Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Jon let's get the FT one out of the way, linking to the FT is a Pay option, something that goes against the "spirit" shall we say of VT. I suppose it was just convenience that on a day when Cameron delivers a very right wing speech, ironically the timing of which is completely ignored. As for being high or low brow, oh how funny. Maybe if that is how you judge people it explains a great deal

As for borderline racism you may have missed the bile that was spouted by the EDL leader on Paxman the other night. Interestingly his lack of marketing meant that the way he said it while echoing similar messages to Cameron here, enabled a lot of people to realise that the supposed aims of the EDL are borderline racist. As said the timing of Cameron's announcement either shows ridiculously bad timing by accident or more likely deliberately

I am not in the habit of hunting down surveys from years back that loosely back up a far right, left, centre ideology. Even Cameron makes no reference to it.

The topic at hand is a very ill thought out, badly times speech that contains attacks on certain elements in the British community. As said it is targeted at one group in particular, which is dangerous when he, and others, try and claim this not to be the case.

[drat01]

The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses.

1) The Government have no business telling private banks what they can or cannot pay their staff.

2) The Government have no business bailing out reckless private banks with public money.

So the Gvmt have no business in telling a group of people how to run themselves when their actions have such a direct impact on those people and how the country runs?

[Awol]

Jon let's get the FT one out of the way, linking to the FT is a Pay option, something that goes against the "spirit" shall we say of VT.

As I explained, it's free to view 10 times a month. Not really sure how that's a problem but if a MOD wishes to correct me then fine.

I suppose it was just convenience that on a day when Cameron delivers a very right wing speech, ironically the timing of which is completely ignored.

You think this is timed to coincide with something the EDL are doing? Seems a bit unlikely really.

As for being high or low brow, oh how funny. Maybe if that is how you judge people it explains a great deal

It was a joke, but nevermind.

As for borderline racism you may have missed the bile that was spouted by the EDL leader on Paxman the other night. Interestingly his lack of marketing meant that the way he said it while echoing similar messages to Cameron here, enabled a lot of people to realise that the supposed aims of the EDL are borderline racist. As said the timing of Cameron's announcement either shows ridiculously bad timing by accident or more likely deliberately

Let's get this straight then: The EDL are racist = Cameron said the same things as the EDL bod (did he really?) = Cameron is a racist.

I think the term for your analysis/juxtaposition is weak

I am not in the habit of hunting down surveys from years back that loosely back up a far right, left, centre ideology. Even Cameron makes no reference to it.

Ok let's try a different approach, what has changed "massively" since 2007?

[Awol]

The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses.

1) The Government have no business telling private banks what they can or cannot pay their staff.

2) The Government have no business bailing out reckless private banks with public money.

So the Gvmt have no business in telling a group of people how to run themselves when their actions have such a direct impact on those people and how the country runs?

They have every right - indeed a responsibility - to regulate the way banks operate, but not how they choose to pay their people. Equally they shouldn't be bailing them out when they get into trouble. It's called Capitalism.

[Gringo]

Wait! There's even more good news! The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses. That means even more lovely lolly spent by these splendid chaps, some of which might come your way if you're a taxi driver or seller of the Evening Standard somewhere within 50 yards of a bank HQ. Excellent! Let joy be unconfined!

I'm so glad the country is being run by firm and decisive chaps who understand the importance of sound money and a stable economy. I'll sleep sound in my bed tonight, and no mistake.

Talk about misinformed - the Evening Standard is given away for free these days so the sellers "or givers away" will benefit nowt.

[Gringo]

Not nice role models

Disabled MP was 'mocked' in Commons

An MP with cerebral palsy has described how he was mocked about his disability as he tried to speak in the House of Commons.

Paul Maynard, who was elected as the Conservative MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys last May, accused Labour MPs of "pulling faces" at him in an apparent mimic.

In an interview with The Times, he said: "They were constantly intervening, trying to put me off my stride, which may be just normal parliamentary tactics.

