Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
StJabbo1 said:
I'm in the EU, in the Netherlands so it does matter to me. This the NS reaction to the EU letter(s).
"On several occasions in 2022, the European Commission made critical comments about the direct award of the main rail network franchise to NS. According to the Commission, the Dutch government should conduct a market analysis prior to awarding the franchise. The Minister for the Environment has pointed out, however, in the Lower House and elsewhere, that such a market analysis is not necessary. NS’s own position on this matter remains unchanged: the existing legal framework permits a direct award."
https://2022.nsannualreport.nl/annu...opments/main-rail-network-franchise-from-2025
Also in the linked report is the billions worth of investments in public transport pledged by the Dutch government.
Click to expand...
Ah, fair enough. I didn't realise that's where you lived. It's slightly more complicated than this but the short version is there was a December 2023 deadline after which all these contracts have to be subject to a competitive bidding process. Before the deadline governments were able to directly award contracts but the contracts couldn't extend past 2033. The current NS contract expires in 2025 and the Dutch government decided to directly award NS a new contract, lasting until 2033, just before the deadline. The European Commission say there's no reason to award a new contract such a long time before the existing one expires and believe this is an attempt to sidestep the regulations and delay opening up the Dutch market to competition. The Dutch government say what they've done is legal. The dispute may end up in the European Court. If it does the Dutch government may win but when that contract expires in 2033 they won't be able to directly award another one to NS. At that point there will have to be a competitive bidding process.
 
StJabbo1 said:
Those planning to visit the sunlit uplands of the EU should check their passports meet the regulations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...it-passport-requirements-europe-b2520558.html
Click to expand...
I became aware a few years ago of the rule that you need 3 or 6 months left on your passport to travel depending on where you're going
I became aware of this one more recently, which means that getting your passport renewed early is now a bad thing as they only accept your passport validity up to 10 years from issue and not up to the date of expiry
I think its true of other countries as well as the EU
For met this means
Previous Passport expired Aug 2018 so was renewed Jan 18 to comply with 6 month rule
Current one is therefore only be valid until Jan 2028 so needs to be renewed by June 2027
That's the summer so I'll have to renew earlier to take account of delays
May as well call it a 9 year passport and put a real expiry date on it
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ides of March
Puck said:
Ah, fair enough. I didn't realise that's where you lived. It's slightly more complicated than this but the short version is there was a December 2023 deadline after which all these contracts have to be subject to a competitive bidding process. Before the deadline governments were able to directly award contracts but the contracts couldn't extend past 2033. The current NS contract expires in 2025 and the Dutch government decided to directly award NS a new contract, lasting until 2033, just before the deadline. The European Commission say there's no reason to award a new contract such a long time before the existing one expires and believe this is an attempt to sidestep the regulations and delay opening up the Dutch market to competition. The Dutch government say what they've done is legal. The dispute may end up in the European Court. If it does the Dutch government may win but when that contract expires in 2033 they won't be able to directly award another one to NS. At that point there will have to be a competitive bidding process.
Click to expand...
It seems a number of EU countries including Austria, Poland, Denmark, Croatia, Slovenia, Greece and Bulgaria, have taken advantage of the December deadline to award direct contracts to national operators, essentially delaying the opening of the market for another ten years.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/08/dutch-railway-deal-is-fundamentally-illegal-say-independents/ has more.
 
Puck said:
Ah, fair enough. I didn't realise that's where you lived. It's slightly more complicated than this but the short version is there was a December 2023 deadline after which all these contracts have to be subject to a competitive bidding process. Before the deadline governments were able to directly award contracts but the contracts couldn't extend past 2033. The current NS contract expires in 2025 and the Dutch government decided to directly award NS a new contract, lasting until 2033, just before the deadline. The European Commission say there's no reason to award a new contract such a long time before the existing one expires and believe this is an attempt to sidestep the regulations and delay opening up the Dutch market to competition. The Dutch government say what they've done is legal. The dispute may end up in the European Court. If it does the Dutch government may win but when that contract expires in 2033 they won't be able to directly award another one to NS. At that point there will have to be a competitive bidding process.
Click to expand...
It seems a number of EU countries including Austria, Poland, Denmark, Croatia, Slovenia, Greece and Bulgaria, have taken advantage of the December deadline to award direct contracts to national operators, essentially delaying the opening of the market for another ten years.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/08/dutch-railway-deal-is-fundamentally-illegal-say-independents/ has more.
 
Leaving the EU was a costly mistake we will all come to regret, if we haven't already. But I have no great love for many of it's institutions or it's leaders, none of whom put the interests of it's common citizens over those of the rich and powerful. The Greek debt crisis was a clear example of that; French and German banks, rather than the Greek government, got bailed out by the ECB,at great cost not only to the Greece but also to the French and German taxpayers who payed for the whole sleight of hand con-trick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat, thereisonlyoneno7 and Le Tissier's Laces
Time for change.
"BUYING honours has been illegal since Lloyd George hawked them a century ago, so big-money donors to the Conservatives are gonged not for largesse but "political service" as treasurer to the party. Or, in the case of £5.6m donor Sir Mohamed Mansour, knighted in Rishi Sunak's honours list last month, "senior treasurer".
But what service, exactly, does this position entail? For Sir Mohamed, it appears, not much."
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1622/hp-sauce
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/?s=house+of+lords+reform
 
"Last Tuesday, as the Talk TV presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer talked to Ben Habib – the Reform UK party’s “co-deputy leader” and its candidate in the recent Wellingborough byelection – about so-called small boats crossing the Channel."

