Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today

[drew]

Blimey, you start an innocent and harmless topical thread and when you come back to it, it's gone crazy.

A tad too insincere? You didn't start an innocent thread, you lit the NSC political blue touch paper. Always works a treat!

 

[Seagull58]

When you say "from what I've seen", do you mean what you've read in the popular press, or are you talking from professional experience as a lawyer.

Because if it's the former, then the way I see it is that you will ALWAYS see isolated incidents where well-meant laws and regs are abused - and this is the stuff that the media live on. It's no difference from the fact that benefits are abused by some, but that doesn't mean we should remove benefits from everyone.

Here's some examples: "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws"
As for terrorism; Former Home Secretary Dr John Reid argued that the Human Rights Act was hampering the fight against global terrorism in regard to controversial control orders:
There is a very serious threat – and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. So I hope when we bring forward proposals in the next few weeks that we will have a little less party politics and a little more support for national security.[48]

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

The richest 1,000 people in Britain were £69 billion richer in 2013 than in 2012. Go figure. We're certainly not "all in this together".

I watched Osbournes speech and within 5 minutes he said we can all be proud that we did it together.
The following morning Cameron was on breakfast TV and was told that the benefits freeze would affect two thirds of the population, no said Cameron its half, no said the interviewer your government has announced this morning that it is two thirds Cameron replies well its somewhere between half and two thirds.
Fills you with confidence does'nt it.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Blimey, you start an innocent and harmless topical thread and when you come back to it, it's gone crazy.

You should be a politician.

 

[Seagull58]

Quite. And all governments have used the Human Rights Act for the benefit of many UK citizens both at home and especially abroad. I dread to think what will happen to some of our citizens if we withdraw. And what message does this send out to countries which we condemn for their human rights abuses? They'll just turn around and say you have you own human rights, and so do we; we're just like you so thank you and good-bye.

Governments have used the European Convention of Human Rights, which the UK has respected for more than 50 years, well before the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 1998.

 

[beorhthelm]

...While the four biggest developers by turnover – Barratt, Berkeley, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey – have a collective land holding of almost 300,000 plots.

right, so at about 140k houses being built a year, they have two years supply. Tesco are in the business of building supermarkets, not houses, and most of their land bank is on industrial/semi industrial sites. it really does come down to planning, we have created a massivly inflated price for land because we insist on not touching the green fields around towns and villages, which often werent even there 50 years ago when we had a more sensible approach to building.

i cant remember the exact numbers and it varies between regions, but the land cost is somthing like 25% of the property value (and bonker thousands % from farm land values). brown field site are cost far more. land is the single largest cost of a building. recall Prescott's noble effort in this area, to bulid a home for 60k? the industry duly obliged, because thats not alot less than what it cost them in labour and materials: he provided the land for free. we have created artificially expensive property and every political colour is scared of changing the situation because nimbyism unites the political spectrum. Labour promised to build 200k a year, a mere 30% more than current, when experts say we need an additional 200k, but no mention of how this would be facilitated. meanwhile the Tory's offer to subsidise the buyer, again not saying how the supply side will be addressed. it is a mess.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

right, so at about 140k houses being built a year, they have two years supply. Tesco are in the business of building supermarkets, not houses, and most of their land bank is on industrial/semi industrial sites. it really does come down to planning, we have created a massivly inflated price for land because we insist on not touching the green fields around towns and villages, which often werent even there 50 years ago when we had a more sensible approach to building.

i cant remember the exact numbers and it varies between regions, but the land cost is somthing like 25% of the property value (and bonker thousands % from farm land values). brown field site are cost far more. land is the single largest cost of a building. recall Prescott's noble effort in this area, to bulid a home for 60k? the industry duly obliged, because thats not alot less than what it cost them in labour and materials: he provided the land for free. we have created artificially expensive property and every political colour is scared of changing the situation because nimbyism unites the political spectrum. Labour promised to build 200k a year, a mere 30% more than current, when experts say we need an additional 200k, but no mention of how this would be facilitated. meanwhile the Tory's offer to subsidise the buyer, again not saying how the supply side will be addressed. it is a mess.

Increase tax on buy-2-lets is my solution. This will free up some property to bring house prices down.

 

[mikeyjh]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar
How is raising the personal allowance an example of the most desperate paying for the rich to get richer? Did you type your comment before the speech and then think **** it, I'll post it anyway?

some people seem to have a fairly well rehersed set of cliches and soundbites that they throw out in responce to the politics they dislike. most dont listen/read what has been said, just make a random stab at something.

Because the most desperate don't have a personal allowance, they don't have anything. They're desperate and they're in the nasties' cross hairs. Not well rehearsed, not a cliche, just a fact.

