General Election 2017

[ManOfSussex]

I've already answered it. It's a well-meaning clause to provide extra help for rape victims but the process for claiming is clearly badly created and after seeing that form I'll readily admit that. However, the Tories created the policy, the DWP have designed the process and were in charge of the consultation. You're trying to give the impression that Theresa May and Philip Hammond sat down and personally designed the form. Direct your anger at the DWP.

A well meaning clause? Okay. I'm sure rape victims as just as appreciative of it as you are.

I'm sure that Damian Green, as the Conservative & Unionist Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, agrees with you as well.

 

[Buzzer]

A well meaning clause? Okay. I'm sure rape victims as just as appreciative of it as you are.

I'm sure that Damian Green, as the Conservative & Unionist Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, agrees with you as well.

From a government press release:

Some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family as others. For that reason, there are a series of exceptions to the restriction.

The Government invited views from stakeholders in a full consultation from 21 October 2016 to 27 November 2016 on the detail and implementation of the exceptions, including the non-consensual conception exemption, and contacted organisations across the UK who might have an interest in the policy. We received 82 responses with around 50 from organisations and this feedback informed a response, published on Friday 20th January 2017. This reflected comments and suggestions made as part of the consultation, including adding children conceived through controlling and coercive relationships, using aspects of the legal definition of the criminal offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” legislated for by the Home Office, within the non-consensual conception exception.

So the government invited views from various organisations *which almost certainly would have included NSPCC, rape support and domestic violence charities), some of which asked for children born of rape to be added to the exceptions. The government have tried to do that although it looks like they've made a right pig's ear of it. So yes, well-meaning and trying to carry out the wishes of at least some organisations who provide rape support. Your bluster is once again misdirected. Save it for the DWP.

By the way, what's with the "conservative and unionist party" pretensions? Is this supposed to be an insult?

 

[wellquickwoody]

This is just quality footage of what an utter bunch of bellends the Labour frontbench are, even The Mirror is criticising Richard Burgon for being such a cock in this!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFufImJNIHs

 

[beorhthelm]

A well meaning clause? Okay. I'm sure rape victims as just as appreciative of it as you are.

you're right. they should remove the exception for this scenario, then no one will have to go through this disclosure.
funny thing is you're not even arguing about the policy (implicitly agree with the 2 child limit to tax credits?) but fixating on a technical procedure brought in to handle a consequence of the policy.

 

[ManOfSussex]

From a government press release:

Some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family as others. For that reason, there are a series of exceptions to the restriction.

The Government invited views from stakeholders in a full consultation from 21 October 2016 to 27 November 2016 on the detail and implementation of the exceptions, including the non-consensual conception exemption, and contacted organisations across the UK who might have an interest in the policy. We received 82 responses with around 50 from organisations and this feedback informed a response, published on Friday 20th January 2017. This reflected comments and suggestions made as part of the consultation, including adding children conceived through controlling and coercive relationships, using aspects of the legal definition of the criminal offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship” legislated for by the Home Office, within the non-consensual conception exception.

So the government invited views from various organisations *which almost certainly would include NSPCC, rape support and domestic violence charities), some of which asked for children born of rape to be added to the exceptions. The government have tried to do that although it looks like they've made a right pig's ear of it. So yes, well-meaning and trying to carry out the wishes of at least some organisations who provide rape support. Your bluster is once again misdirected. Save it for the DWP.

By the way, what's with the "conservative and unionist party" pretensions? Is this supposed to be an insult?

Conservative and Unionist Party? It's the full name of The Tories isn't it?

I'll always remember the afternoon I spent in a police station with my now ex-wife and my then sister-in-law, both in tears, as my 15 year old niece was, in all fairness, dealt with quite excellently in the circumstances by the police having been raped. So forgive my 'bluster' as you so eloquently put it, but I will fully direct at the Tory Government on this. Damian Green is the Conservative cabinet minister with responsibility for The DWP, and this policy has caused outrage from the 'NSPCC, rape support and domestic violence charities' which contrary to your version of the truth, you seem to indicate them as condoning it to justify Conservative party policy. I will save for the Tories, thanks.

 

[Buzzer]

Conservative and Unionist Party? It's the full name of The Tories isn't it?

Yeah. I'm well aware of that. It's just that we both know no-one uses the full title, except you of course and it sounds like you're using it to prove some kind of point. God knows what, but if it keeps you happy then fill your boots.

As for the rest of your post. I'm not trying to belittle your niece's experience but your argument is a strawman. It's clear from the government press release that they brought in that exemption after representation from stakeholder organisations through the consultation. I think we're done here. We're going round in circles and you resolutely blaming all the world's ills on the Tories.

 

[studio150]

And on the day that the LIBDems are releasing their manifesto, comes details of a Tim Fallon interview from 2007 with the Salvation Army where he states that he would like to ban abortions.

While this may go down well with Middle America, it is probably the end of the LibDems in terms of getting more seats in this election

 

[ManOfSussex]

Yeah. I'm well aware of that. It's just that we both know no-one uses the full title, except you of course and it sounds like you're using it to prove some kind of point. God knows what, but if it keeps you happy then fill your boots.

As for the rest of your post. I'm not trying to belittle your niece's experience but your argument is a strawman. It's clear from the government press release that they brought in that exemption after representation from stakeholder organisations through the consultation. I think we're done here. We're going round in circles and you resolutely blaming all the world's ills on the Tories.

Fine. I'm not blaming all the worlds ills on The Tories, but we're not going to agree on this issue and you're defending the indefensible here. They listened to representation from stakeholder organisations in the consultations, implemented what they did and those organisations are disgusted with the outcome to say the least - I think that says it all.

 

[glasfryn]

"Strong and Stable" ranting



How can anyone, except those with more money than empathy, vote in a Conservative government which has already gone so far towards destroying this country already.

I'v said all that but it took a few weeks
well done that man whoever you are
a copy should be put through every door in Britain

 

[Lincoln Imp]

And on the day that the LIBDems are releasing their manifesto, comes details of a Tim Fallon interview from 2007 with the Salvation Army where he states that he would like to ban abortions.

While this may go down well with Middle America, it is probably the end of the LibDems in terms of getting more seats in this election

If only Clegg had stayed. (In fairness Fallon does seem prepared to keep his muscular personal beliefs largely at home when carrying out his day job. He's a problem though.)

 

[JC Footy Genius]

How can anyone, except those with more money than empathy, vote in a Conservative government which has already gone so far towards destroying this country already.

That's an easy one ... look at the alternative.

 

[NooBHA]

The very rich already pay disproportionately more. The top 1% paid 27% of all income tax. The top 10% paid 59% of all income tax.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

This plan to tax them even more and heavily is likely to incentivise them either to reduce taxable income by, say, increasing pension contributions. They could also work less or emigrate as other very high-earners have done from Scandinavia and France all of which would have a negative effect on tax receipts. Quote from Nuffield Foundation sponsored study says:

"On the basis of the available evidence it does seem more likely than not that the proposal would raise money, but the amount is very uncertain."

https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/art...-income-tax-rises-for-high-income-individuals

And from the report, Labour's planned £4.5bn a year would require a very low responsiveness from high earners to the tax rises however "A sizeable international literature finds evidence of such responses to income tax changes, ...of significant responses to that change."

You say you don't care about bankers and footballers paying lots more tax...I think you might care if they decide to move their tax status to another country and these are the people with the greatest mobility when sorting out their taxes.

Not in the slightest - Let them go. Good riddance to bad rubbish who care more about their millions in the bank rather than humanity as a whole.

They go - someone else will take their place and we will tax them at the high rates instead. - The new Residency tests make it much more difficult for them to do this anyhow. Even if they move then the Government has the ability to bring in legislation so that they get ''first call'' on all income paid where duties are ''deemed to have been performed''.

A Chancellor not willing to pander to ''large business'' would then be needed and Jeremy Corbyn would be just the man to put someone like that in place.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Gerald Kaufman described the 1983 Labour Party manifesto as "The longest suicide note in history".

I suspect this might be longer

 

[Buzzer]

Not in the slightest - Let them go. Good riddance to bad rubbish who care more about their millions in the bank rather than humanity as a whole.

They go - someone else will take their place and we will tax them at the high rates instead. - The new Residency tests make it much more difficult for them to do this anyhow. Even if they move then the Government has the ability to bring in legislation so that they get ''first call'' on all income paid where duties are ''deemed to have been performed''.

