[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

thats all very well put but i just dont recall those objections the last two times NI was raised. was all about ring fencing the funding of healthcare services, a tax on jobs from the other side. get rid and have only income tax if keeping a progressive system is what matters.

Which is a complete lie. NI is a tax and it isn't ringfenced. Governments just pretend it is.

Not sure what a 'progressive' tax system means, but if it means taking a greater % of income from higher income earners, this is 'Newspeak' - it isn't remotely progressive and I have always opposed it.

My left wing brother thinks that (for example) if one person earns £10,000 and pays £1,000 in tax then it is fair that if another person earns £100,000 they should pay £20,000 in tax, and if a third person earns £1,000,000 they should pay £400,000 in tax. He calls that 'progressive'. I call it an abuse of the laws of mathematics and reason.

 

[Chicken Run]

Surely the (supermarket) ‘own brand’ products ARE the ‘value brands’. Looks like yet another Tory helmet with no clue about real life.

Yet another bloke who obviously doesn’t do the shopping in his household [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Of course he isn't a Waitrose shopper.

It'll be his staff that do his Waitrose shopping for him.

Surely it is delivered by Ocado.

 

[Chicken Run]

Surely it is delivered by Ocado.

Not if he wants Waitrose products [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Stato]

I have yet to hear a single voice in favour of a change to the electoral system that is not a voice in favour of the replacement of the present party of government with something else (usually a 'coalition').

I'm a Labour voter. The motion introduced to back PR at the last Labour conference was voted down by the Trade Unions and Labour has not committed to supporting the removal of FPTP. I have lived virtually all of my life in constituencies where my vote is worth nothing and the MP elected to represent me has fundamentally different, generally opposing views to mine. My long felt support for electoral reform has nothing to do with changing the present party of government. It is simply because the current system effectively disenfranchises millions of people of all political viewpoints by accident of postal code. PR with larger shared consituencies a la the system that was in place for EU elections has the means to elect somebody who I could have confidence in to represent my views and concerns in parliament.

I find it hard to beleive that you've never heard anybody argue something like this before.

 

[Stato]

My left wing brother thinks that (for example) if one person earns £10,000 and pays £1,000 in tax then it is fair that if another person earns £100,000 they should pay £20,000 in tax, and if a third person earns £1,000,000 they should pay £400,000 in tax. He calls that 'progressive'. I call it an abuse of the laws of mathematics and reason.

Or he just believes that Wealth distribution is necessary to rebalance an economic system that gives massive advantage to those at the top of the income scale and does nothing for those at the bottom. Personally, I'd be quite happy for the likes of, lets say Jack Grealish or Prince William to pay a much larger percentage of earnings in tax. They work no harder for money than the people who clean our hospitals and would continue to enjoy a vastly superior standard of living even were they to pay 90% of their earnings in tax. For mathematics to be properly relevant in this argument, you'd have to start with both sides of an equation being equal. Applying reason would indicate that they are fundamentally not.

Balance out everything before you do the sum and I would agree with you. Somehow, I suspect that those who voice such self serving concerns about fair treatment would fall silent were this to be proposed.

 

[drew]

Which is a complete lie. NI is a tax and it isn't ringfenced. Governments just pretend it is.

Not sure what a 'progressive' tax system means, but if it means taking a greater % of income from higher income earners, this is 'Newspeak' - it isn't remotely progressive and I have always opposed it.

My left wing brother thinks that (for example) if one person earns £10,000 and pays £1,000 in tax then it is fair that if another person earns £100,000 they should pay £20,000 in tax, and if a third person earns £1,000,000 they should pay £400,000 in tax. He calls that 'progressive'. I call it an abuse of the laws of mathematics and reason.

NI is not a ringfenced tax and, as far as I recall in my lifetime, never has been. What was supposedly being ringfenced was the extra revenue generated from the recent increase, firstly to bolster the NHS and then to be used for social care. Whether that ever happens is debateable!

As for progressive tax, I take it you are against the 40% tax band then?

 

[nicko31]

I'm a Labour voter. The motion introduced to back PR at the last Labour conference was voted down by the Trade Unions and Labour has not committed to supporting the removal of FPTP. I have lived virtually all of my life in constituencies where my vote is worth nothing and the MP elected to represent me has fundamentally different, generally opposing views to mine. My long felt support for electoral reform has nothing to do with changing the present party of government. It is simply because the current system effectively disenfranchises millions of people of all political viewpoints by accident of postal code. PR with larger shared consituencies a la the system that was in place for EU elections has the means to elect somebody who I could have confidence in to represent my views and concerns in parliament.

I find it hard to beleive that you've never heard anybody argue something like this before.

Our democracy is not representative

Only Vatican City and Belarus use the same FPTP system. We need electoral Reform, a written constitution (thanks to the current set of dishonest actors), a reformed upper chamber and while we're at it a parliament building fit for the 21st century.

 

[rogersix]

Which is a complete lie. NI is a tax and it isn't ringfenced. Governments just pretend it is.

Not sure what a 'progressive' tax system means, but if it means taking a greater % of income from higher income earners, this is 'Newspeak' - it isn't remotely progressive and I have always opposed it.

