INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3101 Postby Alan H » May 22nd, 2017, 12:36 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Weak and wobbly: Theresa May changes social care plans
Theresa May has said proposed changes to social care funding will include an option for an "absolute limit" on the money people will have to pay.

The Conservatives ruled out a cap on total costs in last week's manifesto, instead saying no-one would see their assets fall below £100,000.

The PM said the plan was "sensible" and would stop the system from collapse.

But she said she wanted to address "shameful" fears that people would be forced to sell their family home.

She told activists in Wales that the Conservatives were "determined the fix the system" and the consultation on the plans, if the party wins the election, would consider a cap among the options.

"We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care," she said.

"We will make sure there's an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family"
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3102 Postby Nick » May 23rd, 2017, 12:37 am

Alan H wrote:Weak and wobbly

Most amusing to see you trying to protect the inherited assets of the wealthy! :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3103 Postby Alan H » May 23rd, 2017, 1:21 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Weak and wobbly

Most amusing to see you trying to protect the inherited assets of the wealthy! :wink:
Where the fuck did I do that?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
stevenw888
Posts: 693
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3104 Postby stevenw888 » May 23rd, 2017, 1:31 pm

I agree 100% with Theresa May's declared intention to take away the £200 winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners. Gordon Brown introduced this benefit in 1997 in a desperate attempt to win/keep the middle class pensioners' vote. I know a number of moderately well-off pensioners who all say that such a benefit is a pointless exercise. Many of my friends don't claim it, or don't cash their cheques when they receive them.
I guess the only question is - where do you draw the line? The benefit will have to become means-tested (which it should have been all along). At what point is a pensioner in need of such a benefit?
And should such a benefit be withdrawn on the basis of monthly income or capital saved? Or a combination of both?
I think that Theresa, knowing she is on a winner in this electoral contest, is using that fact to introduce some policies that might be regarded as 'unpleasant'. Then, once elected, she can legitimately claim to have a mandate to introduce said reforms.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3105 Postby Nick » May 23rd, 2017, 1:54 pm

Increase it by 25%, add it to the OAP, then scrap it. That way, higher rate taxpayers get less, standard rate get the same and non-taxpayers get more. Any cold weather payments should be administered by the energy companies, and be paid in reductions in energy bills.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3106 Postby Alan H » May 23rd, 2017, 3:38 pm

Nick wrote:Increase it by 25%, add it to the OAP, then scrap it. That way, higher rate taxpayers get less, standard rate get the same and non-taxpayers get more. Any cold weather payments should be administered by the energy companies, and be paid in reductions in energy bills.
That might be a sensible idea. Why haven't the Tories done this?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3107 Postby Alan H » May 23rd, 2017, 3:40 pm

stevenw888 wrote:I agree 100% with Theresa May's declared intention to take away the £200 winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners.
The problem is I don't think we know the costs to know whether this would save any money. I don't think there was much in the way of costings in the Tory manifesto.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3108 Postby Alan H » May 24th, 2017, 1:51 pm

Looks like the Tories are using the Manchester tragedy to impose further stupid policies: The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10848
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3109 Postby Nick » May 24th, 2017, 8:05 pm

Alan H wrote:Looks like the Tories are using the Manchester tragedy to impose further stupid policies: The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

While in the meantime, the terrorist sympathiser is keeping his head down....

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3110 Postby Alan H » May 24th, 2017, 9:55 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Looks like the Tories are using the Manchester tragedy to impose further stupid policies: The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

While in the meantime, the terrorist sympathiser is keeping his head down....
:laughter:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3111 Postby Alan H » May 26th, 2017, 12:14 am

Strong and stable: Court of Appeal finds Theresa May acted unlawfully in denying refugees access to UK
In a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal has today (25 May 2017) found that Theresa May acted unlawfully by refusing to consider allowing entry to the UK to a group of refugee families stranded on the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in Cyprus.

The unlawful decision was made in November 2014 when Mrs May was Home Secretary. The Court of Appeal has ordered the current Home Secretary to urgently reconsider the refusal of entry noting that “there can be no justification for any future decision which leaves these Claimants’ position unresolved for any further length of time”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3112 Postby Alan H » May 30th, 2017, 12:55 am

It's working as the Tories intended, then?Charities say 'gag law' stops them speaking out on Tory social care plans
Charities have been silenced from speaking out about the Conservative social care plans despite believing they will be hugely damaging to elderly and disabled people across the country, it has been claimed.

