Buce Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Presumptuous piffle. I support a PR system but that would end up helping a lot of parties I might not agree with and probably rarely deliver a government aligned with my preferences. But ultimately democracy is more important than stupid tribalism. So you'd support it even if it didn't favour the Tories? How noble you are.
Guest Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 44 minutes ago, breadandcheese said: I don't really disagree with the government's position and am surprised that you don't think that the number of MPs should be cut to 600 rather than 650. But you're right, the application of how to go about it is wrong and should have been better thought out. I don't believe I commented on the number of mps. My point was entirely in line with your second paragraph. The government should not be able to simply ignore parliament.
breadandcheese Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: I don't believe I commented on the number of mps. My point was entirely in line with your second paragraph. The government should not be able to simply ignore parliament. Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I assumed from the previous discussions on foxestalk threads that the broad consensus is for a reduction in the number of MPs and especially the number of lords in the house of lords. Just on the grounds of cost savings alone.
Guest Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 1 hour ago, breadandcheese said: Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I assumed from the previous discussions on foxestalk threads that the broad consensus is for a reduction in the number of MPs and especially the number of lords in the house of lords. Just on the grounds of cost savings alone. Tbh with the commons I'd want to see the detail on the pros and cons and would want the parties to have nothing to do with it (and for the current split of mps to be maintained initially). Personally I don't think the cost is the overwhelming concern - you could equally say that mps will on average have largest constituencies and will therefore be further from the average voter. I'd want to see there's an actual reason for doing it beyond saving a few quid. With the lords ideally you'd have a smaller and elected chamber. However, my big concern with an elected chamber is that - even though it's democratically the right thing to do on paper - if we just end up with whipped parties in the lords that'll be worse. The current lords does often work cross party boundaries and usually improves legislation (see their improvements to the Brexit bill to give mps and parliament more say). I do quite like that they almost sit above the commons nonsense. Perhaps something involving former party leaders in some sort of variant that's more democratic than what we have now but not all out a party led voted chamber?
leicsmac Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 The issue of a second house that is not based on party lines but at the same time unelected is always a thorny one - highlights one of the key dilemmas behind democracy, really - in an ideal world all decision-making would be done with the direct voting will of the people, but our world is far from ideal. Perhaps keep that House, but a greater lean towards scientific and other current-level experts rather than ex-politicians and peers being a part of it simply because of their birth? 1
Guest Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-brexiteer-admits-leaving-eu-is-not-working-out-2018-5
Alf Bentley Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-brexiteer-admits-leaving-eu-is-not-working-out-2018-5 That's interesting. When I clicked on the link, I expected it to be about some unknown - but Dan Hannan does qualify as a "senior brexiteer". But he does seem to have been saying similar things all along (pro-EFTA, pro-Swiss model, keeping large chunks of single market but not customs union, compromise on freedom of movement):
Guest Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: That's interesting. When I clicked on the link, I expected it to be about some unknown - but Dan Hannan does qualify as a "senior brexiteer". But he does seem to have been saying similar things all along (pro-EFTA, pro-Swiss model, keeping large chunks of single market but not customs union, compromise on freedom of movement): This is a piece he wrote around the time of the vote. It's like something dreamed up by Enid Blyton. And yes, he was absolutely a key protagonist. https://archive.fo/CDBFf Edited 11 May 2018 by Guest
Buce Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 55 minutes ago, toddybad said: This is a piece he wrote around the time of the vote. It's like something dreamed up by Enid Blyton. And yes, he was absolutely a key protagonist. https://archive.fo/CDBFf Even Blyton wouldn't have had the imagination to come up with that fantasy.