My left wing brother thinks that (for example) if one person earns £10,000 and pays £1,000 in tax then it is fair that if another person earns £100,000 they should pay £20,000 in tax, and if a third person earns £1,000,000 they should pay £400,000 in tax. He calls that 'progressive'. I call it an abuse of the laws of mathematics and reason.

you're arguing for a flat rate of income tax?

 

[The Fits]

Tories determined not to introduce fuel windfall tax despite BP(!!) saying it wouldn’t discourage investment. What a joke.

 

[rogersix]

Our democracy is not representative

Only Vatican City and Belarus use the same FPTP system. We need electoral Reform, a written constitution (thanks to the current set of dishonest actors), a reformed upper chamber and while we're at it a parliament building fit for the 21st century.

bob on!

 

[Pavilionaire]

It is hard for me to get past the fact that the loudest voices in favour of a change to the electoral system are acolytes of the parties who do not have enough support to win many seats under the present system.

That's one viewpoint. Another is that the only countries in Europe that still have a First Past The Post electoral system are the UK and Belarus.

Those new countries that have emerged from the former Soviet Union / Iron Curtain have taken a look at FPTP and virtually unanimously rejected it in favour of something more inclusive.

Outside of Europe, those countries that still have FPTP are almost exclusively former British colonies / Commonwealth countries.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Are the Tories trying to disassociate themselves? I think the Green Party should say something about this.

[tweet]1521821615398572034[/tweet]

[tweet]1521822788318814208[/tweet]

[tweet]1521823547907268610[/tweet]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm a Labour voter. The motion introduced to back PR at the last Labour conference was voted down by the Trade Unions and Labour has not committed to supporting the removal of FPTP. I have lived virtually all of my life in constituencies where my vote is worth nothing and the MP elected to represent me has fundamentally different, generally opposing views to mine. My long felt support for electoral reform has nothing to do with changing the present party of government. It is simply because the current system effectively disenfranchises millions of people of all political viewpoints by accident of postal code. PR with larger shared consituencies a la the system that was in place for EU elections has the means to elect somebody who I could have confidence in to represent my views and concerns in parliament.

I find it hard to beleive that you've never heard anybody argue something like this before.

To summarize, you want to change the system so that your preferred party can have a seat in parliament that represents you/your constituency.

Yes, that's the argument I always hear. My answer is we can't always get what we want. If two people want different things, one will be disappointed. Sometimes we never get what we want. There is no rule that says everyone must get something they want, some of the time.

However, I am assuming that, as a labour supporter, there are MPs of other constituencies that represent your views in parliament? As a labour member living in a perpetual non-labour constituency, I can suck up the lack of a local labour MP, happy in the knowledge that I cast my vote according to my conscience, and that nationally I may get what I want, and that I would be needlessly peeviesh to mither about the fact that my local MP is not and never likely will be labour.

Now, if I were a National Front or CPGB supporter, yes, I would definitely feel that my position was not represented in parliament and, if I were feeling particularly dishonest (which would likely be the case were I dim enough to support either of these two showers) I might start backing PR.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And another one. Not just green but also trying to distance the local from the central conservatives. It's like they're almost ashamed.

[tweet]1521806308118343680[/tweet]

 

[The Clamp]

It really is a shocking state of affairs when candidates are desperate not to be associated with the the party they have chosen to represent.

 

[zefarelly]

Are the Tories trying to disassociate themselves? I think the Green Party should say something about this.

[tweet]1521821615398572034[/tweet]

[tweet]1521822788318814208[/tweet]

[tweet]1521823547907268610[/tweet]

Charlatan c***s

 

[Stato]

To summarize, you want to change the system so that your preferred party can have a seat in parliament that represents you/your constituency.

When you say 'to summarize' do you mean to spin my words to say what you want them to say, rather than what I am actually saying?

I want a democracy that encourages involvement from the maximum number of people of all political viewpoints. FPTP advocates claim the same but have used the lie of a direct regional connection between voter and member as a reason not to change the system. My situation proves this as the cant it is and is reflective of that of millions in this country. Being a member of parliament is not solely about the HoC. Most of their work should happen outside. The current system means that approx 25% of consituencies are being represented by a person that more of them voted against than voted for.

Considering the position of the Lib Dems and The SNP, two parties that I am neutral towards, the current system means that one party can get less than 3% of the votes and end up with over 7% of the seats, whilst another can get over 11% of the vote and end up with less than 2%. Its a transparently unfair and stupid system that discourages people right across the political spectrum from believing the truth that democracy is the least worst way of governing a nation.

Labour and the Tories both know this, but have always been too concerned with their own short term advantage to notice that any democracy that doesn't do everything it can to keep the confidence of the electorate is a democracy in decline. We can all and have all put up with governments that we didn't vote for, if we can see that they were elected by the will of the people. When it becomes obvious that those in power will do whatever they can to stay in power regardless of the will of the people, then democracy doesn't work. Where people may turn to if not to democracy is of far more concern to those of us arguing for reform than who wins this time around.

 

[The Clamp]

The barrage of bullshit and spin that will be coming from The Nasty Party over the next few days will be on another level.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Tories determined not to introduce fuel windfall tax despite BP(!!) saying it wouldn’t discourage investment. What a joke.

I'm going to try that one. Let me not pay any tax and eBay sellers of retro computers will receive trickle down money investments. Might also help the brewing industry as well.