British Politics Thread.

[Mr Mystery]

How do?

So, referendum is done and over with, so Independence Thread is now a bit defunct. So I started this one, hurrah!

I'll kick off with a puzzler....

Labour seem reticent over English Parliament type thing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29306231). Which is crazy.

I don't think there's a single person in Scotland who feels it isn't daft that a Scottish MP can vote on matters solely affecting England.

Way I see it, a more federal UK could be a good thing - lots of grumbling over the years about Westminster being too Londoncentric in it's views and influences. Yet Labour aren't really back it.

Answer seems fairly obvious - Scotland has a decent number of Labour MPs, and just a single Tory, so those votes are important. But the confusing thing? Seems they're about to make exactly the same mistake the Tory party did in 1997 - refuse to discuss a pressing matter.

For the Tories, it was a Scottish (and indeed Welsh) desire for devolution. Lib Dumbs and Labour put it to the people. Tories just said 'no'. Net result? Tory massacre in Scotland. Not a single Tory MP from north of the border. And Labour now risk that very same mistake!

[Wolfshade]

Ah the west lothian question

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed. Slightly more info in this article about the stances the various parties are adopting. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29306231)

Westminster really needs to get on this one and pronto. Promsies made to Scotland should be stuck to, but equally the rest of the UK should not miss out. Otherwise, you'll just generate hostility towards Scotland, even though the current imbalance is not their doing!

[Wolfshade]

I was speaking to a friend about this at the weekend.

Really there should be UK-wide laws, which all elected MPs can vote on and then "federal" type laws that only MPs for that legisture body can vote on (Wlesh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Stormont and an English version).

The trouble comes dividing what laws are passed by which areas.

There was a general consensus that any costs arising from changing from UK to national variance should have th cost met in that region.

E.g. if Wales decided every household should own three sheeps, it is up to the WA to fund it.

Though we couldn't decide where you would draw the lines of what should be whole UK and what should be Nation by nation.

[Mr Mystery]

I quite agree - I think a federal UK would be inherently fairer as a society.

Living/Working in London or the home counties leads to skewed perceptions of how the country is doing as a wider whole.

As a country we've got a really good chance here to modernise our somewhat archaic governmental system.

[Wildeybeast]

I was speaking to a friend about this at the weekend.

Really there should be UK-wide laws, which all elected MPs can vote on and then "federal" type laws that only MPs for that legisture body can vote on (Wlesh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Stormont and an English version).

The trouble comes dividing what laws are passed by which areas.

There was a general consensus that any costs arising from changing from UK to national variance should have th cost met in that region.

E.g. if Wales decided every household should own three sheeps, it is up to the WA to fund it.

Though we couldn't decide where you would draw the lines of what should be whole UK and what should be Nation by nation.

You mean like how Scotland gets free prescriptions and universities paid for by the UK? ;)

[Al Shut]

Just don't federalize education. Having several different school systems is a horrible idea

[Mr Mystery]

Kind of have already.....

State School (BIG UP THE PLEB EDUCATED MASSIVE!)
Grammars
Free Schools
Private and Public Schools.

Scotland also has a different set of guidelines (and if you don't get your qualification in Scotland, you can't teach there)

[Wolfshade]

Event state "schools" aren't the same across the country.

In some areas there is a two teir system in others there are three.

But, yes Wildey like the free prescriptions.

[Mr Mystery]

In my capacity as a Lefty Liberal Scot (by birth only now. Lived in England 23 years!) I think the pertinent question isn't 'why does Scotland get X' but 'how come we don't have X' for the rest of the UK.

[Wildeybeast]

No such thing as state schools any more. We have those that are academies, which means entirely self governing, often owned by dubious companies and those that are yet to become academies.

In answer to your question Mystery, because the Scots got all pissy about it and made a fuss, the English didn't. Mostly because they assumed everything was geared around us anyway, but now the Scots have shown us what we could have and didn't even know we were missing.

[Mr Mystery]

More or less my point :)

[Denzark]

Good thread MM was thinking we need summat similar. And yes this whole EVEL is massively interesting. Miliband cannot go against it without seeming hugely self interested.

[AirHorse]

In fairness we don't get free prescriptions for nothing in Scotland! Ask the police! The funding for the nhs has remained strong here at the expense of the justice system!!

I guess at the end of the day its all about what your priorities are!!

[Mr Mystery]

Was discussing this on Facebook last night. Leftyopinion - GO!

So, I don't get it.

Welfare State and NHS set up post war, when we were more or less bankrupt as a country.

Now? Now we're doing really well, and have one of the world's biggest economies. But suddenly, all those nice things? Yeah now we can't afford them..... There's something fishy there.

