|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 13:57:50 GMT
Parliament as a whole would do so, same as any law. Usually, most PR systems operate at about 5%. You have to have a cut off somewhere or you'll have every last party represented regardless of how low their vote share was! 5% seems sensible to me. That would mean better representation (more accurate to the vote share) for the likes of UKIP, Reform, any new Left party, Greens etc etc. Just watch how many votes Reform get and how few MPs. I can't stand the thick racist arseholes, obviously, but that doesn't alter the fact that if they get 4m votes and one MP then the UK's electoral system is inherently unfair. And undemocratic. I don’t disagree it can be seen as inherently unfair and undemocratic I just can’t see how any other system would be much better and I personally would hate to remove the personal connection between a mp and the actual seat they represent
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 3, 2024 14:00:24 GMT
Do some reading on proportional representation RWB. It may be marginally better than the farce which is FPTP but it is not in the best interests of any member of the public to have closed lists over open lists. (Open list PR and STV I support. But closed list is 2 steps forward 1 step back.) The point I was making to Waga, as I'm sure you understood, is that, as head of his own "Left" Party (or whatever it might be called), Corbyn would be able to select whoever he felt as a potential MP, including himself. Waga's assumption that he would stay in the Labour party and be prevented from inclusion in any list of candidates is inherently unlikely under a PR system which allows for greater representation across the political spectrum. He would simply form his own party. Yes but that's undemocratic. Corbyn also opposes closed list PR because he thinks the people who live in constituencies should choose their representative rather than centralised executives. But you are right it could hypothetically be advantageous to some parties. And that's why I'm personally opposed to the closed list system myself.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 14:03:17 GMT
Parliament as a whole would do so, same as any law. Usually, most PR systems operate at about 5%. You have to have a cut off somewhere or you'll have every last party represented regardless of how low their vote share was! 5% seems sensible to me. That would mean better representation (more accurate to the vote share) for the likes of UKIP, Reform, any new Left party, Greens etc etc. Just watch how many votes Reform get and how few MPs. I can't stand the thick racist arseholes, obviously, but that doesn't alter the fact that if they get 4m votes and one MP then the UK's electoral system is inherently unfair. And undemocratic. I don’t disagree it can be seen as inherently unfair and undemocratic I just can’t see how any other system would be much better and I personally would hate to remove the personal connection between a mp and the actual seat they represent Perhaps because you've not really looked into it? Here's how it works back home in Germany...Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises, then, the seats representing each electoral district on the first vote and the seats allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote. Common practice is that direct candidates are also placed on the electoral lists at higher rankings as a fall-back in case they do not win their districts. So, there is a direct vote for your own MP in your own district, as you would prefer. The second vote allows for more accurate representation across parliament as a whole, based on the entire national vote. No system is perfect, obviously, but this is better and a good compromise between what you're after and better all round representation.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 14:08:27 GMT
The point I was making to Waga, as I'm sure you understood, is that, as head of his own "Left" Party (or whatever it might be called), Corbyn would be able to select whoever he felt as a potential MP, including himself. Waga's assumption that he would stay in the Labour party and be prevented from inclusion in any list of candidates is inherently unlikely under a PR system which allows for greater representation across the political spectrum. He would simply form his own party. Yes but that's undemocratic. Corbyn also opposes closed list PR because he thinks the people who live in constituencies should choose their representative rather than centralised executives. But you are right it could hypothetically be advantageous to some parties. And that's why I'm personally opposed to the closed list system myself. I'm sure you're right. I wasn't really talking about closed or open lists as they're kind of irrelevant to the point I was making to Waga, which is that in a PR system Corbyn would leave the Labour Party and start his own "Left" party, in which he would then no doubt be selected via a closed or open process or indeed some other process and therefore have much more freedom and stand more chance of being elected. I agree with Waga that under PR his staying in the Labour Party would probably lead to his not being selected, or being placed way down the list of candidates - which is why he'd leave and also why PR would be beneficial to his chances.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 14:10:59 GMT
