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.
Message
Author
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2421 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 2:03 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Dave B wrote:[quote="NickApparently, Tony Blair regards the FoI Act as his biggest blunder....

I know that, Nick, why is it relevant?[/quote]Because it was hid government that introduced it. I would have thought that that was extremely relevant.

Just another of your attempted digs at the left?
No, a devastating critique. :wink:

The colour of the politician, IMO, has no relevance - never trust any of them!
I'll bear that in mind. :D

In the light of which I await your disparaging comments on any who make "attempted digs" at "the right"...... :wink:

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2422 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 2:07 am

Alan H wrote:If Michael Gove listens to Daniel Hannan’s honeyed polemic on Human Rights he really will get into a muddle
Let’s start with the “Sovereignty problem.” Mr Hannan’s premise is that the Human Rights Act gives “direct effect” to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. That might indeed be a problem if it were true; but it isn’t. The Human Rights Act does not give direct effect to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. If your premise is wrong, then no matter how beautifully expressed the rest of your argument may be, it won’t hold water.

The relevant part of the Human Rights Act is Section 2, and all that that does is require British courts to “take into account any:
judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights;"

Taking something “into account” does not mean agreeing with it, or necessarily obeying it. And as the English courts have made quite clear it certainly does not mean “giving direct effect to it.” For example, in the case ofVinter[/url] the European Court of Human Rights found in July 2013 that a whole-life term of imprisonment was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (which prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment). It was a conclusion which the England and Wales Court of Appeal Criminal Division took into account, and then expressly disagreed with when, on the Attorney General’s application, it imposed a whole-life term on a double murderer in February 2014. It was a clash between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Appeal: and the Court of Appeal won. This was not a unique case: in 2009 the Supreme Court, had declined to follow the European Court of Human Rights in Horncastle, a case about the admissibility in evidence of the statement of a deceased witness.

So there's no point in worrying about the Act, then, as courts can readily ignore the ECHR....?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2423 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 2:18 am

Alan H wrote:If only all towns and businesses did this... Crickhowell: Welsh town moves 'offshore' to avoid tax on local business
When independent traders in a small Welsh town discovered the loopholes used by multinational giants to avoid paying UK tax, they didn’t just get mad.

Now local businesses in Crickhowell are turning the tables on the likes of Google and Starbucks by employing the same accountancy practices used by the world’s biggest companies, to move their entire town “offshore”.


Well, let's see....

loopholes which allowed the likes of Amazon to pay just £11.9m of tax last year on £5.3bn of UK internet sales.
What spectacular, ignorant fuckwittery and stupidity. The £11.9m was paid on their profits. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with turnover. On which VAT would have been paid, but which doesn't appear in the company's accounts. why? Because the company is just an unpaid tax-collector for the government. The money is never theirs; they are merely handling it on behalf of the government.

I would bet on Crickhowell escaping tax, but let's see..... :popcorn:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2424 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2015, 10:37 am

Nick wrote:]
So there's no point in worrying about the Act, then, as courts can readily ignore the ECHR....?
:laughter:
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2425 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2015, 10:38 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:If only all towns and businesses did this... Crickhowell: Welsh town moves 'offshore' to avoid tax on local business
When independent traders in a small Welsh town discovered the loopholes used by multinational giants to avoid paying UK tax, they didn’t just get mad.

Now local businesses in Crickhowell are turning the tables on the likes of Google and Starbucks by employing the same accountancy practices used by the world’s biggest companies, to move their entire town “offshore”.


Well, let's see....

loopholes which allowed the likes of Amazon to pay just £11.9m of tax last year on £5.3bn of UK internet sales.
What spectacular, ignorant fuckwittery and stupidity. The £11.9m was paid on their profits. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with turnover. On which VAT would have been paid, but which doesn't appear in the company's accounts. why? Because the company is just an unpaid tax-collector for the government. The money is never theirs; they are merely handling it on behalf of the government.

I would bet on Crickhowell escaping tax, but let's see..... :popcorn:
:laughter:
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2426 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2015, 10:46 am

George Osborne sees fresh blow over planned tax credit cuts changes
George Osborne has suffered a political setback over his plans to cut working tax credits when a Conservative-controlled select committee condemned his proposed reforms and urged him to consider a pause to undertake a fundamental rethink of his priorities in reforming the welfare state.

