Climate Change Act ? Exactly. Labour has always struggled with the difference between "investment" and "spending (other people's money)". Wealth has to be created before it can be used for good causes.
thing is, if you follow petes logic, their shouldn't even be an opposition. why you shouldn't have a Westminster lord with no relevant experience. Scots slam 'indefensible' decision to limit CAP cash | News | Farmers Guardian money earmarked for farmers north of the boarder. if you watched the farce tonight, why conservatives struggle with truth over deception.
Bizarre post. What on earth could you mean by "Pete's logic"? And whatever it is, why on earth would it mean there "shouldn't even be an opposition"? Or is this just one of your usual wind-ups?
How quickly the SNP has forgotten what the result of the referendum was: just to remind you, it was NO to independence. That means Scotland remains part of the UK, and will not become an independent country. It is the UK which is an EU member state, and the UK government which conducts all dealings with the EU. That is not going to change. Alex Salmonds posturings about this serve only to make him look ridiculous, not to say a poor loser. safe guarding our interest (Britain's as well actually seing as the majority of fish are landed from Scottish waters ) should be left to an appropriate minister or other suitably qualified person. No?
An appropriate minister is necessarily a minister of the UK government, since it is the UK which is a member state of the EU. There is no basis whatever for anyone nominated by the First Minister of Scotland to have any standing in meetings of the Council of Ministers, as everybody knows full well especially Alec Salmond. Trying to pretend that Scotland is an independent country which could send ministers to EU meetings is just idiotic political posturing - although it is mildly entertaining, I must say. Since UK ministers are of course Conservatives or LibDems at present, it is just business as usual for another party (in this case the SNP) to allege that they are incompetent, unqualified, etc etc.
are the snp in opposition? bearing in mind they have seats in Westminster, is it not correct for opposition to criticize/scrutinize the ruling party's? whats your personal thoughts on sending an unqualified Westminster lord, (i have to assume he is unqualified)as i haven't heard any thing different to do this job. and looking at the bigger picture can you see how this sort of decision fuels the fire. But it was about Europe and the uk and the people that make the decisions in Europe. not Scotland .
You'd have thought that having lost a referendum you'd pipe down for a few years. Perhaps Mr. Salmond is not of this view.
Perhaps Mr Salmond is trying to create an independent Scotland by stealth. Unfortunately that's a bit like trying to sneak off with the Albert Hall stone by stone. No matter how stealthy you are, people are going to notice and you will get your collar felt.
wow, not like you to miss an opportunity to have a pop at an unelected receiver of swollen goods messing around in the great power house of dirty deeds, just because it was highlighted by a Scotsman don't make it any less credible.
Milliband will never be PM. You could not send him abroad as the UKs representative. As for Cameron sending an unelected peer. He is totally wrong. How many people here who own businesses or run teams would send the person with little knowledge or experience instead of someone better qualified. Cameron is putting party politics ahead of the interests of the people he is supposed to represent. He is not head of the UK to represent English Tory voters, he is paid to represent everyone. No wonder we all think he is a total wanker.
Don't forget blackmail....."Scottish farmers, if you vote yes, we will withdraw your food safety accreditation and you won't be able to sell your produce to the rest of the EU"
In the UK, a government consists of 20-odd cabinet ministers and 80-odd junior ministers. They are all members of either the Commons or the Lords, and nearly all senior ministers are MP's nowadays. Each department of state has a small team of ministers, which must include one who can speak for that department in the Lords. Government ministers are rarely appointed on the basis of having any special knowledge of the subject matter of their department, and minsters are frequently reshuffled from one ministry to another. Why would you imagine a minister dealing with fishing should know anything about fishing? Minsters dealing with prisons don't have to know anything about prisons; ministers dealing with healthcare don't have to know anything about healthcare; etc etc. Ministers are not experts, and have never been required to be. All departments employ experts, but they are not ministers. When the UK government sends a minister to represent to UK at an EU Council of Ministers meeting with minsters from the other 27 member states, it must always and necessarily send a UK government minister. The notion of sending someone who is not a UK government minister is totally impossible - it cannot happen. The SNP proposing that some person nominated by the SNP could go is so patently preposterous that it is obviously just a cheap stunt. I'm no friend of David Cameron, but that criticism of him is sheer misunderstanding.
i don't doubt that's the way its done but to defend it? that's the unbelievable part. i guess that's another reason why a lot of people north and south of the boarder cant stand politicians. some people don't seem to understand the old way is in fact the wrong way.
Experts in policy areas are hardly ever elected to office, and the people who win elections are hardly ever experts. You seem to have contradicted yourself on this issue, so come on then, make your mind up - what do you prefer: Experts who are unelected? Or elected politicians who are non-experts?
good but no cigar pete, you will find no contradiction in my last statement. if you can point out the contradiction for me i will try and explain. now regarding what i would prefer, i guess that would be an elected minister with the appropriate experience obviously. with just as much to lose than the people he/she or industry they seeks to represent.
In theory: We elect MPs in part because we want the right people in charge of picking the right experts for a given task. We vote for politicians because "experts" don't run for office, generally speaking and I suspect they would be rubbish at public office anyway. Experts are the people that politicians choose to inform policy, formulate plans, etc. As anyone in regular contact with experts knows, experts are pretty useless outside of their immediate field of expertise (when they are not busy being useless within it).
does a tory appointed lord (position for life) have the relevant experience to appoint an expert would be the natural response? kind of goes back to the general distrust of westminster, could be a damned if you do damned if you don't type gig. there was a candidate offered which covered the remit but hayho . hence westminster has to go.
