England Loses Out of £671m Euro Money
Iain Dale 10:07 AM
If you are English, you may well be as outraged as I am by this. In a further demonstration of how England is ignored and discriminated against by this government, the Financial Times reports this morning...
I'd like an explanation please, because the one offered by Hazel Blears's department so far is totally unconvincing.
English regions have lost up to £671m ($996m) in funds for combating recession, according to figures from the European Commission.That may be so, but it still means that England loses out, while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had their full allocation. It stinks, especially in a time of economic recession. That money could have presumably been used on infrastructure projects which create a lot of jobs. But it seems our government couldn't get off its collective arse and fill in the necessary paperwork to claim the money.
As reported in the FT last month, the government declined a deadline extension offered by Brussels to help the UK spend the money. Ministers took up the option for devolved regions but rejected it for England. The unspent money will instead be recouped by the Treasury, which can deduct it from future contributions to European Union budgets.
I'd like an explanation please, because the one offered by Hazel Blears's department so far is totally unconvincing.
The Moral Obligations of Yvette Cooper
Iain Dale 9:44 AM
Yvette Cooper appeared on the Today Programme this morning explaining how there is a strong moral duty for the bankers not to accept their bonuses, even when there are legal contractual obligations for the banks to give them out.
Then within seconds, John Humphrys challenged Cooper about Jacqui Smith, Cooper and hubby Balls all claiming maximum expenses against their second homes, even when the justification of these payments were extremely flakey in the public's eyes. Straight away Cooper launched into the defence that she, Smith and Balls were only following obligations and rules set down by Parliament and that they were only claiming what they were entitled to.
The paradox of telling bankers that they should ignore what they were legally entitled to, while politicians like her should continue to receive what they are entitled to, seemed to escape her.
So much for 'moral obligation', then, eh ?
Then within seconds, John Humphrys challenged Cooper about Jacqui Smith, Cooper and hubby Balls all claiming maximum expenses against their second homes, even when the justification of these payments were extremely flakey in the public's eyes. Straight away Cooper launched into the defence that she, Smith and Balls were only following obligations and rules set down by Parliament and that they were only claiming what they were entitled to.
The paradox of telling bankers that they should ignore what they were legally entitled to, while politicians like her should continue to receive what they are entitled to, seemed to escape her.
So much for 'moral obligation', then, eh ?
Posts
