No Referendum on EU "Treaty"

No New Taxes, continued

Corporation Tax • The headline rate was cut from 30p to 28p in the 2007 budget but the rate for small companies was increased from 19p to 20p from 2007/04/01. It will rise further to 21p in 2008 and to 22p in 2009.
Gordon Brown says the change is to penalize workers from eastern Europe, who register themselves as companies to avoid paying income tax when they arrived in the UK. But instead of closing this loophole, he has chosen to increase the tax burden by stealth on all small companies.

Dental Tax 1 • Despite increasing National Insurance, which is supposed to pay for the Health Service, the government is forcing dentists out of the NHS system and obliging their customers to seek private treatment via a dental plan costing, typically, £19 per month. [Thanks to N.B. for this one.]
Dental Tax 2 • 2006/04/01 The cost of a dental checkup on the NHS rose threefold from £5.54 to £15.50. The cost of a filling went up fourfold to £42.40 and the price of a gold crown doubled to £189.

'Didn't Vote' Tax • July 2005 Geoff 'Buff' Hoon, former Defence Minister, wants to make voting compulsory at general elections so that New Labour can impose a fine on anyone who exercises their former democratic right not to vote for any of the unappealing candidates.

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs, please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.



[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

No New Taxes, continued
Local council taxes

Council Tax : The government has a stealth policy of cutting grants to local councils while giving them more to do, and thus loading council tax as a means of keeping income tax rates artificially low. By 2006, Council Tax had doubled since 1997 and the arrival of New Labour.

• July 2004 The government has ambitions to set a Council Tax rate in excess of £6,000. Paying a rate support grant, or its equivalent, has always been a headache for central government. Which is why this one is planning to make councils raise most of their revenue locally and just apply modest 'top ups'. The plan is also a cynical exercise in putting cash into the pockets of Labour voters at the expense of Tory voters. Anyone who has been living in the same house for decades while neighbouring properties change hands at crazy prices will have to give up their friends and move to somewhere cheaper.

January 2005 The latest adjustments to the Council Tax will see homes in traditional Tory areas pushed into the next higher band while those in traditional Labour-supporting areas will remain largely in the same band.

source

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

Education, Education, Education

Finally, the trousers are coming off the Government's education policies. The news that teenager Paul Erhahon, who was murdered by a gang of youths last Friday in a quiet London suburb, had suffered an earlier knife attack at school has, together with other teenage stabbings and murders, offered a glimpse of the sordid underbelly of violence in our classrooms. Many of these violent teenage disputes - there have been seven murders over the past 11 weeks in London alone - have their origins at school.

It should come as no surprise that in these menacing settings, not much learning is going on: Government figures show that one in four pupils is failing to make progress or is getting worse in key subjects during their first three years at secondary school. Almost 150,000 pupils make no progress in science, while 85,000 fail to improve their grades in English and 30,000 in maths.

As a teacher in various comprehensive schools for the past 15 years, I know that the problem isn't with parents, pupils or teachers - it's the result of shockingly poor, incompetent and meddling governance.

source

Head of the Institute of Directors calls for more investment in eductaion and training

Government policies on education and training are doing nothing to plug the UK’s productivity gap, according to Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors.

In a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in Central London later today Templeman will lay the blame for weak productivity – compared to other G8 economies – squarely on historical under-investment in education.

source

At the 1996 Labour Party conference, Tony Blair famously stated that his three top priorities on coming to office were "education, education and education". But when Gordon Brown takes over from Mr Blair as prime minister later this year, I predict that he will announce four top priorities: "Educashun, edukashon and edukayshin."

Yes, I know that's only three priorities. And I know that's not how you spell education. But what do you expect after 10 years of New Labour? Numeracy? Literacy?

For answers to those questions, I turn to Sir Digby Jones, the former CBI director-general, who was last month appointed "skills troubleshooter" by none other than Gordon Brown. In a speech last week, Sir Digby pointed out that fewer than half of pupils sitting the General Certificate of Secondary Education in English and Mathematics gained grades higher than D. (For the record, 47 per cent got A, B or C grades in English, and 44 per cent in Maths.) And this after more than a decade of grade inflation! In 1989, as the former chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead has pointed out, the mark needed for a C in Maths was 48 per cent. By 2000 it had fallen to 18 per cent.

source

Do I really need to go on?

