pompous portly people in London probably increase their life expectancy by taking a bike rather than a tube sauna everyday, though.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Would be an interesting test. Of course, the whole point of ceding some sovereignty is you accept someone else can tell you what to do, but everyone comes up against lines they don't want crossed, even if others say they implicitly accepted it would be.
However, the Polish people voted for this government and an unelected bunch of Eurocrats are trying to subvert the will of the people. I find it disgusting. Hopefully some remainers will have their eyes opened.
I doubt it. This is exactly what they think the EU is for.
I know its a subsample, but have the Tories ever been more than double Labour (and more than half the SNP(!)) before?
Not quite half the SNP score, but next year's Scottish council elections are going to be fun.
Still can't get over those Scottish YouGov leader ratings from yesterday
Tory fanboys wetting their pants on a subsample
It seems to be pretty much unarguable now that the Tories are the party on the march in Scotland, and are best placed to hoover up the SNP when their arrogance and incompetence finally smashes them on the rocks.
The SNP's current complacency reminds many of SLab's a decade ago. So smug and so stupid.
So the SNP are due a comeuppance in 7-10 years? We can hope I guess.
The unkind might suggest they had a marginal comeuppance only 2 months ago with the loss of their majority ...
Still the most popular party in any individual country of the UK, just really the voting system flatters the Conservatives in Westminster compared to the SNP in Holyrood.
Compare like for like results. The voting system hasn't changed, only the results changed.
Tories went from no majority to a majority under the same voting system. SNP went from a majority to no majority under the same voting system.
Using the FPTP system, the SNP won 95% of the seats in scotland in GE, and 59 out of 73 in the 2016 elections, so both majorities.
If the last UK election had been fought under scottish rules, the tories would have had ~40% of seats at best, so no majority at all.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
So, for instance, in France's case - and speaking with no special knowledge:-
1. Looking at better information-sharing/co-ordination amongst the security/police services. 2. Possibly looking at what they can learn from the UK's Prevent programme - assuming they don't have something similar already. 3. Reviewing sentencing guidelines/rules/recommendations for terrorism offences. 4. Tightening up the use of electronic tags. 5. Reviewing immigration policies for non-EU countries and, specifically, countries where there is a known terrorism risk (e.g. Tunisia and Algeria) 6. Resources for the monitoring of those on the terror watch list.
From what I've read about the subject France is doing quite a lot, particularly at a structural level of the various police and security forces, but they started in earnest in 2015. The UK made changes after the 7th July bombings, and we arguably had more experience anyway even taking into account France's own considerable experience dealing with terrorism.
Another thing to remember is that we tend to recall the attacks that succeeded, not those thwarted. The French police are arresting people at a similar rate to police in the UK, and many lives have undoubtably been saved.
Yes - but re the last point you never get as much credit for the things you prevented as you get blame for those you missed. Plus people might well feel even angrier if they were to realize how many people there are in their country who want to do them harm.
I think one other aspect of this may be a feeling that the risk is coming from people who have either been invited in or given shelter or whose parents/grandparents were in that position and that, therefore, there is an element of a country's hospitality/generosity/openness being abused. People really resent that. That may not be logical where the perpetrator has French nationality but some people may feel that being French means something more than simply holding a French passport. This is an issue where emotion rules. And any effective response needs to take account of that.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
That's one reason. Another is that people perceive risk differently when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have a measure of control. That's why after 7/7 lots of people took to cycling instead using the London Underground despite the fact that riding a bike around London is demonstrably more dangerous than taking the tube. People don't like to feel helpless and nothing makes people feel more helpless than a bold from the blue like a terrorist attack.
All those patently pompous portly people in London probably increase their life expectancy by taking a bike rather than a tube sauna everyday, though.
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities?
It seems to be a feature of Government and its long arm that they want to control all of those on our behalf as well.
To which the only answer is "Fuck Off". Or "Mind Your Own Business" if you want to be polite.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
The money is there. Tear up the £200bn contracts for replacing Britain's nuclear weapons systems for starters. Nuclear weapons are no defence against terrorism.
Lots of things are no defence against terrorism, in fact most things we do are no defence against terrorism, but that doesn't mean we don't need them for their intended purposes.
We need to defend against all threats, or at least the ones that carry a high risk or cost, not just the one threat that is currently in the news.
"Currently in the news"? Defence against terrorism isn't the flavour of the week, an issue on which chatterers can opine, along with everything else they haver on about, according to whatever place they occupy in the political opinion chain, whether it's the health system, schools, or immigration.
People who say defence against terrorism is more important than spending £200 billion on a nuclear weapons system supposedly designed to create uncertainty in the minds of the Russian general staff aren't saying it because we can't see beyond the end of our noses.
If you want a defence expenditure on which there has been a huge amount of public relations, mushing many minds, nuclear weapons are it. Using the military to defend British territory against terrorism, as I am proposing, would cost a lot of money. But it would be money spent on real defence, unlike what is spent on nuclear weapons. Russia is no threat to this country, "high risk" or otherwise. Nor were Iraq and Afghanistan, where tens of billions were spent on two criminal wars that Britain lost.
Yes - but it is unlikely to continue like that. There is a significant May 'honeymoon' factor in the figures which will be flattering the Tories at the moment but that will inevitably fade with time. By September we could well be seeing headlines of 'Tory lead slashed to 5%' or something similar. I expect polling figures to return to roughly pre-Brexit levels long before Xmas.
She's a month into the job, but Corbyn is only nine months in. He's in the process of going backwards still himself and I think will continue to do so for a while as these perceptions of Labour's unelectability under his leadership sink in further. If May does fade in due course, and a lot will depend on whether she is perceived to having broken with Osborne's trajectory, Corbyn's personal ratings are nonetheless so bad already that there's no reason to expect those presently drawn to the Conservatives to favour Corbynite Labour over UKIP, the Lib Dems, SNP/Plaid or even the Greens.
Oppositions by this stage in the electoral cycle should be enjoying substantive polling leads, whether they win or lose. With ICM and YouGov, in terms of Labour's position relative to the Conservatives Miliband was by this stage between 15% and 20% ahead of where Corbyn is now, and still lost.
By the way Labour never did enjoy leads of 15 -20% under Miliband. In July 2011 the polls ranged from a Tory lead of 1% to Labour leads of 9%.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
That's one reason. Another is that people perceive risk differently when they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they have a measure of control. That's why after 7/7 lots of people took to cycling instead using the London Underground despite the fact that riding a bike around London is demonstrably more dangerous than taking the tube. People don't like to feel helpless and nothing makes people feel more helpless than a bold from the blue like a terrorist attack.
Terrorism is a lower risk than almost any other 'normal' cause of death in a developed country, even in a place like France. However, there is a stronger societal/nationwide impact from terrorism than mass obesity, or dangerous drivers. The cost of terrorism goes far beyond the actual deaths. Look at Tunisia or Egypt to see how damaging in economic terms it can be, and hence why such a priority. I think it's justified to view it as more of a threat to a country than obesity or cancer etc.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
If the Poles are interested, I'd be happy to tell the Commission to fuck off on their behalf as well.
I'd love to take on that role as well! Though I think our leave votes did just that.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
There is a good amount of literature on elements that skew risk perception. Here are some (if the answer is yes, risk perception is reduced, if no, risk perception is higher):
1. Is the source of the risk/controller of the risk trusted or not? (see Montsanto as an example of no; see also the increased perception of risks of vaccination as the trust in governments and doctors has declined) 2. Is the benefit worth the risk? (usually the only part scientists and policy-makers take into account, and hence their disconnect with and inability to communicate risk effectively to the public) 3. Do I think I can control the risk myself? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism) 4. Do I have a choice in exposing myself to the risk? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism) 5. Is the risk natural (as opposed to man-made)? (Hence obesity is viewed a lower risk than drinking, than smoking, than driving, than terrorism in that order) 6. Is the risk known (as opposed to uncertain)? No for terrorism 7. Is the risk chronic (as opposed to catastrophic - hence diabetes is viewed as less risky than skin cancer). Catastrophic for terrorism 8. Does it affect others rather than me? Could affect me for terrorism 9. Is the risk familiar (as opposed to novel)? Terrorism is increasingly novel. 10. Is the risk presented statistically (as opposed to via anecdote or via other means of personification)? The media helps the terrorists by personifying every atrocity. 11. Are the risks and benefits perceived to be shared fairly? (Again, see Montsanto - and terrorism - for no)
And for risk perception higher when the answer is yes: 12. Does the risk affect children? Potentially yes for terrorism, and those terrorist atrocities in which kids are involved are always seen as worse. 13. Will the risk result in pain and suffering? (The worse the perceived pain and suffering, the higher the perceived risk, regardless of probability of exposure). ISIS scores a maximum here.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Would be an interesting test. Of course, the whole point of ceding some sovereignty is you accept someone else can tell you what to do, but everyone comes up against lines they don't want crossed, even if others say they implicitly accepted it would be.
However, the Polish people voted for this government and an unelected bunch of Eurocrats are trying to subvert the will of the people. I find it disgusting. Hopefully some remainers will have their eyes opened.
Do the changes proposed by Poland infringe upon some sort of treaty obligation with the EU? If so then the EU has every right to react as it is. If this is just the Polish government making domestic changes to a constitution that the EU doesn't like the look of, then they should definitely butt out.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
An unelected commission is telling the elected government of Poland what they can and can't do. I do hope the Poles tell them to fuck off and dare them to act.
Would be an interesting test. Of course, the whole point of ceding some sovereignty is you accept someone else can tell you what to do, but everyone comes up against lines they don't want crossed, even if others say they implicitly accepted it would be.
However, the Polish people voted for this government and an unelected bunch of Eurocrats are trying to subvert the will of the people. I find it disgusting. Hopefully some remainers will have their eyes opened.
Do the changes proposed by Poland infringe upon some sort of treaty obligation with the EU? If so then the EU has every right to react as it is. If this is just the Polish government making domestic changes to a constitution that the EU doesn't like the look of, then they should definitely butt out.
I believe the government is undertaking changes to its judiciary, nothing really to do with the EU as Poland still recognises the ECJ as their top court.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
As long as people vote for what they're allowed to vote for, yes.
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
Quite. If a lot of low paid people had lost their jobs, but better off employees had kept theirs the average 'real wage' would rise. The UK has produced a lot of low wage service employment, but Poland's 8% unemployment rate is not much to cheer....
With Production up 2.1% this quarter compared to 0.6% GDP it seems the much vaunted "march of the makers" might actually be happening, one quarter figures caution etc.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Democracy doesn't mean that any elected body has carte blanche.
these are accumulative though, this is the same cycle as Miliband gained 800 seats last time around (2012). To lose 12 is the same as saying that he micro marginally did slightly worse than Miliband. To only lose 12 on a cycle they gained 800 last time isnt bad....
But it isn't the same cycle - the council polls are every 4 years - so you can't compare the two.
The real comparison should be between 2011 - Milliband's first year as leader - and 2016. In 2011 the Tories led Labour by 1% in the projected National Vote Share whereas in 2016 Laboue had a 1% lead. Corbyn, therefore, on a like for like basis somewhat outperformed Miliband. The 2012 figures are of interest in that they represented peak Miliband and when the Tories were at their most unpopular in the last Parliament. There was a general expectation that the Tories would recoup some of their heavy 2012 losses this year - instead they went on to lose a further 50 seats or so. Labour rather confounded pundits who had predicted losses of 150 - 200 by losing a mere 18.
The problem with trying to compare different points in time in the course of a Parliament is that there are unforseen events which blow things up. Such as the Falklands war, which turned a certain loss into a gain for the Tories.
In the present case, we have the Referendum and the pathetic showing of Mr Corbyn in that campaign. This was bound to depress the Labour score.
At the same time, Johnson, Gove, Leadsome and Farrage came forward with impossible promises, which ought to have depressed the Conservative score. As should the rubbish campaign headed by Cameron and Osborne. But their lies have not yet been fully seen, but just wait a bit....
I think local government elections are more significant. They reflect the capacity of parties to campaign strongly in a particular area.
Yes - but it is unlikely to continue like that. There is a significant May 'honeymoon' factor in the figures which will be flattering the Tories at the moment but that will inevitably fade with time. By September we could well be seeing headlines of 'Tory lead slashed to 5%' or something similar. I expect polling figures to return to roughly pre-Brexit levels long before Xmas.
She's a month into the job, but Corbyn is only nine months in. He's in the process of going backwards still himself and I think will continue to do so for a while as these perceptions of Labour's unelectability under his leadership sink in further. If May does fade in due course, and a lot will depend on whether she is perceived to having broken with Osborne's trajectory, Corbyn's personal ratings are nonetheless so bad already that there's no reason to expect those presently drawn to the Conservatives to favour Corbynite Labour over UKIP, the Lib Dems, SNP/Plaid or even the Greens.
Oppositions by this stage in the electoral cycle should be enjoying substantive polling leads, whether they win or lose. With ICM and YouGov, in terms of Labour's position relative to the Conservatives Miliband was by this stage between 15% and 20% ahead of where Corbyn is now, and still lost.
By the way Labour never did enjoy leads of 15 -20% under Miliband. In July 2011 the polls ranged from a Tory lead of 1% to Labour leads of 9%.
No, but Miliband did have a sustained period where Labour was polling in the mid-40s (I think 46 was their best from memory), and where they were consistently 10+ points ahead of the Conservatives. IIRC, it was between the omnishambles budget and the start of the rise of UKIP, during spring and summer 2012.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Democracy doesn't mean that any elected body has carte blanche.
