Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

She really is excellent at speaking, no doubt about it. I also like the SNP, so she's easily likeable. At the same time, I'm just not sure a 20 year old has any place in parliament -- I could be completely wrong, of course, all the older people haven't done very well so perhaps about time young people got involved. But what life experience does a 20 year old have?

I do think you have a point that 20 is very young for someone to be a politician, and she probably does lack life experience, but at the same time, I think it's important that we have representation from fairly young people at the same time. I think that the 18-25 category are a group of people that kind of need plenty of representation in politics, and while someone of 20 may not have a lot of life experience, she arguably makes up for it in that she's clearly very in touch with the electorate, and has an understanding of her constituents.

Basically, while she may be lacking in experience, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. You need representation from all genders/races/ages/Spartan colonies in politics.
 
I do think you have a point that 20 is very young for someone to be a politician, and she probably does lack life experience, but at the same time, I think it's important that we have representation from fairly young people at the same time. I think that the 18-25 category are a group of people that kind of need plenty of representation in politics, and while someone of 20 may not have a lot of life experience, she arguably makes up for it in that she's clearly very in touch with the electorate, and has an understanding of her constituents.

Basically, while she may be lacking in experience, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. You need rjepresentation from all genders/races/ages/Spartan colonies in politics.

Not to mention she probably has more real life experience than most of the cabinet!
 
Not to mention she probably has more realmlkfe experience than most of the cabinet!

True.:lol:

She was working in a chip shop part-time or something before being elected. In Paisley. If you work at a chip shop in Paisley and survive, you've probably gone through plenty of shit!
 
Well a free vote on fox hunting was in the Conservative manifesto and they have a mandate to carry out that manifesto because they won the election.

Aye. That's why you'd like to think they'd accept that they weren't going to win instead of postpone it until they introduce a bullshit law that will make it near impossible for them not to win.
 
New anti strike legislation, why now?


In numbers
_84283575_uk_strikes_v2.png

  • Strikes are at historically low levels.
 
It was a disgrace, you're right. Also The problem I have with public sector strikes is that they hurt the weak and vulnerable, which is who I think the left wing should stand for in the first place. Taking teacher's strikes, the better-off parents will get by, more likely to have a network of friends and family, the money to pay for care, and employers that will allow them time off if necessary. Meanwhile the lowest paid can be catastrophically affected, having to give up pay to look after their children, pay that they need for food and heat, not luxuries, and those on zero contracts might lose their work completely. With some employers if you can't turn up they don't ask you again. And unfortunatley the teachers don't give a feck about their assistants or catering staff or caretakers, again the poorer ones, they're not interested in helping them in any pay deal. The lie of 'we're all in it together' can apply to the left as well as the right at times.
 
It was a disgrace, you're right. Also The problem I have with public sector strikes is that they hurt the weak and vulnerable, which is who I think the left wing should stand for in the first place. Taking teacher's strikes, the better-off parents will get by, more likely to have a network of friends and family, the money to pay for care, and employers that will allow them time off if necessary. Meanwhile the lowest paid can be catastrophically affected, having to give up pay to look after their children, pay that they need for food and heat, not luxuries, and those on zero contracts might lose their work completely. With some employers if you can't turn up they don't ask you again. And unfortunatley the teachers don't give a feck about their assistants or catering staff or caretakers, again the poorer ones, they're not interested in helping them in any pay deal. The lie of 'we're all in it together' can apply to the left as well as the right at times.

It's all very well if you are committing to paying public sector workers fairly. But announce a five year pay freeze and then attack their right to strike?

And let's be honest they are mainly fed up with the hassle a Tube strike causes their donors.
 
And let's be honest they are mainly fed up with the hassle a Tube strike causes their donors.
The tube strike would still go ahead under the new rules as it passes all thresholds
The teachers strike I mention wouldn't
So if the rules were designed to stop the tube strikes they have been really really really badly drawn up
 
And let's be honest they are mainly fed up with the hassle a Tube strike causes their donors.

You really think tory donors will be most affected by a tube strike? They'll just take the day off or do a video conference or two. It's the little guy that will be affected, the one that won't be paid if he doesn't turn up, and loses his job if he misses twice. The mum that can't get her kids to school or the old that can't make visiting at the hospital.
 
You really think tory donors will be most affected by a tube strike? They'll just take the day off or do a video conference or two. It's the little guy that will be affected, the one that won't be paid if he doesn't turn up, and loses his job if he misses twice. The mum that can't get her kids to school or the old that can't make visiting at the hospital.

From a business point of view quite possibly.

The tube strike would still go ahead under the new rules as it passes all thresholds
The teachers strike I mention wouldn't
So if the rules were designed to stop the tube strikes they have been really really really badly drawn up

The current strike yes, but the legislation is clearly targeted at transport strikes. Boris Johnson has said as much.
 
From a business point of view quite possibly.

Yes, that's true. But in both your replies you have ignored my point that the people that suffer the most are the poor and vulnerable, much as the strikers do, of course. I have seen it argued that strikes are there to benefit everybody, in a bizarre version of the right-wing trickle-down theory, and equally as bollocks.
 
Yes, that's true. But in both your replies you have ignored my point that the people that suffer the most are the poor and vulnerable, much as the strikers do, of course. I have seen it argued that strikes are there to benefit everybody, in a bizarre version of the right-wing trickle-down theory, and equally as bollocks.

Its not a bizarre argument to suggest that curtailing strike action changes the balance in negotiations on pay between an employer and its employees. Since the poor vulnerable people are likely to be employee's possibly even public sector employees they will lose out as a result. Making them even more vulnerable and even more poor. The tax credit cut also targets the same people and shows I think the trend in Tory policy to attack the working poor because there are loads of them and they are easy to feck over.

The legislation isn't limited to public sector workers or key workers either.As the graph clearly shows there is no sudden increase in industrial action to provoke such measures. Its an ideologically driven attack on labour its funding and the poor.
 
I don't do the key worker thing. A nurse sounds good. Who can't get to work without a tube station worker or bus driver, whose patients can't get to the hospital without traffic wardens and would likely be dead from infection anyway without cleaners, and none of them can eat without catering workers. I'm a strange breed of left and right I admit, but the term 'key worker' doesn't half bring out the left in me.
 
EU suspends £45m cash for Scotland over 'irregularities'

Accounting irregularities force Brussels to suspend payments to Scotland

By Matthew Holehouse, in Brussels
21 Aug 2015


The European Union has suspended around £45 million of payments to Scotland after the discovery of accounting “irregularities”, it emerged today.

The EU said that the Scottish Government had done too little to resolve concerns about its accounting, seven months after the problems were first reported.

The payments relate to the European Social Fund, which provides training to unemployed people with the aim of alleviating poverty.

The suspension amounts to nearly a quarter of the £193 million allocated to Scotland under the fund in the 2007-13 spending round.

It is an embarrassing blow for the SNP administration. Other countries to see their EU funding suspended in recent years include Bulgaria, Hungary and the Calabria region of southern Italy.

Payments could be restored in a matter of months, it is understood.

Alistair Carmichael, former Scottish secretary and Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, said the affair put Scotland’s reputation for financial management at risk.

“It’s not just the financial loss, it’s the reputational damage to Scotland, and it’s also the projects that are going to now lose funding,” he told the Press and Journal newspaper.

“These suspensions are not unknown but they are very unusual, and the commission usually goes out of its way to reach an accommodation with the member state before taking an action of this sort.

“I think we need to see earliest and fullest possible disclosure of what has been going on here.”

Scottish Labour said it was "hugely concerning".

In a statement, the European Commission said: “The commission has taken the decision to suspend payments from the European Social Fund for Scotland.

“Member states have the obligation to ensure that EU money is spent properly and that all procedures and documents respect the rules set out under the structural funds.

“In December 2014, the Scottish national authorities reported problems in the management and control system within the managing authorities (Scottish Government).

“The control report from 2014 also found irregularities concerning expenditure in several operations.

“On the basis of these findings and after an extensive dialogue with Scottish national authorities during several months, the commission decided that there is insufficient assurance that all the measures to rectify the problems have been taken.

“The commission has therefore adopted a suspension of payments for these two programmes. The funds suspended date back to the previous programming period 2007-2013.”

“The commission will now continue to work with the Scottish authorities to resolve this.”

An official EU report, compiled earlier this summer, found a dramatic increase in the number of suspected fraudulent and irregular transactions in the EU budget.

The largely related to agricultural and development subsidies handed to member states by the European Commission, and to taxes on goods collected by member states on behalf of the central EU budget.

European Commission believes the increase is in due in large part due to improved detection and reporting mechanisms.

In 2014 there were 16,473 reported irregularities totalling 3.24 billion Euros. That included some 1.8 per cent of total spending, and 4.4 per cent of taxation collected.

Compared to 2013, it is an increase of 48 per cent in incidents and 36 per cent in terms of cash.

Of these, ten per cent – 1,649 – were thought to be a case of fraud. The suspected fraud bill came to 538 million euros. That compares to 309m euros the year before - a jump of 68 per cent – although the four-year trend highlighted by the report is more stable.

The UK accounted for 1.3 million euros of suspected fraudulent spending, relating to 15 different contracts. Poland, reporting the most cases, had 123 suspected cases of fraudulent spending worth 210 million euros.

Pawel Swidlicki, the policy analyst of the Open Europe think tank, called for countries that misuse money to be denied funding.

“While it is welcome that the EU appears to be getting better at detecting fraud its own budget, the scale on which it is taking place suggests this is a much bigger problem than the Commission lets on.

“With the vast majority of fraud perpetrated at the national level, member states which persistently fail to improve their own detection and prevention procedures should see their funding reduced, although this is a problem exacerbated by the overly complex and inefficient design of the EU budget itself.”

A European Commission spokesman said: "Fraud against the EU budget is fraud against the European taxpayers. We have a zero tolerance policy against fraud and we call on Member States to prevent, detect and prosecute any fraud against the EU budget. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...5m-cash-for-Scotland-over-irregularities.html
 
The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions

The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.

In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" that a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.

"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.

Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.

But in response to a Freedom Of Information request by the Welfare Weekly website, the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants.

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-saying-sanctions-helped-them-10460351.html
 
The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted making up comments from supposed "benefit claimants" that appeared in a leaflet about sanctions

The leaflet, which has now been withdrawn, included positive example stories from people who claimed to have interacted with the sanctions system.

In one example, titled "Sarah's story", a jobseeker is quoted as being "really pleased" that a cut to her benefits supposedly encouraged her to re-draft her CV.

"It's going to help me when I'm ready to go back to work," the fabricated quote reads.

Another, by a benefit claimant supposedly called "Zac", details the sanctions system working well.

But in response to a Freedom Of Information request by the Welfare Weekly website, the DWP said the quotes were not actually real cases and that the photos were not of real claimants.

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-saying-sanctions-helped-them-10460351.html

What was that about making up quotes?
 
:lol:
 
The most important line in that article is toward the end:

"To make it worse, a few months after we left our adapted house we were told we shouldn’t have had to go. Rob did meet the criteria to stay where he was."
 
The most important line in that article is toward the end:

I suppose an argument could be made that it's the council's fault, because they have the power to waive bedroom tax and didn't, but i think case like this slipping through the cracks is an inevitability with big spending cuts. I try not to blanketly hate everything the Tories do but bedroom tax I find completely indefensible
 
The bedroom tax is indefensible and there are plenty of Tories who'll say so as well.
 
The bedroom tax is indefensible and there are plenty of Tories who'll say so as well.
It's indefensible when bluntly applied to disabled people with special needs, such as this case or where they need to store a lot of equipment, agreed. Needs discretion for these special cases clearly.

The quote that @Nick 0208 Ldn flags highlights the Scouse rag's agenda bias though, with the paper gunning for the Tory government when it was actually a feck up by the Labour-led Sefton council.
 
It's indefensible when bluntly applied to disabled people with special needs, such as this case or where they need to store a lot of equipment, agreed. Needs discretion for these special cases clearly.

The quote that @Nick 0208 Ldn flags highlights the Scouse rag's agenda bias though, with the paper gunning for the Tory government when it was actually a feck up by the Labour-led Sefton council.

It's indefensible anyway. The fact a couple of pensioners moved into the house shows what a farce it is regardless of the council's ineptitude - OAPs are exempt from it despite being by far the biggest under-inhabitors of houses.
 
It's indefensible anyway. The fact a couple of pensioners moved into the house shows what a farce it is regardless of the council's ineptitude - OAPs are exempt from it despite being by far the biggest under-inhabitors of houses.
So you support the policy and admit the Labour council is at fault here?
 
Why is the Labour council at fault?
Because he did meet the criteria to be able to keep his converted him. Tbf, could be the housing association's fault I guess. Whichever though, someone misadministered government policy so that leftist paper blames it on the Tories,despite the fact that the blame clearly lies elsewhere.
 
So you support the policy and admit the Labour council is at fault here?

Pensioners being exempt from bedroom tax is one thing that shows what a shithouse of a policy it is. They're by far and away the biggest "culprits" of having spare bedrooms in social housing. And the biggest Tory demographic.

I have no problem believing the Labour council are incompetent too, as I said before, cases slipping through the cracks are inevitable and its a nasty policy even if they didn't.
 
Pensioners being exempt from bedroom tax is one thing that shows what a shithouse of a policy it is. They're by far and away the biggest "culprits" of having spare bedrooms in social housing. And the biggest Tory demographic.

I have no problem believing the Labour council are incompetent too, as I said before, cases slipping through the cracks are inevitable and its a nasty policy even if they didn't.
There's obviously merit to the policy but it was rushed and is being poorly executed.

On a sidenote, anyone see the Harvey Proctor interview on Newsnight? Woah, that was pretty raw TV. I think Evan Davis is an excellent presenter and got the balance right between asking tough questions, but not being a hectoring bully, which Paxman could resort too.