This government has been one of the worst ever, relying on spin over substance, skewed and falsified figures and the complacency of the electorate in order to stay in power.

I haven't yet posted the figures on the rise of civil service employees, but I will if it's necessary.

In the meantime, spin your way out of that sminkey

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

One more point about the new treaty:

The treaty is self-amending.

The treaty contains an article, sometimes referred to as a "ratchet clause", allowing member states to agree that decisions currently taken only by means of a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a mere majority vote (though this is ruled out in the area of defence). It also contains provisions allowing the objectives of most EU policies to be amended.

Both of these procedures allow EU treaties to be revised without an intergovernmental conference (IGC). So could it be that in future EU treaties will be changed incrementally, without fanfare, depriving opponents even of the chance of campaigning for a referendum?

Yes and No. There are two important caveats: member states would still have to take the decision unanimously, just as they would at an IGC; and all national parliaments would have to approve. Opponents would still be able to campaign against such changes, though they would probably find it even harder to secure a referendum than it already is.

source

So of course the treaty isn't self amending

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.



[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]

budski you know better than this, surely?

A succession of cut n pastes from various blogs and news articles merely illustrates a particular POV.

It isn't actually definitive 'proof' of anything.

(and btw did you even read the 'self amending' cut n paste you posted?
It actually says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
indeed)

[edit on 13-11-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


But sminkey - surely you're not going to argue with the stats (of which there are many) and figures/opinion from reliable sources?

I can't believe you're so blinded by all things new labour that you actually try and challenge these facts.

You accused me of a scattergun approach, so I backed up what I said.
Can you provide factual evidence to refute or rebutt what I have posted?

And remember - posting falsified, skewed or misleading figures from government sites is just spin, not proof.

BTW, yes I did read the article on self amending - the rolled eyes and sarcasm was for the benefit of a lurker I know who believes what he reads in the sun.

My 'scattergun' comment had nothing to do with you providing a selection of news reports (and or comment) and a series of highly partisan cut n pastes from a variety of blogs, budski.

It was merely with regard to the departure from the thread topic to several general criticisms of this Gov.

Of course you are entitled to hold your opinion that -

Originally posted by budski
This government has been one of the worst ever

but I lived through the last tory Gov.

I and my family and friends experienced their record.

A tory record which saw this country subjected to the deepest, most damaging and sustained recession this country has ever faced
twice! (1980-83 & 1991-94).

So I'm sorry but your claim/opinion that this Labour Gov (which has seen a record for sustained year on year rises in national economic growth and living standards across the board) is one of the "worst" isn't one I have too much time for.

You might call that a matter of being "blinded", I call it actual hard real-life experience.

I can only imagine the volume of the sheer apoplectic rage and bile the tory party & their fanclub would be manufacturing if Labour had subjected the country to a similar shockingly appalling economic performance.

The critics can twiddle around the edges as much as they like but the economy is always the killer set of facts (for the majority).

No one ever said this Gov was perfect or mistake free, but it is one that has a record head and shoulders above the competition.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

reply to post by sminkeypinkey

The economy is not looking good and people's memories are funny. I can see the possibility that you are blinded by the constitution through new labour, but cannot know. In my view many on both Tory and Labour sides are blinded by their own herds, we used to split within parties on this one, not between them. And don't social chapter me, I'm talking consitutionaly.

Originally posted by redledThe economy is not looking good

- Whilst there may be some truth in that (tho it is far from certain anything other than a mere slowing down in the rate of growth will occur - as was the case with the last lot of doom-saying under this Gov) even that doesn't necessarily hold any particular hope for those dreaming of a change of Gov.

The public voted the tory party back into office despite their recessions (plural);
there is absolutely no guarantee they will behave any differently under a Labour Gov
(particularly if they see the 'down-turn' is one brought on by genuine & obvious external factors such as the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage business in the USA & $100/barrel oil prices).

some of your quotes sminkey

Smear and accusation with zero substance behind them is the usual truth of this kind of claim/tory tabloid-talk.

substance provided

Talk about a fact-free generalisation.

facts provided, showing how managers and government agencies skew figures

- Ah yes, the present education system that has witnessed record results and the highest level of attainment this country has ever seen.

an outright falsehood according to several cited sources including Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors and Sir Digby Jones, the former CBI director-general.

Just a rehash of some highly questionable tabloid tales with no-one actually doing anything illegal or in fact "corrupt" by any serious definition.

not corrupt? oh, please - all examples posted are true.

As for being off topic, you are the one who first introduced the tories into this discussion, in the hope of spinning attention away from the point of the thread - namely that prudence promised a referndum then backtracked because he thought he might lose - in fact pretty much the same as a november election.

If you want to point to the success of the economy, you of all people should know the foundation for the current success - even if it pains you to say it.

Before you start again with your tory smear tactic, let me again reiterate that I have no political affiliation, and I personally don't think that the tories would do a better job in power.

The fact that labour has stayed in power for 10 years only shows the lack of credible opposition - it doesn't point to success in government, as I believe I have proved with my links.

Whether there is a need for a referendum or not, the fact is that the country was promised one, then that promise (like so many others) was broken.

Originally posted by budski
substance provided

- Er no, it was mostly comment supporting your POV that was provided.

Not exactly 'empirical truth'.

Originally posted by budski
facts provided, showing how managers and government agencies skew figures

- Again no, you have merely provided comment of a different POV, just because it is a different POV does not make it the actual and indisputable 'truth'.

Originally posted by budski
an outright falsehood according to several cited sources including Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors and Sir Digby Jones, the former CBI director-general.

- Oh well the IoD & The CBI, well that proves it, eh?

Sorry to burst your bubble but neither of those 'bodies' are a-political and absolutely have a long history of using politics to further 'the business agenda'.

(.....and the IoD's very obvious & occasionally barking right-wing politics are hardly something I'd try and hold up as some kind of endorsement.)

Originally posted by budski
not corrupt? oh, please - all examples posted are true.

- Then you'll be able to point to more than one Labour Gov Minister made to stand before a court & be convicted by a jury of 'corruption' then, eh?

No, of course you cannot.

It's not a Labour Gov that has that kind of 'record'.

Originally posted by budski
As for being off topic, you are the one who first introduced the tories into this discussion, in the hope of spinning attention away from the point of the thread

- Er no.

It was you that mentioned William Hague and the tory party's POV right from the start in your very first post.

Originally posted by budski
There is, according to William Hague, "near unanimity" that the treaty is "simply the substance of the constitution, repackaged"

Originally posted by budski
prudence promised a referndum then backtracked because he thought he might lose - in fact pretty much the same as a november election.

- This is just pure personal opinion.

You can prefer to believe whatever you like as to why the pledge was dropped but you have already been given the reason by 'prudence' (publicly and on the record).
Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
But it is undeniable that the treaty as it stands is not totally identical to the original and therefore the Govs claims that the original pledge is redundant and does not apply are reasonable, whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by budski
If you want to point to the success of the economy, you of all people should know the foundation for the current success - even if it pains you to say it.

- Typical.

On the one hand when it suits this lot have been in power for 10yrs and so anything that happens must be 100% down to them and yet the economy (admit it, only because it is the relative success that it is) must be (according to the tory party & their fanclub based on the tory record.

.....which in view of the their economic record is hilariously side-splitting in view of the sheer & utter cheek.

Originally posted by budski
The fact that labour has stayed in power for 10 years only shows the lack of credible opposition - it doesn't point to success in government

- Then show me another party with such a record for year on year growth and rises in living standards (across the board).

You can't because this lot have established a new record in that department (and are further extending tha record as we speak/type).

Originally posted by budski
as I believe I have proved with my links.

- Barring the occasional news link the rest of your links are from partisan blogs.

Excuse me if I don't take them as 'proof' of anything other than the politics, opinion & the obvious agenda of the person writing them.

Originally posted by budski
Whether there is a need for a referendum or not, the fact is that the country was promised one, then that promise (like so many others) was broken.

- .....and that's an opinion you are entitled to.

Sorry but it's one I just do not agree with and hold myself.

Oh come on, I know the tories did a lot of social damage regarding unions etc, but the economic base that came out of it is the reason for todays relative properity.

I just don't happen to think that this is a particularly good government - their record on crime, the nhs, immigration, sleaze, spin, education, social care for the elderly etc etc really does bear this out.

If this site had existed during the worst of the tory years, I'd have been castigating them even more.

We were promised open and honest government, and we can see that this has not happened - examples of cover ups regarding immigration have surfaced in the last few weeks as the most recent example.

Perhaps if you took an honest look and stepped aside from the partisan viewpoint you'd be able to admit the shortcomings of new labour.

