Conservative party/opposition watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 13 Nov 2015, 11:18

But strong encryption hides the person acting illegally. It's an arms races that can never be won.

Meanwhile, watch the Pirate Party in Iceland.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Nov 2015, 21:44

Amber Rudd gave a speech about her energy policy. Policy? What policy?

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... ategy.html

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Nov 2015, 16:38

Our environmentally astute government are at it again,

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015 ... published/

Making it illegal to leave it in the ground.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 25 Nov 2015, 16:29

Conservatives put money before environment. Again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34919504

Big energy users such as the steel and chemicals industries will be exempt from environmental tariffs, Chancellor George Osborne has said.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Jan 2016, 17:18

It looks as though the Tory plan to make the rich richer and the poor poorer is going well.
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/ ... ehold-debt

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Jan 2016, 14:41

[T]he DWP is set to pay out at least £1.6 billion over the next three years in administration fees to the corporations that now run their health and disability assessment schemes.

Anyone who has been paying attention to Tory economic policy will be aware that they're ever willing to put ideology above evidence

A nice neat, true statement if ever there was one. (Add COP, flood defences, grouse moors etc, etc, etc)

The report also revealed that costs are spiralling out of control; that none of the outsourcing companies managed to meet the government's own quality assessment thresholds; that targets are being missed all over the place; and that nowhere near the mandated 95% of assessors are completing their training.

Source

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jan 2016, 15:23

Can you compare this to what was paid to the same corporations under Labour or the Coalition?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 08 Jan 2016, 15:49

I think the more important comparison is with what was, of would have been, paid to the civil service to do the same job. Until we know that we can't say whether that £1.6 billion over three years is good value or not.

Sounds like you're after a job with the Tories, John!!

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 15 Feb 2016, 13:00

Israel boycott ban: Shunning Israeli goods to become criminal offence for public bodies and student unions:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 74006.html

Not just Israel, but illegal to consider purchases etc on all ethical grounds it seems.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 15 Feb 2016, 13:20

I don't think they are proposing to make it a criminal offence, but instead something in administrative law - if indeed that is the case.

It is still wrong, however.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 20 Mar 2016, 11:13

Ian Duncan Smith's resignation over proposed benefit cuts seems to have put the cat amongst the pigeons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -live.html

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Mar 2016, 11:49

My view is that this is primarily about benefit cuts and not about Europe.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 20 Mar 2016, 15:26

johnhemming2 wrote:My view is that this is primarily about benefit cuts and not about Europe.

I tend to agree with you on this one. Maybe the referendum had something to do with it, but I think IDS actually feels a bit ashamed of this attack on disability benefits to finance tax cuts for the rich. It is seriously nasty stuff.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Mar 2016, 18:17

Ashamed is the wrong word. He came to the conclusion that hitting people of working age on a non targeted basis to fund additional tax cuts for the top 15% was wrong. It was not a response to the deficit, but instead a decision to redistribute income from the poorer members of society to the richer.

In resigning he loses quite a bit of income as well as not being able to argue in government for his viewpoint.

In a sense you are seeing in all of this the difference between the coalition and a conservative government.

You should note IDS's reference to the Red Book. That demonstrates the governments intentions for benefit cuts even if the specific disability benefit cuts go.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 20 Mar 2016, 18:41

johnhemming2 wrote:Ashamed is the wrong word. He came to the conclusion that hitting people of working age on a non targeted basis to fund additional tax cuts for the top 15% was wrong. It was not a response to the deficit, but instead a decision to redistribute income from the poorer members of society to the richer.

But that is the entire reason for the existence of the Conservative Party. It's what they do.