"But some were pulling faces at me, really exaggerated gesticulations, really exaggerated faces."

He added: "Only they know for certain whether they were taking the mick out of my disability. But it felt like it."

Other MPs confirmed that the incident had taken place, during a debate about the abolition of the child trust fund.

[OutByEaster?]

The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses.

1) The Government have no business telling private banks what they can or cannot pay their staff.

2) The Government have no business bailing out reckless private banks with public money.

Id agree, but having done the second of those two things, is there not an expectation that the banks would be at the very least receptive to the first one?

It's ungrateful at best and it does nothing to help the banks in their future relationships with the public at large or the governments and regulators that host them.

[Awol]

The bankers have told Cameron to **** right off in his efforts to get them to accept smaller bonuses.

1) The Government have no business telling private banks what they can or cannot pay their staff.

2) The Government have no business bailing out reckless private banks with public money.

Id agree, but having done the second of those two things, is there not an expectation that the banks would be at the very least receptive to the first one?

It's ungrateful at best and it does nothing to help the banks in their future relationships with the public at large or the governments and regulators that host them.

Those that 'we' own a majority stake in, yes, they are now essentially under the remit of the State. Those that we didn't directly bail out (although they did benefit indirectly) the government can't touch imo.

[snowychap]

... before the VT woolies ( :winkold: ) start throwing their virtual sandals at me...

I couldn't condone violence, even that of a virtual metaphorical nature.

Shrugging one's shoulders at illiberality does not a liberal make.

Though a lot of the tone (and some of the subject) of what he said was bordering, itself, on illiberality.

Cameron said, "Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. This is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement."

I thought this was a speech about domestic policy issues and not western foreign policy.

[Gringo]

When you say western foreign policy, does that include the overseas development fund, that was ringfenced from cuts and is treated as a slush fund to invest in or fund people we like at the moment. Wonder how much of that is heading towards "influential" people in egypt at the moment. "International development" sounds so nice, helping johnny foreigner climb the ladder, when it's really about developing infuence internationally - a bit like the minister for war being called the defence minister, all doublespeaks.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Islam has always had the problem of refusing to look in on itself, I don't think Mr Cameron will be able to change that.

[leviramsey]

Shrugging one's shoulders at illiberality does not a liberal make.

Though a lot of the tone (and some of the subject) of what he said was bordering, itself, on illiberality.

The greatest liberality is allowing others to be illiberal.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Quote is directed at, paraphrasing Hayek, at the socialists, of both right and left, in this thread.

Cameron said, "Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. This is like turning to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement."

I thought this was a speech about domestic policy issues and not western foreign policy.

Funny how showering a group with money because they're the alternative to something results in them not doing anything to combat the alternative.

(the worst thing any politician of any stripe can do is deliver their promises, otherwise how would they get reelected?)

[leviramsey]

When you say western foreign policy, does that include the overseas development fund, that was ringfenced from cuts and is treated as a slush fund to invest in or fund people we like at the moment. Wonder how much of that is heading towards "influential" people in egypt at the moment. "International development" sounds so nice, helping johnny foreigner climb the ladder, when it's really about developing infuence internationally - a bit like the minister for war being called the defence minister, all doublespeaks.

QFT.

[peterms]

The latest wheeze from Mr Cameron to benefit financiers is quite breathtaking in its scope and ambition.

I suppose we're all meant to be distracted by the tiny, insignificant £800m extra levy on the banks and think that he's really clamping down on the City, instead of noticing the vastly greater scale of what is happening on the QT. Like someone doing the three card trick while his mates pick your pockets, burgle your house and steal your car.

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century

In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy

'I would love to see tax reductions," David Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, "but when you're borrowing 11% of your GDP, it's not possible to make significant net tax cuts. It just isn't." Oh no? Then how come he's planning the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory?

If you've heard nothing of it, you're in good company. The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone – and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d'etat is taking place.

Like the dismantling of the NHS and the sale of public forests, no one voted for this measure, as it wasn't in the manifestos. While Cameron insists that he occupies the centre ground of British politics, that he shares our burdens and feels our pain, he has quietly been plotting with banks and businesses to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich that this country has seen in a century. The latest heist has been explained to me by the former tax inspector, now a Private Eye journalist, Richard Brooks and current senior tax staff who can't be named. Here's how it works.

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country. If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%. But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate "of any major western economy". By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: "What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy." He's doing just the opposite.

These measures will drain not only wealth but also jobs from the UK. The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates. Any UK business that doesn't outsource its staff or funnel its earnings through a tax haven will find itself with an extra competitive disadvantage. The new rules also threaten to degrade the tax base everywhere, as companies with headquarters in other countries will demand similar measures from their own governments.

So how did this happen? You don't have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up "to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy" are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays.

I used to think of such processes as regulatory capture: government agencies being taken over by the companies they were supposed to restrain. But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control. If Hosni Mubarak has passed his alleged $70bn through British banks, the Egyptians won't see a piastre of it.

Reading Treasure Islands, I have realised that injustice of the kind described in this column is no perversion of the system; it is the system. Tony Blair came to power after assuring the City of his benign intentions. He then deregulated it and cut its taxes. Cameron didn't have to assure it of anything: his party exists to turn its demands into public policy. Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, in effect stolen from poorer countries, and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the lord mayor's show and multiple layers of defence in government. Politically irrelevant, economically invisible, the rest of us inhabit the margins of the system. Governments ensure that we are thrown enough scraps to keep us quiet, while the ultra-rich get on with the serious business of looting the global economy and crushing attempts to hold them to account.

And this government? It has learned the lesson that Thatcher never grasped. If you want to turn this country into another Mexico, where the ruling elite wallows in unimaginable, state-facilitated wealth while the rest can go to hell, you don't declare war on society, you don't lambast single mothers or refuse to apologise for Bloody Sunday. You assuage, reassure, conciliate, emote. Then you shaft us.

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website

[Awol]

Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

That is all of our politicians in a nutshell. As I said on another thread, our democracy is completely broken.

The only positive news in that article is the corporation tax cuts which will benefit businesses of all sizes and in doing so create jobs.

[drat01]

The only positive news in that article is the corporation tax cuts which will benefit businesses of all sizes and in doing so create jobs.

No they wont.

The tax cuts will not create jobs at all, they will further profits which does not mean that job creations will occur. All they mean is that certain people, and typically we all know which party they like to donate their few quid to, will be wealthier.

If this Gvmt were serious about that as an incentive then they could impose a law that means that job creation had to be as a result of the tax breaks that these few people are getting.

Even then the massive job losses that are now oozing out of the selective cuts will not be lessened by any tax breaks for a few

[drat01]

Cambridge to raise ALL fee's to 9000

Cambridge University is considering plans to charge tuition fees of £9,000, with means-tested support for poorer students, the BBC News website has learned.

Proposals from its working group show the university has plans to set fees at the maximum level of £9,000 a year for every subject.

Poorer students would be offered means-tested reductions of up to £3,000. .......

So that will still mean a fee of 6000 !!

[blandy]

That's a bargain for a Cambridge Degree

[TrentVilla]

Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

That is all of our politicians in a nutshell. As I said on another thread, our democracy is completely broken.

The only positive news in that article is the corporation tax cuts which will benefit businesses of all sizes and in doing so create jobs.

I'm not sure I share you conclusion there to be honest mate.

[Awol]

The only positive news in that article is the corporation tax cuts which will benefit businesses of all sizes and in doing so create jobs.

No they wont.

The tax cuts will not create jobs at all, they will further profits which does not mean that job creations will occur.

Generally people with a business have a growth strategy for that business to make it grow and make more money. Lower corporation tax leaves more money in the pot and makes it more likely that the growth strategy can go forward.

All they mean is that certain people, and typically we all know which party they like to donate their few quid to, will be wealthier.

Of course, silly me. Mr SME will just give any extra money to the Tories, cos as everyone knows if you own a business you must be donating to the Tories....