Brilliant stuff from David Cameron today

[Bold Seagull]

Aahhh the old bell curve approach, delete the extremes at either end of the spectrum and just wallow in the middle ground of ignorance.

What you actually mean I think, is ignore extreme circumstances, or the possibility of extremes actually existing and affecting areas of Europe, in the hope that it will just go away of its own volition.......HT once more banging the drum from the comfort of his euro-centric Germanic utopia....... smell those coffee beans matey.

Isn't he saying the complete opposite of what you're suggesting - that a European court can address the possibility of extremes but ensuring laws apply that draws on a consensus from the rest of the continent?

Far from ignoring the possibility of extreme circumstances, isn't it an acknowledgement that they exist and this is a way of preventing them taking hold fully.

Surely dealing with the bigger issues such as Human Rights as a single state and not engaging with Europe is exactly what you are saying in that you have to hope it goes away of its own volition as as well as ignoring it, you are niether engaging or influencing it?

 

[father_and_son]

Only 'NEVER' if Labour gain power again. Borrow and spend is the Labour party, they don't know any other way.

If my Economics lessons from 30 years ago were correct, Borrow and Spend is Labour's policy because they broadly believe the Keynesian Economic Principle (?).
The actual facts that would have got me the O-Level may be hazy but the analogy we were given still sticks...


The UK is a leaky bath. The government are the taps and water level is our "wealth" (GDP, Tax Revenue, call it what you will).

The political left believe you turn the taps on full keeping the water level high but with huge amounts of waste and a big bill from the water company. The fact that the bath is always full means you have high wealth and have the tax revenue to pay off the water company.

The political right believe you turn down the taps and only concentrate on plugging the holes and let the bath water rise naturally once you have minimised the leaks. Smaller bill from the water company but potentially lower wealth all round until you have enough leaks plugged.


I've yet to see a better description of the basic economic difference between Labour and Tory economic policy.

 

[Buzzer]

Isn't he saying the complete opposite of what you're suggesting - that a European court can address the possibility of extremes but ensuring laws apply that draws on a consensus from the rest of the continent?

Far from ignoring the possibility of extreme circumstances, isn't it an acknowledgement that they exist and this is a way of preventing them taking hold fully.

Surely dealing with the bigger issues such as Human Rights as a single state and not engaging with Europe is exactly what you are saying in that you have to hope it goes away of its own volition as you are ignoring it, nor engaging or influencing it?

But it's unnecessary legislation. Were there any rights in that list that an EU member wasn't abiding by with existing homegrown laws? I've asked the question previously - what extra rights do I get as a British subject in the UK under the HRA that I didn't have previously and what rights will I lose if the HRA act is repealed and the UK Court of Appeal returns as the ultimate reference point in our legal system?

It's just plain old scare-mongering by Euro-centrics who seem to despise the idea of the British governing themselves to suggest that our human rights are under threat if a human rights act that's 16 years old is repealed. Slavery was illegal before then and it will be if the HRA is repealed.

 

[somerset]

Isn't he saying the complete opposite of what you're suggesting - that a European court can address the possibility of extremes but ensuring laws apply that draws on a consensus from the rest of the continent?

Far from ignoring the possibility of extreme circumstances, isn't it an acknowledgement that they exist and this is a way of preventing them taking hold fully.

Surely dealing with the bigger issues such as Human Rights as a single state and not engaging with Europe is exactly what you are saying in that you have to hope it goes away of its own volition as as well as ignoring it, you are niether engaging or influencing it?

In less flowery terms, I am saying that a solution originating in Brussels or Strasbourg, that may work in Holland or elsewhere for example, may not actually work in the UK or elsewhere....... one size doesn't fit all.....by the way, consensus often is just a euphemism for dilution.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's wrong and dangerous for a democratically-elected national government to be allowed to amend, remove and create laws specifically for the people that they govern? Ah, European nanny knows best. It's rather funny how some people rail against big business and faceless corporations with no appreciation nor care for local culture, attitudes and demands yet they've no qualms about the same things when it comes to the laws that govern them.

Yes, I do think a broader court knows best. In a similar way if I ever ended up in court I'd prefer a jury as opposed to a single judge to decide my fate.

Is the big-business comment aimed at me? I dont have an issue with big-business per se; so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

 

[Ludensian Gull]

I'd imagine that it's highly unlikely that his two rented flats, bring in a combined total of less than £100 / week (less costs).

Well if he's earning more than that I'm pretty sure you lose your full carers allowance, so not sure how they came to that figure.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But it's unnecessary legislation. Were there any rights in that list that an EU member wasn't abiding by with existing homegrown laws? I've asked the question previously - what extra rights do I get as a British subject in the UK under the HRA that I didn't have previously and what rights will I lose if the HRA act is repealed and the UK Court of Appeal returns as the ultimate reference point in our legal system?

It's just plain old scare-mongering by Euro-centrics who seem to despise the idea of the British governing themselves to suggest that our human rights are under threat if a human rights act that's 16 years old is repealed. Slavery was illegal before then and it will be if the HRA is repealed.

For one, regulation of the banks. UK governments (post and pre financial crisis) just don't have the stomach to tackle the City of London. A European wide agreement on the regulation of the banks puts individual interests aside for an agreed consensus of regulation for the common good. It means rules can be applied without one country feeling it's putting itself at a disadvantage by implementing stricter laws than another.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Eh? The Americans aren't the only ones with fixed term elections. Your beloved EU has them every five years in June. Doesn't Germany also have them too?

Ah well, just like the true pan-European that you are, you're able to moan about narrow-mindedness and still hold the default position that anything American must necessarily be bad.

Jesus. You really do over analyse the slightest morsels. twist them around and then put words in my mouth.

I make a comment about the US election system and you somehow extrapolate this out to how I "still hold the default position that anything American must necessarily be bad." How on earth did you get to this thought? You also seemed to have assumed I have a total dislike for big-business in a previous post. You are making quite big leaps of faith in your thinking and coming across quite agressive. Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

 

[somerset]

It means rules can be applied without one country feeling it's putting itself at a disadvantage by implementing stricter laws than another.

..........or being able to exploit a perceived advantage that might just improve the economy or trading conditions for a particular country....... shackled to the middle ground, operating within the constraints of the lowest common denominator, never the highest.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

For one, regulation of the banks. UK governments (post and pre financial crisis) just don't have the stomach to tackle the City of London. A European wide agreement on the regulation of the banks puts individual interests aside for an agreed consensus of regulation for the common good. It means rules can be applied without one country feeling it's putting itself at a disadvantage by implementing stricter laws than another.

This. And they seem to be starting to fight back against companies dodging their corporation tax. This can only be done as a Europe wide agreement.

 

[piersa]

This is what Cameron promised before the last election.

1. No cuts to front-line services

As remarkable as it may seem, David Cameron told Andrew Marr the weekend before the general election that a Conservative government would not cut any front-line services.


What I can tell you is, any cabinet minister, if I win the election, who comes to me and says: "Here are my plans," and they involve front-line reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. After 13 years of Labour, there is a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of money that doesn't reach the front line.

Since then, 5,870 NHS nurses, 7,968 hospital beds, a third of ambulance stations, 5,362 firefighters and 6,800 frontline police officers have been cut.

2. "We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT"

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on 23 April 2010, Cameron said: "We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first Budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax."

VAT was subsequently raised from 17.5 per cent to a record high of 20 per cent in George Osborne's emergency Budget.

3. Cameron on child benefit: "I wouldn't means-test it"

At a pre-election Cameron Direct event, the Tory leader issued this "read my lips" pledge: "I'm not going to flannel you, I'm going to give it to you straight. I like the child benefit, I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means-test it, I don't think that is a good idea." The coalition went on to abolish the benefit for higher earners in the Spending Review and froze it for three years.

4. NHS: "no more top-down reorganisations"

Perhaps most infamously, the Conservatives repeatedly promised before the general election that there would be no more "top-down reorganisations" of the NHS (Andrew Lansley, Conservative Party press release, 11 July 2007). In a speech at the Royal College of Pathologists on 2 November 2009, Cameron said: "With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS."

