-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Nice to see Hull in the papers for positive reasons. Apparently Hull is the only city in England where the government's new starter houses would be affordable for people on the £9 wage.
Good stuff. Guess we'll see the nations hipsters flock to Hull now, and Ronnie Pickering can only scare off so many.
Good stuff. Guess we'll see the nations hipsters flock to Hull now, and Ronnie Pickering can only scare off so many.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...emergency-treatment-proposals-nhs-jeremy-hunt
Healthcare is a human right. The evidence is all over the place that a single payer system is the cheapest and most efficient form. Evidence is all over the the place that good Healthcare does way more for the economy than it costs. There is also a lot of evidence that 'health tourists' bring more to the British economy than the cost of their healthcate. Healthcare is a basic human right. But because of his buddies in the private healthcare industry, Hunt is happy to spread FUD and dismantle the Healthcare system even if it is directly causing people to die.
Healthcare is a human right. The evidence is all over the place that a single payer system is the cheapest and most efficient form. Evidence is all over the the place that good Healthcare does way more for the economy than it costs. There is also a lot of evidence that 'health tourists' bring more to the British economy than the cost of their healthcate. Healthcare is a basic human right. But because of his buddies in the private healthcare industry, Hunt is happy to spread FUD and dismantle the Healthcare system even if it is directly causing people to die.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
if the government is running a surplus (net flow of money from the private sector as a whole to the government), then reverse is true: the private sector is running a deficit (net flow of money from the private sector to the government). This is just an accounting identity - given a set amount of money, if you have two bodies and one is gaining money the other must be losing it.
If the government takes more money through tax out of the private sector than it puts back in through spending (this is by definition what a surplus is), then the private sector, as an aggregate body, is losing money - so its savings are going down. If the net private sector has 0 money (no savings), and the government continues to run a surplus, then the private sector as a whole *must* be going into debt - given that there was 0 money but the government is continuing to get net money (surplus) out of it, the private sector must now be in negative money (debt).
This isn't to say every single person runs up debt. Some people in the private sector will still have savings. Just, on net, the private sector will not.
The above is true just given what the definitions of all the words mean, but the last part of the article on the other hand makes empirical claims that are more disputable. I think the link is at least somewhat plausible - if the private sector as a net is running a deficit, then the average person must also be running up a deficit (this is true because maths). The average person also doesn't like doing this, so they'll try pulling back on their spending. This causes a recession (or so the argument goes). I do think the evidence is inconclusive on this one, and I think the use of the last graph in the article is basically wrong. 2008 was almost certainly not caused by the brief Labour surplus in 2001, but rather because of a liquidity crash stemming from the fact a tonne of banks didn't actually understand what they were trading. Nevertheless, it is probably true that extended periods of surplus are probably unhealthy.
Did you know it was the Scottish Labour conference this weekend? Well you do now. Corbyn gave a speech yesterday and today Scottish Labour are going to vote on whether they oppose or support Trident's renewal.
Jezbollah
Member
Watching Sky News regarding the draft Communications Data bill being drafted in Parliament on Wednesday. Some notes:
- "banning instant messenger services that do not allow unencrypted data intercept has apparently been shelved"
- "Government will no longer demand access to citizens full browsing history"
- "Any analysis of intercepted data will remain with full judicial procedure + oversight (requiring warrants etc)"
interesting stuff.
edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956
- "banning instant messenger services that do not allow unencrypted data intercept has apparently been shelved"
- "Government will no longer demand access to citizens full browsing history"
- "Any analysis of intercepted data will remain with full judicial procedure + oversight (requiring warrants etc)"
interesting stuff.
edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34691956
Good, but still not ideal.
Why am I reminded of when the government dropped hints that tuition fees would rise to £20k p/a so that we would all be grateful when it was 'only' £9k?
Jezbollah
Member
And if they do, the Government will push their current agenda with the Lords, maybe saying "look, we listened, made adjustments and you still opposed it'.
Well, we knew it was coming, the annual debate about Remembrance Sunday has arrived, with the Mail, Telegraph and Times seizing on / taking out of context (delete as preferred) comments made by Corbyn in 2013 about how commemorating WWI was 'pointless'. (Warning: Huffington Post link)
All it's done is reminded me of the time Michael Gove and Tony Robinson got into a public fight over Blackadder, which is much funnier.
All it's done is reminded me of the time Michael Gove and Tony Robinson got into a public fight over Blackadder, which is much funnier.
Nicktendo86
Member
So, what is the Labour party's position on Trident? The Scottish party seems opposed, but the UK party who would actually make the decision in the unlikely even of being in power in the near future is officially in favour, for now? I think?
Jezbollah
Member
The position is simple, and music to the SNP's ears. Anti-trident north of the border, pro south due to large union support. They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont.
In other news, Tristram Hunt is apparently a big fan of the current status of his party..
To make it more interesting, I think Scottish Labour's leader is pro trident while UK Labour's leader is against it.
It's a... confused position to say the least.
I'm a CULC member but unfortunately couldn't go.
I can understand what he means, and that the echochamber affect does have a risk of stopping Labour from reaching out. But I would argue that the Blairite bubble was even worse.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Tristram Hunt may or may not be right but he's everything that became wrong about Labour. He represents nothing. He's pathetic.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He's also preaching to the wrong crowd insofar as it is obviously not the role of Oxbridge students to singlehandedly run the political system; that insularity is largely responsible for Labour's loss to begin with. Hunt needs to take a hike.
Although I don't agree with Corbyn on everything. I'm fairly certain that he believes what he believes and does what he does because he guinely wants what's best for the everything on this planet. Whereas as it's an understatement saying I believe Cameron maye doesn't have even his own country's best interests in mind. Same with most of the Blairites, it would be one thing if they were committed to their ideology because they believe in it for the greater good, but considering that they admire Mandelson and can't even defend their own ideas in interviews most of the time I really don't know what their motivations are.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think Hunt's point was that Corbyn's a cunt or an idiot or anything though, was it? Simply that he's not good for the Labour party if it wishes to stay as an actual political party (whose goal is to acquisition of power). But then we just get back to the same old argument of...
"I don't want us to be Tory-lite"
"So would you rather an actual Tory government?"
"Yes if it enables us to rise, phoenix-like from the flames and come back stronger"
Line 3 there is the crux of the matter, ain't it. Whether that comes to pass or not is the big question, because even if the proponents are right the cost is almost certainly 15 years of having a Tory PM. If they're wrong, it's 15 years of a Tory PM and then more because the party's just a bastion for loons and mentalists (again: if they're wrong and the party doesn't come back stronger after a decade and a half in opposition).
"I don't want us to be Tory-lite"
"So would you rather an actual Tory government?"
"Yes if it enables us to rise, phoenix-like from the flames and come back stronger"
Line 3 there is the crux of the matter, ain't it. Whether that comes to pass or not is the big question, because even if the proponents are right the cost is almost certainly 15 years of having a Tory PM. If they're wrong, it's 15 years of a Tory PM and then more because the party's just a bastion for loons and mentalists (again: if they're wrong and the party doesn't come back stronger after a decade and a half in opposition).
But Hunt's position does assume that his route to power is any more workable than Corbyn's
There's not much evidence that's the case. They just tried it two elections in a row and got battered, and in part they got battered because the Labour Party machinery only works through huge numbers of unpaid work (ironically) by volunteers who had abandoned them over the last twenty years.
I think the same will start to happen pretty rapidly to the Tories over the next ten years too. Indeed, looking at the electoral turnout, it already has, which is why our current political system is completely unsustainable.
When a new system comes along (and it will), then the Corbyn strategy might not look so stupid, because grass roots identity uprisings will be very powerful factors in gaining significant electoral power (though nobody will be able to obtain the level of power they have today).
