|
Post by petra on May 10, 2015 22:51:10 GMT
I think we need proportional representation, but I can't see it ever happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 23:41:20 GMT
PR has significant problems - arguably it's a major cause of the middle east impasse ie the Isreali government being manipulated by tiny parties that are hyper religious.
With PR it's much more likely for extremist views to get into statute because they're preconditions of small parties in a coalition and coalitions are more likely under PR.
There is no perfect solution - if you crave strong government then FPTP works well, if you want representation then PR looks good.
From an ADHD medical viewpoint I'd say we need stability and continuity in government so health is not used as a 'dog whistle' popularity contest.
I'm not sure democracy is suited to the nation's needs but can't think of anything fairer.
|
|
mc1250
Member's posted somewhat
Posts: 71
|
Post by mc1250 on May 11, 2015 0:24:47 GMT
Most of below is based on gut feelings and what I personally believe rather then fact. So I may probably be wrong on a lot of and will be glad if people correct me with the facts.
Firstly i'm a socialist and have voted labour on every occasion bar one!
Yes! You've guessed it...I voted for the cons this year! How can I be a socialist and commit such a crime!
Well there's a few reasons and I'm not sure I'll be able to explain them all....but I'll try to explain 1 or 2 at the least.
1) when I realised that governments whoever is in power answers more to corporations, HNWI's and basically money! It didn't matter who was in power. The rich would get richer and the poor, poorer. This probably started in the 80's under thatcher (an American completely false idea of trickle down economics) and continued under labour government's!! The only thing labour did to disguise this was to borrow more and hand out more benefits and get us more in dept. Let alone Gordon Brown selling off nearly all our gold reserves for next to nothing to help fund the tax credits he introduced.(I think it was introduced)
now that I've started typing I don't know how much sense it will make especially the way it makes sense to me.
Bottom line is what's good for the country isn't good for the individual! And the country needs to come first! Or else all I can think of is....Greece! (Very over dramatic and completely out there but that's what I think of).
The country is heavily in dept, a debt which obviously needs to be repaid! the most part of which was not the making of us 99%! But by the greedy gambling banks. So from what I understood is that's when Britain's debt sky rocketed It was what we had to borrow in order to bail those institutions out (but I wonder would there have been a global meltdown if we did let them fail or was it the heads of these institutions persuading their friends in government to prop them up to keep their gravy trains running!) Although it had been creeping up quite a bit under labour already and let's not forget when the banking crisis happened who was on guard then. Who heavily courted the city and gave it ever more power to regulate itself which was ....to put it mildly...not wise!
This sounds like ramblings and sort of wish I hadn't started now but hopefully a point will come eventually.
Anyway so we're in a big sh!ty mess mainly due to the greed of 1% or less in fact. What do we do.... believe labour that they'll make things right and reverse the cuts and look after the poorest and most vulnerable! Yes I believe they would do that.
Do i believe labour, that it would be funded by going after tax avoidance by the big corps and HNWI'S and UHNWI's and by the mansion tax etc .....no I truly didn't believe they would! They had the (ed) Balls to say they'd do it but in reality I don't think they have the balls to actually do it. All they'd do is what was done before and borrow more to make us feel better and all the while sinking us further into dept!
Whereas as the cons would carry on looking after their rich chums and take it off the social spend to help pay down the dept. Not in the least bit fair but for me the lesser of the two evils over all!
We keep attacking the government for not tackling Corp tax avoidance but I believe there's a collective responsibility here! In the way of our black economy and how it's rapidly growing. Ultimately it's this what brought Greece down! I heard at one point Greece had the highest proportion of luxury SUV's per head then any other country.
I'm from the Asian community and I know for a fact tax evasion and benefit fraud are rife! (Shameful and embarrassing for me to know and see this, not sure what it's like in other communities. Maybe someone can fill me in On their respective community?). Anyway notice how most mini cab drivers are asian? I do because once I called a cab and there was a white guy driving and in drunken shock, I looked at him and said "you're white!" And he replied "I know!", he took it in good faith as he knew why I was shocked. Anywayyyyy the point is a lot of these cab drivers all earn (on the books) just below the amount before which you have to start paying tax. So get all the max benefits/state handouts! So no tax paid and lots of benefits. So are able to a afford nice big cars, expensive extensions to their properties etc at the cost of the country. Anyway my shame was lessened when I heard from a friend that his bro-in-law is a black cabbie (white guy this time) is absolutely minted as this tax dodge has being on forever with these cabbies (and he's pissed off as he works a normal job and pays the correct tax).Then I know a couple EE self employed labourers that make stacks of cash but hen again only declared the bare minimum. And I've also been told a lot of own business and self employed are creative with their accounting. And the self employed sector is growing ie our black economy as they call it is growing. and how many of us say "how much if I pay cash?"...what's my point? most of us are in some way guilty to the mess that we are in that is going to be taken out on the weakest the ones that can't defend themselves and why? Because no government will ever get a grip of all of the above and the selfish nature in a lot if us won't help them get the tax revenues they could get to be able not to make these 12bn or so cuts that are coming.
