The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[Dave2002]

..."like Frank Field and Caroline Flint, who know the damage Brexit will cause but are supporting it ‘because it’s what their constituents voted for’ have no such excuse.

What about MPs, such as mine (Con) who has supported all the government attempts to leave since 2016, yet this constituency clearly voted to Remain? I challenged him on this, and received a letter which I suspect was based on a boller plate template - possibly not even written by him, saying that since he stood for re-election in 2017 "on a mandate to Leave (??)" that was OK. Also, though I can't pin him down on this, I have reasons to believe that his personal view before 2016 was to Remain.

[rauschwerk]

When the Coalition Government reduced the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% it resulted in an £8bn increase in tax collected from the highest earners in the following year (although this was mainly due to deferred income). In the longer term the reduction appears not to have made any significant difference to the amount of revenue raised. This suggests that Labour’s proposed income tax measures are unlikely to raise any additional revenue, and could even lead to a small reduction in revenue. Labour’s proposals are ideological rather than practical

A 1% increase in income tax for everyone would generate significant sums because it would involve everyone paying more, rather than just a very small percentage of the population. However, that would also make it a very hard sell to the electorate. It’s much easier to sell tax increases for the ‘rich’ (or at least those richer than the general population) than ask everyone to make a larger contribution.

Unless and until we get a government which actually does something about tax havens (I'm not holding my breath) all other tax tweaks and reforms will be an utter waste of time, making minuscule changes to inequality.

[Bryn]

Unless and until we get a government which actually does something about tax havens (I'm not holding my breath) all other tax tweaks and reforms will be an utter waste of time, making minuscule changes to inequality.

The government was quick enough to remove citizenship from teenage girls groomed into heading for Syria to support the so-called Islamic State. Removing U.K. citizenship from those using tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of U.K. tax might be worth considering.

[Richard Barrett]

This thread has veered away from its original purpose to become yet another that consists mainly of people once more trotting out their entrenched and well-known opinions on Brexit. Wouldn't it be more interesting to try to broaden things from that? I only ask.

On the tax question raised a few posts ago by Master Locke, surely a particular tax regime shouldn't only be assessed on the basis of how much cash it raises? There is also the question of how fair it is. A flat-rate increase obviously disadvantages the already less well-off. Recall that in the end it was a flat-rate tax that was a bridge too far for Thatcher.

Regarding the "centre", if you went back in time to the 1960s and described to someone most of the policies associated with Corbyn's Labour they wouldn't be regarded as coming from the extreme left but indeed from the centre. The "centrists" with whom the Labour left has so much of a problem at present would look from that perspective much more like Tories, since Labour during the period 1997-2015 moved so far to the right as a result of an "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude. Times have moved on since then. The most urgent political problem facing us isn't Brexit but climate change, which, as I've said, capitalism by definition will fail to address. (Which party leaders spoke to the climate demonstrators in London yesterday?) Dealing with it involves large-scale and long-term planning. The sooner we can start some kind of concerted move in that direction the better, and the Trump/Johnson axis certainly isn't going to provide it. Nor is arguing about Brexit, which let's face it is a pretty parochial concern. The sooner we can get past it one way or the other the better, and ignoring either slightly more than half or slightly less than half of the 2016 voters isn't going to achieve that.

[Dave2002]

This thread has veered away from its original purpose ....

Has it? Not sure if we can be certain what that was, other than alerting us to issues with the "new" government.

The most urgent political problem facing us isn't Brexit but climate change, which, as I've said, capitalism by definition will fail to address. (Which party leaders spoke to the climate demonstrators in London yesterday?) Dealing with it involves large-scale and long-term planning. The sooner we can start some kind of concerted move in that direction the better, and the Trump/Johnson axis certainly isn't going to provide it.

Agreed

Nor is arguing about Brexit, which let's face it is a pretty parochial concern. The sooner we can get past it one way or the other the better, and ignoring either slightly more than half or slightly less than half of the 2016 voters isn't going to achieve that.

Governments have "wasted" three years on Brexit. Some would say that they have wasted the time "getting Brexit done" (or not!), while others might note that for most people, at any one time, whether we are in the EU or out of it doesn't really matter. We just want things to work, which they clearly do not all the time. Some things are just a shambolic mess.

Thus three years (or more) have been wasted on issues which are probably low priorities for most of us. Other issues such as housing, transport etc. have much more immediate impact on many of our lives.

[Pulcinella]

Has it? Not sure if we can be certain what that was, other than alerting us to issues with the "new" government.

Agreed
Governments have "wasted" three years on Brexit. Some would say that they have wasted the time "getting Brexit done" (or not!), while others might note that for most people, at any one time, whether we are in the EU or out of it doesn't really matter. We just want things to work, which they clearly do not all the time. Some things are just a shambolic mess.

Thus three years (or more) have been wasted on issues which are probably low priorities for most of us. Other issues such as housing, transport etc. have much more immediate impact on many of our lives.

True, but it also might be the case that abandoning such agreements as the EU working time directive might have an immediate (and likely detrimental) effect on many workforces.

[Richard Barrett]

Has it? Not sure if we can be certain what that was, other than alerting us to issues with the "new" government.

You're right of course, but once the conversation turns to B****t, it tends to fall back into everyone putting forth opinions we all already know they hold. As you rightly point out, three years have been wasted when there are urgent problems to address, and for most people, incredible as this might seem to some, EU membership isn't as big an issue as the politicians have made it.

[Bryn]

True, but it also might be the case that abandoning such agreements as the EU working time directive might have an immediate (and likely detrimental) effect on many workforces.

Some bus companies already get round aspects of the Working Time Directive by splitting long routes, which would, under EU regulations, require the use of a recording tachometer, in two and claiming what is, in practice, a though service as two with a "guaranteed connection". The bus simply pulls up as usual at the 'connection' stop and them carries on with no disruption for the passengers or driver, A single through ticket is issued.

[Dave2002]

True, but it also might be the case that abandoning such agreements as the EU working time directive might have an immediate (and likely detrimental) effect on many workforces.

You are right about this, but a much more considered and thought out approach could be (could have been) used. This wasn't a problem before some of the previous governments made it an issue. It didn't really have to become so contentious, and all consuming, which is really the height of negligence and stupidity.

[Serial_Apologist]

You are right about this, but a much more considered and thought out approach could be (could have been) used. This wasn't a problem before some of the previous governments made it an issue. It didn't really have to become so contentious, and all consuming, which is really the height of negligence and stupidity.

Not to mention those whose so-called "political principles" foreclose them to the possibility of any change of mind!

That said, while readily admitting I only had this morning's near-hysterical interpretations of the pre-conference goings-on over the deputy leadership of the Labour Party, I am very worried as to the apparent shortsightedness of Momentum's decision to raise this apparently at short notice, in which it seems even Corbyn let alone the executive was not informed, without prior consideration of how the BBC et al would present this to Joe Public, and the damage this would cause. Having been out of the party for 30+ years I'm not au faut with the rules, but it does seem an odd way to oust (obliterate according to the Today BBC reporter) Tom Watson. Someone has to step in if Corbyn is removed or temporarily out of office; presumably some other arrangement is or could be quickly put in place?

[Dave2002]

Some bus companies already get round aspects of the Working Time Directive by splitting long routes, which would, under EU regulations, require the use of a recording tachometer, in two and claiming what is, in practice, a though service as two with a "guaranteed connection". The bus simply pulls up as usual at the 'connection' stop and them carries on with no disruption for the passengers or driver, A single through ticket is issued.

What would actually be wrong with following the directives, and installing the tachometer - apart from meanness? The UK, or people within it, doesn't always have to try to bend what might actually (sometimes) be sensible rules.

[Bryn]

What would actually be wrong with following the directives, and installing the tachometer - apart from meanness? The UK, or people within it, doesn't always have to try to bend what might actually (sometimes) be sensible rules.

Apart from the additional costs involved in fitting, using and regular recalibration of recording tachographs, a potential 'advantage' of avoiding their use is a lower level of scrutiny on driver hours. As it is, the rules regarding the number of driving days in a row are finessed to permit driving on up to 19 consecutive days, whereas the aim of the legislation was to limit such consecutive working to 12 days in a fortnight. By rolling consecutive fortnights together and starting with two rest days and scheduling two rest days at the end of the first week of the next fortnight, the intended limit is worked around. With the relatively poor pay of PCV dirvers, they tend to be only too willing to avail themselves of such workarounds.

However, let's get back to the main intent of this thread.

[Darloboy]

She was said to have expressed pro-Brexit views at the time of the referendum.

I seem to recall that ‘Honest’ Michael Gove was responsible for that story. Which now seems to have been discredited by Cameron.

[Conchis]

I seem to recall that ‘Honest’ Michael Gove was responsible for that story. Which now seems to have been discredited by Cameron.

Indeed. You don’t have to be a monarchist to appreciate that hmq is not as stupid as at least 52 per cent of her subjects.

[Dave2002]

Apart from the additional costs involved in fitting, using and regular recalibration of recording tachographs, a potential 'advantage' of avoiding their use is a lower level of scrutiny on driver hours. As it is, the rules regarding the number of driving days in a row are finessed to permit driving on up to 19 consecutive days, whereas the aim of the legislation was to limit such consecutive working to 12 days in a fortnight. By rolling consecutive fortnights together and starting with two rest days and scheduling two rest days at the end of the first week of the next fortnight, the intended limit is worked around. With the relatively poor pay of PCV dirvers, they tend to be only too willing to avail themselves of such workarounds.

However, let's get back to the main intent of this thread.

Which was? See msg 650!

I agree that strict adherence to some nonsensical rules is not good, but on the other hand I don't want to be driven by a coach driver who is tired. So why is avoidance of appropriate scrutiny a bad thing?

I know people who were very seriously injured in one coach accident (A3 tunnel) - wouldn't wish that on anyone. Also I don't really wish to be operated on by a very tired medical team, though equally I would be horrified (or dead!) if they worked to rule and stopped during an operation if their hours were up.

However, I thought the EU did have exemptions and exceptions, which were perhaps not so thoughtless, and allowed for necessity. Just because we leave the EU (if it happens) there's no need to throw out all the sensible standards.

Some employers in the UK are mean to the point of carelessness, and negligence, as well as some other organisations.

Re the relatively poor pay - that is an issue which should be addressed, but in a trim to the bone capitalist society that may not happen. If poor performance can be got below the radar of scrutiny ....