Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today

[Butch Willykins]

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

Then they don't pay any income tax. Zero. None. Nothing.

 

[spring hall convert]

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.

Fair enough, they have introduced legislation that may stop it from happening again. Just out interest what has become of the indivuduals that presided over the previous failure of the industry, hasn't one just been made head of the BBC trust by ministerial appointment?

My point remains that the political elite have perniciously made their f*** up, our responsibility to pay for.

 

[mikeyjh]

Then they don't pay any income tax. Zero. None. Nothing.

So how would they be made better off by an increase in the allowance?

 

[severnside gull]

I'm pretty sure we've just seen an election winning speech.

I think Milliband's was the election winning speech........





..................just not for him!!!



However, anyone who genuinely believes that Cameron or any other politician will deliver most of their pre-election promises is seriously deluded

 

[spring hall convert]

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.

I genuinely believe that quite a few of those would be under threat via a Tory written Bill of Rights, depending on how right leaning and socially (il)liberal the Conservative Party becomes. Bear in mind we could be looking at a Con/UKIP coalition.

 

[sten_super]

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.

Really good post. I agree with your sentiments. I don't think it's a problem (necessarily) of economic literacy; it's that professional economics lacks serious credibility - and I say that as a professional economist. It's far too reliant on ivory towers and manipulating data to agree with theoretical points of view and not grounded in the real economy. There's no other way to explain the disregard with which Keynes is treated, or the narrow-minded view of the world that is so prevalent in the Treasury.

 

[Butch Willykins]

So how would they be made better off by an increase in the allowance?

They're not. But maybe one day when they reach the lofty heights of a £13K salary they will be. Until then they can enjoy their tax free lifestyle.

 

[Buzzer]

I genuinely believe that quite a few of those would be under threat via a Tory written Bill of Rights, depending on how right leaning and socially (il)liberal the Conservative Party becomes. Bear in mind we could be looking at a Con/UKIP coalition.

"Quite a few" That sounds like more than two or three....Which ones do you think they will try to scrap? Bearing in mind it was the Tories that fought to keep the 'double jeopardy' rule that was a cornerstone of our legal system for 800 years and abolished by Labour. And I'm not specifically accusing you of saying it but I do take exception to the implication that personal freedom is a left-leaning principle. It's a massively defining and non-negotiable tenet for any right-wing democratic system.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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

You've made the last two up.

 

[essbee]

I'll tell you what though. Sod all this tax bracket and HR stuff. If Cameron or A.N. Other promised
to torch the set of Eastenders and banish the past and present casts/producers and all production staff to
outer Mongolia where they would die a painful and horrific death - they would get my vote.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Like everything else there will be a catch somewhere.

 

[Frampler]

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).

The legislation you refer to is the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 1999. These provide a right for a part-time worker not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker as regards the terms of his or her contract, or by being subjected to any other detriment by any act, or deliberate failure to act, of the employer. This is quite limited in effect - it means you can't get paid less per hour for working part-time, and it means you can't be denied access to benefits like health insurance, because you work part-time. Zero-hours workers can't claim under these Regulations because they don't have comparable full-time workers. This would change if every contract had to guarantee some hours: some - but not all - zero hours workers would be able to claim parity of treatment with their full-time colleagues. It would certainly prevent a repeat of the recent situation at Sports Direct, where zero hours workers were denied a share of a very large bonus payout. However, it wouldn't do anything about the problems of variable income and poor job security.

At the moment the majority of zero hours contracts do not contain any restriction on working elsewhere. Some do contain exclusivity clauses, but this is already being dealt with: the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill includes a ban on such clauses.

The announcement on tax credits was on Monday - they are freezing them at the current rates for the next few years (although the effect will probably now be mitigated by increases in the tax-free allowance).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

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

You're rather splitting hairs there. OK, increasing the PA by 20% will help SOME of the lowest paid more than the rich. I struggle to see how anyone of any political persuasion could think raising the PA is a bad thing.

 

[sten_super]

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.

