Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

S08 - Statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Oh right OK, I just can't decide whether this is health with a little foreign or the other way round.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As said before, it doesn't mean anything if it is either of them, it is meaningless until such a to!e that a new chancellor is appointed, in about a month, and they make the statement

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Do you want us to stand aside and let you govern? Is it because you can't get there on your own merit? The fact that some of you Tories are so bitter is ridiculous. I didn't hear Cameron begging Blair or Brown to let the Tories govern. They had to get in on merit. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who is in Government - there is still going to be debate.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I did propose you hand over to a nat lib led government. Do you want to fellow procedure or do you not? It's not a difficult question.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As said before, it doesn't mean anything if it is either of them, it is meaningless until such a to!e that a new chancellor is appointed, in about a month, and they make the statement

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not sure I agree on this one. It is unlikely that there is a RL precedent, certainly I strongly doubt there's a TSR precedent, but I'm not sure (though I haven't read the delegating legislation) that there isn't a power for an SS to unilaterally direct his funds to another department, so long as he doesn't attempt to govern spending in that department. Of course, this is provided it doesn't fall short of the 0.5% of GNI or whatever.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure I agree on this one. It is unlikely that there is a RL precedent, certainly I strongly doubt there's a TSR precedent, but I'm not sure (though I haven't read the delegating legislation) that there isn't a power for an SS to unilaterally direct his funds to another department, so long as he doesn't attempt to govern spending in that department. Of course, this is provided it doesn't fall short of the 0.5% of GNI or whatever.
    I'll find out what law it is requiring it, but all funding directed anywhere needs approving by the treasury, this does also mean that there is no such thing as s balnk government cheque, and this has been the case for centuries. Logically this would suggest that departments cannot unilaterally transfer funding between them unless approved by the treasury, and in that instance it would not take effect until the next budget anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'll find out what law it is requiring it, but all funding directed anywhere needs approving by the treasury, this does also mean that there is no such thing as s balnk government cheque, and this has been the case for centuries. Logically this would suggest that departments cannot unilaterally transfer funding between them unless approved by the treasury, and in that instance it would not take effect until the next budget anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think you're possibly correct in most of your post, but that doesn't mean it couldn't take effect until the next budget, since Ministers are not limited to acting in the form of SOI (unless there's something idiosyncratic I've missed in the constitution or GD here).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I think you're possibly correct in most of your post, but that doesn't mean it couldn't take effect until the next budget, since Ministers are not limited to acting in the form of SOI (unless there's something idiosyncratic I've missed in the constitution or GD here).
    I'm saying that in practice it wouldn't happen until the next tax year. For example, with this SoI if approved by the treasury I assume that it would be a case of £1.2bn being released by the treasury for the DoH, at the end of the year DFID has £1.2bn left over to give back to the treasury, and the budgets are changed next year accordingly.

    I suppose actually thinking about the process in this way makes doubly clear that a statement for the treasury is necessary given that the way a government would go about it is releasing funds as described above.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm saying that in practice it wouldn't happen until the next tax year. For example, with this SoI if approved by the treasury I assume that it would be a case of £1.2bn being released by the treasury for the DoH, at the end of the year DFID has £1.2bn left over to give back to the treasury, and the budgets are changed next year accordingly.

    I suppose actually thinking about the process in this way makes doubly clear that a statement for the treasury is necessary given that the way a government would go about it is releasing funds as described above.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Without finding precedent I don't think you can be so confident as you seem to be in that.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Without finding precedent I don't think you can be so confident as you seem to be in that.
    There is no precedence I could find.

    The chancellor would be very busy if they had to make the statement everytime a department wanted to change funding. By all means this could be released under the Treasury but the context of the statement would be no different. I'm not going to argue for a point that misses the entire reason the statement was written and agreed on by the two SoS it concerns.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Without finding precedent I don't think you can be so confident as you seem to be in that.
    IS there any precedent found by thje government to indicate that they are acting correctly. As said, I'm making inquiries with those more knowledgeable than we and hopefully will have a response this evening.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    There is no precedence I could find.

    The chancellor would be very busy if they had to make the statement everytime a department wanted to change funding. By all means this could be released under the Treasury but the context of the statement would be no different. I'm not going to argue for a point that misses the entire reason the statement was written and agreed on by the two SoS it concerns.
    Now James has left, who is the new chancellor?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Do you want us to stand aside and let you govern? Is it because you can't get there on your own merit? The fact that some of you Tories are so bitter is ridiculous. I didn't hear Cameron begging Blair or Brown to let the Tories govern. They had to get in on merit. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who is in Government - there is still going to be debate.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The TSR Tories have the merit to govern, but the left-wing depend on the users who are mostly unaware of the TSR Tories' talent, or the private message to rally all of the left-wing supports who would not vote if the private message was not sent to all TSR users.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Now James has left, who is the new chancellor?
    United.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The TSR Tories have the merit to govern, but the left-wing depend on the users who are mostly unaware of the TSR Tories' talent, or the private message to rally all of the left-wing supports who would not vote if the private message was not sent to all TSR users.
    It's the Tories job to get elected. I didn't hear Miliband blaming the electorate in May.

    We need the mass PM to garner more activity. The only alternative is for each party to be allowed to advertise on specific sub forums.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    United.
    Is TSR Labour just bad at making announcements in their threads?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    It's the Tories job to get elected. I didn't hear Miliband blaming the electorate in May.

    We need the mass PM to garner more activity. The only alternative is for each party to be allowed to advertise on specific sub forums.
    But it hardly changes the point, given that you seem to want to ignore rules and regulations where they do not suit you, why not do the same where they do suit you and hand over the reigns to somebody else, not necessarily the Tories, could give them to the Greens, Socialists, National Liberals, UKIP and let them form a government? Oh yeah, we come back round to you like rules and regulations where they help you achieve your goals.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But it hardly changes the point, given that you seem to want to ignore rules and regulations where they do not suit you, why not do the same where they do suit you and hand over the reigns to somebody else, not necessarily the Tories, could give them to the Greens, Socialists, National Liberals, UKIP and let them form a government? Oh yeah, we come back round to you like rules and regulations where they help you achieve your goals.
    What rules and regulations are you speaking of?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    It's the Tories job to get elected. I didn't hear Miliband blaming the electorate in May.

    We need the mass PM to garner more activity. The only alternative is for each party to be allowed to advertise on specific sub forums.
    It is difficult to get elected when the electorate are very left-wing, vote for left-wing parties, and do not bother to read the manifestos. Not having a private message increases the likelihood of the people who did vote reading the manifestos before making a decision on who to vote for.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    What rules and regulations are you speaking of?
    Well you're wanting to uphold the GD to maintain your power, we're wanting you to follow, you know, the law?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is difficult to get elected when the electorate are very left-wing, vote for left-wing parties, and do not bother to read the manifestos. Not having a private message increases the likelihood of the people who did vote reading the manifestos before making a decision on who to vote for.
    Admittedly, I do think a Right-wing Government would be good for the simulation, and I do think the Electorate are left of centre. However, the mass PM is still necessary to actually get people voting, otherwise it'll just be us voting.

    I think we should be allowed to at least advertise on the UK Politics sub forum. We should also be allowed to have a Short manifesto of Key Pledges and a longer uncapped manifesto detailing things and adding more policy ideas.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Well you're wanting to uphold the GD to maintain your power, we're wanting you to follow, you know, the law?
    In what way are we not following the law? Is it about who has made the statement? Or about what's in the statement?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Admittedly, I do think a Right-wing Government would be good for the simulation, and I do think the Electorate are left of centre. However, the mass PM is still necessary to actually get people voting, otherwise it'll just be us voting.
    Objectively false

    In what way are we not following the law? Is it about who has made the statement? Or about what's in the statement?
    The two are one and the same.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 21, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.