toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Firstly, congrats on writing this out. A budget is always long and hard word for any government and you don't always have the right people to do it. So good effort! :yy:

Now, I have just two quetsions (for now.)

1) How many jobs would go with the closure of the The DfID?

2) Also, why has nothing be said about the budget for Defense?
With regards to DfID closure, it would depend on how we administered the cut to the new FCO incorporating DfID. I'm hoping to make the cuts to the FCO with as few job losses as possible i.e asset sales etc.
0
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Rakas is on the record as not having any respect for Wales, so pull the other one.
Why should anyone care for Wales? it is after all part of the Kingdom of England which then joined the Kingdom of Scotland to create Great Britain... maybe if Wales was its own Kingdom to start with and joined the Union via treaty, more people would respect it however it it hasn't and thus it is not.
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by tehFrance)
Why should anyone care for Wales? it is after all part of the Kingdom of England which then joined the Kingdom of Scotland to create Great Britain... maybe if Wales was its own Kingdom to start with and joined the Union via treaty, more people would respect it however it it hasn't and thus it is not.
What has a nation's medieval status got to do with respecting a nation and its people in the twenty-first century? Rakas has been dismissive both of Wales' status as a nation and its native language, which is far older than either English or French as it happens.

And this lack of respect (or care, to use your terms) has quite clearly spilled into the bills that the Conservative Party are putting forward. Birchington, above, welcomes the demolition of the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland offices following on from devolution. Fair enough, except if this house recognises devolution then your education bill is null and void since education is devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Michael Gove can no more change the curriculum for schools in Cardiff, Derry and Edinburgh than can your party on here, if this house recognises devolution. If we do not, then this budget bill comes into sticky ground. As I said above, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland have roles akin to a governor-general of one of the former Dominions of the Empire. In Scotland, they oversee the separate systems of governance and distinct legislation relating to Scotland is typically put forward in their name. The same goes for Northern Ireland since both jurisdictions have separate legal systems. Scotland, of course, having the greater distinction. The Secretary of State for Wales, too, has significant powers if this House does not recognise devolution. They are responsible for the Welsh education system (which is distinct) and the Welsh language to name the main ones. Ministers of State have not the power of responsibility to undertake the tasks which would fall on them were the Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland offices to be abolished. To relegate each nation to the status of 'local government' smacks of something quite unsavoury. As to the Minister of State for English Affairs - hah, you have a whole parliament dedicated to English Affairs. You even have a Prime Minister (both here and in real life) who can see no further than England as the locus of power.

This place once had quite a mature attitude towards the other parts of the United Kingdom besides England. It's disheartening to see that regress to the stage where people are simply dismissive, even vindicitively dismissive, of the rights of all peoples to govern themselves in a manner they see fit. Like it or not, the Welsh are not the English. We think differently. We act differently. We create differently. Whether or not there was a Kingdom called Cymru in the High Middle Ages is irrelevant to those truths.
2
reply
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
What has a nation's medieval status
Since when was 1700's the middle ages? :holmes: Wales was (and still is) not a separate country to England and has been part of the Kingdom of England that formed with Scotland to create Great Britain... personally, I don't recognise Wales as separate... by all means have devolution but don't expect special treatment.
0
reply
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by davidmarsh01)
What cost of pollution is incurred by motorists? Do you cover the costs for the upkeep of the pavements you no doubt use? Yep, I voted for the carbon tax bill, but on reflection I wish I hadn't. It could easily put companies out of business or move away from the UK, and I didn't realise that you'd increased fuel duty by quite as much as you did.
Individual motorists are responsible for the amount of oil they use, ergo they should pay for the cost of whatever effects using that oil has. 1 metric tonne of green house gas costs the ecosystem £30 worth of damage, that should be reflected in the price of fuel. And increasing fuel duty by 15% has been matched by a 15% reduction in VAT. Consumers are probably better off than in real life, which is why I'm calling for a raise. Car emissions have remained stable for 20 years and we cannot tackle climate change without tackling that fact.

Paraplegics can drive, and I'd expect that you would have known that were you actually paraplegic.
Paraplegics are not one big happy group of people with the same problems, actually. My type of impairment thankfully isn't paralysis, it's a problem with the motor function of my nervous system, so I can walk with great effort and could probably operate a car for short distances (though would be terrified of, like, killing people). Though this is all irrelevant.
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by tehFrance)
Since when was 1700's the middle ages? :holmes: Wales was (and still is) not a separate country to England and has been part of the Kingdom of England that formed with Scotland to create Great Britain... personally, I don't recognise Wales as separate... by all means have devolution but don't expect special treatment.
The Acts of Union which combined the non-crown lands of Wales with the Kingdom of England (properly, the crown) took place over the course of 7 years after 1536. It has little to do with the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain following the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. The disposition of the last of the native Welsh princes took place during the reign of Edward I and was completed in the 1290s and the idea of a Principality of Wales (which continues to be used as a mark of Wales' lesser status) was created by Edward as a raspberry to native desire for independence. Prior to that there had been Welsh princes and Welsh kings. The oldest book of law in Wales, that of Hywel the Good, relates not to a principality but to the Kingdom of Deheubarth. Medieval status, indeed.

