May's "ordinary working people"?

[Serial_Apologist]

That there is as much truth in this as there is must be worrying for Eurosceptics and Europhiles alike, although I remain unconvinced that it's necessarily any worse than America's finances or China's, for example; that doesn't justify such wholesale financial mismanagement, be it wilful and corrupt or unacceptably careless or both but, at the same time, it doesn't indicate that the same or similar might not happen on a smaller scale within each ex-EU nation should EU collapse.

Except one wouldn't be searching out miscreants inside such a large haystack!

[MrGongGong]

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But - in my humble opinion - there is absolutely no going back!

So, if you were driving towards a physical precipice, would you say the same thing?

[Lat-Literal]

So, if you were driving towards a physical precipice, would you say the same thing?

No - not if I were driving towards a physical precipice.

[french frank]

This might help you to get a grasp of it. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/under...c/weber12.html

Well, that's a good red herring!

If the EU funding was meticulous in its accounts, the auditors would have been able to sign off the accounts completely - something that has not been achieved for over 20 years. For example in the 2013 outturn (the most up to date comprehensive figures) the EU's own auditors identified 109 billion euros of expenditure "affected by material error" - out of a total spend of 119 billion euros! Frightening!

(The EU says 144bn euros for 2013) You go to your sources (£350m to the NHS, more than 12 million Turks plan to come to Britain &c. &c.). I go to EU sources whose public claims are not contradicted by those in a position to do so.

"In the past years the Commission managed to keep the error rate under 5%. In other words, out of every 100 euro spent by the EU, at least 95 euro was free from error."

"The European Court of Auditors gave a clean bill of health on our 2013 accounting books, for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for."

In a budget the size of the EU's, what constitutes 'completely' - down to the last euro? :smiley:

[french frank]

candidates perhaps charged with full responsibility in overseeing of procedures.

Unless electoral law has changed, candidates and election agents do carry the full responsibility.

[ardcarp]

Going back to pensions versus benefits, I am probably dancing on the head of a semantic pin. But a pension is something you get willy-nilly...whether it arrives via an annuity, some other investment or from the state (which we know doesn't have a 'pot'). A benefit is something granted out of need rather than right...at least that is the way the word has come to be used (probably 'cos it sounds cosy).

Now, should the lifetime 'pensions' granted to composers such as Tchaik, Rossini, Greig and others be referred to as benefits or pensions? Discuss.

[Serial_Apologist]

Unless electoral law has changed, candidates and election agents do carry the full responsibility.

What was being said on this morning's Toady - I didn't register by whom - was that the blame for what had happened in the constituences concerned was not down to the candidates, who probably wouldn't have known about election expenditure, but to people working in the "party machine".

[french frank]

What was being said on this morning's Toady - I didn't register by whom - was that the blame for what had happened in the constituences concerned was not down to the candidates, who probably wouldn't have known about election expenditure, but to people working in the "party machine".

By 'responsibility' I meant 'legal responsibility'. The main responsibilty in practice lies with the agent, rather than the candidate. General Elections may be different, but in a by-election it's one election, one set of expenses, one agent. Whether the agent for the GE was an HQ appointee who was at arm's length from the action and had responsibility for several constituencies, I don't know. I've twice acted as a General Election agent, and several times for council elections; and we never had enough money to get anywhere near our spending limit :blush:.

The Conservative Party was claiming (as I understand it) that the 'battle bus' was a national expense and therefore didn't have to be declared on an individual candidate's expenses. The EC's view was that they were experienced enough to know the rules and the battle bus toured the target constituencies not the entire country. And they weren't too pleased that they had to go to court to get the Conservatives to hand over the necessary paperwork so that they could be checked.

The Conservatives pointed out that Labour and Lib Dems were similarly fined (in both cases £20,000 rather than £70,000), the EC had the same criticism, though both parties 'cooperated fully' with the investigation.

[P. G. Tipps]

But I am in the odd position here of having found the Cameron Government the worst in my lifetime ...

Well, considering I said virtually the same here some months ago, we might now be described as the Odd Couple, Lat ... ? :winkeye:

I am no fan of Hammond but I think he is carrying the can for the previous regime. Many of us have been now for nearly a decade. I will go where I sense bridge building. Divisions are so lame.

I agree but It is no use Mrs May talking about Ms Sturgeon causing 'uncertainty and division' when she (May) has completely ignored for almost a year now almost half the UK electorate which voted at a Referendum which was a needless and reckless gamble and only called in a fruitless attempt to heal uncertainty and division in her own party, regardless of the possible dire consequences for the country? Sturgeon has simply grasped the political opportunity gifted to her on a plate. They have both caused 'uncertainty and division' and richly deserve each other but sadly it'll be the country whether the UK or Scotland which will suffer in the end.

(Incidentally, those of us who believed vehemently in "Europe" since the 1970s should have argued loudly against its expansion in the 2000s - we didn't so we are where we are)

We are are only 'where we are' not because of 'Europe' but because the ruinous stupidity of UK politicians. There was no great popular demand for a poll on the EU. It was a grievous and wholly self-inflicted political and economic wound for the UK and there were plenty of us at the time who warned that this could be a possible and, given a notoriously fickle electorate, even a quite likely scenario.

No point in blaming Europe. We are the only country of the 28 which has decided it wants to leave the club, every other country appears perfectly happy to continue democratically co-operating with each other. That is not 'expansion' it is simply like-minded countries voluntarily coming together in political partnership!

Only the British seem to think that is a bad idea ...

[french frank]

the EU's own auditors identified 109 billion euros of expenditure "affected by material error" - out of a total spend of 119 billion euros! Frightening!

If one didn't know better, one could almost imagine from those figures that some 91% of EU spending was somehow 'in error'. Which would indeed be frightening.

But in fact the auditors found the level of error was 4.5% in 2013, (4.4% in 2014) compared with the 'materiality threshold' of 2%; this accounts for the 'adverse opinion'. Where expenditure runs into millions (and most EU budget items will be of that magnitude), an error will automatically be considered 'material'. What the EU reported was correct, that more than 95 euros out of 100 euros spent were 'free from error'. 95% correct is rather less 'frightening' than 91% incorrect. Interestingly, the EU budget is balanced (even local councils must, by law, set balanced budgets - a constraint that the government itself need not trouble itself with).

And anyway, the criticism that we Eurosceptics make, is that there is insufficient accountability and excessive operating costs, not fraud (though there's bound to be some).

What would be considered 'accountability', and accountable to whom? How much are these 'excessive operating costs'?

[Lat-Literal]

Well, considering I said virtually the same here some months ago, we might now be described as the Odd Couple, Lat ... ? :winkeye:

I agree but It is no use Mrs May talking about Ms Sturgeon causing 'uncertainty and division' when she (May) has completely ignored for almost a year now almost half the UK electorate which voted at a Referendum which was a needless and reckless gamble and only called in a fruitless attempt to heal uncertainty and division in her own party, regardless of the possible dire consequences for the country? Sturgeon has simply grasped the political opportunity gifted to her on a plate. They have both caused 'uncertainty and division' and richly deserve each other but sadly it'll be the country whether the UK or Scotland which will suffer in the end.

We are are only 'where we are' not because of 'Europe' but because the ruinous stupidity of UK politicians. There was no great popular demand for a poll on the EU. It was a grievous and wholly self-inflicted political and economic wound for the UK and there were plenty of us at the time who warned that this could be a possible and, given a notoriously fickle electorate, even a quite likely scenario.

No point in blaming Europe. We are the only country of the 28 which has decided it wants to leave the club, every other country appears perfectly happy to continue democratically co-operating with each other. That is not 'expansion' it is simply like-minded countries voluntarily coming together in political partnership!

Only the British seem to think that is a bad idea ...

Thank you for your responses.