In a report, the work and pensions select committee argues that a slower phasing in of the tax credit cuts would compromise neither the government’s commitment to cut spending on welfare nor its aim to balance the books by the end of the parliament. The report was agreed unanimously, including by six Tory MPs.



John Major and Gordon Brown defend benefit claimants - Politics Live
But Major and Brown are both speaking up for those facing welfare cuts. The former Conservative prime minister did so tactfully, without directly attacking the government. This is what Major said in the Hinton lecture last night.
Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and governments are entirely right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not be only on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

Although borderline poverty is far less than it was, it is still more than it should be. And it cannot be ended by benefits alone. Where benefits are necessary – and they always will be – we should never begrudge them.

In contrast, Brown, the former Labour prime minister, is explicitly saying that the government’s tax credit cuts are wrong. He will give a speech later today, but he has already set out his argument in a Guardian article.
Fiction can become fact; the constant lie can become accepted and incontrovertible truth. So it was with Tory claims that Labour had brought Britain close to being another Greece. Now it is happening again on Europe. And the most insidious myth, increasingly pervasive, is that the poor are workshy, scrounging out chaotic lives in a nation where strivers are paying their taxes for skivers ...

Sitting in the Treasury drafting the autumn statement for 25 November, George Osborne may now be planning to phase in his tax credit cuts. But only a total abandonment of the cuts will correct his mistakes. For once we separate fact from fiction, it will be clear that the majority of today’s poor, and the biggest losers from his tax credit changes, are not the unemployed or “chaotic” families but hard-working parents and their children ...

All the facts belie the Tory propaganda. Not only are 51% of Britain’s poor now in working households, but as many as two of every three poor children live in a working family. Indeed, the biggest group of families in poverty are highly traditional families: fathers who work and mothers who stay at home, but who now cannot survive on one wage. Of course we have to deal with a range of problems – from drugs and domestic violence to mental illness and family break-ups – but it is a fiction that the biggest army of today’s poor are from “chaotic” families.
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
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2427 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 10:52 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:]
So there's no point in worrying about the Act, then, as courts can readily ignore the ECHR....?
:laughter:
Glad to amuse you Alan, but I made that remark because I was somewhat puzzled. Oh, well...

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2428 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 10:53 am

Nick wrote:I would bet on Crickhowell escaping tax, but let's see..... :popcorn:
That should, of course, read "wouldn't"... Doh!

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2429 Postby Nick » November 11th, 2015, 11:01 am

Alan H wrote:George Osborne sees fresh blow over planned tax credit cuts changes
In a report, the work and pensions select committee argues that a slower phasing in of the tax credit cuts would compromise neither the government’s commitment to cut spending on welfare nor its aim to balance the books by the end of the parliament. The report was agreed unanimously, including by six Tory MPs.
Not much of a blow, if the committee (which includes Labour MP's) still agree that all the cuts should be implemented in full. If that is a "blow" to Osborne, how would the Grauniad describe the total shambles which is the open, glaring conflicts which exist within the shadow cabinet?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2430 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2015, 11:11 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:George Osborne sees fresh blow over planned tax credit cuts changes
In a report, the work and pensions select committee argues that a slower phasing in of the tax credit cuts would compromise neither the government’s commitment to cut spending on welfare nor its aim to balance the books by the end of the parliament. The report was agreed unanimously, including by six Tory MPs.
Not much of a blow, if the committee (which includes Labour MP's) still agree that all the cuts should be implemented in full. If that is a "blow" to Osborne, how would the Grauniad describe the total shambles which is the open, glaring conflicts which exist within the shadow cabinet?
:laughter:
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2431 Postby Alan H » November 11th, 2015, 12:05 pm

David Cameron hasn’t the faintest idea how deep his cuts go. This letter proves it
It’s like the crucial moment in Graham Greene’s novel The Quiet American. The US agent stares at the blood on his shoes, unable to make the connection between the explosion he commissioned and the bodies scattered across the public square in Saigon. In leaked correspondence with the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire county council (which covers his own constituency), David Cameron expresses his horror at the cuts being made to local services. This is the point at which you realise that he has no conception of what he has done.
I think it's a toss-up between David 'call me Dave' not knowing how deep his cuts have gone or not caring.
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)

#2432 Postby thundril » November 11th, 2015, 9:48 pm

It's like this, Dave. Whern you have been ordered to spend less money, it sort of implies you have to cut down what you spend. Ask anyone. (Except maybe Georgie-boy, who is, with all due respect, a clueless fucking coke head.)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2433 Postby Alan H » November 12th, 2015, 11:52 am

Alan H wrote:Tsk, tsk. David Cameron reported to statistics watchdog over questionable EU migrant benefit statistics
The website Full Fact, an independent organisation that verifies claims made by politicians of all parties, said there was “nothing” backing up the figures in any official publication.