Now yes, both institutions have grown somewhat since they started, and I do agree there is scope to reduce both. NHS managers? GTFO. Benefits I feel should be capped/frozen, whilst the minimum wage proceeds towards a living wage - as it is, too many people who are otherwise happy to work are better off on benefits. That's not right, and all ends of the political spectrum have to bear the blame for that (Left - kept bennies up with inflation. Right - suppressing wages for decades). Two pronged approach will soon get it tilted back into the right direction :)

[Wolfshade]

Don't forget back post war we weren't spending money on the things that we are now.

How much do we spend on cancer treatment then compared with now?
Same with psychological therapies, repairing botched plastic surgeryIn England, most people are overweight or obese. This includes

61.9% of adults and 28% of children aged between 2 and 15. People who are overweight have a higher risk of getting type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. Excess weight can also make it more difficult for people to find and keep work, and it can affect self-esteem and mental health.

Health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5 billion every year.

Funding for the NHS comes directly from taxation and is granted to the Department of Health by Parliament. When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £9 billion at today’s value). For 2012/13, it was around £108.9 billion.

[Psychosplodge]

because in 1950 you got cancer, you died.
In fact in 1950 beyond cutting bits off, fixing breaks, sewing you up, giving you basic anti biotics what more was there they could fix?

[Wolfshade]

So what we need to do is get fatties to start to walk.

Put the car keys down, you are walking less than half a mile. I will not kill you.

[Mr Mystery]

See, for stuff like fattyboombooms, and smokers, and chronic alcoholics etc - why does the NHS cover them?

I know it sounds harsh, but as a smoker myself, I know any damage done is entirely my own fault.

NHS does need a shake up. Right now it is overburdened - but like my suggestion for benefits etc, it needs to come from more angles than just 'hurr, cut funding!'. Reduce it's scope. Non-corrective cosmetic surgery (by corrective I mean repairing disease related damage) - hell no. Botched surgery, especially if it's by a private surgeon - that practice should foot the bill and sort out the surgery one way or another.

It can't be a free-for-all anymore. Let it instead be a fall back for those unable to afford private medical care (and anyone who can afford private medical care should take it out. Show a bit of responsibility!)

[Denzark]

I would love to see some sort of permit/ID card for smokers and drinkers. £10 to have, paid for yearly. If you go to the NHS for treatment for something linked to smoking or drinking and you are a permit holder, you automatically have to pay for your treatment for that affliction. Also if you cause an injury through drunk.

Example

Lung cancer.
Falling down drunk and smashing teeth out of head.
Being found guilty in court of fighting whislt drunk, you pay for any NHS treatment of your victim.
Being found guilty in court of causing drink drive injuries, you pay for the hospital and a rate towards the emergency service attendance at the scene.


I think it could be done in such a way that the costs of the system outweigh the money coming in.


Also, I don't think the NHS is sustainable in its current format and possibly not at all.

You have extra life expectancy since the war, extra amount of old people, extra treatments available. You know the reports when it says 'Postcode lottery I can't get my £25000 cancer pills'? Well surely if one person is entitled, all must be - and that ain't sustainable.

Where would I get more money from? The 0.7% of GDP put towards international aid - lets fix our own tribe first. And also the amount given to the EU... perhaps an argument for a different day.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd cut stuff like Aircraft carriers, Nuclear missiles etc. To my mind that's just willy waving. Not like we're ever really going to need them. And if we do, we'll be steamrollered all the same.

[Psychosplodge]

Where would I get more money from? The 0.7% of GDP put towards international aid - lets fix our own tribe first. And also the amount given to the EU... perhaps an argument for a different day.

Seems the most obvious. Why exactly are we paying for indias space program?


I'd cut stuff like Aircraft carriers, Nuclear missiles etc. To my mind that's just willy waving. Not like we're ever really going to need them. And if we do, we'll be steamrollered all the same.

I'd rather have them. Deterrence doesn't work without the deterrent.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not sure about removing foreign aid. Reviewing it? Absolutely, and certainly India can bog off. But never lose sight that we got rich at the expense of others.

And what detterence? If we're gonna get nuked, we're gonna get nuked. And those likely to ever actually do it are clearly already insane, hence not at all worried about the possibility of being nuked back.

[Psychosplodge]

NATO and MAD kept us from WW3 for half a century. It seems to work.

[Mr Mystery]

Days of super powers are more or less over. We're all invested too much - bit of a triumph of capitalism really.

But, going back to more tangible things.

Scottish Independence Referendum certainly seems to have highlighted a desire, if not necessarily a need, for different areas to have more of a say of how things work for them. And I for one hope we don't see this desire fade.

