The future of Government (if any)

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

Lord Green quits amid HSBC row

Lord Green, the former HSBC chairman, has stepped down from his role as the head of the City of London lobby group, CityUK.

He is currently at the centre of a row over HSBC's involvement in illicit Swiss banking a decade ago.

His resignation was announced by the BBC this morning.

A leaked report on Monday revealed that HSBC's Swiss arm had helped 8,844 wealthy Britons avoid millions of pounds in tax.

The allegations of historic tax avoidance at the bank relate to files leaked by whistleblower dating from 2005 to 2007.

[thundril]

Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100

[Alan H]

Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100

Not sure I see why that's relevant. Can you explain?

[thundril]

This ACPO document, produced in 2010, makes very clear that the police do not have the right to forbid an event. For examples
(para 2.88) "The organisers of the event have overall responsibility for the event, including responsibility for public safety."
(para 2.96) "ACPO 2009 Public Safety Policy explains that the police service is often viewed as the first point of reference for those who organise public events, the assumption being that the police service can authorise or ban them. That is not the case, and it is vital that this perception is changed."

[Nick]

"Lobby group", Alan? That's not what the paper says, and is altogether different from the role of TheCityUK.


In other news....

Britain risks turning into France under Labour governmentAnd they don't mean the sunshine.

[Alan H]

"Lobby group", Alan? That's not what the paper says, and is altogether different from the role of TheCityUK.

I never called them a lobby group: it was the Torygraph that did - I copied exactly what they wrote, but they seemed to have changed it. It now says:

Lord Green, the former HSBC chairman, has stepped down from his role as the head of the UK’s national body for financial services, TheCityUK.

But it still calls them a lobby group further down:

Members of the advisory committee of lobby group CityUK told the Financial Times on Friday that peer could be asked to step down as their chairman, unless the frenzy over the affair died down.

2015-02-14_17h28_38.png (11.12 KiB) Viewed 1294 times

[anaconda]

I wonder why tax evaders on the whole flock to the tories. If you don't believe in paying tax then why do it? If you don't believe in taxation or in collecting tax then why do it? All tories together.

[Nick]

I wonder why tax evaders on the whole flock to the tories. If you don't believe in paying tax then why do it? If you don't believe in taxation or in collecting tax then why do it? All tories together.

Oh really, John! If you think that it is moral to evade tax, then you are hardly likely to vote for a high tax party, are you? But to tar all Tories will the evasion tag is as offensive as to tag Labour the party of idle scroungers who think that other peoples hard work should pay for their pleasures.

[Nick]

Re the policing of demos and other public events.. Perhaps THIS ACPO document from 2010 might be helpful? See especially paras 2.96 - 2.100

Very relevant, Thundril, and, I think, entirely consistent with my previous posts on this topic.

[Alan H]

Speaking of scroungers, the David 'call me Dave' Cameron announced a few days ago their intention to withdraw benefits from people who were obese or had addiction problems unless they underwent treatment. Several doctors have condemned this nasty and vindictive policy as totally unethical; the Tories presumably think the hard working taxpayer should not be subsidising their lifestyle and want to save the money so they can go after the tax dodgers...

The BBC reports:

Some 100,000 people with such conditions claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the government says.

It's not clear what the split between the obese and those with addiction problems was, but it seems his figures are ever so slightly wrong:

According to government figures released by the DWP last month, there was a total of just 1,540 people claiming employment support allowance on the basis of obesity last year. That's right, just 1,540.

A further 240 obese people claimed incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance. So that's a grand total of 1780 claimants, or a whopping 0.002% of the UK population.

Plus 82,490 with alcohol or drug addiction problems, but the focus seems to have been more on the obese.

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.

[Dave B]

There are lies, damned lies and politicians quoting statistics it might seem.

[Nick]

Ed wassisname struggled to think of a single prominent businessman who supports Labour, in contrast to the many who have abandoned the Labour party they had previously supported.

Eventually they came up with Dale Vince, the Green power guy. Unfortunately for Ed, it turns out that, like Ed Miliband, he is a tax dodger too.

[Nick]

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.

It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked. But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.

Dog-whistle politics, just like Miliband's.

[Alan H]

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.

It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.

Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?

But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.

Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?

[Dave B]

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.

It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.

Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?

But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.

Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?

+1

As prsented, like the bedroom tax and many other such strategies, it seems a like blanket bombing raid - just throw the book at everyone regardless of their circumstances. Why is the individual fat or addicted? Is there an overarching environmental, health, gentic component? Would the person need months of (non-existent) therapy in order to break a habit of long standing and possibly caused by life trauma?