There's not much evidence that's the case. They just tried it two elections in a row and got battered, and in part they got battered because the Labour Party machinery only works through huge numbers of unpaid work (ironically) by volunteers who had abandoned them over the last twenty years.
I think the same will start to happen pretty rapidly to the Tories over the next ten years too. Indeed, looking at the electoral turnout, it already has, which is why our current political system is completely unsustainable.
When a new system comes along (and it will), then the Corbyn strategy might not look so stupid, because grass roots identity uprisings will be very powerful factors in gaining significant electoral power (though nobody will be able to obtain the level of power they have today).
I get the same feeling with Corbyn as I did about the Greens at the last election, in that they are doing things the right way to win a future election and I suspect everyone will look back and go "actually, that was a really good idea and they were the first people to recognise it". Unfortunately I suspect they won't be able to win the current election, because if the last general election proved anything it's that print media still holds sway over the middle class swing vote.
Also, congratulations to Cameron for somehow managing to generate his own controversy about poppies and almost overshadow Corbyn.
Also, congratulations to Cameron for somehow managing to generate his own controversy about poppies and almost overshadow Corbyn.
Hunt's point appeared to be that an elite 1% should be running the show and the rest of us proles shut shut up and defer to our betters. Safe to say that's not a very popular message with current Labour members.
But this isn't the current choice, this is a hypothetical based on a potentially flawed premise.
The fact of the current situation is that we have a Tory PM, and are going to have one for 5 years. The choice for Labour is how to position their opposition, and if the choice is to oppose things from the Tory-lite position, or from a genuinely alternative left-wing position, I'd rather the latter.
The question is whether this will do better or worse at the next election than Tory-lite did at the last couple, and that remains to be seen.
Loughborough MP Nicky Morgan is looking at more robust tests for seven-year-olds, insisting they must provide a "firm basis" for measuring pupils' academic progress.
The Education Secretary will make a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, where she will announce a review of the testing of seven-year-olds.
http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2015-11-03/review-of-school-tests-for-seven-year-olds/
Kind of not for young children having tests.
The Education Secretary will make a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, where she will announce a review of the testing of seven-year-olds.
http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2015-11-03/review-of-school-tests-for-seven-year-olds/
Kind of not for young children having tests.
Why??? I don't get it at all. Testing inhibits education
JonathanEx
Member
Are we all ready for Snoopers Charter 2: Snoop Harder? 12:30 for the statement, apparently not all of it has been "leaked".
Jezbollah
Member
I have no idea how they can technically implement the encryption proposal..
JonathanEx
Member
It's the "we'll store which sites you go to but not which pages" that gets me.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't even understand how this can be considered a concession. Like, it seems to be that it strips out both privacy protections *and* massively reduces it's effectiveness in intelligence gathering. Also, with dynamic, database driven websites having been the norm for about 10 years now, it just hardly makes sense. Knowing that someone went to website.com/index.php doesn't tell you anything about what they actually saw.
I'm assuming that if* this goes through, it will only take a few weeks before the data is hacked by someone and released. Massive shitstorm will ensue, they'll tell us they've fixed it, another hack/release a couple of months later, rinse repeat. I have zero confidence that it will be secure.
* I have no doubt it will, they seem to be uncontrollable at this point, what's next fracking in national parks and SSSIs? Oh.
* I have no doubt it will, they seem to be uncontrollable at this point, what's next fracking in national parks and SSSIs? Oh.
jimbobsmells
Member
Yeah making the ISPs store all this is a disaster waiting to happen. God forbid some bored 15 year old 'hacker' gets anywhere near it. Let alone someone with talent and an agenda.
May clearly doesn't even understand the differences between websites and services, or apps.
This is why Parliament is broken. Inept people trying to discuss things they don't understand as if they do, and people equally ignorant responding from the opposition.