I'm not some wealthy individual. I am now more reliant on the government then I was before partly due to me making very bad choices and partly due to being made redundant 2 years ago and not being able to secure full time work as it's all going abroad etc. But these cuts will hur me and my kids but I believe they need to happen or else we could be on the path Greece took which would be a far worse outcome.
So I'd rather the cons keep to their usual selfish old boy network and try keep the country as far away from the worst then labour push as as close to the worst!
Also I do agree with the argument that people who can help it shouldn't recieved more in benefits then those who work.
I mean at one point some of the jobs I was going for would have only made me a £100 a month better off than if I just stayed on benefits, so was thinking Hmmm should I Stay on benefits! But luckily snapped out of that thought process as out of 22 years I've been out of work for probably 2 and wasn't through not trying! (in a temp job at the mo) but if I wasn't and probably won't be when the contract runs out and the government slash my benefits, well I'll be annoyed like every else but understand and accept it, and keep searching for that elusive full time permanent job!
Long winded don't know if it makes sense to anyone or if anyone even agrees with what I've said or most importantly managed to read it all.
The cons bought peoples votes with selling off council housing. Labour bought votes through bigger and bigger benefit handouts. Sometimes they're as bad as each other. Or the sane party trying to occupy the middle ground and trying to be everything to everyone and really being nothing to no one!
And lastly Britain's biggest expense is the social budget we've all got to use to it and I think we need to start getting used to not having it as good as we have. We shouldn't look at countries like, Norway, Sweden etc and say look how good they've got it. I came from a place where if you didn't work you didn't eat. No state help at all and corruption beyond belief so am thankful for being here.
"You should always look below and be grateful rather then look above and be hateful!"
This took me almost 3 hrs to type out and I'm not sure if I've even made a point worth making or justified my reasons for voting blue and am wondering what kind of a verbal lynching I'll get from others. I'm also too tired now to proof read it back. So don't be too surprised when certain things don't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by shapes on May 11, 2015 3:25:49 GMT
I think I get your point but you are wrong. You've fallen for a false narrative put out by the Conservative Party. There's also a massive irony in someone claiming to vote Conservative in the best interest of the country but not themselves. It probably isn't in your interest (unless you are in the top 1-10%) and it certainly isn't in the interest of the country!
As I said before though, the Labour party has been weak in opposition. They didn't challenge the false narrative about reckless borrowing and they didn't lay out a clear vision for the future.
Our situation isn't comparable with Greece and our credit rating is one of the best in the world so modest borrowing is normal and not an issue. The reason for borrowing is simply due to the recession caused by the banks. Recession leads to job losses and that means a rise in out of work benefits and a reduction in tax revenue. As the economy recovers the opposite occurs and the deficit disappears without the government having to intervene at all.
The cost of out of work benefits as a portion of our GDP was highest by far under Thatcher, as she made so many people unemployed. It was at its lowest under Blair because people had jobs.
The Tory government just loves to use an economic crisis as cover to implement ideological cuts to welfare and public services. They want you to believe the economy is like a household budget and point to the deficit as proof we are overspending. Then they know you will agree to them cutting back on public services out of fear of "going bust". When things improve they will tell you it was as a result of "austerity" and not to let Labour back in to ruin things again. They will lower taxes for the wealthiest instead.
They hate socialism and would love to destroy the NHS and have already done a lot of damage to education and welfare.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on May 11, 2015 6:45:04 GMT
Pp- the issue with benefits paying more is that nmw isn't a living wage. If the gov upped nmw (and it was a policy of a couple of parties at least) and offered public contracts only to those who pay nmw at least then work WD pay. One of the Nobel prize winning economists is on record as saying we need 2% increase (hardly reckless) in this time of economic depression not austerity.
If you took all the small scale tax avoiders (like my cleaner &baby sitter who I pay in cash) and added it up it still doesn't come close to the amount of the tax breaks the Tories give to the super rich. Ibdont have the biggest issue with helping out the banks, and I understand the arguments for continuing to give the banker bonesus- but to let them off paying tax on bonuses- its not a couple of exkect tory loop hills to scratch the backs of the rich, its been tones.
I think the papers make it seem like labours swapped us in debt and played on people personal fears- but actualy we always have been in debt, the western world has been borrowing long before thatcher artificaly inflated our economy by selling off the council houses.
