Politika u UK

[hazard]

Pridodali su im 2 poslanika UUPa i još ovog 1 "other"?

 

edit: sad vidim, taj other je independent koji je bivši UUP, tako da su de fakto 3 UUP dodata na 9-seat majority samih konzervativaca, dakle 12

Edited May 12, 2015 by hazard

[MancMellow]

aha, ok

[Eraserhead]

Dobar :D

https://twitter.com/50ShadesOfTory
 

[MancMellow]

Najeveci crnjaci su za IDS-a :D

[Budja]

Inspirisan Makedonijom, duplim standardima, postovanjem demokratije i tako to, The Economist je prevazisao samog sebe resivsi da suspenduje demokratiju u UK.

 

O Kameronu i referendumu.

 

 

Europe is especially dangerous for the Conservatives. Under pressure from Eurosceptics in his party, Mr Cameron promised to spend two years renegotiating Britain’s place in the EU before holding an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. Setting such a firm deadline was foolish: there is a real risk that, in the mid-term doldrums, British voters will sever their country’s relationship with its most important trading partner. But Mr Cameron has no option but to stick with it.

The difficulty will be calibrating Britain’s demands. Ask for too much and he will come home empty-handed. Win too little from Brussels and he will lose too many of his own party for his government to survive. He should avoid all talk of treaty change (which European governments are unlikely to countenance) and focus instead on cutting red tape, extending the single market and cracking down on welfare tourism. Then he should spin every slight achievement as a mighty victory.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650722-conservatives-have-triumphed-polls-governing-will-be-much-harder-cam-again

 

Dakle, nista "could", "would", "might" nego jedno normativno "should".

 

Prezir prema gradjanima.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Budja

[MancMellow]

Andy Burnham, glavni kandidat za sledećeg lidera Laburista je odlučio da partiju ne povede ni ka centru na ka levici.

 

Nego ka desnici.

 

 

 

Glavna pitanja su deficit i imigracija. Nadam se da će izabrati nekog drugog, mada teško. 

[Budja]

Ma, nema od toga nista.

 

Gundjaju kako su izgubili usled odsustva vizije i tako to a propustaju da vide ogromne takticke greske, citam The Guardian i svi guslaju isto i niko da pomene da ih je i u Skotskoj i u Engleskoj sjebala zajednicka pred-referendumska kampanja sa Torijima.

 

Sad, da ponovimo:

1. Zajednicka kampanja je single handedly podigla YES vote sa 30 na 40%.

2. Da je nije bilo ni pretnja otcepljenjem ne bi bila velika.

3. LAB bi se pokazali i dokazali kao ONE nation stranka koja ujedinjuje a referendumska kampanja bi im dala priliku za efektnu izbornu kampanju jer Tories ne bi imali sta da traze sami u Skotskoj.

4. Dalo bi im zamajac za parlamentarne izbore.

 

 

I pri tome, opet, aman-zaman, uzimaju strah od SNPa kao nesto zadato, nepromenljivo cemu se treba prilagoditi a ne nesto sto se menja kampanjom.

[MancMellow]

Zato je sad ideja da zajedno sa Tory desnicom kritikuju Camerona ako ne izbori dovoljno dobar ugovor po UK. Taman da deo glasaca ode Libdemsima, a u Skotskoj da ne predju 10%. A ideja da se dokazu kao ekonomski odgovorna stranka je jos pljuvanja ekonomske politike 2005-2010, posto ce glasaci valjda skapirati da ako tad nisu znali da je vode, onda ce sigurno u sledecem mandatu umeti. Facepalm. 

[Budja]

Zato je sad ideja da zajedno sa Tory desnicom kritikuju Camerona ako ne izbori dovoljno dobar ugovor po UK. Taman da deo glasaca ode Libdemsima, a u Skotskoj da ne predju 10%. A ideja da se dokazu kao ekonomski odgovorna stranka je jos pljuvanja ekonomske politike 2005-2010, posto ce glasaci valjda skapirati da ako tad nisu znali da je vode, onda ce sigurno u sledecem mandatu umeti. Facepalm. 