One chief executive of a major charity in the social care sector told the Guardian they felt “muzzled” by legislation, introduced in 2014, which heavily restricts organisations from intervening on policy during an election period.

They said Theresa May’s decision to means test winter fuel allowance would inadvertently result in some of the poorest pensioners in the country losing the support, adding that “will literally cost lives”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3113 Postby Alan H » June 1st, 2017, 11:12 am

Britain’s schools are already on their knees. Now they’re going to be gutted
The National Audit Office calculates that by 2019-20, the education system will face cuts of 8% in real terms. That amounts to about £3bn in England – or the equivalent of £20,000 per pupil during their time in the classroom. Put that together with the new funding formula, which will see 9,000 schools face vast additional budget cuts, and secondary schools in England alone are heading for the steepest cuts to funding since the 1970s.

Last month, I asked Guardian readers to get in touch with their experiences of education cuts. The response was staggering: teachers, parents, governors, grandparents and headteachers describing a school system on its knees. “No textbooks ... kids have to buy them,” wrote one teacher in High Wycombe. “School is falling to bits ... radiators fitted when school was built (1950s) so in winter have recorded 8C in class.” One teacher in Newport said her class now has “no books or lined paper”; they’re asking parents to set up “voluntary direct debits” as emergency funding.

From Norfolk to London, teachers spoke of dire staff shortages – “we’re down from 60 to 15 teaching staff over the past five years,” one teacher in Weymouth told me – resulting in 40 kids in a classroom, untrained tutors brought in to teach maths, or entire subjects being “wiped out”. With no money to pay them, support staff are simply phased out – “the ones that help the children who are behind catch up”, as one parent in Leeds painfully puts it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3114 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 12:57 am

The technically illiterate Theresa May strikes again: Theresa May wants to ban crypto: here's what that would cost, and here's why it won't work anyway
It’s impossible to overstate how bonkers the idea of sabotaging cryptography is to people who understand information security. If you want to secure your sensitive data either at rest – on your hard drive, in the cloud, on that phone you left on the train last week and never saw again – or on the wire, when you’re sending it to your doctor or your bank or to your work colleagues, you have to use good cryptography. Use deliberately compromised cryptography, that has a back door that only the “good guys” are supposed to have the keys to, and you have effectively no security. You might as well skywrite it as encrypt it with pre-broken, sabotaged encryption.
This, then, is what Theresa May is proposing:

* All Britons' communications must be easy for criminals, voyeurs and foreign spies to intercept

* Any firms within reach of the UK government must be banned from producing secure software

* All major code repositories, such as Github and Sourceforge, must be blocked

* Search engines must not answer queries about web-pages that carry secure software

* Virtually all academic security work in the UK must cease -- security research must only take place in proprietary research environments where there is no onus to publish one's findings, such as industry R&D and the security services

* All packets in and out of the country, and within the country, must be subject to Chinese-style deep-packet inspection and any packets that appear to originate from secure software must be dropped

* Existing walled gardens (like Ios and games consoles) must be ordered to ban their users from installing secure software

* Anyone visiting the country from abroad must have their smartphones held at the border until they leave

* Proprietary operating system vendors (Microsoft and Apple) must be ordered to redesign their operating systems as walled gardens that only allow users to run software from an app store, which will not sell or give secure software to Britons

* Free/open source operating systems -- that power the energy, banking, ecommerce, and infrastructure sectors -- must be banned outright

Theresa May will say that she doesn't want to do any of this. She'll say that she can implement weaker versions of it -- say, only blocking some "notorious" sites that carry secure software. But anything less than the programme above will have no material effect on the ability of criminals to carry on perfectly secret conversations that "we cannot read". If any commodity PC or jailbroken phone can run any of the world's most popular communications applications, then "bad guys" will just use them. Jailbreaking an OS isn't hard. Downloading an app isn't hard. Stopping people from running code they want to run is -- and what's more, it puts the whole nation -- individuals and industry -- in terrible jeopardy.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3115 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 11:52 am

The Guardian view on Theresa May’s plans on terror: they are wrong
Mrs May wants us to believe that we face a threat from doctrines that do not espouse violence but somehow mutate into terror. Confusing extremism with terrorism risks dividing us as a people when we need to be united
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3116 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 12:07 pm

This is what Theresa May refused to tell you in her schoolyard sermon on terror
Was that really the best Theresa May could do? It was the same old tosh about "values" and "democracy" and "evil ideology", without the slightest reference to the nation to whom she fawns – Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabist "ideology" has seeped into the bloodstream of Isis, al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Blair used the same garbage language when he claimed – untruthfully, of course – that the 7/7 London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq. He, too, like George Bush, claimed that they were perpetrated because the bombers hated our values and our democracy, even though Isis would have no idea what these values were if they woke up in bed next to them.

