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)

#2361 Post by Nick » October 18th, 2015, 1:33 am

Latest post of the previous page:

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.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2362 Post by Fia » October 18th, 2015, 2:06 am

Nick: Although I have to pay more for my car insurance I think it's worthwhile in the context of human rights. Peoples lives are more important than my luxurious desire to drive.

You and I, and most of us here, are mightily fortunate. I get that. I also get that many others do not have our luxury. Human rights are not absurd, they are clearly laid down. As they should be.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2363 Post by thundril » October 18th, 2015, 4:54 pm

Nick wrote: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".
Can you cite the section of British or European law which currently requires that
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
If, as I suspect, you are unable tro find any such legal requirement, will you withdraw your claim that such a requirement exists?
It is the politicos' mission creep which is the threat to "Human Rights". Challenge such nonsense successfully, and the problem would disappear.
Even legal semi-literates like myself can recognise that there is a distinction between laws that need replacing and interpretations that need challenging.

Do I think it a good idea? No. But nor is lunacy in so-called human rights legislation.
Can you point out the lunacy in the "so-called "human rights"" legislation, as distinct from any supposed lunacies in some courts' interpretations?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2364 Post by animist » October 18th, 2015, 7:47 pm

Fia wrote:Nick: Although I have to pay more for my car insurance I think it's worthwhile in the context of human rights. Peoples lives are more important than my luxurious desire to drive.

You and I, and most of us here, are mightily fortunate. I get that. I also get that many others do not have our luxury. Human rights are not absurd, they are clearly laid down. As they should be.
sorry, Fia, most of this makes no sense. First thing, I am with Nick about the insurance, and I don't think this has anything much to do with human rights; TH had a long discussion on this a year or two ago, and I do remember pointing out that if one lives in a high crime or urban area one pays more for insurance - where are the human rights there? Second, while I support the ECHR, human rights sadly ain't really laid down definitively, and many of them conflict with each other. What I do agree with is "Peoples lives are more important than my luxurious desire to drive". So if the immigration crisis, or FTM the longer term problem of climate change, means higher taxes, including vehicle excise duty, or other things which might impact on your motoring spending power, is that OK with you?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2365 Post by Alan H » October 18th, 2015, 8:09 pm

animist wrote:First thing, I am with Nick about the insurance, and I don't think this has anything much to do with human rights; TH had a long discussion on this a year or two ago, and I do remember pointing out that if one lives in a high crime or urban area one pays more for insurance - where are the human rights there?
But where you choose to live is not a protected characteristic under EHCR; gender is - quite rightly - protected because it's an inherent characteristic of everyone.
* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;
Or should it be amended to say "no discrimination on the grounds of gender except in the following areas where I disagree with 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?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2366 Post by Dave B » October 18th, 2015, 9:06 pm

Then there is age discrimination in car insurance...

When did the rules changed, if they have? Think it was about 3 years ago that I went to a new broker. Adding my female friend as the second driver saved me £25. Putting me on same friend's policy would have cost her £50!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2367 Post by animist » October 18th, 2015, 9:27 pm

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:First thing, I am with Nick about the insurance, and I don't think this has anything much to do with human rights; TH had a long discussion on this a year or two ago, and I do remember pointing out that if one lives in a high crime or urban area one pays more for insurance - where are the human rights there?
But where you choose to live is not a protected characteristic under EHCR; gender is - quite rightly - protected because it's an inherent characteristic of everyone.
oh FFS, it might in principle, and indeed in practice over the long term, be cheaper to change one's gender than move to a locality with minimal vehicle insurance :laughter: So much for inherency - you are being rather Platonic, Alan
Alan H wrote:
* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;
Or should it be amended to say "no discrimination on the grounds of gender except in the following areas where I disagree with it"?
no. But add locality to the list