But how best to manage this? Suggestions?

[Psychosplodge]

I don't really see the point, beyond the needed Westlothian question reform. All devolved regions will benefit is Manchester/Leeds everyone else will be even worse off.

[Wolfshade]

There is an issue of size and resolve.

Scotland has the issue that if it does become completely de-evolved then while it might maintain a reasonable head per capita investment, the issue comes down to population density. Because it is very sparsly populated it makes providing services very hard and very expensive to do

So for instance, west midlands has the same population as scotland but requires less hospitals, less police stations, less firestation etc, all because it is so close together so that it can then start to specialise and invest heavily in specialism owing to the small geographic confines. Whereas say, Pembrokeshire only has 1 hostpital for the whole county and in some cases clients are flown to ireland.

London has brilliant services because of this.

[Mr Mystery]

Milliband - Give me 10 years to fix UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29310512)

Mr Mystery - How about 5 and we'll see how it goes?

[Psychosplodge]

How about No? Look what your lot did last time...

[Wildeybeast]

Seconded.

On the international aid thing, getting rid of it in favour of 'our own tribe first' is rather short sighted. Whilst we obviously shouldn't be funding a country with a space programme (and I believe no longer are), most international aid is worth while.
Some of it is emergency disaster relief, which I challenge any decent human being to claim is unnecessary. Plus if a big rock from space smashed into our country and buggered us, we'd expect the rest of the world to chip in and save us.
The other type of international spending is international development which is focused on attempting to help stop crappy countries being so crap so that the people there can develop into productive trade partners and members of the global community, rather than Ebola ridden death zones that we then Have to chuck cash at to save or terrorist breeding grounds that we have to blow up, costing us far more in the military budget.

How exactly money is spent abroad needs looking very carefully at, but simply withdrawing it full stop is a false economy as it benefits us in the long term.

[Denzark]

What I would do for international aid is have a department, be it DFID, or whoever. The only government money that would go into it would be the minimum necessary to pay the civil servants who run it.

The whole purpose of this department would be to coordinate the passage of monies to places that need it. The monies themselves would come from donations from the populace.

So, at the end of the month, you think you have a spare fiver, you can donate however much. You think you can afford a ton and want to, you put that much in. You think you don't want to send a single penny overseas, good for you.

Because this money is people's post tax income, it does not affect state spending. There is none of the moral issue of Cameron with Samcam's monies and his £150k wage, telling tax payers on a shedload less that 0.7% of all tax receipts should go to parts foreign with dodgy human rights abuses and no innate support for or love for the UK.

I think it immoral to pay aid to other whilst a single aspect of Britain is not operating at 100% efficiency. You think otherwise, you have the option to donate to save the children or buy a book from Oxfam, and let the state fix NHS/obesity/dementia/infrastructure etc etc.

[Deadlift]

How about No? Look what your lot did last time...

Exactly.

[Al Shut]

How about No?

Is that the slogan that won the referendum?

[Wildeybeast]

What I would do for international aid is have a department, be it DFID, or whoever. The only government money that would go into it would be the minimum necessary to pay the civil servants who run it.

The whole purpose of this department would be to coordinate the passage of monies to places that need it. The monies themselves would come from donations from the populace.

So, at the end of the month, you think you have a spare fiver, you can donate however much. You think you can afford a ton and want to, you put that much in. You think you don't want to send a single penny overseas, good for you.

Because this money is people's post tax income, it does not affect state spending. There is none of the moral issue of Cameron with Samcam's monies and his £150k wage, telling tax payers on a shedload less that 0.7% of all tax receipts should go to parts foreign with dodgy human rights abuses and no innate support for or love for the UK.

I think it immoral to pay aid to other whilst a single aspect of Britain is not operating at 100% efficiency. You think otherwise, you have the option to donate to save the children or buy a book from Oxfam, and let the state fix NHS/obesity/dementia/infrastructure etc etc.

You aren't going to get any state run system operating at anything like 100% efficiency and to think otherwise is laughably naive. The only possible way you could get the NHS anything like where we need is a significant increase in taxes. I also don't know how it can be moral to focus spending in obese layabouts who have gorged themselves to diabetes and a gastric band whilst people abroad starve because God decided not make it rain this year; or to waste money on drunken morons who have smashed each other's faces in and poisoned their own livers whilst women and children flee their homes in terror because crazy people decided to have a war; or how about paying for those idiots that have riddled their own lungs with cancer whilst people in Africa die of AIDS simply because there was no one to teach how the **** the bloody thing spreads, never mind access to contraception. If you honestly think it's immoral to spend money on those who are incapable of helping themselves abroad rather than spending on the parasites and wasters at home who knowingly and willingly de story themselves and expect the rest of us to pay for it, then there is no point us discussing this any further as we won't find any common ground.

[Psychosplodge]

Is that the slogan that won the referendum?

It should have been.

[Denzark]

If you honestly think it's immoral to spend money on those who are incapable of helping themselves abroad rather than spending on the parasites and wasters at home who knowingly and willingly de story themselves and expect the rest of us to pay for it, then there is no point us discussing this any further as we won't find any common ground.

I personally wouldn't spend it on either to be frank. As I said in a post above smokers and drinkers should pay any costs associated with that. Likewise fatties and gastric bands, I totally agree.


But there are things need fixing here and here should be the priority. If you can find more than 20% (if that) of nations we give aid to, that don't have an army, a war with their neighbours and a hugely corrupt government and a president with a full swiss bank account, I would be surprised.

I would countenance putting them all under Empire again as they were probably better off - but which ever way you cut it, it is not the business of government to give charity for nothing to external countries.

There is real genuine poverty here, there is dementia, cancer, a million and one things that that money could go to that are NOT self inflicted by feckless wasters and I would rather look after our own first.

[Mr Mystery]

There's an opinion piece on the Telegraph website today, calling for a Middle Class uprising, based on the dodgy Phones4U scandal ongoing.

Worth hunting down and reading.

[AirHorse]

Interesting read...I hadn't actually paid much attention to the phones4u scandal till I read that!

Shocking that companies can get away with such things...

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

And even more interesting that the Telegraph are speaking out (or at least printing an article speaking out). Much more Guardian territory that.

[Denzark]

Yup.

And even more interesting that the Telegraph are speaking out (or at least printing an article speaking out). Much more Guardian territory that.

Linky?

[Mr Mystery]

Here you go dude (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11109845/Why-arent-the-British-middle-classes-staging-a-revolution.html)

Didn't post originally as it popped up on my Facebook feed.

[Wildeybeast]

I personally wouldn't spend it on either to be frank. As I said in a post above smokers and drinkers should pay any costs associated with that. Likewise fatties and gastric bands, I totally agree.


But there are things need fixing here and here should be the priority. If you can find more than 20% (if that) of nations we give aid to, that don't have an army, a war with their neighbours and a hugely corrupt government and a president with a full swiss bank account, I would be surprised.

I would countenance putting them all under Empire again as they were probably better off - but which ever way you cut it, it is not the business of government to give charity for nothing to external countries.

There is real genuine poverty here, there is dementia, cancer, a million and one things that that money could go to that are NOT self inflicted by feckless wasters and I would rather look after our own first.

I agree that we need to look very carefully at exactly how and where we are spending money abroad, but there are plenty of methods of spending it so it goes directly to the people that need it and no where near Mugabe and chums. I'm just objecting to the idea that we scrap it international aid outright. Quite apart from the moral objections that British people deserve it more simply by luck of having been born here, it is a well established historical precedent that isolationist polices damage countries in the long term, not to mention the benefits we gain from international aid.

I quite agree more should be done to tackle poverty and illness at home, but there are plenty of less deserving, not to mention less effective, wastes of money at home. Let's start with all the money that gets pissed up the wall by the NHS on incompetent and unnecessary middle management and compensation forked out every year due to blunders bought about by poor training and procedures. That should free up plenty for dementia research.

[Denzark]

I quite agree more should be done to tackle poverty and illness at home, but there are plenty of less deserving, not to mention less effective, wastes of money at home. Let's start with all the money that gets pissed up the wall by the NHS on incompetent and unnecessary middle management and compensation forked out every year due to blunders bought about by poor training and procedures. That should free up plenty for dementia research.

We do have SOME common ground then Wildey..

[Wildeybeast]

So it would seem. :)

[Mr Mystery]

I'm actually saddened that our Politicians seem to lack balls (and no, Ed Balls does not in fact count, Mr Milliband).

I for one am sick and tired of party politics. If your election campaign predominantly revolves around people voting for anything with your colour of ribbon on it, things have gone wrong, and badly so.

I was in favour of the Alternate Vote, because I object to First Past The Post. Yet it was ultimately voted down not because 'one person one vote', but 'christ! What about our safe seats??'. Seriously, why did we allow those in power to vote on how they get there in the first place? At least put it to the people. And yes I'm quite aware that would indeed be a First Past The Post vote - but those are unavoidable on a 'yay or nay' subject.

