Westminster Politics

finneh said:
I've already changed my political stance over the past 15 years from a more authoritarian and economic right wing to a more libertarian and economically right wing (closer to old fashion liberalism) so I'm not averse to change. I wonder whether you've ever changed political views or like the majority of the left do you not need to change because you're obviously right morally and intellectually?

The truth is what I believe in stems from doctrines written about by many Nobel Prize winning economists so it isn't "wrong" by any means, just as tax and spend leftist economics isn't "wrong" (apart from in my opinion of course).

I've read both sides and agree with the former rather than the latter. I believe that governmental inefficiencies mean even at the height of the laffer curve in terms of taxation there will be nowhere near enough tax to account for inequalities and inefficiencies. The solution in my view is to give cash to the poorest (aforementioned tapered basic/negative income) and let private sector efficiencies mean their money will not only go much further but the poorest will have the pride in using that investment in them to rise out of their backgrounds. Rather than taking their money and them forcing them to go through often inhumane means to get it back.

This is why I avoid as much tax as possible, whenever possible, but also give to charity (so it's nothing to do with selfishness).

I'd also be interested about your thoughts on the efficiencies of subsidising the education and health (amongst other things) of millionaires?
Click to expand...

All of those words to avoid saying “Oh shit. I never looked at it that way. Of course raising the tax threshold is the wrong tool to balance society”.

It’s such a small point to concede. Non of your Nobel mates would question it.

To the diatribe : Are you doubling down? Do you truly believe that giving everyone the same additional amount of money, changes poor peoples lives? I shouldn’t have to unpack this for it to make sense.

If someone is below the poverty line and you give them an extra £100 a month, that goes towards making ends meet.

If someone is wealthy, that additional money is 100% disposable income, instantly providing them with more leverage over people with less. More chance of second homes and and and.

The divide widens because the money can be used to widen it at the top. The people at the bottom cannot use it to close that gap.

Also : If you think government is inefficient, wait until you read up on Charities.

It’s absolutely ok for you to believe “I work hard and I care more about myself, than society”. But you have to admit it.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
All of those words to avoid saying “Oh shit. I never looked at it that way. Of course raising the tax threshold is the wrong tool to balance society”.

It’s such a small point to concede. Non of your Nobel mates would question it.

To the diatribe : Are you doubling down? Do you truly believe that giving everyone the same additional amount of money, changes poor peoples lives? I shouldn’t have to unpack this for it to make sense.

If someone is below the poverty line and you give them an extra £100 a month, that goes towards making ends meet.

If someone is wealthy, that additional money is 100% disposable income, instantly providing them with more leverage over people with less. More chance of second homes and and and.

The divide widens because the money can be used to widen it at the top. The people at the bottom cannot use it to close that gap.

Also : If you think government is inefficient, wait until you read up on Charities.

It’s absolutely ok for you to believe “I work hard and I care more about myself, than society”. But you have to admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you've read my posts as firstly I said that my ideal measure would be a negative income tax with a petered basic income. But that in the absence of wholesale changes to the tax system overnight VAT reductions, fuels duty reductions, lower council tax band reductions, the abolition of taxes on necessities like heating/electric and also an increase in the personal allowance as a cocktail of measures would help the poorest proportionately far more than anyone else.

That's not to say that a few teachers, nurses and social workers wouldn't get a well earned several hundred quid tax break and their cost of living reduced by a few hundred quid a year in the cross fire but to me that's not exactly the end of the world. They would then spend that money on some minor frivolities such as replacing their unreliable and aged cars and again a byproduct being the reigniting of the motor industry that's on life support (and maybe a few jobs in the process).

Likewise it depends on the charity. I'm not religious but giving to my local church, for them to distribute food and presents over Christmas to the poorest children in my local area is far more direct and efficient than any governmental policy in my view. The difference is I get to research the charities I give to and give accordingly; I don't get to research whether my tax goes to subsiding millionaires kids to read politics at Oxford or subsidising the healthcare of the wealthiest in society.

To be absolutely clear: no I do not believe that increasing the personal allowance without any other measures is the most efficient means of benefiting the poorest. As I've alluded to my preferred taxation system doesn't even have a personal allowance (I don't benefit from the PA anyway so I'm unsure how this policy would in any way be seen as me caring about myself over society).