I'm not saying that any of the current opponents are any better, but regarding some of todays issues they couldn't be that much worse.

[edit on 14/11/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
Oh come on, I know the tories did a lot of social damage regarding unions

- I call the return of mass unemployment (3 million+.....twice!) and record private home repossession more than mere "social damage".

Originally posted by budski
but the economic base that came out of it is the reason for todays relative properity.

- Only in the most nit-pickingly obsessively logical terms
(ie there has been no other stae of affairs to produce the outcome we see/have therefore it follows that this statement must be literally true).

The question of whether or not all the damage done was necessary or needed to end up where we are today is the judgement call.

......and frankly I'd much rather have this Gov and their Ministers than the ideology-driven nutters who used to smirk & quip to the media infantile (not to mention insulting) garbage like Lamont's Francois 'I regret nothing' in the midst of - yet another - deeply hurtful recession the tory party were presiding over.

Originally posted by budski
I just don't happen to think that this is a particularly good government - their record on crime, the nhs, immigration, sleaze, spin, education, social care for the elderly etc etc really does bear this out.

- Well good for you and, of course you're entitled to your view.

But it's my view that under any rational and balanced comparison the present Gov's record is far better than the last tory Gov's.

....you might be happy to gauge political parties on their mere words & statements of intent but I prefer a proper & hard look at their record(s) in office and the events surrounding them.

That's why my view is that (hands down) this lot are preferable to the other lot, every time.

Originally posted by budski
We were promised open and honest government, and we can see that this has not happened - examples of cover ups regarding immigration have surfaced in the last few weeks as the most recent example.

- I disagree. It has happened in fact.

In terms of 'open Gov' this current Gov has pushed the democratic boundaries much further towards 'the people' and away from the executive than most if not all the post war UK Govs.

Whether it be devolution pushing real power to the least influential parts of the nation or democratically elected mayors or meaures like the Freedom of Information Act or the placing of the power to go to war in the hands of parliament (and the security intel that has gone with that) it is wholly untrue to say this has been a more centralising, secretive and 'closed' Gov.

The measures involving Parliamentary scrutiny and the scrutiny of MP's affairs and the affairs of the political parties themselves are yet more ground-breaking rules - and all have only been seen because they have been brought in by this Gov.

That, of course, does not mean this Gov is perfect or free from mistakes or any wrong-doing but once again it compares very favourably with anything we have seen before.

You're kidding yourself if you imagine the tory party would ever have brought in such measures.
They utterly failed to do anything similar in their 20yr-long stint.

Originally posted by budski
Perhaps if you took an honest look and stepped aside from the partisan viewpoint you'd be able to admit the shortcomings of new labour.

- I have never claimed the present Gov was free from "shortcomings".

I do however think there is much value in placing context and comparison in these debates.

Originally posted by budski
I'm not saying that any of the current opponents are any better, but regarding some of todays issues they couldn't be that much worse.

- Well there's where we disagree.

TBH I do not hear or see very much that suggests the tory party - or it's more rank and file members - have changed in any serious and significant way at all.

Just when you wonder of they might, just might, have altered their ways along comes some stupifyingly cretinous move that proves they have done nothing of the sort and are as arrogant and insensitive as ever (even to their own interests when it comes to 'their own').
Cue the return of ex-tory jailbird Minister Johnathan Aitkin (not even given a quiet advisory role but publicly elevated to the panel itself).
Cue that idiot and his recent Enoch Powell comments (and Cameron's inaction).

I hope never to be proved right but should they be returned my guess is that they will engineer what they always manage to contrive.
A society with a lot more losers so they can elevate a few more 'super-winners'.
More recessions (the classic refrain of 'boom and bust') and failure as they try to 'shake out' the country and see a few do exceptionally well (although sadly it's almost never anyone that actually produces anything & creates genuine wealth).

.....and to return to topic they are practically guaranteed to return to their counter-productive, idiotic & hostile stance with Europe.

I've never said that the tory party would be any better - you seem to be stuck in this prescott type cycle of spouting "during the last tory government"

This is not the point - this government has repeatedly broken its promises, not to mention lied and skewed figures.

I disagree that this is open government, although it is more open than before.
The concerns of the electorate have been ignored time and time again, especially regarding immigration, and education.
The dumbing down of A levels is another example - and don't tell me it's not true - I did A level english (lang and lit) in '86 and recently saw the latest A level paper, and frankly, it was horrifying to see how easy it was in comparison.

