It has been done more quickly in the past I think.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Has anybody been working on reducing the time leadership and deputy leadership elections take?
I mean, the principles are likely well known. Can't it be done in a month?
Thanks. So there's a fair bit of leeway? I can see that if the leader says "do it in a month", it might look bad. But there's got to a be some way forward in tightening it up, I think.AnatolyKasparov wrote:It has been done more quickly in the past I think.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Has anybody been working on reducing the time leadership and deputy leadership elections take?
I mean, the principles are likely well known. Can't it be done in a month?
The point about the last two was if you don't have it in the middle of summer when parliament is rising etc, you basically have to leave it until conference season.
Farcical. We're recreating council education departments but all reporting to the DfE.A council education director has been named as the new regional schools commissioner for the East Midlands and the Humber.
John Edwards, director of education and skills at Manchester city council, will take over from Jennifer Bexon-Smith, who is set to retire later this year.
Edwards said he hopes to “make a real difference to the lives and outcomes of children and young people working in partnership with everyone in the region”.
I'd prefer it if they didn't report into the DfE - they're civil servants who do what ministers say. I did hear that they weren't allowed to talk to journalists without DfE approval.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I suppose that if the roles were defined properly, some good could come out of it. There's a logic in somebody who's been successful overseeing schools in an LA progressing to a role overseeing a region. LAs were variable.
Any more thoughts?
I haven't actually seen Corbyn's tax return, but there is a section for 'other UK income' on the same page as pensions etc., income from employment is a separate page. I'd be surprised if it's wrong because they'll have plenty of advice in house to get it right, even if he doesn't use an accountant. No practical effect at all anyway.Willow904 wrote: The whole point about tax transparency is a good one, but Corbyn really has created an uphill battle for himself with the stange allocation of his extra money for leader of the opposition as a pension/annuity/state benefit. If only May published hers, we could compare and see if the extra money for an enhanced MP role is, indeed, in the right place!
Agree.RogerOThornhill wrote:I'd prefer it if they didn't report into the DfE - they're civil servants who do what ministers say. I did hear that they weren't allowed to talk to journalists without DfE approval.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I suppose that if the roles were defined properly, some good could come out of it. There's a logic in somebody who's been successful overseeing schools in an LA progressing to a role overseeing a region. LAs were variable.
Any more thoughts?
I think the problem is with the way the tax return has been presented to the public than with Corbyn's actual tax return. As some people have observed, publishing tax returns probably works better when everyone does it, in an agreed format which is comprehensible to most people. It may have been a useful gimmick against Cameron, as he was under pressure over his wealthy background more generally and with the Panama papers and such like. Unfortunately, I don't think this time it's going to have much impact. No one seems interested in what Theresa May is worth.gilsey wrote:I haven't actually seen Corbyn's tax return, but there is a section for 'other UK income' on the same page as pensions etc., income from employment is a separate page. I'd be surprised if it's wrong because they'll have plenty of advice in house to get it right, even if he doesn't use an accountant. No practical effect at all anyway.Willow904 wrote: The whole point about tax transparency is a good one, but Corbyn really has created an uphill battle for himself with the stange allocation of his extra money for leader of the opposition as a pension/annuity/state benefit. If only May published hers, we could compare and see if the extra money for an enhanced MP role is, indeed, in the right place!
The UK already gives EU nationals preferential treatment over non-EU nationals, has reciprocal migrationGovernment should pursue preferential agreement with EU on future migration
"Offering preferential treatment to EU nationals compared to non-EU nationals in the UK's future immigration regime could increase the likelihood of securing
reciprocal preferential treatment for UK nationals in the EU and improve the prospects achieving the UK's objectives on access to the Single Market, says the
EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee in its report published today.
It could...improve the prospects of achieving the UK's objectives on access to the Single Market.
The restoration of national control over EU migration may or may not deliver a reduction in overall net migration. We note that until June 2016, net migration
to the UK from outside the EU was consistently higher than EU migration, even though the relevant policy levers are already under national control."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... le-report/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nothing sinister - financial amounts are rarely quoted directly in acts of Parliament. If they were, the Act would have to be amended when amounts were changed. Much easier just to update a schedule to the Act.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jolyon Maugham quotes this from the relevant Act. It's salary, not that it makes any difference to the tax paid (deducted at source).
Somebody suggests that the salary, if quoted as such might have sounded too much.
I suggest Theresa May is worth rather less than a pile of beans.Willow904 wrote:I think the problem is with the way the tax return has been presented to the public than with Corbyn's actual tax return. As some people have observed, publishing tax returns probably works better when everyone does it, in an agreed format which is comprehensible to most people. It may have been a useful gimmick against Cameron, as he was under pressure over his wealthy background more generally and with the Panama papers and such like. Unfortunately, I don't think this time it's going to have much impact. No one seems interested in what Theresa May is worth.gilsey wrote:I haven't actually seen Corbyn's tax return, but there is a section for 'other UK income' on the same page as pensions etc., income from employment is a separate page. I'd be surprised if it's wrong because they'll have plenty of advice in house to get it right, even if he doesn't use an accountant. No practical effect at all anyway.Willow904 wrote: The whole point about tax transparency is a good one, but Corbyn really has created an uphill battle for himself with the stange allocation of his extra money for leader of the opposition as a pension/annuity/state benefit. If only May published hers, we could compare and see if the extra money for an enhanced MP role is, indeed, in the right place!
I think Maugham's point is that the Leader of the Opposition's emolument is listed as a salary in principle there. He thinks that "benefits" is for Incapacity Benefit etc.Eric_WLothian wrote:Nothing sinister - financial amounts are rarely quoted directly in acts of Parliament. If they were, the Act would have to be amended when amounts were changed. Much easier just to update a schedule to the Act.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jolyon Maugham quotes this from the relevant Act. It's salary, not that it makes any difference to the tax paid (deducted at source).
Somebody suggests that the salary, if quoted as such might have sounded too much.
Ah - my misinterpretation. I thought the 'somebody' was suggesting that the act was being devious by not quoting figures in the text.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I think Maugham's point is that the Leader of the Opposition's emolument is listed as a salary in principle there. He thinks that "benefits" is for Incapacity Benefit etc.Eric_WLothian wrote:Nothing sinister - financial amounts are rarely quoted directly in acts of Parliament. If they were, the Act would have to be amended when amounts were changed. Much easier just to update a schedule to the Act.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jolyon Maugham quotes this from the relevant Act. It's salary, not that it makes any difference to the tax paid (deducted at source).
Somebody suggests that the salary, if quoted as such might have sounded too much.
Nice to see you.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So a good while has passed since Copeland and I thought it useful to list all of the actions Jeremy has taken to rescue the situation and get the party back on track to challenge at the next election.
Right, having done that, let's ask another question. Who the fuck is running his press operation and are they still employed this evening?
What should have been a simple good news story, showing up Hammond and May on tax transparency descends into total farce.
Why wasn't it released to all media outlets? If he had done something odd in his declaration why didn't it come with explanatory notes? Why did it take an entire day to get an explanation in place?
We can all take, or not take lessons from Foot's electoral annihilation and we will probably disagree on many of those views. But surely the one thing we can agree on is that it showed the need for a fully professional media team.
Complaining that The Cabinet Office didn't handle the press for you is a spectacular failure to take responsibility.
I welcome and appreciate your contributions here, thank you. I need to learn. Consider the possibility we're dealing with a whole new level of media subterfuge. A media altered and more nefarious than endured by Miliband's Labour party leadership time. I'm not attempting evasion of responsibilities. I need an effective Labour government in leadership ASAP You know me. I don't watch or listen to much media. I try reading from the source. Are allegations of Cabinet Office failing Labour preposterous? Genuine question, I don't know. Please don't hesitate to let me know my suggestion are likely not true.TechnicalEphemera wrote:So a good while has passed since Copeland and I thought it useful to list all of the actions Jeremy has taken to rescue the situation and get the party back on track to challenge at the next election.
Right, having done that, let's ask another question. Who the fuck is running his press operation and are they still employed this evening?
What should have been a simple good news story, showing up Hammond and May on tax transparency descends into total farce.
Why wasn't it released to all media outlets? If he had done something odd in his declaration why didn't it come with explanatory notes? Why did it take an entire day to get an explanation in place?
We can all take, or not take lessons from Foot's electoral annihilation and we will probably disagree on many of those views. But surely the one thing we can agree on is that it showed the need for a fully professional media team.
Complaining that The Cabinet Office didn't handle the press for you is a spectacular failure to take responsibility.
(cJA edit)Willow904 wrote:No one seems interested in what Theresa May is worth.
TE it's about as long as the list of alternative candidates for Labour leader isn't it?TechnicalEphemera wrote:So a good while has passed since Copeland and I thought it useful to list all of the actions Jeremy has taken to rescue the situation and get the party back on track to challenge at the next election.
Hello - lovely to see you.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:TE it's about as long as the list of alternative candidates for Labour leader isn't it?TechnicalEphemera wrote:So a good while has passed since Copeland and I thought it useful to list all of the actions Jeremy has taken to rescue the situation and get the party back on track to challenge at the next election.
Are you thinking of standing? Clearly you are much better than Corbyn, but sadly I haven't spotted you on the ballot paper previously.
Is it? I would have no idea as I don't have an FT subscription and the URL us just a bunch of letters and numbers.SpinningHugo wrote:Some cheery news
https://www.ft.com/content/2bc62cb8-004 ... e3738f9ae4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[youtube]UPw-3e_pzqU[/youtube]Tubby Isaacs wrote:Thanks. Appreciated your input the other day, as ever.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hello there Tubby - knew you would be back before too long
Hi PF thanks for the reply.PorFavor wrote:Hello - lovely to see you.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:TE it's about as long as the list of alternative candidates for Labour leader isn't it?TechnicalEphemera wrote:So a good while has passed since Copeland and I thought it useful to list all of the actions Jeremy has taken to rescue the situation and get the party back on track to challenge at the next election.
Are you thinking of standing? Clearly you are much better than Corbyn, but sadly I haven't spotted you on the ballot paper previously.
Anyway.
I don't think that the lack of better contenders is necessariy a validation, or even a defence, of the actions (or otherwise) of the incumbent. If Jeremy Corbyn isn't the "best" (ie better than any possible rivals) on offer why not simply go for "different" on the basis of a change being as good as a rest?
True. But Cameron promised to publish his tax returns, to get himself out of a tight spot on the higher rate tax cut, so as long as he was PM and still hadn't fulfilled his promise it was well worth chasing up. Nothing wrong with Corbyn continuing with the tax transparency, I just don't think it is going to put May under any pressure. She has never offered to publish her tax returns as far as I'm aware and can probably comfortably get away with ignoring any suggestions she should do so, I suspect.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)Willow904 wrote:No one seems interested in what Theresa May is worth.
Why not? Why isn't privileged, wealthy, Tory leadership indignantly and loudly chastised over their budgetary choices favouring wealthy people while the least well off suffer greater deprivation and humiliation? Rhetorical question.
Hi TubbyTubby Isaacs wrote:Hello, Paul. Nice to see you.
This is good news, and the right thing to do.HindleA wrote:Here:-FT article
"Carbon emissions have fallen to levels barely seen since the latter days of Queen Victoria after a collapse in the use of coal, new figures show.
Consumption of coal sank by a record 52 per cent in 2016 from the previous year as use of the fuel was pummelled by cheaper gas, higher domestic carbon prices, the spread of renewables and other environmental policies.
Coal has been a bedrock of UK power supply for more than 150 years and accounted for 23 per cent of the electricity mix as recently as two years ago.
But its share slid to just 9 per cent last year when it is estimated to have generated less electricity than wind farms for the first time.
Coal’s death spiral has come faster than expected. In November 2015, ministers announced plans to phase out coal power by 2025, and the UK may be closer to reaching its targets to cut climate-warming carbon pollution than previously thought.
Carbon emissions sank by 6 per cent to around 381m tonnes of CO2 in 2016, according to analysis by Carbon Brief, a British website that monitors climate change and energy developments.
That is the lowest level since 1894, apart from two years in the 1920s when widespread strikes hit industry across the country.
“It’s really quite surprising,” said Simon Evans, Carbon Brief analyst. “I imagine that when the government announced the coal phase-out in 2015, it did not expect to be so close to achieving that as it is already.”
Mr Evans’ analysis is based on provisional data from the UK energy department, which will publish its own carbon emission estimates at the end of March.
Before then, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, may unveil a decision in Wednesday’s Budget on the future of one of the main reasons for the drop in coal use: the carbon price floor.
This carbon tax doubled to £18 a tonne in April 2015 in a move that hit power plants that burn coal, which produces about twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generated as gas. The use of gas jumped last year as coal faded.
Heavy energy users argue the price floor hurts industry and should be scrapped but analysts say it has also been one of the most effective measures to drive coal from the mix of power sources.
“It’s been the killer blow for coal in the past 18 months to two years,” said Peter Atherton of the Cornwall Energy consultancy. “It’s really changed the economics for it.”
The UK is legally obliged to cut its overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050, under the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Greenhouse gases had already fallen 38 per cent by 2015 but the Carbon Brief analysis suggests that they have been as much as 42 per cent lower in 2016."
I made my point badly. Tory leadership aren't held to the same standards as Labour. One rule for one set of people and another rule for others isn't wholesome.Willow904 wrote:True. But Cameron promised to publish his tax returns, to get himself out of a tight spot on the higher rate tax cut, so as long as he was PM and still hadn't fulfilled his promise it was well worth chasing up. Nothing wrong with Corbyn continuing with the tax transparency, I just don't think it is going to put May under any pressure. She has never offered to publish her tax returns as far as I'm aware and can probably comfortably get away with ignoring any suggestions she should do so, I suspect.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)Willow904 wrote:No one seems interested in what Theresa May is worth.
Why not? Why isn't privileged, wealthy, Tory leadership indignantly and loudly chastised over their budgetary choices favouring wealthy people while the least well off suffer greater deprivation and humiliation? Rhetorical question.
Whatever happens now, what he has done is shift Labour towards its roots as a party supporting radical and fairer policies and maybe, in years to come, those who criticise him might just come to appreciate the positive impact he has had.
