PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Conservative government watch
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2015 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DECC blog on Queen's Speech
https://decc.blog.gov.uk/2015/05/27/energy-climate-change-and-the-queens-speech/
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
3rdRock
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711

Quote:
The government is considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families as part of its 12bn welfare cuts, the BBC understands.

Allies of George Osborne are studying an Institute for Fiscal Studies idea to return tax credits to 2003/4 levels, plus inflation - saving 5bn.

Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about 1,400 a year, the IFS said.

Political allies of Mr Osborne say the move would increase incentives to work.

Rolling Eyes Here we go ... again.
Back to top
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2525
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rdRock wrote:
A salutary tale from Lola Okolosie.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/25/welfare-state-moral-failure-tory-poverty-individial-state

Quote:
Society is buying the Tory message that poverty is all the fault of the individual.

I know first-hand how vital state support can be.
a

Clearly the working classes aren't working hard enough, and that's why the country is in a mess Wink .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tarrel



Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 2451
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rdRock wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711

Quote:
The government is considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families as part of its 12bn welfare cuts, the BBC understands.

Allies of George Osborne are studying an Institute for Fiscal Studies idea to return tax credits to 2003/4 levels, plus inflation - saving 5bn.

Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about 1,400 a year, the IFS said.

Political allies of Mr Osborne say the move would increase incentives to work.

Rolling Eyes Here we go ... again.


I wonder how reducing Working Tax Credits will be an incentive to work, when they are paid to people who are already working?!

Actually, the article in full does quote some other views within the Tory camp, recognising that WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.
_________________
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2525
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tarrel wrote:
Actually, the article in full does quote some other views within the Tory camp, recognising that WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.


And just to make sure that people continue to work, for less wages, they'll reduce the unemployment benefits accordingly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14598
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tarrel wrote:
WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.


Yes. A compulsory, independently-audited minimum living wage.

Oooh, look up there...a pig.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18539
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:

Starts at col 1264

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150610/debtext/150610-0003.htm#150610-0003.htm_spnew72

(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tarrel



Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 2451
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Tarrel wrote:
WTCs are essentially a subsidy to big business, and that those businesses should start to "shoulder more of the burden" or, as I would put it, start paying fairer wages.


Yes. A compulsory, independently-audited minimum living wage.

Oooh, look up there...a pig.


Of course, the situation that has led up to the Government having to subsidise wages is by no means simple.

Essentially, the economic environment that allowed one employed person to keep a family in a manner far more luxurious than Emperors of old could ever dream of can best be characterised by skilled and semi-skilled people leveraging the power of fossil fuels to produce high value goods for which there was high demand. High wages were therefore justified.

Much of this activity has been off-shored and /or automated, leaving a limited choice of low value-added jobs. Family breakdown and occupational mobility causing generations within families to drift apart add to the problem by creating a need for (very expensive) professional child care which adds to the financial burden of many families.

I think there is a strong argument for enshrining in law a broader set of responsibilities for company directors, based around the "triple bottom line" idea of profit, people and planet. This would ensure that Directors took a balanced approach to, say, profitability and paying a wage based on what the employee needs rather than on what can be justified in terms of "added value".

Many of us may also have to accept that the wealth created by industrial economies is now being shared amongst many more people, globally. So, in the UK, our "share" of high value jobs has fallen which means many of us may have to accept a lower standard of living than the industrial economy has previously supplied. I for one would be perfectly prepared to accept this, apart from the "fly in the ointment" of a small elite becoming conspicuously richer and richer!

A "super tax" on super-high earnings should, it goes without saying, be introduced.
_________________
Engage in geo-engineering. Plant a tree today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
oobers



Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 277
Location: Hebden Bridge

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:

Starts at col 1264

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150610/debtext/150610-0003.htm#150610-0003.htm_spnew72

(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)

At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:

Quote:
I will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.

http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaigns/fracking-shale-gas
I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rdRock
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oobers wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:

Starts at col 1264

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150610/debtext/150610-0003.htm#150610-0003.htm_spnew72

(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)

At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:

Quote:
I will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.

http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaigns/fracking-shale-gas

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.

Laughing Top Cat? No? Wink
Back to top
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14598
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tarrel wrote:
A "super tax" on super-high earnings should, it goes without saying, be introduced.


50% on earnings over 100,000, 75% on earnings over a million would be a start and not in the least unfair. According to Owen Jones, the lowest-paid 10% hand over 45% of their earnings in tax, the top 10%: 35%. OK, the actual amount paid by one person from each category may be wildly different but it's weird thinking all the same.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14598
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rdRock wrote:
oobers wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Climate Change debate in House of Commons yesterday showed a pretty encouraging approach from Amber Rudd:

Starts at col 1264

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150610/debtext/150610-0003.htm#150610-0003.htm_spnew72

(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)

At first I thought you meant David Davis but then realised there was another tory climate dinosaur with nearly the same name. This extract from his website probably sums up who we are dealing with here:

Quote:
I will continue to read and listen to those who have fears about fracking, as well as to those who want cheaper energy bills. For myself, my mind is entirely made up and I will happily support the Government.

http://www.david-davies.org.uk/campaigns/fracking-shale-gas

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.

Laughing Top Cat? No? Wink


True Conservative of course.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rdRock
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:
oobers wrote:

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.

Laughing Top Cat? No? Wink


True Conservative of course.

Two words. First word = Total Wink
Back to top
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14598
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3rdRock wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:
oobers wrote:

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.

Laughing Top Cat? No? Wink


True Conservative of course.

Two words. First word = Total Wink


Oh yes, sorry. Total Conservative.
_________________
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3rdRock
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:
oobers wrote:

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.

Laughing Top Cat? No? Wink


True Conservative of course.

Two words. First word = Total Wink


Oh yes, sorry. Total Conservative.

Have you always been useless at Charades? Wink Laughing
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 3 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group