 

Ah, to je pametna ideja da se zadrzi napredovanje UKIPa tako sto ce se preuzeti njihova politika. To moze da fercera za konzerve u njihovoj viziji ali za LAB nidje veze.

[MancMellow]

Ah, to je pametna ideja da se zadrzi napredovanje UKIPa tako sto ce se preuzeti njihova politika. 

 

Odakle li mi je to poznato :D

[Takeshi]

frankie boyle o zavrsenim izborima. savrsen pregled.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NXwJQKeXI8

[Dr Arslanagić]

 

“Woke up beside half a can of Tennents and a full pizza and more money than I came out with. I call that a success!”

 

Mhairi Black MP (@mhairi1921) | Twitter

 

 

 

Smashing the incumbent Labour candidate by winning 51 per cent of the vote was the only possibly way forward from here.

 

:0.6:

[Budja]

Andy Burnham, glavni kandidat za sledećeg lidera Laburista je odlučio da partiju ne povede ni ka centru na ka levici.

 

Nego ka desnici.

 

 

 

Glavna pitanja su deficit i imigracija. Nadam se da će izabrati nekog drugog, mada teško. 

 

 

Ali ga zato zdesna napada Liz Kendall. Bog te jebo, koji brod mediokriteta.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/21/liz-kendall-labour-leadership-election

 

 

Liz Kendall: Labour must ditch 'fantasy' that Britain has moved to the left

Leadership candidate criticises Ed Miliband’s policies such as freezing energy prices and says she would back free schools that deliver

Labour leadership candidate Liz Kendall has warned the party not to cling to the “fantasy” that Britain has swung to the left, as she backed successful free schools and pledged to fight defence cuts.

Kendall, who is now the bookies’ second favourite to win behind Andy Burnham, ditched a number of the former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s policies at a lunch with journalists in Westminster on Thursday.

In a speech and Q&A session, Kendall did not hold back in criticising the party’s position going into the general election earlier this month.

Referring to the senior Labour MP Ed Balls losing his seat of Morley and Outwood, she said: “We lost our shadow chancellor ... but most people thought we had lost our balls before the election.”

The MP for Leicester West has previously made it clear that she would reverse Miliband’s opposition to holding an EU referendum and disagreed with his claims that Labour did not overspend the last time it was in power.

In a further distancing from his policies, Kendall said Miliband’s energy price freeze had not been believable, that she would not prioritise cutting tuition fees and the party should back any successful school, regardless of its structure.

She also argued the contest “cannot be about who the general secretaries say impresses them the most”, following reports that the trade unions have been pressurising Labour MPs to back Burnham.

There is a possibility Burnham and the other leading candidate, Yvette Cooper, may get so many nominations from Labour MPs that Kendall fails to achieve the support of 15% of the parliamentary party and does not make it on to the ballot. Those who reach the shortlist are then put to a vote of Labour supporters.

Kendall described the party’s losses as epic and warned Labour that it does not “have a god-given right to exist”, so will have to win people’s trust back.

Her key argument was that Labour deluded itself about the country having shifted to the left.

She said: “We decided the British public had shifted to the left because we wished it to be so. We rarely said what was good about our last government and never dealt with the central case of our opponents about where we really fell short.

“We didn’t have answers to the big questions that people were asking about jobs, immigration and public finances. Lots of people told me they couldn’t see Ed as prime minister. But we didn’t lose because of his personality. We lost because of our politics.”

Kendall rejected the idea that she should be labelled a Blairite but accepted that she would like to be known as a modernising candidate.

She said she was firmly on the side of wealth creation and public service reform, as well as making clear that she would like the government to stick to the Nato target of spending 2% of national income on defence regardless of the cuts that this could entail elsewhere.

“When it comes to public services, I am firmly on the side of the public,” Kendall said. “Services should revolve around those who use them and be fit for the future, not stuck in the past. There is no point saying you believe in economic responsbility and being careful with taxpayers money if public services are a reform-free zone.”

She said Labour needed to apply its values to how the world is now, not how the party wants the world to be.

Kendall said: “When Labour loses we do one of three things. We decide we didn’t win because we weren’t leftwing enough: fantasy. We decide we can avoid the really tough decisions because they are too uncomfortable: a fudge. Or we decide that winning is too important.”

She said she thought it was an interesting idea that whoever wins the leadership contest should face a second test two years before the next election.

[MancMellow]

Potpuni krah - Škotska, EU referendum, imigracija - reći da lutaju je understatement. 

 

Trebalo je samo maaaalčice da se pomere ka centru, a oni ruše sve živo. Mislim, big businesses odraše usta od propagiranja ostanka u EU maltene po svaku cenu. Jel ste hteli da ne kontrirate njima? Evo prilike, i to sasvim u skladu sa partijskom politikom. Ali ne, UKIP nam je pojeo nešto sigurnih glasova i sad ćemo sve da grunemo naopačke da nas majka ne prepozna. Škotska - niko nema odgovor. Tj jedini odgovor je imao Hunt u vidu totalne devolucije na svim nivoima, i unutar Engleske, ali on se povukao. Jebote, sad mi se on čini kao najbolji kandidat...

[Prospero]

oops a daisy

 

Bank of England accidentally emails Brexit taskforce plans to newspaper

 

Central bank has set up a taskforce, led by Sir John Cunliffe, to look at the effect a UK exit from the European Union would have on our economy

 

By Andrew Trotman

 

7:45PM BST 22 May 2015

 

 

The Bank of England has accidentally revealed that it has set up a taskforce to look at how a UK exit from the European Union will affect the economy.

 

"Project Bookend" - as the Bank has dubbed the initiative - will be led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, deputy governor and a board member at the Prudential Regulatory Authority.

 

However, it is how the plans have been revealed that will cause embarrassment at the central bank.

 

Details of the taskforce, as well as how Bank officials should deal with media questions regarding a "Brexit", were accidentally emailed to The Guardian.

The email was sent from Sir Jon's secretary to four senior executives at the Bank - Iain de Weymarn, Governor Mark Carney's private secretary; Nicola Anderson, head of risk assessment in the financial stability department; Phil Evans, director of the international division; and Jenny Scott, executive director communications. However, it was also accidentally forwarded to an editor at The Guardian.

 

It states that Project Bookend is not to be mentioned to anyone outside the taskforce, which also includes James Talbot, the head of the monetary assessment and strategy division.

“Jon’s proposal, which he has asked me to highlight to you, is that no email is sent to James’s team or more broadly around the Bank about the project.

“James can tell his team that he is working on a short-term project on European economics in International [division] which will last a couple of months. This will be in-depth work on a broad range of European economic issues. Ideally he would then say no more.”

It also gives a recommended answer that Bank staff should give any reporters asking about the project.

News firms should be told “that there is a lot going on in Europe in the next couple of months – pointing to some of the specific European economic issues (eg: Greece) that would be of concern to the Bank”.

 

In a statement, the Bank said: "Today, information related to planned confidential Bank work on the potential implications of a renegotiation and national referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union made its way into the public domain, due to an internal email sent inadvertently to an external party.

"It should not come as a surprise that the Bank is undertaking such work about a stated government policy. There are a range of economic and financial issues that arise in the context of the renegotiation and national referendum. It is one of the Bank’s responsibilities to assess those that relate to its objectives.

"It is not sensible to talk about this work publicly, in advance. But as with work done prior to the Scottish referendum, we will disclose the details of such work at the appropriate time.

"While it is unfortunate that this information has entered the public domain in this way, the Bank will maintain this approach."

 

...