Actually it does. As long as the elected government is acting on the wishes of the people and respecting the constitution it means precisely that. There is no evidence that the Polish government are acting against the will of the people (they were elected with a huge majority so if anything they are carrying out the wishes of the people) and no evidence that these changes violate their constitution. The EU has decided to meddle in the domestic affairs of a Eurosceptic government because they know once Euroscepticism becomes mainstream it will lead to them leaving the EU just as it did here.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
It's one of them. An independent judiciary is another.
Just saw the below line in this guardian article. Is this true, has she actually stated unequivocally that it's her over-riding priority, or words to that effect? I thought the official government line was still a mealy-mouthed 'best of both worlds' reply while they got their ducks in order?
"May has stated unequivocally that immigration control is her over-riding priority and that Norway or Switzerland can no longer be models for Britain’s relationship with the EU".
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Democracy doesn't mean that any elected body has carte blanche.
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
The Treasury said the TUC study did not fully reflect living standards, which were also affected by changes to taxes and benefits. It added that the number of people in work had been rising and was above the levels of early 2008, when the economy entered its longest and deepest postwar recession.
“This analysis ignores the point that following the great recession the UK employment rate has grown more than any G7 country, living standards have reached their highest level and wages continue to rise faster than prices – and will be helped by the new national living wage.”
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
Quite. If a lot of low paid people had lost their jobs, but better off employees had kept theirs the average 'real wage' would rise. The UK has produced a lot of low wage service employment, but Poland's 8% unemployment rate is not much to cheer....
Which makes me wonder about the Greece figure. It's been mentioned on here a couple of times that their productivity has improved dramatically, but that's no cheer to those who have lost their jobs. So presumably the better paid jobs have been lost, or some have taken a pay cut?
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
Quite. If a lot of low paid people had lost their jobs, but better off employees had kept theirs the average 'real wage' would rise. The UK has produced a lot of low wage service employment, but Poland's 8% unemployment rate is not much to cheer....
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
It's one of them. An independent judiciary is another.
If only they lived by their own rules, the Commission isn't democratic and the ECJ most certainly isn't independent. Do as we say, not as we do.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
Democracy doesn't mean that any elected body has carte blanche.
An elected body is subject to the rule of law but in the pecking order I'd place an elected body above a bunch of unelected bureaucats.
Is what Poland is alleged to have done a breach of the law? Or is it something the EU does not like?
One would have thought that even the dimmest EU functionary might have understood that setting themselves against the will of the people as expressed in a democratic election might not be the wisest course given that one of the many criticisms of the EU is precisely its own undemocratic nature.
I partly agree, but I think this also ignores the magnitude of the crisis in Labour.
We are in a situation where the opposition is going through a bitter leadership contest, its MPs are in open rebellion, a significant number of the 'talents' (YMMV) in the parliamentary party are refusing to serve in the shadow cabinet and there is the prospect of a raft of deselections coming down the line.
The prospect of either side of the party shrugging its shoulders and falling into line after the leadership contest is concluded is not looking good.
We are not in normal midterm territory for an opposition party. This is, to all intents and purposes, an opposition that has ceased to function as it should.
Now, maybe something will happen in the next 3 years that drags the party back from the brink and sets them on an election-winning trajectory, who knows - but it takes a while to change perceptions and to put in place an election-winning apparatus. If this magic moment is going to happen, I'd cautiously suggest it'll have to start happening by the middle of next year at the latest.
All this ignores the government's performance, obviously. But if the crisis in Labour continues, I can see a lot of people holding their noses and voting for May purely on reasons of ability to actually run the country.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities? So we are prepared to take the risks because the upsides are worth it. Whereas running around a city centre with a Kalashnikov or machete is not desirable or enjoyable or normal so people don't see why they should put up with the risk of it at all.
There is a good amount of literature on elements that skew risk perception. Here are some (if the answer is yes, risk perception is reduced, if no, risk perception is higher):
1. Is the source of the risk/controller of the risk trusted or not? (see Montsanto as an example of no; see also the increased perception of risks of vaccination as the trust in governments and doctors has declined) 2. Is the benefit worth the risk? (usually the only part scientists and policy-makers take into account, and hence their disconnect with and inability to communicate risk effectively to the public) 3. Do I think I can control the risk myself? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism) 4. Do I have a choice in exposing myself to the risk? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism) 5. Is the risk natural (as opposed to man-made)? (Hence obesity is viewed a lower risk than drinking, than smoking, than driving, than terrorism in that order) 6. Is the risk known (as opposed to uncertain)? No for terrorism 7. Is the risk chronic (as opposed to catastrophic - hence diabetes is viewed as less risky than skin cancer). Catastrophic for terrorism 8. Does it affect others rather than me? Could affect me for terrorism 9. Is the risk familiar (as opposed to novel)? Terrorism is increasingly novel. 10. Is the risk presented statistically (as opposed to via anecdote or via other means of personification)? The media helps the terrorists by personifying every atrocity. 11. Are the risks and benefits perceived to be shared fairly? (Again, see Montsanto - and terrorism - for no)
And for risk perception higher when the answer is yes: 12. Does the risk affect children? Potentially yes for terrorism, and those terrorist atrocities in which kids are involved are always seen as worse. 13. Will the risk result in pain and suffering? (The worse the perceived pain and suffering, the higher the perceived risk, regardless of probability of exposure). ISIS scores a maximum here.
