Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

...David Davies and his comments.

But but he once boxed a gay guy so he can't be a bigot.

[peterms]

Nearly six hours and no John Prescott joke?

[tonyh29]

so I get somewhat annoyed when something as special as the NHS is under so much attack from a bunch of Tory *&^%$'s who have always despised the idea of what the NHS gives. I think that the NHS has already been killed as it was and the reliance on paid health care will have to be the norm because of the Tory (and lets not forget the Lib Dems) policies which have done more damage to it in the short time they have been in office than any previous Gvmt.

maybe you need to throw some of your anger at the bunch of Labour *&^%$'s who started privatising the NHS ?

but I guess that wouldn't fit your agenda would it

[markavfc40]

maybe you need to throw some of your anger at the bunch of Labour *&^%$'s who started privatising the NHS ?

but I guess that wouldn't fit your agenda would it

Typical Tory answer/defence of everything " oooh but look what Labour did".

Facts are though that whatever wrongs Labour have done the Tories can usually trump 10 fold. When it comes to unfairness and **** over those that rely on our public services who are usually the most vulnerable in society the Tories have always been in a league of their own.

[snowychap]

Remember Mr Osborne at his party conference telling us about proposals for a new 'employee owner' status (a radical change to employment law is what he said in his speech).

The Torygraph last monday after BIS produced details of the consultation and the Government response:

George Osborne's plans to weaken employment protections 'in tatters'

Results from a consultation on the plans show that only a “very small number” of companies welcomed the scheme, which was unveiled by the Chancellor in October.

The stark response means that the plans will now have to be reworked or abandoned altogether. Government sources said the measures were now on “life support”.

Proposals for workers to surrender employment rights in return for shares in their company, were at the heart of Mr Osborne’s key note speech to the Tory conference.

He suggested people who accept the shares would waive their rights to redundancy or to sue for unfair dismissal and will not be able to request flexible working hours.

Mr Osborne’s aides said they expected hundreds of thousands of employees to sign up within the next few years, at a cost to the Treasury of about £100million a year.

However the consultation from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found “strong concern that individuals were losing important employment protections and that they might be coerced to take on employee owner status.

“There was also a strong concern that individuals were losing important employment protections and that they might be coerced to take on employee owner status.

“There was also a concern that employee owner status could be misused by businesses and that the tax advantages could be abused. The majority of respondents felt there would not be an impact on recruitment because few businesses would offer the employee-owner option.”

They also warned that “the new status would be complex and costly to operate, with uncertainty around valuation and income tax implications for individuals.”

This meant that take-up would be most likely limited to “micro-businesses and some growing companies”.Eight out of 10 of 158 respondents who expressed an opinion on the unfair dismissal option “believed it would have little or no impact on recruitment”.

Government sources stressed that the poor response did not mean that the plans were dead – but it might mean that amendments will have to be made.

They appear to back up concerns from Business secretary Vince Cable that the proposals were ill-thought out with no real evidence base.

The origins of the reforms were in a Government–ordered review by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist, who in 2010 called for employment regulations to be scrapped.

Mr Beecroft, who was criticised by the Liberal Democrats, was thanked for his work by Mr Osborne during the party conference.

Last week in the commons, Osborne's only mention of this policy (as far as I can see) was under the subheading of cutting business taxes still further when he said, "We also confirm the tax relief for our employee shareholder scheme."

So, 1.122 in the Autumn Statement speaks briefly of the scheme and the only amendment appears to be changing the name from employee owner to employess shareholder (perhpas just to draw a distinction between this scheme and the Nuttall review but I suspect it's more than that).

Following on, the Torygraph ran another article on the scheme:

Autumn Statement: Shares-for-rights scheme opens £250m tax loophole

The forecast was made in the Treasury’s policy costings document alongside the Autumn Statement, where the OBR also raised questions about the reliability of another £9bn of tax revenues the Chancellor expects to collect by 2017/18 – from his Swiss tax deal and the auction of the 4G mobile phone spectrum.

The shares-for-rights measure, designed to encourage firms to boost hiring, looked fiscally insignificant in the official numbers, costing the state just £20m in 2016/17 and £80m in 2017/18 – the end of the forecast period.

