John Bumlick
Banned
"Brilliant stuff from polarising politician"
Bozza is getting good at this clickbait thing....
Bozza is getting good at this clickbait thing....
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Hook, line and sinker. The turkeys truly are going to vote for Christmas.
I would also vote for all of these. But I suspect we won't be seeing the birth of an economically-literate party any time soon. Despite the Tories having apparently convinced most people that the deficit is a long-term structural deficit and therefore a major and urgent economic problem, I remain unconvinced. The structural component of the deficit, as far as I can see has been pretty much the same as it is now for most of the last 50-plus years (under both kinds of government) and we've lived with it without major difficulty.
There are two main additional reasons why the deficit shot up in the post-2008 period.
The first is cyclical -- the normal short-term increase in the deficit you get as the economy goes into recession (while tax receipts fall and unemployment and other benefits increase); if you believe Keynes (and on this point I do), this increase is actually healthy and moderates the depth of the recession, enabling the economy to get back to growth more quickly, at which point the cyclical component of the deficit drops off again. So no particular reason to worry about that.
The second is because the Labour government was forced to bale out the banks following the financial crisis of late 2007, to avoid meltdown in the financial sector. This element of the deficit does indeed, I believe, need to be paid off as soon as it can be (and my view is that the banks themselves ought to be made to do it, as and when their balance sheets fully recover).
The point about VAT is well-made. There's been a clear shift in recent years from direct taxation (like income tax) which is normally progressive and taxes those with higher incomes at a higher rate, to indirect taxation (like VAT) which is highly regressive and falls much more harshly on those for whom consumer spending accounts for most or all of their incomes (ie. the poor).
Seagull58
In the Algarve
From what I've seen the Human Rights Act is a goldmine for lawyers and an opportunity for loads of criminal types to fight ridiculous battles because, for example, their human rights are being infringed while they're banged up.
Cadiz Seagull
Grey bearded old man
It's David Miliband who needs to be checking out removal vans.
No mad rush, but probably some time in the second half of next year.
No mad rush, but probably some time in the second half of next year.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
That sounds pretty sensisble. Not going to happen though is it, they've already convinced us that our economic predicament is actually our fault rather than theirs.
4 years this Government has had to introduce some form of regulation to banking. Nothing.
They've got plenty of time to do top down organisations of the NHS or benefit "reforms." Looking after their mates, it wouldn't be any different under a Labour government.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Each to their own. I suppose you think the human rights act works well and has some value.
Premiership Dream
New member
- Nov 16, 2011
- 258
I thought the 40% tax bracket was £31,866
https://www.gov.uk/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2014-to-2015
https://www.gov.uk/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2014-to-2015
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I disagree with some of your analysis. By making employers guarantee a minimum then the employee has a contract to be employed and has a minimum income (even if it's way below a living wage). But there's already legislation in place with plenty of case law to back it up to distinguish between part-time and full-time so it will be clear if the employee is being offered a full or part-time contract. The employee can then be free to seek work elsewhere outside of those hours (something a zero-hour contract prohibits or at least makes incredibly difficult).
With regards to tax credits to supplement the irregular hours, I hadn't heard Osborne's announcement so don't know details and I hope that its not quite as bad as it sounds but I would have thought that basing tax credits on average of say 8 or 10 payslips and then adjusted at the year end through the P60 declarations would be a fair way to do it.
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.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
I reckon it's preferable to what a Conservative party that has only very recently stopped persecuting minorities and still has homophobic members of Parliament would come up with, yes.
GOM
living vicariously
Now by my reckoning someone on minimum wage working 40 hours a week would earn 13250 /yr so the rise in allowance from 10000 to 12500 would benefit them by 500 / year in their pocket.
Well that's not true, is it?
In 2009, an act was forced through to allow compulsory purchase of failing banks by the state. And then there was this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-stronger-and-safer-banks
Something needed to be done, and was.
Butch Willykins
Well-known member
You're forgetting the £10K tax free allowance.
Yoda
English & European
Did you not hear George the other day? By making the poorest even poorer by freezing working aged benefits.
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.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Agree about what you say about low taxation and small government, but abolishing zero hour contracts (which is how Bozza has interpreted it) smacks of 'big' (but, in my view, good) government. It will never happen though. And certainly not under the Tories.
There: I'm either questioning Cameron's honesty, or Bozza's interpretation. One of the overlords must be wrong.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
The same David 'Gormless' Milliband who wants Turkey, Syria and Iraq to join the EU?
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
I think a lot of people think that it was always an unnecessary piece of legislation. I've taken this off the web as the main points:
Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections
Is there in that list there any right that had previously been denied under English Law? A genuine question, because I'm struggling to see what hole in my own human rights that it plugged. Removing the HRA won't remove any of those previous rights either. And if it still enshrines those rights but stops stop taxpayers' money being wasted by chancers, terrorists or those looking for a pay-out then I can certainly see the attraction.
Regardless of scrapping it or not, I've always thought a Human Responsibilities Act should have been passed with equal stature to the HRA and puts responsibilities on whoever tries to claim something under the HRA that they can show they are acting in good faith and come to the courts from a position of good intentions.