U.K. Politics: Nadine Dorries resigns her post as MP - or does she?

[Wayne]

You need to open your eyes. It's disgusting.

Well, thanks for the condescending advice - I'll respectfully ignore it though.

[Brad]

I can't believe you can condone what they're doing. You wouldn't be burying your head in Tory sand as quickly if you were one of the millions who just became a victim of their cruel politics.

[Wayne]

I can't believe you can condone what they're doing. You wouldn't be burying your head in Tory sand as quickly if you were one of the millions who just became a victim of their cruel politics.

What parts of the budget don't you like?

It mandates that working people get a better deal - I will be better off by a few quid, but that's not even important - I just didn't want to be worse off.

The welfare cuts are uncomfortable, and I don't agree with them all.

We are seeing a reversal of the Tony Blair years here - and that's going to be difficult for people to accept, especially if you're one of those that's on the receiving end [i.e. single parent, student].

[Brad]

It mandates that working people get a better deal

They don't get a better deal. That's the biggest problem with it.





But as long as you are better off, I guess that's all that matters.

[Brad]

Unrelated to the economy, let's not forget they've managed to sneak in a free vote on relaxing the ban on fox hunting next week.

[Wayne]

But that relates to welfare so much as it does working - as I conceded, the welfare cuts would be tough and difficult.

I'm not quite sure what you expect from me here Brad.

Put aside your arbitrary liberalism for one second; what are your personal circumstances? How does this budget affect you?

[Brad]

I don't need to outline how this budget affects me personally. Is there anything that positively affects me in there? No. None of the younger generations are getting a good deal.

Here in this thread, I was more concerned with how it affects everyone in this country so I was unhappy with you saying it was a "wonderful" budget when it's plainly Osborne attacking the working poor and younger generations.

Oh, and Cameron outright lied about cutting child tax credits / limiting it to 2 children (see: BBCQT leaders' debate). As unfair as the limit is though, it could be good for the issue of overpopulation so it has a silver lining.

[Marius]

I can't believe you can condone what they're doing. You wouldn't be burying your head in Tory sand as quickly if you were one of the millions who just became a victim of their cruel politics.

You mean the buy to let landlords who lost their tax relief (over 20%)?
Or the people operating through their limited company, who have been slapped with a 7% increase in dividends?
The non-doms who cannot pass their status to their children?
The banks who will pay a 8% surcharge on profits?
The high-earners who have their tax-free pension contribution limited to £10k (from 40k)?
Or are the layabouts, the baby-making machines and the shelf stackers the only people we should care about?

This was an excellent budget: increased minimum wage and cut benefits (thus shifting the burden to the companies), reduced legal avoidance, reduced the incentives to have loads of kids that people cannot afford, curtailed the buy-to-let casino, maintained defence spending and increased NHS. The only flaw i can see is that it did not touch pensioners - would not mind seeing those heating allowances, bus passes and free licences being means-tested if not abolished.

[Wayne]

This was an excellent budget: increased minimum wage and cut benefits (thus shifting the burden to the companies), reduced legal avoidance, reduced the incentives to have loads of kids that people cannot afford, curtailed the buy-to-let casino, maintained defence spending and increased NHS.

Pretty much sums up my view, though I think I have a more tolerant view of welfare than Marius does!

[Madgefan]

Unrelated to the economy, let's not forget they've managed to sneak in a free vote on relaxing the ban on fox hunting next week.

Absolutely disgusted by that and have already written to my MP. Last time she was really rude and fobbed me off with a patronising reply of , 'we have more important things to deal with' ..... cheeky bitch I already know she is pro-hunting so it's probably a lost cause but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least try to change things.

[Madgefan]

Let's also not forget the abolition of the student maintenance grant further eroding social mobility in this country. Now students from poorer backgrounds will not only have to consider course fees but will also get nothing towards living costs. I'm not really surprised when so many of the cabinet have been educated privately at Eton though

[Graham76man]

The only flaw i can see is that it did not touch pensioners - would not mind seeing those heating allowances, bus passes and free licences being means-tested if not abolished.

They are Torries - not stupid.
If they touched them the conservatives would get a sharp kick out office next week. Then they would stay out for the next ten years. Mess with the pensioners son and you will be boxed in by grannies driving four wheel buggies faster than you can get your Mercedes out of your drive

[Wayne]

Currently a political hot potato!

UK to ban WhatsApp under ‘snoopers charter’ law

Using WhatsApp can be a past thing for Brits as the popular application is now facing a total UK ban because of a new law enforcement that would stop people sending any form of encrypted messages.

Using WhatsApp can be a past thing for the British as the popular application is now facing a total UK ban because of a new law enforcement that would stop people sending any form of encrypted messages.

Talking about this issue earlier this year, David Cameron questioned that if in their country, they should allow a means of communication between people which they cannot read, reported the Daily Star.

Answering his question with a no, Cameron had said that being the Prime Minister he will make sure it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that makes sure that they didn’t allow terrorist safe spaces to communicate with each other.

It is being said that the controversial law, which is nicknamed the “snoopers charter,” can be in place by the autumn.

Home Secretary Theresa May has warned that the Government will push the legislation through with the recent terrorist atrocities in Tunisia and France forcing the government to act quickly.

The laws would mean online services such as WhatsApp, Google, Facebook and Apple would be forced to hand over messages, sent by users, to government security agencies such as MI5.

[Brad]

The Draft Communications Data Bill is one of the most idiotic bills drafted in recent times. It's worse than the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

[Marius]

I'm with Brad on this - i definitely do not support this law. Having grown up in a country where phone calls were monitored by the (local) KGB, last thing i want is the government to know everything i do.

If we are that worried about home grown Muslim terrorists, perhaps it's time to look into what happens at the mosques and schools with a religious (Islamic) bent and in the Bangladeshi / Pakistani / Somali etc areas like Tower Hamlets and parts of Leeds, Birmingham and Bradford. Won't mind a big increase in the funds available to MI5 and the likes either - but not curtail everyone's freedoms because of a bunch of Islamist nutters. It will only make them feel like they're winning

[Wayne]

There's a column on the BBC's website that I like on the "Snoopers Charter"...

Does the government really want to ban WhatsApp, iMessage and Skype?

Eight hundred million people around the world use WhatsApp to communicate, we learned this week from its owners, Facebook.

Yet this is the messaging service which could soon be banned by the British government because its use of encryption makes it too private for the security services to access. That at least was the story repeated in several newspapers in recent weeks, and frequently denied by Downing Street.

But this morning even the Financial Times seemed to back it up. In an article about the battle between governments and corporations over access to encrypted messages it says this: "David Cameron, UK prime minister, has proposed a complete ban on strong encryption 'to ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate'."

WhatsApp is just one of the services that uses strong encryption for their messages, along with Apple's iMessage and Skype's internet calls. Both the US and UK governments have expressed growing concerns that criminals and terrorists are making use of such services to communicate, knowing that they are completely private.

So does the prime minister really want to ban them? The idea first arose in a speech he made in January which posed this rhetorical question: "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the Home Secretary personally, that we cannot read?" His answer was no.

That was seen as a clear signal that the government would demand that corporations like Facebook, Apple and Microsoft - which owns Skype - should either provide a backdoor to their encryption or stop using it completely. The government insisted that this was an over-interpretation of his remarks, and everything went quiet for a while.

Then after the election it became clear that a new and comprehensive communications data bill would clarify and extend the access of the police and security services to data held by the internet companies. That brought more speculation about a ban on end to end encryption.

That was reinforced when in a response to a question from a Conservative MP, the prime minister used a very similar form of words to those in his January speech: "We must look at all the new media being produced and ensure that, in every case, we are able, in extremis and on the signature of a warrant, to get to the bottom of what is going on."

But take a look at how WhatsApp, Skype, and iMessage work and it seems clear that no warrant would allow government agents "to get to the bottom of what is going on" in their messages.

Here, for instance, is what Apple's privacy policy tells users about its iMessage and FaceTime services:

"Apple has no way to decrypt iMessage and FaceTime data when it's in transit between devices. So unlike other companies' messaging services, Apple doesn't scan your communications, and we wouldn't be able to comply with a wiretap order even if we wanted to."

Technology company leaders, including Apple's Tim Cook and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, have warned that any attempt to tamper with encryption will only help criminals and threaten the security of consumers who depend on it for services like online banking.

It is hard to imagine that any of these American giants would submit and provide a different level of service to UK customers from that on offer elsewhere. Microsoft gave me this statement when I asked about the encryption of Skype conversations: "Advanced encryption is an important part of our security strategy for Skype now and in the future." So, a mighty battle is in the offing.

Or is it? I called Downing Street again this morning to check on the latest line on encryption. I was informed that no, of course the prime minister didn't want to ban encryption, he just wanted to make sure there was no safe space for terrorists. I suggested those two statements were incompatible, and I was told they would come back with further illumination.

A couple of hours later Downing Street sent me this statement:

"We recognise the importance of encryption: it keeps people's personal data and intellectual property secure and ensures safe online commerce.

"But clearly as technology evolves at an ever increasing rate, it is only right that we make sure we keep up to keep our citizens safe. There shouldn't be a guaranteed safe space for terrorists, criminals and paedophiles to operate beyond the reach of law.

"The Government is clear we need to find a way to work with industry as technology develops to ensure that, with clear oversight and a robust legal framework, the police and intelligence agencies can access the content of communications of terrorists and criminals in order to resolve police investigations and prevent criminal acts."

I'm afraid I am none the clearer about what this means for the future of WhatsApp, iMessage and Skype. So if anybody has a clue about how we can keep encryption without retaining a "safe space" for bad people, please do let me - and No 10 - know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33737813

The bolded piece is the bit that I ultimately agree with - I'm not sure that the new bill is the proper way to deal with that issue, but given how quickly these social networking sites are developing...

[heppolo]

I'm probably against it because of the possibility of the charter being misused

[Wayne]

Theresa May unveils UK surveillance measures in wake of Snowden claims

• Spy agencies free to track everyone’s internet use without warrant[/*:m:jk7tf9xi]
• UK governments have signed secret orders on data collection for years[/*:m:jk7tf9xi]
• Snowden says bill is most intrusive surveillance regime in the west[/*:m:jk7tf9xi]

New surveillance powers will be given to the police and security services, allowing them to access records tracking every UK citizen’s use of the internet without any judicial check, under the provisions of the draft investigatory powers bill unveiled by Theresa May.

It includes new powers requiring internet and phone companies to keep “internet connection records” – tracking every website visited but not every page – for a maximum of 12 months but will not require a warrant for the police, security services or other bodies to access the data. Local authorities will be banned from accessing internet records.

The proposed legislation will also introduce a “double-lock” on the ministerial approval of interception warrants with a new panel of seven judicial commissioners – probably retired judges – given a veto before they can come into force.

But the details of the bill make clear that this new safeguard for the most intrusive powers to spy on the content of people’s conversations and messages will not apply in “urgent cases” – defined as up to five days – where judicial approval is not possible.

The draft investigatory powers bill published on Wednesday by the home secretary aims to provide a “comprehensive and comprehensible” overhaul of Britain’s fragmented surveillance laws. It comes two-and-a-half years after the disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden of the scale of secret mass surveillance of the global traffic in confidential personal data carried out by Britain’s GCHQ and the US’s National Security Agency (NSA).

It will replace the current system of three separate commissioners with a senior judge as a single investigatory powers commissioner.

May told MPs that the introduction of the most controversial power – the storage of everyone’s internet connection records tracking the websites they have visited, which is banned as too intrusive in the US and every European country including Britain – was “simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... rd-snowden

[Wayne]

Budget 2016 Summary

Health and education

• A new sugar tax on the soft drinks industry to be introduced in two years' time, raising £520m a year to be spent on doubling funding for primary school sport in England[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Levy to be calculated on levels of sugar in sweetened drinks produced and imported, based on two bands[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Pure fruit juice and milk-based drinks to be excluded and small supplies will be exempt[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Secondary schools in England to bid for £285m in new funding for extra after-school activities like sport and art[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Plan for all schools in England to become academies by 2022[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Compulsory maths lessons until 18 to be looked at[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• £500m to ensure "fair funding" formula for schools in England[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Libor funds to be spent on children's hospital services, specifically in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Southampton[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

The state of the economy

• Growth forecasts revised down markedly for next five years[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Growth forecast to be 2% in 2016, down from 2.4% in November's Autumn Statement[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• GDP predicted to grow 2.2% and 2.1% in 2017 and 2018, down from 2.4% and 2.5% forecast four months ago[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Outlook for global economy is "materially weaker" and UK "not immune" to slowdown elsewhere[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• The UK still forecast to grow faster than any other major Western economy[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• A million jobs forecast to be created by 2020
  Inflation forecast to be 0.7% for 2016, rising to 1.6% next year[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Public borrowing/deficit/spending

• Further cuts of £3.5bn by 2020, with spending as a share of GDP set to fall to 36.9%[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Debt targets to be missed. Forecast debt as a share of GDP revised up in each of the next five years to 82.6% in 2016-17 and 81.3%, 79.9%, 77.2% and 74.7% in subsequent years[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Debt to be £9bn lower in 2015-16 in cash terms[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Annual borrowing in 2015-6 forecast to be £72.2bn, £1.3bn lower than forecast in November[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Public finances still projected to achieve a £10.4bn surplus in 2019-2020[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• But borrowing forecasts revised up to £55.5bn (+£5.6bn), £38.8bn (+£14bn) and £21.4bn (+16.8bn) in 2016-7, 2017-8 and 2018-9 respectively[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• The deficit as a share of GDP is projected to fall to 2.9% in 2016-17, 1.9% in 2017-18 and 1% in 2018-19[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Personal taxation

• The threshold at which people pay 40% income tax will rise from £42,385 now to £45,000 in April 2017. Will only apply to Scotland if adopted by Scottish government[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Tax-free personal allowance, the point at which people pay income tax, to rise from £11,000 in April 2016 to £11,500 in April 2017[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Capital Gains Tax to be cut from 28% to 20%, and from 18% to 10% for basic-rate taxpayers[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Insurance premium tax to rise from 9.5% to 10%[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Class 2 National Insurance contributions abolished, which the government says gives a tax cut of more than £130 to three million self-employed workers from 2018[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Alcohol, tobacco, gambling and fuel

• Fuel duty to be frozen at 57.95p per litre for sixth year in a row[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Beer, cider, and spirits duties to be frozen[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Inflation rise in duties on wine and other alcohol[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Excise duties on tobacco to rise by 2% above inflation[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Pensions and savings

• Annual Isa limit to rise from £15,240 to £20,000[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New "lifetime" Isa for the under-40s, with government putting in £1 for every £4 saved[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• People who save a maximum of £4,000 towards a home deposit or retirement will get a £1,000 top-up from the state every year until they turn 50[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New state-backed savings scheme for low-paid workers, worth up to £1,200 over four years[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• The Money Advice Service, which has provided financial advice to consumers since 2010, is to be abolished[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Business

• Headline rate of corporation tax - currently 20% - to fall to 17% by 2020[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Annual threshold for 100% relief on business rates for small firms to rise from £6,000 to £12,000 and the higher rate from £18,000 to £51,000, exempting 600,000 firms[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Supplementary charge for oil and gas producers to be halved from 20% to 10%[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Debt interest payments used by larger firms to cut corporation tax bills will be capped at 30% of earnings.[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Petroleum revenue tax to be "effectively abolished"[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Anti-tax avoidance and evasion measures to raise £12bn by 2020[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Use of "personal service companies" by public sector employees to reduce tax liabilities to end[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Crackdown on foreign firms selling products online in UK without paying VAT[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Commercial stamp duty 0% rate on purchases up to £150,000, 2% on next £100,000 and 5% top rate above £250,000. New 2% rate for high-value leases with net present value above £5m. Effective from midnight[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

Housing/infrastructure/transport/regions/energy/culture

• Powers over criminal justice to be devolved to Greater Manchester and Greater London Assembly to retain business rates[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New rail lines to get green light, including Crossrail 2 in London and the HS3 link between Manchester and Leeds[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• More than £230m earmarked for road improvements in the north of England, including upgrades to M62[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• £700m for flood defences schemes, including projects in York, Leeds, Calder Valley, Carlisle and across Cumbria[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• Tolls on Severn River crossings between England and Wales to be halved by 2018[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• £115m to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness, funding 2,000 places[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• In Scotland, Libor bank fines to pay for community facilities in Helensburgh and for naval personnel at Faslane[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New elected mayors for cities and towns in southern England[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New tax relief for museums to boost temporary and touring exhibitions[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]
• New Shakespeare for the North theatre in Knowsley, Merseyside[/*:m:vwf9h0yb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35819797

[matthew_dixon]

Personally, I'm very pleased with the sugary drinks tax - might encourage some of us to consume less of them, and improve the country's health in the process. The rumours of a coffee-cup surcharge are plain unworkable though - you can bring your own plastic bags to the supermarket, but you can't exactly bring your own mug to Starbucks to do a takeout - how would you wash it up afterwards?

I'm less pleased about the huge swathing cut to the top rate Capital Gains Tax - which will largely affect those who have large amounts of capital gains - whilst there are plans to cut benefits for the disabled - who are already struggling. Pleased about the increase in the minimum wage - would be good to get it right up to the full Living Wage (and not the so called "National Living Wage" invented by the Conservative party).

I'm really concerned about the privatisation of our entire state education system though - seems yet another case of the state being sold off to cronies of the Tory Party. IMO state schools should be just that - 100% state run - much as the NHS should be 100% state run. There should be no aim to make "profits" from either healthcare or education in the state sector. (As it happens, I'm not THAT against the idea of having some private schools and private hospitals for those who want to pay for them - although I know this goes against my general stance.)

[Wayne]

Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom will battle it out to become the next leader of the Conservative Party after Michael Gove was eliminated from the contest.

After the second MPs' ballot, Home Secretary Mrs May finished with 199 votes, Energy Minister Mrs Leadsom 84 and Mr Gove, the justice secretary, 46.

Conservative members will now decide the winning candidate, with the result due on 9 September.
The winner will become the UK's second female prime minister.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36737426

Fantastic!

They have huge boots to fill, following in the footsteps of the great Maggie Thatcher - Britain's greatest PM of all-time.

[Brad]

A choice between two wasps, haha

[SholasBoy]

The Draft Communications Data Bill is one of the most idiotic bills drafted in recent times. It's worse than the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

Are they next going to stop us having verbal conversations unless we minute them down and send them to the house of commons

[AceReject]

That Leadsom woman seems like a right dodgy dealer. Hope she doesn't win.

[Wayne]

That Leadsom woman seems like a right dodgy dealer. Hope she doesn't win.

I don't think she has a chance; the Murdoch-funded media really don't seem to like her so she's getting a lot of bad press at the moment which wil sway some MPs.

May has had it in the bag since day one (and I hope I haven't just jinxed her).