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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2261 Post by Alan H » September 9th, 2015, 12:00 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Like a bad penny... Actually, surprised it's taken them so long.

The Tory plan to scrap the Human Rights Act confirmed in Parliament
The Government will publish its plans to replace the Human Rights Act in the autumn of this year, ministers have confirmed.

Asked in the House of Commons when the detailed plan for the Government’s “British Bill of Rights” would be made public, Dominic Raab said it would be available soon.

“We will bring forward proposals on a bill of rights this autumn, they will be subject to full consultation. The preparation is going well,” the justice minister said.

Mr Raab said the bill would give the UK Supreme Court supremacy over the European Court of Human Rights and give “a greater respect for the legislative role for honourable members in this place” – referring to MPs.

Dominic Raab, a Justice Minister Dominic Raab, a Justice Minister The minister responded to suggestions that the British Bill of Rights was being rushed by stating that the old legislation it was replacing had also been rushed.

“The Human Rights Act was itself rushed, there was no period of consultation, it was introduced to parliament in just six months and that’s one of the reasons it proved flawed in practice,” he said.

“We will take our time to get it right, we will take on board all the views that have been expressed and we want to restore some balance to our human rights regime and that’s what a bill of rights will do.”

It is not clear whether giving the UK Supreme Court supremacy over the European Court of Human Rights is compatible with membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove had previously suggested that proposals would be brought forward in the Autumn. The scrapping of the plan is being spearheaded by Mr Gove.

The Scottish Government has said it will try to stop the UK Government from repealing the Human Rights Act

“I oppose the repeal of the Human Rights Act, I think it’s an appalling thing to be doing,” Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said shortly after the election.

The Conservatives promised to repeal the Human Rights Act in their manifesto in this year’s general election.

The Act allows British citizens to raise human rights concerns in British courts rather than having to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

It also requires all public authorities to obey the European Convention on Human Rights.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2262 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2015, 12:45 pm

A profit is a profit, isn't it?

Five questions for the MoJ about the continuing bid to provide services to the Saudis.
The Ministry of Justice has announced that it is continuing with its bid to provide services on a commercial basis to the (barbaric) Saudi prisons system. It appears that it has to continue with the bid because it will incur liability for “financial penalties” if the bid is now withdrawn.

The ministerial statement is here – and should be read carefully in full.

For background, my FT post on this commercial proposal is here and my timeline of the shadowy “Just Solutions International” is here.

Michael Gove is to be commended for closing down “Just Solutions International” – another reversal of the dire Grayling legacy.

But there are serious questions to be asked about this continuing Saudi bid:

1. On what legal basis is the MoJ liable for “financial penalties”?

[For as there is no contract in place yet – and so no offer-and-acceptance – then the liability must be on some other basis. How has the MoJ ended up with legal liability before a contract has even been signed?]

2. Who at the MoJ agreed to this liability at bid stage?

3. What is the amount of the “financial penalties”?

4. Was legal advice taken by the MoJ before entering in to this liability?

5. One suspects MoJ had entered into a costs guarantee (and not a “financial penalty” in the strict legal sense). Can the MoJ confirm whether entering into this guarantee was agreed by the then Secretary of State and/or MoJ’s Accounting Officer (ie, the MoJ permanent secretary)? As a contingent liability, it should have been.

I have sent these questions to the MoJ press office. I suspect they will just refer me to the ministerial statement. But we will see.
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
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2263 Post by Altfish » September 10th, 2015, 1:07 pm

Maybe I'm being naïve, but surely it can't be difficult to price the works so that you are not successful.

So if the contract is worth (say) £100m, you price it at £150m - then await the "Thank you for tendering unfortunately in this case..." letter.

The ethical issue is wtf were they doing applying to be on the tender list in the first place.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2264 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2015, 2:09 pm

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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2265 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2015, 2:11 pm

Altfish wrote:The ethical issue is wtf were they doing applying to be on the tender list in the first place.
Dodgy deals with even dodgier regimes - as long as there is a profit to be made.
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)

#2266 Post by Dave B » September 10th, 2015, 4:07 pm

Looks like another government has sold the UK's paddle before researching just what rocks are up the creek!

Shitheads.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2267 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2015, 5:47 pm

MoJ confirms deal with barbaric Saudi prison system
That project is the selling of British prison expertise to the Saudi judicial regime.

To be clear, this is not about helping improve conditions and human rights in these prisons; it is for commercial gain. In August 2014 the MoJ ‘submitted a a £5.9m proposal to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Finance to conduct a training needs analysis across all the learning and development programmes within the Saudi Arabian Prison Service’.

As Selous wrote said yesterday, NOMS will be liable for a financial penalty if the bid is now withdrawn, and the bid has now been signed off. He assures us that his department ‘will continue to promote the rule of law, good governance and judicial reform internationally’.

Let’s take a look at the system the MoJ is working with to create ‘good governance’. It is the system which, now famously, sentenced the blogger Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes for writing, and sentenced his lawyer Waleed Sami Abulkhair to 15 years in prison for his human rights advocacy and peaceful criticism of Badawi’s punishment. It publicly beheaded Layla Bint Abdul Muttalib Basim after dragging her through the streets, while she screamed her innocence.
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)

#2268 Post by Dave B » September 10th, 2015, 8:11 pm

Ministers among MPs "named and shamed" over expenses debts

Three ministers are among 26 MPs "named and shamed" by the Commons watchdog over expenses debts. More than £2,000 owed by MPs was written off by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Their debts were written off because they did not reply to IPSA's requests! They should be fined 100x the amount of their debts, stopped out of tgeir salaries if need be.

Would we be allowed this if we fiddled work expenses?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2269 Post by Alan H » September 10th, 2015, 8:27 pm

Let me email HMRC and make them an offer...
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)

#2270 Post by Dave B » September 11th, 2015, 9:39 am

Realised that an MP fiddling expenses is robbing all of us - can we sue I wonder?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2271 Post by Alan H » September 12th, 2015, 12:23 am

Gove’s Saudi problem and how he should solve it
JSi was established in 2012. In essence, it was an exercise in amateurism and obfuscation, with civil servants toying with high-value international service contracts. There were no separate profit and loss accounts for what they did, and the MoJ remains unable to provide even the most basic financial information. Nobody seems to know how many contracts were entered into or bid for by these dabbling, taxpayer-funded “entrepreneurs”. There is no information publicly available about which Crown assets were used by the civil servants in this venture, and to whom the services were to be sold. No one can say if the JSi’s antics were in accordance with public sector rules on “value for money”.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2272 Post by Alan H » September 13th, 2015, 8:21 pm

It's interesting when a Tory comes out against Government proposals: David Davis attacks 'Franco-style' sections of Tories' trade union bill
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
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2273 Post by Altfish » September 14th, 2015, 7:40 am

Alan H wrote:It's interesting when a Tory comes out against Government proposals: David Davis attacks 'Franco-style' sections of Tories' trade union bill
Are union rights really to liberal?? Didn't Thatcher address this?
If employers (I'm looking at you, TfL) treated workers with respect, fairly and stuck to their promises most(all?) strikes are avoidable.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2274 Post by Alan H » September 14th, 2015, 9:41 am

Altfish wrote:
Alan H wrote:It's interesting when a Tory comes out against Government proposals: David Davis attacks 'Franco-style' sections of Tories' trade union bill
Are union rights really to liberal?? Didn't Thatcher address this?
If employers (I'm looking at you, TfL) treated workers with respect, fairly and stuck to their promises most(all?) strikes are avoidable.
It's not that they are too liberal; the Tories just don't want them at all.
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)

#2275 Post by Dave B » September 14th, 2015, 3:34 pm

Why do I get this feeling that attitudes have not changed much since Keir Hardie's time in the Tory mind?

Later: OK, to be fair, the same goes for some trade unionists!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2276 Post by Alan H » September 15th, 2015, 9:54 pm

Poor people have just been made poorer: Commons back Osborne plan for tax credit cuts
The Commons approved plans to lower the earnings level above which tax credits are withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850 and speed up the rate at which the benefit is lost as pay rises by 35 votes.
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: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2277 Post by Alan H » September 15th, 2015, 11:10 pm

The increasing death toll due to the loss of benefits
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) published guidance to job centre officials who decide whether claimants should have their payments stopped.

The guidance says: “It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without:

1. essential items such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation, or
2. sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks.

“The Decision Maker must decide if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult.”
Who can read that and not be utterly appalled?
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)

#2278 Post by Nick » September 16th, 2015, 2:36 am

Alan H wrote:The increasing death toll due to the loss of benefits
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) published guidance to job centre officials who decide whether claimants should have their payments stopped.

The guidance says: “It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without:

1. essential items such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation, or
2. sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks.

“The Decision Maker must decide if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult.”
Who can read that and not be utterly appalled?
That is why the unemployment resulting from socialist ideas current in Europe should be avoided as much as possible. Unemployment is bad for health. 2 million jobs have been created in the UK since 2010. The Labour Party predicted millions more unemployed. And were completely and utterly wrong.

Ed Balls was made unemployed though. So not all bad. :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2279 Post by Alan H » September 16th, 2015, 10:01 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:The increasing death toll due to the loss of benefits
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) published guidance to job centre officials who decide whether claimants should have their payments stopped.

The guidance says: “It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without:

1. essential items such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation, or
2. sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks.

“The Decision Maker must decide if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult.”
Who can read that and not be utterly appalled?
That is why the unemployment resulting from socialist ideas current in Europe should be avoided as much as possible. Unemployment is bad for health. 2 million jobs have been created in the UK since 2010. The Labour Party predicted millions more unemployed. And were completely and utterly wrong.

Ed Balls was made unemployed though. So not all bad. :)
Good god.
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)

#2280 Post by Dave B » September 16th, 2015, 10:45 am

How many of those "two million" jobs are unpaid internships, zero hours contracts or at sub-living wage level?

How much real industry, that Thatcher and her followers destroyed, has been generated? Was it Napoleon who said we are a nation of shop keepers? Well, the Tories like the service industries it seems so there was accuracy in Boney's words!

But then, upstairs downstairs lives still in the Tory mentality it seems; them in charge the rest of us "in service" bowing to their needs and desires.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2281 Post by thundril » September 16th, 2015, 11:41 am

Dave B wrote:How many of those "two million" jobs are unpaid internships, zero hours contracts or at sub-living wage level?

How much real industry, that Thatcher and her followers destroyed, has been generated? Was it Napoleon who said we are a nation of shop keepers? Well, the Tories like the service industries it seems so there was accuracy in Boney's words!

But then, upstairs downstairs lives still in the Tory mentality it seems; them in charge the rest of us "in service" bowing to their needs and desires.
Given the near-impossibility of renting in London on a low-skilled wage, there may well be trend in the near future towards keeping your staff in your attic or cellar. A return to Victorian values indeed!

Post Reply