ChatterBank2 mins ago
Conservative-Dup Money Requires Parliamentary Approval
17 Answers
https:/
Could these 10 MPs possibly be the most expensive in history?
Could these 10 MPs possibly be the most expensive in history?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would like to think that any amount of taxpayers' hard-earned of that magnitude would need some sort of Parliamentary approval.
As an aside, Ms Miller would be better served if she simply stood for Parliament instead of trying to interfere in its affairs. She should know that one of the many reasons why people voted to leave the EU was because they were fed up with seeing their Parliament reduced to the status of a parish council.
As an aside, Ms Miller would be better served if she simply stood for Parliament instead of trying to interfere in its affairs. She should know that one of the many reasons why people voted to leave the EU was because they were fed up with seeing their Parliament reduced to the status of a parish council.
Regardless of how objectionable one might find Gina Miller to be (I don't, personally, but I know that people do), this does seem like a matter which should be subject to parliamentary approval.
Of course, we all know it will pass through (if it ever actually gets there). You can bet your bottom dollar that greedy backbenchers will be extorting favours from the Tory leadership in exchange for their loyalty.
Of course, we all know it will pass through (if it ever actually gets there). You can bet your bottom dollar that greedy backbenchers will be extorting favours from the Tory leadership in exchange for their loyalty.
"She should know that one of the many reasons why people voted to leave the EU was because they were fed up with seeing their Parliament reduced to the status of a parish council. "
But here she is standing up for parliament.
Actually I think people speak with forked tongue when it comes to standing up for parliament: how many people who voted for Brexit actually did so because they were seriously worried about our parliament losing its powers? Some of course, but I suspect not a huge number. The set of such people, I wouldn't mind betting, was inferior in size to the set of those who thought all MPs were somehow "feathering their own nests" by supporting EU membership.
But here she is standing up for parliament.
Actually I think people speak with forked tongue when it comes to standing up for parliament: how many people who voted for Brexit actually did so because they were seriously worried about our parliament losing its powers? Some of course, but I suspect not a huge number. The set of such people, I wouldn't mind betting, was inferior in size to the set of those who thought all MPs were somehow "feathering their own nests" by supporting EU membership.
“…how many people who voted for Brexit actually did so because they were seriously worried about our parliament losing its powers?”
I did, as I have stated endlessly. (In fact that’s not quite correct. I voted to leave because I was seriously worried that our parliament HAD LOST its powers). I also thought some MPs were feathering their own nests. I also though uncontrolled immigration was a ridiculous concept. I also thought our contributions to the EU could be better spent by ourselves. (I could go on).
“But here she is standing up for parliament.”
No she’s not. She’s simply trying to frustrate Brexit in any way she can. She doesn’t like it. She said the concept made her “physically sick”. It is for Parliament to decide how taxpayer’s dosh is doled out. All she has done, actually, is to question what process will be used. She hasn’t actually launched a challenge (yet). But there is simply no need for her to become involved other than through her MP. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I did, as I have stated endlessly. (In fact that’s not quite correct. I voted to leave because I was seriously worried that our parliament HAD LOST its powers). I also thought some MPs were feathering their own nests. I also though uncontrolled immigration was a ridiculous concept. I also thought our contributions to the EU could be better spent by ourselves. (I could go on).
“But here she is standing up for parliament.”
No she’s not. She’s simply trying to frustrate Brexit in any way she can. She doesn’t like it. She said the concept made her “physically sick”. It is for Parliament to decide how taxpayer’s dosh is doled out. All she has done, actually, is to question what process will be used. She hasn’t actually launched a challenge (yet). But there is simply no need for her to become involved other than through her MP. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
“…how many people who voted for Brexit actually did so because they were seriously worried about our parliament losing its powers?”
I did, as I have stated endlessly.
Yes I know: like I say, I am sure many did, but I am not entirely sure, to say the least, that that was typical
" It is for Parliament to decide how taxpayer’s dosh is doled out. "
Is that not what her argument is? It was waved through without approval. As a matter of fact I am quite pleased that the money was allocated, although I agree that it should probably have had greater scrutiny.
I did, as I have stated endlessly.
Yes I know: like I say, I am sure many did, but I am not entirely sure, to say the least, that that was typical
" It is for Parliament to decide how taxpayer’s dosh is doled out. "
Is that not what her argument is? It was waved through without approval. As a matter of fact I am quite pleased that the money was allocated, although I agree that it should probably have had greater scrutiny.
It's great that we now have transparency, and that all bribes are now paid in the open and are in the public domain.
So committees can be easily rigged with DUP members voting to push Theresa's mandate that she got by losing the Conservative's majority.
Perhaps they imagine that such dodgy dealing will not be called undemocratic if all the gerrymandering is done in plain site.
So committees can be easily rigged with DUP members voting to push Theresa's mandate that she got by losing the Conservative's majority.
Perhaps they imagine that such dodgy dealing will not be called undemocratic if all the gerrymandering is done in plain site.
The deal agreed by the Conservatives and the DUP involves an additional £1 billion in funding that has been pledged to Stormont's powersharing executive, it isn't as if it is going to be squandered,
it breaks down as follows:
£400 million for infrastructure projects (£200 million per year for two years)
£200 million for improvement of health service (£100 million per year for two years)
£150 million for ultra-fast broadband (£75 million per year for two years)
£100 million for tackling deprivation (£20 million per year for five years)
£100 million to address immediate pressures in health and education (£50 million per year for two years)
£50 million for mental health services (£10 million per year for five years)
Does anyone begrudge the people of Northern Island this?
it breaks down as follows:
£400 million for infrastructure projects (£200 million per year for two years)
£200 million for improvement of health service (£100 million per year for two years)
£150 million for ultra-fast broadband (£75 million per year for two years)
£100 million for tackling deprivation (£20 million per year for five years)
£100 million to address immediate pressures in health and education (£50 million per year for two years)
£50 million for mental health services (£10 million per year for five years)
Does anyone begrudge the people of Northern Island this?
Well given that it involves passing that money over to a party which is currently mired in a serious corruption scandal... yes. Yes I do.
Also PR rarely (never?) happens in political systems which practice fusion of powers (i.e. the executive sits in the legislature). That is an arrangement relatively rare outside the UK for that exact reason. It's an important distinction because it means that a government doesn't fall based on seats in the legislature - and therefore dealmaking happens on an issue by issue basis rather than merely to cling on to power.
Also PR rarely (never?) happens in political systems which practice fusion of powers (i.e. the executive sits in the legislature). That is an arrangement relatively rare outside the UK for that exact reason. It's an important distinction because it means that a government doesn't fall based on seats in the legislature - and therefore dealmaking happens on an issue by issue basis rather than merely to cling on to power.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.