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

[beorhthelm]

France is NOT FPTP. It’s PV.

Take a read:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

This system makes sure the most ‘preferred’ candidate always wins and would wipe out the Tories in a lot of cases, it’s really nothing like FPTP where you can, in theory, win with 20% of the vote or even less I’d there is enough candidates.

this is wikipedias explaination:

The 577 members of the National Assembly are elected using a two-round system with single-member constituencies. To be elected in the first round, a candidate is required to secure an absolute majority of votes cast, and also to secure votes equal to at least 25% of eligible voters in their constituency. Should none of the candidates satisfy these conditions, a second round of voting ensues. Most constituencies proceed to a second round election. Only first-round candidates with the support of at least 12.5% of eligible voters are allowed to participate, but if only 1 candidate meets that standard the two candidates with the highest number of votes in the first round may continue to the second round. In the second round, the candidate with a plurality is elected

so 50% first round, or second round where most votes wins (on as little as 12.6% vote in theory). convoluted FPTP.

 

[clapham_gull]

The "local Conservatives" message is true, I've had it in Wandsworth.

I've just moved in the last few days and the message now is that if they lose the Council it will cost you £1000.

I ripped it up and never read the detail.

They are panicking locally if they are doing that.

This is the lowest council tax in the country and they can only increase it legally by 3%.

 

[darkwolf666]

Indeed. And nobody voted for them. They were arrangements of convenience. And they all (as far as I recall) ended in tears.

You had a pay rise

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes, that's right, but it is simply an added complication. Everyone is subjected to the same rates - till their earnings cross a boundary, then they are not. Once they cross a boundary then the average rate across their entire income becomes more than the average rate of someone with a lower income below that boundary. It doesn't detract from my advocacy of a flat rate. I pay nothing on the first (say) £16K, then I pay (say - I must confess I don't know the actual rates) 35% on income between £16K and £50K, then 45% on any income above that. And the amount I should pay (according to HMG) every year is different from what I paid, and none of it makes any sense. I farnkly don't know the average rate of tax I pay on my income. How mad is that? Do you know?

It is also a disincentive to many to work harder and earn more knowing that once the extra income crosses a tax boundary the rate of tax on it goes up. Remember Labour's 98% top income tax rate? Jesus H Christ, even I, red in tooth and claw back in the day, recognised it made more sense to bugger off to Spain and put up with Johnny Foreigner than be soaked in Surrey by Denis sodding Healey.

There is another advantage of taxing everyone, no matter how little they earn, at the same rate. It makes us all equal, equal contributors (in % terms which is the only terms that nake sense), equal citizens. all part of the same ship, all with the same interests and all subject equally to the whims and caprices of the economy, in terms of our income tax. It maps to the inclusiveness agenda.

Currently for everyone,
Personal allowance up to £12,570 =0%
Basic rate £12,571 to £50,270 =20%
Higher rate £50,271 to £150,000 =40%
Additional rate over £150,000=45%

There is a tapered erosion of the Personal allowance for earnings above £100,000 net.

The bands have consequences on behaviour, it makes sense to pay more into a pension for example if you hit higher rates, within some companies that may offer a car, you can keep your whole tax free personal allowance if you take an electric car, and it is the ability to affect behaviour to some extent through tax avoidance for green choices, or for investment in certain industries that we want to grow that can make the tax code complicated, but are useful tools for Government.
I agree it could be simpler and NI needs looking at/should be scrapped, but bands are useful.

Most people don't mind paying taxes if they can afford them and feel the money is spent reasonably well, it is just that we can all see areas of spending we don't agree with and hate the idea that our pockets are being lightened to enable Benefits scroungers, asylum seekers, Mates of Ministers, books for prisoners, Tube drivers, Firemen, MP's expenses, Foreign Aid, Nuclear deterrent, Aircraft Carriers, Green subsidies etc, etc. depending on your politics.

 

[rogersix]

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.

why do you think no european nations have fptp?

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I think the difference with the most recent NI hike is the environment in which we’re living today.

Wages have not risen significantly for a long time, inflation is high, energy bill increases have been a massive shock to the system. We absolutely have a cost of living crisis here in the U.K.

Small things tell a big story. For example, look at Netflix subscribers falling for the first time. Netflix isn’t like Sky, it doesn’t suck £90 a month out of peoples budgets, it’s £10.99 a month.

Yet, a significant proportion of its user base have deemed it unaffordable at the same time. (Enough to outweigh new subscriber numbers anyway)

If people are at a point that this £10.99 outgoing has become unaffordable, they’re being squeezed too hard. That’s a small telltale sign that economists will, and politicians should, pay attention to. Netflix is forecasting losing another 2 million by year end.