Buce Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 Leave.EU fined £70,000 over breaches of electoral law Campaign’s chief officer referred to police after inquiry finds it broke referendum spending limit Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 and its chief executive has been referred to the Metropolitan police after the Electoral Commission found it had breached multiple counts of electoral law during the referendum to leave the European Union. The investigation found that Leave.EU, which was co-founded by Arron Banks, unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns. The group campaign chief, Liz Bilney, one of Banks’s closest associates, faces a police investigation. The commission said it had reasonable grounds to suspect she “knowingly or recklessly signed a false declaration accompanying the Leave.EU referendum spending return”. Banks responded by accusing the commission of a “politically motivated attack on Brexit” and threatened to take legal action. Scotland Yard confirmed the commission had referred a potential criminal offence under section 123(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. A spokeswoman said: “This matter will be subject to assessment by officers from the special enquiry team.” The commission said the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher. It said services the group received from the US campaign strategists Goddard Gunster before the referendum officially began were not included in the spending return despite a proportion of them having been used during Leave.EU’s referendum campaign. The commission also found that Leave.EU inaccurately reported three loans it had received from companies controlled by Banks. It added: “This included a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate. “Finally, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224.” However, the commission found no evidence that Leave.EU received donations or paid-for services from Cambridge Analytica for its referendum campaigning and found that the relationship with the political campaign agency “did not develop beyond initial scoping work”. The investigation instead concluded that Cambridge Analytica, which collapsed this month after a global scandal about its use of Facebook data, repeatedly attempted to obtain work from the Brexit campaign, but Banks never made good on his promises. According to the report, Cambridge Analytica then became concerned Leave.EU was exaggerating their relationship “to bolster its own credibility” and asked the campaign to tone it down. The Labour MP Liam Byrne has written to the commission asking why it failed to investigate the source of Banks’s financial contribution to Leave.EU. He also called for a prosecution under joint enterprise rules to target those who enabled the offence. He said: “It seems highly unlikely that in this case the named responsible officer was acting on purely her own designs.” Bob Posner, the commission’s director of political finance and regulation and legal counsel, described the breaches as “serious offences” and said it was disappointing that a key player in the referendum campaign had broken the rules. He also suggested the fine would have been bigger but for a cap on the amount the commission can levy. Posner said: “The rules we enforce were put in place by parliament to ensure transparency and public confidence in our democratic processes. It is therefore disappointing that Leave.EU, a key player in the EU referendum, was unable to abide by these rules. “Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the commission’s fines.” Banks said: “The Electoral Commission is a ‘Blairite swamp creation’ packed full of establishment ‘remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House of Lords. “We view the Electoral Commission announcement as a politically motivated attack on Brexit and the 17.4 million people who defied the establishment to vote for an independent Britain.” He added: “The EC went big game fishing and found a few ‘aged’ dead sardines on the beach. So much for the big conspiracy! What a shambles. We will see them in court.” Banks told BBC Radio 5 Live that he would be launching a legal challenge against the report. Leave.EU, which has close ties to Ukip, attempted to be designated as the official pro-Brexit campaign in the 2016 referendum. Instead Vote Leave, which had support from Conservative and some Labour MPs, was designated as the overall organisation. That decision meant that while Vote Leave was able to spend £7m during the final weeks of the referendum campaign, Leave.EU was legally only allowed to spend £700,000. However, Vote Leave faces a separate investigation into whether it also breached campaign finance rules by funnelling cash to other pro-Brexit groups in the final days of the referendum. The Electoral Commission’s chief executive, Claire Bassett, rejected claims of bias made by Banks. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today: “The decisions were made by directors of the Electoral Commission, they were made based on robust evidence we had gathered and indeed you can see that in the 30-page report that we published.”
Guest MattP Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 5 minutes ago, Buce said: Leave.EU fined £70,000 over breaches of electoral law Campaign’s chief officer referred to police after inquiry finds it broke referendum spending limit Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 and its chief executive has been referred to the Metropolitan police after the Electoral Commission found it had breached multiple counts of electoral law during the referendum to leave the European Union. The investigation found that Leave.EU, which was co-founded by Arron Banks, unlawfully exceeded its statutory spending limit by at least 10% and delivered incomplete and inaccurate spending and transaction returns. The group campaign chief, Liz Bilney, one of Banks’s closest associates, faces a police investigation. The commission said it had reasonable grounds to suspect she “knowingly or recklessly signed a false declaration accompanying the Leave.EU referendum spending return”. Banks responded by accusing the commission of a “politically motivated attack on Brexit” and threatened to take legal action. Scotland Yard confirmed the commission had referred a potential criminal offence under section 123(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. A spokeswoman said: “This matter will be subject to assessment by officers from the special enquiry team.” The commission said the “unlawful overspend” was at least £77,380 but may well have been considerably higher. It said services the group received from the US campaign strategists Goddard Gunster before the referendum officially began were not included in the spending return despite a proportion of them having been used during Leave.EU’s referendum campaign. The commission also found that Leave.EU inaccurately reported three loans it had received from companies controlled by Banks. It added: “This included a lack of transparency and incorrect reporting around who provided the loans, the dates the loans were entered into, the repayment date and the interest rate. “Finally, Leave.EU failed to provide the required invoice or receipt for 97 payments of over £200, totalling £80,224.” However, the commission found no evidence that Leave.EU received donations or paid-for services from