Life under the Tories: don't say you weren't warned

[Guest TheLibrarian]

@AMLightfoot I wish I had remembered to rep then thank those posts.

[Flatpackhamster]

It is a good idea. To a point. The problem arises when you have to decide if you are going to publicly fund the more extreme (yet legitimate) parties which would then give them far more money than they could ever raise on their own which in turn may lead to their growth (publicly funded of course) to a level that they could have never achieved by themsleves. It's a whole can of worms TBH.

 

I have serious misgivings about this point of view. Who are you - or anyone - to decide what's 'extreme'? If the voters want a BNP MP, then why shouldn't the BNP receive funding? Either you assume that the voters are making legitimate, informed choices, and you fund all parties based upon a % of the vote they received, or you assume that voters are ignorant and decide that only parties which are 'approved' should receive funding. In which case, what's the point in having a vote at all? You might as well just scrap elections altogether.

[witch]

Are they within the law? Surely that is the judging criteria?

[localzuk]

The way to sort out the public funding for parties problem, is to make it so that they must get a certain percentage of the vote else they'll have to pay it back. It keeps the crazies away from the public funds, but allows those who have a legitimate chance to campaign and stand for election.

 

So, if in the election they get 12 votes out of 30 million, they obviously had no chance and shouldn't have been wasting money. But if they get 300k, then they obviously hold the same views as a decent percentage of the country and their costs would be paid for by the taxpayer.

 

All parties should get the same funding too - not different amounts based on percentages etc... That way they're all on a level footing financially.

[Roberto]

It's only going to get worse under this bunch.

 

Which bunch?

 

The lot that are currently in charge of selling the family silver?

The lot that bankrupted us so we've got little choice but sell the family silver?

Or the lot who'd never been trusted with the family silver before and are now finding out that their promises about what to do with it that sounded fine in theory don't always work so well in practice now they've been allowed to share control of the family silver?

 

Politicians are are as bad as one another, just in different ways. Sure, I've got my sympathies with some of them (more to do with them being "less worse" than "better") but lets be honest, when you vote in an election, you're not choosing whether or not you're going to get screwed by the govt. at all, you're simply choosing what flavour of lube and whether or not you get to be the big spoon or the little spoon afterwards.

[LosOjos]

Are they within the law? Surely that is the judging criteria?

 

Just to play devil's advocate - obviously they must be acting legally or there'll be punishment, but their views don't necessarily have to be, as there are a lot of laws that are heavily politically influenced. After all, what are morals? Man made.

 

As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here - there have in fact been parties whom [?] have held only one policy; to change the law. Google Howard Marks for an example...

[AMLinington]

I agree with everything you've said except this. No-one thinks that of Ed Miliband. No-one thinks anything of Ed Miliband. It's like the Tories picking William Hague, to politicians he seems fine, but to the public, he's almost invisible.

 

Just to add to your rage (because it's so delightfully eloquent and accurate): did you know that the bar in Westminster is subsidised by public money as well? They even get their beer/wine/scotch cheaper than the rest of us.

 

If they're making the rules for us, we should have a second government formed of people earning less than £25k who decide the rules and pay conditions of parliament. Letting MPs make their own rules on pay and expenses seems a little bit open to abuse.

 

I was vaguely aware that their in-house bar was preferential (Edrador distillery in Scotland makes a bespoke Whiskey specifically for the House of Lords and the only place you can buy it is in Westminster or Edrador directly), I suppose I should not be surprised therefore that an increase on duty for booze and fags will obviously not affect the politicians.

 

Re: Ed Miliband, I agree, he was just the first name that came into my head that I recognised as New Labour

 

I like the idea of a second government, but I thought that was the whole point of the House of Lords/House of Commons thing, although it must be said that telling the difference between the two is getting harder since owning a vast pile in the country and a Sir or Lordship title is no longer the preserve of blooded gentry.

 

I think allowing the government to set their own wages is like asking a child to distribute sweets to his classmates with no restrictions on who gets what amount - the child will of COURSE give themselves the most, then their friends will be the next most generously blessed, and the smelly kid in the corner no-one likes will get nothing 'Oh, sorry, the money has run out'. Sorry, did I say money, I mean't sweets, got my analogy confused with reality there for a moment...

