The future of Government (if any)

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

There needs to be a 'leftie p-lot' to show people vjust how clever Boris Johnson is. He's a cunning nasty piece of work with a jolly prankster, harmless buffoon persona.

+1

[thundril]

Indefensible! But I'm sure Nick will have a go at defending it.

[Alan H]

Hands up if you're in the slightest bit surprised: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... er-up.html]Exclusive: Jeremy Hunt accused of sugar tax cover-up[/url

]Jeremy Hunt has become embroiled in a furious row with the head of the Commons select committee, who last night accused him of suppressing an "inconvenient" report on the case for a sugar tax.

Dr Sarah Wollaston said the refusal to disclose a scientific review on how to reduce the country's sugar intake ahead of an inquiry into child obesity would cause "immense damage" and set a "dangerous precedent".

The Tory MP questioned whether the country's independent public health agency - which has completed the review - is bowing to political pressures from ministers, who have made clear their opposition to a sugar tax.

She said the decision by Mr Hunt and officials at Public Health England (PHE) not to hand the report to MPs, who will begin an inquiry into child obesity on Tuesday, was "outrageous" and would set back efforts to tackle the spiralling problem.

Obesity campaigners described the disclosures as "shocking" and questioned whether ministers were trying to suppress scientific evidence that conflicted with the Government's position.

Dr Sarah Wollaston still the only Tory MP with integrity and principles.

[thundril]

Dr Sarah Wollaston still the only Tory MP with integrity and principles.

There's certainly not many Tories with the courage, the honesty and the humanity to make the right choice between human health and financial interst. Respect to Dr Wollaston.

[Altfish]

Hands up if you're in the slightest bit surprised: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... er-up.html]Exclusive: Jeremy Hunt accused of sugar tax cover-up[/url

]Jeremy Hunt has become embroiled in a furious row with the head of the Commons select committee, who last night accused him of suppressing an "inconvenient" report on the case for a sugar tax.

Dr Sarah Wollaston said the refusal to disclose a scientific review on how to reduce the country's sugar intake ahead of an inquiry into child obesity would cause "immense damage" and set a "dangerous precedent".

The Tory MP questioned whether the country's independent public health agency - which has completed the review - is bowing to political pressures from ministers, who have made clear their opposition to a sugar tax.

She said the decision by Mr Hunt and officials at Public Health England (PHE) not to hand the report to MPs, who will begin an inquiry into child obesity on Tuesday, was "outrageous" and would set back efforts to tackle the spiralling problem.

Obesity campaigners described the disclosures as "shocking" and questioned whether ministers were trying to suppress scientific evidence that conflicted with the Government's position.

Dr Sarah Wollaston still the only Tory MP with integrity and principles.

Once more the Tories hide facts when they get in the way of dogma

[Dave B]

All parties are guilty of that surely, Altfish?

[Altfish]

All parties are guilty of that surely, Altfish?

Not disputing that, but at the moment only one party has the power

[Alan H]

A fairly long but worthwhile read uncovering the murky relationship between the UK Government and Saudi Arabia leaving many vital questions unanswered by our Government: Hidden agreements on justice and policing: UK’s appeasement of Saudi Arabia

To what extent does the influence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reach into the domestic government of the United Kingdom? And what does the UK get in return?

The relationship between the UK and the Saudis is becoming more curious and far-reaching than many appreciate. It is not more well-known because the UK is careful to keep a great amount from public view. The lack of transparency goes wider than would seem strictly necessary for co-operation in military and intelligence matters: it affects the UK justice system and the police. For example: Britain’s Home Office and Ministry of Justice both have undisclosed memoranda of understanding with their Saudi counterparts. (An MoU is a formal agreement that is intended not to have legal force, unlike, say, a contract or a treaty; it is usually a negotiated statement about the practical terms of a relationship.)

A third UK public body, the College of Policing, provides expensive training courses for Saudi police but refuses to say exactly what training is being given, and at what price.

This lack of transparency is one thing; but are there grounds for other concerns? Is anything untoward going on between the UK and the Saudis — in either direction — under this veil of ignorance? Something is certainly being hidden; but what?

[Alan H]

Nothing to see here. All above board. All relevant taxes dutifully and timeously paid. Not even a whisper of anything illegal going on anywhere - no one is suggesting otherwise.

Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax in 2014

[Dave B]

Someone on R4 said that since share bonuses to employees are taxable, at a rate higher than corporation tax, the exchequer could make a profit on this.

[Alan H]

Senior UN official warns against UK plans to scrap Human Rights Act

The UN’s most senior human rights official has condemned the UK government’s proposal to scrap the Human Rights Act.

In an unusual intervention for a UN official, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said the Conservative party’s threat to leave the European court of human rights (ECHR) was “profoundly regrettable”.

The British bill of rights, promised in the Conservative election manifesto, will “break the formal link between British courts and the European court of human rights”. Judgments from Strasbourg will, in effect, become advisory and the UK’s supreme court will become supreme.

The justice minister, Dominic Raab, hit back at Zeid’s comments and said it was irresponsible to criticise UK government plans, which he insisted would strengthen human rights, before they had been announced.

[Nick]

Indefensible! But I'm sure Nick will have a go at defending it.

It's being replaced by PIPs. Which may be better or worse. But that doesn't seem to concern the originator. Spreading misinformation would appear to be much more important. Typical.

[Alan H]

Well, a Tory MP - and Gove at that - demanding the Government's multi-million pound commercial deal with the human rights abusing/beheading/crucifying Saudis be scrapped? Who'd have thought it? But wait! David 'call me Dave' tells Gove the deal will go ahead: Michael Gove “picks a fight” over the MoJ’s Saudi contract bid: the background

[Alan H]

Apparently, David 'call me Dave' Cameron has just cancelled the 'deal' to provide 'prison services' to the Saudis.

