http://www.theguardian.com/politics...k-pulls-funds-commons-groups-disclosure-rules I found this article from 2014. It's only one article but doesn't sound very good, and looks like HJS isn't a nice bunch of people...
They're a neoconservative think tank who endorse the pro-war agenda and closely aligned with the Quilliam Foundation. These are the principles of what the believe in, from their website: Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means — to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack.
It's odd to see that what appears to be a fairly straightforward right-wing think-tank has a variety of links to the Labour Party. They remind me of the Taxpayers' Alliance, for some reason, though it may be purely to do with their lack of transparency. Their view seems pretty similar to that of the American right. I suspect that their funding may be from similar sources.
Looks like no Tory MPs voted against the Tax Credit Cuts, despite lots of them speaking out against it and saying they were opposed to it. As a result the Cuts just got through with a small majority in the House.
Be interesting to see if the lords veto it. Doubt they have the bollocks. But on a side note, do you believe that people on 40k+ per year should be able to get child tax credits?
The House of Lords have been told not to by the Tories. They're for the chop if they do. Democracy. Heidi Allen's maiden speech: We all know how she voted.
What a horrible speech, filled with lies, and smug self righteousness. Laughable claims - like saying 'we are the party if the working party'. And then after this speech, to vote for the cuts is even more disgusting! Just compare this speech to mhairi blacks msiden speech and i think it says all you need to know about the difference between the Conservatives and ehat is decent!
The hiuse of lords should call camerons bluff as there is no way he would get rid of them as he needs them, which is shown by his attenpts to increase the nunber of lords (and in particular the number of tory lords) and how he stopped the lib dems plans to get rid of the house of lords. Plus the fact that the house of lords is hugely popular with old school torys means it would be hugely damaging to a tory government with less than 35% of the vote. And Magic Man - i dont think that people earning over £40k need tax credits.
Iain Duncan Smith's in-laws received £1.5m in farm subsidies over 10 years. They're multi-millionaires and he lives in one of their houses for free.
True, some benefits are definitely too high and have been under labour. But these tax credits (as with the majority of tory policies) are going to impact those earning less than 30k a year the most, and significantly impact them at that.
What does that have to do with lowering tax credits. Do you think he is the only MP on any side that receives a benefit, that could be deemed as OTT?
I'm pointing out that he's a total hypocrite and he's completely out of touch. He's cutting from the poor again, despite there being a ridiculous amount that he could cut from elsewhere and doesn't live by his own proclaimed values. Shouldn't he be living independently from the state, as he keeps telling everyone else to do? Their own MPs disagree with this ****. Their own think-tanks disagree with it. They're unhappy with the welfare bill, but they're happy to directly give corporations even more money. Those same people then give money to the Tory party and employ MPs and ex-MPs. Funny that.
And that's fair enough. But I do think most MPs in all parties are hypocrites. I am certainly not saying I agree with the cuts, but, I'll ask you the same question I asked Smirnoff: Do you think people earning 40k and over should get child tax credits?
I think that the way that the whole system works is stupid and unbalanced, but I think it's intentional. The taxpayer shouldn't have to subsidise workers generally, but the average job should pay people enough to live comfortably on. Corporations are dodging all of their responsibilities and we're being told that the only way that they can continue to do so is by ****ing the poor and disabled. I don't find that an acceptable situation to be in. I'll ask you a question in return: Do you think that a company like Facebook UK should be able to make roughly £105m in revenue and pay less tax than the average individual?
No. I strongly feel that corporations should be banned from operating in this country unless they pay full tax. However, that's a loophole that was also there under labour. But we have to ask the question as to why we are in this economic mess and who governed it. I do not agree with the poorest suffering, but we shouldn't have had such a state of handouts and a generation of wanting everything without the means to have it.
The Tories backed all of Labour's spending and wanted looser regulations on the banking industry. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-politicians-used-to-say-about-the-City.html Note the utterly Tory links that I used. New Labour was just another Thatcherite bunch of arseholes, for me. Not quite as bad as the Tories in terms of their overall outlook, but twice as bad for democracy, as they removed any real opposition. You could vote for one media-backed, extremely capitalist bunch who were funded by massive multi-nationals or another. As I've said before, would you like to be punched in the face or kicked in the balls? Your vote decides!
Personally, I'd prefer to be punched in the face. Anyway, that's my lot on the subject for now. Got to work out how to spend my banking bonus and speak to my accountant about the offshore finances.
