Wednesday 10th June 2015
Posted: Wed 10 Jun, 2015 7:02 am
Good morning.
The only problem with PMQ is the PM. His aggressive, bullying, and evasive behaviour.
Onto it, rebecca. No I'm not, got other stuff to do, but you have prompted me to follow that up later... I'll even make a note to remind me. Thanks.rebeccariots2 wrote:Thank you Lady C. Good to know that many MEPs, and European citizens, are ready to fight TTIP. Why do we hear nothing about TTIP from Cameron and Osborne, eh? Be interesting to see how the press in other countries report on it - and compare to here.
Oh and morning.
Nadine Dorries faces challenge after general election smear campaign allegations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08790.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nadine Dorries is facing an extraordinary challenge to her parliamentary future after a rival candidate lodged an election petition claiming she had accused him of being a stalker and a “dangerous criminal”.
The Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire could lose her seat if the smear allegations contained in the election petition, which has been lodged at the High Court by the unsuccessful independent candidate Tim Ireland, are accepted by judges.
The document, which has been seen by The Independent, claims that in the run-up to the general election on 7 May, Ms Dorries attacked the “personal character and conduct” of Mr Ireland by levelling 14 separate “false accusations” against him through her Twitter account, internet blog and comments in the media.
Under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is illegal for anyone to make a “false statement of fact” in relation to an election candidate’s “personal character or conduct” – unless they can show they had “reasonable grounds” for believing it to be true....
Tim Ireland was instrumental in the uncovering of Grant Shapps' aliases ... Michael Green / Sebastian Fox and so on.... According to Mr Ireland’s document, she publicly accused him during the election campaign of stalking and harassing her “obsessively” for eight years, describing him as a criminal “who should be convicted and imprisoned”.
Ms Dorries also stated that the organised campaign of harassment waged against her by Mr Ireland, a 45-year-old writer and marketing consultant, was so serious that it had caused one of her female friends to go into “premature labour”, the court document claims...
In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.Sam Macrory @sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
John Mann @JohnMannMP 11m11 minutes ago
I am tabling a question to George Osborne today. Did he balance the books in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?
Extraordinary story. Shows just how incompetent and poor the Home Office systems are.Ian Dunt @IanDunt 41m41 minutes ago
Home Office Apologises For Threatening A Man Who’s Never Left The UK With Deportation http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/a- ... atened-wit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … via @BuzzFeed
Ian Dunt @IanDunt 39m39 minutes ago
I really am looking forward to the legal definition of normal times.
Ian Dunt @IanDunt 40m40 minutes ago
Is normal times when George Osborne isn't doing drugs?
Has he explained/clarified this yet....rebeccariots2 wrote:John Mann @JohnMannMP 11m11 minutes ago
I am tabling a question to George Osborne today. Did he balance the books in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goodsMargaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”
She may be in serious trouble there - Tim Ireland's no fool....maybe the first of many? (Tories found to have lied/obfuscated at the election, in the style of the Dear Leader TCBBAC)rebeccariots2 wrote:Nadine Dorries faces challenge after general election smear campaign allegations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08790.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nadine Dorries is facing an extraordinary challenge to her parliamentary future after a rival candidate lodged an election petition claiming she had accused him of being a stalker and a “dangerous criminal”.
The Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire could lose her seat if the smear allegations contained in the election petition, which has been lodged at the High Court by the unsuccessful independent candidate Tim Ireland, are accepted by judges.
The document, which has been seen by The Independent, claims that in the run-up to the general election on 7 May, Ms Dorries attacked the “personal character and conduct” of Mr Ireland by levelling 14 separate “false accusations” against him through her Twitter account, internet blog and comments in the media.
Under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is illegal for anyone to make a “false statement of fact” in relation to an election candidate’s “personal character or conduct” – unless they can show they had “reasonable grounds” for believing it to be true....Tim Ireland was instrumental in the uncovering of Grant Shapps' aliases ... Michael Green / Sebastian Fox and so on.... According to Mr Ireland’s document, she publicly accused him during the election campaign of stalking and harassing her “obsessively” for eight years, describing him as a criminal “who should be convicted and imprisoned”.
Ms Dorries also stated that the organised campaign of harassment waged against her by Mr Ireland, a 45-year-old writer and marketing consultant, was so serious that it had caused one of her female friends to go into “premature labour”, the court document claims...
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote:In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.Sam Macrory @sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
I'd agree with that as a tactic. I saw another tweet somewhere - can't remember where unfortunately - saying this was all part of the Tory strategy to define their enemy (Labour) before they had a chance to define themselves (leaderless drift so no clear statements of direction at present).Willow904 wrote:'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote:In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.Sam Macrory @sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
This is why the very last thing Labour should do right now is ape Tory economic policy, because the global economic crash has shown just how unsustainable Thatcherite trickle down economics are. Ed was just a little ahead of the curve in 2015, but public opinion will eventually move to his position that our economic model is broken. The one big message Labour need to get across to the public in response to Osborne's drive to run annual surpluses, is that these surpluses depend upon households taking on record amounts of debt. It's all there in the figures, the trebling of the rate in the rise of household debt has featured in articles in mainstream newspapers, it's an undeniable consequence of Osborne's plans, all Labour have to do is highlight it and keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.tinybgoat wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goodsMargaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
Heresy!
On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”
tinybgoat wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goodsMargaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
Heresy!
On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”
Many thanks, LadyCentauria. I've got it queued up & ready to view when I'm ready.LadyCentauria wrote:citizenJA will be interested in the Westminster Hall debate secured by Diane Abbott, called Air Pollution in London. Although it concentrates on London/Greater London, it also touches upon the air quality of the whole country. This year, Oxford Street exceeded its annual limit on pollution within the first four days. This is not a competition we want to be winning! Diane's is the first debate of Tuesday morning's session and you can watch it, or choose audio only, here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde ... b3671ba685" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You're a 21st century Galileo observing reality.Lonewolfie wrote:tinybgoat wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goodsMargaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
Heresy!
On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”
In a sense, I suppose, it's nice to see this written down - however, it was pointed out loud and clear at the time and has been said continually ever since - but of course, after the full take-over of the MSM (except the BBC until 2002/3 (again, I believe(TM)) there is and can be NO OTHER WAY and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT until you've either gone away or given up. (I, for one, will never give up, however)
Also, what happened to the proceeds from North Sea oil? - at one point Britain was the 8th highest producer of oil in the world...and don't forget - income tax at 33%/NHS 4% of GDP etc (but very little other tax - VAT etc) and the 6th happiest nation on earth...all because of the post-war consensus arrived at by those who had actually done something real and tangible for the benefit of all people - which is, of course, anathema to the likes of the Thatcherite-RayGunite-Murkydochian cabal...'how the very dare ordinary people think they have rights'.
Although, the real root of the current malaise is here (I believe(TM))...
"The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed".
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm
...so we've ended up with 'fiat' money...
Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
...so, if 'money' is created by Government decree, how can that Government then 'run out' of it? (Rhetorical - austerity is now, was then and always will be a lie to serve the purpose of persecution and subjugation of the masses - and in Gidiots' case , to feed his perversion of making things as difficult as possible for as many (other) people as possible)
ttfn
(my edit)Willow904 wrote:...Ed was just a little ahead of the curve in 2015, but public opinion will eventually move to his position that our economic model is broken. The one big message Labour need to get across to the public in response to Osborne's drive to run annual surpluses, is that these surpluses depend upon households taking on record amounts of debt. It's all there in the figures, the trebling of the rate in the rise of household debt has featured in articles in mainstream newspapers, it's an undeniable consequence of Osborne's plans, all Labour have to do is highlight it and keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.
(my edit)Willow904 wrote:
...keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.
Dave Miliband's choice of tie was nice - just this side of silly & entirely appropriate - throws charisma junkies into a tailspin, funky ties on someone they'd prefer not funky.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Media fawning yet again over serial failure D Miliband's banal and uninsightful comments this morning. Ugh.
Yes, I know. Forward to 2007, everyone! After all, that's Progress . . . .AnatolyKasparov wrote:Media fawning yet again over serial failure D Miliband's banal and uninsightful comments this morning. Ugh.
(my bold)rebeccariots2 wrote:I'd agree with that as a tactic. I saw another tweet somewhere - can't remember where unfortunately - saying this was all part of the Tory strategy to define their enemy (Labour) before they had a chance to define themselves (leaderless drift so no clear statements of direction at present).Willow904 wrote:'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well done on 2000 posts, PorFavor
Talking of whom, did you see the other day Swinney telling Osborne that the fiscal rules actually allowed for a £93bn increase in public spending?But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Its possible that Bennett didn't because she is pretty thick, tbh - I have little doubt Lucas did, though.Tubby Isaacs wrote:Talking of whom, did you see the other day Swinney telling Osborne that the fiscal rules actually allowed for a £93bn increase in public spending?But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
What happened to "voting for £30bn of Tory cuts"?
If there was one thing that pissed me off in the last Parliament, it was that lie. All the minor parties did- perhaps the Greens genuinely didn't understand, but the SNP sure did.
Liars.
Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.Willow904 wrote:'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote:In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.Sam Macrory @sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
Thank you for the link, sincerely, though I disagree with author's premise - that is - people, readers of the media, dictate the news read rather than the news dictating to people. Apologies for clumsy word, 'dictating', 'influencing' is too mild, but it's probably a better adjective. I do think I've summed up the position the author takes - please let me know your thoughts.GetYou wrote:Good morafterning all.
I found this article (and the linked stuff) on the influence of the media in the election quite interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/08 ... _election/
I disagree with quite of lot of it, as I do with a lot of Tim's articles, but he is always thought provoking.
Apologies if someone's already posted a link to it (it's quite old, from the day after the election).
tinybgoat wrote:Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.Willow904 wrote:'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment.
Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage.
It's not just bollocks, it's Osbollocks!
Tinyboat should be Chancellor."...surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost. Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment. Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage."
- tinyboat
Osbornomics, Thatcherism MkII or whatever, what level of understanding can we expect from two little rich kids? Thatch herself was the progeny of a small businessman who had a hands-on approach from what I'd heard, so like her kiddies didn't have to. Cash flow, investment for the future, wtf are they? Mummy and Daddy always had enough without bothering oneself with trivialities. Much better to fixate on imaginary household budgets. That's how the economy works; for me and my mates, that is.tinybgoat wrote:Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.Willow904 wrote:'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.
Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment.
Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage.
It's not just bollocks, it's Osbollocks!
Thanks, I think.Tinyboat should be Chancellor.
I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.Matt Chorley @MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The IOD seem to think they're going to raise the cost of visas. More than that...?rebeccariots2 wrote:I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.Matt Chorley @MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wonder what Cameron will propose as the answer to the problem he's just woken up to?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/116 ... ially.html
BBC could be forced by law to cover EU referendum impartially
MPs have amended the European Union Referendum Bill to appoint an independent “impartiality adjudicator” to rule on alleged broadcasting bias during the campaign
Sheesh - the Bedroom Tax meets 'the principle of fairness'.Rob Merrick @Rob_Merrick 2h2 hours ago
Minister @MattHancockMP rules out #BedroomTax U-turn - says meets "principle of fairness" (Cam claimed scrapping it would cost £1bn) #wato
Only if you want to be Chancellor, I should have said.tinybgoat wrote:CitizenJAThanks, I think.Tinyboat should be Chancellor.
Don't think I'd enjoy that, or be good at it.
but I did have a job folding maps once,
think that's hopefully only similarity
Anne Begg retweeted
Paul @Paul1Singh 1h1 hour ago
So the SNP MEPs didn't turn up to vote on TTIP in EU. The right won by 2 votes and so there will be no debate, Stronger for Scotland indeed
Ann McKechin retweeted
Catherine Stihler @C_Stihler_MEP 9h9 hours ago
Tories vote for postponement, Labour votes for TTIP debate and the SNP are not present. Right win vote by 2 votes. Now no debate on TTIP.
Dave's government actions don't match his words.refitman wrote:The IOD seem to think they're going to raise the cost of visas. More than that...?rebeccariots2 wrote:I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.Matt Chorley @MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I wonder what Cameron will propose as the answer to the problem he's just woken up to?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... c326f2d2f8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
REGISTER OF SPONSORS (Tier 4)
Date: 10-June-2015
Register of Licensed Sponsors
This is a list of institutions licensed to sponsor migrants under Tier 4 of the points-based system.
It shows the organisation's name (in alphabetical order), the sub tier(s)
they are licensed for, and their rating against each sub tier.
Legacy sponsors cannot sponsor any new students.
For further information about the content of this register,
please refer to the Tier 4 guidance for sponsors on the GOV.UK website.
No. of Sponsors Licensed under Tier 4: 1,526
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... onsors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
REGISTER OF SPONSORS (Tiers 2 & 5 and Sub Tiers Only)
DATE: 10-June-2015
Register of Sponsors Licensed Under the Points-based System
This is a list of organisations licensed to sponsor migrants under Tiers 2 & 5 of the Points-Based System.
It shows the organisation's name (in alphabetical order), the sub tier(s) they are licensed for, and their rating against each sub tier.
A sponsor may be licensed under more than one tier, and may have different ratings for each tier.
No. of Sponsors on Register Licensed under Tiers 2 and 5: 29,239
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... onsors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;