What concerns me is just how many people - I would say it is over 90% who think about such matters - believe that one of two options is much safer or much better or much sunnier on the uplands. That is essentially in the mould of the early two party systems in Britain and many other countries. It is much loved in the United States. That turning everything into a sports match. Look at what happens when a "third" possibility breaks through. Trump. He came through one of the two sides just as Sanders tried to do while claiming he was against both sides and he has already proven that he has huge amounts in common with both sides. The entire structure of it is pure fantasy, achieved in the presentation of anti-establishment versus establishment. The main point is that voters want to believe in a match with one wonderful winner. Well, try this one. In the real world of 2017, there are no wonderful winners. Two options are often two disasters waiting to happen. Re EU, there is absolutely no reason why either should be any good at all - and neither is - other than when seen with hope based on a careful exclusion of key facts and an innate sense of competition. I think people who believe that the EU or Brexit option is so much better than the alternative are deluded and I know that deep down they know that too. The delusions of grandeur on one side or the other are to ward off depression.

Originally Liberal, I have always believed the main point above to be the case although I would not have been able to define it in that way. It isn't that I thought the Liberals were wonderful but rather I never bought into a major party being so right and the other so wrong. Now the Lib Dems sit alongside the SNP in one polarised corner. In other words, they have lost touch with reality. The very idea that staying in the EU would have been less of a gamble than leaving the EU. No. The position that ordinary voters who wanted to do what was for the best for the country were in was unfortunately more akin to that of Napoleon and Hitler needing to fend off attacks from the two sides, the principal difference being that we were not intent on an unprovoked attack. How far from the modest nine countries in the early 1970s would Europhiles go before being able to admit that we were in a different world? Ukraine? Russia? Israel? Hong Kong? Australia? Four of those five are in Eurovision. These are the people who would report a golliwog in the window to the police on the grounds that it was symptomatic of a terrible era of Empire building. As the visual arts teacher might say, you have got the perspective wrong. Because to be someone of British or German origin now and to favour being taken away by the EU to places around the globe is to collect people like smarties and use them, telling them that it is all for their own good. Slavery will look kind when compared to battalions of the bewildered seeking gold in London, Berlin or Edinburgh and finding out what they are really like. As far as I am concerned, they are welcome to them all because none of them are special when stealing citizens from other countries and leaving those countries ultimately like ghost towns.

We have done quite well in London. My grandmother's generation, uneducated, almost illiterate, adapted to early immigration with minimal difficulty purely out of the goodness of their hearts. There wasn't an economic benefit to them, unlike in subsequent years. Those of us in the suburbs helped too. We saw it all as enriching culturally and even exciting. I would not have wanted to have grown up at any other time. But to go into Croydon now is to walk into what - the sixteenth biggest centre in the country - where since I was at school there in the early 1980s non-whites have increased from around 10% to a clear majority. Many are Muslim and veiled. The Home Office is here. The first destination. Many don't move any further. I don't have a massive problem with it in principle but the pace has been too great. It doesn't do anyone any good except those who seek to profit. And I write as someone who while in working places in Croydon in the 1980s was unusually close to people of ethnic background. I was popular with them, encouraged by some of them to go to Carnival, bought presents by some believe it or not. I also had a black South African/Irish girlfriend in 1982 - her father was a leading spiritualist - when that was rare.

As for Sturgeon, she joined that party of hers at 15 just as Salmond joined them when young in the 1970s. I've looked at them as people. Personal backgrounds account for a lot at that sort of level. I think each has significant personal issues although I won't speculate. The instinct to divorce, though, is organic. And what voters in Scotland need is a good dose of reality. I am afraid that there will need to be broadcasts there at the time of a future referendum of what the reality is in places like Burnley. Lost people of entirely different cultures. Wholly lost and abandoned people, poor, confused, scared, dispossessed by the powers that be, trying in many instances to get along with each other as they would have done much more easily at a steadier, sensible pace. Others not getting on but rather especially when young embattled. I've seen dialogue between those two perspectives often on the net. And that needs to be transposed in the repetitive footage directly onto the streets of Ayr and Dundee and Fort William because currently many genuinely have no idea. We can also do Aberdeen as Brixton and Edinburgh as Croydon. It won't be helpful to race relations in this country but it is the best bet at cohesion. The no vote will be overwhelming.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thank you for your responses.