Currently under the Tories because there are so many more people out of work or earning below the bread line learners below the breadline have gone from around 3m to 4.8m. And that's despite the ways they have fudged those figures, like making 16-18 yrolds unable to claim JSA (and that's includes aprentiships in retail etc that a previous school leaver CD have gotten on nmw, while the Tory apprentiship pays £2 an hr) or forcing people off JSA into 0hr contracts.and out of the many who have gone into enlmployment most don't earn enough to pay tax, and still claim top ups, which when it comes to single parents with kids needing childcare we end up paying out more to cover childcare costs that it'd cost us to pay them to stay at home.
.
I don't think its surprising labour don't know who they are at mo, Tory's went through a bit of that when labour was in also- they were adamantly opposed to gay marriage previous hut changed that, and they always stood for 'old fashioned family values' previously but pushed mothers out to work this time. Parties adapt to some extent to appeal to voters- but there isn't just two parties and we need to move away from the idea its one evil or another. There is choice, and it may not effect the big parties immediately, but the illusion that for votes to count we have to feed into a two party system leaves us apot like america.
|
|
mindblank
Member's not posted much yet
Posts: 17
|
Post by mindblank on May 11, 2015 15:08:37 GMT
blaze - you're probably right on loads of people DO care but my guess is that most who vote Tory don't care (or are far less likely to). I know two UKIP voters, family members, both have degrees and are usually Tory voters, but they to be honest very arrogant and dislikeable people! Another thing, I had not heard about the UN's investigation into the UK mental health approach. That's astonishing, with the impression that is painted by the press, news, tv. You think you're wise to media bias but how can we be when there's things that go unreported? Let's hope it is exposed in a big way. Social media etc, 38 degrees should see to that.
contrarymary - true but they got more votes than anyone else. They have the most votes and seats and just have to accept :S
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on May 11, 2015 15:22:01 GMT
"Just have to accept" ? of course we don't, otherwise nothing would ever change!!! it is wrong. they are wrong. and it is important to find a way beyond fear to action, building the consensus of active people who want to challenge what is being done in the name of the uk population. we are not all in this together - some of us are being deliberately and systematically targeted. and networks are already beginning to grow to work out how to challenge, do differently, build sustainability outside the strucutres of government. the UN is investigating the actions of the UK government in making the lives of disabled people worse - bedroom tax, cuts in services, cuts in income, reduction of ability to participate in society. these are all against international law. i believe that the treatment of people with mental health issuesis included in that?
|
|
|
Post by blaze on May 11, 2015 16:57:41 GMT
Un prob is into all disability's targeted, so yes mh WD be under that. There v little info on it though, but, despite the confidential nature of it-whether it is going ahead or not- the leak appears genuine- un havnt discredited the prof who leaked it, and neither has the media,and disability rights uUK have launched a 'parallel' investigation- so if anyone here has info they she contribute. But yes this has gotten horedously little media coverage, however Tories have discredited un ever since- and while previously it was Tories who persuaded labour et al to jump on EU now they are pushing to jump ship, and media has anti EU propaganda everywhere- perhaps in case the un leak is accurate, so they rubbish getting pulled up by un if it happens.
Not including their non response to media targeting disability's (in a way that WD now be unacceptable if it were other protected groups- immagine 'experts' claiming homosexuality doesn't exst' or NHS failures, senco and sen ta cuts, Sw cuts etc- so far what I'm aware of is as follows- despite disability benefits taking up only 3% of the well fare budget they use pips to cut 20% of claiments- despite acknowledging DLA has the lowest fruad rate at 0.5%. This will cut the numbers eligable for disability wt. They have changed ESA so people able to work are moved onto 50% of what they previously recieved- dispute the fact that their disability may mean the jobs they can apply for are limited/specific so will take much longer to gain employment that non disabled. Those who remain on higher rate psy tax on it- not sure how that works when it won't add up to the 10k tax free cut off (I don't think anyways, numbers aren't my strong point) but it counts as taxable incone so effects other benefits/ammounts/cap etc.bed room tax unfaurly effects those with disabilitys who may have an dapted house so be unfairly penalised by loosing much needdd adaptions if they move, or they may need extra room because of disabled childs sleep problem disturbing other siblings wellfare or to store equipment or enable them to work from home. They have cut many peoples carers allowance, and leak suggested it will be scrapped altogether (along with Smp/sma that maybe claimed by those with disability's who work part time) . they have cut DSA, and adult education funding. They have maßively cut funding to disability charity's. People with disability's disproportionately make up the 1m food bank users (up from 60,000 under labour). And now they cut the previously capped access to work fund.
I appreciate there are cuts all over, but when they let the rich off with tax loop holes it become v disproportionate targeting those with disability's.
** to add as below- ilf to be scrapped and dc saying dla/pips not safe from taxation***
|
|
|
Post by blaze on May 14, 2015 16:08:37 GMT
If anyone can post links CD you pls add independant article about the new disability's minister pls, who isn't disabled
There's also reports circulating that he told a constituent to stop being lazy and get out of their wheelchair and work-but I don't know if these are true. Certainly the above article doesn't look gd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 17:27:00 GMT
To be fair - the shadow disabilities minister isn't disabled AFAIK (it's not in her bio, her mobility seems fine etc). Also doesn't like me calling her staff 'minions' (very defensive of them, bless).
I think she'd tear you another one if you got out of line on disabilities though. She's sharp. I have respect (Kate Green - one of the MPs on 'my patch').
|
|
|
Post by blaze on May 14, 2015 19:33:55 GMT
It wd be more apropriate if they chose an MP who has disability's though- and theres at least one to4y MP with cp. Minister for womens is female etc
Its they way he's voted in the past that's been highlighted though- for bedroom tax (which is unfair on anyone needing the spare room for wheelchair storage, extra family member to sleep over and help with autistic child etc, or two siblings similar age needing sperate rooms due to one having a sleep problem etc) and for cutting other disability benefits-forget details at this far past my bed time. But it WD help to have smone with disability's in that position. That said the guy they made minuster of equaoities voted sgainst gsy marriage so maybe the Tories are trying to be ironic, or just psing themselves laughing at what mugs the general public are
|
|
|
Post by contrarymary on May 14, 2015 20:15:59 GMT
here's the article from yesterday's Independent re the new Minister for Disabled People at the DWP. they're being ironic or taking the p
|
|
|
Post by blaze on May 14, 2015 20:40:31 GMT
Thanks for link- I will never figure out how to work my phobe, can't remember where the lap top lives these days and kids have claimed ownership of the ipad-and I don't know where they have hid that either......
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 25, 2015 14:58:32 GMT
PR has significant problems - arguably it's a major cause of the middle east impasse ie the Isreali government being manipulated by tiny parties that are hyper religious. With PR it's much more likely for extremist views to get into statute because they're preconditions of small parties in a coalition and coalitions are more likely under PR. There is no perfect solution - if you crave strong government then FPTP works well, if you want representation then PR looks good. From an ADHD medical viewpoint I'd say we need stability and continuity in government so health is not used as a 'dog whistle' popularity contest. I'm not sure democracy is suited to the nation's needs but can't think of anything fairer. @planetdave, PR and FPTP are not one or the other. With PR, the constituencies are uniform in size, then we vote as normal and the results are in the FPTP system. PR is Proportional Representation, which I feel is desperately needed as this goverment represents less than half the Country, exact figures don't matter, only that less than half the country is represented. With PR in place and FPTP for the next election for example, the 2020 results would not produce an outright winner and would definitely lead to a coalition government or minority goverment, although the latter failed in the 1970's and led to another General Election. The referendum we had on voting was not what the LibDems wanted, but the Tories at the time for negitiating the coalition said "Take it or leave it", so something was better than nothing, or so they thought. The AV didn't solve the problem of FPTP because the number of seats for long standing Tory or Labour seats hasn't changed. With PR in place, a fixed number of votes in EVERY seat in Parliment leads to a fairer representation of the Country's democratic vote - where every vote counts. I hugely favour a coalition over a majority. The Americans face this challenge every single day. The democrates win, but the majority of the house is republican, so every bill or new law has to be voted on before it passes. If every new change to the public sector in the UK needed a majority vote before it could be done, it would show a clear representation of the Country's wishes. I don't think the Tories won, I think Labour lost, big time. I'm now a paid up member of the Labour Party (£1 per year) so I can see what's going one and follow the leader election, etc. but mostly I'm waiting for some sort of leader debate to see where each potential leader stands on (in no particular order): - NHS Privitisation
- Trident
- BBC Closure / TV Licence abolition
- Welfare
- Europe/EU
Milliband wasn't clear or didn't give the right answers during the debates that labour voters wanted to hear IMHO and this is why they lost, plus no matter how you feell politically, David Cameron is a likeable person and his charm came across and that helped the Tories in lorry-loads. Even though the Tories have won and will be in power until 2020, because of their ambition to change the voting and consituency borders (which will almost definitely come out in there favour) George Osbourne will take over as Tory leader and be elected Prime Minister until 2025. What's even worse right now is, I watched Ian Duncan Smith and his colleagues answering questions earlier this week from members of the house and he was asked indirectly (4 times I counted) why not reduce the amount of Housing Benefit paid to landlords instead of cutting payments to people already struggling. He responded to these questions from opposing parties by explaining how that particular party had left an even larger mess for them to clear up, etc. the usual deflection. My point is, why painstakingly cut 12 Billion, when you could cut £40 Billion by introducing rent control, making rents so that they cannot exceed more than 5% of their value or 5% of the areas LHA. More importantly, why must they insist on including pensions in the welfare budget, like it's another expenditure that should be cut? 55% of this money is pensions, leaving 45% to go elsewhere. less than 20% goes to unemployed, disabled, out of work and fraudulent claims, the remaining 25% (£30 Billion in 2012/13) goes on paying housing benefit to both unemployed and working households.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Jun 25, 2015 18:03:32 GMT
PR has significant problems - arguably it's a major cause of the middle east impasse ie the Isreali government being manipulated by tiny parties that are hyper religious. With PR it's much mine likely for extremist views to get into statute because they're preconditions of small parties in a coalition and coalitions are more likely under PR. There is no perfect solution - if you crave strong government then FPTP works well, if you want representation then PR looks good. From an ADHD medical viewpoint I'd say we need stability and continuity in government so health is not used as a 'dog whistle' popularity contest. I'm not sure democracy is suited to the nation's needs but can't think of anything fairer. @planetdave, PR and FPTP are not one or the other. With PR, the constituencies are uniform in size, then we vote as normal and the results are in the FPTP system. PR is Proportional Representation, which I feel is desperately needed as this goverment represents less than half the Country, exact figures don't matter, only that less than half the country is represented. With PR in place and FPTP for the next election for example, the 2020 results would not produce an outright winner and would definitely lead to a coalition government or minority goverment, although the latter failed in the 1970's and led to another General Election. The referendum we had on voting was not what the LibDems wanted, but the Tories at the time for negitiating the coalition said "Take it or leave it", so something was better than nothing, or so they thought. The AV didn't solve the problem of FPTP because the number of seats for long standing Tory or Labour seats hasn't changed. With PR in place, a fixed number of votes in EVERY seat in Parliment leads to a fairer representation of the Country's democratic vote - where every vote counts. I hugely favour a coalition over a majority. The Americans face this challenge every single day. The democrates win, but the majority of the house is republican, so every bill or new law has to be voted on before it passes. If every new change to the public sector in the UK needed a majority vote before it could be done, it would show a clear representation of the Country's wishes. I don't think the Tories won, I think Labour lost, big time. I'm now a paid up member of the Labour Party (£1 per year) so I can see what's going one and follow the leader election, etc. but mostly I'm waiting for some sort of leader debate to see where each potential leader stands on (in no particular order): - NHS Privitisation
- Trident
- BBC Closure / TV Licence abolition
- Welfare
- Europe/EU
Milliband wasn't clear or didn't give the right answers during the debates that labour voters wanted to hear IMHO and this is why they lost, plus no matter how you feell politically, David Cameron is a likeable person and his charm came across and that helped the Tories in lorry-loads. Even though the Tories have won and will be in power until 2020, because of their ambition to change the voting and consituency borders (which will almost definitely come out in there favour) George Osbourne will take over as Tory leader and be elected Prime Minister until 2025. What's even worse right now is, I watched Ian Duncan Smith and his colleagues answering questions earlier this week from members of the house and he was asked indirectly (4 times I counted) why not reduce the amount of Housing Benefit paid to landlords instead of cutting payments to people already struggling. He responded to these questions from opposing parties by explaining how that particular party had left an even larger mess for them to clear up, etc. the usual deflection. My point is, why painstakingly cut 12 Billion, when you could cut £40 Billion by introducing rent control, making rents so that they cannot exceed more than 5% of their value or 5% of the areas LHA. --- because they are Tories, and they are quite happy to continue to line the pockets of the rich And because none of these cuts are about saving moving (most of the supposed 'cuts' have cost more to implement), these cuts are about dismantling the welfare state, because Tories don't believe the gov has a responsibility to those who are vulnerable, at risk, in need of help etc --------- More importantly, why must they insist on including pensions in the welfare budget, like it's another expenditure that should be cut? 55% of this money is pensions, leaving 45% to go elsewhere. less than 20% goes to unemployed, disabled, out of work and fraudulent claims, the remaining 25% (£30 Billion in 2012/13) goes on paying housing benefit to both unemployed and working households. Replied in quote
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Jun 25, 2015 18:05:04 GMT
Just to add to list of how they are targeting those with disability's disproportionately- ilf will be scrapped
Anyone else terrified for the budget?,
Oh and DC has said he's not ruling out taxing dla/pips......... Real class act there.....