Cambridge Analytica for its referendum campaigning and found that the relationship with the political campaign agency “did not develop beyond initial scoping work”. The investigation instead concluded that Cambridge Analytica, which collapsed this month after a global scandal about its use of Facebook data, repeatedly attempted to obtain work from the Brexit campaign, but Banks never made good on his promises. According to the report, Cambridge Analytica then became concerned Leave.EU was exaggerating their relationship “to bolster its own credibility” and asked the campaign to tone it down. The Labour MP Liam Byrne has written to the commission asking why it failed to investigate the source of Banks’s financial contribution to Leave.EU. He also called for a prosecution under joint enterprise rules to target those who enabled the offence. He said: “It seems highly unlikely that in this case the named responsible officer was acting on purely her own designs.” Bob Posner, the commission’s director of political finance and regulation and legal counsel, described the breaches as “serious offences” and said it was disappointing that a key player in the referendum campaign had broken the rules. He also suggested the fine would have been bigger but for a cap on the amount the commission can levy. Posner said: “The rules we enforce were put in place by parliament to ensure transparency and public confidence in our democratic processes. It is therefore disappointing that Leave.EU, a key player in the EU referendum, was unable to abide by these rules. “Leave.EU exceeded its spending limit and failed to declare its funding and its spending correctly. These are serious offences. The level of fine we have imposed has been constrained by the cap on the commission’s fines.” Banks said: “The Electoral Commission is a ‘Blairite swamp creation’ packed full of establishment ‘remoaners’ that couldn’t quite make it to the House of Lords. “We view the Electoral Commission announcement as a politically motivated attack on Brexit and the 17.4 million people who defied the establishment to vote for an independent Britain.” He added: “The EC went big game fishing and found a few ‘aged’ dead sardines on the beach. So much for the big conspiracy! What a shambles. We will see them in court.” Banks told BBC Radio 5 Live that he would be launching a legal challenge against the report. Leave.EU, which has close ties to Ukip, attempted to be designated as the official pro-Brexit campaign in the 2016 referendum. Instead Vote Leave, which had support from Conservative and some Labour MPs, was designated as the overall organisation. That decision meant that while Vote Leave was able to spend £7m during the final weeks of the referendum campaign, Leave.EU was legally only allowed to spend £700,000. However, Vote Leave faces a separate investigation into whether it also breached campaign finance rules by funnelling cash to other pro-Brexit groups in the final days of the referendum. The Electoral Commission’s chief executive, Claire Bassett, rejected claims of bias made by Banks. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today: “The decisions were made by directors of the Electoral Commission, they were made based on robust evidence we had gathered and indeed you can see that in the 30-page report that we published.” Still waiting for the investigation into the £9,000,000 leaflet drop from Cameron and Osborne telling us all to stay. Won't hold my breath.
Alf Bentley Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 3 hours ago, toddybad said: This is a piece he wrote pre-vote. It's like something dreamed up by Enid Blyton. https://archive.fo/CDBFf Certainly, the bits about global trade deals read like fiction. I don't share his uncritical vision of glorious free markets. But at least he tries to think things through, sees the importance of economic/political relations with the EU and has some sort of future vision - even if it's rose-tinted (part of his brief for the article, tbf, to paint a vision of a successful post-Brexit Britain). The Remain campaign was rightly slated for its negativity (Project Fear). Maybe us Remainers are still too negative, forever seeing impending Brexit doom and not presenting a positive pro-EU future? Easily done, though, when so many Brexiteers ignore the massive risks of a Hard Brexit and have unrealistic expectations of what the EU will agree in negotiations or what the UK can achieve in glorious isolation. Like Project Fear, too much of the Brexit vision is negative: stopping the EU doing stuff to us, with little viable future vision. Most Brexiteer visions of the future UK, EU/UK relations and global relations are vague or unrealistic. At least Hannan tries to imagine a post-Brexit future with EU/UK relations still central even if he says little about the lives of us plebs (presumably we all enjoy the trickle-down benefits of British business success).
Guest Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 (edited) Tbh I can't get excited about the overspend. Only one line really caught my eye - the one about this being an attack on Brexit, or similar. As much as I'm sure the leavers are sick of the remainers for moaning, I'm getting sick at everything being an 'attack on Brexit' or 'an attack on the will of the people' (especially this second one). Since they won the referendum everybody connected to leave appears to be living in some hellish paranoid state. Every complaint or even reasonable objection is met by some fluff about the will of the people. It's honestly pathetic. Politics is all about arguing your case and expecting counter arguments. JRM and his ilk have even taken to threatening the lords with reform despite then ask voting against reform only a few years ago - purely because the lords forcing proper parliamentary scrutiny upon the government is somehow tantamount to treason. Edited 11 May 2018 by Guest
Milo Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tbh I can't get excited about the overspend. Only one mine really caught my eye - the one about this being an attack on Brexit, or similar. As much as I'm sure the leavers are sick of the remainers for moaning, I'm getting sick at everything being an 'attack on Brexit' or 'an attack on the will of the people' (especially this second one). Since they won the referendum everybody connected to leave appears to be living in some hellish paranoid state. Every complaint or even reasonable objection is met by some fluff about the will of the people. It's honestly pathetic. Politics is all about arguing your case and expecting counter arguments. JRM and his ilk have even taken to threatening the lords with reform despite then ask voting against reform only a few years ago - purely because the lords forcing proper parliamentary scrutiny upon the government is somehow tantamount to treason. For me, I feel the problem with the Lords getting involved with Brexit is the feeling of self interest that I believe they have. We had a (people’s) vote of whether to leave the EU or stay, and now a predominately establishment body is doing all it can to throw spanner’s in the works of the government implementing the result of the vote. We live in a democracy, apparently. Leave won, remain lost. The problem with remainers getting involved with the negotiations (or even in the discussions) is the fact that, by their very nature, they don’t want Brexit to work.