However, the OBR said “the cost is expected to rise towards £1bn beyond the end of the forecast horizon”. Of the £1bn, it indicated that as much as £250m could be down to tax avoidance – or “tax planning” – despite the Chancellor’s avoidance crackdown.

“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited... this could be quantitatively significant as a quarter of the costing already arises from tax planning,” the OBR said. Tax planning could involve company owners awarding themselves the shares or striking side agreements with staff that protect their rights.

The Treasury is expected to include anti-avoidance measures in the legislation when it formally launches the scheme.

The scale of the potential bill will come as a surprise because the scheme, one of the centrepieces of George Osborne’s speech at the party conference in October, has been broadly rejected by business. Of the 209 responses to a consultation on the subject, fewer than five companies expressed full support.

...more on link

[tonyh29]

Typical Tory answer/defence of everything " oooh but look what Labour did".

Facts are though that whatever wrongs Labour have done the Tories can usually trump 10 fold. When it comes to unfairness and **** over those that rely on our public services who are usually the most vulnerable in society the Tories have always been in a league of their own.

the allegations specifically was that Tories were *&^%$'s because of what they are doing to the NHS

you can cry into your milk about Ahh but labour but if a poster is going to post without being objective then it's only fair to point out where their name calling is flawed ,

There was no defence of anything Tory as there wasn't anything to defend it seemed more an excuse to go on a name calling rant

[peterms]

Here we go again.

MPs' expenses: Culture Secretary Maria Miller’s £90,000 claims for parents’ home

A Cabinet minister claimed more than £90,000 in taxpayers’ funds for a second home where her parents lived, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

...The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards ruled that second homes must be “exclusively” for the use of MPs in fulfilling their parliamentary duties and that housing a politician’s parents was “specifically prohibited” by the rules...

[PauloBarnesi]

Facts are though that whatever wrongs Labour have done the Tories can usually trump 10 fold.

See Beeching.

[blandy]

Didn't the Beeching thing cover 2 Gov'ts, Paul? - started off with one lot, then cthere was an election and it switched? or am I imagining that?

[PauloBarnesi]

Indeed. Conservatives commissioned. Labour said “No way”. Won election and then carried out with renewed vigour. Bar those marginal seats for cabinet ministers. But for the poor borders they got a real pasting. Seems like the knitwear industry was the wrong kind.

Oh and in the aviation industry they did a pretty good job as well.

But we know that none of the parties have a monopoly on sensible or silly policies; they really are as bad as each other. [sticks tin hat on]

[peterms]

But for the poor borders they got a real pasting. Seems like the knitwear industry was the wrong kind.

Come on, you know they'd have no use for trains in Hawick. "A day away from Hawick is a day wasted..."

[PauloBarnesi]

Come on, you know they'd have no use for trains in Hawick. "A day away from Hawick is a day wasted..."

Pity we never got the choice to visit, all we got was terrible roads to get there. And the bloody SNP will only reopen it to Galashiels.

[peterms]

Some more on the Maria Miller expenses story, in the Torygraph.

...Mrs Miller and her advisers indicated that this newspaper had timed its disclosures to overshadow Monday's announcement about same-sex marriage...

Since the claim in question is not recent, and the paper must have known about it for some time, it's quite reasonable to think there's a connection. I'm not sure that the aim was to overshadow the announcement, but possibly to punish her for bringing forward something of which the paper disapproves and sees as damaging to the Tory party.

In return, Miller's staff are playing at being Alistair Campbell:

When a reporter approached Mrs Miller’s office last Thursday, her special adviser, Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the Editor of The Telegraph was involved in meetings with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson.

“Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about,” said Miss Hindley.

Miss Hindley also said the reporter should discuss the issue with “people a little higher up your organisation”.

[drat01]

Cameron was totally hit between the eyes at PMQ's with some "ouch" comments

Ed Miliband: While looking after their rich friends, Tories "hit people they never meet and whose lives they will never understand"

Vince Cable: "I suspect what happened was some of their donors, very wealthy people, stamped their feet"

"Have you wrecked a restaurant recently?" Ed Miliband asks David Cameron

Flashman didn't appear to be so flash ........ :-)

[peterms]

Now, let me see if I've understood this correctly.

The government intends to record every aspect of our private electronic communication in case it one day comes in handy for bringing charges against people; they give the scary example of terrorism, as usual, to justify this.

The US government kidnaps people and tortures them for years in case they might have information about terrorist activities, continuing for years after it knows these people to be innocent, and refusing to bring to court those it believes to be guilty.

HSBC is found to have laundered extremely large amounts of money for terrorists and drug gangs.

The US decides to fine shareholders rather than bring prosecutions, because it is concerned about the possible impact on the banking system if bankers are held criminally accountable for criminal acts.

We allow the Chairman at the time of these acts, Lord Green, to continue as Minister of State for Trade and Investment.

Is there something I've failed to understand here, or is this utterly insane?

[drat01]

TBF Peter and I said this when it was being discussed under the last Gvmt - or similar - the idea that any Gvmt can record every aspect of emails and the like is somewhat science fiction. In terms of data alone you are talking about many many PB's of data on a daily basis that is sent via emails. Add to that the requirement for indexing and securing it and it's just not as some in the media especially would have you scared over. I think more so this time they are trying to introduce a law that will enable without any sort of justification the ability for the "powers that be" whoever they are, to look at selective data transfers for individuals or specific groups. At the moment they do this but have to jump through various hoops to get the permissions.

As for the other points you raise then there is some serious conflicts of interests there and the fact that Green remains one of Cameron's key people shows a complete and utter lack of anything credible on his part. He should have been moved out as soon as this all became known.

[PauloBarnesi]

We allow the Chairman at the time of these acts, Lord Green, to continue as Minister of State for Trade and Investment.

Is there something I've failed to understand here, or is this utterly insane?

No one these days takes any responsibility for anything these days.

[peterms]

TBF Peter and I said this when it was being discussed under the last Gvmt - or similar - the idea that any Gvmt can record every aspect of emails and the like is somewhat science fiction. In terms of data alone you are talking about many many PB's of data on a daily basis that is sent via emails. Add to that the requirement for indexing and securing it and it's just not as some in the media especially would have you scared over. I think more so this time they are trying to introduce a law that will enable without any sort of justification the ability for the "powers that be" whoever they are, to look at selective data transfers for individuals or specific groups. At the moment they do this but have to jump through various hoops to get the permissions.

Well, you're an IT bod, but Assange has thought about this quite carefully and says in this recent interview

"The last 10 years have seen a revolution in interception technology, where we have gone from tactical interception to strategic interception," he explains. "Tactical interception is the one that we are all familiar with, where particular individuals become of interest to the state or its friends: activists, drug dealers, and so on. Their phones are intercepted, their email communication is intercepted, their friends are intercepted, and so on. We've gone from that situation to strategic interception, where everything flowing out of or into a country – and for some countries domestically as well – is intercepted and stored permanently. Permanently. It's more efficient to take and store everything than it is to work out who you want to intercept."

The change is partly down to economies of scale: interception costs have been halving every two years, whereas the human population has been doubling only every 20. "So we've now reached this critical juncture where it is possible to intercept everyone – every SMS, every email, every mobile phone call – and store it and search it for a nominal fee by governmental standards. A kit produced in South Africa can store and index all telecommunications traffic in and out of a medium-sized nation for $10m a year." And the public has no idea, due largely to a powerful lobby dedicated to keeping it in the dark, and partly to the legal and technological complexity. So we spend our days actively assisting the state's theft of private information about us, by putting it all online.

[peterms]

In return, Miller's staff are playing at being Alistair Campbell:

...and now Cameron's aide adds to the threats.

Key David Cameron aide Craig Oliver threatens Telegraph over Leveson

David Cameron's director of communications warned the Daily Telegraph that Maria Miller was “looking at Leveson” after being asked questions about her expense claims.

In a phone call to the editor of this newspaper, Craig Oliver indicated that the article may be poorly timed as “she [Maria Miller] is looking at Leveson at the moment.”

The comments came less than 24 hours after an adviser to the Culture Secretary telephoned a reporter working on an article about Mrs Miller’s expense claims to “flag up” the minister’s role in implementing new press rules.

The adviser then telephoned a public affairs executive at Telegraph Media Group who has no role in editorial decisions at the newspaper.

Downing Street aides have today insisted that the adviser was raising “legitimate concerns” despite the references to the Leveson inquiry – which were irrelevant to the article.

It can now be disclosed that after the contacts between Mrs Miller’s adviser and the newspaper, Mr Oliver phoned Tony Gallagher, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, last Friday morning. He said that Mrs Miller was “very distressed” about her family being questioned over her expense claims.

The Downing Street communications director said that the Cabinet Minister, who is currently overseeing negotiations over a new system of press regulation, was considering making a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

He then raised the fact that Mrs Miller was leading the Government’s response to the Leveson report which recommended statutory press regulation.

Earlier this week, Mrs Miller was exposed by this newspaper for claiming more than £90,000 for a second home used by her parents.

The arrangement is banned under Parliamentary rules. Mrs Miller has since claimed that her elderly parents are dependents and therefore need to live with her.

However, Parliamentary sleaze watchdogs have previously stated that, in this situation, they should live in an MP’s main home or the taxpayer should be compensated for the costs of their accommodation.

Between 2005 and 2009, the taxpayer was paying the costs of Mrs Miller’s second home, which she owned with her husband, while her “main” home was a more modest rented house in her Hampshire constituency.

The Daily Telegraph has decided to disclose details of the private conversations amid widespread concern about the potential dangers of politicians being given a role in overseeing the regulation of the press.

In the wake of the disclosures of the threats made by Mrs Miller’s adviser, other senior media figures have expressed alarm over the references being made to the Leveson inquiry in the context of journalistic inquiries.

The Culture Secretary is now facing calls to step aside from talks on the future of press regulation.

This morning, Evan Harris, of the Hacked Off campaign, and Roy Greenslade, a professor of journalism at City University, said Mrs Miller should "recuse herself" from negotiations about the Leveson Report.

Brian Cathcart, executive director of Hacked Off, said: "This story illustrates exactly why ministers must be kept at arm's length from the regulation of the press. It cannot be right that politicians who are subject to the scrutiny of the newspapers and who are constantly vulnerable to public challenge in this way are sitting down with editors and proprietors of those same newspapers to design a press regulation system."

However, Downing Street has said it has full confidence in Mrs Miller, insisting the aide was raising "legitimate concerns" about the expenses report.

The Prime Minister's spokesman said David Cameron still backs Mrs Miller over the issue. He also said that Joanna Hindley, the adviser, had not breached any part of the code of conduct which governs the activities of special advisers.

“My understanding is that she was raising legitimate concerns about the way in which the investigation has been handled, which is perfectly reasonable for her to do that," he said.

Asked why Miss Hindley raised the issue of press regulation, he said: “She made clear that Maria Miller was in contact with the editor and would be raising those concerns directly and it is my understanding a letter was sent.”

Asked why Ms Hindley then phoned the Telegraph’s head of corporate affairs to discuss an editorial investigation, he said: “Both the special adviser and the secretary of state were raising concerns about the way that investigation was conducted.”

Asked if Maria Miller or her aide were threatening the Telegraph over its investigation, the spokesman said: “It is reasonable for someone in the Government to raise these kinds of concerns about the way a newspaper is conducting an investigation.”

Miss Hindley also accused The Telegraph of harassing Mrs Miller’s father, John Lewis.

In fact, reporters had a brief conversation with Mr Lewis in order to establish how long he had lived with Mrs Miller. Over the course of the conversation, Mr Lewis said he enjoyed reading The Telegraph.

Serious stuff.

[snowychap]

...

We allow the Chairman at the time of these acts, Lord Green, to continue as Minister of State for Trade and Investment.

Is there something I've failed to understand here, or is this utterly insane?

According to Chukka Umunna on the Daily Politics today, Green's a 'thoroughly decent chap' and 'by all accounts' a capable Trade minister (or something similar - iPlayer doesn't have it up yet).

That's all fine then, Chukka.