[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 2.0

[Moggy]

As the old thread is over 250 pages long, it seems to be time to start a new one.

Let’s start on something light….

A future Conservative government would seek new powers to ban extremist groups and curb the activities of "harmful" individuals, Theresa May has said.
Banning orders and "extreme disruption" orders will feature in the party's 2015 election manifesto, the home secretary told the party's Birmingham conference.
She got a standing ovation as she said "British values" would prevail in the end in the battle against extremism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414574

Interesting that some Conservatives along with Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP all appear a little worried by Theresa May’s plans.

Conservative MP Dominic Raab told BBC News there was already a "very wide criminal basis" to prosecute extremist groups.
"I think you need to be very wary about criminalising thoughts and views", he said.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said there was a risk new measures could "simply fuel resentment".
He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "If there is to be any restriction on the freedom of expression outside the criminal law - we have to tread very carefully."
Labour has questioned the effectiveness of the strategy, saying all individuals returning from the Middle East should have to undergo a programme of de-radicalisation.
It has called for the government to reintroduce control orders scrapped in 2011.
A Lib Dem spokesman said: "We utterly reject the allegation that the blocking of the Communications Data Bill has put lives at risk."
He said the availability of devices' internet protocol (IP) addresses was the "real problem", accusing the Home Office of "woeful inaction" in dealing with it.
"Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Tories' obsessive intrusion into people's lives," he added.
UKIP said the moves paved the way for governments to "block free speech", while campaign group Big Brother Watch said it was "wholly wrong" to label someone as an extremist without a "due legal process".

Of course all of this will depend on who wins the next election…

[Fatal Exception]

It's a disgusting law aimed at silencing normal people, rather than anyone who is harmful to the country. We already have laws in place to deal with extremists. The Snowden leaks have shown how the government will be quick to label whistleblowers as extremists or terrorists.

You could also argue that the Tories are neoliberal extremists who represent a threat to Britain and democracy. Where do I report them? The police?

[Cal]

It's difficult to know what the wider agenda is behind May's pronouncements. On the one hand, she could be genuinely trying to stifle the spread of Islamic extremism. On the other, this is just the thin end of a wedge. It would be interesting to know what kind of free speech might now come under the heading 'extreme'. You can bet it won't be restricted to topics concerned with Islam. This is how such 'enabling' laws work: they open the door to a much wider remit and a kind of 'mission creep' occurs - the legislation gradually bloats to include all kinds of things never mentioned at the outset. It's not difficult to imagine this kind of clamp down on freedom of speech is intended to hammer anyone daring to speak out on contentious issues such as 'diversity', 'community cohesion', etc.

Liberal progressive democracies. Don't you just love 'em? Vote UKIP.

[Fatal Exception]

It won't be restricted to Islam. They've confirmed it applies to groups like conspiracy theorists, which although 99% of them are bollocks, is a very dangerous thing to do.

[Moggy]

It's difficult to know what the wider agenda is behind May's pronouncements. On the one hand, she could be genuinely trying to stifle the spread of Islamic extremism. On the other, this is just the thin end of a wedge. It would be interesting to know what kind of free speech might now come under the heading 'extreme'. You can bet it won't be restricted to topics concerned with Islam. This is how such 'enabling' laws work: they open the door to a much wider remit and a kind of 'mission creep' occurs - the legislation gradually bloats to include all kinds of things never mentioned at the outset. It's not difficult to imagine this kind of clamp down on freedom of speech is intended to hammer anyone daring to speak out on contentious issues such as 'diversity', 'community cohesion', etc.

Liberal progressive democracies. Don't you just love 'em? Vote UKIP.

Did you miss the part where UKIP, the Lib Dems, Labour and some Tories spoke out against this? What makes UKIP different to those others?

I agree though that these sorts of laws are eventually used out of context. We have heard before of councils using anti-terror laws against innocent people and there was that old heckler that was taken out of a Labour conference using terror laws.

[Cal]

See, this kind of thing gets my attention:

David Cameron has pledged to cut taxes for thirty million people if the Conservatives win next year's election.

In a speech which cheered his party and ended their conference, he said he would raise the tax-free allowance from £10,500 to £12,500 by 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29433919

As someone who has directly benefitted from the coalition's tax cuts I'm definitely interested in this kind of thing. I think the coalition have done a great job in bringing down personal tax, despite the best attempts of a discredited Labour Party to always talk it down (because we all know who the Party That Likes To tax are, right?). Cameron's latest announcement actually means that someone on the minimum wage in 2020, assuming ConDem are voted in again at the next election, will end up paying no tax at all.

If that doesn't count as real help for low wage earners what on earth does? or will Labour find some weasle way to dismiss it? Would Labour even consider such tax cutting? Personally I don't think so: it goes against their very nature as the tax and spend Party (it's only Toy Town money, ain't it?).

Let's see Ed 'it wasn't us' Balls bullsh*t his way past this.

[Moggy]

See, this kind of thing gets my attention:

David Cameron has pledged to cut taxes for thirty million people if the Conservatives win next year's election.

In a speech which cheered his party and ended their conference, he said he would raise the tax-free allowance from £10,500 to £12,500 by 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29433919

Why not promise to do it straight away, rather than saying "yeah we will do it in 6 years time"? A raise of £2000 in the tax free allowance in 6 years time isn’t as exciting as the headline suggests.

As someone who has directly benefitted from the coalition's tax cuts I'm definitely interested in this kind of thing.

Tax cuts will just mean cuts elsewhere. What services and benefits will be slashed to pay for this, especially as Cameron seems to think he can make GPs work 7 days a week?

I think the coalition have done a great job in bringing down personal tax,

They have reduced tax, but have also reduced benefits that people rely on.

despite the best attempts of a discredited Labour Party to always talk it down (because we all know who the Party That Likes To tax are, right?).

When you write like that, it is not worth replying.

Cameron's latest announcement actually means that someone on the minimum wage in 2020, assuming ConDem are voted in again at the next election, will end up paying no tax at all.

There is no way the ConDems will be voted in at the next election. The ConKip or just the Cons maybe.

It is a good idea to take the minimum wage workers out of tax though.

If that doesn't count as real help for low wage earners what on earth does?

Well there are lots of things that can be done to help low wage earners. Letting them keep all of their wages is just one way.

or will Labour find some weasle way to dismiss it? Would Labour even consider such tax cutting? Personally I don't think so: it goes against their very nature as the tax and spend Party (it's only Toy Town money, ain't it?). Let's see Ed 'it wasn't us' Balls bullsh*t his way past this.

As per one of the above paragraphs, why write like this? This is a discussion forum, not a right wing tabloid.

[Buffalo]

Who can live on 12 and a half grand in this society these days, let alone 6 years from now? No tax or not, it's not possible.

[Tineash]

Hey guys what about that deficit?

[Fatal Exception]

See, this kind of thing gets my attention:

David Cameron has pledged to cut taxes for thirty million people if the Conservatives win next year's election.

In a speech which cheered his party and ended their conference, he said he would raise the tax-free allowance from £10,500 to £12,500 by 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29433919

As someone who has directly benefitted from the coalition's tax cuts I'm definitely interested in this kind of thing. I think the coalition have done a great job in bringing down personal tax, despite the best attempts of a discredited Labour Party to always talk it down (because we all know who the Party That Likes To tax are, right?). Cameron's latest announcement actually means that someone on the minimum wage in 2020, assuming ConDem are voted in again at the next election, will end up paying no tax at all.

If that doesn't count as real help for low wage earners what on earth does? or will Labour find some weasle way to dismiss it? Would Labour even consider such tax cutting? Personally I don't think so: it goes against their very nature as the tax and spend Party (it's only Toy Town money, ain't it?).

Let's see Ed 'it wasn't us' Balls bullsh*t his way past this.

That rise in tax free allowance is less than inflation will probably be. They are giving you less and making it seem like a good thing. Like Ed's proposed rise in minimum wage - less than inflation.

It would be funny if we weren't all getting screwed over.

[Fatal Exception]

It's funny because it's true.

[Bigerich]

Who can live on 12 and a half grand in this society these days, let alone 6 years from now? No tax or not, it's not possible.

Student loan is 9K in Norway, and the cost of living is higher as well.

[Meep]

IMO, the tax cut promises by the Conervative party are extremely disingenuous. First off, we know how badly their last goal set for tackling the deficit went and their new one still seems optimistic. Secondly, even when you get there, they would have to cut even more just to pay for the tax cuts. This seems more like a plan for the government that comes after the next and is so far off and vaporous that it is deeply misleading to even pledge it at all. They should have cased the promise, if they were going to make it, in much more conditional language. The way they have worded this pledge seems deliberately misleading.

The continued adherence to a ridiculous policy of making all money up through cuts is worrying. It has not worked out so far as they have borrowed more money in their first three years than Labour managed in thirteen. If and when they achieve their goal of clearing the deficit I dread to think the kind of debt we will have sunk ourselves into in order to achieve this apparently vital aspiration (the merits of which are highly questionable). Personally, I would rather have a lower national debt as a priority for the sake of future generations.

[Grumpy David]

Always a fan of tax cuts. The sooner the better.

Will still be voting UKIP in May but at least option 2 is saying some good things.

Hilarious that the Tories have taken so much credit for the Lib Dem idea of raising the personal allowance.

[Meep]

Taking credit for stuff that has nothing to do with him is Cameron's main strategy. "Economy improving as it comes out of recession? Obviously I did that. If we weren't here the recession would have lasted forever."

[Rocsteady]

IMO, the tax cut promises by the Conervative party are extremely disingenuous. First off, we know how badly their last goal set for tackling the deficit went and their new one still seems optimistic. Secondly, even when you get there, they would have to cut even more just to pay for the tax cuts. This seems more like a plan for the government that comes after the next and is so far off and vaporous that it is deeply misleading to even pledge it at all. They should have cased the promise, if they were going to make it, in much more conditional language. The way they have worded this pledge seems deliberately misleading.

The continued adherence to a ridiculous policy of making all money up through cuts is worrying. It has not worked out so far as they have borrowed more money in their first three years than Labour managed in thirteen. If and when they achieve their goal of clearing the deficit I dread to think the kind of debt we will have sunk ourselves into in order to achieve this apparently vital aspiration (the merits of which are highly questionable). Personally, I would rather have a lower national debt as a priority for the sake of future generations.

Surely a lower deficit in turn leads to a lower level of national debt, though?

[Grumpy David]

Any deficit, no matter how low will increase the debt. Only a budget surplus will lead to a reduction in the national debt. A lower deficit just slows the growth of the overall debt.

[Rocsteady]

Yeah sorry my question was worded badly. You get what I mean though, the higher the deficit the more rapidly our debt levels will increase. Not quite sure what meep means is all.

[Fatal Exception]

Vote UKIP to bring back tax disks Also is David Cameron really running with "Abolishing the human rights act" on his manifesto? You'd have to be an idiot or a banana split to vote for that It's hugely dangerous.

[Eighthours]

Vote UKIP to bring back tax disks Also is David Cameron really running with "Abolishing the human rights act" on his manifesto? You'd have to be an idiot or a banana split to vote for that It's hugely dangerous.

It's like some people think that human rights are going to be abandoned and we'll be back to the law of the jungle. A British Bill of Rights is going to be drafted instead, which will presumably be much the same as the current set of rules only with the daft bits removed.