Conservative government watch

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711
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.
:roll: Here we go ... again.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

3rdRock wrote:A salutary tale from Lola Okolosie.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... dial-state
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: .
Tarrel
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Tarrel »

3rdRock wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711
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.
:roll: 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.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

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.
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14649
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

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
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

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/p ... tm_spnew72

(David Davies makes an ass of himself some way in!)
Tarrel
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:32 pm
Location: Ross-shire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Tarrel »

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.
oobers
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: Hebden Bridge

Post by oobers »

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/p ... tm_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:
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/campaign ... -shale-gas
I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

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/p ... tm_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:
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/campaign ... -shale-gas

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
:lol: Top Cat? No? :wink:
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14649
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

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
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14649
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

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/p ... tm_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:
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/campaign ... -shale-gas

I have my own ideas as to what the TC in the middle of his name should stand for.
:lol: 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
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

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.
:lol: Top Cat? No? :wink:
True Conservative of course.
Two words. First word = Total :wink:
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14649
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

3rdRock wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote: :lol: 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
3rdRock

Post by 3rdRock »

emordnilap wrote:
3rdRock wrote:
emordnilap wrote: True Conservative of course.
Two words. First word = Total :wink:
Oh yes, sorry. Total Conservative.
Have you always been useless at Charades? :wink: :lol:
Post Reply