Well that's not saying much given that the Labour leadership think terrorists should be their friends.
And in any case the French don't appear to think much of Hollande's response to the terrorism they have been suffering.
True, it will take a long time to fix the problems with the security and intelligence services so that attacks are prevented
Why is terrorism the only crime we think we can 'prevent'?
Minimise yes (unless like McDonnell you think MI5 have more pressing tasks like disrupting Labour) - but eliminate - no more than we can eliminate burglary or GBH...
And, of course, we don't 'prevent' the risks that are pretty much in our own individual hands to eliminate - obesity, smoking, drinking, speeding (the last to ensure I am not absolving myself from this critique) - which kill far more than terrorism.
Risk perception is fickle. It is one of the most important jobs of government to place a reality filter on public perceptions before allocating risk management resources, be they intelligence assets, hardening of infrastructure, or emergency planning and response.
Isn't one reason for the difference in perception the fact that eating, drinking, driving and (until relatively recently) smoking are seen as normal, desirable and enjoyable activities?
It seems to be a feature of Government and its long arm that they want to control all of those on our behalf as well.
To which the only answer is "Fuck Off". Or "Mind Your Own Business" if you want to be polite.
I seem to be well disposed to using the former phrase today.
I honestly am sick of people sticking their nose into our business.
Just saw the below line in this guardian article. Is this true, has she actually stated unequivocally that it's her over-riding priority, or words to that effect? I thought the official government line was still a mealy-mouthed 'best of both worlds' reply while they got their ducks in order?
"May has stated unequivocally that immigration control is her over-riding priority and that Norway or Switzerland can no longer be models for Britain’s relationship with the EU".
Given their obvious prosperity and apparently rising wages, no danger of that!
(Norway has $1 trillion of oil revenues in the bank and as for Switzerland and banks, well, no comment...)
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Yes, the treaties mean an unelected and rather autocratic Commission can trump an elected Government of a member state.
Terrorism is a lower risk than almost any other 'normal' cause of death in a developed country, even in a place like France. However, there is a stronger societal/nationwide impact from terrorism than mass obesity, or dangerous drivers. The cost of terrorism goes far beyond the actual deaths. Look at Tunisia or Egypt to see how damaging in economic terms it can be, and hence why such a priority. I think it's justified to view it as more of a threat to a country than obesity or cancer etc.
Most of the costs of terrorism come from the overreaction to the perceived risks, which in turn is due to the overestimation of the risk. And that is precisely what the terrorists bank on.
I have had a look at the government figures. Ignoring a spike in the single month of February 2008, in year 2000 pounds weekly pay reached a peak of 383 pre recession, it is now 364, suggesting a fall of 4.9%, half the number arrived at by the TUC. It is more consistent with the LSE figures I linked, once the year in the meantime is factored in.
"The news comes as the company invests £275 million in its plants across the UK despite GSK chief executive Andrew Witty backing the Remain campaign during the European Union referendum."
Lies by the Remainiacs.
1) We do not know how much would have been invested if we had voted to Remain.
2) It is quite likely that the GSK plant in Montrose will still be in the EU after Brexit!
Democracy doesn't mean that any elected body has carte blanche.
An elected body is subject to the rule of law but in the pecking order I'd place an elected body above a bunch of unelected bureaucats.
Is what Poland is alleged to have done a breach of the law? Or is it something the EU does not like?
One would have thought that even the dimmest EU functionary might have understood that setting themselves against the will of the people as expressed in a democratic election might not be the wisest course given that one of the many criticisms of the EU is precisely its own undemocratic nature.
The Commission today recommends in particular that Poland:
- respects and fully implements the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; - publishes and implements fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments, and ensures that the publication of future judgements is automatic and does not depend on any decision of the executive or legislative powers ; - ensures that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; and ensures that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by new requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; - ensures that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect.
The Commission is recommending that the Polish authorities take appropriate action to address this systemic threat to the rule of law as a matter of urgency and asks the Polish government to inform the Commission, within three months, of the steps taken to that effect.
The Commission remains ready to pursue a constructive dialogue with the Polish Government. If there is no satisfactory follow-up within the time limit set, resort can be had to the 'Article 7 Procedure'.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
It's one of them. An independent judiciary is another.
If only they lived by their own rules, the Commission isn't democratic and the ECJ most certainly isn't independent. Do as we say, not as we do.
Part of the reason I switched to Leave as did most of the nation.
I do understand from their perspective where they're coming from. Their perspective is wrong though, as it was with us.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
People who say defence against terrorism is more important than spending £200 billion on a nuclear weapons system supposedly designed to create uncertainty in the minds of the Russian general staff aren't saying it because we can't see beyond the end of our noses.
You could have fooled me, the mere fact you parrot that £200 billion figure suggest you aren't being all that serious in your criticism.
The Commission today recommends in particular that Poland:
- respects and fully implements the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; - publishes and implements fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments, and ensures that the publication of future judgements is automatic and does not depend on any decision of the executive or legislative powers ; - ensures that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; and ensures that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by new requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; - ensures that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect.
The Commission is recommending that the Polish authorities take appropriate action to address this systemic threat to the rule of law as a matter of urgency and asks the Polish government to inform the Commission, within three months, of the steps taken to that effect.
The Commission remains ready to pursue a constructive dialogue with the Polish Government. If there is no satisfactory follow-up within the time limit set, resort can be had to the 'Article 7 Procedure'.
That boils down to - please, please, please put those federalist EU supporting judges onto your supreme court and not the ones you want. Who cares if the decision was made by the outgoing government and who cares that you have a mandate for change.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Please salute my restraint in not posting the obvious retort (in an ironic manner of course).
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
It's one of them. An independent judiciary is another.
If only they lived by their own rules, the Commission isn't democratic and the ECJ most certainly isn't independent. Do as we say, not as we do.
In what way is the ECJ not independent? It might have a bias built into its effective terms of reference in terms of 'ever closer union' but I would have thought that both Commission and national governments find it infuriatingly independent.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
People who say defence against terrorism is more important than spending £200 billion on a nuclear weapons system supposedly designed to create uncertainty in the minds of the Russian general staff aren't saying it because we can't see beyond the end of our noses.
You could have fooled me, the mere fact you parrot that £200 billion figure suggest you aren't being all that serious in your criticism.
What figure would you wish to parrot? Crispin Blunt's perhaps?
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Please salute my restraint in not posting the obvious retort (in an ironic manner of course).
Scots on here are noted for their findness for root vegetable based terms of retort. Long may the turnips reign!
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Terrorism is a lower risk than almost any other 'normal' cause of death in a developed country, even in a place like France. However, there is a stronger societal/nationwide impact from terrorism than mass obesity, or dangerous drivers. The cost of terrorism goes far beyond the actual deaths. Look at Tunisia or Egypt to see how damaging in economic terms it can be, and hence why such a priority. I think it's justified to view it as more of a threat to a country than obesity or cancer etc.
Most of the costs of terrorism come from the overreaction to the perceived risks, which in turn is due to the overestimation of the risk. And that is precisely what the terrorists bank on.
The economic costs maybe. But to the victims - those who lose their lives or who lose loved ones unnaturally - it is hard to speak of overreaction.
I also wonder about this tendency to say that because a consequence of some action we might want to take might also be what the terrorists want (insofar as we can know this) we should therefore not do it. It may be that what we want to do is nonetheless the right thing to do. Should we allow our perception of terrorists' reactions to us act as a veto on our actions?
That seems to me to give them too much power: not just the power to perpetrate atrocities when and where they want but also to control what we do in response by stopping us taking actions because "we are doing what the terrorists want".
"The news comes as the company invests £275 million in its plants across the UK despite GSK chief executive Andrew Witty backing the Remain campaign during the European Union referendum."
Lies by the Remainiacs.
I was once involved in a court case that involved me climbing over the top of that building to look at where someone had fallen off. Not one of my better days to be honest.
'I think local government elections are more significant. They reflect the capacity of parties to campaign strongly in a particular area.'
That used to work for the Lib Dems but after the tuition fee lies it will be a very long time before they are ever trusted again at national level.
Fox jr and fellow students are becoming much more open to the LDs, in part because the fees generation has moved on, and fees are the new normal, but also they feel they have had their revenge in 2015. There is a lot of youth support for the LDs unreserved pro-Remain position and anti-Iraq war too.
It will not be a quick return to parliament, but may not be as far off as it seemed a year ago. Brexit and the seppuko of the Labour Party are having an effect.
Mark Austin ITV A load of sport bodies clear Russia for Rio. The state sponsored doping now replaced by state sponsored laughter at the world. #Rio #doping
I don't think I am going to watch. I am really disgusted with the IOC decision. The IOC is simply not fit for purpose.
Comments
I guess so. A better economy would help France, too. I'm not sure how opportunities for muslims compare between Britain and France, I wonder if Paris will be getting a muslim mayor any time soon.
Another thing I think governments can do is better support apostasy, and champion the right of those who want to leave the religion they were born into.
Another thing to remember is that we tend to recall the attacks that succeeded, not those thwarted. The French police are arresting people at a similar rate to police in the UK, and many lives have undoubtably been saved.
"The Commission, the EU's executive arm, can press a member state to change any measure considered a "systemic threat" to fundamental EU values."
Precisely what I voted Leave.
#pissoffJuncker
If the last UK election had been fought under scottish rules, the tories would have had ~40% of seats at best, so no majority at all.
http://www.fsb.org.uk/
Doesn;t have the alliterative impact of 'Debbie Does Dallas' though, eh?
There is nothing written in stone that says that 15 months into a Parliament the Opposition should be streets ahead in the polls. It does happen - but not always. In the 1987 Parliament the Tories maintained a clear lead until mid-1989 and by early 1990 Labour was over 20% ahead. The Tories ditched Thatcher and went on to win again in 1992 - but Labour still gained 42 seats and would have gained far more had Thatcher not been removed.
In the 1959 Parliament , Labour did not move into the lead until Autumn 1961 and went on to win in 1964.
In 2001 Parliament , Labour was leading the Tories by 9 - 15% in Autumn 2002 but only managed to win in 2005 by 3%.
I am,therefore, far persuaded that because Labour is in trouble today that it is doomed to lose badly in 2020.
https://twitter.com/roostedbarnicle/status/758260933659594753
That may be arguably a good thing. Perhaps.
I think one other aspect of this may be a feeling that the risk is coming from people who have either been invited in or given shelter or whose parents/grandparents were in that position and that, therefore, there is an element of a country's hospitality/generosity/openness being abused. People really resent that. That may not be logical where the perpetrator has French nationality but some people may feel that being French means something more than simply holding a French passport. This is an issue where emotion rules. And any effective response needs to take account of that.
People who say defence against terrorism is more important than spending £200 billion on a nuclear weapons system supposedly designed to create uncertainty in the minds of the Russian general staff aren't saying it because we can't see beyond the end of our noses.
If you want a defence expenditure on which there has been a huge amount of public relations, mushing many minds, nuclear weapons are it. Using the military to defend British territory against terrorism, as I am proposing, would cost a lot of money. But it would be money spent on real defence, unlike what is spent on nuclear weapons. Russia is no threat to this country, "high risk" or otherwise. Nor were Iraq and Afghanistan, where tens of billions were spent on two criminal wars that Britain lost.
In July 2011 the polls ranged from a Tory lead of 1% to Labour leads of 9%.
Do you have a source?
1. Is the source of the risk/controller of the risk trusted or not? (see Montsanto as an example of no; see also the increased perception of risks of vaccination as the trust in governments and doctors has declined)
2. Is the benefit worth the risk? (usually the only part scientists and policy-makers take into account, and hence their disconnect with and inability to communicate risk effectively to the public)
3. Do I think I can control the risk myself? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism)
4. Do I have a choice in exposing myself to the risk? (yes for all the examples I cited, no for terrorism)
5. Is the risk natural (as opposed to man-made)? (Hence obesity is viewed a lower risk than drinking, than smoking, than driving, than terrorism in that order)
6. Is the risk known (as opposed to uncertain)? No for terrorism
7. Is the risk chronic (as opposed to catastrophic - hence diabetes is viewed as less risky than skin cancer). Catastrophic for terrorism
8. Does it affect others rather than me? Could affect me for terrorism
9. Is the risk familiar (as opposed to novel)? Terrorism is increasingly novel.
10. Is the risk presented statistically (as opposed to via anecdote or via other means of personification)? The media helps the terrorists by personifying every atrocity.
11. Are the risks and benefits perceived to be shared fairly? (Again, see Montsanto - and terrorism - for no)
And for risk perception higher when the answer is yes:
12. Does the risk affect children? Potentially yes for terrorism, and those terrorist atrocities in which kids are involved are always seen as worse.
13. Will the risk result in pain and suffering? (The worse the perceived pain and suffering, the higher the perceived risk, regardless of probability of exposure). ISIS scores a maximum here.
In the present case, we have the Referendum and the pathetic showing of Mr Corbyn in that campaign. This was bound to depress the Labour score.
