The Big Benefits Row

[Garacesh]

Yup. That's the beauty of 'in theory'. Sounds great on paper, never works out as so great.

(Coincidentally is probably how my proposition would end up if it ever went forward, but so it would be with any other reform ever anyway, because that's just how things always end up, unfortunately.)

[tmcd35]

Yeah that's a real can of worms; 40% "majority", coalition parties, unelected EU officials... our vote isn't worth much!

 

Yep, voter apathy in this country is a real killer. 2011's referendum saw a 42/2% turnout (United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (allegidly)). We complain about the system but given the chance to make real change we choose to stay at home and watch Sky Sports instead.

[mthomas08]

What's wrong with Sky Sports

 

I wont lie the last election I didn't vote because frankly I would have voted for the Looney party. Now that the parties are seeming desperate for voters and coming up with things I actually want I will be voting. As said before I will be voting for the party who will be toughest on the benefit system.....

[sted]

Yep, voter apathy in this country is a real killer. 2011's referendum saw a 42/2% turnout (United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (allegidly)). We complain about the system but given the chance to make real change we choose to stay at home and watch Sky Sports instead.

 

but you CANT change the system there is no way you can get rid of the current top 3 parties and they will never abandon it as it server their interests well

[Garacesh]

Admittely I suffer for Voter Apathy but I still voted last election. I voted for the party I knew would receive less votes - the Liberal Democrats. Not because I support them - I can't realistically say I support anybody - but because I was hoping on a hung parliament.

 

The thing is, the current parties are so anti-change they'll run a huge smear campaign against any viable opposition.

Tough on immigration? Racist. Raise taxes for the rich? Hate the successful.

And if they can't smear you, they'll just drag it out for so long that you don't get a word in.

 

Thing is, @mthomas08's comment is a little moot anyway (even if correct) - You pay taxes as part of your agreement of living and earning in this country. You're welcome to go elsewhere (even though elsewhere is just as bad or worse, and they may not grant you residency, or it may not be viable for you to leave the country because you haven't found any foreign work, which you'll have trouble getting without a residency permit...) Classic case of 'The option that doesn't really exist..' (though I forget its 'proper' name)

Edited February 6, 2014 by Garacesh

[tmcd35]

but you CANT change the system there is no way you can get rid of the current top 3 parties and they will never abandon it as it server their interests well

 

It's amazing how wrong that actually is. The reason for the referendum was because the Lib-Dems insisted on it as condition to coalition - current system doesn't serve them at all. It's Tory and Labour who constantly vote it down.

 

What's interesting about the referendum is it was "post-legislative" meaning had the people turned out and voted for AV, there would have been no choice but to make it happen.

 

Parliament won't ever do it of it's own accord because, as you say, it the current system serves Labour and Tory purposes. But it is we, the people, who missed the opportunity if we don't like the existing system.

[LosOjos]

Now that the parties are seeming desperate for voters and coming up with things I actually want I will be voting.

 

The problem is, they can tell you whatever they like during election campaigns but are under no obligation to deliver it; a fact which infuriates me. I think they should have to put down their promises in black and white along with time frames for delivery and they should be held to them if elected. Failure to deliver on an election promise within said time frame results in automatic re-election. I know sometimes things happen which are out of anybody's control, the government included, so that could prevent them doing certain things they said they would but then it would be up to them to convince the public that it was genuinely out of their hands if they want the re-election to swing in their favour.

[tmcd35]

@LosOjos, the reason we have general (and by-) elections is for that very reason. To hold them to account if they don't satisfactoraly live up to their election promises. In that way they are accountable.

[LosOjos]

@LosOjos, the reason we have general (and by-) elections is for that very reason. To hold them to account if they don't satisfactoraly live up to their election promises. In that way they are accountable.

 

I just don't think it's enough. Under the current system, $Party could promise to instantly credit every tax payer's account with £100 upon election, then upon being elected immediately say "ooh, sorry, no can do." We then have to wait up to 5 years (variable depending on whether the elected PM wants to hold it earlier or not) before we can do anything about it.

 

(I know this is a silly example but I'm trying to not say anything that would single out an individual party)

[tmcd35]

But the manisfesto we elect them on isn't based on one policy. The manisfesto contains a number of policies the party wishes to enact during a term of office (now fixed to 5 years). They need time to break a number of policies before you want to hold them to account or we'll be holding general elections every 6 months.

[sted]

It's amazing how wrong that actually is. The reason for the referendum was because the Lib-Dems insisted on it as condition to coalition - current system doesn't serve them at all. It's Tory and Labour who constantly vote it down.

 

What's interesting about the referendum is it was "post-legislative" meaning had the people turned out and voted for AV, there would have been no choice but to make it happen.

 

Parliament won't ever do it of it's own accord because, as you say, it the current system serves Labour and Tory purposes. But it is we, the people, who missed the opportunity if we don't like the existing system.

but how does pr help its same 3 parties you might get a few more independents or ukip/bnp etc but still 80+% of seats among the big 3 so youre electing the same set of people a different way

[LosOjos]

But the manisfesto we elect them on isn't based on one policy. The manisfesto contains a number of policies the party wishes to enact during a term of office (now fixed to 5 years). They need time to break a number of policies before you want to hold them to account or we'll be holding general elections every 6 months.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting (though I can see how I can be misunderstood) that failing to deliver one a single promise would be cause for another election, but let's say they made 5 promises on education to be delivered (or at least started) by the end of their first 18 months in office. If by the end of those 18 months they had only managed to start delivering on one or two of those policies, then another election would be held. It's only a mild musing on the idea I admit, I haven't sat down and come up with a manifesto on it or anything, I just think some system should be put in place to hold them accountable to election promises. I know that the general election should do that, but in 5 years a lot of dirt can be thrown in all directions to cover up the failings of a given government during their term.

 

but how does pr help its same 3 parties you might get a few more independents or ukip/bnp etc but still 80+% of seats among the big 3 so youre electing the same set of people a different way

 

Because given a second or even third choice, it would come to light how much support these smaller parties have. They may not immediately win a general election that way, but they'll gain more seats which will give them a bigger influence on parliament and also make their policies more visible; it will would have given the smaller parties a more level playing field.

[SpuffMonkey]

In the tawdry benefits debate, no politician speaks of moral obligations

[tmcd35]

Sorry to breath life into a thread that quietly slipped away, but saw this on the Beeb this morning and it seemed relevant...

 

BBC News - Living Wage is answer to pay squeeze, says Archbishop John Sentamu

Edited February 10, 2014 by tmcd35

[featured_spectre]

He isn't wrong either. A living wage would be great for many people.

[Garacesh]

I find it absurd that people can agree on a 'living wage' - i.e. the amount of money you need to live.. And then legally declare you're allowed to pay less..

[tmcd35]

I'd be interested in seeing some real figures comparing benefits claims to both National Minimum Wage and The Living Wage. Can/do the unemployed recieve more or less than either of those figures? What effect does Tax credits have on those earning the NMW, does/can it take them over the Living Wage?

[featured_spectre]

Having been unemployed for a period of time, I can tell you, at one point I received more than my mrs who was working a full time job (at the time). I was getting close to £1300 a month through JSA, Council tax benefit, housing benefit (DSS).

[hawc]

Here we go again...

[GREED]

I have it on record. .. no one spoil it for me!!

[abillybob]

Same

[Ephelyon]

*Dons wellies*

 

Lots of good discussion here.

 

I was just interested in the vouchers point. I agree that 2014 is starting to look like an alternate vision of 30 years ago if we say, and please note the explicit wording:

 

"This is what you can spend the money we give you on."

(Exhaustive list that's quite long, but never long enough to deal with individual scenarios as has been pointed out.)

 

What if we said instead:

 

"This is what you can't spend the money we give you on."

(Shorter list, far easier to administer, categories voted in/out by local electorates once every... whenever.)

 

Would that methodology work both for people who support vouchers and for people who don't like a predefined list of everything they're allowed to spend their money on?

 

One more point: the "punishment" of the 99% in respect of the 1%. I fully agree with the sentiment here but I wouldn't use the word "punishment". Instead I'd say "taking account of"... because yes, you do have to take account of the abuses by the 1%. That's because if you don't, you stop looking for the problems, which means you get complacent about them, and ultimately that 1% figure begins to grow and grow. Not that you'd know about it, because you're no longer looking for it (you've decided you don't need to, remember, and most people/officials charged with monitoring something over time, but who don't see the sense in it, don't do it properly).

 

This ties back into the government-published figures on fraudulent under/overpayments; if (and let's just say if) the many stories quoted by members here are accurate, then presumably these are fraudulent claimers that the government doesn't know about... so then how many more are there? Bearing in mind both this plus the complacency element, how can those figures be believed without closer scrutiny?