Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today

[John Bumlick]

"Brilliant stuff from polarising politician"

Bozza is getting good at this clickbait thing....

 

[spring hall convert]

So normal law abiding tax paying citizens can live in peace and have their human rights enforced for a change because at the moment the human rights act is a charter for criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists.

Hook, line and sinker. The turkeys truly are going to vote for Christmas.

 

[soistes]

I'd quite like to vote for a party that says something like this:

* We'll attempt to get the deficit down, but much like a 25 year mortgage there really is no hurry as long as we can service it. The national debt is not a major issue when you consider the infrastructure we have, which is essentially our "equity" on this debt.
* We're going to keep income tax roughly what it is.
* We're going to reduce VAT gradually over a ten year period because we realise it is obscene.
* We won't pander to the loud minority who want to decimate our trading links with the EU
* We're going to pay for this by keeping our noses out of wars that we have absolutely no business getting involved in.

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]

I'm curious. Why?

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]

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.

 

[spring hall convert]

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).

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]

Well you are stupid beyond belief.

Each to their own. I suppose you think the human rights act works well and has some value.

 

[Premiership Dream]

I thought the 40% tax bracket was £31,866

https://www.gov.uk/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2014-to-2015

 

[Buzzer]

The promise to abolish zero hours contracts is hot air. The only way to do this within the strictures of English contract law is to require that every contract for work have a minimum number of guaranteed hours. Clearly, employers will only guarantee the minimum, and the workers who suffer from irregular earnings and hours will have the same problems they do now. And they'll have their tax credits frozen to boot (Osborne has already announced this).

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.

 

[Simster]

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.

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]

Each to their own. I suppose you think the human rights act works well and has some value.

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]

Those with the lowest incomes will not be impacted by that raise.

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.

 

[Simster]

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.

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]

I thought the 40% tax bracket was £31,866

https://www.gov.uk/rates-and-thresholds-for-employers-2014-to-2015

You're forgetting the £10K tax free allowance.

 

[Yoda]

I wonder how this will be paid for ? The devil as always is in the detail

Did you not hear George the other day? By making the poorest even poorer by freezing working aged benefits.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

And if they're < 21, an apprentice or most obviously, not getting 40 hours a week? Or unable to work and/or get work?

 

[Skylar]

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.

The same David 'Gormless' Milliband who wants Turkey, Syria and Iraq to join the EU?

 

[Buzzer]

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.

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.