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2368 Post by Alan H » October 18th, 2015, 9:59 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:First thing, I am with Nick about the insurance, and I don't think this has anything much to do with human rights; TH had a long discussion on this a year or two ago, and I do remember pointing out that if one lives in a high crime or urban area one pays more for insurance - where are the human rights there?
But where you choose to live is not a protected characteristic under EHCR; gender is - quite rightly - protected because it's an inherent characteristic of everyone.
oh FFS, it might in principle be cheaper to change one's gender than move to a locality with minimal vehicle insurance :laughter: So much for inherency - you are being rather Platonic, Alan
inherency?
Alan H wrote:
* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;
Or should it be amended to say "no discrimination on the grounds of gender except in the following areas where I disagree with it"?
no. But add: locality
Isn't the whole idea to protect characteristics that you cannot (in general) change? Religion is the exception here but we know why that is. You can't change your age nor your 'race' (but you can change your location (even though that might be difficult for many). While it is possible to change some aspects of your sexuality (physical mainly) it is still considered an inherent characteristic and one that should not be used to discriminate against you.

Besides, locality isn't written into the ECHR or the HRA, so it's a moot point, surely, in this discussion about the HRA? Adding to the current (long-standing) list of protected characteristics is a separate subject.
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
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2369 Post by animist » October 18th, 2015, 10:28 pm

Alan H wrote:inherency?
yes, Alan, it is the abstract noun from the adjective "inherent" which you used
Alan H wrote:sn't the whole idea to protect characteristics that you cannot (in general) change? Religion is the exception here but we know why that is. You can't change your age nor your 'race' (but you can change your location (even though that might be difficult for many). While it is possible to change some aspects of your sexuality (physical mainly) it is still considered an inherent characteristic and one that should not be used to discriminate against you. Besides, locality isn't written into the ECHR or the HRA, so it's a moot point, surely, in this discussion about the HRA? Adding to the current (long-standing) list of protected characteristics is a separate subject.
that is begging the question of inherency. Age is pretty well the only thing in human existence which is really inherent - otherwise, I would be spending a fortune on changing mine. You are kind of admitting that one can change one's sexual identity, and as humanists we would assuredly all be in favour of making such a change as easy and inexpensive as possible. You also grudgingly accept that it might not be that easy to change one's location, and this is indeed so, not only for economic but for human reasons; and for many people, moving to a lower rated area as regards insurance premiums would entail considerably higher housing costs. So, while locality may not be at present written into the ECHR or HRA, why should it not be? Remember that we are talking about the specific application of the HRA to insurance premiums. Either exclude this application from the concept of human rights or be realistic about the implications

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2370 Post by Alan H » October 18th, 2015, 10:37 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:inherency?
yes, Alan, it is the abstract noun from the adjective "inherent" which you used
that is begging the question of inherency. Age is pretty well the only thing in human existence which is really inherent - otherwise, I would be spending a fortune on changing mine. You are kind of admitting that one can change one's sexual identity, and as humanists we would assuredly all be in favour of making such a change as easy and inexpensive as possible. You also grudgingly accept that it might not be that easy to change one's location, and this is indeed so, not only for economic but for human reasons; and for many people, moving to a lower rated area as regards insurance premiums would entail considerably higher housing costs. So, while locality may not be at present written into the ECHR or HRA, why should it not be? Remember that we are talking about the specific application of the HRA to insurance premiums. Either exclude this application from the concept of human rights or be realistic about the implications
This is getting way off the point now. A person could certainly change some aspects of their gender, but - AFAIK - there are no ways to change all aspects. I 'grudgingly' accept that a person could have surgery to change that one physical aspect of their gender, but that does not change their gender. Your chromosomes, for example, stay as they were.

However, the fact still remains that location is not a protected characteristic under the HRA. Gender is.
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)

#2371 Post by Nick » October 18th, 2015, 10:57 pm

* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;[My bold]
So does this mean that a 17 year old's motor insurance premiums should be the same as a 50 year old's? Seriously?

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2372 Post by Nick » October 18th, 2015, 11:13 pm

thundril wrote:
Nick wrote: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".
Can you cite the section of British or European law which currently requires that
Sometimes law is establish because of court decisions, as in this case.
Here is the BBC's reporting of it. Is that good enough for you?
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
If, as I suspect, you are unable to find any such legal requirement,
We have to abide by the Court's decisions, so I just have found such a legal requirement.
will you withdraw your claim that such a requirement exists?
So will you now accept that you are totally wrong on this issue?

It is the politicos' mission creep which is the threat to "Human Rights". Challenge such nonsense successfully, and the problem would disappear.
Even legal semi-literates like myself can recognise that there is a distinction between laws that need replacing and interpretations that need challenging.
Hmmm... So are you going to challenge the interpretations, which is what I am saying should happen?
Do I think it a good idea? No. But nor is lunacy in so-called human rights legislation.
Can you point out the lunacy in the "so-called "human rights"" legislation, as distinct from any supposed lunacies in some courts' interpretations?
The lunacy lies in the fact that the courts have been able to interpret it in such a spectacularly stupid way. In an ideal world this would be corrected. But in the messy world in which we live, abandoning the law might be easier. I'm not advocating that this should happen, but I am complaining, very loudly,that the legislation is being abused for no good reason, and is bringing human rights legislation into disrepute, with all the negatives that that suggests.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2373 Post by animist » October 19th, 2015, 12:36 am

Nick wrote:
* No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age;[My bold]
So does this mean that a 17 year old's motor insurance premiums should be the same as a 50 year old's? Seriously?
and, on the same line of reasoning, should an 80-year-old get life assurance cover on the same basis as 25-year-old? Surely what is true is that discrimination is wrong UNLESS there is a genuine reason for it

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2374 Post by thundril » October 19th, 2015, 12:43 am

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:
Nick wrote: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".
Can you cite the section of British or European law which currently requires that
Sometimes law is establish because of court decisions, as in this case.
Here is the BBC's reporting of it. Is that good enough for you?
This ruling restricts the rights of certain businesses (specifically insurance companies) to discriminate on the basis of gender. Nowhere, AFAICS, does it require that you and I, as 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.
which is what you claimed, as the basis for your charge of 'lunacy'. It is this that I was challenging you to show. So no, you haven't shown that your 'lunacy' charge applies to any law, or interpretation, other than your own preposterous hyperbole.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2375 Post by thundril » October 20th, 2015, 1:55 am

Re proposed changes to human rights legislation, I have just written to my MP:
Dear Rebecca Pow,

Irrespective of political party (full disclosure; I have never voted
Tory in my life, and am never likely to) all people with humane ethics
and democratic values must recognise that human rights are of
fundamental importance to any civilised nation.
I know there some people, on the philosophical far right, who reject
the concept of human rights.
I hope and trust that you are not one of them.
I do not trust the current government to save itself from this
rightward drift further away from traditional British Conservatism.
Please do what you can to keep your Party within the bounds of
civilised political discourse.
To add your voice, go to 38 degrees

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2376 Post by Altfish » October 20th, 2015, 7:52 am

Unfortunately Polly Toynbee seems to be spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ts-osborne

"...for every extra pound those on tax credits earn under universal credit, they will keep just a paltry 24p..."

"Don’t bother with figures showing only a quarter of those losing out gain from a higher minimum wage, or that those who do gain a bit only win back a quarter of their loss."

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2377 Post by Alan H » October 20th, 2015, 1:20 pm

Osborne is all for renationalisation – so long as the nation isn’t Britain
What do we get for flogging our nuclear to China and France? £17bn of risk and not much benefit
Steel yourself, for an unlikely source is about to spout a highly unfashionable idea. This week, George Osborne will come out for renationalisation.

You won’t hear the N-word from his lips, of course. Nor shall the chancellor go full Corbyn and seize some of the FTSE’s crown jewels. Instead, you can expect something far more in keeping with the spirit of 21st-century Britain. The government will indeed put some of our most vital infrastructure under state control – but the states in question will be France and China.

At some point during this week’s visit of president Xi Jinping – perhaps sandwiched between lunch at the palace and a trip to Chequers – Osborne shall confirm that nuclear plants will be built at Hinkley in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, by the energy giant EDF, nearly 85% owned by the French government, and China. What’s more, Beijing will get a shot at designing and building its own nuclear facility at Bradwell in Essex.