"Their 11-minute chat took place the day after five people, including a four-year-old girl, had been killed trying to get to the English coastline from a beach near Boulogne"

“Let’s not infantilise these people,” he said. “They have free will. They were safe in France: they paid good money to get on a boat seeking illegally to come … And I’m not going to be held to ransom by their claim that they deserve protection as soon as they get into our territorial waters.”

Whether he included children in that swingeing judgment remained unclear. But if people scuppered a boat, he said, they would have to “suffer the consequences of their actions”.

“You would leave them to drown?” asked his host. “Absolutely,” Habib said."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ren-drown-channel-britain-ben-habib-reform-uk
 
You may recall a story about a James Cleverly chartering a jet that cost almost half a million to fly between some Caribbean islands, when he was foreign secretary.
Guess what. Cameron has done the same for flying around Central Asia.
Money is no object when they’re are spending someone else’s.

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: StJabbo1
Just read that a recent Opinium poll shows that the Tories hold a 6 point lead over Labour, in the over 65 age group.
Seriously, I thought this generation (sadly my generation) had learnt its lesson.
Don’t they realise that if the Tories were to stay in power, and Nosac actually did stop all National Insurance payments, (that pensioners don’t pay), the money would likely be recouped through increasing taxes which pensioners DO pay and will increasingly pay whilst tax allowance rates remain frozen?
History won’t look back favourably on the Boomer generation, imo.
 
San Tejón said:
Just read that a recent Opinium poll shows that the Tories hold a 6 point lead over Labour, in the over 65 age group.
Seriously, I thought this generation (sadly my generation) had learnt its lesson.
Don’t they realise that if the Tories were to stay in power, and Nosac actually did stop all National Insurance payments, (that pensioners don’t pay), the money would likely be recouped through increasing taxes which pensioners DO pay and will increasingly pay whilst tax allowance rates remain frozen?
History won’t look back favourably on the Boomer generation, imo.
Click to expand...
It already doesn’t look favourably on them. I think it’s the last generation where the majority had a very good chance of doing better than their parents.

As to the national insurance point - it’s because the client media allow the Tories to get away with unfunded pledges. Even right up to the point where it blows a hole in the economy (Liz Truss). A Labour government wouldn’t have been allowed to get anywhere close to what Truss did. The reporting in the build up would have derailed it. Look at the 28bn climate pledge that Labour have had to walk back - and they aren’t even in power. Sunak can snivel “Labour have got no plan” because they aren’t allowed to make one. They also don’t need to (they aren’t in power) and don’t have full view of the finances.

The Tories truly have no plan and it is pure projection.
If they were held to the same standards the National Insurance pledge would have died ages ago. Or they would have been forced to reveal how they were going to pay for it - most likely costing them this over 65 support as you say
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
Gregm1988 said:
It already doesn’t look favourably on them. I think it’s the last generation where the majority had a very good chance of doing better than their parents.

As to the national insurance point - it’s because the client media allow the Tories to get away with unfunded pledges. Even right up to the point where it blows a hole in the economy (Liz Truss). A Labour government wouldn’t have been allowed to get anywhere close to what Truss did. The reporting in the build up would have derailed it. Look at the 28bn climate pledge that Labour have had to walk back - and they aren’t even in power. Sunak can snivel “Labour have got no plan” because they aren’t allowed to make one. They also don’t need to (they aren’t in power) and don’t have full view of the finances.

The Tories truly have no plan and it is pure projection.
If they were held to the same standards the National Insurance pledge would have died ages ago. Or they would have been forced to reveal how they were going to pay for it - most likely costing them this over 65 support as you say
Click to expand...
I think I am right in saying that the employers NI contribution is greater than that of the employee, so I am seeing the ending of NI (if it were to happen) as a bribe for votes, whilst being a bigger saving for businesses, with the latter being the true aim.
 
San Tejón said:
I think I am right in saying that the employers NI contribution is greater than that of the employee, so I am seeing the ending of NI (if it were to happen) as a bribe for votes, whilst being a bigger saving for businesses, with the latter being the true aim.
Click to expand...
Has the talk been to scrap both? It probably hasn’t been specified.

Let’s face it - if even half of the employers NI saving was passed on in a salary increase as well as no more employee NI the increased money in the pocket especially of people with lower incomes would theoretically boost the economy through spending

But that won’t happen as the business savings will go to the owners/shareholders and there will be the obvious hole in funding of public services. Any increases would need to go on things like health insurance as the NHS falls apart and all care becomes private
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back