And another thing!

nhap.org/its-here-our-policy-framework/

NHA party has now produced its policy for next year's election for anyone who wants to read it.

Tramadol gave me amazing hallucinations when I took it in hospital. They took me off it the next morning after hearing my tale of what I thought I'd seen. That was over a year ago. I'm in my right mind now.

Durhamjen

No we will not agree on much but I do, believe it or not, respect your tenacity.

We have different styles and I am not particularly computer minded, it leaves me cold to be honest. My style is to post as if I am talking to somebody in front of me.

Does that make any sense.?

I had no intention of causing upset, don't think I did, I think you are made of sturdier stuff than to feel that way. I was just trying to say, in maybe a poor way I would like to know what Durhamjen thinks on a more personal level than someone else's dialogue in a link.

I'll sign off I think the Bicardi is kicking in with the Tramadol.

Other people put my thoughts so much better than I do, POGs. When I do put my own thoughts I am always asked where I got my information from.
It's a shame you do not think the IPPR links are worth bothering about, as many of the experts you would agree with. I could do cut and paste like Elegran did, but it's easier to click on a link.
I usually read all links because I am interested in what the experts think. It is also interesting to find out where other people get their information from.
However, it's up to you whether you read links or not.

www.ippr.org/news-and-media/coverage/david-cameron-defends-massive-funding-gap-between-london-and-north-east

This is David Cameron defending the fact that London has masses spent on it, and the North East is the worst paid area in the country.
Whenever I go on a site, I check the sitemap to see what influences the writer has. Your politics are nothing like mine, so I do not expect you to agree with me anyway. I know I would never be able to persuade you differently, so I do not bother to try, just give facts.

My link at 11:31:44 is a factual one prepared for the Scottish Police Federation, if that helps differentiate it from a party-biased one. I try to find links which are NOT just PR.

Here is a cut-and-paste of it:-

"1. This report reviews trends in police funding in Scotland in the post-devolution period.

2. It shows that the Barnett Formula had no direct impact on police funding, as it operates in the form of an unhypothecated block grant which the Executive can allocate according to its priorities. Within
the block, Scotland receives full comparability with police spending
changes in England.

3. The report also shows that public spending in the Scottish Budget grew by 5.6% per annum in this period, and that Scotland’s share of the UK budget remained stable.

4. However, the research also shows that police spending per capita is the lowest of all four nations of the UK with England spending 20% more, and Wales 13% more. This is inconsistent with other major public services
for which Scottish spending is significantly higher, reflecting higher needs and higher unit costs in rural Scotland.

5. This results in Scotland having very low levels of spending on support staff costs, running costs and capital expenditure.

6. The report also shows that police funding has been growing by 2.2% less per annum than the Scottish Budget, and the police share of the Budget has fallen consistently since devolution.

7. By contrast, police funding in local authority budgets has grown in line with other local services.

8. In conclusion, expenditure on policing is the lowest in the UK. This has not arisen because of the financial framework for devolution, but because policing has been a low budget priority for the Scottish Executive since 1999, and because of the low baseline expenditure inherited from the pre-devolution system. "

I read some links not all, if that is of any help to anyone.

This is true regarding the links. Therefore not worth posting them.

Durhamjen. Responding to your post 00.12.

I posted the figures per head and spoke of the Barnett Formula in response to Granny 23's post of 18th Nov 01.51 where the Barnett Formula was mentioned and how well the Scottish Parliament look after the poulation with free prescriptions etc.

In that context England and Wales 'both' loose out to the Scots.

As for your blue link regarding the north of England I wish you would put your own thoughts, reasons and arguments forward for the purpose of debate as I don't read links as I find they usually belong to a political group or have a connection with a political party and I prefer to establish facts by referring to various sources to be able to ascertain what I understand or believe.

How much per head is spent in each of the countries on policing, and criminal justice? These are devolved to Scotland, I don't know about Wales and Northern Ireland, but the Barnett allocation has to cover these in Scotland as well as other things.

I have answered my own question (though not in £££) from this site

Sorry to add yet another link, but it summarises it on the site better than I could. It is short and succinct.

I wonder where the money was spent in the East - certainly not in Norfolk or Suffolk.

POGS, the Full Fact article shows that for every pound spent on a UK citizen 97p is spent on every English citizen, £1.10 on the Welsh, £1.16 on Scotland and £1.24 on Northern Ireland. Therefore it is only the English that lose out.

This is one of the things we complain about in the North East.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fnews%2Fdatablog%2F2014%2Faug%2F07%2Flondon-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england&ei=K39uVLGrMtjbap_pgLgN&usg=AFQjCNGOSFBSObETqiFE5M_djWATDlBKUg&bvm=bv.80185997,d.d2s&cad=rja

Hear, Hear! [As they like to say in Westminster.]

