General Politics Thread

[doulikefish]

I have been following this. Lula who was a hero of working class Brazil is also  under investigation. Much based on the oil giant Petrobas.  Coalition partners may walk. And the huge growth of recent years is stumbling. It is maybe a strength of the democracy that the army has stayed out of this so far.

 

I have not been there for a number of years, but my friends who live there now still comment on the gap between the rich and poor. No real trickle down and a restless middle class. Edit to say of course that much of the protest will be Sao Paulo and Rio. But interesting to see there are demos in Brasilla.

Its pretty much country wide ,friends in Curitiba/SP and Rio pretty much confirming it.The friend in Sao Paulo reckons it upwards of million on the streets there today

[doulikefish]

 

Sao Paulo about 5 mins ago

[jakedee]

Willie Rennie on daily politics,barrel scraped

[TonMan]

Willie Rennie on daily politics,barrel scraped

 

Aye, it's a wee bit grim. He's trying, talking about the "bold package" the Lib Dems are apparently offering, while ignoring the fact that no one really cares what they're saying, or trusts them at all.

[jakedee]

"Punching above their weight"what planet is he on ?

[Fide]

My Gran has more chance of assuming power than Willie Rennie.

And she died several years ago.

[strichener]

Willie Rennie on daily politics,barrel scraped

Are UKIP not available?

[jakedee]

Are UKIP not available?

Give it time,still 5 mins to go

[TonMan]

"Punching above their weight"what planet is he on ?

 

I wouldn't rule them punching above their weight out. Some sources are saying that they might get 3 votes in May, as opposed to the expected 2.

[renton]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/every-english-school-to-become-an-academy-ministers-to-announce

 

if academisation of the English school network brings about huge savings in public spending down south, then it could have interesting knock ons to Barnet consequentials, and the relative pulbic spending gap between us and England. It's also a disaster for a generation of English school kids, I reckon as well.

[Ad Lib]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/every-english-school-to-become-an-academy-ministers-to-announce

 

if academisation of the English school network brings about huge savings in public spending down south, then it could have interesting knock ons to Barnet consequentials, and the relative pulbic spending gap between us and England. It's also a disaster for a generation of English school kids, I reckon as well.

 

Where is your evidence that academisation is accompanied by reductions in schools expenditure? Schools spending has actually risen more quickly in England than it has in Scotland in the last 5 years.

[strichener]

Where is your evidence that academisation is accompanied by reductions in schools expenditure? Schools spending has actually risen more quickly in England than it has in Scotland in the last 5 years.

As has the school population.

[Ad Lib]

As has the school population.

 

Yes, and?

 

Scotland's Barnett consequentials are completely unconnected to whether its population rises or not.

[strichener]

Yes, and?

Scotland's Barnett consequentials are completely unconnected to whether its population rises or not.

Needs based?

[Ad Lib]

Needs based?

 

Barnett doesn't account for changes to Scotland's population. It's one of its major flaws. It works of an unadjusted historical population level. Adjustments to the block grant ignore it.

 

It was precisely this issue that the two sides were arguing about over the fiscal framework. The UK Government wanted future Barnett adjustments that take into account the devolution of income tax to involve basic indexed deductions, whereas the Scottish Government wanted indexed per capita deductions. The former would have exposed Scotland to new demographic risks (and potential rewards) whereas the latter would have insulated Scotland from a slower growing population but denied it the reward if current trends reversed and Scotland grew faster than the rest of the UK.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Ad Lib

[strichener]

Barnett doesn't account for changes to Scotland's population. It's one of its major flaws. It works of an unadjusted historical population level. Adjustments to the block grant ignore it.

It was precisely this issue that the two sides were arguing about over the fiscal framework. The UK Government wanted future Barnett adjustments that take into account the devolution of income tax to involve basic indexed deductions, whereas the Scottish Government wanted indexed per capita deductions. The former would have exposed Scotland to new demographic risks (and potential rewards) whereas the latter would have insulated Scotland from a slower growing population but denied it the reward if current trends reversed and Scotland grew faster than the rest of the UK.

I never mentioned Barnett. What I did was point out that there were reasons why expenditure could not be compared on the basis of money spent. There is no reason for the scottish government to spend the same on education as England if there is not the same demand on services.

I find your position on this to by rather hypocritical given your previous insistence that the SG should spend the money where it is needed.

[MarkoRaj]

Talk about completely missing the point. I thought lawyers were supposed to be clever.

[MarkoRaj]

Barnett doesn't account for changes to Scotland's population. It's one of its major flaws. It works of an unadjusted historical population level. Adjustments to the block grant ignore it.

It was precisely this issue that the two sides were arguing about over the fiscal framework. The UK Government wanted future Barnett adjustments that take into account the devolution of income tax to involve basic indexed deductions, whereas the Scottish Government wanted indexed per capita deductions. The former would have exposed Scotland to new demographic risks (and potential rewards) whereas the latter would have insulated Scotland from a slower growing population but denied it the reward if current trends reversed and Scotland grew faster than the rest of the UK.

Absolutely pointless contribution

[Ad Lib]

I never mentioned Barnett. What I did was point out that there were reasons why expenditure could not be compared on the basis of money spent. There is no reason for the scottish government to spend the same on education as England if there is not the same demand on services.

I find your position on this to by rather hypocritical given your previous insistence that the SG should spend the money where it is needed.

 

My original post asked renton what evidence he had that academisation would lead to cuts in English education spending, hence Barnett consequential cuts. I then pointed out that English spending has risen faster than Scotland. I passed no comment on the virtue of that spending.

 

Given how Barnett works, it's really of no consequence whatsoever if the rise in English spending is or is not down to growth in their school population. We get more money either way. The fact that English schools spending has risen faster also suggests that, whether for good or ill, we're not passing on the full Barnett consequential where we could, if we wanted to.

 

The point being Scottish education resources are not under threat as a result of English academisation, even if English education resources were, as a result of academisation, a position for which there is no evidence to support it.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Ad Lib

[strichener]

My original post asked renton what evidence he had that academisation would lead to cuts in English education spending, hence Barnett consequential cuts. I then pointed out that English spending has risen faster than Scotland. I passed no comment on the virtue of that spending.

 

Given how Barnett works, it's really of no consequence whatsoever if the rise in English spending is or is not down to growth in their school population. We get more money either way. The fact that English schools spending has risen faster also suggests that, whether for good or ill, we're not passing on the full Barnett consequential where we could, if we wanted to.

 

The point being Scottish education resources are not under threat as a result of English academisation, even if English education resources were, as a result of academisation, a position for which there is no evidence to support it.

Yes but then Renton never mention Scottish education spending.  So for you to link the two and try and make out that Scotland would not lose out as we already spend less than England on education was, once again, misleading.  You appear to be doing that with increasing regularity on here.