Either way whilst I originally enjoyed the back and forth (or maybe left and right?) and in the absence of the inconsistencies in your argument being acknowledged or addressed; in tandem with your righteous (and incorrect) moralisations I think after a busy week we're best to agree to disagree.

Here's hoping for a good win tomorrow to redress the balance between too much time in current events and not enough time in the football forum.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Things can only get better.........um.....

Liam Fox being lined up as Britain's candidate to lead World Trade Organisation

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ation/ar-BB15OJvT?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout
Click to expand...
Actually I had some dealings with Liam Fox via UK Export Finance - I certainly don't agree with his brexit / world view but actually having dealt with hundreds of politicians through UKEF hes certainly in the top handful in terms of who I would say added some real benefit to the UKEF process - wouldn't want to go for a pint with the chap but id say hes beyond competent and we could do a hell of a lot worse
 
sun_tzu said:
Actually I had some dealings with Liam Fox via UK Export Finance - I certainly don't agree with his brexit / world view but actually having dealt with hundreds of politicians through UKEF hes certainly in the top handful in terms of who I would say added some real benefit to the UKEF process - wouldn't want to go for a pint with the chap but id say hes beyond competent and we could do a hell of a lot worse
Click to expand...

Have to disagree, he's a total fecking cnut.
 
FireballXL5 said:
Things can only get better.........um.....

Liam Fox being lined up as Britain's candidate to lead World Trade Organisation

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...ation/ar-BB15OJvT?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout
Click to expand...
Atlantic Bridge here we come.

In October 2011, The Guardian newspaper published details of an alleged improper relationship and interactions between Adam Werritty and Liam Fox, culminating in Liam Fox's resignation on 14 October and a continuing official investigation. The controversy surrounded Werritty attending official defence meetings with Fox (notably in Pakistan) despite not being employed in any official capacity by the British government, Werritty's running of Pargav Ltd, and his ties with powerful Tory figures, supporters, and lobbyists through The Atlantic Bridge. Considering the rejected charitable status of The Atlantic Bridge, the question of Fox's independence and the distinction between the government, think-tanks, charities, and private business and corporate interests has been raised.

Werritty was investigated by senior civil servants led by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.[19][20] The published report implicated a company named IRG Ltd, "But the report, which named the six companies and individuals that funded Werritty's Pargav "slush fund", has raised more unanswered questions. Among the Pargav donors, including the mining tycoon Mick Davis, private investigations firm G3 and billionaire property mogul Poju Zabludowicz, is a company referred to as simply "IRG Ltd". More than 30 companies and organisations use the same initials, including an Iraq-focused charity, an executive recruitment agency linked to the former Tory minister Virginia Bottomley and a pizza restaurant in Basildon."[21]
Click to expand...
 
If that is the case, why isn't he leader/PM? Anyone know? God knows, we could do with someone more competent in charge.
 
sun_tzu said:
dont know how closely you have worked with him
Click to expand...
It is often the case, for whatever reason, that when someone has had occasion to meet someone relatively famous they tend to take their side. As if to not take their side would be to criticise themselves. For example, I'd say it's quite obvious that the other poster hasn't actually worked with him and your ignorance is sligthly disingenuous.

Why would anyone need to have worked with him? The corruption of his previous work is a matter of extensive public record. The man should be in jail.
 
neverdie said:
It is often the case, for whatever reason, that when someone has had occasion to meet someone relatively famous they tend to take their side. As if to not take their side would be to criticise themselves.
Click to expand...
Former Caf member Alistair said that Piers Morgan was very kind to him. Then again, they're both Arsenal fans, so maybe Piers was on his best behaviour. :D
 
sun_tzu said:
meh - dont know how closely you have worked with him and im not going to say i found him charming, or friendly or that i agreed with much of his politics - but he was pretty efficient and understood his brief pretty well and directed government support to help business well
Click to expand...
I have not worked with him but his tenure as Trade Secretary was hardly stellar to put it mildly and he was, if memory serves, specifically described as incompetent by the EU regarding Brexit trade negotiations and preparedness. Not exactly comforting.
 
neverdie said:
It is often the case, for whatever reason, that when someone has had occasion to meet someone relatively famous they tend to take their side. As if to not take their side would be to criticise themselves. For example, I'd say it's quite obvious that the other poster hasn't actually worked with him and your ignorance is sligthly disingenuous.

Why would anyone need to have worked with him? The corruption of his previous work is a matter of extensive public record. The man should be in jail.
Click to expand...
because until I actually saw him at close quarters negotiating abroad I didnt realise that he had another side to him
I mean giggs was doing the dirty on his brother - does not mean he wasnt a good footballer

and dr fox would be pretty low on the list of semi famous people ive worked with
 
sun_tzu said:
because until I actually saw him at close quarters negotiating abroad I didnt realise that he had another side to him
Click to expand...
I don't doubt he's good at various aspects of business. That isn't really the point. I'm willing to assume that many high level cabinet ministers past and present aren't completely useless. The problem here is that Liam Fox shouldn't be allowed to serve in any such public capacity owing to his past indiscretions. Unless that capacity is serving time in a public institution.
SteveJ said:
Former Caf member Alistair said that Piers Morgan was very kind to him. Then again, they're both Arsenal fans, so maybe Piers was on his best behaviour. :D
Click to expand...
Case closed :lol:
 
I wonder disingenuously: could it be that he gets so many prestigious jobs because he's (allegedly) amenable to corruption?
*whistles*
 
sun_tzu said:
Actually I had some dealings with Liam Fox via UK Export Finance - I certainly don't agree with his brexit / world view but actually having dealt with hundreds of politicians through UKEF hes certainly in the top handful in terms of who I would say added some real benefit to the UKEF process - wouldn't want to go for a pint with the chap but id say hes beyond competent and we could do a hell of a lot worse
Click to expand...

How he comes across in public, is that he has very little clue as to what he's talking about. Slightly worrying is if you consider him one of the top handful of politicians you've dealt with, what does that say for the rest of them and secondly he has been replaced by someone who seems to know even less of what they're talking about in Liz Truss.
 
Boris Johnson and Theresa May ignored claims the Kremlin had a “likely hold” over Donald Trump and may have covertly funded Brexit, Christopher Steele alleges in secret evidence given to MPs who drew up the Russia report
In testimony to MPs, Christopher Steele, the MI6 veteran accused the government led by May and in which Johnson was foreign secretary for two years of turning a blind eye to allegations about Trump because they were afraid of offending the US president.
Click to expand...
Steele accuses May’s government of selling British interests short by not taking matters further: “In this case, political considerations seemed to outweigh national security interests.
The Russia expert concluded: “A prospective trade deal should never be allowed to eclipse considerations of national security.”
Click to expand...

(Guardian)
 
SteveJ said:
Boris Johnson and Theresa May ignored claims the Kremlin had a “likely hold” over Donald Trump and may have covertly funded Brexit, Christopher Steele alleges in secret evidence given to MPs who drew up the Russia report
So is this likely what the report will contain?



(Guardian)
Click to expand...
So is this what the Russian report might contain?
 
SteveJ said:
Boris Johnson and Theresa May ignored claims the Kremlin had a “likely hold” over Donald Trump and may have covertly funded Brexit, Christopher Steele alleges in secret evidence given to MPs who drew up the Russia report



(Guardian)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't lend too much support to this Russia theory. The conservative party and every major national newspaper have overtly funded a British campaign to undermine the European Union for decades. The BBC even joined in on the act in the eve before the referendum. If national security were the issue at hand then Steele is saying that every major Tory since Thatcher as well as most British newspapers have been or are threats to British national security. I'd agree with that but I doubt it's the point he's actually making.
 
It doesn't seem to matter what the Report contains because, apparently, nothing matters to the mainstream media anymore besides access and faux controversy. Now here's Floopy with the celebrity weather...
 
Like the BAME report was leaked - somebody will hopefully leak the Russia report....they defo interfered with Brexit
 
"I'm backing Britain!" says man who sold Britain to the Russians.

