Discussion of the UK Government
  •  
  •  
  •  
By Big Rob
#159773
Tory former Cabinet minister John Redwood urged the Treasury to veto it. "It really does take the biscuit that France and Germany get together to discuss how to raise money for the poor parts of the eurozone and come up with a tax that hits Britain hardest," he said. "It is a very unfriendly gesture."
Link
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#186318
This is old, but a classic. Apologies for the source:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-would-y ... -1232.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not a Lib Dem, btw.
Mortgage Regulation: We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.
Have a look at the date. August 2007. The month Northern Rock was secretly explaining to the regulator how it had got into the shit. Think mortgages featured somewhere.

And laugh your arse off next time you here the suggestion that the Tories would have been smarter regulators than Labour. Redwood was appointed by Cameron to look at all that lefty over-regulation shit.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#186320
Bonus point for Guido popping up and saying it would be a "Liberal" thing to do.

Get this man into Parliament. He sees a loony idea and he thinks, right, I'll have a tiresome debate about whether liberal means what it does now or what it did in the 19th century.

Hard luck with the timing, chaps. What with the credit crunch in America being well underway and that, you couldn't possibly have known you were talking crap.
By moonshien
#186350
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Hard luck with the timing, chaps. What with the credit crunch in America being well underway and that, you couldn't possibly have known you were talking crap.
Thankfully we had a prudent PM and before that chancellor who curbed the city's excesses by imposing a sensible scheme of firm but fair regulation on the banking industry.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#251328
Who said the Tories were out of touch?

Redwood:
To many work is still defined by the old factory pattern of the industrial era. People still think a full time job entails attending a factory or office five days a week, and working around 8 hours there each day. The day starts at somewhere between 8 and 9.30 am. Shift working means doing the same at “anti social”hours, so you might need to start earlier or finish later than the typical 9-5. Remuneration patterns may still reflect this sense of “normal” hours and abnormal hours, with “compensation” for working outside the “working day”. Overtime is paid if you need to work more than the specified hours.
Did he emigrate 30 years ago?
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#251329
Who said the Tories were out of touch?

Redwood:
To many work is still defined by the old factory pattern of the industrial era. People still think a full time job entails attending a factory or office five days a week, and working around 8 hours there each day. The day starts at somewhere between 8 and 9.30 am. Shift working means doing the same at “anti social”hours, so you might need to start earlier or finish later than the typical 9-5. Remuneration patterns may still reflect this sense of “normal” hours and abnormal hours, with “compensation” for working outside the “working day”. Overtime is paid if you need to work more than the specified hours.
Did he emigrate 30 years ago?
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#251442
You might be right.

Here comes Redwood again. The Department of Health basically says "fuck off, you corporate shill"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... -dismissed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting observation in the article:
Richard Humphries of the King's Fund said the problem with Redmond's (sic) paper was the implication that anyone with more than £23,000 was rich.
"Rich" normally has a higher threshold for Redwood, doesn't it?
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
#284512
Redwood gave a pretty extraordinary performance discussing the benefits uprating bill today. Just get a load of this:
Mr Redwood:
I think it would be a good idea for us to start by working out what we agree about, because during debates such as this the House sometimes becomes very tribal. It seems to me that we agree that we hate poverty, and that that is true not just of the Opposition but of the two governing parties. We see poverty as a scourge. We come here to promote and support policies that will make people better off and improve their living standards—of course we do—and today’s debate is about how we can achieve that in very straitened and difficult circumstances.

I should have thought it was common ground that we need to ensure that it is more worth while to work. In order to ascertain whether that is common ground, I intervened on the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—who was very eloquent—and he said that that was indeed Labour policy as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat policy. So we agree that we want to get rid of poverty and that we need to make work more worth while. That is where our Ministers are faced with a difficult dilemma. Last year’s benefits uprating occurred at about the peak of the spike in inflation and so benefit recipients got the 5.2% increase whereas low-paid people working alongside them in their local communities got perhaps 1.7%, if they were lucky—that was about the average. Suddenly, in one fell swoop, people were 3.5% worse off in work than out of work because of the normal uprating.

Toby Perkins:
What the right hon. Gentleman has just said is fundamentally untrue. Just because the percentage rise for someone on £71 a week is more than that for someone on £35,000 a year does not mean that they are better off. Will he correct the record on that point?

Mr Redwood:
No, I am talking about people in very similar circumstances—those either in low-income employment or out of work—where the two numbers are much closer together. They are closer together than any of us would like, because we want it to be that much more worth while for people to work. The hon. Gentleman has to accept that, at the lowest income levels, there was a problem because the benefits went up by much more than the wages. What would the best answer be? It would be for all wages to go up more. The second best answer would be for the prices not to go up so much. But we are where we are and we have to work to try to come up with a fair settlement for the future.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... /343/#c343" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, note Lib Dem 'lefty' Julian Huppert's snivelling.
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
#284515
The second condition picks up on a point that has already been mentioned by the Opposition. The policy will also be much easier to sustain if more jobs are flowing into the economy. I pay tribute to those on the Front Bench for what they have achieved so far. Some 1.2 million new jobs have been created in the economy during their period in office. That is extremely welcome. We need to make sure that more people already settled here and down on their luck get access to those jobs and can take them so that they can enjoy the benefits of higher income in work.
1.2 million private sector jobs now, apparently. Is it just me or does this figure get bigger every time it's wheeled out?
The Mail & Climate Change

Bulb? I had you pegged as a "bulbs go in the […]

I wonder why he didn't put the fire out?

The Brexit Party

Either the YouGov poll yesterday was a massive out[…]

UKIP

https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/111882171[…]