What concerns me is just how many people - I would say it is over 90% who think about such matters - believe that one of two options is much safer or much better or much sunnier on the uplands. That is essentially in the mould of the early two party systems in Britain and many other countries. It is much loved in the United States. That turning everything into a sports match. Look at what happens when a "third" possibility breaks through. Trump. He came through one of the two sides just as Sanders tried to do while claiming he was against both sides and he has already proven that he has huge amounts in common with both sides. The entire structure of it is pure fantasy, achieved in the presentation of anti-establishment versus establishment. The main point is that voters want to believe in a match with one wonderful winner. Well, try this one. In the real world of 2017, there are no wonderful winners. Two options are often two disasters waiting to happen.

I don't think this is what most people think at all when they go to vote. Like me, when it's down to the arithmetic they might think of voting Green, or one of the minority parties that have been given minimal coverage in the mainstream press or broadcasting media, but in order to keep out the worst of the worst end up going with the least worst option to support in mind.

[Lat-Literal]

I don't think this is what most people think at all when they go to vote. Like me, when it's down to the arithmetic they might think of voting Green, or one of the minority parties that have been given minimal coverage in the mainstream press or broadcasting media, but in order to keep out the worst of the worst end up going with the least worst option to support in mind.

I don't think you are at all typical and I mean that as a compliment, not that I criticise voters who are typical as I think many of us are at a loss on what to do most of the time. The Green point is interesting though. I've been voting Green when I know that the Greens are easily criticised for many of the things that I would throw at the Lib Dems (with much sadness - I like Farron personally but think he is mainly wrong on the key issues and being puppeted by Clegg and probably Browne, Laws, Blair and Mandelson) and the SNP.

The reason is simple. I can sweep all of the complexities and contradictions away in the name of "mainly I believe in the environment" and "it hardly matters how I vote because they aren't going to get in anyway". You will note the blue tinge to some of my recent remarks. I just think that the best has to be made of a bad lot in the most constructive way possible. In fairness, that is the PM's position. Plus I would say if it is of any interest that I am reasonably impressed by Starmer and would choose him over any Miliband any day.

(Note too on all of this election fraud business - it's yet another overhang of ruddy Cameron and Osborne - we should all hold a party when that particular awful legacy has gone)

[Beef Oven!]

If one didn't know better, one could almost imagine from those figures that some 91% of EU spending was somehow 'in error'. Which would indeed be frightening.

But in fact the auditors found the level of error was 4.5% in 2013, (4.4% in 2014) compared with the 'materiality threshold' of 2%; this accounts for the 'adverse opinion'. Where expenditure runs into millions (and most EU budget items will be of that magnitude), an error will automatically be considered 'material'. What the EU reported was correct, that more than 95 euros out of 100 euros spent were 'free from error'. 95% correct is rather less 'frightening' than 91% incorrect. Interestingly, the EU budget is balanced (even local councils must, by law, set balanced budgets - a constraint that the government itself need not trouble itself with).

What would be considered 'accountability', and accountable to whom? How much are these 'excessive operating costs'?

91% of those spending areas do have errors. That's what the auditors are saying.

The European Court of Auditors ("Guardians of the EU's finances" as they like to subtitle themselves) provided clarification on this issue in November 2014 following the hoo-ha and confirmed that the error rate was 4.7% over 148 billion euros, which is virtually 7 billion euros!!! Hence the reason why the EU auditors could not give a 'clean opinion' on these areas of EU expenditure and quite appropriately gave recommendation of improvement needed.

The ease at which you dismiss this sort of thing is indicative of the detached and arrogant approach to Euro scepticism that EU supporters have long exhibited, which in turn has caused a back-lash - some of which contributed to the UK voting to leave. You can't keep dismissing legitimate concerns and think your'e always going to get away with it.

Regarding 'complete sign off' by the auditors, this is not something I would expect. My point was that according to MrGG, if there really was such a scrupulous, forensic process in place for EU bids as he was inferring, one far superior to the British government’s processes, then why not full sign off? My response was to his silly inference, not an expectation of full sign off.

Concerning Max Weber, he's no herring, red or any colour.