Full Fact said it was launching a full complaint to the UK Statistics Authority.

“There is nothing backing these up on the Department for Work and Pensions’ ad hoc statistics page—where non-regular analysis is placed when it is used in public, for example in speeches or the press,” wrote Phobe Arnold, a researcher at Full Fact.
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, was among those treating the 43 per cent figure with incredulity.

“They appear to have taken the number of EU/EEA migrants claiming benefits from DWP data, made some ‘adjustments’, and divided by the number of EU/EEA migrants here for less than four years according to the LFS,” the Times newspaper quoted him as saying.

Mr Portes described some aspects of the figures as “very suspicious” and contrary to statistical “common sense”.
An update:
UPDATE 11 November 2015 The UK Statistics Authority has replied to our letter calling the Prime Minister’s use of unpublished statistics “disappointing” and “unsatisfactory” and emphasising that the Code of Practice requires equal access to statistics.

That’s why we complained: without equal access, the public is shut out of public debate.

An ad hoc release was published at the end of the day yesterday to explain where the figures come from. We and others are still analysing it.
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)

#2434 Postby thundril » November 12th, 2015, 8:27 pm

"Thank you Mr Speaker. . . I have a letter here from David, who's worried about cuts to local council services. . "

From next week's PMQs.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2435 Postby Alan H » November 12th, 2015, 9:08 pm

thundril wrote:
"Thank you Mr Speaker. . . I have a letter here from David, who's worried about cuts to local council services. . "

From next week's PMQs.
Oh yes, please!!!
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: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2436 Postby Alan H » November 12th, 2015, 9:41 pm

2015-11-12_21h40_54.png
2015-11-12_21h40_54.png (361 KiB) Viewed 3170 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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2437 Postby thundril » November 12th, 2015, 9:48 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-austerity-public-sector-cutsThis is from the Grauniad, so it's bound to be wrong, ignorant, evil, etc, etc, . .

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2438 Postby Dave B » November 12th, 2015, 9:57 pm

thundril wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-austerity-public-sector-cutsThis is from the Grauniad, so it's bound to be wrong, ignorant, evil, etc, etc, . .
Apply that description to Cameron's policies and it would be accurate . . .
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2439 Postby Nick » November 12th, 2015, 10:32 pm

thundril wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-austerity-public-sector-cutsThis is from the Grauniad, so it's bound to be wrong, ignorant, evil, etc, etc, . .
You're learning, thundril.... :wink:

It would seem that the electorate thought the Grauniad was wrong too, as they elected a majority Tory government rather than the Labour "anti-austerity" alternative.

*Cue disparaging remarks about the electorate....." :rolleyes:

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2440 Postby thundril » November 12th, 2015, 11:07 pm

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-cameron-austerity-public-sector-cutsThis is from the Grauniad, so it's bound to be wrong, ignorant, evil, etc, etc, . .
You're learning, thundril.... :wink:
This is a hard-working woman writing about what it's really like, being confronted with the juxtaposition of obesity and obscenity that is today's capitalism. You have no justificatrion to offer, so you treat it like some kind of joke. It's not a joke. For several years now I have been trying very hard not to conclude that all Tories are arrogant smirking bastards. That some of them are fundamentally decent human beings who, despite having some weird moral quirks and odd political theories, might still be worth engaging with. You're not helping here, Nick.
It would seem that the electorate thought the Grauniad was wrong too, as they elected a majority Tory government rather than the Labour "anti-austerity" alternative.

*Cue disparaging remarks about the electorate....." :rolleyes:

Sure, you can take it that I would indeed be making disparaging remarks about that tiny fraction of the electorate who
a: knew what Cameron and Osborne were actually planning to do to working tax credit, and
b: deliberately voted for it.
I would be making some such remarks, if I thought there was any point. But there isn't, is there, Nick?

As for the rest of us: we were offered an austerity-fanatic government, or an austerity-bemoaning government that was committed to austerity with crocodile tears thrown in. Five million of us rejected both offers, voting either Green or Ukip, and a third of the electorate saw no point in bothering at all. A real mandate, that. Well done.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2441 Postby thundril » November 13th, 2015, 1:43 am



Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests