Head Honcho Posted 2 August 2006 Posted 2 August 2006 Apart from including proportional representation , where's a better workable example? Typical Lib Dem
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 2 August 2006 Author Posted 2 August 2006 Maybe this is indicating that our electoral system is not the answer Perhaps... Someone said earlier that MPs don't stand up for what they believe in, and just implement what they think people want them to. Isn't this by definition what an MP should do? There's no point in 'standing up' and voicing your own opinions if it doesn't click with the country - you just alienate people and then they vote against you at the first opportunity. MPs must have a whole raft of different opinions, but because of the way people behave at the ballot box it only pays to voice those opinions if you think it won't put people off. As for the Thatcher arguments, I'm sure some of her policies were sound, but many weren't, including ones that really mattered like humanitarianism. On top of that her manner was belligerent. Maybe Labour was too far Left for the country's liking in the 70's, but Maggie certainly swung it too far back the other way. Thus 'New Labour,' as someone pointed out earlier, has been able to occupy the middle ground, leaving the Tories to play the race card and the Lib Dems to rely on an anti-war vote. And my support for Sinn Fein is based on an opinion that the partitioning of Ireland is morally wrong - to divide a country for the sake of a national minority in the north (unionists). And when you had a campaign of brutal victimisation and discrimination for so long, from the black and tans to the British army, and someone like Paisley manning the unionist line, republicans need someone to defend them and fight for their interests. I also think Fianna Fáil has miserably failed the twenty-six counties and Fine Gael/Labour is a poor second and third choice.
Thracian Posted 2 August 2006 Posted 2 August 2006 As the father-in-law of a girl whose father's business was blown up by the IRA for not paying protection money I find your comments about brutal victimisation pretty hypocritical.
Daggers Posted 2 August 2006 Posted 2 August 2006 Typical Lib Dem Aie! I'd be an awful lot happier with ATYPICAL
DanTheFoxBhoy Posted 3 August 2006 Author Posted 3 August 2006 As the father-in-law of a girl whose father's business was blown up by the IRA for not paying protection money I find your comments about brutal victimisation pretty hypocritical. Not hypocritical at all - I acknowledge that there were atrocities committed on both sides outside the boundaries of the political struggle itself.
TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Live in a Labour Area (Luton South) and voted Labour in my first elections this May. I imagine I will continue to do so for a lifetime.
Dunc Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Perhaps... Someone said earlier that MPs don't stand up for what they believe in, and just implement what they think people want them to. Isn't this by definition what an MP should do? There's no point in 'standing up' and voicing your own opinions if it doesn't click with the country - you just alienate people and then they vote against you at the first opportunity. MPs must have a whole raft of different opinions, but because of the way people behave at the ballot box it only pays to voice those opinions if you think it won't put people off. The point I was making was that MP's tell you what they think we want to hear in order to vote for them, then do nothing of the sort and follow their own beliefs on policies. I was saying that rather than doing that, tell us what you actually believe in and what you are truly going to do, instead of vote winning. Hence why I would never vote for but actually admire people like Tony Benn, George Galloway, Robin Cook, Maggie Thatcher because they tell it how it is and then let people vote either way, and if you look at election results, they generally do well as a result. I'd rather believe what politicians tell me and vote against them (which would surely get some semblence of trust and respect) rather than not trust any of the feckers and be part of the apathetic majority. I think that this is best reflected by the 2 leaders at the moment, Blair is now trying to back track on the established Foreign Policy against terrorism, whilst domestically trying to 'engage' every voter possible by being as MOR as he can. Cameron is so insecure in his leadership that he is doing the same whilst the Lib Dem's are just a waste of space. I understand that its highly unlikely that any opposition will publish with any new policies at this stage of Labour's term as if they were any good they'd just nick them and implement them as their own, but establishing some sort of stand point and telling the public "this is what we believe in and what we stand for, we hope you will be with us" would (IN MY OPINION!) grasp a proportion of the non-voters that could swing an election their way. If that means that they isolate certain sections of society then good, cause you can't please everyone and if you try you just end up lying and disengaging more people than you would if you had just been honest. The only way the Tories are going to get back in power at the moment, is purely on whether the country decides that Blair needs to be ditched, which might not be an issue by the next election as Brown could be leader. None of this relates to whether the public believe that the Tories are actually a better option which is pretty poor after nearly 10 years of opposition and a number of failed policies and scandals.
Dunc Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 As for the Thatcher arguments, I'm sure some of her policies were sound, but many weren't, including ones that really mattered like humanitarianism. On top of that her manner was belligerent. Just out of interest, I am always interested to know what the general consensus is on the theory behind the Poll Tax? In my eyes the theory is sound, that a 80yr old granny should pay less council tax than a family of 8 in the same size house living next door. The reasons being that they create more waste, need more council facilities etc etc. You would obviously have to have some banding so the poor don't pay more than the rich but in essence it should be workable. I understand that in practice it never works and will never be brought back by any sane party due to the connections with rioting and the reaction the name creates by default. Just wondering what people felt about it and reasons why it is unfair.
davieG Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Just out of interest, I am always interested to know what the general consensus is on the theory behind the Poll Tax? In my eyes the theory is sound, that a 80yr old granny should pay less council tax than a family of 8 in the same size house living next door. The reasons being that they create more waste, need more council facilities etc etc. You would obviously have to have some banding so the poor don't pay more than the rich but in essence it should be workable. I understand that in practice it never works and will never be brought back by any sane party due to the connections with rioting and the reaction the name creates by default. Just wondering what people felt about it and reasons why it is unfair. Well it would be fairer than the current system and large, poor families will always get rebates/subsidies. The problem was for some people it was too big a change in one go.
Thracian Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Live in a Labour Area (Luton South) and voted Labour in my first elections this May. I imagine I will continue to do so for a lifetime. Extraordinary!
Gamesmaster Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 everyone's um-ing and r-ing who to vote for, and why, and at the end of voting, most people are disapointed. how about we segregate the city into so many groups, and if you wana vote labour, you live in the labour area, and so on for all the others? or just ban politics and voting
Head Honcho Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Perhaps... Someone said earlier that MPs don't stand up for what they believe in, and just implement what they think people want them to. Isn't this by definition what an MP should do? There's no point in 'standing up' and voicing your own opinions if it doesn't click with the country - you just alienate people and then they vote against you at the first opportunity. MPs must have a whole raft of different opinions, but because of the way people behave at the ballot box it only pays to voice those opinions if you think it won't put people off. As for the Thatcher arguments, I'm sure some of her policies were sound, but many weren't, including ones that really mattered like humanitarianism. On top of that her manner was belligerent. Maybe Labour was too far Left for the country's liking in the 70's, but Maggie certainly swung it too far back the other way. Thus 'New Labour,' as someone pointed out earlier, has been able to occupy the middle ground, leaving the Tories to play the race card and the Lib Dems to rely on an anti-war vote. And my support for Sinn Fein is based on an opinion that the partitioning of Ireland is morally wrong - to divide a country for the sake of a national minority in the north (unionists). And when you had a campaign of brutal victimisation and discrimination for so long, from the black and tans to the British army, and someone like Paisley manning the unionist line, republicans need someone to defend them and fight for their interests. I also think Fianna Fáil has miserably failed the twenty-six counties and Fine Gael/Labour is a poor second and third choice. I find it strange that someone living in Australia would care/worry about Irish politics, when matters closer to home need supporting just as much, East Timor for example, Do you favour a particular party there?
Daggers Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Just out of interest, I am always interested to know what the general consensus is on the theory behind the Poll Tax? ... Just wondering what people felt about it and reasons why it is unfair. The concept that a rich lady in a massive house in a nice residential area [which will benefit from better lighting, policing, roads and facilities] should pay substantially less than a family on a council estate is not one that sat well with me. The implementation of huge rises in monthly costs to a sizable part of the population coincided with a period of steady decline in services and facilities. The Tories presided over cutbacks in local transport provision, rubbish collection, local health services, funding for libraries and leisure facilities. The police became a force of oppression, and were used to subjugate the population, and all but disappeared from the streets unless arresting people on SUS and instigating riots. Pay more to fund the attacks on the peace convoy? I don't think so. The poll tax riots were as much an outpouring of disgust with Thatcher [and her government of muppets] as they were about the unfairness of the tax itself, and a lot of those involved had been attacked at The Battle of the Beanfield. This was a seek for justice, this was retribution. Grr...just thinking about those days makes my blood boil. I was SO happy the day I watched her cry on screen. "We are leaving Number 10 for the last time..." We had a bloody massive party!
Dunc Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 The concept that a rich lady in a massive house in a nice residential area [which will benefit from better lighting, policing, roads and facilities] should pay substantially less than a family on a council estate is not one that sat well with me. The implementation of huge rises in monthly costs to a sizable part of the population coincided with a period of steady decline in services and facilities. The Tories presided over cutbacks in local transport provision, rubbish collection, local health services, funding for libraries and leisure facilities. The police became a force of oppression, and were used to subjugate the population, and all but disappeared from the streets unless arresting people on SUS and instigating riots. Pay more to fund the attacks on the peace convoy? I don't think so. The poll tax riots were as much an outpouring of disgust with Thatcher [and her government of muppets] as they were about the unfairness of the tax itself, and a lot of those involved had been attacked at The Battle of the Beanfield. This was a seek for justice, this was retribution. Fair points although I find it interesting that in Scotland where the strongest opposition to the tax was voted in larger numbers for the Conservatives in 1992 than they did in 1987. I wasn't a tax payer at the time so can't comment on personal experiences. I do think the so called increased Draconian measures against those who didn't pay (18million i think) was never going to win any favours and wasn't particularly clever or helpful, but as Thatcher said about another matter "this lady isn't for turning". One quick point on the rich lady in a nice area, I understood (rightly or wrongly) that the supposed rich used less public services than the people on council estates (less crime therefore less policing, less public transport, private healthcare etc). I guess its just different ways of being unfair to different people because at the same time I'm sure that there are poor old ladies living next to rich families in houses of the same value under the current system. Its just not a poll tax so people accept it.
Ultra Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Local income tax. Nightmare to collect.. Do you levy it on place of residence, or place of work?
davieG Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Nightmare to collect.. Do you levy it on place of residence, or place of work? I would assume you'd collect it with the normal income tax, it shouldn't be too difficult for the tax office to work out where people live and what was taken off them and pass it to the local councils. You also wouldn't need all the people currently involved in collecting council tax or handing out rebates to those on low incomes. Bear in mind that a very large percentage of council funding already comes from central government at the moment so in reality it would be such a masiive shift.
TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 One quick point on the rich lady in a nice area, I understood (rightly or wrongly) that the supposed rich used less public services than the people on council estates (less crime therefore less policing, less public transport, private healthcare etc). That would be the benefit principle of taxation. Those who recieve the most benefit from public spending should pay the most towards it. For example, smokers pay excise duty on their cigarettes because they are more likely to use the NHS. Personally I feel it can be argued that the richest members of our society benefit the most from our overall social system and national infrastructure even if it is indirectly. Would they be able to have such an affluent lifestyle without a well educated, healthy, mobile population around them? No. As a result I feel that in principle tataxtion should be progressive.
TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Extraordinary! It is what most people tend to do.
Gamesmaster Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 That would be the benefit principle of taxation. Those who recieve the most benefit from public spending should pay the most towards it. For example, smokers pay excise duty on their cigarettes because they are more likely to use the NHS. Personally I feel it can be argued that the richest members of our society benefit the most from our overall social system and national infrastructure even if it is indirectly. Would they be able to have such an affluent lifestyle without a well educated, healthy, mobile population around them? No. As a result I feel that in principle tataxtion should be progressive. thats messed up nonsense. if you want/need to use the NHS, then you should pay for the service. not all smokers use it because they smoke. what kind of fascist nonsense are you onabout with the rich should pay more? they work the hardest, so they should benefit more, thats a fair system. taxation should be the same % for everyone. i feel 20% is ample. if national and local government were professional in spending our money, it could be as little as 15%.
Dunc Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 That would be the benefit principle of taxation. Those who recieve the most benefit from public spending should pay the most towards it. For example, smokers pay excise duty on their cigarettes because they are more likely to use the NHS. Personally I feel it can be argued that the richest members of our society benefit the most from our overall social system and national infrastructure even if it is indirectly. Would they be able to have such an affluent lifestyle without a well educated, healthy, mobile population around them? No. As a result I feel that in principle tataxtion should be progressive. No offence, but i think you will find that most sane people don't want to pay higher taxes for things they never use. And your principle caused a large amount of Britains rich to leave the country because they were paying 80% tax to subsidise the poor. Your theory is sound but unfortunately in practice it fails miserably - Socialism died many years ago!
Daggers Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 It is what most people tend to do. Maybe Thracian was just amazed that you intend to live in Luton of all places for your entire life
TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 taxation should be the same % for everyone. i feel 20% is ample. if national and local government were professional in spending our money, it could be as little as 15%. Research into the flat tax suggest it would have to be set at 26% for the country to be functional. if you want/need to use the NHS, then you should pay for the service So if a working person needs an expensive operation or a drugs programme they should only recieve that if they can afford it. I personally beleive that life is the first fundamental human right and to deny it on an ability to pay basis is uttelry dispicable. Thankfully the majority of the Western World agrees with me and the vast majority of developed countried have a national health system. what kind of fascist nonsense are you onabout with the rich should pay more? they work the hardest, so they should benefit more, thats a fair system. The statement that the rich work the hardest is at best disputable. The second statement that they should benefit more is obviously not incompatable with a prgressive tax system. The rich pay 40% tax in this country but only on the money they earn above 36kish. There is no way that the post tax income of the rich can be less or equal to soembody earning less. No offence, but i think you will find that most sane people don't want to pay higher taxes for things they never use. And your principle caused a large amount of Britains rich to leave the country because they were paying 80% tax to subsidise the poor. To subsidise large prub industries money losing that couldn't be maintained. I personally would keep the overall tax take in this country about the same, 42%ish of GDP, and keep the same balance between progressive income tax and national insurance contributions and indirect regressive taxes such as excise duties and fuel duty in order to manage demand for demerit goods. Your theory is sound but unfortunately in practice it fails miserably - Socialism died many years ago! I am far from a socialist. Sensible centre left economics with extreme liberal stance on social issues.
TrickyTrev Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Maybe Thracian was just amazed that you intend to live in Luton of all places for your entire life Christ it could be read like that couldn't it!? Believe me when I say I have no intention of doing so! I move out in October and intend to divide my time between Clapham and Oxford.
Head Honcho Posted 3 August 2006 Posted 3 August 2006 Christ it could be read like that couldn't it!? Believe me when I say I have no intention of doing so! I move out in October and intend to divide my time between Clapham and Oxford. Isn't Luton between Clapham and Oxford?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.