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 25, 2015 18:42:13 GMT
blaze, I'm well aware of the Tories and their own beliefs, but there campaign when David Cameron took over was built on his own disabled son's struggles and that he would be sympathetic to those less fortunate than others. TANGENT: I do agree with some of their ideas, like bedroom tax, child benefit freezing for families multiplying for the money, etc. but they were implemented wrong. It should have been for new tennants and exisitng tennants would be evaluated, for example they tried to close the loophole Channel4's dispatches found that if you'd lived in your home since 1993 or something you had more rights andthey couldn't force the bedroom tax on you, etc. END TANGENT. I saw the news article detailing how Ian Duncan Smith's new bedroom tax not only didn't save any money, but it actually ended up costing more than they tried to save, and that was down the the human rights act - now they want to scrap it, funny how things work out. Here's an article explaining how it hasn't save much. This emergency tory budget which is at 12:30pm 8th July 2015 will be a day of reckoning. One thing that completely amazes me is, just what does someone hav to do to get the sack as work and pensions secretary, other than burden the tax payers with even more debt?
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Jun 25, 2015 19:15:15 GMT
blaze, I'm well aware of the Tories and their own beliefs, but there campaign when David Cameron took over was built on his own disabled son's struggles and that he would be sympathetic to those less fortunate than others.[b--- only he hsdnt, quite the opposite. What they say means nothing wjen their actions proove the opposite. Its more disturbing and disgusting that someone who knows the reality of care needed for a child with disabilitys wd then so severely and dislroportionately target those with disabilitys that the un is looking to investigate the uk for violating the convention on the rights of people with disabilitys because of the last govs actions.----- r] TANGENT: I do agree with some of their ideas, like bedroom tax, child benefit freezing for families multiplying for the money, etc. but they were implemented wrong. It should have been for new tennants and exisitng tennants would be evaluated, for example they tried to close the loophole Channel4's dispatches found that if you'd lived in your home since 1993 or something you had more rights andthey couldn't force the bedroom tax on you, etc. END TANGENT. I saw the news article detailing how Ian Duncan Smith's new bedroom tax not only didn't save any money, but it actually ended up costing more than they tried to save, and that was down the the human rights act - now they want to scrap it, funny how things work out. Here's an article explaining how it hasn't save much. This emergency tory budget which is at 12:30pm 8th July 2015 will be a day of reckoning. One thing that completely amazes me is, just what does someone hav to do to get the sack as work and pensions secretary, other than burden the tax payers with even more debt? Replied in text
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 25, 2015 20:35:47 GMT
blaze, Yep they're trying to get round the european courts by removing the human rights act so they can do what they like, etc. I think that if things get worse, as we all dread, I'm going to resort to crime, but I will only target those with more money than God, or with more insurance than, err, well someone with a lot of insurance and I will donate the excess to the needy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 22:06:02 GMT
PR has significant problems - arguably it's a major cause of the middle east impasse ie the Isreali government being manipulated by tiny parties that are hyper religious. With PR it's much more likely for extremist views to get into statute because they're preconditions of small parties in a coalition and coalitions are more likely under PR. There is no perfect solution - if you crave strong government then FPTP works well, if you want representation then PR looks good. From an ADHD medical viewpoint I'd say we need stability and continuity in government so health is not used as a 'dog whistle' popularity contest. I'm not sure democracy is suited to the nation's needs but can't think of anything fairer. @planetdave, PR and FPTP are not one or the other. With PR, the constituencies are uniform in size, then we vote as normal and the results are in the FPTP system. ........................ Sorry - I cut most of the quote just for brevities sake. I've lived in a country with proportional representation. You didn't describe what I experienced. Israel is also an example. There are many, many forms of PR - if you look at the version that Israel uses the hyper religious parties are frequently brought into coalition to form a government just to solve an impasse. Thus their 2 or 3 members get to hold enormous sway over the majority by forcing one or two of their policies into statute. You could say the crisis with the West Bank settlements is due to them - which, in turn, affects world politics. The 2010-15 UK government was an interesting experiment in political balance. I'd call it a failure by the Lib/Dems for underestimating how much leverage they had which has also lead to their near demise in the current parliament. How do you get a decent government? If you look at the figures...immigration has become an enormous issue with voters since the new year and most of it was driven by the PR of UKIP, a party that has one MP. They didn't do much but it sparked a landslide of comment in the media and now even Labour has jumped onto the bandwagon. Whatever the merits (I'm not going to talk actual politics here) of that argument what it has exposed is the terrible short-termism that afflicts some democracies, like ours. All you need do is wave the right policy in front of the electorate at the right time and everything else is subsumed, whatever electoral system you use. The current pensions crisis has been looming over us for years - we were taught about it in economics classes in the 70s. But nobody wanted to tackle it then and it festered until it became a crisis. I believe that PCSOs and HATOs are a result of that - an attempt to reduce the pensions burden of the police by hiving off some services to new organisations. Just have a look at police finances and how much of their budget goes into servicing pensions instead of frontline policing. So where am I going with all this? There is no perfect form of democracy. PR (whichever system you use) and FPTP are all flawed and what we need to find is the least flawed. But my biggest gripe is the influence of the media. Politicians now need to look good or they're unelectable because one photo (eg Ed Milliband and his butty) can influence the electorate, who have become image/soundbite obsessed and incredibly fickle. You can't realistically run a country on what you want next week, but that's what we get.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 26, 2015 9:57:18 GMT
@planetdave, The examples you've mentioned have their flaws, but that doesn't mean we are following that way of PR in the UK. The electoral reform society have outlined what PR will do for our democracy and how it will not be as flawed as the many examples of it around the globe. I understand your reservations on PR, but should we ever get the chance to have it in this country, every vote will count and it is likely that no single party will win a majority, but IMHO that is good for the country, not bad as every change in law is voted on and the majority of the country's representatives will represent the whole country, rather than a small part of it. It's in that vain that I will point out that I'm not wearing rose-tinted glasses, I know that a major reason for the poor voter turn out is because they all appear to be as bad as each other, but I believe that with PR and voting as usual with the FPTP systems in place when we start to see our votes really count, voter turn out will increase, because a single vote really can make a diference, were as now, a 1,000 votes are a stone in the water with no ripples. We all saw the news on how UKIP got 4 million votes for 1 seat, while the SNP got 2.5 million votes for 56 seats, or something like that, etc. The point is, under PR, this would have translated into more seats for UKIP and less for the SNP, which would have changed the election results making UKIP the 3rd largest party in the UK, I'm not if I think that's a good or a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that 4 million votes were cast for UKIP and they got 1 seat, which isn't fair. In every system, be it voting, manufacturing, welfare or FIFA, there is always some form of exploitation. No system is perfect, but the current system in the UK is significantly worse than what PR & FPTP combined would bring.
|
|
|
Post by JJ on Jun 26, 2015 10:38:06 GMT
There is no perfect solution - if you crave strong government then FPTP works well, if you want representation then PR looks good. Along with many other strong governments, Germany has PR If you were starting a democratic system from scratch, the person suggesting one where the number of votes per MP can vary from 26,000 (SNP) or 34,000 (Tory) to 1,200,000 (Green) or 3,900,000 (UKIP) would be laughed out of the room So 5.1 million people have 2 votes in a parliament where policies are passed on a simple majority. Those people would have 196 votes if they'd voted for SNP, or 150 votes if they'd voted Tory Whatever the merits or otherwise of PR our current FPTP system is manifestly profoundly unfair, and no longer fit for purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 20:30:32 GMT
I'm completely jaded and crave a stable system, which is nigh on impossible due to the fickle character of our electorate.
I live in a safe seat, both locally and nationally, so I don't actually get to participate in the democratic process.
I've stopped caring - a dictatorship would do me fine and would save the pointless bickering that I have to put up with now.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Jun 27, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
I think fickel = ignorant/I'll informed etc
The number of people I've heard saying they vote Tory because they are for traditional family values (they are pushing mumsv out to work) or that theyare crcreating a strong NHS (by cutting funds/unsociable hrs gincrement??) Or they are good for young people (by cutting school funds, ta funds, senco funds, increasing uni fees, and pretending aprentiships of a couple of pounds an hr for shop work are fab) or that they are helping the disabled into work (kicking them off benefits and letting them die....)
This includes life long story voters and previous labour voters, degree +educated and not, poor and mc. From what I can see (anecdotal of course) people are scared and desperate to protect what little stability we have, and some how scared into believing Tory willprpprovide this. Even people who are make smart balanced informed descions normaly seem to be floundering when it comes to this election. Don't get me wrong, I'm no labour fan either (their refusal to address the war descions will always sit uncomfortable with me) and for the most part I've voted tacticaly in my life, and I've not always voted either, but I'm not blind and struggle to see how so many people are so deluded, and I think for the most part that's to do with the media's influence, and we all know who owns the media.