And then there was the patronising monomorphic language that our wretched Prime Minister used, as if everything she says is false. Which it is.

“Enough is enough”. What on earth does that mean? “Terrorism breeds terrorism”. What nonsense. It’s the same baby language as “Brexit means Brexit”, the double emphasis mere proof that May has lost the ability to convince us of anything she says.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3192
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3117 Postby Tetenterre » June 5th, 2017, 12:57 pm

Theresa May must resign over 'security failures' that led to recent terror attacks, says David Cameron's former policy guru

David Cameron’s former policy guru has demanded Theresa May resign for “security failures” that led to terror attacks in Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge.

Steve Hilton said Ms May bore responsibility for the attacks, should not be seeking re-election and had been “blame shifting” in statements since they unfolded.

The accusation will come as a blow to the Prime Minister as she prepares to give a speech on Monday likely to be dominated by efforts to stamp out the terror threat.

Ms May, responsible for the security services since 2010 as Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, has already been attacked by political rivals and police figures over severe cuts.

Mr Hilton, who left Downing Street in 2012, posted reports relating to an alleged suspect of Saturday’s attack, before adding: “Theresa May responsible for security failures of London Bridge, Manchester, Westminster Bridge.

“Should be resigning not seeking re-election.”

Commenting on newspaper reports that appeared to attribute some responsibility to the security services, he went on: “Theresa May blame shifting again.

“Her spin doctors attack MI5, but she was in charge of them for years.”

There was a 20 per cent drop in the number of armed officers between 2010 and 2016, when Ms May was at the the Home Office, accompanied by a total reduction of some 20,000 police officers in general.

Speaking on Monday, cabinet minister Karen Bradley said: “It’s not just about numbers, it’s about powers. It’s about making sure the police have the powers they need.”

In her post attack statement Ms May signalled tougher action on terror to come, using the phrase “enough is enough”, before calling for the internet to be more strictly regulated and revealing that counter terrorism strategy would be reviewed to “keep up” with a changing threat.

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tore into her record, accusing her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap”.

Over the weekend an anonymous serving firearms officer wrote for The Independent claiming cuts to police resources suffered since 2010 had made terror attacks more likely.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3118 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 1:24 pm

She does seem to be the one responsible. But I bet you she doesn't resign and muddles on for the next few days. Election means election, I think.

See also: Saudi Arabia; Wahhabists; arms deals; weapons of mass destruction; kowtowing.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3119 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 1:46 pm

Theresa May urged not to suppress report into funding of jihadi groups
Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron have challenged Theresa May over a long-delayed inquiry into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups in the UK, after the Home Office suggested the investigation may not be published.

The inquiry into revenue streams for extremist groups was commissioned by David Cameron when he was prime minister and is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia.

But the Guardian revealed last week that the report was still incomplete and its contents may not be published.

The Labour leader used a speech in Carlisle on Sunday evening to challenge the prime minister over the delayed report.

Corbyn referenced May’s speech after the London Bridge attack on Saturday, in which she said challenging terrorism would “require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations”.

In a speech that also criticised May for ignoring warnings about the impact of police cuts, he said: “Yes, we do need to have some difficult conversations, starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have funded and fuelled extremist ideology.

“It is no good Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off the funding to these terror networks, including Isis here and in the Middle East.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3120 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 2:15 pm

Screenshot from 2017-06-05 1.png
Screenshot from 2017-06-05 1.png (954.09 KiB) Viewed 558 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22267
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3121 Postby Alan H » June 5th, 2017, 3:02 pm

May's response to terror shows she doesn't understand the internet
As Theresa May strode out to address the press following an all too familiar chain of events, an all too familiar line of response beckoned. What followed suggests that May understands neither the methods used by terrorists to evade surveillance nor their way of looking at the world. Not only has she no idea how to stop them but she has no idea what she's talking about.

Enough is enough, the prime minister said. Quite so.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest