1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General Election 2015

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Stretch, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Lytton

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 25, 2014

    Posts: 567

    Oh I agree completely. That charities have to substitute essential services is quite disturbing, particularly in the way of nursing relief, home care and basic food provision, an all in one of the most developed nations on the planet. Charitable causes should be called upon to help with things other than this, perhaps non essential services at home at least. That the government simply have no real policies that support the superficial big society smokescreen is evidence of their fibbing.
     
  2. Edinho

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 29, 2003

    Posts: 4,238

    Location: Not darn sarf

    Because it was a complete load of crock of a system. Bigger issue for me would be a local government shake up. Far too many cronies in local governments lining their own pockets that are untouchable. No system is great but a PR system isn't it.

    It's going to be a hung parliament but I really cant see labour and conservative getting it on and I think lib dems will be out.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2015
  3. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 18,471

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    What's shady about it? Charities are often best placed to provide services, and the combined public/charitable funding model has proved highly successful in some areas.
     
  4. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,352

    Whilst not government funded, the RNLI have said on numerous occasions they would prefer to remain a charity rather than be a public body.
     
  5. Quartz

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 10,457

    Location: Aberdeen

    He had two other choices, both brave: force another election, and poach other MPs.

    Vote for him to keep the SNP out.

    I really want us to switch to Approval Voting.
     
  6. Lytton

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 25, 2014

    Posts: 567

    Ironically a proper proportional voting system would likely wipe out huge swathes of MPs' safe seats, or at least make them work four times as hard to hold on to their seats. If we want to shake up the system and take the traditional priveliged career politicians down a peg or two, an updated voting system would be one of the quickest ways of doing so. Smaller parties with greater passion for referendum and electoral reform would be able make their influence felt. The campaigning last time round mainly focussed on scare tactics, warning that PR would enable parties like the BNP to gain seats. This scaremongering is ridiculous though; if you can't beat bad arguments with better arguments then you probably shouldn't be an MP.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    The problem with your last statement above is that it relies on being able to reason someone out of an irrational position in the case of a vast swaith of the electorate. If people (on all sides of the political spectrum) were rational, many of them wouldn't hold the positions they do, from immigrants are the problem to every problem can be solved by throwing other people's money at it.

    I have actually been quite happy with the current coalition, but I doubt it will survive the election, as much of the support for the lib dems came from people who hadn't bothered to read their manifesto, wanted to vote but had made up much of the positions of the lib dems in their heads, and by finally showing that as a party made up of economic right and economic left social liberals that both sides of the party can and do disagree. Additionally the Tories have suffered due to leaning away from their authoritarian, socially conservative wing to form an economically right leaning, socially liberal (certainly compared to the previous government) administration.

    Unfortunately, we aren't likely to see the single biggest reform needed to protect our democracy, which is a requirement for fair taxation and benefits enshrined in law, as it isn't in the interests of any of the current parties to end the divide and rule strategy.
     
  8. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,352

    Once again, AV isn't a PR system and can in fact result in a less proportional outcome in certain circumstances.
     
  9. Mucky_Pup

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,670

    Location: Hebburn

    Ummmm, they'd vote a rubber dog turd into power up here if you pinned a red rosette to it. I don't see that changing for the next election.
     
  10. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 18,471

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    Your desire to force right wing ideals on all future governments is pretty much the opposite of democracy.
     
  11. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,782

    As someone from Aberdeen, you realise the council is labour run right?

    What a fantastic job they do...
     
  12. Quartz

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 1, 2014

    Posts: 10,457

    Location: Aberdeen

    No arguments from me, but the objective is to keep the SNP out, not keep Labour in.
     
  13. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,782

    Just because Salmond got carried away, doesnt justify labour gaining any ground whatsoever.

    The whole political system is a joke and having Salmond there will be hilarious, it should be treated in the same vein.
     
  14. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,923

    Location: Vvardenfell


    This can politely be described as meaningless. EVERYONE wants fair taxes and benefits. What divides them is the definition of "fair". I seem to remember that you were one of those people who defined the Poll Tax as "fair" in a previous debate - I apologise in advance if you did not. But there were many in the Tory Party who were utterly convinced that a massively regressive tax was "fair". Not just in comparison to the rates (which just about everyone agreed was unfair) but in an absolute sense. So what is a "fair" tax system based on? Use of facilities? Ability to pay? Numbers pulled out of a hat? Other? I can guarantee that everyone will have different answers, and all will be convinced that theirs is "fair".

    When you can define "fair" to everyone's satisfaction, we can then all agree on a policy. Until that time, it's mostly just ideology. As can be evidenced by the fact that I can guess most of what you will put forward as "fair", just as I can for each political party.
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    I think we have been here before, but it has been a while. I advocate a universal minimum income offset against a flat rate income tax. This gives fairness by having a clear process and quantifiable adjustments while allowing the levers to respond democratically. It also prevents changes having a disproportionate impact on a given group voted by an unimpacted group. Cutting benefits reduces the tax threshold, raising benefits increases it and raising the tax rate affects everyone.

    That is my idea of fair.
     
  16. Rich_L

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,170

    Location: Santa Barbara, Californee

    Does it also come with efficiency savings meaning everyone pays less taxes and receives more benefits? *swoon*
     
  17. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Probably not. Individual cases may pay less tax or receive more benefits, but the system doesn't have to come with spending reductions.

    If you were to implement it, you would probably need a transition period where some people had their previous entitlements protected to prevent hardship.
     
  18. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,782

    Isn't it 7.5% tax on literally everything that an economist said would work?
     
  19. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,923

    Location: Vvardenfell


    Am I missing something here, but after a certain (relatively low) cut-off point, wouldn't this tax be utterly unrelated to ability to pay? That this would be a big fat tax cut to those who could most afford to pay more?

    And I have to ask, as I always do when people suggest changes to the tax system: what would be the effect on your tax?
     
  20. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Flat rate, not flat value. It is not a poll tax. It would be a percentage like income tax, and the offset makes it progressive. Additionally, the likely impact of such a regime is the the effective tax free allowance would be larger than it is now.

    As for my tax, it would probably improve my position, but it would improve the position of most workers as it removes the punishment for success in the current disjointed tax and benefit system, because I sit above the thresholds for tax credits etc.