Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Its where Labours policy will lead us. We already pay enough tax, who has the right to decide the 'rich' who already pay more tax, need to pay more tax? The last part I can agree with, people need to decide what level of service they want. At the moment we have adequate services for moderate taxation, if we want superb services we need very high tax, not just for the rich but for everyone. I question whether a government could ever deliver superb services no matter how much it spent. If people want great services then they will have to pay. To be honest I would prefer a system where those who can afford to get better can pay for it when they need it and reduce the strain on public services of a one size fit all. A rich person can afford private education, private healthcare etc. that's one less place take in the state system and they are still contributing the tax We have failing services and moderate taxation. The only reason you argue so hard against a moderate rise in tax for business and the wealthy is because it will hit you personally. That's the only reason. Will you be leaving the country if there's a moderate increase in taxes? Of course you won't, as you were paying them just fine before. I fundamentally disagree that those who have the moist should pay no more on tax but instead can get the best of everything, that wouldn't be open to the poor, simply because they're rich. It's am abhorrent idea. Edited 9 May 2018 by Guest
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: We have failing services and low taxation. The only reason you argue so hard against a moderate rise in tax for business and the wealthy is because it will not you personally. That's the only reason. Will you be leaving the country if there's a moderate increase in traces? Of course you won't, as you were paying them just fine before. I fundamentally disagree that those who have the moist should pay no more on tax but instead can get the best of everything, that wouldn't be open to the poor, simply because they're rich. It's am abhorrent idea. In your opinion failing. I cant agree that we should spend other peoples money on things they don't want or need. We have a system that currently works for the large majority of people. Its not perfect but I think it is far better than the kind of socialist revolution and wealth redistribution, which simply doesn't work. Obviously we have been here before as you believe that it will.
Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: In your opinion failing. I cant agree that we should spend other peoples money on things they don't want or need. We have a system that currently works for the large majority of people. Its not perfect but I think it is far better than the kind of socialist revolution and wealth redistribution, which simply doesn't work. Obviously we have been here before as you believe that it will. Spending 'other people's money' is such a tory boy mean-nothing term. All taxation involved paying into a central pot from which all of society's needs are met. It isn't supposed to be about whether you use a service, otherwise there'd be no taxation and it would be a free for all. The system that works for a large number of people is the one I'm talking about, only a small number have the money to pay on top of taxes to get extra special service. The fact you think a very small rise in top end taxes to cover the needs of public services is socialist wealth redistribution shows how far removed from reality your ideas are.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 39 minutes ago, toddybad said: Spending 'other people's money' is such a tory boy mean-nothing term. All taxation involved paying into a central pot from which all of society's needs are met. It isn't supposed to be about whether you use a service, otherwise there'd be no taxation and it would be a free for all. The system that works for a large number of people is the one I'm talking about, only a small number have the money to pay on top of taxes to get extra special service. The fact you think a very small rise in top end taxes to cover the needs of public services is socialist wealth redistribution shows how far removed from reality your ideas are. Or how far removed your ideas (and Corbyns) are..... It wouldn't be a 'small rise' the IMF already reduced a report to say Labours funding plans were unrealistic and that further tax rises would be necessary. This is the problem with Labour, they just assume that people will shut up and pay more of their money to be spent on others. It just doesn't work.
Rogstanley Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: No necessarily more people paying tax. If the elderly are living longer, we are having more complex issues during lifetimes, more expensive drugs, more expensive equipment, new techniques etc etc etc, the cost will keep rising. We do not have the money for widespread building of new hospitals but then we are getting back into the old circular debate of national debt, deficit etc. The problems have been here long before this government for sure. There haven't been enough new hospitals or schools built for decades. Labour underwent a quite costly program of rebuilding existing schools and hospitals (many that could have been refurbed for half the cost) but built very few brand new schools. Nearly a decade of Tory rule later and you still blame labour. What's the point of this tory government if they're incapable of solving problems and have in fact made numerous important things such as people's wages a lot worse?
Buce Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 Theresa May forced to give MPs single market vote after shock defeat MPs will have a vote on remaining in the European Economic Area – effectively a vote on the single market – after a shock defeat for the government in the Lords. It means the Brexit strategy of both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn has been blown apart in the last 24 hours. The rebel Labour amendment in the Lords opened the prospect of a Commons vote on the EEA – a less stringent version of the single market – after 83 Labour peers voted against the party whip. Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP who co-chairs a pro-European Commons committee with Conservative Anna Soubry, said the leadership would now have to come off the fence and make it clear where it stood. “The time for constructive ambiguity is over: our members and our voters will be delighted with this clear signal that we will not go along with this Tory Brexit,” he said. The vote came hours after Boris Johnson called the prime minister’s proposal for a customs partnership “crazy” in an interview with the Daily Mail that dealt a major blow to the government’s strategy of a cautious balance between leave and remain. Johnson was the subject of fierce criticism from within Tory ranks all day. In the Lords debate the former Tory MP Patrick Cormack asked: “What sort of example are we being given by a cabinet that is rent asunder by the foreign secretary, the second most important cabinet minister, rubbishing the prime minister in the columns of the Daily Mail?” On the key EEA amendment, Labour peers were whipped to abstain. But 83 defied the whip to back the amendment, including a former party leader, many former ministers and a former chief whip. Seventeen Conservatives also backed the amendment. It was the third defeat of the afternoon for the government and an unexpected triumph for a cross-party group that included Waheed Alli for Labour, the Conservative peer Sandip Verma and the crossbench peer Karan Bilimoria. All the amendments to the bill that have been passed in the Lords will have to be considered and voted on by MPs when the bill returns to the Commons, perhaps as soon as next week. Lord Alli told the House that continued membership of the EEA was vital to ensure the future profitability of the UK’s export business and the jobs and livelihoods of many thousands of people. “It is the EEA that deals with services, services like retail, tourism, transport, communications, financial services and aerospace where we have a £14bn trade surplus,” he said. “The customs union only will benefit our European neighbours in their imports and without an EEA equivalent it will damage our profitable export business.” In a rowdy and sometimes ill-tempered debate peers, many of whom had been debating the EU for the past 30 years, argued passionately for and against EEA membership. Officially Labour opposed the Alli amendment because other amendments gave MPs a role in the negotiations. But the leadership will now have to face the tension between its strongly pro-remain rank and file membership, its largely pro-remain MPs and the policy consequences of remaining in any arrangement with Europe such as the EEA, which limits its plans for greater state involvement in the economy. The Tories are now likely to try to brand Labour as the party of free movement, which is one of the obligations of EEA membership. The threat of higher EU migration is likely to alarm Labour voters in some parts of the country. A Department for Exiting the European Union spokesperson said: “The referendum was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money. Ongoing participation in the EEA would mean having to implement new EU legislation automatically and in its entirety without having a say on how it is formulated – and it would also mean continued free movement. We will now consider the implications of this decision.” Peter Mandelson, the former trade secretary and one-time EU trade commissioner, said ministers were perpetrating a “Brexit fraud’ by pretending that migration from the EU, which would continue under membership of the EEA, would end after the UK left. “The time has come for economic reality and commonsense to prevail over wishful thinking and political dogma,” he said. “This gives us the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and in my view that is what we have a duty to do.” The EEA offers most of the benefits of the single market, without being subject to the European court of justice. It does not cover the common agriculture or fisheries policies. Earlier, peers voted to remove the EU exit date of 29 March 2019 from the withdrawal bill, warning that it would be a straitjacket for negotiators. The Duke of Wellington, Charles Wellesley, who moved the amendment, insisted he was not trying to undermine the result of the referendum by delaying or averting Brexit. “We should give ministers a bit more flexibility to secure and obtain ratification of the best possible deal, which will do the least damage to the economy and the national interest,” he said. The government also lost another vote on an amendment seeking to protect UK membership of EU agencies such as Euratom. The Labour leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, said it was an opportunity for the Commons to think again. “The House of Lords amendment is not about stopping Brexit but the fine print of when and how the agreements are concluded,” she said. The defeats came on the final day of debate on the report stage of the bill in the Lords. Peers are due to send it back to the Commons at the end of the week, and the government hopes it will be on the statute book before the end of May. The government has been forced to make concessions, as well as losing a dozen votes during the debates, in a series of amendments that have often had cross-party support. The amendments have been divided between trying to preserve benefits of EU membership, such as workers rights, and other fundamental rights through the incorporation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, which has a broader reach than the UK Human Rights Act. Others were intended to promote the place of parliament at the heart of the process of leaving the EU, including clarifying the significance and consequences of the “meaningful vote” on any Brexit deal. And some were more narrowly technical, intended to restrict ministerial powers to change laws without proper parliamentary process and debate. 1
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 47 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: Nearly a decade of Tory rule later and you still blame labour. What's the point of this tory government if they're incapable of solving problems and have in fact made numerous important things such as people's wages a lot worse? Again the issue is you cant spend money you don't have. We are seeing the highest employment figures, growth over a number of years, relatively low inflation. I very much doubt your Labour government will solve any problems, in fact they are likely to generate a whole load more like: -More Debt -High Tax -High unemployed -More benefits payments -Crashing pound -High borrowing costs Again I have never said this government are good, they have done many things incorrectly and incompetently. My point is they are better than the alternatives of a Corbyn disaster.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 Worrying: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/08/government-facing-possible-defeat-in-press-regulation-votes Underhand state control of the media, very soviet.
Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Worrying: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/08/government-facing-possible-defeat-in-press-regulation-votes Underhand state control of the media, very soviet. Or just implementing the leverson recommendations. Far more Soviet just ignoring independent inquiries, I'm sure you'd agree. What the real problem is - the government's refusal to take their mates in the media to task by holding part 2 of the enquiry, as leversin intended. Ken Clarke, the Conservative backbencher, is speaking now. He says he signed Ed Miliband’s amendment calling for part two of the Leveson inquiry to go ahead because he was justice secretary at the time of the first inquiry. It was always the intention then to hold a phase two, he says. He says politicians are afraid of newspaper proprietors. That may explain why the government does not want phase two to go ahead, he says. He says at the time of Leveson part one, people did not know that the Sun was involved in hacking. And people did not know that the Mirror group was as “mired in criminality” as it is now clear it was. He says the Mirror was settling every claim to help stop the truth getting out. He says people are saying there is no need to go back that far. Yet the historic child abuse inquiry is going back much further, he says. It is inquiring into people who are now dead. He says everyone in the Commons favours a free press. He says it is “a joke” to suggest that holding a Leveson two inquiry will undermine that. There are probably policemen still serving who are hoping that their corrupt relationship with the media will not be investigated because they have go away with it so far. And there are probably editors still in post who knew that, when they hired private investigators, they were acting illegally, he says. He says we need to have a look at the ethical standards observed by journalists. ---------- On a separate note, what is worrying is this Airbus space contract will move from UK to continent due to Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/09/airbus-space-contract-will-move-from-uk-to-continent-because-of-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Edited 9 May 2018 by Guest
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 Just now, toddybad said: Or just implementing the leverson recommendations. Far more Soviet just ignoring independent inquiries, in sure you'd agree. What is worrying is this Airbus space contract will move from UK to continent due to Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/09/airbus-space-contract-will-move-from-uk-to-continent-because-of-brexit?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Very dodgy restriction of press in my opinion. If the Guardian disagrees with it, and it is the only one to benefit then I would say its very dubious indeed.
Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Very dodgy restriction of press in my opinion. If the Guardian disagrees with it, and it is the only one to benefit then I would say its very dubious indeed. What is the restriction? Making then sign up to a regulator. The theory had cross party support when the Tories had a proper leader
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: What is the restriction? Making then sign up to a regulator. The theory had cross party support when the Tories had a proper leader Making them sign up to a regulator, and making them pay the legal costs if papers release something classes as 'personal' which most news stories are. Labours proposal to allow claimants to claim the legal costs even if the newspaper wins unless they are funded in a model like the Guardian (Strange). This could lead to all sorts of state cover ups. Some stories released that may be classed as 'personal' should be released in the public interest. If a news story about a politician, or banker could be released, it now wont be due to the threat of legal action, not great for free press.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said: Worrying: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/08/government-facing-possible-defeat-in-press-regulation-votes Underhand state control of the media, very soviet. Wouldn't quite go as far as Soviet but it's actually pretty appalling. You must sign up to a regulator that has to be approved by a panel that is government-funded, operated by Royal decree, and that has already been accused of lobbying for its own gain,. The only approved member is funded almost solely by Max Mosley and which any major publication has rightly refused to sign up to. But now some dishonourable representatives want to force through state regulation of the press against the wishes of the public and the industry. And in doing so, we continue to concentrate the power in the hands of the wealthy because anyone will be able to throw lawsuits at a publication without cost to them, so the publication doesn't do its work knowing that if someone doesn't like it, its going to cost them a lot of mount whether its true or not. We're slipping down the press freedom rankings as it is ffs.
Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 21 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Wouldn't quite go as far as Soviet but it's actually pretty appalling. You must sign up to a regulator that has to be approved by a panel that is government-funded, operated by Royal decree, and that has already been accused of lobbying for its own gain,. The only approved member is funded almost solely by Max Mosley and which any major publication has rightly refused to sign up to. But now some dishonourable representatives want to force through state regulation of the press against the wishes of the public and the industry. And in doing so, we continue to concentrate the power in the hands of the wealthy because anyone will be able to throw lawsuits at a publication without cost to them, so the publication doesn't do its work knowing that if someone doesn't like it, its going to cost them a lot of mount whether its true or not. We're slipping down the press freedom rankings as it is ffs. The trouble is that the Tories are refusing to allow completion of leverson's work. It's okay crying about press freedom but we need to ensure we're completely to the bottom of what went on. Let's not forget that our press abused their freedom hence leverson's belief in the need for some form of regulation. I would agree that it should be light touch but there needs to be a way of holding individuals that break the law to account. By not holding leverson 2 the Tories are failing to get to the bottom of the criminality that existed before to understand the real issues. What we really need is a free and fair press but I'm not holding out much hope of that.
Guest Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 7 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: Worrying: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/08/government-facing-possible-defeat-in-press-regulation-votes Underhand state control of the media, very soviet. Tell me which bit of this is underhand soviet state style state control and which bit is shameful government failure. https://youtu.be/LHbIyWT4jX4
Guest Kopfkino Posted 9 May 2018 Posted 9 May 2018 6 hours ago, toddybad said: The trouble is that the Tories are refusing to allow completion of leverson's work. It's okay crying about press freedom but we need to ensure we're completely to the bottom of what went on. Let's not forget that our press abused their freedom hence leverson's belief in the need for some form of regulation. I would agree that it should be light touch but there needs to be a way of holding individuals that break the law to account. By not holding leverson 2 the Tories are failing to get to the bottom of the criminality that existed before to understand the real issues. What we really need is a free and fair press but I'm not holding out much hope of that. Yeah great. But I was talking about Section 40, and such conflation of the two could quite probably have led to Leveson 2 not making it through today. As for Leveson 2, well Leveson 1 has been responsible for us dropping on the free press index so I'm wary of Leveson 2. Have to say I lean towards agreeing with the Guardian's editorial on this last week.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 10 hours ago, toddybad said: Tell me which bit of this is underhand soviet state style state control and which bit is shameful government failure. https://youtu.be/LHbIyWT4jX4 What I will say is that is a bloody good speech by Miliband. I must say I wasn't a huge fan when he was leader, but my doesn't it show how poor the leaders are we have today. I am not sure what the answer is for the press maybe there is another route but this is clearly very worrying in terms of freedom, if the government have regulation of all press, they essentially have control of the media and this is extremely worrying in terms of propaganda. I can understand what Cameron and Miliband are say, and there perhaps needs to be some form of protection in certain cases but what they are suggesting goes too far IMO. Its basically calling for state controlled media. As Kopfkino has mentioned we are already falling down the free press rankings, this is concerning. Yes some of our media have questionable ethics in certain cases, but to take away their ability to report on a ranged of issues via regulation seems odd.
David Guiza Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 I was amused to see Piers Morgan use the Hugh Grant picture as his poster boy for justifying press intrusion. Finger on the pulse journalism. I am absolutely in favour of freedom of press, but for me that freedom is there to serve as a challenge those in power, corruption etc not to take up-skirt photos, spy on grieving families and huge revelations about an actor using a prostitute. Instead the media are, generally speaking, so far politically aligned that a party/policy/belief is either looking up at the stars or down in the gutter with no middle ground. It is hugely worrying that we are ranked 40th in the world for Press Freedom - but it is equally worrying how the press continually print utter nonsense at times verging on libel. Middle ground seems to be a thing of the past. 2
Guest Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 I've never known a government treat parliament with such disdain as this one. If you want to see a party act like the soviets, fox, look no further than the Tories. Andrea Leadsom faces fierce Tory backlash over procedural ploy to obstruct boundaries bill In the Commons Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is responding to an urgent question from the Labour MP Afzal Khan about money resolutions (the motions passed by the Commons allowing the government to spend money on implementing legislation). Khan has a private member’s bill on parliamentary boundaries, intended to revise them but keep the overall number of MPs at 650. It has passed its second reading. But the government has not allowed a money resolution to go with it, which effectively blocks the Khan bill. Leadsom says the government is withholding a money resolution because it has its own plans for a boundary review. The Boundary Commission has been engaged in a review that will cut the number of MPs to 600, in line with government policy, but its final recommendations are not due until September this year. Leadsom’s argument is that it is up to the government to decide when money should be spent implementing legislation. That’s actually a fairly straightforward description of how the executive operates, but because the Khan bill received a second reading, MPs are accusing Leadsom of defying the will of parliament. And it is not just opposition MPs who are complaining. The Tory MP Peter Bone described this as “an abuse of parliament”, and another Conservative, Sir Christopher Chope, was also very critical earlier. Sir Desmond Swayne, another Tory backbencher, has backed the Labour Whips analysis. He has just told Leadsom that, if the government doesn’t like a private member’s bill, it should vote against it, not deny it a money resolution. Other Conservatives criticising Leadsom have included Philip Hollobone, who said Leadsom was denying MPs one of their fundamental rights, and Philip Davies, who said she was “trying to defend the indefensible”.
breadandcheese Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: I've never known a government treat parliament with such disdain as this one. If you want to see a party act like the soviets, fox, look no further than the Tories. Andrea Leadsom faces fierce Tory backlash over procedural ploy to obstruct boundaries bill In the Commons Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is responding to an urgent question from the Labour MP Afzal Khan about money resolutions (the motions passed by the Commons allowing the government to spend money on implementing legislation). Khan has a private member’s bill on parliamentary boundaries, intended to revise them but keep the overall number of MPs at 650. It has passed its second reading. But the government has not allowed a money resolution to go with it, which effectively blocks the Khan bill. Leadsom says the government is withholding a money resolution because it has its own plans for a boundary review. The Boundary Commission has been engaged in a review that will cut the number of MPs to 600, in line with government policy, but its final recommendations are not due until September this year. Leadsom’s argument is that it is up to the government to decide when money should be spent implementing legislation. That’s actually a fairly straightforward description of how the executive operates, but because the Khan bill received a second reading, MPs are accusing Leadsom of defying the will of parliament. And it is not just opposition MPs who are complaining. The Tory MP Peter Bone described this as “an abuse of parliament”, and another Conservative, Sir Christopher Chope, was also very critical earlier. Sir Desmond Swayne, another Tory backbencher, has backed the Labour Whips analysis. He has just told Leadsom that, if the government doesn’t like a private member’s bill, it should vote against it, not deny it a money resolution. Other Conservatives criticising Leadsom have included Philip Hollobone, who said Leadsom was denying MPs one of their fundamental rights, and Philip Davies, who said she was “trying to defend the indefensible”. I don't really disagree with the government's position and am surprised that you don't think that the number of MPs should be cut to 600 rather than 650. But you're right, the application of how to go about it is wrong and should have been better thought out.
Buce Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 Just now, breadandcheese said: I don't really disagree with the government's position and am surprised that you don't think that the number of MPs should be cut to 600 rather than 650. But you're right, the application of how to go about it is wrong and should have been better thought out. It's a cynical ploy to rewrite the boundaries in favour of the Tories. Why would anyone who isn't a Tory voter support it?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 1 minute ago, Buce said: It's a cynical ploy to rewrite the boundaries in favour of the Tories. Why would anyone who isn't a Tory voter support it? Really its in the interest of fairness. There is literally zero reason for constituencies to have such ranging numbers of constituents.
Buce Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 1 minute ago, Kopfkino said: Really its in the interest of fairness. There is literally zero reason for constituencies to have such ranging numbers of constituents. I doubt you would see it that way if it favoured Labour.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: I doubt you would see it that way if it favoured Labour. Presumptuous piffle. I support a PR system but that would end up helping a lot of parties I might not agree with and probably rarely deliver a government aligned with my preferences. But ultimately democracy is more important than stupid tribalism.
Voll Blau Posted 10 May 2018 Posted 10 May 2018 21 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: Making them sign up to a regulator, and making them pay the legal costs if papers release something classes as 'personal' which most news stories are. Labours proposal to allow claimants to claim the legal costs even if the newspaper wins unless they are funded in a model like the Guardian (Strange). This could lead to all sorts of state cover ups. Some stories released that may be classed as 'personal' should be released in the public interest. If a news story about a politician, or banker could be released, it now wont be due to the threat of legal action, not great for free press. Not to mention the fact that this awful piece of legislation would have probably led to most local newspapers going bankrupt due to vexatious libel claims. Glad it got voted down.
Recommended Posts