Those figures are not accurate, but irrelevant in any case.
It isn't about defence spending, it's about killing people in the ME being a higher priority than taking care of our own people.
The ME is no threat to us.
General / Off-Topic Scottish Referendum Result. Post your thoughts here.
- Thread starter Andy Kappa
- Start date
Those figures are not accurate, but irrelevant in any case.
It isn't about defence spending, it's about killing people in the ME being a higher priority than taking care of our own people.
The ME is no threat to us.
From the Guardian for 2013
I was a bit out (I think I was referring to 2011 from memory)
Defence - £40bn
Health - £137bn
Social - £220bn
Total - £720bn
So the defence is about a third of health, a fifth of social and a 13th the total.
It also amounts to about a third of the deficit.
I quite agree, I would much rather not be spending quite so much on defence, although having armed forces is probably rather vital in todays world. The UK should stop trying to be a major world power (that went with Suez) and concentrate on a leaner, more "special forces" and humanitarian type of military.
I'm not sure that's true anymore. Unfortunately a Scottish (ok only by birth, ancestry, and partial education) Labour PM fouled things up by involving us in a war on terror, which only succeeded in breeding more terror. Despite the evidence of the foul up that the ME has become, Mr Blair continues to believe he did the right thing and that more troops on the ground are the solution. That's a bit like saying the solution to a car fire is more petrol.
Regardless of how we got here, we are here, and IS and other militant groups will not leave us be. Part of me would be quite happy to pull out entirely, let IS, set up an Islamic Caliphate and leave them to it.
However, I don't think they would be content to leave us alone, too much blood has been spilled and they seem to subscribe to a particularly expansionist and militant form of Islam. Events in Algeria and Australia as well as in London have shown that the threat of Britons going abroad and coming home prepared to cause terror is real.
It is inevitable we will continue to be embroiled in a mess of our own making (once again thank you Mr Blair, although the Tories did support him so must take some blame) for years to come.
If splitting up the UK would end the threat of Islamic terror and bring peace to the middle east I would be voting for it right now.
Somewhat more accurate and comprehensive.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2015UKbn_14bc1n_3032#ukgs302
Whatever George Galloway may have done it had little effect other than annoy some people, which I think you'll find, was Galloway's intention. He is, after all, an idiot.
There is no evidence that IS is any threat to us at all.
Thousands have been murdered in the ME, this year alone.
Not by IS.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2015UKbn_14bc1n_3032#ukgs302
Whatever George Galloway may have done it had little effect other than annoy some people, which I think you'll find, was Galloway's intention. He is, after all, an idiot.
There is no evidence that IS is any threat to us at all.
Thousands have been murdered in the ME, this year alone.
Not by IS.
Yeah, they've been handing out ice cream and candy!
IS are a force to be reckoned with. But The deaths in the ME are mostly from Israel, followed by the numerous groups that were left after Blair/Bush went in and filled their own pockets.
It is highly unlikely those blamed for killing the journalists are actually IS anyway. IS functions according to its interpretations of ancient Islamic Law. There would be an audience present to witness the killings. The murderers certainly wouldn't be using knives. Swords. The victims would never be tormented in the way these victims clearly have been..
Respectfully, this is hardly the place to be discussing Scots independence. This forum would seem to be dedicated to the adulation of the game designers who work for Frontier and expressing some of the more alarming fantasy thought trains that would seem to be created.
I will say though, this has been one of the more civilised political threads I've participated in. That will be the Scots influence no doubt.
Yeah, discussions about the rights and wrongs of the ME always end in tears.
This has been one of the most civilized and sensible places debating the indyref. It was refreshing not to have idiots from either side barging in and being, well, idiots.
This has been one of the most civilized and sensible places debating the indyref. It was refreshing not to have idiots from either side barging in and being, well, idiots.
Forum alternative to Parliament?
which leads me onto this (also posted elsewhere)
TLDR
Get rid of debates in the chamber as a method of scrutinising legislation.
Replace with online forums similar to (not the same as) Frontier forums
The Long Version
What's the problem now?
which leads me onto this (also posted elsewhere)
TLDR
Get rid of debates in the chamber as a method of scrutinising legislation.
Replace with online forums similar to (not the same as) Frontier forums
The Long Version
What's the problem now?
Parliament was an advance on the old method of a King deciding things with zero transparency. Having a debate in an open "forum" is a good way of doing things, but somewhere along the way things have gone a bit wrong and the advent of the modern media and the "sound bite" has really pushed things over the edge.
It's particularly bad during PMQ, you can practically hear the pre written sound bites being stuffed into the speeches. PMQ should not be about a "winner", it should be about the government being scrutinized by MPs. We should come away clearer understanding of government policy and thinking. Instead we get some sort of middle class rap battle with insults and boasts being thrown around (this is appropriate I think).
This is more than a cosmetic problem. Politics and politicians have lost the respect of the people. This is a bad thing, when politicians fail things get ugly.
What is needed is a way for the electorate to access the debate and for that debate to be clear and measured, based on facts and understanding, and less dependent on rhetoric and sound bites.
OK, how else could we do it?It's particularly bad during PMQ, you can practically hear the pre written sound bites being stuffed into the speeches. PMQ should not be about a "winner", it should be about the government being scrutinized by MPs. We should come away clearer understanding of government policy and thinking. Instead we get some sort of middle class rap battle with insults and boasts being thrown around (this is appropriate I think).
This is more than a cosmetic problem. Politics and politicians have lost the respect of the people. This is a bad thing, when politicians fail things get ugly.
What is needed is a way for the electorate to access the debate and for that debate to be clear and measured, based on facts and understanding, and less dependent on rhetoric and sound bites.
What if Parliamentary debate moved online? To a modern Forum, like this one?
Granted, sometimes the threads degenerate into name calling and flaming, but FD have shown that with a good team of mods, things can be kept on track. As an example, this thread, which on so many other sites I have seen degenerate into name calling and threats, seems to have been very civil with both sides actually showing their though processes. As a result of this I have gained a better understanding of the YES camp's position (I'm still NO but understand why people may vote YES).
How would it work?Granted, sometimes the threads degenerate into name calling and flaming, but FD have shown that with a good team of mods, things can be kept on track. As an example, this thread, which on so many other sites I have seen degenerate into name calling and threats, seems to have been very civil with both sides actually showing their though processes. As a result of this I have gained a better understanding of the YES camp's position (I'm still NO but understand why people may vote YES).
First a "Parliament" forum would be set up with MPs as members (the only ones who can actually post) but viewable and searchable by the public.
An MP's posts can be rep'd or commented upon by other MPs. These would be available for public scrutiny but would not be on the main "timeline" of the debate posts.
There would be three main areas,
Open discussion
PMQs
Some thoughtsAn MP's posts can be rep'd or commented upon by other MPs. These would be available for public scrutiny but would not be on the main "timeline" of the debate posts.
There would be three main areas,
- the open discussion
- PMQs
- the "Chamber"
Open discussion
The open discussion would be just that MPs discussing and debating stuff but mainly on the pre legislation side of things. Threads would be started by any MP, so kind of like the FD forum at the moment. The "Moderator of the House" (the equivalent of the Speaker) would police this in a general manner, but the rules would generally be fairly loose.
Committee and sub committee threads would go here, their posting rights would be restricted to the MPs on the committee but the ability to rep or comment on the committee member posts would be open to all MPs.
Committee and sub committee threads would go here, their posting rights would be restricted to the MPs on the committee but the ability to rep or comment on the committee member posts would be open to all MPs.
PMQs
PMQs would be handled a bit like Reddit AMAs or DBOBEs answer sessions. MPs would put forward questions beforehand and the PM would answer. The public could ask questions either via their MP or by emailing the PM('s office) directly. Each answer would effectively be thread in it's own right, and MP could post follow ups and the PM could reply and clarify/rebut etc.
Instead of the current shouting and groaning to register approval, disapproval it would simply be a similar rep system to now (only MP's allowed to rep). However, as approval or disapproval reps would have to have a reason post attached and this would be available for scrutiny it should clamp down on the senseless "barracking".
