The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
What do you think of Israel's build-up of a massive first-strike nuclear capability, when none of the nearby countries have one? It's not in the nearby countries' security interests. Agreed?
These would be the nearby countries that have sworn to wipe Israel off the map, and have tried to do so several times within living memory ?
The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
What do you think of Israel's build-up of a massive first-strike nuclear capability, when none of the nearby countries have one? It's not in the nearby countries' security interests. Agreed?
Israel's expansionist policies are well documented. However no one (other than the Palestinians who are suicidally religiously committed) has attacked Israel for several years.
I'm still holding 4-5 Democrat,my only bet other than a small Bernie insurance bet lost.
That's a good bet, given that the Democrats are now around 1/3.
It's important to get in early in any ante-post market,first show if possible.My original tissue was 1-4 Dems.It's all in the demographics. An early selection gives the opportunity for back-to-lay bets.Osborne backed at 16-1 layed at 3-1 for an arb.I layed Johnson at a crazy price too.Angela Eagle and Gove were others. Do your own tissue for good ante-post arbing.It's not hard to beat bank rates for your capital.
And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?
Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.
It would be as if the Victorians had put Northumberland and Cumberland in Scotland for administdative convenience and now Salmond and Sturgeon were now lording it over them with glee.
----------------------
------------------
Presumably you'd also be happy with Austria occupying the South Tyrol as well..?
The exact position of the English-Scots border was pretty uncertain for several hundred years as well. It's not where it is because of some perfect 'ethnic' dividing line.
The border between Holland and Belgium is really just a ceasefire line as well etc. etc.
There are lots of examples of odd borders (don't even start on Africa).
The point re. Russia and Crimea is Russia accepted the border as it was when the USSR broke up (and got to keep a naval base) but have subsequently determined to change it by force. That cannot be acceptable - any country that does that puts itself outside the international community and if the international community does nothing to stop it, other rogue states will be emboldened.
Military intervention wasn't realistic, but economic sanctions should have been much tougher including banning Russia from the international payment system and an embargo on Russian energy exports.
'Accepted' in the same way that Germany 'accepted' the treaty of versailles.
Ie had an unjust settlement forced on them in a time of weakness.
In the 30s Germany had a lot of sympathy over that - it was only when they made it obvious that they were after ethnically non German territories too to colonise them that we turned on them and declared war.
If Germany had contented itself with the sudetenland and not occupied the rest of Czech and had limited its invasion of Poland to the area within the 1918 German border the international community would have gone along with it and many would have supported it
It would be interesting to see what happened if there was a referendum in the south Tyrol.
Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.
The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
What do you think of Israel's build-up of a massive first-strike nuclear capability, when none of the nearby countries have one? It's not in the nearby countries' security interests. Agreed?
(other than the Palestinians who are suicidally religiously committed)
Lol, nothing to do with being kept in a ghetto then?
Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.
Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.
The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
What do you think of Israel's build-up of a massive first-strike nuclear capability, when none of the nearby countries have one? It's not in the nearby countries' security interests. Agreed?
(other than the Palestinians who are suicidally religiously committed)
Lol, nothing to do with being kept in a ghetto then?
What ghetto? How many billions of dollars are sent to the Gaza Strip - and how much ends up as concrete in tunnels?
Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.
We helped set the rules - but as always ignore them when it suits us whilst condemning other states that do likewise. A bit like the hypocrisy re-possession of nuclear weapons.
I think the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the action in Libya (which went well beyond enforcing a no-fly zone) demonstrated to Russia and China that the rules, as far as the West is concerned, don't matter. All that matters is if one has the power to get away with what you want. The situation in & around the South China Sea and, maybe, that in the Ukraine. Is a direct result of the USA, the UK and France ignoring the UN.
That said the UN charter does not give it sole rights to determine what is a "Just War" as the Charter specifically recognises to right to use military force in self defence.
The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
Fair go, Mr. Indigo, the point I was trying to make is that neither Iraq in 2002/3 or Libya a couple of years back could in anyway be described as a clear and present danger to our vital national interests or security, or indeed any sort of threat to same. We went in anyway.
Furthermore, I would argue that our actions in Libya went way, way beyond the imposition of a no fly zone as mandated by the UN. In that respect they were and even more blatant example of the West doing what it liked than was the invasion of Iraq (where at least there were some previous UN resolutions that could be used to muddy the waters).