Completely regardless of those that form it, that we have a coalition at all shows that the will of the people has indeed not been made manifest on this occasion. Whoever had formed it would have had somewhat limited support in the populace. And I'm not daft - I'm quite aware that any party making the majority of a coalition will still just foist it's own peculiar brand upon the country as if they had a landslide - this is not a discussion about Tory policy, but a weakness in our democracy.

Proportional Representation is trickier for most to grasp, but also a much better system for recognising who the people really want in charge.

And back to party politics, having gone on a wee tangent there. Why is it the extremes? Why not 'right philosophy in the right job at the right time'? As I've mentioned in the past, I'm very much conservative (small c!) on the economy, as I don't like to see waste. But I remain otherwise quite Socialist in my view, seeing it as being very real benefit to the country. I stand against increased privitisation, as it simply hasn't worked. It was supposed to bring competition, and through that lower prices (hurrah!) and more efficiency (hurrah!). What did we get? Corruption and Collusion, and successive politicians too bloody toothless to do a jot about it. So privatising the NHS bits? Well done, you've just introduce a profit margin, you cockwomble* how the hell is that going to make things cheaper?

But with my brand of Socialism? Yeah it comes with personal social responsibility. So drinkers, smokers, big fattyboombooms? Guess what maties, you'll have to foot some of that bill (perhaps through a higher tax banding?). Simply put, too much Socialism can lead to indolence in society, a perception that it doesn't matter what you do, someone else will clear up the mess.

[Brakkart]

I'm of the opinion that Britain needs to move to a more federal system. Devolution for England has to happen, but honestly I don't think that will fix things, as England will still be weighted too much towards the South-East (and London in particular). I'd rather see England split up into 5-6 regions, name them after the old historical English kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex etc, one of which should be London/Kent. Heck make Cornwall a region of its own too. That will give us roughly 9-10 states (inc Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland) as part of the United Kingdom that can all run their own regional affairs far better than Westminster can. that leaves the national government in Westminster then to deal with issues like defence, foreign policy, national curriculum, laws, trade etc and big multi-region infrastructure projects like HS2 and a Severn Barrage. Things like the NHS and a lot of taxes are better dealt with at a local level.

In addition to the MP's for the various regions in Westminster I would have representatives from Britain's remaining overseas territories too, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands lest we forget the lesson of history ("no taxation without representation") and to send a message to anyone who might covet them (Spain & Argentina in particular)that these are parts of Britain and are not up for grabs.

[Denzark]

I don't get the problem with London. The urban area is some 9m, the metropolitan area is 13m. proportionately that is what, 16-20% of that 53m population of England.

Now Wikipedia gives the urban area to generate 20% of UK - not English, but UK - GDP. It gives the metropolitan area to generate 30%. So it contributes above its weight.

So why get sh*tty about its pre-eminence - why would we hamstring one part of the UK that is productive? My local city is Norwich - I love Norwich, it has personality and character. Would I want some token financial sop to Norwich that satisfies anti-London critics and yet jeopardises London performance?

No Sir.

[Wolfshade]

Yes.

I have to agree with zark. Things are going to be london centric, because so many people live there and it generates sooo much revenue.

There are also massive efficiencies with high density populations in terms of services, like Hospitals, Fire, public transport etc.

But then I did propose re-establishing the kingdom of mercia and the line of true kings...

Let's face it low density regions like Cornwall, for instance, recieve far more than they generate. If cornwall only had cornish money to improve services and grow then it wouldn't. It would need to pare down services.

There are also efficiency savings to have things based at a central location.

[Wildeybeast]

Treasonous worm to make grovelling apology (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29357114) after spilling her Majesty's secrets; may keep his head.

[Mr Mystery]

Nigel Farage promising anything in successful attempt to generate publicity, despite knowing he's never to going to see the inside of Westminster outside of a tour (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29368838)

[Mr Mystery]

Finances now on the English curriciulum.

And about time too. Working where I work, and considering myself relatively clueless about finances even then, it's constantly worrying to me just how many people don't understand how basic products like credit cards, loans and mortgages work.

There's even an entire industury charging up to 30% (plus VAT of course) of any redress you get to file your complaint. And despite subtlely trying to hint you need them or they improve your chances - it's a totally unnecessary industry on the scale we see it. Most of the time they're just writing two or three letters anyways!

So yes. I fully endorse this addition to the curriculum. No matter how basic it might turn out to be, Finances need to be taught from a young(ish) age!

[Mr Mystery]

Pre-paid card to be introduced to benefits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414565).

Well, if we have a Tory government next time (not guaranteed).

I'm largely in favour of this. Welfare State's original intent was to provide a roof over your head, food in your belly, and wood in the hearth - literally the basics to keep you going whilst you found work. And it was initially used as such, albeit in a time of high employment figures.

Now? There's people using their bennies to buy ciggies and booze - and frankly I object to that, especially as a smoker and drinker myself. They're little perks I can do because I have a job. You want nice things, even self destructive nice things? Time to get a job matey.

[AirHorse]

I'm definitely in favour of an overhaul of the benefits system of that kind of nature!

Just dropping cash into someone's account is open to an awful lot of abuse! Having the benefits restricted to essentials as they are intended will be a good change in my opinion!

[Wolfshade]

Having said that discretionary spending is good for the economy.

Though I do have to fall down in favour of this.

[Mr Mystery]

I just feel their should be some kind of demarkation between the lifestyle of a working spod, and the lifestyle of a bennies spod.

Should it be massively and obviously pronounced? Nah not so much - don't want workhouses back like. But it does seem daft that anyone living on state support could have sufficient disposable income for luxuries. I know the flatscreen TV thing is often trotted out, and I don't mean that - that's a long hard save that is. But Ciggies and Booze? Meals out? Harsh, but no.

We need to make work look more desirable, and this is certainly one way of going about it.

[Wolfshade]

Lower wage inequality leads to higer satisfcation.

But generally, those on income support or benefits should not be better off than someone working full time. Whether that means that wages should track inflation, and have a "decent" living wage or that benefits are reduced I don't really mind which. Actually I do, reduce it so I don't have to pay as much tax...

[Mr Mystery]

Needs both if you ask me.

Get wages rising, and then reduce down the Benefits, or even just freeze them. Soon enough, people are better off in work.

[40kGamer]

Pre-paid card to be introduced to benefits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414565).

Well, if we have a Tory government next time (not guaranteed).

I'm largely in favour of this. Welfare State's original intent was to provide a roof over your head, food in your belly, and wood in the hearth - literally the basics to keep you going whilst you found work. And it was initially used as such, albeit in a time of high employment figures.

Now? There's people using their bennies to buy ciggies and booze - and frankly I object to that, especially as a smoker and drinker myself. They're little perks I can do because I have a job. You want nice things, even self destructive nice things? Time to get a job matey.

Following this thread from the other side of the pond, I have to note that the most informative thing is that British issues are almost identical to US issues. Same party line political nonsense, same financial challenges, same fundamental class system for wealth... makes you wonder if the countries really split in 1776 at all.

As for the Welfare card system, what it accomplished here was the creation of a nice black market where people sell there cards at a discount for cash. Also, unscrupulous merchants allow them to purchase non-approved goods at inflated prices to pad their own pockets. the welfare safety net is a great concept and a much needed service to protect the most vulnerable members of society but it is rife with abuse.

[Mr Mystery]

Create any system, and it's open to abuse.

All you can do is make it harder for that abuse to pay off to the point it's worth abusing.

So these cards? First up, ciggies are not cheap in the UK. Knocking on for £10 a pack of 20, or £20 for 50g of loose tobacco (far better value!). Nobody that is capable of work, but isn't, should be able to afford these.

Black Market? They just try to undercut the legitimate market. Now....if you can't buy legitimate, Black Market prices will shoot up, and you'll need a reliable supply....

Most people on benefits, as in 'vasy majority' most aren't scumbags or parasites - they're just in a bad place, often through no fault of their own. The key is to make being on benefits relatively unpleasant, so people are encouraged back into work.

As for those who refuse to work? Sod them. Keep on cutting away, and reducing what they can spend State money on. There is a difference after all between State Support, and State Dependency.

And also amusing? Many of those in the EDL and other right wing racist organisations are on benefits, and yet complain about immigrants taking all the jobs....erm.....

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, I think if you are in a position whereby a "fresh off the boat" immigrant can take your job, that says more about you than the immigrant.

The exception being fruit & vegetable pickers, you can pay them below UK minimum wage if they don't work over here long enough...

[Mr Mystery]

Indeedy.

But how many Brits are willing to do fruit and veg picking for any amount of money??

[Wolfshade]

I do it for free, and it appears that my mastiff is quite adept at picking raspberries without damaging the plant...

[Mr Mystery]

Pics of the Dogbert please :)

Especially scoffing the fruits.

[40kGamer]

Create any system, and it's open to abuse. All you can do is make it harder for that abuse to pay off to the point it's worth abusing.

Very true. No matter what the law is there are those that will flow around it like water. Best you can hope for its to stem the tide.


So these cards? First up, ciggies are not cheap in the UK. Knocking on for £10 a pack of 20, or £20 for 50g of loose tobacco (far better value!). Nobody that is capable of work, but isn't, should be able to afford these.

Holy crap! 20 cigs in Ohio costs ~$6 USD or about £3.75! Quite the difference there!


Black Market? They just try to undercut the legitimate market. Now....if you can't buy legitimate, Black Market prices will shoot up, and you'll need a reliable supply....

Fraud is pretty common here although the majority still follow the law.


Most people on benefits aren't scumbags or parasites - they're just in a bad place, often through no fault of their own.

Not sure if this is true of the vast majority on US benefits although I firmly believe the wealthy end of the spectrum here is the far bigger issue that needs tackled... not sure if this is the same on your side of the pond or not.

[Kirsten]

for many years I mocked the anti immigration people who complained about immigrants taking their jobs and doing it on the cheap etc.

I have over the last few years discovered that they are not entirely wrong, even if their reasoning is. I am by no means anti immigration, and I do not blame the immigrants themselves whatsoever. there are far more jobs out there that pay below minimum wage than you would ever imagine though, and they are almost exclusively done by immigrants. this is either because the jobs are cash in hand/unregistered, or they get round it in other ways by paying for the literal amount of work done, like the weight of shellfish cleaned an hour for example. a hotel I used to work for had literally no other Manx people working there aside from me, and people were dismissive and saying 'oh but local people don't want to work, they just want to live on benefits, only foreigners are willing to work hard'. but in reality, the hotel did not advertise for staff, they simply employed friends/family etc, following the family already working there. there was no opportunity for local people to get the positions. the current place I work has certain similarities. one of the guys I work with got the job because his dad was already there, and the only english he could say was yes and no. he has been there four years and is still on minimum wage and doesn't care because it is so much better than where he comes from. not many of us would be happy with fours years in a job without a raise.

[Al Shut]

Most people on benefits, as in 'vasy majority' most aren't scumbags or parasites - they're just in a bad place, often through no fault of their own. The key is to make being on benefits relatively unpleasant, so people are encouraged back into work.

I don't quite understand how these two sentences make sense together. I would assume 'non-parasites' wouldn't need much encouragement.

[Psychosplodge]

I would have agreed with this, then I had a thought, Who defines whats necessary? Last time I was unemployed, my jobseekers was used almost entirely keeping the car on the road which gave me wider employability, but I know someone who when they lost their job was told by the job centre to get rid of their car which made even less sense due to their limited access to public transport.

Eastern european labour undercut people in the building trade.
But the biggest issue with immigration is its affect on housing. If net migration is a quarter of a million people where are we housing them?
We don't build enough houses and I don't mean these pokey little flats that housing associations won't touch as they're too small. I mean proper houses at a price the full time employed can afford.

40k gamer, cigerettes, alcohol, and petrol are all taxed heavily here, but whats worse is you pay VAT on a price that includes duty, so you pay tax on a tax.

[Wolfshade]

Well usually alcholo and ciggies are considered "essential", certainly when you look at people who have special arrangements to pay back more than they can, such items are considered as essentials so are "safe".

But mobility is very important which is why on the cycle thread I have highlighted a couple of schemes that involve giving peopel refurbished bikes so that they can get to jobs.

[Psychosplodge]

Considering my knee has just popped I don't think that would help me out in future :D

[Wolfshade]

Weak to the wall!

[Psychosplodge]

seems harsh.

[Wolfshade]

Sounds like a leftist comment to me...


But yes, it isn't perfect but it is helpful. Afterall, the cost of a car or travelling to work can often be so much that it would eliminate the point of actually working.

[Mr Mystery]

I would have agreed with this, then I had a thought, Who defines whats necessary? Last time I was unemployed, my jobseekers was used almost entirely keeping the car on the road which gave me wider employability, but I know someone who when they lost their job was told by the job centre to get rid of their car which made even less sense due to their limited access to public transport.

Eastern european labour undercut people in the building trade.
But the biggest issue with immigration is its affect on housing. If net migration is a quarter of a million people where are we housing them?
We don't build enough houses and I don't mean these pokey little flats that housing associations won't touch as they're too small. I mean proper houses at a price the full time employed can afford.

40k gamer, cigerettes, alcohol, and petrol are all taxed heavily here, but whats worse is you pay VAT on a price that includes duty, so you pay tax on a tax.

Job seekers I feel needs to be two fold...

General cash so you don't, you know, starve to death whilst looking for work

Free public transport for confirmed interviews - and if you get the job, free transport for the first month, until you've been paid.

[Psychosplodge]

That would work in London, but the transport simply doesn't exist here.

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, take hamlet, ruralshire, two busses a day, 3 times a week.

Also, the administration of such a scheme would be improbable.

[Mr Mystery]

It's a toughie yes - but something needs doing.


