Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

But it's an aside, and I think you know it's actually not a valid point, the claim you made.

it was an exaggerated falsehood to highlight the stupidity behind the posts that others have been making in this thread 

 

not that it will change anything I suppose  ......

[Demitri_C]

I don't think I've ever worked somewhere (or heard people talk about a work place) where they haven't called the meetings they don't attend 'pointless'.

That's not to say that there are not a lot of pointless meetings (nor a lot of useless managers and layers of management) but your comments seem to be laying the blame for (NHS) failings at a caricature.

if only you knew snowy honestly these meetings are setup just to give these clowns something to do, its a joke

 

I have worked in the NHS, as an administrative officer and I have to say it was the worst working experience I have ever had. There were about four managers, three of them just dealing directly with only our department and a higher up manager with broader responsibilities. There should have been one manager and a deputy manager., that's all that was needed and their £45k (and higher) salaries could be much better spent on several clerk level employees, which is what was really needed. Mistakes were being made as people were over worked, everybody was unhappy and I had enough, I was so depressed and angry by the whole situation that I had to leave. I was lucky I could. I love the NHS and I loved my job, but it's run by clowns.  

 

this is spot on kingfisher but now its not 4 managers its about 7 or 8 on high wages that contribute absolutely nothing and are high level salaries

 

this is the major reason why the nhs is going bust its at so many different trusts across the country

 

[chrisp65]

I too have worked in the NHS but as a 'service provider'.

Govt was worried we were more expensive than outsourcing so flooded the place with suits to analyse whether we were good value for money for tax payers. Turned out we were significantly cheaper than the equivalent private sector operations.

 

So they closed us down as we were classified unfair state financed competition in what should be an open market.

 

Tory backed health company interests mafia win.

[snowychap]

if only you knew snowy honestly these meetings are setup just to give these clowns something to do, its a joke

If only I knew what, Dem?

'These meetings' are what? All meetings that take place in the NHS? Or the unnecessary and useless ones?

Edited February 8, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

nothing to say about Cameron's dealings with Europe this week and seemingly getting the budget cut we were told he wouldn't get

 

After Blairs cave In's , I suppose it's nice to see a PM fight his corner for a change ..however flawed the EU is

[chrisp65]

nothing to say about Cameron's dealings with Europe this week and seemingly getting the budget cut we were told he wouldn't get

 

After Blairs cave In's , I suppose it's nice to see a PM fight his corner for a change ..however flawed the EU is

 

wow great news Tony, good to flag it up!

How much less will we in the UK be paying exactly??

[tonyh29]

the point is I guess that you wont be paying any more  

 

as i said the flaws with Europe are another thing altogether but in this very thread there were those that said Cameron had zero chance of getting a deal ..and yet it appears he did

 

of course those people only seem to want to post bad news so I didn't expect them to be along with a slice of humble pie .....

[chrisp65]

I'm not really interested in squabbling, that's negative. But we will actually be paying more, our contribution will go up. Oh, and the deal still needs to be ratified apparently.

 

But, he was most definitely right to argue that the EU needs to cut its spending. They cannot be immune from the financial crisis. For trying to redress the ever increasing spend of an undemocratic administration, he has to be applauded.

[peterms]

the point is I guess that you wont be paying any more

 

I heard we will be paying more, though the overall budget is reduced by €34bn over the seven years, among the 27 states.  (Is that about 3% of the budget, do you reckon?  Is the budget €900bn over 7 years?)

 

And that the most useful projects which will stimulate growth and productive capacity are being cut, like R&D, infrastructure, energy efficiency, while the least efficient, the CAP, is increasing.  Presumably this was what was agreed to buy French agreement.

 

But you say we're paying no more, Tony?  What source are you using for that? 

Edited February 9, 2013 by peterms

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Because cutting spending during recession has always been a smart move.

Edited February 9, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Awol]

I heard we will be paying more, though the overall budget is reduced by €34bn over the seven years, among the 27 states.

indeed, the UK's net contribution to the EU budget is still rising over the next seven years, just not as much as it would have done without this deal. That said the President of the EU Parliament (a disgusting creature called Martin Schulz) has said he will use the powers granted to him by the Lisbon Treaty and refuse to sign off on any reduction in the proposed budget, essentially scuppering the will of the 27 member state governments. Could be an interesting situaion if he doesn't back down. Edited February 9, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

I heard we will be paying more, though the overall budget is reduced by €34bn over the seven years, among the 27 states.

indeed, the UK's net contribution to the EU budget is still rising over the next seven years, just not as much as it would have done without this deal. That said the President of the EU Parliament (a disgusting creature called Martin Schulz) has said he will use the powers granted to him by the Lisbon Treaty and refuse to sign off on any reduction in the proposed budget, essentially scuppering the will of the 27 member state governments. Could be an interesting situaion if he doesn't back down.

 

You make it sound quite personal.  Another version is that the proposed budget appears to contradict EU law (I suppose on the basis that the proposed cuts are not specified in anything other than the most general terms and therefore comprise wishful thinking rather than an actual budget proposal, and in effect the budget is therefore a deficit budget, but I'm guessing); that it appears the budget will not get the majority approval of the Parliament which is required; and that Schulz is commenting on that, not threatening to wield a personal veto.

 

...Unlike national budgets, the EU budget cannot be financed by borrowing and deficit spending is outlawed. The €52bn gap between pledged spending and the spending cap insisted on by Britain had critics

predicting trouble ahead.

 

Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament, said the budget figures would break EU law and warned that the parliament would refuse to endorse them. The budget needs to be passed by an absolute majority. The four biggest

parliamentary caucuses promptly denounced the deal. France sounded supportive of a rejection...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/08/eu-budget-austerity-first-time

[Awol]

I heard we will be paying more, though the overall budget is reduced by €34bn over the seven years, among the 27 states.

indeed, the UK's net contribution to the EU budget is still rising over the next seven years, just not as much as it would have done without this deal. That said the President of the EU Parliament (a disgusting creature called Martin Schulz) has said he will use the powers granted to him by the Lisbon Treaty and refuse to sign off on any reduction in the proposed budget, essentially scuppering the will of the 27 member state governments. Could be an interesting situaion if he doesn't back down.

 

You make it sound quite personal.

I do dislike him yes, but calling Shulz a "disgusting creature" is a) entirely accurate imo, and quite mild given the language used to describe domestic politicians on here!

What else would you call a man who is now proposing that the MEP's be given a secret ballot so they can vote down the budget without their national governments or indeed, their constituents knowing how they voted? After all with a gutful of austerity at home we wouldn't want poor MEP's being accountable to their potentially enraged elctorates, would we? What's more, if 1/5 of MEP's ask Shulz (in secret) for a secret ballot, then they'll get it....but there are no problems with the EU and democratic accountability, move along please..

Another version is that the proposed budget appears to contradict EU law (I suppose on the basis that the proposed cuts are not specified in anything other than the most general terms and therefore comprise wishful thinking rather than an actual budget proposal, and in effect the budget is therefore a deficit budget, but I'm guessing); that it appears the budget will not get the majority approval of the Parliament which is required; and that Schulz is commenting on that, not threatening to wield a personal veto.

You're right Peter, so we have a situation where the EU Parliament could refuse to acknowledge the will of the national governments that constitute the EU, but may insist on making that refusal in secret...

Roll on the referendum.

[peterms]

On the point I quoted, that "...Unlike national budgets, the EU budget cannot be financed by borrowing and deficit spending is outlawed...", I've come across an opinion that the EU could do the equivalent of borrowing, via printing money, though everyone seems to think it's impossible: http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/3152663/How-the-ECB-could-print-money-without-breaking-the-law.html?LS=Twitter

 

Of course even if they can print more money and use it to finance their activity, there may nevertheless be a legal requirement not to set a deficit budget.

[Awol]

On the point I quoted, that "...Unlike national budgets, the EU budget cannot be financed by borrowing and deficit spending is outlawed...", I've come across an opinion that the EU could do the equivalent of borrowing, via printing money, though everyone seems to think it's impossible: http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/3152663/How-the-ECB-could-print-money-without-breaking-the-law.html?LS=Twitter

 

Of course even if they can print more money and use it to finance their activity, there may nevertheless be a legal requirement not to set a deficit budget.

So the EU Parliament should accept the need to reduce their proposed spending instead, in line with what the national governments have agreed to put in (around 900 billion euros, I think) and then there will not be a defict budget.

They don't seem to be keen on that though because this is the first big chance to flex the new muscles of EU institutions as laid down by the Lisbon Treaty and to set a precedent by asserting the primacy of the EU Parliament over the collective will of the national governments. I repeat, that they may be so craven as to hide behind a secret ballot (or even be able to have one at all) should knock the blinkers from even the most slavish and unthinking EUrophile eyes.

Frankenstein's monster is coming to life.

[snowychap]

Dear Susan Kramer,

 

you're a rocket polisher.

Edited February 15, 2013 by snowychap

[villaajax]

I notice this Maria Hutchings is wearing a jacket with 'Maria Hutchings' with a box with a tick in it, printed on the back which is quite amusing when you consider that putting a tick on your voting card would actually void your vote.

 

The more ticks in her box, the better!

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Iain Duncan Smith is an odious individual, although I suppose he isn't an 'individual' as such, rather a mouthpiece for a significant section of that loathsome party.

[Davkaus]

What's he done now?

[drat01]

EDIT: Not worth it

Edited February 17, 2013 by drat01