I'm not an easily influenced person, I remember some experiments in high school designed to show us how easy it was to fall prey to peer pressure where I was the only kid in the yr not to fall for it, I'm pedanticly stubborn, and its just not something I find easy to empathise with. It's hugely frustrating. In some ways I'd rather live in a country full of people who did hate disabled/single mums/the poor/uneducated/immigrants because at least it'd be a fight possible to address. I find it some odd place between shocking and ridiculous and terrifying and laughable when faced with addressing 'I voted tort because they create opportunities for disabled' or 'there's just not enough money in the pot, so benefits must be cut' yet there's enough for bankers bonuses, large corporations tax avoidance to not bd addressed, inheritance tax threshold significantly jumped up, MPs huge pay increase (and to pay the company that insisted on this)- address this, and address private landlords unfair rents, capital gains tax way too low, address unmeansted silly benefits like winter fuel allowance, free TV licence for pensioners etc and the pot will over flow for yrs to come. And actually make nmw a living wage and only give public sector contract to those who comply and most in work benefits will disappear over night. I'd like to addscraping trident to the list buts that's really another thread.
It's shocking though, that so many who will be actively disadvantaged by this gov voted them in thinking it was in their own best interest. Disturbing really, and a shocking failure of our education system. Democracy means f all if its not an unbiasedly informed deabate, currently its informed by fear and misdirection. It's genuinely terrifying.
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 27, 2015 19:50:29 GMT
I think fickel = ignorant/I'll informed etc The number of people I've heard saying they vote Tory because they are for traditional family values (they are pushing mumsv out to work) or that theyare crcreating a strong NHS (by cutting funds/unsociable hrs gincrement??) Or they are good for young people (by cutting school funds, ta funds, senco funds, increasing uni fees, and pretending aprentiships of a couple of pounds an hr for shop work are fab) or that they are helping the disabled into work (kicking them off benefits and letting them die....) Err, I hate to point it out, but: Q. Who introduced the ATOS fit for work assessment? A. Labour. Q. Who started privatising the NHS, bit by bit? A. Labour. Q. Who cut funding for Schools by introducing Academies? A. Labour. Q. Who increased University fees to £9,000 a year? A. Labour. By the same token: Q. Who raised the National Debt in this Country by bailing out several banks, intead of borrowing ten times that amount to pay the welfare bill? A. Labour.
|
|
|
Post by blaze on Jun 28, 2015 6:22:01 GMT
Like I already said im no labour fan. And to be fair they inherited an unstabel economy from torys over inflating the housing market by selling off council housing, meaning people had to borrow way beyond reasonable amounts to creep onto the property ladder, which many had to do because there was minimal reinvestment into social housing, which was poor quality, inadequate sizing for most anyways.
The western world has always been in debt, that's nothing new but Tory's are using it to sell the 'need' for austerity, yet still giving rich tax breaks.
|
|
|
Post by chaoticwitch on Jun 28, 2015 14:59:08 GMT
I have to jump in. I don't know much about politics but I don't think there is one party that I would vote for because ultimately I feel that anyone going into politics for "the right reasons" won't get far. Narcissism, lack of empathy and cold greed seems to be the requirements for any political party. Stephen Fry talked about the fairest way would be the same way as they get jurors by random selection. I'd have a go
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 28, 2015 16:10:52 GMT
I have to jump in. I don't know much about politics but I don't think there is one party that I would vote for because ultimately I feel that anyone going into politics for "the right reasons" won't get far. @chaoticwitch, This is one of the reasons I believe that IF we ever get the chance to have PR, so every constituency seat is the same amount of votes, this will lead to no single pary majority, until a new generation of politicians realise honesty pays. It won't be perfect, but it will be so much better than the current joke, er I meant democracy
|
|
|
Post by Wavey75 on Jun 29, 2015 7:13:27 GMT
As the election is over, perhaps a thread discussing or debating the referendum coming in 2017 to leave the EU or not would be good? I know I would love to hear and share ideas on the matter, as I can't find a single source that can clearly explain why we should stay or go. I would love to be in the know when it comes to choosing either way and as yet I'm not sure either way. I've thought up until now that we should leave, but I Richard Branson is a business man who I respect and as he can come out in support of legalising Marijuana and changing the lottery to make more people rich along with other issues, when he recommends we should stay in the EU, I'd like to know why, other than the whole "better together" excuse. Apologies to original poster for not staying on the topic, I felt this was a natural next step for this thread and I'm a bit of an eco-warrior, I like to re-purpose things as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by chaoticwitch on Jun 29, 2015 9:08:41 GMT
Totally agree Wavey75, I would like to know more truth about the EU and what it means to be part of it. At the moment I feel like we are sitting on the fence in Britain, we aren't really embracing it, but we're also not backing out of it. I don't really understand it enough to make an informed decision about it. I am also quite confused about all this stuff regarding countries going bankrupt! What does that mean? If countries can't pay there debts, do the rest of the EU auction off the country!?!
|
|