This bill is a fucking mess.
This is why Parliament is broken. Inept people trying to discuss things they don't understand as if they do, and people equally ignorant responding from the opposition.
This bill is a fucking mess.
Looking forward to the headlines about some ISP storing the data in plain text.
So I suppose we ought to discuss Jeremy Hunt's new offer to doctors which according to the Independent represents a 26% real-time pay cut.
Alternatively we could note the novelty of me agreeing with Keith Vaz on something.
Alternatively we could note the novelty of me agreeing with Keith Vaz on something.
Jezbollah
Member
I would like to see more actual figures on the sides of the Doctors as regards to the actual hours they would work to achieve such a wage.
Changing the subject, breaking news on Sky about a student protest gone nasty - a pro "free education" demonstration. I don't know how viable free further education is, I am hardly an expert on the matter but it seems quite unsustainable.
I think the Indy article kind of goes into that, no?
In an irony, I couldn't go to that protest as I was busy working.
Mr. Luchador
Member
I don't understand how this doesn't contradict the Data Protection Act. Maybe my understanding of it is too simple, or simply wrong.
Also COBRA meeting? I always imagine those as GI JOE Cosplay Events.
Also COBRA meeting? I always imagine those as GI JOE Cosplay Events.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There's a bit of fuss in the small business community about the changes to taxation of dividends that come into effect next April. Well, "bit of fuss" is understating it somewhat - my accountant is spitting blood over the whole thing.
Bit of background: historically dividend income, through a weird notional tax credit mechanism, has not been taxed at all until income hits the higher tax band. So a lot of small business owners take the greater proportion of their income by way of dividends, and by doing so avoid troublesome things like income tax and National Insurance.
Myself, I think this is the right thing to do. It closes a very widely-used "loophole" - and of course those who were using it are rather up in arms - that really shouldn't exist. I'm rather hoping that this is the precursor to some similarly draconian action on transfer payments, and also that it paves the way to a reduction in the small business rate of corporation tax - both of which would also be sensible.
I think I am down for a row with my accountant on this one!
Bit of background: historically dividend income, through a weird notional tax credit mechanism, has not been taxed at all until income hits the higher tax band. So a lot of small business owners take the greater proportion of their income by way of dividends, and by doing so avoid troublesome things like income tax and National Insurance.
Myself, I think this is the right thing to do. It closes a very widely-used "loophole" - and of course those who were using it are rather up in arms - that really shouldn't exist. I'm rather hoping that this is the precursor to some similarly draconian action on transfer payments, and also that it paves the way to a reduction in the small business rate of corporation tax - both of which would also be sensible.
I think I am down for a row with my accountant on this one!
Small business owners pay corporation tax on their profit already, they are getting hammered twice now. It's basically the government taking more money out of businesses which makes up the largest portion of the economy.
There's generally much less money in small businesses so it will encourage cost savings, and the easiest way to do that is to lower the work force or "employ" more members of direct family to distribute the the payments and tax liability ...
Nothing more than a cash grab. I'm in this boat, sad to say I'm probably going to let someone go and take on more responsibility myself.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-david-camerons-welcome-of-egyptian-president
it's one thing to have a "cordial relationship" for necessity's sake, it's another to invite a coup leader who outlawed Egypt's largest political party and has ordered hundreds executed.
it's one thing to have a "cordial relationship" for necessity's sake, it's another to invite a coup leader who outlawed Egypt's largest political party and has ordered hundreds executed.
It's not good. The 'judicial overview' in this case amounts to little more than a rubber stamp process.
Data should not be collected AT ALL until a warrant is obtained from a judge that has a full understanding of the case and the power to deny the warrant.
Labour seem to be supporting this. Burnham (shadow home secretary) expressed his support, and Corbyn hasn't said anything. I cannot imagine voting for them in 2020. They are as craven to the security services as the last lot.
quote from David Davis, Tory MP:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked