INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1581 Post by Alan H » February 14th, 2015, 1:37 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Lord Green quits amid HSBC row
Lord Green, the former HSBC chairman, has stepped down from his role as the head of the City of London lobby group, CityUK.

He is currently at the centre of a row over HSBC's involvement in illicit Swiss banking a decade ago.

His resignation was announced by the BBC this morning.

A leaked report on Monday revealed that HSBC's Swiss arm had helped 8,844 wealthy Britons avoid millions of pounds in tax.

The allegations of historic tax avoidance at the bank relate to files leaked by whistleblower dating from 2005 to 2007.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1582 Post by thundril » February 14th, 2015, 3:25 pm

Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1583 Post by Alan H » February 14th, 2015, 4:10 pm

thundril wrote:Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100
Not sure I see why that's relevant. Can you explain?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1584 Post by thundril » February 14th, 2015, 4:57 pm

This ACPO document, produced in 2010, makes very clear that the police do not have the right to forbid an event. For examples
(para 2.88) "The organisers of the event have overall responsibility for the event, including responsibility for public safety."
(para 2.96) "ACPO 2009 Public Safety Policy explains that the police service is often viewed as the first point of reference for those who organise public events, the assumption being that the police service can authorise or ban them. That is not the case, and it is vital that this perception is changed."

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1585 Post by Nick » February 14th, 2015, 4:59 pm

"Lobby group", Alan? That's not what the paper says, and is altogether different from the role of TheCityUK.


In other news....

Britain risks turning into France under Labour governmentAnd they don't mean the sunshine. :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1586 Post by Alan H » February 14th, 2015, 5:29 pm

Nick wrote:"Lobby group", Alan? That's not what the paper says, and is altogether different from the role of TheCityUK.
I never called them a lobby group: it was the Torygraph that did - I copied exactly what they wrote, but they seemed to have changed it. It now says:
Lord Green, the former HSBC chairman, has stepped down from his role as the head of the UK’s national body for financial services, TheCityUK.
But it still calls them a lobby group further down:
Members of the advisory committee of lobby group CityUK told the Financial Times on Friday that peer could be asked to step down as their chairman, unless the frenzy over the affair died down.
2015-02-14_17h28_38.png
2015-02-14_17h28_38.png (11.12 KiB) Viewed 859 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1587 Post by anaconda » February 15th, 2015, 11:03 am

I wonder why tax evaders on the whole flock to the tories. If you don't believe in paying tax then why do it? If you don't believe in taxation or in collecting tax then why do it? All tories together.
John

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1588 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2015, 11:08 am

anaconda wrote:I wonder why tax evaders on the whole flock to the tories. If you don't believe in paying tax then why do it? If you don't believe in taxation or in collecting tax then why do it? All tories together.
Oh really, John! If you think that it is moral to evade tax, then you are hardly likely to vote for a high tax party, are you? But to tar all Tories will the evasion tag is as offensive as to tag Labour the party of idle scroungers who think that other peoples hard work should pay for their pleasures.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1589 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2015, 11:10 am

thundril wrote:Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100
Very relevant, Thundril, and, I think, entirely consistent with my previous posts on this topic.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1590 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 11:26 am

Speaking of scroungers, the David 'call me Dave' Cameron announced a few days ago their intention to withdraw benefits from people who were obese or had addiction problems unless they underwent treatment. Several doctors have condemned this nasty and vindictive policy as totally unethical; the Tories presumably think the hard working taxpayer should not be subsidising their lifestyle and want to save the money so they can go after the tax dodgers...

The BBC reports:
Some 100,000 people with such conditions claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the government says.
It's not clear what the split between the obese and those with addiction problems was, but it seems his figures are ever so slightly wrong:
According to government figures released by the DWP last month, there was a total of just 1,540 people claiming employment support allowance on the basis of obesity last year. That's right, just 1,540.

A further 240 obese people claimed incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance. So that's a grand total of 1780 claimants, or a whopping 0.002% of the UK population.
Plus 82,490 with alcohol or drug addiction problems, but the focus seems to have been more on the obese.

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1591 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2015, 11:30 am

There are lies, damned lies and politicians quoting statistics it might seem.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1592 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2015, 11:33 am

Ed wassisname struggled to think of a single prominent businessman who supports Labour, in contrast to the many who have abandoned the Labour party they had previously supported.

Eventually they came up with Dale Vince, the Green power guy. Unfortunately for Ed, it turns out that, like Ed Miliband, he is a tax dodger too.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1593 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2015, 11:36 am

Alan H wrote:And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.
It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked. But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.

Dog-whistle politics, just like Miliband's.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1594 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 1:35 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.
It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.
Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?
But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.
Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1595 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2015, 2:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.
It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.
Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?
But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.
Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?
+1

As prsented, like the bedroom tax and many other such strategies, it seems a like blanket bombing raid - just throw the book at everyone regardless of their circumstances. Why is the individual fat or addicted? Is there an overarching environmental, health, gentic component? Would the person need months of (non-existent) therapy in order to break a habit of long standing and possibly caused by life trauma?

Then they have to be brought to a standard of personal fitness and possibly self-value/respect that they are capable of taking one of the, what, millions of jobs available to such.

There will be a wide spectrum of personality types, from the capable but cunning to those who have long lost all hope. Betcha the resources that will be made available for this strategy are way, way less than what will be needed for it to save the nation money in the next ten years. It will more likely cost more, in human suffering as well as salaries, fees etc. paid trying to implement it.

Looks like another potential and expensive fuck-up for G4 or some such.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1596 Post by Nick » February 15th, 2015, 5:11 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.
It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.
Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?
But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.
Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?
Oh dear. Even when I agree with you, the red mist descends... I could just FFS, but I'll try to explain. :wink:

If people could be motivated by the threat to their benefits, then they would slim down, their health would improve, they would be better and healthier in all sorts of ways, and therefore more likely to get a job. That is how it would work. The problem with that scenario, is that they are (to be very general about it) suffering from obesity precisely because they are most unlikely to be motivated by such things. And surely addiction and (very often) obesity is itself the evidence that the afflicted have not responded, and are therefore unlikely to respond to, the promise of a better life "if only they try", or some such thing. What other conclusion would you draw?

So, Dave, that is why I largely agree with you too.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1597 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 6:09 pm

Nick wrote:Oh dear. Even when I agree with you, the red mist descends... I could just FFS, but I'll try to explain. :wink:
No, Nick. What you said was contradictory and not cogent. I highlighted what you said and pointed out what I saw as the contradictions. It wasn't clear on which side of the issue you fell.
If people could be motivated by the threat to their benefits, then they would slim down, their health would improve, they would be better and healthier in all sorts of ways, and therefore more likely to get a job. That is how it would work. The problem with that scenario, is that they are (to be very general about it) suffering from obesity precisely because they are most unlikely to be motivated by such things. And surely addiction and (very often) obesity is itself the evidence that the afflicted have not responded, and are therefore unlikely to respond to, the promise of a better life "if only they try", or some such thing. What other conclusion would you draw?
There are just far too many assumptions and prejudices in that. But because that David 'call me Dave' Cameron hasn't provided any evidence that such sanctions would have the desired effect, I think we are right to not support it until he does and I hope that is what you are saying.

However, I think what is clear is that if this was implemented and someone who was obese or who was an addict had their benefits withdrawn because they refused to consent to treatment, what could happen to them? Has Cameron thought this through?

Of course, with obesity and addiction come all sorts of co-morbidities, so stopping their ESA, could lead some into even deeper problems - up to and including depression and suicide. Well, at least that would solve the problem and get the scroungers off the DWP's books...

It looks like yet another wizzo idea that Cameron and his cronies have dreamt up over a bottle of claret that they have been incapable of thinking through.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1598 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 7:27 pm

My wife and child are disabled, I care for them. Govt have made our lives a living hell. No government should do this to citizens.
I have no idea why my wife and I ever bothered paying into the system. Which, in turn, means we wonder why we ever bothered working.

People buy into all the TV productions, media headlines and political nonsense about benefits. But the likes of newapaper stories, “Benefits Street” or Benefits Britain are not factually typical or realistic. They are far from representative, and always one-sided.

There is a great myth that has been spun by the government and media; the myth is that welfare benefits were too generous, too high and needed to be cut.

However, the reality is very different from this image that has skewed people’s perceptions of welfare. The truth is that welfare benefits were never too high. Far from it, they were in fact inadequate.

The truth is that pay levels have been and still are grossly insufficient. Combined with high prices and a high cost of living, it is no wonder most people feel ‘cheated’.
This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1599 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2015, 8:13 pm

This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.
... or personal integretity, honour, humanity, moral fortitude, concern, care . . .
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1600 Post by Dave B » February 15th, 2015, 8:18 pm

This is supposed to be a strategy that will be popular with the tax-paters (disinclude me please as it seems to be planned). What's that old saying? A version might be, "When they have gobbled all the benefits and still fucked it up they will turn on you, Mr & Mrs Taxpayer!"
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#1601 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 11:59 pm

Dave B wrote:
This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.
... or personal integretity, honour, humanity, moral fortitude, concern, care . . .
+1
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply