Politics - Page 1005 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #10041  
Old 15.10.2015, 11:25 AM
JensonF's Avatar
JensonF JensonF is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 03.09.2009
Posts: 6,554
Default

£36 BILLION is what it costs to service the national debt of $1.6 TRILLION for a year, according to today's news. That's a lot of cash to find out of taxpayers' pockets.
Reply With Quote
  #10042  
Old 15.10.2015, 12:33 PM
davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think the Budget Surplus Law is ridiculous, unwelcome, economically illiterate and unparliamentary. In fact it is an affront to democracy. It is a particularly nasty little piece of acid that will further corrode our system of Government.

One of the key principles of our constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament. But in essence that is exactly what the Tories are trying to do here. A future Government, with it's own Parliamentary majority, will have it's wrists pinned by the law. Parliament should be making the law, not making laws that determine how future Parliaments operate.

It is not the first. The international development bill was the same. The UK has since been legally obliged to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid.

It is offensive that any Government feels entitled to pass a law that dictates how a future Government can operate. It doesn't have the right to do that.

The reason these laws are corrosive is that laws are ultimately interpreted by judges. By imposing policy by law we are moving towards a system where the judiciary will be obliged to become embroiled in policy. It wouldn't take much. Let us say GDP figures get restated and our GDP turns out to have been higher than we thought. But the Government is running only a tiny surplus. Must it now borrow to finance our 7% commitment to aid? Despite the fact that a deficit is illegal? Which laws takes precedence? Pretty soon a panel of Judges is deciding whether we issue bonds or not. Not economists or even ministers. Unelected Judges.

This is especially likely given how vague the Budget Surplus Law is. The plan is to ensure governments run a surplus in "normal" times. Normal? When is normal? If the OBR thinks things are normal and the Government thinks they are not, who is right? Oh, Judges!
Reply With Quote
  #10043  
Old 15.10.2015, 01:01 PM
JensonF's Avatar
JensonF JensonF is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 03.09.2009
Posts: 6,554
Default

Yeah, and we all know how in touch with reality judges are.
Reply With Quote
  #10044  
Old 15.10.2015, 01:10 PM
Bowman's Avatar
Bowman Bowman is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 01.10.2014
Posts: 977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk View Post
I think the Budget Surplus Law is ridiculous, unwelcome, economically illiterate and unparliamentary. In fact it is an affront to democracy. It is a particularly nasty little piece of acid that will further corrode our system of Government.

One of the key principles of our constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament. But in essence that is exactly what the Tories are trying to do here. A future Government, with it's own Parliamentary majority, will have it's wrists pinned by the law. Parliament should be making the law, not making laws that determine how future Parliaments operate.

It is not the first. The international development bill was the same. The UK has since been legally obliged to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid.

It is offensive that any Government feels entitled to pass a law that dictates how a future Government can operate. It doesn't have the right to do that.

The reason these laws are corrosive is that laws are ultimately interpreted by judges. By imposing policy by law we are moving towards a system where the judiciary will be obliged to become embroiled in policy. It wouldn't take much. Let us say GDP figures get restated and our GDP turns out to have been higher than we thought. But the Government is running only a tiny surplus. Must it now borrow to finance our 7% commitment to aid? Despite the fact that a deficit is illegal? Which laws takes precedence? Pretty soon a panel of Judges is deciding whether we issue bonds or not. Not economists or even ministers. Unelected Judges.

This is especially likely given how vague the Budget Surplus Law is. The plan is to ensure governments run a surplus in "normal" times. Normal? When is normal? If the OBR thinks things are normal and the Government thinks they are not, who is right? Oh, Judges!
When is normal? Good question.

200 years ago it was 'normal' for this country to be at war with France, and then suddenly we weren't. A certain temporary measure to finance the war was repealed only to be reinstated soon after. The 'temporary measure' was income tax.

Trying to define normal, especially in economics or politics is more or less impossible. This legislation, whilst sounding like a good idea in principle, will turn into an absolute nightmare for future parliaments.
Reply With Quote
  #10045  
Old 15.10.2015, 02:54 PM
Manic Patriot's Avatar
Manic Patriot Manic Patriot is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.01.2009
Posts: 3,601
Default

They could try chasing the use corporates to ensure they pay what they should instead of allowing them to hide it in off shore accounts.
Reply With Quote
  #10046  
Old 15.10.2015, 04:19 PM
leebladedawg's Avatar
leebladedawg leebladedawg is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 25.11.2005
Posts: 17,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JensonF View Post
£36 BILLION is what it costs to service the national debt of $1.6 TRILLION for a year, according to today's news. That's a lot of cash to find out of taxpayers' pockets.
Don't worry mate, all of those atop of the system who made a nice tidy sum out of the financial crisis will all be alright, all your fellow well off Tory voters will be fine and they will still be able to send the kids to private schools and have all their nice holidays and other nice stuff

So you can sit back and relax and feel contented with yourself, no need to worry
Reply With Quote
  #10047  
Old 15.10.2015, 05:16 PM
Dartmoor Falcon's Avatar
Dartmoor Falcon Dartmoor Falcon is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 05.10.2012
Posts: 1,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk View Post
I think the Budget Surplus Law is ridiculous, unwelcome, economically illiterate and unparliamentary. In fact it is an affront to democracy. It is a particularly nasty little piece of acid that will further corrode our system of Government.

One of the key principles of our constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty. No Parliament can bind a future Parliament. But in essence that is exactly what the Tories are trying to do here. A future Government, with it's own Parliamentary majority, will have it's wrists pinned by the law. Parliament should be making the law, not making laws that determine how future Parliaments operate.

It is not the first. The international development bill was the same. The UK has since been legally obliged to spend 0.7% of our GDP on international aid.

It is offensive that any Government feels entitled to pass a law that dictates how a future Government can operate. It doesn't have the right to do that.

The reason these laws are corrosive is that laws are ultimately interpreted by judges. By imposing policy by law we are moving towards a system where the judiciary will be obliged to become embroiled in policy. It wouldn't take much. Let us say GDP figures get restated and our GDP turns out to have been higher than we thought. But the Government is running only a tiny surplus. Must it now borrow to finance our 7% commitment to aid? Despite the fact that a deficit is illegal? Which laws takes precedence? Pretty soon a panel of Judges is deciding whether we issue bonds or not. Not economists or even ministers. Unelected Judges.

This is especially likely given how vague the Budget Surplus Law is. The plan is to ensure governments run a surplus in "normal" times. Normal? When is normal? If the OBR thinks things are normal and the Government thinks they are not, who is right? Oh, Judges!
Why couldn't a future government with its own majority just win a new vote which repeals this law?
Reply With Quote
  #10048  
Old 16.10.2015, 10:38 AM
JensonF's Avatar
JensonF JensonF is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 03.09.2009
Posts: 6,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dartmoor Falcon View Post
Why couldn't a future government with its own majority just win a new vote which repeals this law?
There is no reason why a future government shouldn't do that.

The only reason why it wouldn't happen is that governments are more interested in passing new laws than tidying up the past by repealing historic mistakes.
Reply With Quote
  #10049  
Old 16.10.2015, 10:40 AM
JensonF's Avatar
JensonF JensonF is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 03.09.2009
Posts: 6,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebladedawg View Post
Don't worry mate, all of those atop of the system who made a nice tidy sum out of the financial crisis will all be alright, all your fellow well off Tory voters will be fine and they will still be able to send the kids to private schools and have all their nice holidays and other nice stuff

So you can sit back and relax and feel contented with yourself, no need to worry
And you and your Corbynite mates aren't worried either because you don't pay taxes because it's not democratic, innit?
Reply With Quote
  #10050  
Old 16.10.2015, 10:49 AM
Stu_T's Avatar
Stu_T Stu_T is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 25.08.2014
Posts: 9,260
Default

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ntally-deleted

Why am I not shocked to have seen this article today
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 09:53 AM.