 

Personally, with the improvements in communications technologies, all this guff about transport costs is rubbish. I also don't believe for a second that such massive salaries attracts the best candidates or the most qualified or skilled. I've lost count of the number of companies that have suffered under poor executive leadership. Someone recently pointed me towards the most accurate thing I have ever read, and since it is on Wikipedia that's saying something:

 

The Peter Principle

 

In short, this states that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Meaning that people do good work and so are continually promoted up to the point at which they are so incompetent that they perform their job role at its most basic level. Therefore they do not proceed further, nor are they demoted, but it means that all management and leadership positions are held by those utterly incapable of performing the role effectively.

 

Obviously holding a referendum on every decision the government has to make is impractical, but I hope that in the future with the advances in personal technologies, there may be a greater opportunity for every single individual to contribute to the governence of the country. This is probably a Blue-skies idea, but still...

 

@AMLightfoot I wish I had remembered to rep then thank those posts.

 

Indeed, I always do it the wrong way around too :-S

[sonofsanta]

Obviously holding a referendum on every decision the government has to make is impractical, but I hope that in the future with the advances in personal technologies, there may be a greater opportunity for every single individual to contribute to the governence of the country. This is probably a Blue-skies idea, but still...

 

They have the online petitions for number 10 now, so we already have that system; all we need now are politicians that will take it seriously. At the moment they just pay lip service to debating the issues by only bringing it up when there's only two-dozen backbenchers lounging around the House of Commons, and those are only there because they fell asleep in the morning and are too embarrassed to walk out now they've woken up again.

[aerospacemango]

I was making a very specific point here. That point was that claiming that Labour were pure as the driven snow and were only 'corrupted' later is nonsense when you look at the corruption and criminality which defined their administration from the start.

 

Anyway, what was the point of the discussion? Wasn't it that Der Torays Are Evul? I hardly think it's worth 'discussing' that, since it's the product of the Guardian. We might as well pull up an editorial by the Sun and discuss it since it's of the same intellectual calibre.

 

I'd say you were better off going for the Daily Mail comparison, to be honest! The Sun are more likely to be behind Labour next time round after what the Leveson Enquiry is doing to them....and the Torys set that up....

[broc]

Allow union members to choose, every year, whether or not their union donates their cut to the party in question (which will be Labour).

 

Union members can elect not to pay the political levy - the law allows a union member to contract out

Trade union political funds : Directgov - Employment

[Flatpackhamster]

Union members can elect not to pay the political levy - the law allows a union member to contract out

Trade union political funds : Directgov - Employment

 

I know. I want to see an opt-in, not an opt-out. I want an assumption that the worker's wages are their own, not the union's.

[broc]

I know. I want to see an opt-in, not an opt-out. I want an assumption that the worker's wages are their own, not the union's.

Union members opt to pay union fees or not & can opt not to pay the political levy. Where is the problem? If you don't like what the union is doing, don't join?

 

Here's a breakdown of how many people who opted out (in 2009):

 

Trade Unions: Political Levy: 4 Mar 2009: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

Edited March 29, 2012 by broc

[sted]

It makes sense to you, maybe. I can't think of anything worse than giving taxpayers' money to politicians. Why the hell should anyone pay for their politics? Doesn't this just reinforce failure? If you can't get enough money from your supporters, you shouldn't expect handouts from the state.

 

Cap donations at £50,000 and make anything over £5,000 public. And ban unions from donating en bloc. Allow union members to choose, every year, whether or not their union donates their cut to the party in question (which will be Labour).

 

i dont have to like it or think its an ideal solution but its better than what we have now where in theory if i had the cash i could probably talk to the right people donate to the right places and get my biased opinions put forward. besides i think ive heard 50p per person per year for state funded political parties id gladly give that to try and get them a bit more accountable and possibly honest and keep money grubbing corporations away.

 

At the very least we need a cap on what a party CAN spend on advertisement etc so you cant win just by having more cash

[Flatpackhamster]

Union members opt to pay union fees or not & can opt not to pay the political levy. Where is the problem? If you don't like what the union is doing, don't join?

 

Here's a breakdown of how many people who opted out (in 2009):

 

Trade Unions: Political Levy: 4 Mar 2009: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou

 

The problem is that many union workers may not want their money to go to the Labour party. The presumption that the union has the right to their money to do with as it wishes is the problem here. That presumption is wrong.

[Flatpackhamster]

i dont have to like it or think its an ideal solution but its better than what we have now where in theory if i had the cash i could probably talk to the right people donate to the right places and get my biased opinions put forward. besides i think ive heard 50p per person per year for state funded political parties id gladly give that to try and get them a bit more accountable and possibly honest and keep money grubbing corporations away.

 

At the very least we need a cap on what a party CAN spend on advertisement etc so you cant win just by having more cash

 

How is it better? At the moment people can give money to support a party whose policies they agree with. What's wrong with that? It's not dirty, and it's not wrong, to want to support a political party.

 

The problem that we have is not big donors (such as the Unions), it is that the number of small donors - like you and me - has fallen. 30 years ago the Conservative Party had 2 million members. Now it has about 200,000. Labour has about half that. The Lib Dems have about 35,000. As a result, the percentage of money that comes from big donors has outgrown the percentage from small donors.

 

Those parties are failing and dying. All of their memberships have fallen, ever year, for the last 20 or so years. They're failing and dying because they no longer represent the typical person in the UK. That's why voting percentages have fallen for the last 30 years. Unrepresentative government.

 

If you give these parties money based upon the number of votes they receive, then you're doing two things. Firstly, you're rewarding them for failure. You're not forcing them to reconnect with their grass roots, not forcing them to rethink their policies.

Secondly, you're taking money from taxpayers who really can't afford it. Our taxes are already colossal. Our debts are immense. Would £100 million a year really be better spent on the political parties than on paying off our debts?

[broc]

The problem is that many union workers may not want their money to go to the Labour party. The presumption that the union has the right to their money to do with as it wishes is the problem here. That presumption is wrong.

 

The trade union movement were responsible for setting up the Labour Party, it's natural that the unions will choose to support Labour. If union members don't want their money to go to Labour they can opt out... which is more than shareholders can do when companies choose to donate money to the Tories.

 

If you join a Union, you accept their rules. If you don't like the rules you can do one of two things: 1) leave or 2) become 'active' in the Union & try and change the rules. Union members are collectively responsible for their Unions rules & if enough people vote they can change them.

Edited March 29, 2012 by broc

[Flatpackhamster]

The trade union movement were responsible for setting up the Labour Party, it's natural that the unions will choose to support Labour.

 

Is it? I don't get a sense of that from traditional Labour voters. If that were the case we'd see the Labour party's coffers positively groaning with money, but here they are, £20 million in debt.

 

If union members don't want their money to go to Labour they can opt out... which is more than shareholders can do when companies choose to donate money to the Tories.

 

A false analogy. Firstly, and most importantly, shareholders buy shares to make a profit. There's no political ideology there, just business. Secondly, of course shareholders can opt out. There's no coercion. Nobody makes them buy shares. Nobody presumes consent as the unions do.

 

If you join a Union, you accept their rules. If you don't like the rules you can do one of two things: 1) leave or 2) become 'active' in the Union & try and change the rules. Union members are collectively responsible for their Unions rules & if enough people vote they can change them.

 

Why are you so opposed to having people opt out by default rather than opt in? I'm opposed to an assumed opt-in because I want people to be free to spend their money how they choose. So why don't you think they should be free to do so? You can see from the link you quoted how few people choose to opt out. Is it really likely that every teacher shares the ideology of their union and wishes them to give money to the Labour party?

[alttab]

I think people talk about a squeezed middle, and that certainly is true. When has it been any other way really ?

 

But I think a couple of big changes in recent years need to be offset against the raising of taxes, low interest rates are really low which in theory benefits debtors rather than rich savers. Obviously low rates aren't good for those relying on traditionally savings based retirements, but lower rates benefit our democracy as a whole rather than paying higher rates on savings which aren't put to work.

 

The other is low general price inflation. Obviously you don't feel wealthier if your persistently getting pay freezes, but in general it's a fairly benign environment as far rates and inflation....so with that side of the equation pretty much taken care of, it's up to someone to come into power who can slay another couple of dragons. No.1 top down tax cuts aren't democratically justifiable and where's the evidence they work better than say a payroll holiday for basic rate taxpayers.

 

The second is that we don't need to cut spending faster so as to pay off debts. Paying off non existent debts, the equivalent of taking money out of the economy and burning it, is not as useful as putting money in peoples pockets.

If they feel they must cut spending then they need to cut taxes equally aggressively to offset the fiscal drag. But obviously a democratic tax cut, not just a corp tax cut or an aggressive cut for top 1 percent of earners. At the minute it's one step forward two steps back....raising personal tax threshold is a good start but then the fuel escalator and public sector pay freezes continues to bite. Or how about the tax drag that is the tuition fees increase. And on and on. This whole notion of giving with one hand and taxing from another is really counter productive.