Then they have to be brought to a standard of personal fitness and possibly self-value/respect that they are capable of taking one of the, what, millions of jobs available to such.

There will be a wide spectrum of personality types, from the capable but cunning to those who have long lost all hope. Betcha the resources that will be made available for this strategy are way, way less than what will be needed for it to save the nation money in the next ten years. It will more likely cost more, in human suffering as well as salaries, fees etc. paid trying to implement it.

Looks like another potential and expensive fuck-up for G4 or some such.

[Nick]

And, of course, he provided no evidence whatsoever that his policy would help anyone.

It would help them, Alan, but only if it worked.

Eh? "It would work but only if it worked"? But how do you know it would help them?

But sadly, their very obesity (or drug addiction, etc.,) is evidence that it won't.

Eh? How is obesity or addiction evidence that cutting benefits would or wouldn't help them?

Oh dear. Even when I agree with you, the red mist descends... I could just FFS, but I'll try to explain.

If people could be motivated by the threat to their benefits, then they would slim down, their health would improve, they would be better and healthier in all sorts of ways, and therefore more likely to get a job. That is how it would work. The problem with that scenario, is that they are (to be very general about it) suffering from obesity precisely because they are most unlikely to be motivated by such things. And surely addiction and (very often) obesity is itself the evidence that the afflicted have not responded, and are therefore unlikely to respond to, the promise of a better life "if only they try", or some such thing. What other conclusion would you draw?

So, Dave, that is why I largely agree with you too.

[Alan H]

Oh dear. Even when I agree with you, the red mist descends... I could just FFS, but I'll try to explain.

No, Nick. What you said was contradictory and not cogent. I highlighted what you said and pointed out what I saw as the contradictions. It wasn't clear on which side of the issue you fell.

If people could be motivated by the threat to their benefits, then they would slim down, their health would improve, they would be better and healthier in all sorts of ways, and therefore more likely to get a job. That is how it would work. The problem with that scenario, is that they are (to be very general about it) suffering from obesity precisely because they are most unlikely to be motivated by such things. And surely addiction and (very often) obesity is itself the evidence that the afflicted have not responded, and are therefore unlikely to respond to, the promise of a better life "if only they try", or some such thing. What other conclusion would you draw?

There are just far too many assumptions and prejudices in that. But because that David 'call me Dave' Cameron hasn't provided any evidence that such sanctions would have the desired effect, I think we are right to not support it until he does and I hope that is what you are saying.

However, I think what is clear is that if this was implemented and someone who was obese or who was an addict had their benefits withdrawn because they refused to consent to treatment, what could happen to them? Has Cameron thought this through?

Of course, with obesity and addiction come all sorts of co-morbidities, so stopping their ESA, could lead some into even deeper problems - up to and including depression and suicide. Well, at least that would solve the problem and get the scroungers off the DWP's books...

It looks like yet another wizzo idea that Cameron and his cronies have dreamt up over a bottle of claret that they have been incapable of thinking through.

[Alan H]

My wife and child are disabled, I care for them. Govt have made our lives a living hell. No government should do this to citizens.

I have no idea why my wife and I ever bothered paying into the system. Which, in turn, means we wonder why we ever bothered working.

People buy into all the TV productions, media headlines and political nonsense about benefits. But the likes of newapaper stories, “Benefits Street” or Benefits Britain are not factually typical or realistic. They are far from representative, and always one-sided.

There is a great myth that has been spun by the government and media; the myth is that welfare benefits were too generous, too high and needed to be cut.

However, the reality is very different from this image that has skewed people’s perceptions of welfare. The truth is that welfare benefits were never too high. Far from it, they were in fact inadequate.

The truth is that pay levels have been and still are grossly insufficient. Combined with high prices and a high cost of living, it is no wonder most people feel ‘cheated’.

This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.

[Dave B]

This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.

... or personal integretity, honour, humanity, moral fortitude, concern, care . . .

[Dave B]

This is supposed to be a strategy that will be popular with the tax-paters (disinclude me please as it seems to be planned). What's that old saying? A version might be, "When they have gobbled all the benefits and still fucked it up they will turn on you, Mr & Mrs Taxpayer!"

[Alan H]

This isn’t about party politics. No decent human being with an iota of intelligence could support this government’s welfare reforms.

... or personal integretity, honour, humanity, moral fortitude, concern, care . . .

+1