At the same time, Johnson, Gove, Leadsome and Farrage came forward with impossible promises, which ought to have depressed the Conservative score. As should the rubbish campaign headed by Cameron and Osborne. But their lies have not yet been fully seen, but just wait a bit....
I think local government elections are more significant. They reflect the capacity of parties to campaign strongly in a particular area.
Just saw the below line in this guardian article. Is this true, has she actually stated unequivocally that it's her over-riding priority, or words to that effect? I thought the official government line was still a mealy-mouthed 'best of both worlds' reply while they got their ducks in order?
"May has stated unequivocally that immigration control is her over-riding priority and that Norway or Switzerland can no longer be models for Britain’s relationship with the EU".
http://tinyurl.com/hbu2t5l
Have they broken through the Brexiteer 'too much expert' threshold?
- Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/27/uk-joins-greece-at-bottom-of-wage-growth-league-tuc-oecd
The Treasury said the TUC study did not fully reflect living standards, which were also affected by changes to taxes and benefits. It added that the number of people in work had been rising and was above the levels of early 2008, when the economy entered its longest and deepest postwar recession.
“This analysis ignores the point that following the great recession the UK employment rate has grown more than any G7 country, living standards have reached their highest level and wages continue to rise faster than prices – and will be helped by the new national living wage.”
Is what Poland is alleged to have done a breach of the law? Or is it something the EU does not like?
One would have thought that even the dimmest EU functionary might have understood that setting themselves against the will of the people as expressed in a democratic election might not be the wisest course given that one of the many criticisms of the EU is precisely its own undemocratic nature.
I partly agree, but I think this also ignores the magnitude of the crisis in Labour.
We are in a situation where the opposition is going through a bitter leadership contest, its MPs are in open rebellion, a significant number of the 'talents' (YMMV) in the parliamentary party are refusing to serve in the shadow cabinet and there is the prospect of a raft of deselections coming down the line.
The prospect of either side of the party shrugging its shoulders and falling into line after the leadership contest is concluded is not looking good.
We are not in normal midterm territory for an opposition party. This is, to all intents and purposes, an opposition that has ceased to function as it should.
Now, maybe something will happen in the next 3 years that drags the party back from the brink and sets them on an election-winning trajectory, who knows - but it takes a while to change perceptions and to put in place an election-winning apparatus. If this magic moment is going to happen, I'd cautiously suggest it'll have to start happening by the middle of next year at the latest.
All this ignores the government's performance, obviously. But if the crisis in Labour continues, I can see a lot of people holding their noses and voting for May purely on reasons of ability to actually run the country.
I honestly am sick of people sticking their nose into our business.
(Norway has $1 trillion of oil revenues in the bank and as for Switzerland and banks, well, no comment...)
So, jog on Juncker.
Note the significant recovery in progress:
http://imgur.com/a/fqDij
2) It is quite likely that the GSK plant in Montrose will still be in the EU after Brexit!
- respects and fully implements the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected;
- publishes and implements fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments, and ensures that the publication of future judgements is automatic and does not depend on any decision of the executive or legislative powers ;
- ensures that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; and ensures that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by new requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect;
- ensures that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect.
The Commission is recommending that the Polish authorities take appropriate action to address this systemic threat to the rule of law as a matter of urgency and asks the Polish government to inform the Commission, within three months, of the steps taken to that effect.
The Commission remains ready to pursue a constructive dialogue with the Polish Government. If there is no satisfactory follow-up within the time limit set, resort can be had to the 'Article 7 Procedure'.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2643_en.htm
I do understand from their perspective where they're coming from. Their perspective is wrong though, as it was with us.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Fuck off Junker.
'I think local government elections are more significant. They reflect the capacity of parties to campaign strongly in a particular area.'
That used to work for the Lib Dems but after the tuition fee lies it will be a very long time before they are ever trusted again at national level.
I also wonder about this tendency to say that because a consequence of some action we might want to take might also be what the terrorists want (insofar as we can know this) we should therefore not do it. It may be that what we want to do is nonetheless the right thing to do. Should we allow our perception of terrorists' reactions to us act as a veto on our actions?
That seems to me to give them too much power: not just the power to perpetrate atrocities when and where they want but also to control what we do in response by stopping us taking actions because "we are doing what the terrorists want".
'What was the phrase? Ah yes, Greece without the sunshine.
https://twitter.com/roostedbarnicle/status/758260933659594753'
The result of a never ending supply of cheap Labour that ensures wages are continually driven down.
It will not be a quick return to parliament, but may not be as far off as it seemed a year ago. Brexit and the seppuko of the Labour Party are having an effect.