My reading of that was that they want to ban 'exclusive' zero hour contracts, whereby the worker is not guaranteed any hours but not allowed to work for anyone else. These contracts could be viewed as an impediment to the operation of the 'free market', which would make it compatible with Tory beliefs. But I accept that they are really a government intervention.

I still think that this was a pretty right-wing conference, compared to the 'friendly' version of Conversatism that was being preached right up to the last election (and which has continued in recent years due to Coalition policies being announced). Yes, there's been the odd tidbit to appeal to the centre (May's reference yesterday to stop and search was another, in a very right-wing speech on security) but I think that the majority of content has been pretty far right.

 

[soistes]

Really good post. I agree with your sentiments. I don't think it's a problem (necessarily) of economic literacy; it's that professional economics lacks serious credibility - and I say that as a professional economist. It's far too reliant on ivory towers and manipulating data to agree with theoretical points of view and not grounded in the real economy. There's no other way to explain the disregard with which Keynes is treated, or the narrow-minded view of the world that is so prevalent in the Treasury.

I note that you are not only an economist, but based in Cambridge. Interestingly Cambridge was one place where academic economists resisted the trends away from 'real world' analysis to which you refer (and in the 1980s Cambridge was heavily punished for it, if I recall correctly, when the Thatcher government vindictively slashed the funding for the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics).

 

[narly101]

Cracking conference all round.

Let's keep the blue flag flying high.

I was particularly impressed with BoJo yesterday. Exceptionally funny, but an incredibly pertinent speech nonetheless. Returning to the fold as an MP will give the Blues even more of an incentive in the run up.

Go David!

 

[spring hall convert]

"Quite a few" That sounds like more than two or three....Which ones do you think they will try to scrap? Bearing in mind it was the Tories that fought to keep the 'double jeopardy' rule that was a cornerstone of our legal system for 800 years and abolished by Labour. And I'm not specifically accusing you of saying it but I do take exception to the implication that personal freedom is a left-leaning principle. It's a massively defining and non-negotiable tenet for any right-wing democratic system.

Not necessarily scrap but perhaps leave more open to interpretation than they ordinarily would have been

Freedom from slavery and forced labour - Workfare
Right to a fair trial - Changes to legal aid
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence - an area we need to be mindful of regardless of the political party
Freedom of thought, belief and religion - I can see things taken an Islamophobic turn in freedom of religion - especially if UKIP are involved
Freedom of assembly and association - see above they've also been on pretty dodgy ground with some protests
Right to marry and start a family - not convinced that they believe in this regardless of sexual oreinatation or that it wouldn't take massive swing for them not to

I would be more inclined to agree with you if I had any faith in our establishment at the moment. It doesn't even seem to take strong suggestions of institutionalised paedophilia particuarly seriously so I thinking abill of rights might be a bit difficult for them.

 

[narly101]

Oh and any party who removes the Human Rights Act and replaces it with a viable and up to date UK Bill of Rights gets my vote.

 

[Machiavelli]

My reading of that was that they want to ban 'exclusive' zero hour contracts, whereby the worker is not guaranteed any hours but not allowed to work for anyone else. These contracts could be viewed as an impediment to the operation of the 'free market', which would make it compatible with Tory beliefs. But I accept that they are really a government intervention.

I still think that this was a pretty right-wing conference, compared to the 'friendly' version of Conversatism that was being preached right up to the last election (and which has continued in recent years due to Coalition policies being announced). Yes, there's been the odd tidbit to appeal to the centre (May's reference yesterday to stop and search was another, in a very right-wing speech on security) but I think that the majority of content has been pretty far right.

Have to confess that I haven't done swingometers to assess how right-wing Tory conferences are. Whichever way, this government has managed to take an axe to (and devolve it too) the welfare state, which Thatcher never dared. They've even managed to shift political and economic discourse such that the only thing that matters is the deficit (see, for instance, about every other NSC thread). Which is impressive. Me not like though.

 

[looney]

Cameron is a habitual liar, I wouldn't be suprised if he promised everyone Smurfs riding on a Unicorn.