In his 2006 Conservative conference speech, he said: "So I make this commitment to the NHS and all who work in it. No more pointless reorganisations."

The coalition went on to launch the biggest top-down reorganisation of the service in its history.

5. On Education Maintenance Allowances: "we don't have any plans to get rid of them"

At a Cameron Direct event in January 2010, Cameron said: "We've looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven't announced any plan to get rid of them." Challenged to firm up his pledge, he added: "I said we don't have any plans to get rid of them . . . it's one of those things the Labour Party keep putting out that we are but we're not."

Nine months later, the coalition announced the abolition of EMA, which paid up to £30 a week to 16-to-18-years-olds living in households whose income is less than £30,800 a year, in the Spending Review.

6. Cameron on Sure Start: "Yes, we back Sure Start. It's a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this."

The day before the general election, Cameron pledged to protect Sure Start, the network of children's centres founded by the last Labour government.

Asked for a guarantee that the centres would continue to receive funding, he replied: "Yes, we back Sure Start. It's a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this. He's the prime minister of this country but he's been scaring people about something that really matters."

In his 2009 Conservative conference speech, he said: "It’s also about emotional support, particularly in those fraught early years before children go to school. Labour understood this and we should acknowledge that. That’s why Sure Start will stay, and we’ll improve it."

Since then, 566 of the centres have been closed, with over half of those still open no longer providing any onsite childcare.

7. On the Future Jobs Fund: "no plans to change"

In March 2010, Cameron praised the Future Jobs Fund as a "good scheme" and said the Conservatives had "no plans to change existing Future Jobs Fund commitments". On 24 May 2010, the coalition announced its abolition (only for a subsequent Department for Work and Pensions study to show that it had been an unambiguous success, with a net benefit to the economy of £7,750 per participant) and replaced it with the ineffective Work Programme, later found to be "worse than doing nothing".

8. Cameron on green taxes: "[they] need to go up"

While recently pledging to "roll-back" green taxes, Cameron took a very different line during his early hug-a husky phase. On 29 October 2006 he told the BBC's Politics Show: "I think green taxes as a whole need to go up". He also told Newsnight on 3 October: "We’ve said publicly, we’ve committed that we think green taxes should take a bigger share of overall taxes."

In a speech at the Tories' local election launch on 17 April 2008, he said: "Our message in this local election campaign is simple: vote blue, go green - and save money. It's been our campaign slogan for the last three elections. Why? Because it goes to the heart of what Conservatives believe. And because that's the kind of change people really want."

9. Osborne on bank bonuses: "totally unacceptable"

In an interview with the Guardian published on 14 August 2009, George Osborne said: "It is totally unacceptable for bank bonuses to be paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees. It must stop."

Not only did he fail to keep his pledge to ban bonuses at state-owned banks, he is now taking legal action against the EU commission over its plan to cap payments.

10. And finally...Cameron on transparency in 2007

"It's clear to me that political leaders will have to learn to let go. Let go of the information that we've guarded so jealously."

Clearly a liar. It's why UKIP are doing so well. Not a leader among the three main parties.

 

[Buzzer]

Yes, I do think a broader court knows best. In a similar way if I ever ended up in court I'd prefer a jury as opposed to a single judge to decide my fate.

Let's extend that then. The cultures of the countries of the EU now extend globally so why not also take into account Chinese, African, Russian, Indian and Middle East sensibilities. Let's go for the broadest possible court and have a pan-global approach?

Or let's make it simpler - If you have a court trial with a jury of 12, I suspect that you may well get different results depending on whether that jury is made up of Portugese, British, Russian, Arab, Ugandan or Indian nationals. In an extreme case of, say, rape I'm going out on a limb here but I think a UK victim of spouse rape might prefer a jury of British people rather than a broad church of all nations because we have different attitudes and a British person might feel that we are more in tune with the victim's culture.

In other words, we have a legal system with laws that are fine-tuned for our values. Really, what's so wrong with that?

 

[Blackadder]

Just keep on cutting Gideon...

Happy, fair minded Conservatives at the conference this week.

View attachment 59112

 

[spring hall convert]

Can everyone read post #296. Really read it.

They'll say anything to get in (not just the Tories.) Stop trusting them.

 

[Buzzer]

For one, regulation of the banks. UK governments (post and pre financial crisis) just don't have the stomach to tackle the City of London. A European wide agreement on the regulation of the banks puts individual interests aside for an agreed consensus of regulation for the common good. It means rules can be applied without one country feeling it's putting itself at a disadvantage by implementing stricter laws than another.

Banks aren't covered by human rights acts, are they? And Europe can't agree on regulation of the banks any more than individual states can. Take the EU FTT. Half are in, half are out.

 

[Buzzer]

Jesus. You really do over analyse the slightest morsels. twist them around and then put words in my mouth.

I make a comment about the US election system and you somehow extrapolate this out to how I "still hold the default position that anything American must necessarily be bad." How on earth did you get to this thought? You also seemed to have assumed I have a total dislike for big-business in a previous post. You are making quite big leaps of faith in your thinking and coming across quite agressive. Did you get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

Aggressive? Oh, get over yourself. I'm poking fun at you. I notice you've got a little bit more defensive of late when Europe and Germany comes up and I'm teasing you about it. How many times in the last fortnight have you posted "You don't get this in Germany"? Quid pro quo, my pan-European chum.

My point about the US is that you call people Little Englanders yet take a perverse position about American politics that isn't even unique to their system and you've not answered the point about why fixed term elections in the US are bad but apparently okay in the EU.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Let's extend that then. The cultures of the countries of the EU now extend globally so why not also take into account Chinese, African, Russian, Indian and Middle East sensibilities. Let's go for the broadest possible court and have a pan-global approach?

Or let's make it simpler - If you have a court trial with a jury of 12, I suspect that you may well get different results depending on whether that jury is made up of Portugese, British, Russian, Arab, Ugandan or Indian nationals. In an extreme case of, say, rape I'm going out on a limb here but I think a UK victim of spouse rape might prefer a jury of British people rather than a broad church of all nations because we have different attitudes and a British person might feel that we are more in tune with the victim's culture.

In other words, we have a legal system with laws that are fine-tuned for our values. Really, what's so wrong with that?

Shall we get martians involved as well? I think a continent wide council is fine for a number of reasons.

 

[chucky1973]

Wait until he raises VAT to 25% to pay for the tax cuts or cuts who is able to get things like Child Benefit, never realised there were so many idiots about.

The whole system is a joke. The cycle will go around and around. Labour.......get in create a mess, Conservative get in, sort out the mess and then create a mess, Labour, say " country is in a mess, vote labour we will sort out forgetting that they created the initial mess that the Tory's had to sort....Labour get in, sort out the mess and then create an even bigger mess......and so the cycle continues.......both a joke, albeit I prefer DC to Ed........and they are blue not red so will prob get my vote!!

 

[easynow]

Labour and ukip idiots everywhere it seems.

The conservatives are making the UK one of only few countries in the UK to have a lot of economic progress the last few years. Yes, there have been cuts, but nothing drastic. You make your country a good place to do business and the country gains.that's how all the Asian countries are growing. But none of them have the privileges that citizens in the UK get for example. Free health care, very few currupt police etc .

Everyone thinks they are owed something these days. A nation of whingers lol.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Banks aren't covered by human rights acts, are they? And Europe can't agree on regulation of the banks any more than individual states can. Take the EU FTT. Half are in, half are out.

I didn't realise we were limiting ourselves to Human Rights - I had said Europe dealing with the bigger issues such as human rights, we were discussing European legislation as a whole - at least I think we were.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's easy to agree, but surely something has to be done about it, and as said an individual state like us isn't going to threaten our financial sector by regulations that are stricter than everywhere else. The EU has already agreed and passed legislation on bankers bonuses not exceeding basic salary. We may even have our own man in Lord Hill as the EU's Financial Regulator - Cameron's chosen one.