The "Chamber"Instead of the current shouting and groaning to register approval, disapproval it would simply be a similar rep system to now (only MP's allowed to rep). However, as approval or disapproval reps would have to have a reason post attached and this would be available for scrutiny it should clamp down on the senseless "barracking".
This would be where debates on actual legislation and decisions happen. It would be policed by the "Moderator of the House" under much more formal and strict rules (no off topic, no flames etc). Only government ministers can start a thread and it would work in a similar fashion to the DDFs or open software development forums.
The relevant Minister would start with post outlining the legislation with a link to the actual draft and some summary of it.
MPs would then post, making statements, recommendations, asking for clarification etc.
The minister would then reply, clarify etc. The legislation may be changed by the debate. In which case the minister puts forward the update, the Mods alter the original post to indicate an update was made and link to the new document, and it carries on. At some point the Minister can "freeze" the debate and a vote is then taken on the legislation as frozen (a poll). If successful then it goes forward as it does now and the thread is closed
If unsuccessful the thread is closed and the government has to try again.
The relevant Minister would start with post outlining the legislation with a link to the actual draft and some summary of it.
MPs would then post, making statements, recommendations, asking for clarification etc.
The minister would then reply, clarify etc. The legislation may be changed by the debate. In which case the minister puts forward the update, the Mods alter the original post to indicate an update was made and link to the new document, and it carries on. At some point the Minister can "freeze" the debate and a vote is then taken on the legislation as frozen (a poll). If successful then it goes forward as it does now and the thread is closed
If unsuccessful the thread is closed and the government has to try again.
Clearly some form of ID technology and sign in verification would be vital to this. It's bad enough when someone's twitter account is hijacked, Imagine the PM's account being hijacked! However, this is not insurmountable or even wildly expensive (although I'm sure, being a government project, they'll mange to make it cost a fortune)
Hopefully this process would result in higher quality debate. The "Moderator" would be able to issue infractions to MPs, which would be visible to the public.
Keeping threads coherent may be an issue, maybe some sort of threading within a thread may be needed to see which posts a post is answering/addressing. Again the quote system here is a reasonable starting point.
Obviously, editing of a post would be limited to spelling and grammar (probably via mods). Clarification would be via "attached" follow up posts, so MP's can't back peddle on what they say.
Although I say the PM or Minister posts it would often be a minion from their office who posts on their behalf, particularly with answers to PMQs. However a point of protocol would mean that anything posted under an MP or minsters name is regarded as having been from their lips (or finger tips). No exceptions (except obvious and proven hacks). MP's would have to be responsible for whoever they allow to post on their behalf. When it comes to voting in the Chamber, only the MP would be able to vote (i.e. they have to "push the button" themselves.
The poll method of voting would mean that MPs did not have to physically be in Parliament, allowing them to spend more time in their constituency, and maybe not need an expensive London home.
This remote debating and voting would fit really well with a more "federal" UK, with National parliaments deciding national stuff and the Union parliament handling "external" and Union stuff.
Hopefully this process would result in higher quality debate. The "Moderator" would be able to issue infractions to MPs, which would be visible to the public.
Keeping threads coherent may be an issue, maybe some sort of threading within a thread may be needed to see which posts a post is answering/addressing. Again the quote system here is a reasonable starting point.
Obviously, editing of a post would be limited to spelling and grammar (probably via mods). Clarification would be via "attached" follow up posts, so MP's can't back peddle on what they say.
Although I say the PM or Minister posts it would often be a minion from their office who posts on their behalf, particularly with answers to PMQs. However a point of protocol would mean that anything posted under an MP or minsters name is regarded as having been from their lips (or finger tips). No exceptions (except obvious and proven hacks). MP's would have to be responsible for whoever they allow to post on their behalf. When it comes to voting in the Chamber, only the MP would be able to vote (i.e. they have to "push the button" themselves.
The poll method of voting would mean that MPs did not have to physically be in Parliament, allowing them to spend more time in their constituency, and maybe not need an expensive London home.