Even as that announcement is made with all the fanfare available to the British state, the promises of privatisation will be revealed as lies. What were voters guaranteed by Margaret Thatcher and John Major, as they flogged off electricity and the rest of our publicly-owned utilities? More competition, lower bills and greater investment: all the plump fruit of a more dynamic capitalism.

A generation later and their children, David Cameron and Osborne, are handing Britain’s nuclear future back to the public sector – of two foreign countries – and paying handsomely for the privilege.
Nuclear power is merely the punchline to this whole rotten joke. We won’t build it, we won’t own it, we certainly won’t control it. But we will pay for it: in lost jobs, in vanishing taxes, in whopping great winter fuel bills.
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: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2378 Post by Alan H » October 21st, 2015, 1:36 pm

Well, there's a turn up for the books: Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler tax deals 'illegal'
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)

#2379 Post by Altfish » October 21st, 2015, 1:46 pm

Alan H wrote:Osborne is all for renationalisation – so long as the nation isn’t Britain
What do we get for flogging our nuclear to China and France? £17bn of risk and not much benefit
Steel yourself, for an unlikely source is about to spout a highly unfashionable idea. This week, George Osborne will come out for renationalisation.

You won’t hear the N-word from his lips, of course. Nor shall the chancellor go full Corbyn and seize some of the FTSE’s crown jewels. Instead, you can expect something far more in keeping with the spirit of 21st-century Britain. The government will indeed put some of our most vital infrastructure under state control – but the states in question will be France and China.

At some point during this week’s visit of president Xi Jinping – perhaps sandwiched between lunch at the palace and a trip to Chequers – Osborne shall confirm that nuclear plants will be built at Hinkley in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, by the energy giant EDF, nearly 85% owned by the French government, and China. What’s more, Beijing will get a shot at designing and building its own nuclear facility at Bradwell in Essex.

Even as that announcement is made with all the fanfare available to the British state, the promises of privatisation will be revealed as lies. What were voters guaranteed by Margaret Thatcher and John Major, as they flogged off electricity and the rest of our publicly-owned utilities? More competition, lower bills and greater investment: all the plump fruit of a more dynamic capitalism.

A generation later and their children, David Cameron and Osborne, are handing Britain’s nuclear future back to the public sector – of two foreign countries – and paying handsomely for the privilege.
Nuclear power is merely the punchline to this whole rotten joke. We won’t build it, we won’t own it, we certainly won’t control it. But we will pay for it: in lost jobs, in vanishing taxes, in whopping great winter fuel bills.
The thing that I don't understand about this deal is why it is not attractive to UK investors, why haven't Cameron and Osborne managed to sell this deal to the UK energy market or their investment bankers in the city? It is basically a PFI deal with the payback in guaranteed high prices for the product. We are told EDF have the know-how and the Chinese the finance although I except the know how argument to a degree, since we are told London is the financial capital of the world(?) are there no risk takers there.
I assume that we will need more of these power stations in the years to come, I assume the deal includes training up of UK engineers to be able to build the second, third and subsequent reactors.

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

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2380 Post by Dave B » October 21st, 2015, 5:35 pm

What do UK investors know that Cameron and Osbourne are not telling us (or are simply ignrorant of)?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2381 Post by Alan H » October 21st, 2015, 6:07 pm

Cameron tells Tories they no longer have to follow international law
When the Conservatives formed their coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the May 2010 code spelt out their duties.
1.2 The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement and the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law “including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice” and to protect the integrity of public life. [My emphasis]
With the Liberal Democrats gone, and Conservatives governing alone, a fresh version of the code was issued earlier this month. It opens with David Cameron promising that his ministers will be ‘transparent in all we do’. He will root out ‘any form of misconduct’ and always remember that ‘good government is precious’.

But the means by which ministers will bring about ‘good government’ have changed without anyone noticing. The revised October 2015 ministerial code spells out their new duties.
1.2 The Ministerial Code should be read against the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.
All reference to complying with ‘international law and treaty obligations’ and upholding ‘the administration of justice’ has gone.

Why?
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