Wales has the least form of devolution of any part of the United Kingdom. I don't think anyone could describe that as special treatment...
0
reply
Mechie
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by JPKC)
Individual motorists are responsible for the amount of oil they use, ergo they should pay for the cost of whatever effects using that oil has. 1 metric tonne of green house gas costs the ecosystem £30 worth of damage, that should be reflected in the price of fuel. And increasing fuel duty by 15% has been matched by a 15% reduction in VAT. Consumers are probably better off than in real life, which is why I'm calling for a raise. Car emissions have remained stable for 20 years and we cannot tackle climate change without tackling that fact.
But petrol is expensive enough as it is, and it's vital to our whole economy, so increasing fuel duty is actually detrimental to the economy as a whole. While you don't drive (for whatever reason), it doesn't directly affect you as in you're paying the increased prices for fuel, it'll indirectly affect you by increasing haulage costs for goods, so the goods will increase in price to compensate for this. Also, the increased travel costs for a great number of motorists will mean that they have less money to spend on other things, thus not spending as much money to stimulate the economy.

While you brought up that Carbon Tax Bill, the place I work has reportedly made a £100M loss trying to implement environmental protection measures, do you think that's a good thing?

Paraplegics are not one big happy group of people with the same problems, actually. My type of impairment thankfully isn't paralysis, it's a problem with the motor function of my nervous system, so I can walk with great effort and could probably operate a car for short distances (though would be terrified of, like, killing people). Though this is all irrelevant.
Cool, but the point you were making is that drivers should pay for the impact of their action. Yep, I understand that, but that's not how the whole taxation system works. We don't tax healthcare on use, we don't take use of pavements on use (and I could go on) so why should we tax this by use?
0
reply
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by davidmarsh01)
But petrol is expensive enough as it is, and it's vital to our whole economy, so increasing fuel duty is actually detrimental to the economy as a whole. While you don't drive (for whatever reason), it doesn't directly affect you as in you're paying the increased prices for fuel, it'll indirectly affect you by increasing haulage costs for goods, so the goods will increase in price to compensate for this. Also, the increased travel costs for a great number of motorists will mean that they have less money to spend on other things, thus not spending as much money to stimulate the economy.
The point of increasing fuel duty isn't to punish people, it's to make sure that they pay for what they cost. That's just fair, it's not an attempt to penalise anyone. Economically, taxes like this ultimately change people's behaviour - the CT bill included a few billion pounds for research into green alternatives, which will lower the costs of alternatives. We're going to need to leave fossil fuels behind eventually, the faster we do it the less pain and bother it will cause the economy.

While you brought up that Carbon Tax Bill, the place I work has reportedly made a £100M loss trying to implement environmental protection measures, do you think that's a good thing?
Well it's a one-off cost depending on the industry, and I expect your company will be better placed because of it.

Cool, but the point you were making is that drivers should pay for the impact of their action. Yep, I understand that, but that's not how the whole taxation system works. We don't tax healthcare on use, we don't take use of pavements on use (and I could go on) so why should we tax this by use?
Because the privilege of destroying the planet isn't as high on my list of moral missions as universal healthcare is. Some things we should tax according to use. Commodities, namely. The services the government provide (healthcare, education, social services etc.) should never be considered in the same light.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
What happens to those Civil Servants who will lose their jobs as a result of unnecessary Department closures?

This is a mess, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland needs a Minister to promote and defend various interests and acts as a go between the Devolved Administration and the National Government.

The proposed Devolution of Transport policy is flawed and not thought through.
0
reply
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
(Original post by Morgsie)
What happens to those Civil Servants who will lose their jobs as a result of unnecessary Department closures?
They'll probably go and apply for jobs elsewhere.
0
reply
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by Morgsie)
What happens to those Civil Servants who will lose their jobs as a result of unnecessary Department closures?
They aren't unnecessary department closures. It's about streamlining the processes of Government. That isn't unnecessary, that's good economic sense. We hope to reduce redundancies to a bare minimum and move civil servants to other departments. For example, many DfID employees will come to the FCO.
0
reply
Morgsie
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
(Original post by toronto353)
They aren't unnecessary department closures. It's about streamlining the processes of Government. That isn't unnecessary, that's good economic sense. We hope to reduce redundancies to a bare minimum and move civil servants to other departments. For example, many DfID employees will come to the FCO.
If you wanted to do streamlining you should have done it differently for example cutting middle management etc./

I have already stated that Rail Franchises will be a complete mess
0
reply
Ysolt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
Not much tax here, where's it all gone, eh? I think I understand the ground rent tax, but I don't really think I get where the income tax changes are going. Local taxes are mentioned, are they really a good idea? As Morgsie said the approach to departments like transport is very reckless. The gist of this budget is one that I don't necessarily support: rolling back central government and increasing local taxes. I think efficiency is at risk, and I dont like the idea of cutting the equalities office especially.
0
reply
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by Morgsie)
If you wanted to do streamlining you should have done it differently for example cutting middle management etc./

I have already stated that Rail Franchises will be a complete mess
Streamlining is done via closing departments that didn't need to be opened. Why do we need DfID and the FCO for example? Let's merge them and streamline the process.

With regards to Rail Franchises, this has been answered by Rakas and I have full confidence that Lipvig will be able to deal with his expanded brief.
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
(Original post by toronto353)
Streamlining is done via closing departments that didn't need to be opened. Why do we need DfID and the FCO for example? Let's merge them and streamline the process.
The FCO and DfID do rather different things and their separation has proven to be extremely valuable in the field of international development. British aid was separated from the military and hard-power diplomatic endeavours of the FCO and made British government initiatives in the field of international development more akin to an NGO than a government department. That has yielded enormously positive results over the last 15 years or so. Streamlining is basically a cover story for the fact your lot (and the Tories more especially) don't really care much about what happens beyond the borders of England. Shame on you!
0
reply
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
The FCO and DfID do rather different things and their separation has proven to be extremely valuable in the field of international development. British aid was separated from the military and hard-power diplomatic endeavours of the FCO and made British government initiatives in the field of international development more akin to an NGO than a government department. That has yielded enormously positive results over the last 15 years or so. Streamlining is basically a cover story for the fact your lot (and the Tories more especially) don't really care much about what happens beyond the borders of England. Shame on you!
The streamlining of the departments (DfID and FCO) will see a blend of diplomatic styles and that will work well. Though I see your point, isn't also equally shameful that we've had Government after Government IRL who don't care about England and don't give the English the same kind of recognition that the Scots, Welsh and Irish have?
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
(Original post by toronto353)
The streamlining of the departments (DfID and FCO) will see a blend of diplomatic styles and that will work well. Though I see your point, isn't also equally shameful that we've had Government after Government IRL who don't care about England and don't give the English the same kind of recognition that the Scots, Welsh and Irish have?
The UK parliament is dominated by English MPs, its laws are increasingly devoted to English matters alone, and its overall attitude and ethos is dominated by the prejudices and attitudes of England. The process of devolution - and the undermining of the unitary state - is to counteract the dominance of England over the last half-century. The argument that 'government after government irl [...] don't care about England' is laughable and unsustainable in fact.

The "streamlining" of the departments will have damaging effects for British overseas development, that I think we can guarantee with more certainty than a Spanish bailout. There is a reason why they were made distinct. To ignore it for the sheer drive towards money is, once again, fortune for the stupid.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
The Acts of Union which combined the non-crown lands of Wales with the Kingdom of England (properly, the crown) took place over the course of 7 years after 1536. It has little to do with the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain following the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. The disposition of the last of the native Welsh princes took place during the reign of Edward I and was completed in the 1290s and the idea of a Principality of Wales (which continues to be used as a mark of Wales' lesser status) was created by Edward as a raspberry to native desire for independence. Prior to that there had been Welsh princes and Welsh kings. The oldest book of law in Wales, that of Hywel the Good, relates not to a principality but to the Kingdom of Deheubarth. Medieval status, indeed.

Wales has the least form of devolution of any part of the United Kingdom. I don't think anyone could describe that as special treatment...
To clear up the issue, whilst i do admit that i have no respect for Welsh sovereignty i have nothing against the citizens who live in that region and my issue with the Welsh language relates to the fact that i do not believe that education should have ever been devolved in the first place.

I would certainly like to see Wales thrive however i do not see it anymore deserving of special treatment than Yorkshire.
0
reply
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by Rakas21)
To clear up the issue, whilst i do admit that i have no respect for Welsh sovereignty i have nothing against the citizens who live in that region and my issue with the Welsh language relates to the fact that i do not believe that education should have ever been devolved in the first place.
Education has always been "devolved" as such (indeed Wales has had a divergent education system from the English one since way before the Second World War) and as to the Welsh language, well that's been around for over 1000 years so there's little you can do about it. Now, you dismiss Wales as a 'region', what of Scotland? Is that not a region too? Or Northern Ireland? Or do you have some modicrum of respect for those two nations that you, for some as yet undetailed reason, fail to afford to Wales?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Education has always been "devolved" as such (indeed Wales has had a divergent education system from the English one since way before the Second World War) and as to the Welsh language, well that's been around for over 1000 years so there's little you can do about it. Now, you dismiss Wales as a 'region', what of Scotland? Is that not a region too? Or Northern Ireland? Or do you have some modicrum of respect for those two nations that you, for some as yet undetailed reason, fail to afford to Wales?
I believe NI to be a giant black hole but as it is so economically insignificant and civil war took place for decades i don't object to its sovereignty.

Scotland i believe to a special case and would consider further devolution of powers however i believe that giving them political power was the worst thing any PM has ever done, it has simply given nationalists license to breed.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (19)
7.31%
They might tell the bully (26)
10%
I don't think they'd understand (42)
16.15%
It might lead to more bullying (94)
36.15%
There's nothing they could do (79)
30.38%

Watched Threads

View All