A Chancellor not willing to pander to ''large business'' would then be needed and Jeremy Corbyn would be just the man to put someone like that in place.

Marvellous! If the top 1% leave the UK then we'll just transfer the burden of lost tax on the people who become the next 1%. And presumably, if they leave then we'll just tax the next lot...and so on. Well...if we ever had a government that might consider such a policy then McDonnell is definitely your man.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And on the day that the LIBDems are releasing their manifesto, comes details of a Tim Fallon interview from 2007 with the Salvation Army where he states that he would like to ban abortions.

While this may go down well with Middle America, it is probably the end of the LibDems in terms of getting more seats in this election

Tim's faith appears to be quite malleable. The more votes he thinks he can get the less religious stuff he now believes.

 

[Soulman]

Not in the slightest - Let them go. Good riddance to bad rubbish who care more about their millions in the bank rather than humanity as a whole.

They go - someone else will take their place and we will tax them at the high rates instead. - The new Residency tests make it much more difficult for them to do this anyhow. Even if they move then the Government has the ability to bring in legislation so that they get ''first call'' on all income paid where duties are ''deemed to have been performed''.

A Chancellor not willing to pander to ''large business'' would then be needed and Jeremy Corbyn would be just the man to put someone like that in place.

I had to read this post twice, maybe I will understand the logic after half a dozen strong ales, or maybe not.

 

[Triggaaar]

This is just quality footage of what an utter bunch of bellends the Labour frontbench are, even The Mirror is criticising Richard Burgon for being such a cock in this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFufImJNIHs

So they have a policy to scrap tuition fees, Kirsty asks when it will be implemented, and Burgon says he's being put on trial. Pathetic.

 

[NooBHA]

Marvellous! If the top 1% leave the UK then we'll just transfer the burden of lost tax on the people who become the next 1%. And presumably, if they leave then we'll just tax the next lot...and so on. Well...if we ever had a government that might consider such a policy then McDonnell is definitely your man.

They won't all leave though.

And it's not the next 1%.. Its the people who step into those jobs so they will effectively people who get promoted to those higher earning positions. And lets say it is 50% Tax. - If I got promoted into a job where I earned lets say £100K more. That would mean that I keep 48% of it after the extra 2% NIC is deducted.

It's awful we are even talking about figures like this when some people are living on £75 per week and starving and freezing in their own homes. Society needs to spread it's wealth because we become a healthier nation as a result and our children get better educations and we treat our elderly better if we do.

We can't put the world to right but we can do our bit.

 

[GOM]

They won't all leave though.

And it's not the next 1%.. Its the people who step into those jobs so they will effectively people who get promoted to those higher earning positions. And lets say it is 50% Tax. - If I got promoted into a job where I earned lets say £100K more. That would mean that I keep 48% of it after the extra 2% NIC is deducted.

It's awful we are even talking about figures like this when some people are living on £75 per week and starving and freezing in their own homes. Society needs to spread it's wealth because we become a healthier nation as a result and our children get better educations and we treat our elderly better if we do.

We can't put the world to right but we can do our bit.

I suspect that few of the top 1% are in a 'job'. If they were then they wouldn't be able to leave. The one's that can leave are generating their income in other ways than having a 9-5 job.

Think of the obvious ones that most people know, Lewis Hamilton for example, can be based anywhere and it isn't here because of the tax regime even now.

 

[Buzzer]

They won't all leave though.

And it's not the next 1%.. Its the people who step into those jobs so they will effectively people who get promoted to those higher earning positions. And lets say it is 50% Tax. - If I got promoted into a job where I earned lets say £100K more. That would mean that I keep 48% of it after the extra 2% NIC is deducted.

It's awful we are even talking about figures like this when some people are living on £75 per week and starving and freezing in their own homes. Society needs to spread it's wealth because we become a healthier nation as a result and our children get better educations and we treat our elderly better if we do.

We can't put the world to right but we can do our bit.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. For a start very high earners tend to be entrepreneurs or in jobs where if they leave there isn't necessarily a vacancy to fill. And you might want to take a look at what happened when France squeezed their very highest earners. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax,

I'm not sure the elderly would appreciate your Marxist zeal either. The vast majority of them will be voting Tory.