Why oh why has it taken so long and why did it ever happen in the first place?

And congratulations must surely go to David Allen Green for bringing this to the public's attention in the first place and for his dogged determination to highlight what the Ministry of Justice were up to.

[Alan H]

Isn't it a pity it took the cold light of adverse publicity to force David 'call me Dave' Cameron to do the right thing? UK ditches plan to bid for £5.9m Saudi Arabia prisons contract

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Indefensible! But I'm sure Nick will have a go at defending it.

It's being replaced by PIPs. Which may be better or worse. But that doesn't seem to concern the originator. Spreading misinformation would appear to be much more important. Typical.

It's still DLA for children:
https://www.gov.uk/disability-living-allowance-children

If the child is on DLA at age 16, a claim for PIP is invited.

Until PIP was introduced, the criteria for children and adults were ( broadly) similar. It was a fair assumption in many cases that, if a child qualified for DLA up to age 16, he or she would qualify when invited to make a fresh claim on turning 16. Now that the criteria have diverged, of course, the assumption won't hold.

[Nick]

True, Milord, I was just being brief. I was not intending to mislead like the original reference.

[Nick]

So what are we to make of the idea of balanced budgets? As the Labour Party has recommended both yes and no within a couple of weeks, it's hard to tell......

[thundril]

So what are we to make of the idea of balanced budgets? As the Labour Party has recommended both yes and no within a couple of weeks, it's hard to tell......

The Labour Party is going through a period of debate and change. Personally, I find this refreshing and hopeful. The media and the Westminster Village Idiots will have to get used to this, or remain forever perplexed, and increasingly irrelevant.
The standard 'current affairs' set piece goes like this: the interviewer tries to get the minister to 'admit' that they have changed their mind. The minister dodges and weaves, imparting as little information as possible. The interviewer presses on till something like a change of position is 'admitted'. The media scream 'u-turn! leadership in crisis!' and predict the onset of Armageddon.
I am hoping that this kind of tedious point-scoring nonsense might be coming to an end. It seems designed to put people off politics.
Look. When intelligent people are presented with new arguments in a changing landscape, they reconsider their position.
This is what the shadow Chancellor did last week. He admitted it was a bit embarassing, and then got on with his job.
Respect!
As for the actual question at issue; generally the idea of 'save in the good times, to spend in the bad' is sound. As a general guide, not a rigid law. As a rigid law, it's stupid.
The tired old trick of drawing too-strict analogies between national and household budgets is deeply dishonest, but many politicians find it irresistible. And that's another thing that might change, with a bit of pushing.

[Alan H]

British Bill of Rights to be fast-tracked into law by next summer

A 12-week public consultation on the Bill of Rights will start in November or December. It will be worded to make clear that the UK will not pull out of the ECHR, as some critics have feared, and will even mirror much of its language in an effort to calm opposition.

A Bill will then go straight to the House of Commons without a Green or White Paper, which are typically introduced before legislative scrutiny. This is unusual but not unique; officials believe the consultation will ensure it has been properly examined prior to going before Parliament.

Many ministers want the Bill to be law before the EU in/out referendum, which is expected to be in 2017 rather than next year. Although the ECHR is separate from Britain’s EU membership, the two issues are often linked in the minds of the public and some Eurosceptics. Ministers think it would be better to settle the issue before the referendum campaigns get going.

Ignoring the fact David 'call me Dave' Cameron promised this would all be done in his first 100 days, why bother with a green or white paper on something so trivial, eh? But all that's OK, we will have a consultation we can all respond to over our xmas holidays.

And, if some members of the public are wrong on the relationship between the EU and the ECHR, why pander to that ignorance rather than educate them?

But the problem seems to be (as Martin Howe QC puts it):

the interpretation by Strasbourg which is the problem.

...such as that travesty of human rights that affected every man, woman and child in the country: prisoner voting...

Yet, if it really just a matter of the relationship between UK and Strasbourg decisions, why then does a Ministry of Justice spokesman say the Government had a mandate to:

...reform and modernise the UK human rights framework.

Ah. Wait.

Dominic Raab, a civil libertarian MP, was promoted to government after the election to develop a British Bill of Rights to replace the HRA. The Bill is expected to include many of the rights found in the ECHR, such as prohibiting torture, but ensure British courts have seniority over Strasbourg.

So the Bill of Rights may include many - but not necessarily all - of the rights we currently haver under the HRA. I wonder which ones might be dropped? Which would you choose?

What rights does the Human Rights Act protect?

* The right to life – protects your life, by law. The state is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody;
* The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment – you should never be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way, no matter what the situation;
* Protection against slavery and forced labour – you should not be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour;
* The right to liberty and freedom – you have the right to be free and the state can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime;
* The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law - you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you, in a court of law;
* Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry – protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and raise a family;
* Freedom of thought, religion and belief – you can believe what you like and practise your religion or beliefs;
* Free speech and peaceful protest – you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views;
* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;
* Protection of property, the right to an education and the right to free elections – protects against state interference with your possessions; means that no child can be denied an education and that elections must be free and fair.

[Nick]

As I understand it, the new law would mean that we don't have to subscribe to the ludicrous notion that women men should pretend that statistically, they live as long as women, or that women are as bad a driver, and hence as accident-prone, as men. Such notions are patently absurd, but have come under so-called "human rights". It is the politicos' mission creep which is the threat to "Human Rights". Challenge such nonsense successfully, and the problem would disappear.

Do I think it a good idea? No. But nor is lunacy in so-called human rights legislation.