Sunak and Johnson are both incredibly privileged, and in times like this it shows. They simply cannot understand hardship. In their minds, hardship only exists from fecklessness, whereas the people suffering now are people who often work very hard, but in low paid jobs, or where having children places an upper limit on their working hours.

They talk of it being silly to do more now, when actually now is exactly when they need to act before people run out of credit card to keep their (necessary to get to work) vehicles on the road, or food in their cupboards, or they fall into arrears with energy bills or rent.

If we get to autumn with no additional help, then my fear is that we will see a further significant increase in debt repayment plans, personal bankruptcies, a further increase in homelessness, and even more pressure on mental health services, because living in this type of anxiety destroys all peace of mind.

From an economic perspective, the rule is simply that skint people don’t buy stuff. Impoverishing huge swathes of your population means that any business that relies on people having money in their pockets to survive has its survival put in jeopardy.

From a mental health perspective, living with the anxiety of not being entirely sure how you’re going to reach the end of the month and meet your obligations is absolutely exhausting, and when repeated monthly can lead to outright despair.

I'm currently running a couple of food banks. Things I've noticed recently: 50% increase in numbers since Christmas, numbers increasing every week. Two years ago - most users had previously used a food bank. Now 85% are newcomers. The most common thing i hear is "I never, ever thought I'd need a food bank". Last month has seen a massive increase in the number of pensioners using us. They are heartbreaking. They don't ask for help until they are literally starving and are shocked and confused because they cant understand how/why this is happening to them.

 

[rogersix]

Yes, that's right, but it is simply an added complication. Everyone is subjected to the same rates - till their earnings cross a boundary, then they are not. Once they cross a boundary then the average rate across their entire income becomes more than the average rate of someone with a lower income below that boundary. It doesn't detract from my advocacy of a flat rate. I pay nothing on the first (say) £16K, then I pay (say - I must confess I don't know the actual rates) 35% on income between £16K and £50K, then 45% on any income above that. And the amount I should pay (according to HMG) every year is different from what I paid, and none of it makes any sense. I farnkly don't know the average rate of tax I pay on my income. How mad is that? Do you know?

It is also a disincentive to many to work harder and earn more knowing that once the extra income crosses a tax boundary the rate of tax on it goes up. Remember Labour's 98% top income tax rate? Jesus H Christ, even I, red in tooth and claw back in the day, recognised it made more sense to bugger off to Spain and put up with Johnny Foreigner than be soaked in Surrey by Denis sodding Healey.

There is another advantage of taxing everyone, no matter how little they earn, at the same rate. It makes us all equal, equal contributors (in % terms which is the only terms that nake sense), equal citizens. all part of the same ship, all with the same interests and all subject equally to the whims and caprices of the economy, in terms of our income tax. It maps to the inclusiveness agenda.

no equality of oppotunity tho'? would you pair a flat tax rate with a 100% inheritance tax to stimulate social mobility?

 

[dazzer6666]

[tweet]1521791959194603520[/tweet]

 

[The Merry Prankster]

You do realise that the reason Corbyn took over YOUR Labour party is because there's at least a couple of 'Labour parties' in there ?

And what do you think Rory Stewart felt about Johnson taking over HIS Tory party?

We need politicians to nail their colours and stand by what they believe in. And that is not going to happen all he time we pretend there are only two parties

So true. A party that tries to contain both social democrats and socialists is mad. They don't believe in the same things.

 

[beorhthelm]

no equality of oppotunity tho'? would pair a flat tax rate with a 100% inheritance tax to stimulate social mobility?

why would 100% inheritance do anything for social mobility?
what it would do is discourage saving for old age, so more dependance on state, and encourge people to just spend in their later years, or give money and assets to family. better plan is to get rid, so many avoid it anyway, instead tax recipients on the income. thats the sort of change comes when applying flat tax principle, rather than the labyrinth created to favour one group here, another group there, a special interest somewhere.

 

[clapham_gull]

Not as bad as other councils, but Wandsworth are predominantly using the colour green in their pamphlets to "differentiate" themselves from the Mother Ship.

https://issuu.com/wandsworthconservatives/docs/manifesto_2022_924b876a93e172

Raab has dropped the blue completely

[tweet]1521831447916650497[/tweet]

.. and this hasn't been dictated from Central Office ? Chinny reckon.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Tory meltdown incoming...

this is wikipedias explaination:


so 50% first round, or second round where most votes wins (on as little as 12.6% vote in theory). convoluted FPTP.

Nope.

You can’t call it FPTP because voters get a second preferential vote if 50% of voters don’t vote a candidate in the first time with a clear majority.

It’s like calling a horse a cow.

The French Presidential election system is PV, not any version of FPTP.

 

[usernamed]

I'm currently running a couple of food banks. Things I've noticed recently: 50% increase in numbers since Christmas, numbers increasing every week. Two years ago - most users had previously used a food bank. Now 85% are newcomers. The most common thing i hear is "I never, ever thought I'd need a food bank". Last month has seen a massive increase in the number of pensioners using us. They are heartbreaking. They don't ask for help until they are literally starving and are shocked and confused because they cant understand how/why this is happening to them.

Firstly, thank you for running those food banks, you have my utmost respect. I try not to be angry, it helps nothing, but we seem to have lost our compassion as a society, and decided we’ll trade decency for a slightly lower tax rate.

It’s a depressing snapshot, and I fear that if energy prices increase as expected in the autumn, there will be another upsurge in demand.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Haven't we just got to the point that ANY government is better that this shit shower? And to be honest, do you see much clear blue water between Labour and Lib Dems on policy, while everybody's Green now, right?

And who knows what they're voting for anyway? No tax rises. £350 million a week to the NHS. Getting immigration down to the tens of thousands. Control of our borders. Strong on crime, strong on the causes of crime. Strong and Stable - all total bollocks.

Sure. Suits me. But it will have to be done by FPTP.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

why do you think no european nations have fptp?

I don't/didn't. A poster posted that only us and Belarus have FPTP. I don't care whether this is true or not but was prepared to accept it. Apparently I was wrong

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

no equality of oppotunity tho'? would you pair a flat tax rate with a 100% inheritance tax to stimulate social mobility?

110% !

Seriously, I have always had qualms about inheritance tax. On the plus side, land owner aristos had to hand over their estates to the National Trust, which means that for the snip of £120 a year me and the family get to schlep through dusty mansions with priceless paintings and enjoy the grounds with lovely vistas. On the minus side, I will need to employ a financial advisor if I want to shift around my well-gotten gains so my lad can get on the property market. I have no idea anymore what is fair, what is right, what is self-interest and what is blow you Jack, I'm alright

 

[Bodian]

Haven't we just got to the point that ANY government is better that this shit shower? And to be honest, do you see much clear blue water between Labour and Lib Dems on policy, while everybody's Green now, right?

And who knows what they're voting for anyway? No tax rises. £350 million a week to the NHS. Getting immigration down to the tens of thousands. Control of our borders. Strong on crime, strong on the causes of crime. Strong and Stable - all total bollocks.

"Vote Total Bollocks" - sounds a good three-word slogan there!

 

[Seagull27]

why would 100% inheritance do anything for social mobility?
what it would do is discourage saving for old age, so more dependance on state, and encourge people to just spend in their later years, or give money and assets to family. better plan is to get rid, so many avoid it anyway, instead tax recipients on the income. thats the sort of change comes when applying flat tax principle, rather than the labyrinth created to favour one group here, another group there, a special interest somewhere.

Encouraging people to spend in their later years wouldn't be such a bad thing, it's better for the economy for money to be spent (and therefore taxed again) than sitting in a bank account or other assets such as a house that don't get bought/sold regularly.

If it were down to me, I'd set an upper limit for inheritance - let's say £50,000 per person for example - where everything above that gets taxed 100%. If that encourages people to split their inheritance across more recipients, that's better as it's more likely to get spent and re-taxed through VAT etc. The upper limit would need to be large enough to allow people to leave a generous gift for their children, without handing them a significantly unfair advantage over the majority who do not have much to gift to their kids.

I know a lot of people would find that uncomfortable as it would mean parents couldn't hand their property down to their children anymore. But the way property ownership is going, in 50 years or so only the rich will be able to hand property down. This spirals into an ever unfair cycle where the best chance of owning your own house is through inheritance. Personally I think that right should be earned, not gifted.

It's natural for parents to want their own kids to inherit everything they've worked for, and I understand why some may feel that this would take that right away from them. But I strongly believe that society should do everything it can to balance the opportunities for every child, you don't get to choose the circumstances you are born into after all.

 

[Guinness Boy]

There are already Inheritance Tax "dodges" that are perfectly legal. For example, you can gift everything to a dependant now and, in theory, if you die in the next 7 years there is full or proportionate IHT due depending on when. Unless you have a Gift Intervivos protection policy which will insure you against being taxed and effectively pay you that tax back.

If, on the other hand, you are a pensioner with equity in your home but very little income, you can get additional income via a Lifetime Mortgage (used to be called Equity Release).

The financial services sector will always be way ahead of Government and HMRC on these sorts of things, all the more so with the current trend in Parliament for rushing through bad legislations without committee scrutiny or any application of expertise.

 

[rogersix]

why would 100% inheritance do anything for social mobility?
what it would do is discourage saving for old age, so more dependance on state, and encourge people to just spend in their later years, or give money and assets to family. better plan is to get rid, so many avoid it anyway, instead tax recipients on the income. thats the sort of change comes when applying flat tax principle, rather than the labyrinth created to favour one group here, another group there, a special interest somewhere.

1. it would be meritocratic

2. no, it wouldn't