trekbusterAbout the “nasty, nasty man” comment, I wasn’t particularly talking about the policies, although I don’t agree with them for the most part, I am talking about him as an individual, as a thouroughly unpleasant person. I think it is his lack of anything that approaches humanity and his utter conviction he is right even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary because he “believes it to be true” and has no compunction in being economical with the truth that puts me off. That and the smugness.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238977[/ATTACH]
This dislike would apply to anyone with a similar combination of traits whatever their political affiliation, but in my limited experience, most people with these traits tend to be right leaning.
As far as the budget is concerned, the IFS has had a few words on the subject according to a radio report I just heard. Not entirely complementary, saying the working poor will be the worst hit.
Frank Field has a difference of opinion with the tories about who is dependent on tax credits, he makes a cogent argument that it is in reality employers in the UK that are dependent on topping up the poor pay they provide by the use of the TC system. He implied on the same radio program that he believes the “living wage” announced is too low and should not be staggered to arrive after the tax credit base has been slashed.
The last paragraph in the D.Tel. Piece below explains how he hopes that the tories “don’t punish todays low paid workers”..
They did not listen
This may be why many small business owners are not at all keen on the “living wage” concept.
And on the topic of ‘welfare dependancy’, as the graph in Frank field’s article shows, the largest benefit spending is on the state pension, so does that not mean that all those receiving the state pension are equally welfare dependant and should be despised?
Of course not, nor should the vast proportion of hard working people who receive appropriate benefits and will loose out as a result of this very political budget.
trekbusterIDS in the commons. Nasty, nasty man.
trekbusterIDS in the commons. Nasty, nasty man.
trekbusterD.Tel gets it’s wrist slapped for telling untruths.
Typically for the right leaning press, such pieces that catch them showing they are economical with the truth are published late in an evening and are unlikely to be on tomorrow’s front page.
Following the publication of an article in The Daily Telegraph on 4 April 2015, headlined “Sturgeon’s secret backing for Cameron”, the Office of the First Minister of Scotland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
IPSO established a breach of the Editors’ Code and has required The Daily Telegraph to publish this decision as a remedy.
The article reported the contents of a leaked Government memorandum which claimed that at a private meeting the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, had told the French Ambassador that she would rather see David Cameron win the general election than Ed Miliband. The memorandum had been written by a senior British civil servant a week later, after a conversation with the French Consul-General.
The article said that these comments undermined Ms Sturgeon’s public support for a “progressive alliance” with Mr Miliband.
The complainant said that the claims were categorically untrue: Ms Sturgeon had not expressed a preference for a Conservative government or any views about Mr Miliband’s suitability as Prime Minister. The complainant regarded the newspaper’s decision not to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment prior to publication as a breach of Clause 1.
The newspaper said it had confirmed the authenticity of the document with two well-placed sources before publication. It was a contemporaneous note made by an experienced civil servant, and the newspaper had no reason to doubt its accuracy. It denied having any obligation to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment before publication: it was entitled to publish an accurate account of the document.
The Complaints Committee noted that the memorandum represented – at best – a second-hand account given a week after the meeting, which contained the serious implication that Ms Sturgeon had been disingenuous in her public statements.
The newspaper did not know whether the account contained in the memorandum was accurate. Nonetheless, it had published this as fact, without having taken additional steps prior to publication – such as contacting the parties involved for their comment – to verify its accuracy.
The committee established that the newspaper’s presentation of the account contained in the memorandum, in this context, represented a breach of the Editors’ Code.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11715880/IPSO-upholds-Nicola-Sturgeon-complaint.html
trekbusterD.Tel gets it’s wrist slapped for telling untruths.
Typically for the right leaning press, such pieces that catch them showing they are economical with the truth are published late in an evening and are unlikely to be on tomorrow’s front page.
Following the publication of an article in The Daily Telegraph on 4 April 2015, headlined “Sturgeon’s secret backing for Cameron”, the Office of the First Minister of Scotland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
IPSO established a breach of the Editors’ Code and has required The Daily Telegraph to publish this decision as a remedy.
The article reported the contents of a leaked Government memorandum which claimed that at a private meeting the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, had told the French Ambassador that she would rather see David Cameron win the general election than Ed Miliband. The memorandum had been written by a senior British civil servant a week later, after a conversation with the French Consul-General.
The article said that these comments undermined Ms Sturgeon’s public support for a “progressive alliance” with Mr Miliband.
The complainant said that the claims were categorically untrue: Ms Sturgeon had not expressed a preference for a Conservative government or any views about Mr Miliband’s suitability as Prime Minister. The complainant regarded the newspaper’s decision not to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment prior to publication as a breach of Clause 1.
The newspaper said it had confirmed the authenticity of the document with two well-placed sources before publication. It was a contemporaneous note made by an experienced civil servant, and the newspaper had no reason to doubt its accuracy. It denied having any obligation to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment before publication: it was entitled to publish an accurate account of the document.
The Complaints Committee noted that the memorandum represented – at best – a second-hand account given a week after the meeting, which contained the serious implication that Ms Sturgeon had been disingenuous in her public statements.
The newspaper did not know whether the account contained in the memorandum was accurate. Nonetheless, it had published this as fact, without having taken additional steps prior to publication – such as contacting the parties involved for their comment – to verify its accuracy.