As I have already said, I think l the UN charter already caters for self defense. So the idea that we should have to "sit there like a patsy and do nothing" in the face of a real threat because some other member of the Security Council might, or even has, come up with a veto is guff.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
The Left would soon change their tune and moan about other places not feeling the benefit!
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
The Left would soon change their tune and moan about other places not feeling the benefit!
As I have already said, I think l the UN charter already caters for self defense. So the idea that we should have to "sit there like a patsy and do nothing" in the face of a real threat because some other member of the Security Council might, or even has, come up with a veto is guff.
How would Germany invading the Sudetenland fit into this, to use a history analogy. Many people, including most of the British left would argue that there was no danger to national interest involved and that we should stay out. (Many would probably say the same thing when Panzers were gathering at Calais). The implication is that we cannot declare something as an act of defense until the tanks roll across our national borders, it would be unfortunate if that became a commonly held view.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
The Left would soon change their tune and moan about other places not feeling the benefit!
I feel the words "postcode lottery", so beloved of the left being dusted off and prepared for another outing
Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.
Exactly the same as Russia really.
And practically every other country as well. But the general idea is that we are supposed to have moved on from that.
Mr. Felix, the media didn't report the Munich shooter shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and stuck with the loner/mental illness line. The mental illness line was deployed for the Russell Square murderer, though it's now thought increasingly likely he was another terrorist [now it's faded from being front and centre news].
Now there's a report of an attack which would appear to be a slam-dunk case of terrorism being reported as 'thought of' being terrorism. If the chap hadn't actually shouted anything, I suspect it'd likely be reported as mental illness.
I hope you're right. I suspect you're not.
How do you stop a silly or deranged man shouting something irrespective of whether he believes it?
This is a hilarious line I've heard a couple of times now on PB. They're just shouting Muslim chants - they don't mean it. As if some homicidal/suicidal maniac non-Muslim is going to waste their last words trying to imply that they are just another jihadist, thus denying their own actions any significance. For what reason exactly?
We are almost certainly, not dealing with people whose thought processes are rational in any way which you or I would understand. Even if they are Muslims
Mr. Felix, the media didn't report the Munich shooter shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and stuck with the loner/mental illness line. The mental illness line was deployed for the Russell Square murderer, though it's now thought increasingly likely he was another terrorist [now it's faded from being front and centre news].
Now there's a report of an attack which would appear to be a slam-dunk case of terrorism being reported as 'thought of' being terrorism. If the chap hadn't actually shouted anything, I suspect it'd likely be reported as mental illness.
I hope you're right. I suspect you're not.
How do you stop a silly or deranged man shouting something irrespective of whether he believes it?
This is a hilarious line I've heard a couple of times now on PB. They're just shouting Muslim chants - they don't mean it. As if some homicidal/suicidal maniac non-Muslim is going to waste their last words trying to imply that they are just another jihadist, thus denying their own actions any significance. For what reason exactly?
We are almost certainly, not dealing with people whose thought processes are rational in any way which you or I would understand. Even if they are Muslims
No - they are rational - they just have a different mind-set from you. To them, you are the irrational person.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
As I have already said, I think l the UN charter already caters for self defense. So the idea that we should have to "sit there like a patsy and do nothing" in the face of a real threat because some other member of the Security Council might, or even has, come up with a veto is guff.
How would Germany invading the Sudetenland fit into this, to use a history analogy. Many people, including most of the British left would argue that there was no danger to national interest involved and that we should stay out. (Many would probably say the same thing when Panzers were gathering at Calais). The implication is that we cannot declare something as an act of defense until the tanks roll across our national borders, it would be unfortunate if that became a commonly held view.
At the material time it was the British Right which opposed any action. The Left had moved on from Lansbury’s pacifism.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
The Left would soon change their tune and moan about other places not feeling the benefit!
I feel the words "postcode lottery", so beloved of the left being dusted off and prepared for another outing
I think the Tories could legitimately blame the geology of the country for that. Not everyone will be blessed with the right strata.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
How close to the fracking site would you have to be to qualify, where will the cutoff line be drawn?
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Small problem. Where do you draw the line? When I worked in the NHS there was a system of paying more to people in the London area. Meant that hospitals just across the border could find themselves losing staff because the rate for the job five miles away was greater. Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Small problem. Where do you draw the line? When I worked in the NHS there was a system of paying more to people in the London area. Meant that hospitals just across the border could find themselves losing staff because the rate for the job five miles away was greater. Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Edited for the effect of FFS
Edge cases abound. I remember the free school bus limit passing through our village. We were about 75 yards inside the cutoff.
I don't see it as a problem, it's just a fact of life, some people will always be disadvantaged by threshold-based systems.
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Small problem. Where do you draw the line? When I worked in the NHS there was a system of paying more to people in the London area. Meant that hospitals just across the border could find themselves losing staff because the rate for the job five miles away was greater. Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Edited for the effect of FFS
Edge cases abound. I remember the free school bus limit passing through our village. We were about 75 yards inside the cutoff.
I don't see it as a problem, it's just a fact of life, some people will always be disadvantaged by threshold-based systems.
True. As you say, fact of life. But do we want to add to the complexity thereof?
As I have already said, I think l the UN charter already caters for self defense. So the idea that we should have to "sit there like a patsy and do nothing" in the face of a real threat because some other member of the Security Council might, or even has, come up with a veto is guff.
How would Germany invading the Sudetenland fit into this, to use a history analogy. Many people, including most of the British left would argue that there was no danger to national interest involved and that we should stay out. (Many would probably say the same thing when Panzers were gathering at Calais). The implication is that we cannot declare something as an act of defense until the tanks roll across our national borders, it would be unfortunate if that became a commonly held view.
Mr. Indigo, the German invasion of the Sudetenland happened so long ago that it is hardy relevant to today's world and especially not this morning's discussion of the role of the UN in deciding what is a "Legal" or if you prefer (and I do) "Just", war.
What constitutes a threat to vital national interests is not dependent on actual invasion of the homeland and I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue that it does (see the Napoleonic wars, World Wars 1 and 2, the UN Charter and the NATO treaty).
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Small problem. Where do you draw the line? When I worked in the NHS there was a system of paying more to people in the London area. Meant that hospitals just across the border could find themselves losing staff because the rate for the job five miles away was greater. Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Edited for the effect of FFS
I can't see how this can be such a shocker, its how the private sector has always worked, in a constrained workforce situation you need to offer people incentives to take jobs in unattractive areas, or they take the offers in nicer places. When I was in the UK I regularly turned down consulting work in seedy parts of the country, because I could, unless the price was right, at it frequently was.
If you want people to apply for teaching jobs in the less attractive areas you need to make it worth their while, otherwise why would they not take a job in a more pleasant area ?
What constitutes a threat to vital national interests is not dependent on actual invasion of the homeland and I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue that it does (see the Napoleonic wars, World Wars 1 and 2, the UN Charter and the NATO treaty).
The government argued that Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD, had they not been lying, and frankly at the time who are we to gainsay people in receipt of supposed accurate national intelligence estimates, would that have constituted a threat to vital national interests ?
Theresa's policy to give communities a financial stake in fracking is excellent... Could be a huge windfall for people all over the country!
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Yep, I suggested the same a couple of years ago when the protests started. My idea was to give local councils a small tax (maybe 1%) on output, which would be enough to eliminate council tax in those areas. Showing people that they personally benefit from any new technology is key to making it work.
Whoa, Mr. Pit! Distributing a chunk (up to 10% from memory) of the tax revenue from fracking sites to Community Trusts (whatever the hell they are) and the local councils was an Osborne policy that has been around for quite a while.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Small problem. Where do you draw the line? When I worked in the NHS there was a system of paying more to people in the London area. Meant that hospitals just across the border could find themselves losing staff because the rate for the job five miles away was greater. Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Edited for the effect of FFS
Edge cases abound. I remember the free school bus limit passing through our village. We were about 75 yards inside the cutoff.
I don't see it as a problem, it's just a fact of life, some people will always be disadvantaged by threshold-based systems.
True. As you say, fact of life. But do we want to add to the complexity thereof?
I like the idea in principle. Overall, I'd just like the UK to gain a sense of urgency. Decisions have to be made. Let's pilot this scheme, see how it works. The regulatory framework looks robust, the governance is there. Crack on.
The same applies to other major projects; airport expansion, SMR competition, HS2 and so on. We need to be more nimble, even if that does make life more complicated.
True. As you say, fact of life. But do we want to add to the complexity thereof?
So we don't allow communities/individuals to be compensated for disruption or loss of amenity or even to directly share in the profits because it is hard to think about? Come on, Mr. Cole, you can do better than that.
They already do this in France. I remember reading an article on how the Froggie equivalent of a Parish Council were debating how to spend that year's six-figure "dividend" from an energy development in their area.
True. As you say, fact of life. But do we want to add to the complexity thereof?
So we don't allow communities/individuals to be compensated for disruption or loss of amenity or even to directly share in the profits because it is hard to think about? Come on, Mr. Cole, you can do better than that.
They already do this in France. I remember reading an article on how the Froggie equivalent of a Parish Council were debating how to spend that year's six-figure "dividend" from an energy development in their area.
I’m happy to accept the principle; it’s certainly a great deal better than what happened in, for example, the South Wales valleys where the profits went to the landowners and the workers had a difficult and dangerous job which was progressively less well paid comparatively as time went on. Maybe I’m just jealous because here in rural Essex there’s no chance of fracking! (LOL)
True. As you say, fact of life. But do we want to add to the complexity thereof?
So we don't allow communities/individuals to be compensated for disruption or loss of amenity or even to directly share in the profits because it is hard to think about? Come on, Mr. Cole, you can do better than that.
They already do this in France. I remember reading an article on how the Froggie equivalent of a Parish Council were debating how to spend that year's six-figure "dividend" from an energy development in their area.
Comments
Otherwise, nice whataboutery
An early selection gives the opportunity for back-to-lay bets.Osborne backed at 16-1 layed at 3-1 for an arb.I layed Johnson at a crazy price too.Angela Eagle and Gove were others.
Do your own tissue for good ante-post arbing.It's not hard to beat bank rates for your capital.
I wonder how you find out whether you have any shale in your back garden?
Here you go.
Furthermore, I would argue that our actions in Libya went way, way beyond the imposition of a no fly zone as mandated by the UN. In that respect they were and even more blatant example of the West doing what it liked than was the invasion of Iraq (where at least there were some previous UN resolutions that could be used to muddy the waters).
As I have already said, I think l the UN charter already caters for self defense. So the idea that we should have to "sit there like a patsy and do nothing" in the face of a real threat because some other member of the Security Council might, or even has, come up with a veto is guff.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/367287/Shalegas_uk.pdf
PS it also touches briefly on environmental concerns.
(Fracking takes place 10 times as deep underground as aquifers - but all the protest movements show it as nearly touching).
TM's new announcement is to consider, just consider, giving at least some of that money direct to the households in the area. My instinct is that TM is one to something, if the money goes to the county, unitary or even district council it will be swallowed up and the actual people will notice no benefit. By delivering it to the household or, worst case, the parish council then the locals might have a real stake.
As an aside there was a throw away line in today's Telegraph article that such a plan could be used for other development projects. Supposing a property developer were to be set on making millions from building a new housing estate but that existing residents in the area would be set to lose out (either from the devaluation of their homes or loss of amenity). Now, what happens of that developer had to pay compensation to those that were going to lose?
Same thing happens now in teaching. Teachers in "disadvantaged” areas get a premium.
Edited for the effect of FFS
I don't see it as a problem, it's just a fact of life, some people will always be disadvantaged by threshold-based systems.
What constitutes a threat to vital national interests is not dependent on actual invasion of the homeland and I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue that it does (see the Napoleonic wars, World Wars 1 and 2, the UN Charter and the NATO treaty).
By the way I don't see much of a hope for Trump, if by 2-1 people think he is insane, whatever policy he supports will not change that perception.
If you want people to apply for teaching jobs in the less attractive areas you need to make it worth their while, otherwise why would they not take a job in a more pleasant area ?
Wiki for statewide polling
Sort by poll source
The same applies to other major projects; airport expansion, SMR competition, HS2 and so on. We need to be more nimble, even if that does make life more complicated.
They already do this in France. I remember reading an article on how the Froggie equivalent of a Parish Council were debating how to spend that year's six-figure "dividend" from an energy development in their area.
Maybe I’m just jealous because here in rural Essex there’s no chance of fracking! (LOL)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/the-impoverished-scottish-community-who-bought-their-island-back/