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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2081 Post by Nick » July 9th, 2015, 9:11 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

The public policy which is served is this: that you can live in a society where your assets belong to you, and are not just somehow "on loan" from the state.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2082 Post by Alan H » July 9th, 2015, 10:06 pm

Nick wrote:The public policy which is served is this: that you can live in a society where your assets belong to you, and are not just somehow "on loan" from the state.
What do you think that explains?
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)

#2083 Post by Alan H » July 9th, 2015, 10:31 pm

Obviously, a lot changed between David 'call me Dave' Cameron promising this just before the election and yesterday.
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)

#2084 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 12:32 am

And, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies' Benefit changes and distributional analysis, how we're all in it together, One Nation, and all that:
2015-07-10_00h29_34.png
2015-07-10_00h29_34.png (125.92 KiB) Viewed 782 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
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2085 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 12:50 am

National Living Wage mirage is a disaster for the low paid
But whatever the motivation and regardless of how happy it makes Iain Duncan Smith, this policy amounts to little more than false advertising. It will have disastrous consequences for the lowest paid.
The new semantics of Tory benevolence will consign millions to low pay. The normalisation of the minimum wage is a widely recognised phenomenon, which begs the question why would anyone be worth more than the new “premium”? There must now be a concerted effort by the opposition parties to retake the debate, to present an alternative vision, and to do right by the millions of low paid that will be in desperate need of help.
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)

#2086 Post by anaconda » July 10th, 2015, 7:59 am

How naive of me to think that George was doing some straight talking. That here was a real incentive. He giveth with one hand but taketh away considerably more with the other.

What's worse is the damage is already done. Most people pay little attention to the details of politics. The budget was met with some surprise and admiration. Despite the fact that it's main theme has now been shown to be a complete con, the political kudos persists. labour should be doing more to address this. Torys...still the nasty party.
John

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2087 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 8:54 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:The public policy which is served is this: that you can live in a society where your assets belong to you, and are not just somehow "on loan" from the state.
What do you think that explains?
:laughter: Don't you even read your own posts, Alan?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2088 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 10:02 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:The public policy which is served is this: that you can live in a society where your assets belong to you, and are not just somehow "on loan" from the state.
What do you think that explains?
:laughter: Don't you even read your own posts, Alan?
LOL!
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)

#2089 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 12:13 pm

New irony meters required all round: Government to review 'effectiveness of the ONS'
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)

#2090 Post by Dave B » July 10th, 2015, 2:10 pm

No doubt the ONS needs checks and balances but this smells of, "We don't like what they say so we will hassle them."

Political strategy 4a I think
"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)

#2091 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 2:14 pm

Dave B wrote:No doubt the ONS needs checks and balances but this smells of, "We don't like what they say so we will hassle them."

Political strategy 4a I think
What? No! Never. Surely?
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)

#2092 Post by Dave B » July 10th, 2015, 3:55 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:No doubt the ONS needs checks and balances but this smells of, "We don't like what they say so we will hassle them."

Political strategy 4a I think
What? No! Never. Surely?
Mmm, could just be . . .
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2093 Post by Altfish » July 10th, 2015, 5:14 pm

Kill the messenger, first it's the BBC then the ONS; very poor show by the Tories

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2094 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 7:03 pm

In the bmj: Defining child poverty
The government’s plan to repeal the 2010 Child Poverty Act, which committed it to eradicating child poverty in the UK by 2020, and dispense with the current definition of child poverty is highly concerning. Especially when you consider this plan in the context of a recent report by the four UK children’s commissioners, which stated that levels of child poverty in the UK were “unacceptably high” and expected to rise.

Iain Duncan Smith has indicated that the standard definition of relative child poverty (a household income below 60% of contemporary median) will be replaced with measures of “worklessness:” family breakdown, addiction, debt, and educational attainment. Details of how this “new” definition of child poverty will be formulated, and what the targets are, have not been outlined. This is concerning because an unvalidated and unclear measure of child poverty may be open to political manipulation.

No single measure of child poverty can capture the full picture. One reason the government has cited for ditching the relative income measure of child poverty is that in the context of the 2008/2009 economic recession, child poverty appeared to fall. However, this was because the overall UK median income fell. The absolute poverty measure, which is adjusted for inflation, indicates poverty has risen—both before and after housing costs are accounted for.

Relative income measures of poverty are an international standard used by the European Union, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, UNICEF, and most income rich countries. The measure is highly correlated with child health (figure 1).Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to have been born prematurely, die within the first year of life, develop obesity, have behavioural problems, and perform less well at school. These adverse risks also extend into adulthood, increasing the risk of poor health and social outcomes across the life course.

Image

Figure 1. Child mortality rate (age 1-17 years) for upper tier local authorities in England by relative child poverty. Directly standardised rate per 100 000 population. This figure was created by David Taylor-Robinson, one of the authors, using data from ChiMat, which is an open source.

But now more than ever a poverty measure based on income is important. The Institute for Fiscal studies has predicted a decade of rising child poverty, unprecedented since records began in the 1960s. The cuts to working age benefits announced in the chancellor’s summer budget, which included a limitation on child tax credits to two children only and a £6000 lowering of the household benefit cap, are likely to make the situation worse.

The current policy response to the shameful levels of child poverty in the UK appears to be to obfuscate the measure. We suggest that paediatricians should be “up in arms” about the proposed changes. Considering that around [url=http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ry/SN07096]one in three of our patients are already living in poverty, we must demand real action and certainly not permit any attempt to hide the true scale of the problem.

Caoimhe McKenna is a paediatrician working in North London and an academic clinical fellow at the Institute of Child Health, UCL. She has a special interest in the social determinants of health and the impact of economic policy on child health. She is also a member of the International Society of Social Paediatrics (ISSOP).

David Taylor-Robinson is a clinical senior lecturer at the Department of Public Health and Policy at the University of Liverpool. He is also an honorary clinical senior lecturer at the Institute of Child Health, UCL.

Sophie Wickham is a research fellow at the Department of Public Health and Policy at the University of Liverpool. Sophie’s research interests since working at the department revolve around the role policy interventions have on the social determinants of health inequalities.

Rosie Kyeremateng is a community paediatric trainee in the South West of England with interests in public health, global health, and children’s environmental health. Rosie is author of the “Infection in Schools” module of the RCPCH Healthy Schools Programme, and she has contributed to a child rights curriculum in association with the Open University. She is also the trainee representative on the International Society of Social Paediatrics (ISSOP) executive committee.

Benjamin Barr is a senior clinical lecturer in applied public health research at the Department of Public Health and Policy at the University of Liverpool.
Competing interests: None declared.
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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2095 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 7:18 pm

Oh dear. More holes than Wentworth.


Anyone can cut and paste, Alan.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2096 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 7:26 pm

Nick wrote:Oh dear. More holes than Wentworth.


Anyone can cut and paste, Alan.
And something asserted without evidence can be rejected on the same terms.
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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2097 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 7:40 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:Oh dear. More holes than Wentworth.


Anyone can cut and paste, Alan.
And something asserted without evidence can be rejected on the same terms.
Indeed. Are you asserting anything by your post? If so, I'd like to know what it is. If not, why post?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2098 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 7:41 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:Oh dear. More holes than Wentworth.


Anyone can cut and paste, Alan.
And something asserted without evidence can be rejected on the same terms.
Indeed. Are you asserting anything by your post? If so, I'd like to know what it is. If not, why post?
Nope. But you did.
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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2099 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 7:49 pm

So you are posting for no reason.... :shrug:

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2100 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 8:34 pm

Nick wrote:So you are posting for no reason.... :shrug:
Wrong.

What are the holes in it, Nick?
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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2101 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 9:06 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:So you are posting for no reason.... :shrug:
Wrong.

What are the holes in it, Nick?
Er, no. I'm asking why did you post this? You failed to answer. Completely.

What is your reason?

If you support it, then why?

If you don't support it, then why?

If neither, then why post?

If it is "to stimulate discussion" why do you choke off any further discussion by posting meaningless emoticons...?

Oh dear, Alan. If you are not asserting anything by your post, then it can be dismissed without further comment. What, if anything are you suggesting?

As I said, anyone can cut and past.

Post Reply