I don’t disagree it can be seen as inherently unfair and undemocratic I just can’t see how any other system would be much better and I personally would hate to remove the personal connection between a mp and the actual seat they represent Perhaps because you've not really looked into it? Here's how it works back home in Germany...Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises, then, the seats representing each electoral district on the first vote and the seats allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote. Common practice is that direct candidates are also placed on the electoral lists at higher rankings as a fall-back in case they do not win their districts. So, there is a direct vote for your own MP in your own district, as you would prefer. The second vote allows for more accurate representation across parliament as a whole, based on the entire national vote. No system is perfect, obviously, but this is better and a good compromise between what you're after and better all round representation. That may be slightly more representative but it doesn’t stop politicians stacking the odds in their favour So the actual electorate of the seat your standing for think you’re a complete tosser oh never mind my mates have stuck me high enough up the list I’m guaranteed anyway PR seems to me of politicians marking their own homework Where as FPTP which is by no means perfect the electorate has the chance to mark the individual
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 14:16:28 GMT
Perhaps because you've not really looked into it? Here's how it works back home in Germany...Germans elect their members of parliament with two votes. The first vote is for a direct candidate, who is required to receive a plurality vote in their electoral district. The second vote is used to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. The Bundestag comprises, then, the seats representing each electoral district on the first vote and the seats allocated to maintain proportionality based on the second vote. Common practice is that direct candidates are also placed on the electoral lists at higher rankings as a fall-back in case they do not win their districts. So, there is a direct vote for your own MP in your own district, as you would prefer. The second vote allows for more accurate representation across parliament as a whole, based on the entire national vote. No system is perfect, obviously, but this is better and a good compromise between what you're after and better all round representation. That may be slightly more representative but it doesn’t stop politicians stacking the odds in their favour So the actual electorate of the seat your standing for think you’re a complete tosser oh never mind my mates have stuck me high enough up the list I’m guaranteed anyway PR seems to me of politicians marking their own homework Where as FPTP which is by no means perfect the electorate has the chance to mark the individual The electorate does exactly that in Germany as I've just explained. You get a constituency first past the post vote plus a vote which is used to smooth out the inherent unfairness of FPTP. I think you're probably just arguing against it now because you just don't want to admit that it's fairer! Under our current system, there are plenty of nobhead politicians who just suck up to the local constituency party associations to gain selection or, even worse, jump ship to a safe seat (Johnson, Braverman for example) at the slightest hint of a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2024 14:30:08 GMT
That may be slightly more representative but it doesn’t stop politicians stacking the odds in their favour So the actual electorate of the seat your standing for think you’re a complete tosser oh never mind my mates have stuck me high enough up the list I’m guaranteed anyway PR seems to me of politicians marking their own homework Where as FPTP which is by no means perfect the electorate has the chance to mark the individual The electorate does exactly that in Germany as I've just explained. You get a constituency first past the post vote plus a vote which is used to smooth out the inherent unfairness of FPTP. I think you're probably just arguing against it now because you just don't want to admit that it's fairer! Under our current system, there are plenty of nobhead politicians who just suck up to the local constituency party associations to gain selection or, even worse, jump ship to a safe seat (Johnson, Braverman for example) at the slightest hint of a challenge. Surely Red it depends upon what system we ( Parliament) decides to implement, and what conditions we decide to impose. www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/In theory if we simply decide that " anyone " simply needs a deposit and / or sponsors~ supporters ( or not) then we could have whatever system we want. Obviously, IMO, there would be proposals, debate and examination of systems on other countries before a decision is made. I think we are jumping the gun to presume the system.... Not hat it will now happen in the foreseeable
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 3, 2024 14:35:37 GMT
That may be slightly more representative but it doesn’t stop politicians stacking the odds in their favour So the actual electorate of the seat your standing for think you’re a complete tosser oh never mind my mates have stuck me high enough up the list I’m guaranteed anyway PR seems to me of politicians marking their own homework Where as FPTP which is by no means perfect the electorate has the chance to mark the individual The electorate does exactly that in Germany as I've just explained. You get a constituency first past the post vote plus a vote which is used to smooth out the inherent unfairness of FPTP. I think you're probably just arguing against it now because you just don't want to admit that it's fairer! Under our current system, there are plenty of nobhead politicians who just suck up to the local constituency party associations to gain selection or, even worse, jump ship to a safe seat (Johnson, Braverman for example) at the slightest hint of a challenge. or in the case of the liar Snell skwawkbox.org/2022/08/04/exclusive-stoke-central-members-full-complaint-and-evidence-about-snell-selection-stitch-up/
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 15:55:17 GMT
The electorate does exactly that in Germany as I've just explained. You get a constituency first past the post vote plus a vote which is used to smooth out the inherent unfairness of FPTP. I think you're probably just arguing against it now because you just don't want to admit that it's fairer! Under our current system, there are plenty of nobhead politicians who just suck up to the local constituency party associations to gain selection or, even worse, jump ship to a safe seat (Johnson, Braverman for example) at the slightest hint of a challenge. or in the case of the liar Snell skwawkbox.org/2022/08/04/exclusive-stoke-central-members-full-complaint-and-evidence-about-snell-selection-stitch-up/He's a proper piece of work is Snell.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 3, 2024 16:03:59 GMT
He's a proper piece of work is Snell. the best chance of not getting him is that he has polarised a large amount of the traditional support labour gets from the muslim vote, apparently he is not anti israel which means they are cross with him, a lot of traditional labour voters will also turn to reform for various reasons its going be close in stoke central i just hope people dont forget what a lying rat he was last time he was our MP i would also like to hear what the fat waste of space has been doing this last 4 or 5 years
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 16:43:47 GMT
He's a proper piece of work is Snell. the best chance of not getting him is that he has polarised a large amount of the traditional support labour gets from the muslim vote, apparently he is not anti israel which means they are cross with him, a lot of traditional labour voters will also turn to reform for various reasons its going be close in stoke central i just hope people dont forget what a lying rat he was last time he was our MP i would also like to hear what the fat waste of space has been doing this last 4 or 5 years Shagging Ruth Smeeth apparently.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 3, 2024 16:44:17 GMT
Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day During my last few years before retiring, I had a Dutch boss in IJmuiden and spent a lot of time with Dutch colleagues. There was a spectrum of views on EU membership but the general view was resignation and "Oh well we just have to accept it and look on the bright side". At least the Netherlands benefit from hosting some European centres like justice, Schipol, and Rotterdam and a strong positive balance of payments, like many of the other original member countries. I wonder where those in the UK who want to rejoin think the UK would be in this league table: www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/A a hint, when the UK was a member its net contribution (after rebate) was just about the same as Poland's net benefit. The fact that one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita has a net benefit from EU membership at other countries expense is indefensible. What about UK Ranking in this League Table 27th not even making the playoffs and definitely lower division www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 3, 2024 16:47:03 GMT
the best chance of not getting him is that he has polarised a large amount of the traditional support labour gets from the muslim vote, apparently he is not anti israel which means they are cross with him, a lot of traditional labour voters will also turn to reform for various reasons its going be close in stoke central i just hope people dont forget what a lying rat he was last time he was our MP i would also like to hear what the fat waste of space has been doing this last 4 or 5 years Shagging Ruth Smeeth apparently. Seriously? I mean we might be verging on libel here but wtf! No way
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 17:32:50 GMT
Shagging Ruth Smeeth apparently. Seriously? I mean we might be verging on libel here but wtf! No way It's true...they have a house in Penkhull.
|
|
|
Post by flea79 on Jul 3, 2024 17:34:03 GMT
Seriously? I mean we might be verging on libel here but wtf! No way It's true...they have a house in Penkhull. Might explain the pro Israel stance and the anger from our Muslim pals towards him
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 4, 2024 10:58:50 GMT
During my last few years before retiring, I had a Dutch boss in IJmuiden and spent a lot of time with Dutch colleagues. There was a spectrum of views on EU membership but the general view was resignation and "Oh well we just have to accept it and look on the bright side". At least the Netherlands benefit from hosting some European centres like justice, Schipol, and Rotterdam and a strong positive balance of payments, like many of the other original member countries. I wonder where those in the UK who want to rejoin think the UK would be in this league table: www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/A a hint, when the UK was a member its net contribution (after rebate) was just about the same as Poland's net benefit. The fact that one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita has a net benefit from EU membership at other countries expense is indefensible. What about UK Ranking in this League Table 27th not even making the playoffs and definitely lower division www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/Exactly my point. Membership of the EEC/EU for 47 years has been a disaster for the UK particularly since Maastricht when we have built a huge trade deficit with the EU, and spent 47 years of net contributions paying for the privilege. Now the UK is out of the EU we can build trade with the rest of the world that represents over 80% of the world economy outside the EU trade barriers. We can reverse the long decline in the world position on GDP per capita by increasing self sufficiency, investing in the UK instead of subsidising the economies of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. I've said it could take a generation to yield the full benefits of leaving the EU, but I'm confident on a few years time the economic benefits will accrue and we can start to reverse the trends in poverty, homelessness, use of food banks etc. But, as Starmer well knows, that can only happen by growing the size of the cake. We have started with phasing out CAP and the EU fishing policy and making trade deals, but it will take many years to undo the damage, and some things that we have lost like heavy industry will never come back. They are too expensive to bring back so we've lost them for good during EU membership. Relevant an earlier debate, Starmer could change UK planning laws. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngq10grgzo#:~:text=UK%20planning%20laws%20deter%20investment%2C%20says%20drugs%20giant&text=He%20warned%20current%20planning%20processes,government%2C%22%20Mr%20Ricks%20said.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 4, 2024 12:32:13 GMT
Exactly my point. Membership of the EEC/EU for 47 years has been a disaster for the UK particularly since Maastricht when we have built a huge trade deficit with the EU, and spent 47 years of net contributions paying for the privilege. Now the UK is out of the EU we can build trade with the rest of the world that represents over 80% of the world economy outside the EU trade barriers. We can reverse the long decline in the world position on GDP per capita by increasing self sufficiency, investing in the UK instead of subsidising the economies of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. I've said it could take a generation to yield the full benefits of leaving the EU, but I'm confident on a few years time the economic benefits will accrue and we can start to reverse the trends in poverty, homelessness, use of food banks etc. But, as Starmer well knows, that can only happen by growing the size of the cake. We have started with phasing out CAP and the EU fishing policy and making trade deals, but it will take many years to undo the damage, and some things that we have lost like heavy industry will never come back. They are too expensive to bring back so we've lost them for good during EU membership. Relevant an earlier debate, Starmer could change UK planning laws. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngq10grgzo#:~:text=UK%20planning%20laws%20deter%20investment%2C%20says%20drugs%20giant&text=He%20warned%20current%20planning%20processes,government%2C%22%20Mr%20Ricks%20said. Why not listen to the people that actually work in the industry - Farmers, rather than pontificating on what you may wish to believe Not all farmers voted for Brexit – it’s estimated that they did so by a small majority – but most farmers hated the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) both in its detail and its bureaucracy. Boris Johnson claimed the CAP was “demented” and in places “corrupt”. But in terms of paperwork little has changed: checks previously carried out for the CAP continue and are now made by Defra. There is a lot of very detailed bureaucracy and record-keeping involved.
Post Brexit there was no plan whatsoever as to how to manage the new situation and it’s been disastrous. The basic payment scheme was criticised, but it was a known amount and people could plan. Then in came land-management schemes: firstly Environmental Stewardship (ES), then they replaced that with Countryside Stewardship (CS), which is now being absorbed by the Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI) within an overall Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) framework.
SFI has been introduced bit by bit and no one understands where we are or where it is going. The body responsible for this is the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), who are notoriously slow and inefficient, and often the person you are eventually connected to (if you’re lucky) can’t actually help you. Last week I had a rant down the line at someone from RPA, and then asked, “Do you get lots of calls like this?” He replied immediately, one word: “Yes.”
Defra started to cut the basic payment scheme so now it’s a quarter of what it was: that reliable income that helped farmers pay base costs like farm insurance (me: £4,000 pa) is slowly leaking away. We have also had a doubling in price for things such as fertilisers and vets’ fees.
The replacement payment system involves much less cash globally (just as the EU regional funds have not been replaced). The ES/CS/SFI system involves detailed bidding for funds under various headings, basically land-management items or capital goods items. So you might, after a lot of effort, get modest sums per hectare, which come with specific conditions. The documentation is impenetrable and constantly changing
The Tories are currently very unpopular with the farming community. The government, they feel, has ignored them and treated them very poorly in terms of
reduced payments, confusing schemes and rotten trade deals.
There should therefore be a receptive audience for Labour policies that show a proper understanding of the needs of farmers.yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/election-2024-who-will-farmers-vote-for/So there we have it CAP Replacement Schemes pay less to Farms, are as equally bureaucratic if not more so and the only two Independently negotiated Trade Deals Australia/New Zealand are terrible for Farmers, hardly surprising when the guy that negotiated it said it was crap. Fisherman 'sold down the river' by Brexitwww.bbc.com/news/articles/c103ldej4qvoSo your claim is CAP and Fisheries have been removed but the people that work in Farming and Fisheries say it's worse. The people who negotiated and the people who have to live with the 2 Trade Deals say they are rubbish
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 4, 2024 15:27:07 GMT
Exactly my point. Membership of the EEC/EU for 47 years has been a disaster for the UK particularly since Maastricht when we have built a huge trade deficit with the EU, and spent 47 years of net contributions paying for the privilege. Now the UK is out of the EU we can build trade with the rest of the world that represents over 80% of the world economy outside the EU trade barriers. We can reverse the long decline in the world position on GDP per capita by increasing self sufficiency, investing in the UK instead of subsidising the economies of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. I've said it could take a generation to yield the full benefits of leaving the EU, but I'm confident on a few years time the economic benefits will accrue and we can start to reverse the trends in poverty, homelessness, use of food banks etc. But, as Starmer well knows, that can only happen by growing the size of the cake. We have started with phasing out CAP and the EU fishing policy and making trade deals, but it will take many years to undo the damage, and some things that we have lost like heavy industry will never come back. They are too expensive to bring back so we've lost them for good during EU membership. Relevant an earlier debate, Starmer could change UK planning laws. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ngq10grgzo#:~:text=UK%20planning%20laws%20deter%20investment%2C%20says%20drugs%20giant&text=He%20warned%20current%20planning%20processes,government%2C%22%20Mr%20Ricks%20said. Why not listen to the people that actually work in the industry - Farmers, rather than pontificating on what you may wish to believe Not all farmers voted for Brexit – it’s estimated that they did so by a small majority – but most farmers hated the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) both in its detail and its bureaucracy. Boris Johnson claimed the CAP was “demented” and in places “corrupt”. But in terms of paperwork little has changed: checks previously carried out for the CAP continue and are now made by Defra. There is a lot of very detailed bureaucracy and record-keeping involved.
Post Brexit there was no plan whatsoever as to how to manage the new situation and it’s been disastrous. The basic payment scheme was criticised, but it was a known amount and people could plan. Then in came land-management schemes: firstly Environmental Stewardship (ES), then they replaced that with Countryside Stewardship (CS), which is now being absorbed by the Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI) within an overall Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) framework.
SFI has been introduced bit by bit and no one understands where we are or where it is going. The body responsible for this is the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), who are notoriously slow and inefficient, and often the person you are eventually connected to (if you’re lucky) can’t actually help you. Last week I had a rant down the line at someone from RPA, and then asked, “Do you get lots of calls like this?” He replied immediately, one word: “Yes.”
Defra started to cut the basic payment scheme so now it’s a quarter of what it was: that reliable income that helped farmers pay base costs like farm insurance (me: £4,000 pa) is slowly leaking away. We have also had a doubling in price for things such as fertilisers and vets’ fees.
The replacement payment system involves much less cash globally (just as the EU regional funds have not been replaced). The ES/CS/SFI system involves detailed bidding for funds under various headings, basically land-management items or capital goods items. So you might, after a lot of effort, get modest sums per hectare, which come with specific conditions. The documentation is impenetrable and constantly changing
The Tories are currently very unpopular with the farming community. The government, they feel, has ignored them and treated them very poorly in terms of
reduced payments, confusing schemes and rotten trade deals.
There should therefore be a receptive audience for Labour policies that show a proper understanding of the needs of farmers.yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/election-2024-who-will-farmers-vote-for/So there we have it CAP Replacement Schemes pay less to Farms, are as equally bureaucratic if not more so and the only two Independently negotiated Trade Deals Australia/New Zealand are terrible for Farmers, hardly surprising when the guy that negotiated it said it was crap. Fisherman 'sold down the river' by Brexitwww.bbc.com/news/articles/c103ldej4qvoSo your claim is CAP and Fisheries have been removed but the people that work in Farming and Fisheries say it's worse. The people who negotiated and the people who have to live with the 2 Trade Deals say they are rubbish You are getting desperate with your arguments now aren't you? I have never said " CAP and Fisheries have been removed".The CAP phasing out is a long process and the rich farmers are squealing. The UK is putting an end to this horrible system where 80% of the subsidies goes to the richest 20%. www.electifacts.eu/facts-checks/fact-check--do-80--of-cap-subsidies-go-to-20--of-the-farmers-/s/94453cc3-a5c1-48f1-bdf4-ad80f747d726It is going to be a long phase out, which I guess will now be longer with a new government wanting to change it, hopefully for the better. So the paperwork remains and gets more complicated during the change to new measures and different subsidies to protect the environment. The EU has destroyed British fishing waters (as they have the Mediterranean) and things are going to get worse for fishermen yet as fish stocks are still being over exploited. Did you know half the UK fishing quota is taken by by foreign owned vessels? Tough for them isn't it? Hopefully they will go away and leave the fish for British fishermen. Yes the government are guilty of insufficient action: www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Greenpeace-All-At-Sea-Report-1.pdfBut I suspect the UK government is afraid of retaliatory action by Macron & Co. as a large proportion of the catch in British waters is sold to/processed in France. Fish is a tiny contributor to national incomes (0.1% of UK; 0.06% of France ). I suspect both sides have agreed it is not worth having a trade war and poison the Anglo-French relationship. It's far more important to conserve fish stocks as I have reported in my last review. I repeat myself, it's going to take a long time, maybe a very long time, to undo the damage the EU has caused to UK habitat and fishing waters. There will a few changes in government in the mean time. As Starmer says there is no going back to EU membership in his life time. A third of beef consumed in the UK is imported. It isn't UK farmers that are really concerned at meat imports from Australia and New Zealand but EU farmers, particularly the Irish, because those imports will displace EU meat imports to the UK. www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-farmers-concerned-over-uk-s-proposed-trade-deal-with-australia-1.4571548 There will always be a place for the best quality British meat in the UK which is " leading the way in producing climate-friendly food and we are the only community to set an ambitious target to become net zero by 2040." www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/meat_environmentAs for quoting yorkshirebylines you have got to be having a laugh again. They are a bunch of loony, left-wing, anti Brexiteers, some based in London, Brussels, and Germany campaigning against Brexit and may I say against the interests of the UK and in favour of EU interests. It shows how desperate you are getting to support your anti Brexit arguments. You'll be quoting the Daily Mirror next.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Jul 4, 2024 19:27:58 GMT
Wonder if he will see 2 full terms, or step down or even get removed midway thru term 2. Obv winning today, 4 or 5 years of blaming the Tories for everything win again, but cant see him staying full 8 or 10. Just hope that awful cow Rayner never becomes PM.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 4, 2024 19:56:20 GMT
Wonder if he will see 2 full terms, or step down or even get removed midway thru term 2. Obv winning today, 4 or 5 years of blaming the Tories for everything win again, but cant see him staying full 8 or 10. Just hope that awful cow Rayner never becomes PM. Wins today with a big majority. If we assume his premiership doesn't see the kind of scaremongering nihilist catastrophe many on the right on here are prophesying!, he'll go back to the country in four years time and probably win again with a much reduced majority (assuming the Tories have got their act together, that is). Then, I suspect you're right, he'll probably hand over before the following general election, having done 8 years or so as PM. Perhaps Andy Burnham will be lined up as a replacement by then, who knows. Ten years is about the maximum any PM should do.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 4, 2024 19:58:24 GMT
Whatever happened to rogerjonesisgod?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 4, 2024 20:28:24 GMT
Whatever happened to rogerjonesisgod? Died, I think, sadly. Certainly wasn't very well.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 4, 2024 20:31:03 GMT
Whatever happened to rogerjonesisgod? Died, I think, sadly. Certainly wasn't very well. Fucking he’ll I wasn’t expecting that answer. What a shame if correct
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 4, 2024 20:36:09 GMT
Wonder if he will see 2 full terms, or step down or even get removed midway thru term 2. Obv winning today, 4 or 5 years of blaming the Tories for everything win again, but cant see him staying full 8 or 10. Just hope that awful cow Rayner never becomes PM. He'll do 2 years tops before he's pushed out. Get ready for Rayner. Labours first female prime minister...gawd help us 😆 Although she's better to look at than Keith to be fair 😃
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 4, 2024 20:52:05 GMT
Why not listen to the people that actually work in the industry - Farmers, rather than pontificating on what you may wish to believe Not all farmers voted for Brexit – it’s estimated that they did so by a small majority – but most farmers hated the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) both in its detail and its bureaucracy. Boris Johnson claimed the CAP was “demented” and in places “corrupt”. But in terms of paperwork little has changed: checks previously carried out for the CAP continue and are now made by Defra. There is a lot of very detailed bureaucracy and record-keeping involved.
Post Brexit there was no plan whatsoever as to how to manage the new situation and it’s been disastrous. The basic payment scheme was criticised, but it was a known amount and people could plan. Then in came land-management schemes: firstly Environmental Stewardship (ES), then they replaced that with Countryside Stewardship (CS), which is now being absorbed by the Sustainable Farming Initiative (SFI) within an overall Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) framework.
SFI has been introduced bit by bit and no one understands where we are or where it is going. The body responsible for this is the Rural Payments Agency (RPA), who are notoriously slow and inefficient, and often the person you are eventually connected to (if you’re lucky) can’t actually help you. Last week I had a rant down the line at someone from RPA, and then asked, “Do you get lots of calls like this?” He replied immediately, one word: “Yes.”
Defra started to cut the basic payment scheme so now it’s a quarter of what it was: that reliable income that helped farmers pay base costs like farm insurance (me: £4,000 pa) is slowly leaking away. We have also had a doubling in price for things such as fertilisers and vets’ fees.
The replacement payment system involves much less cash globally (just as the EU regional funds have not been replaced). The ES/CS/SFI system involves detailed bidding for funds under various headings, basically land-management items or capital goods items. So you might, after a lot of effort, get modest sums per hectare, which come with specific conditions. The documentation is impenetrable and constantly changing
The Tories are currently very unpopular with the farming community. The government, they feel, has ignored them and treated them very poorly in terms of
reduced payments, confusing schemes and rotten trade deals.
There should therefore be a receptive audience for Labour policies that show a proper understanding of the needs of farmers.yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/election-2024-who-will-farmers-vote-for/So there we have it CAP Replacement Schemes pay less to Farms, are as equally bureaucratic if not more so and the only two Independently negotiated Trade Deals Australia/New Zealand are terrible for Farmers, hardly surprising when the guy that negotiated it said it was crap. Fisherman 'sold down the river' by Brexitwww.bbc.com/news/articles/c103ldej4qvoSo your claim is CAP and Fisheries have been removed but the people that work in Farming and Fisheries say it's worse. The people who negotiated and the people who have to live with the 2 Trade Deals say they are rubbish You are getting desperate with your arguments now aren't you? I have never said " CAP and Fisheries have been removed".The CAP phasing out is a long process and the rich farmers are squealing. The UK is putting an end to this horrible system where 80% of the subsidies goes to the richest 20%. www.electifacts.eu/facts-checks/fact-check--do-80--of-cap-subsidies-go-to-20--of-the-farmers-/s/94453cc3-a5c1-48f1-bdf4-ad80f747d726It is going to be a long phase out, which I guess will now be longer with a new government wanting to change it, hopefully for the better. So the paperwork remains and gets more complicated during the change to new measures and different subsidies to protect the environment. The EU has destroyed British fishing waters (as they have the Mediterranean) and things are going to get worse for fishermen yet as fish stocks are still being over exploited. Did you know half the UK fishing quota is taken by by foreign owned vessels? Tough for them isn't it? Hopefully they will go away and leave the fish for British fishermen. Yes the government are guilty of insufficient action: www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Greenpeace-All-At-Sea-Report-1.pdfBut I suspect the UK government is afraid of retaliatory action by Macron & Co. as a large proportion of the catch in British waters is sold to/processed in France. Fish is a tiny contributor to national incomes (0.1% of UK; 0.06% of France ). I suspect both sides have agreed it is not worth having a trade war and poison the Anglo-French relationship. It's far more important to conserve fish stocks as I have reported in my last review. I repeat myself, it's going to take a long time, maybe a very long time, to undo the damage the EU has caused to UK habitat and fishing waters. There will a few changes in government in the mean time. As Starmer says there is no going back to EU membership in his life time. A third of beef consumed in the UK is imported. It isn't UK farmers that are really concerned at meat imports from Australia and New Zealand but EU farmers, particularly the Irish, because those imports will displace EU meat imports to the UK. www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-farmers-concerned-over-uk-s-proposed-trade-deal-with-australia-1.4571548 There will always be a place for the best quality British meat in the UK which is " leading the way in producing climate-friendly food and we are the only community to set an ambitious target to become net zero by 2040." www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/meat_environmentAs for quoting yorkshirebylines you have got to be having a laugh again. They are a bunch of loony, left-wing, anti Brexiteers, some based in London, Brussels, and Germany campaigning against Brexit and may I say against the interests of the UK and in favour of EU interests. It shows how desperate you are getting to support your anti Brexit arguments. You'll be quoting the Daily Mirror next. If you want to make a distraction between removed and removing when I bolded in you post CAP was being phased out it says more the fact you have no clear answers The point is which of course you don't want to address other than make false claims is that the experience of UK Farmers is that the bureaucracy under DEFRA Schemes is equally if not more onerous than CAP. It has NOTHING to do with CAP. Of course the Major issue is that Payments under the DEFRA Schemes are Substantially less than the equivalent CAP With Fisheries the new arrangements under Brexit, not alone is it not better it is substantially worse such that UK Fishermen are leaving the Industry altogether. I'm well aware Fisheries are a small part of UK Economy but it received a large focus as a Brexit "Win" during the Debate. Naturally French and other EU Countries will dictate the terms of what and how much and under what terms UK Fishermen will sell their catch into EU. It's called Leverage. Within EU that was not an issue in the Single Market. You seem fond of labelling people Looney lately now it's the turn Yorkshirebylines even when they are quoting a tual Farmers experience. Never mind we move on What about the National Farmers Union? Are they Looney too? Farmers’ union boss hits out at Tories over rushed Brexit 7th April 2024
Tom Bradshaw, who has replaced Minette Batters at the top of the NFU, which represents more than 46,000 farmers and growers across England and Wales, said ministers “should have taken some of our warnings [about Brexit] at face value”. But he said “ many are feeling let down” by post-Brexit trade deals and said the government “did not consult and did not listen” to farmers when leaving the EU. He said trade deals are undermining UK farms because supermarkets can sell foods produced to lower standards abroad. The Brexit deal got delayed but our ministers at Defra were not willing to delay the transition and so put themselves under huge time pressure to deliver a scheme,” (You may recall this is the scheme which a HoC Committee described as depending on a "Wing and a Prayer" And, in a dig at some of Britain’s post-Brexit trade deals such as with Australia and New Zealand, Mr Bradshaw said: “If we are expected to produce to standards here then we should expect all the food sold in this country to be produced to that standard. And if as a country we don’t care about those standards, then our members should have the competitive advantage to produce to lower standards. You can’t have it both ways.”www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-britain-farmers-eu-general-election-b2524707.htmlYou are wishful thinking and quite frankly being arrogant if you think Farmers are not aggrieved by post Brexit DEFRA CAP Replacement Schemes and the Trade Deals with Australia and New Zealand which with either put British Farmers at a competitive disadvantage or lead to lower Food Standards. As they say themselves. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Jul 5, 2024 3:46:16 GMT
Gonna destroy us. God help us. Thank fuck I'm an old bugger. We are in for a bleak bleak future.
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Jul 5, 2024 4:03:49 GMT
Sir Kier officially elected.
I really hope he shows the integrity that has been missing from British Politics and the front benches for so long.
Do I trust him - no, but thank the lord those pilfering, pillaging cunts are out of power.
Good luck Sir Kier.
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Jul 5, 2024 4:09:01 GMT
I hate his voice so much
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jul 5, 2024 4:40:10 GMT
The new Labour government has to be the party of the whole country. They have got in more to dissatisfaction from the tories than their own merits. They have to now do better.
“So far, the Conservatives have lost 173 seats. In 124 of these, the Reform vote was greater than the margin of the Conservatives' defeat. Of these seats, 99 were won by Labour, 19 by the Lib Dems, two by nationalists, and four by Reform themselves. Of course, not everybody who voted Reform would have otherwise voted Conservative, but they most certainly voted Conservative in 2019. These statistics underline the extent to which the heavy loss of Conservative votes to Reform has cost Sunak's party dear.”
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Jul 5, 2024 4:52:02 GMT
The new Labour government has to be the party of the whole country. They have got in more to dissatisfaction from the tories than their own merits. They have to now do better. “So far, the Conservatives have lost 173 seats. In 124 of these, the Reform vote was greater than the margin of the Conservatives' defeat. Of these seats, 99 were won by Labour, 19 by the Lib Dems, two by nationalists, and four by Reform themselves. Of course, not everybody who voted Reform would have otherwise voted Conservative, but they most certainly voted Conservative in 2019. These statistics underline the extent to which the heavy loss of Conservative votes to Reform has cost Sunak's party dear.” Spot on. Reform were king makers up and down the country.
|
|