 

[beorhthelm]

Increase tax on buy-2-lets is my solution. This will free up some property to bring house prices down.

excellent. so rents go up to cover the tax. is this to exclusivly apply to buy-to-let, removing a lot of the rental property from the market, increasing rents further? are we to have only (non-existant) social properties or corporate scale land lords? in the end, whatever way you look at it, doesnt address underlying supply problem.

 

[drew]

Here's some examples: "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".[48]

From where did you cut and paste that? Did Fearon win the case? Can you post links to the other 'stories'?

As for the Human Rights Act, they aren't just going to get rid of it, they will replace it with something similar but just call it the British Human Rights act or something similar. Don't forget, it is the Judges that determine how to apply the rules!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Just watched his speech. Had to laugh at the "I will go to Europe and get what I want" line. This is the man with next to no credibility in Europe, the man who had lost 26-2 over the election of Jean-Claude Juncker.

 

[drew]

excellent. so rents go up to cover the tax. is this to exclusivly apply to buy-to-let, removing a lot of the rental property from the market, increasing rents further? are we to have only (non-existant) social properties or corporate scale land lords? in the end, whatever way you look at it, doesnt address underlying supply problem.

Agree, would be better to build and make more property available so that generous supply will regulate the rents better. However, a big benefit of taxing buy-to-let properties would be to piss off Skylar!!!!! Seem to recall his boast about having a spare property lying around.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

excellent. so rents go up to cover the tax. is this to exclusivly apply to buy-to-let, removing a lot of the rental property from the market, increasing rents further? are we to have only (non-existant) social properties or corporate scale land lords? in the end, whatever way you look at it, doesnt address underlying supply problem.

Build more social housing to replace the stock which has been sold-off. And obviously remove the right-2-buy. We need to build houses so let's build this sector back-up.

 

[Eeyore]

Sorry, what? This is the most right-wing Tory conference and manifesto since Cameron became leader. Low taxation and small government is not 'the middle ground'.

Agree with those that say it was a great speech. He's clearly got Milliband's number, it'll be UKIPers they'll spend most of their time wooing now, not middle grounders, IMHO.

I was looking at the zero hour contracts and the burden of taxation on low pay. But looking at it again, yes, you are correct.

 

[Seagull58]

From where did you cut and paste that? Did Fearon win the case? Can you post links to the other 'stories'?

As for the Human Rights Act, they aren't just going to get rid of it, they will replace it with something similar but just call it the British Human Rights act or something similar. Don't forget, it is the Judges that determine how to apply the rules!

They intend to replace it with a British Bill of Rights also based on the ECHR.
During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained. However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs of Fearon cycling were published in The Sun showing Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed. Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim

 

[Seagull58]

From where did you cut and paste that? Did Fearon win the case? Can you post links to the other 'stories'?

As for the Human Rights Act, they aren't just going to get rid of it, they will replace it with something similar but just call it the British Human Rights act or something similar. Don't forget, it is the Judges that determine how to apply the rules!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4833614.stm

 

[jgmcdee]

During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained. However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs of Fearon cycling were published in The Sun showing Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed. Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim

And this is how civilisation should be. Legal aid is there, *has* to be there, for those who cannot afford to seek justice. Without it the justice system becomes nothing more than another tool for the rich. Can it be abused? Yes, up to a point. But given that we have around 65 million people in the UK and you're dredging up a case more than a decade old to point out that the system isn't working suggests to me that overall it does a pretty good job.

 

[beorhthelm]

Because the most desperate don't have a personal allowance, they don't have anything. They're desperate and they're in the nasties' cross hairs. Not well rehearsed, not a cliche, just a fact.

so in your view those earning less more than £10k are "the rich"? because taken together, thats what your comments say. of course, i dont expect you mean that at all, so must conclude you rolled out a cliche.

Agree, would be better to build and make more property available so that generous supply will regulate the rents better. However, a big benefit of taxing buy-to-let properties would be to piss off Skylar!!!!! Seem to recall his boast about having a spare property lying around.

this is a compelling arguement. he really is quite tedious and vulgar.

 

[drew]

They intend to replace it with a British Bill of Rights also based on the ECHR.
During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained. However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs of Fearon cycling were published in The Sun showing Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed. Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4833614.stm

In effect, you are criticizing the legal aid system rather than the ECHR. Legal aid has been abused by people from all walks of life, take Ernest Saunders as another example. As for the arsonist, he was 13 and the eventual result was that it was right that he couldn't be denied an education but that that did not have to be at the school which he set light to. What do you propose to do with kids that break the law? Are you suggesting at that age they should be on the scrap heap or should there be attempts to make them productive members of society?

By the way, do you cut and paste everything?

 

[Pavilionaire]

The Lib Dems are the first to think about increasing personal allowances and raising the higher rate tax band? That surprises me.

Great news about abolishing zero hour contracts though. Better than great, that's outstandingly good news.

It was their policy to raise it from £6,475 to £10,000 in this parliament.