The committee established that the newspaper’s presentation of the account contained in the memorandum, in this context, represented a breach of the Editors’ Code.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11715880/IPSO-upholds-Nicola-Sturgeon-complaint.html
trekbusterI have just read that article, nowhere is the term “state education” mentioned, so it is a critsism of the British schools system as a whole including the independent sector.
trekbusterI have just read that article, nowhere is the term “state education” mentioned, so it is a critsism of the British schools system as a whole including the independent sector.
trekbusterbeen too impressed with you as an unapologetic frontman for all that he detested about the condition of State education
I am no apologist, nor a frontman for anything at all. Just because you disagree with what I have commented on in the past seems to have given you a very warped perspective of my position. Oh, by the way, your argument might have more persuasive if you had spelled his name correctly, it is Chris Woodhead. Perhaps you were confusing him with Mary Whitehouse?
Personal insults in my experience are often thrown when the person realises they have lost the argument and have nothing left to offer.
By the way, your analysis of a Telegraph analysis of an article by David Blunkett in the Guardian is wide of the mark of what he actually said, it is much less of a hagiography than you suggest. I recommend you read the original article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/chris-woodhead-former-ofsted-chief-died-inspection
Creaking door has hit the nail on the head #339
trekbusterbeen too impressed with you as an unapologetic frontman for all that he detested about the condition of State education
I am no apologist, nor a frontman for anything at all. Just because you disagree with what I have commented on in the past seems to have given you a very warped perspective of my position. Oh, by the way, your argument might have more persuasive if you had spelled his name correctly, it is Chris Woodhead. Perhaps you were confusing him with Mary Whitehouse?
Personal insults in my experience are often thrown when the person realises they have lost the argument and have nothing left to offer.
By the way, your analysis of a Telegraph analysis of an article by David Blunkett in the Guardian is wide of the mark of what he actually said, it is much less of a hagiography than you suggest. I recommend you read the original article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/23/chris-woodhead-former-ofsted-chief-died-inspection
Creaking door has hit the nail on the head #339
trekbuster“Parents are clueless narcissists” Discuss
trekbuster“Parents are clueless narcissists” Discuss
trekbusterI am sad for his family and friends and no one would wish anyone to suffer such a disease. Was I sad when he left OFSTED? it won’t surprise anyone to know I was ambivalent about it, a number of his policies had merit but as a personality he left me cold. His admittance that he had had an affair with a former pupil and that sexual relations between staff and stdents could be “experiential and educative on both sides” rather removed his moral high ground for me on a personal level, he did not resign when this was revealed. Could you imagine that happening today?
I met him once and he was not what the Italians would call simpatico. It may well have been because he was becoming unwell.
trekbusterI am sad for his family and friends and no one would wish anyone to suffer such a disease. Was I sad when he left OFSTED? it won’t surprise anyone to know I was ambivalent about it, a number of his policies had merit but as a personality he left me cold. His admittance that he had had an affair with a former pupil and that sexual relations between staff and stdents could be “experiential and educative on both sides” rather removed his moral high ground for me on a personal level, he did not resign when this was revealed. Could you imagine that happening today?
I met him once and he was not what the Italians would call simpatico. It may well have been because he was becoming unwell.
trekbusterThe percentage of EU law that acts in our legislation is a very difficult thing to quantify, in health, defence, education very little, in other areas such as competition,trade, agriculture etc. more, but overall it can be quoted at 15% Europeanised national legislation. However, this is far too simplistic a position as it is extremely difficult to seperate actual legislation and influence.
An independent audit completed in the House of Commons Library put the figure between 7 and 14%
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf
An interesting article on the problems with quoting any figures is here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/06/13/europeanization-of-public-policy/
UKIP apparently have said that it is about 75%, but as this article shows, the figures were arrived at by a circuitous and out of date route:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is-most-of-the-uks-law-made-in-brussels/1498
So on balance, answer to who rules Great britain would be:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ruled from London apart from the devolved elements of laws in Scotland, Wales and NI. Not Brussels.
Some elements of UK legsiation comes from the EU, but quite a small percentage in ratified laws, rather more in terms of influence. Some of the EU legistaltion has been initiated by Britain
trekbusterThe percentage of EU law that acts in our legislation is a very difficult thing to quantify, in health, defence, education very little, in other areas such as competition,trade, agriculture etc. more, but overall it can be quoted at 15% Europeanised national legislation. However, this is far too simplistic a position as it is extremely difficult to seperate actual legislation and influence.
An independent audit completed in the House of Commons Library put the figure between 7 and 14%
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP10-62/RP10-62.pdf
An interesting article on the problems with quoting any figures is here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/06/13/europeanization-of-public-policy/
UKIP apparently have said that it is about 75%, but as this article shows, the figures were arrived at by a circuitous and out of date route:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is-most-of-the-uks-law-made-in-brussels/1498
So on balance, answer to who rules Great britain would be:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ruled from London apart from the devolved elements of laws in Scotland, Wales and NI. Not Brussels.
Some elements of UK legsiation comes from the EU, but quite a small percentage in ratified laws, rather more in terms of influence. Some of the EU legistaltion has been initiated by Britain
Sign In