I see a valid point has been raised regarding discrepancies in spending in the English areas.

It's not right, no different to the Barnet Formula.

I'm actually glad it has been posted because it shows the North East, North West get more per head than any other area, except for London, a fact rarely spoken of and it is often suggested the North is dealt a poor hand compared to the South.

As for woman being leaders of their party I couldn't agree more with the comment they are there through merit, not by being on an all female list or to comply with quotas. It's not new though and we have had a female Prime Minister after all. There was of course the hypocrisy of an all female list which was won by a man who happened to be married to Harriet Harman. If I was a woman looking to gain a position I would be infuriated to be so patronised by all women short lists or fulfilling a quota.

As for appearance, again, I couldn't agree more, it should be irrelevant. I find the recent crap about what the Conservative women like Liz Truss wears or Theresa May having her shoes given more coverage of what she said as Home Secretary beyond annoying. They have all gone through the mill, Michael Foot, Ed Miliband, William Hague, Eric Pickles, the list goes on. The only saving grace is all parties fall fowl of it.

Oh dear guilty - I didn't notice Nicola Sturgeon's makeup but I did notice her hair! (shorter and nicely cut.) And her suit. If female politicians don't want us to notice their clothes then please will they wear plain navy or black suits with a plain high-necked top, not something startling!
But then when some of the males celebs are on BBC programmes I do notice their makeup - a bit heavy-handed and a very peculiar shade of lipstick!

Frivolity over. I'll leave you to your serious discussion.

Our council has announced sweeping cuts. Starting to put lives at risk if you ask me.
I wouldnt say they are broke yet. But still.

And - isn't it a good thing that no one has remarked on the SNP, Plaid and the Greens having female leaders chosen on merit? Isn't that how equality should work? When the media stop remarking on their makeup, figures and clothes we'll know we're really there.

Thank you * Granny 23*. Those figures are very reassuring. I'd always thought it was more of a level playing field. It's nice to know the country is in better shape than I thought. Here in the east our councils are broke. No money for anything. Now I know why. No wonder all the Polish people who come here feel so at home!

Just a few points before I leave this thread to those who prefer to make their political choices based on personalities rather than track records and policies.

1) There are huge unfair discrepancies between spend per capita throughout England too.

North East £9,419 – 107% of UK average identifiable expenditure
North West £9,252 – 105%
Yorkshire and the Humber £8,610 – 98%
East Midlands £8,118 – 92%
West Midlands £8,498 – 97%
East £7,865 – 89%
London £9,435 – 107%
South East £7,638 – 87%
South West £8,219 – 94%

2) The Barnett formula may have been devised (on the back of a fag packet) in 1978 but was not used until 1999 when the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament were established.

3) One of the reasons why Scotland gets more than Wales is that more powers/responsibilities/services e.g. Policing, and criminal justice are devolved to Scotland.

4) Nicola Sturgeon wears very light make-up as she goes about her day to day business, but is subjected (as are all politicans, celebs, etc. MALE and female) to the attentions of a make-up artist before appearing on TV whether in a studio or conference setting.

I was going to add how great it is that SNP, Plaid and the Greens now all have female leaders, chosen on merit rather than through a quota system, which I believe is a cause for celebration but realise that, on GN, I would be out on a limb with that one too.

Night all!

Durhamjen

What do you mean ' it's only England gets less'

We are at the bottom of the heap I agree but Wales gets less too.

I stand by my post of 18th Nov. 11.25. The Barnet Formula was a pernicious, political ploy used to get devolution. It has no legal status it was concocted by a Labour Treasury Minister and no government has had the bottle to challenge it.

I will add to that post.

Northern Ireland. £10.876. Per Head.
Scotland £10.152 Per Head
Wales. £9.709 Per Head
England. £8.529 Per Head.

It's not a level playing field and that's why it is contentious, especially when those who get extra mention how much more their people get such as free prescriptions and claim it's happened through good governance that isn't necessarily the case.

Sorry, word omitted: Lord Barnet would 'NOT' see the formula revoked

what was the thinking behind it in the first place, why the difference between the countries?

Well, of course, the Labour administration in Wales gets more per head than do the English, but what a mess they make of it, wasting money pursuing their pet projects.

the block grant under the Barnett Formula

Ah yes, the Barnett Formula.
POGS is correct in her description of it.
Quote from the DT:
Even Lord Barnett, the man who devised the controversial formula, said it is not fair on English taxpayers and should be reformed

Sadly, I believe that Lord Barnett died this month, lamenting the fact that his formula was still being used and he could see the formula revoked - if it ever will be. It was meant to be a very temporary measure introduced in 1978 but which has lasted for over 30 years.

You are at liberty to ignore the links. It can be useful to check them out if you are interested in the subject, and at least the thread doesn't get cluttered by posts containing lots of info from the links instead.