EbMdfgSXsAEs2xI
 
SteveJ said:
It doesn't seem to matter what the Report contains because, apparently, nothing matters to the mainstream media anymore besides access and faux controversy. Now here's Floopy with the celebrity weather...
Click to expand...
Exactly how I feel, I don’t care if the report comes out because it will be watered down, redacted, and even if it wasn’t it won’t land. No one will care, it won’t move the needle.
 
I can't see this has been posted before and I just came across it this morning.

Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article

There's a good thread on it here:

 
Withnail said:
I can't see this has been posted before and I just came across it this morning.

Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article

There's a good thread on it here:

Click to expand...

Yep, when it was backlog of 50,000 it wasn’t a problem, but now it’s 41,000 it needs urgent change.
 
Withnail said:
I can't see this has been posted before and I just came across it this morning.

Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article

There's a good thread on it here:

Click to expand...

Lock up anyone that sounds a bit funny
 
T00lsh3d said:
Lock up anyone that sounds a bit funny
Click to expand...
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this week. Buckland described trials with just a judge and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His preferred option, which is to reduce the number of jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only 5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two magistrates option would apply only to cases where the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.

He confirmed that the government wants to implement one of the two options by September, which would require primary legislation to be brought forward before parliament goes into recess on 21 July.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt be surprised if the government is floating the worst case scenario so taking option one then seems reasonable - even possibly option two but a limit of 1 year etc.
 
Withnail said:
I can't see this has been posted before and I just came across it this morning.

Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article

There's a good thread on it here:

Click to expand...


Given that my own experience of being on a jury was utterly depressing and dashed my faith in the system, what are the pros of sticking with a jury system?
 
EwanI Ted said:
Given that my own experience of being on a jury was utterly depressing and dashed my faith in the system, what are the pros of sticking with a jury system?
Click to expand...

I think the benefits of being judged by your peers rather than a certain section of society with all their inherent biases should be obvious?

The issue isn't jurys. My missus deals with employment tribunals and even they have an 18 month backlog despite no jury. Property and underfunding are the causes.
 
Smores said:
I think the benefits of being judged by your peers rather than a certain section of society with all their inherent biases should be obvious?

The issue isn't jurys. My missus deals with employment tribunals and even they have an 18 month backlog despite no jury. Property and underfunding are the causes.
Click to expand...

CassiusClaymore said:
Is this a serious question?
Click to expand...

I was a 19 year old black guy when I did jury service (I'm still black, but, well, you get what I mean) and doing jury service was the exact moment I realised that the justice system was stacked against outsiders. It was depressing. The voting on Britains Got Talent had more rigour. A handful of loud middle aged white men bossed the room and said they didn't like the defendant because he looked "shifty". The rest just went along because they didn't understand what was going on and were desperate to leave since the weather was hot. The guy got sent down when he shouldn't have done, because they didn't like the look of him. I was too young to argue much against them. I felt guilty for ages afterwards for not doing so.

Even accepting that my experience might have been at the edge of the bell curve, it left me very little faith in the current system. While jurors vs judges isn't something I would particularly argue to the death over, i do see it as a 'least worst' kind of argument.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Is this a serious question?
Click to expand...
Smores said:
I think the benefits of being judged by your peers rather than a certain section of society with all their inherent biases should be obvious?

The issue isn't jurys. My missus deals with employment tribunals and even they have an 18 month backlog despite no jury. Property and underfunding are the causes.
Click to expand...

I've got to admit, based on a lot of the anecdotal horror stories I've heard, I've long been unconvinced that jury trials are suitable to ensure that justice is actually carried out. In fact, I'm more and more convinced that all they do is channel mob justice from the sort who post ill informed facebook esque rants in to a quasi legal framework.

I'm also unconvinced that systematic issues with the justice system would be addressed if we replaced juries with a panel of judges, mind.
 
TheGame said:
Yet another PMQs where Boris cannot answer any questions. Farcical how he is allowed to get away with it.
Click to expand...

PMQs has long been about embellishment and selective truths, but Johnson just makes up some total lie on the spot and moves on. It'll be interesting to see how either Labour or the Speaker responds over time. May as well not bother with PMQs if he's going to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.