Isn't it also true that the housing market is in such a state that many cannot afford to get on the property ladder?
People are now getting mortgages for 6, 8 and even 10 times their salary - when the bubble bursts, it won't be pretty.

I'm also a little dubious about unemployment figures, DWP d/l shows almost 2.5 million people of working age are currently claiming incap, so again the figure you presented is skewed.
I know that some people are unable to work, but it really is quite simple to get a doctor to fill out a med4 form for you saying that you are unable to work - and I know people who have done this.
www.dwp.gov.uk...
www.dwp.gov.uk...

The figure you quoted was only for people claiming jobseekers allowance.

The 2 figures added together give an unemployment rate of over 3 million.

There are increased vacancies and the number of people claiming jobseekers has decreased slightly as it always does at certain times of year - all in all, I don't think an accurate picture of true unemployment figures is being presented.

As for immigration, we have seen another cover up this week come to light - fair enough, it wasn't browns fault - but it seems indicative of a certain culture within the cabinet.

Now to racism - perhaps this caught your eye as it did mine?

A LABOUR councillor has been banned from all football matches for three years after racially abusing former Wigan Athletic defender Pascal Chimbonda.

David Phythian, 54, hurled insults at him during Latics' 3-3 draw with Tottenham Hotspur in April, a court was told.

The French international was making his first appearance at the JJB Stadium after being sold by Wigan to Spurs for £5.25m in August last year.

source

We can carry on trading stats and pointing out the various shortcomings of politicians if you wish, however I'd prefer to stick to the present government shortcomings rather than the tories of over 10 years ago, who matter not a jot anymore.

[edit on 14/11/2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
I disagree that this is open government, although it is more open than before.

- ....which is my point precisely.

If you wish to use 'the absolute' to gauge this then feel free to criticise, you'll never stop and you'll be holding all to an impossible standard.

I prefer a more realistic and credible set of 'terms'.

As far as the recent Immigration story goes the Government decided the information wasn’t complete enough for public disclosure.
Unless you read the select quoting by certain sections of the media, you won’t know this.
The problem had just been identified and they do not know the scale of the problem yet.

The tory press (who, incidentally, do actually understand the differences between illegals, immigrants, migrants and emigrants, they just pretend not to to trouble-make) make it out as if the Government had intentionally employed illegals, just to spite the British public.
That ought to be instantly understood as - yet again - the ravings of our politically slanted & absurd tabloid media.

You're also incorrect in your view of the unemployment numbers.

There has always been a disparity between those in receipt of 'unemployment benefit' (or whatever label is currently being applied to it) and those who are unemployed but have not met the contributory (National Insurance) rules and are in receipt of 'non-contributory benefits' (usually referred to as, IIRC, Income Support).

(I have a couple of friends who were/are senior managers in the now DWP.......you'll find it was under the tory Gov that the explosion in incapacity benefit claimants occurred.
The older (40-45yr old+) unemployment benefit claimants were deemed unlikely to find work again and were actually advised in interviews to go to their Dr. and get a sick-line to claim the slightly more generous invalidity benefit.....and coincidentally and happily for the then tory Gov fall off of the unemployment number count at a time when unemployment was horrendous - in fact internal UK Civil Service estimates put it at 5 million+ at times).

.....and speaking of the unemployment count and statistical manipulation it was the last tory Gov that altered the methods and means of counting the numbers of unemployed more than 17 times during their tenure.

You may say that the tory party record is of no consequence but they are the only alternative in town.
For as long as that reality pertains I will continue to see the relevance of their record when they had their hands on the levers of power in this country.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


No comment on the racist labour councillor and the fact that he was not punished?

Some reports have suggested that he was not punished "because he was not on duty" others have suggested that was not punished because the higher ups hoped that by ignoring the problem it might go away.

I stand by the figures I presented regarding unemployment figures, regardless of who invented how to skew them - just because the tool is there doesn't mean it has to be used.

I'm also a little concerned by your constant referral to the so called tabloid press - yes it's mostly rubbish, but to suggest that there is no truth in it is misleading at best.

This story from the BBC - or if you prefer, the propaganda wing of new labour
news.bbc.co.uk...

If an institution with the political bias of the BBC is being critical, you can bet that the real story is much worse - so I stand by my statement.