Guest Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Milo said: For me, I feel the problem with the Lords getting involved with Brexit is the feeling of self interest that I believe they have. We had a (people’s) vote of whether to leave the EU or stay, and now a predominately establishment body is doing all it can to throw spanner’s in the works of the government implementing the result of the vote. We live in a democracy, apparently. Leave won, remain lost. The problem with remainers getting involved with the negotiations (or even in the discussions) is the fact that, by their very nature, they don’t want Brexit to work. This isn't true. Everybody needs Brexit to work. But it has to work for the 100%, not just the 52%. It isn't some small policy, it's any existential change for the country. It can't be a forced hard Brexit, in the same way that it can't be remain. It needs to be a middle ground, sensible Brexit. All the lords have done is give the commons votes on things the government didn't want them to vote on. We have a minority government trying to force through one version of the vote of 52% without proper parliamentary debate. The Lord's have done absolutely the right thing. Edited 11 May 2018 by Guest
Milo Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: This isn't true. Everybody needs Brexit to work. But it has to work for the 100%, not just the 52%. It isn't some small policy, it's any existential change for the country. It can't be a forced hard Brexit, in the same way that it can't be remain. It needs to be a middle ground, sensible Brexit. All the lords have done is give the commons votes on things the government didn't want them to vote on. We have a minority government trying to force through one version of the vote of 52% without proper parliamentary debate. The Lord's have done absolutely the right thing. Honestly think if everyone has a say, and tries to appease all sides, it will end up dragging through the House of Lords, via various lobby groups for years and years. Its never going to work for the 100%, btw. Edited 11 May 2018 by Milo Typo
Guest Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 4 minutes ago, Milo said: Honestly think if everyone has a say, and tries to appease all sides, it will end up dragging through the House of Lords, via various lobby groups for years and years. Its never going to work for the 100%, btw. We've been trying to tell you this for the last 2 years. The 1% perhaps, the 100% no chance.
Dr The Singh Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 56 minutes ago, toddybad said: We've been trying to tell you this for the last 2 years. The 1% perhaps, the 100% no chance. You obviously haven't tried hard enough...epic fail.
Milo Posted 11 May 2018 Posted 11 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: We've been trying to tell you this for the last 2 years. The 1% perhaps, the 100% no chance. So why did you say it has to work for the 100%, not just the 52%??
Rogstanley Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 Official: Tory government the worst in 200 years on wage growth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44083386 It's the number one thing that affects the finances of all workers and stats show the current Tories have got the worst record for TWO HUNDRED YEARS! They've failed the people in a massive way. It's no wonder people of working age don't want a Tory government isn't it. 1
Guest Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 19 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Official: Tory government the worst in 200 years on wage growth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44083386 It's the number one thing that affects the finances of all workers and stats show the current Tories have got the worst record for TWO HUNDRED YEARS! They've failed the people in a massive way. It's no wonder people of working age don't want a Tory government isn't it. There's really very little you can point at and say their doing well on tbh. In fact, I can't think of anything.
Claridge Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 20 hours ago, MattP said: Still waiting for the investigation into the £9,000,000 leaflet drop from Cameron and Osborne telling us all to stay. Won't hold my breath. Exactly,imagine what the margin would have been if both sides had been funded fairly.
Rogstanley Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 27 minutes ago, toddybad said: There's really very little you can point at and say their doing well on tbh. In fact, I can't think of anything. Indeed, I think statements like 'worst government in modern history' are already starting to look like reasonable judgements, never mind what the history books will make of the period.
Guest Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Indeed, I think statements like 'worst government in modern history' are already starting to look like reasonable judgements, never mind what the history books will make of the period. Wait til Brexit day when it becomes clear that the only deal Liam Fox has gained involves freedom of movement in exchange for Madagascan vanilla.
Buce Posted 12 May 2018 Posted 12 May 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: Wait til Brexit day when it becomes clear that the only deal Liam Fox has gained involves freedom of movement in exchange for Madagascan vanilla. More expensive than gold - who's going to be affording that on minimum wage? http://www.france24.com/en/20180420-magagascar-vanilla-price-trade-crime-crop-weather
Recommended Posts