This remote debating and voting would fit really well with a more "federal" UK, with National parliaments deciding national stuff and the Union parliament handling "external" and Union stuff.
Nope. It's just the nature of the forums... The thread on #gamergate has also been pretty quiet and free of incidence/bile/handwringing, meanwhile gaming enclaves everywhere imploded over the issue the past few weeks.
I can see your points of view beelbeebub but that might be a bit of a step too far,
I somehow don't think there will be any meaningful constitutional change now that the Scots have swallowed the establishment line once again.
The biggest problem for Westminster now will be trying to find enough issues to divert English opinion away from these silly notions such as democracy.
A good ME war will be an ideal start. Plenty of opportunity for a few 'hero's to be created. Lots of good looking guys in the army to stimulate the juices, with a few enigmatic 'nick-names' and some far fetched stories, garnished with a few medals.
What could possiably go wrong.
I somehow don't think there will be any meaningful constitutional change now that the Scots have swallowed the establishment line once again.
The biggest problem for Westminster now will be trying to find enough issues to divert English opinion away from these silly notions such as democracy.
A good ME war will be an ideal start. Plenty of opportunity for a few 'hero's to be created. Lots of good looking guys in the army to stimulate the juices, with a few enigmatic 'nick-names' and some far fetched stories, garnished with a few medals.
What could possiably go wrong.
I don't doubt changes of that magnitude would be hard to get through. It would certainly blow apart the stuffy "old club" atmosphere of Parliament. MP's would have no choice but to become tech savvy.
It would allow everybody (with access to the internet) to view the debates on legislation, without having to rely on journalists as a filter.
For example, view some of the DDFs, especially the ones on super cruise. You can see how the solution evolved from the initial "micro jump" proposal to what we have now.
It would also be really cheap to set up an "online" English parliament, compared to having to build a new fancy building (and it would want a fancy building, just look at the Scottish Parliament). A few million quid, maybe 10 or 20 to set up a server centre (plus backup), sort the software (not via usual gov channels), then a few million quid a year on maintenece. Cheap compared to the 500mil or so it costs to build portcullis house or Holyrood.
One side effect I can see would be a huge investment in the coverage and speed of both fixed and mobile broadband, as MP's find the connection in their home constituency (which some of them would probably be hard pressed to find on a map) is rubbish compared to the one in their house in London.
I'd call that a healthy win!
It would allow everybody (with access to the internet) to view the debates on legislation, without having to rely on journalists as a filter.
For example, view some of the DDFs, especially the ones on super cruise. You can see how the solution evolved from the initial "micro jump" proposal to what we have now.
It would also be really cheap to set up an "online" English parliament, compared to having to build a new fancy building (and it would want a fancy building, just look at the Scottish Parliament). A few million quid, maybe 10 or 20 to set up a server centre (plus backup), sort the software (not via usual gov channels), then a few million quid a year on maintenece. Cheap compared to the 500mil or so it costs to build portcullis house or Holyrood.
One side effect I can see would be a huge investment in the coverage and speed of both fixed and mobile broadband, as MP's find the connection in their home constituency (which some of them would probably be hard pressed to find on a map) is rubbish compared to the one in their house in London.
I'd call that a healthy win!
Thousands of supporters of Scottish independence have been taking part in a rally outside the Scottish parliament.
The rally, organised under the Voice Of The People banner, came just over a week after the independence referendum.
Kate Higgins of the Women For Independence group told the crowd "it's not over".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29393578
The rally, organised under the Voice Of The People banner, came just over a week after the independence referendum.
Kate Higgins of the Women For Independence group told the crowd "it's not over".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29393578
And since, as an English resident, I don't have a vote, I've gone with my conscience and joined the Scottish Socialists.
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/
Minti2
Deadly, But very fluffy...
Pah! i know a better movement then either of those party's, and its going from strength to strength daily
Members: 47,646 Elite Dangerous community! the only party worth voting for
Pah! i know a better movement then either of those party's, and its going from strength to strength daily
Members: 47,646 Elite Dangerous community! the only party worth voting for
Can't argue with that.
David Braben for President.