BTW sminkey, I'm very much enjoying this and even learning a little

Originally posted by budski
No comment on the racist labour councillor and the fact that he was not punished?

- It's not over yet so I'd await events on what they are going to do as a party.

I'd also just point out that it ought to be pretty clear that a minor idiot councillor is hardly in the same league as a prospective Westminster tory MP.

Originally posted by budski
I stand by the figures I presented regarding unemployment figures, regardless of who invented how to skew them - just because the tool is there doesn't mean it has to be used.

- ...except the tory party not only 'invented' those statistical 'tools' to spin the (then truly scary & appalling unemployment numbers) but they also did use them with enthusiasm for as long as they were in power
(which was a not inconsiderable almost 20yrs).

Originally posted by budski
I'm also a little concerned by your constant referral to the so called tabloid press - yes it's mostly rubbish, but to suggest that there is no truth in it is misleading at best.

- Well hang on there.
I have never said that there was "no truth" whatsoever in any of the current reports over the events leading up to this coming to light.

I am commenting on the inevitably skewed and ludicrous interpretation the tabloid press cannot help but invent.
That seems perfectly fair comment to me.

Originally posted by budski
If an institution with the political bias of the BBC is being critical, you can bet that the real story is much worse - so I stand by my statement.

- Well I'd have to agree to disagree then.

I think it's always been a gross mistake (but, to the tory party, a knowing deceit) to imagine the BBC is truly 'leftwing'.

IMO it is (or, perhaps it should be said that it is when it's trying, attempts to be) fearless and progressive in it's critical examinations.....which some say inevitably lead to a more 'liberal' bias but nevertheless the BBC is as 'establishment' and small 'c' conservative as it gets in the UK.

A handful of transitory seats on the BBC Board of Governors appointed by a Labour Gov (which, be honest, is hardly radical & genuinely leftwing itself) does not a lefty organisation make.

Originally posted by budski
BTW sminkey, I'm very much enjoying this and even learning a little

- Back at you, it's been a wee while since I was last so drawn to & got into a topic here, mores the pity.

(but unfortunately 'real life' has intruded a few times & pretty significantly in this year which has meant I haven't been able to devote quite the effort and time as I did last year)

.....and btw is this just a 5 minute arguement or the full half hour?

[edit on 14-11-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Oh, I think I'll go for the full half hour.

It seems that every time I open my mouth, prudence does something about my complaint regarding the present government.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The only problem is, it probably won't work in the touchy feely PC country that's been created under new labour - I have been incapped for over three years thanks to my back problem, and qualifying standards at the moment are a joke.
They hope to get some of the 2.7 million claimants back to work, and to reduce new claims by 20,000 a year, by being tougher.
Never happen

Now lets see him do something about the farce that is
1) family tax credit
2) CSA

and let's see how darling (NOT an endearment) blusters his way out of this

And last, but not least

His Tonyness brings in the human rights act - cherie makes a mint from it (I'll get to the lecture tours where she uses her husbands name and position to make money later) - surely this represents a conflict of interest at the very least.

Originally posted by budski
Oh, I think I'll go for the full half hour.

- I've told you once.

Originally posted by budski
The only problem is, it probably won't work in the touchy feely PC country that's been created under new labour - I have been incapped for over three years thanks to my back problem, and qualifying standards at the moment are a joke.

- I suppose it depends on where they are coming from.
If they are out to just shove as many people off of the 'register' as they can irrespective of the health problems some people face then I wouldn't favour that.
If, on the other-hand, this is an intelligent 'enabling' measure to help those that can be helped then I'm all for it.

I do know that 'back problems' are the easiest to fake and the hardest to disprove.

Originally posted by budski
They hope to get some of the 2.7 million claimants back to work, and to reduce new claims by 20,000 a year, by being tougher.
Never happen

- I wouldn't be so sure.
Everyone once supposedly 'knew' that they couldn't get single mothers back to work in the numbers they were hoping for and it happened.

Originally posted by budski
Now lets see him do something about the farce that is
1) family tax credit

- So what's so "farcical" about using the taxation system to help those in work on the lowest incomes?

I'd have thought that you favoured helping people who had bothered to go out and find employment no matter how lowly paid?

Originally posted by budski
2) CSA

- The CSA has been (finally) scrapped, seehere.

Tho I am all ears for what easy & inexpensive system we are going to see replace it to tackle deadbeat dads (and sadly it almost always is dads).

Originally posted by budski
and let's see how darling (NOT an endearment) blusters his way out of this

- Out of what?
It's a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation......and in large part manufactured abroad (it's roots are in the US 'sub-prime' mortgage market).

Had this Gov done nothing they would have been loudly cursed of allowing huge damage to the UK banking system & economy.

Unfortunately (for them) their intervention is also cursed for
(a) not gettiung everything 100% right at all times or
(b) bailing out a private bank to the tune of billions of £

tho obviously these criticisms are blessed with the usual 20/20 hindsight.

Originally posted by budski
His Tonyness brings in the human rights act - cherie makes a mint from it

- So what is it that you are really saying?

Are you saying that in the almost 10yrs that Tony Blair was our PM you're the only one to spot that his wife, Cherie Blair, was one of the UK's top 'Human Rights' lawyers......and was so at a time when this Gov, under TB, enacted into UK law the ECHR?

If you're going to imply some kind of corruption in this don't be so shy......but while you're at it you might care to explain how come no Parliamentary enquiries were conducted into this and the Police completely missed it.

Or are you saying that our human rights in the UK ought to be less than those of our fellow Europeans (bearing in mind that the UK were one of the major powers who devised the whole European Convention on Human Rights in the first place)?

Or are you saying that the wife (or partner) of a British PM ought not to have a career?

Or is it just that you feel entitled to stand in judgement over what actual career they might have?

I'm sorry but I can see no genuine and actual 'conflict of interest' there at all.....

.....but I can see a general (and actually pretty lame IMO) politically biased snipe.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey

I do know that 'back problems' are the easiest to fake and the hardest to disprove.

And this is what really gets my back up (pardon the pun)
There's so many chancers who use this, stress and depression as an excuse not to work.
Fortunately (or not depending on your point of view) my back problem is verified - by a specialist, a surgeon and a physio.
The current system is open to abuse, and needs to change - but I agree it has to be done in the right way.
It's just that "open to interpretation" problem that is faced about what actually constitutes an inability to work.

So what's so "farcical" about using the taxation system to help those in work on the lowest incomes?

I'd have thought that you favoured helping people who had bothered to go out and find employment no matter how lowly paid?

I'm all in favour of it, BUT the system has been very badly managed, to the extent that thousands upon thousands have been underpaid, overpaid, not paid on time etc etc

If this kind of welfare to work system is in place it HAS to be reliable - and sadly for many, it hasn't been.

As for the CSA - I'll believe that any new agency is better when I see it, and not before.
At the very least, it's another example of an over-managed, under achieving beaurocracy.

It's a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation......and in large part manufactured abroad (it's roots are in the US 'sub-prime' mortgage market).

Had this Gov done nothing they would have been loudly cursed of allowing huge damage to the UK banking system & economy.

And yet estimates this week have put the pulic cost at £40 billion, with some estimates of double that - prudence was lauded for passing control to the bank of england (along with the treasury and the FSA) but this policy has backfired somewhat in being inflexible and removing key decision makers from the equation.
Let's face it, it should have never got so bad.

I understand the origins, but this government have been guilty of allowing massive borrowing. This shows how mortgages and personal debt have risen ahnd in hand with house prices, and the government has failed miserably in this regard, with many young people and couples unable to even get on the property ladder without incurring huge debts.
And yet, disposable income as a national average has increased - so something is clearly wrong.

If you're going to imply some kind of corruption in this don't be so shy......but while you're at it you might care to explain how come no Parliamentary enquiries were conducted into this and the Police completely missed it.

I'm not impying corruption, I AM saying that cherie blair has shamelessly used her husbands position to make money - a LOT of money, books, lecture tours, public speaking engagements etc etc
It's not against the law, but it does imply one of two things - a complete lack of judgement, or utter contempt for the electorate.
This
is a nauseating account of a freeloader - and again, I'd castigate any politicians wife or husband who used their spouses position in this way (apologies for using toynbee, but she summed it up pretty well)

There really is a clear conflict, if you have set yourself up as the party of no sleaze, the government that promised to be whiter than white - it smacks of nepotism - especially when considered at the same time as lord Derry who just happened to be appointed to a top job and was blairs former teacher.

It may not be illegal, but it can be viewed as immoral.

Yes, I know that people (who are only human ) tend to go for the devil they know, but blair appears to have made this into an art form, and when you consider his election promises, he has failed - badly.