Even if people on Job Seeker's Allowance just get a free travel pass ala Pensioners. Expands their employment prospects no end. Even in Kent where I am, you have to travel between towns for most jobs. If someone can't afford those initial bus fares or train fares, they're massively limited in where they might find work.

Far out rural places? They're no reason to claim the entire system is flawed. I feel for people living out there who can't find work, but the needs of the many etc.

[Gotthammer]

http://i.imgur.com/msjpN6G.png


The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?


They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours.

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

[Mr Mystery]

It's a nice idea.

But where in the name of Satan's portion does that money come from in the first place?

[Psychosplodge]

**** gold...

- - - Updated - - -

oops

National socialist gold

[Mr Mystery]

And would that not mess up inflation and that?

I'll freely admit to being a bit of a financial simpleton when it comes to the wider picture, but surely when everyone in a country has more money, the prices just go up, because greed?

[Gotthammer]

I don't think it's that everyone has more money, just that if you are earning >$33k the govt pays you that, so minimum wage would be around that for a full time Job I'd imagine. Or if you're working, say 12hrs a week the govt gives you money to make up to $33k. Also people would still pay taxes and such.

And it wouldn't be everyone having more money, but it would mean people on benefits wouldn't get trapped in the poverty cycle. This would also be invaluable to people with long term illnesses or caring for people as most current benefits do not come even close to that.

[Mr Mystery]

Thing is, that would put me on the USD equivalent (I assume the pic is meaning USD?) of $76,000 a year.....

And the market would adapt to those prices. It's often felt prices are as high as the market will bear - I politely feel they're simply as cheap as the seller is willing to make them.

Take house prices and rent - not a great example in the UK. It's all interconnected to the average spending power for an area. Low employment rate, low wage average = low house and rent prices, simply because it's roughly pegged to what the market can bear. This of course gets completely dysfunctional in London and the Home Counties, where it seems theres no logic or rationality applied :)

[Gotthammer]

It's not that the govt gives you $33k no matter what, it's that everyone is given at least $33k a year, so if you earn more from working (ie $43k) that is your income with nothing from the govt.

[Mr Mystery]

Seems a bit weak.

I mean, I work flippin' hard in a job not just anyone could do, and would be a pretty meagre $10k better off than someone sat on their bahooky all day? No thank you!

[Gotthammer]

Well I used to earn $100k a year, then I got sick so (after several months so I could go through my savings because that's how it works because I had assets) I now get $200 a week. Like I literally am so sick I cannot work and have been for a year, but I still have bills to pay, medication to buy, pay for my car, specialists (some of which are $400 a visit - literally a month's entire income!). Plus also the fact that when you're unemployed (for whatever reason) you lose massive parts of your social life, feel useless and awful, are looked down on by society, and have to justify why you feel you should not be thrown into poverty because of events out of your control. But hey, I'm just sat on my bahooky so what would I know :rolleyes:

[Mr Mystery]

In the UK we have incapacity benefit, and disability benefit.

Depending the nature of your illness (I shan't pry), you would get one of those - incapacity if it's likely you'll get better over time, Disability is more permanent. This is all fine and well. If you [i]can't] work, you can't work. It's an exceptionally cruel heart who would take issue there.

I was referring to those who would think '£20kish a year, for doing sweet FA? Yeah I'm ok with that'.

[eldargal]

The number quotes is based on the Swiss situation, it would have to be tailored to each nation introducing such a system to take into account average salaries, cost of living etc.

[Mr Mystery]

Latest run down of the Tory Party Conference (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-29439641).

So far, no objections to me. And in an effort to stymie the growth of UKIP, a truly cancerous little political party, I'll be voting Tory next year - no point voting Labour this time around in T Wells, I've got biggerer fish to fry than sticking to my own political leanings.

And I know my Bro would have a fit if he saw this, but I kind of hope we do get a Tory majority this time around (though I think it will likely be another coalition of some shape), simply so Cameron can deliver that EU Referendum, and strip much of the constant bickering and pathetic whining out of UK policitc - not to mention annihilate all support for UKIP, regardless of outcome!

[Gotthammer]

From best I can understand those benefits are only around 70 pounds a week, with the Incapacity being slightly more, so not that much more really.

[Mr Mystery]

It's oddly compartmentalised here in the UK - though the Government apparently wasting millions trying to make it a single benefit.

Currently?

If you're incapacitated - say an industrial accident, which involves learning to walk again for instance, then you would get....

1. Income Support
2. Incapacity Benefit
3. Housing Benefit
4. Income Tax Benefit.

And quite possibly others. So overall, it adds up to a not uncomfortable living, particularly when Housing Benefit is taken into account :)

[40kGamer]

40k gamer, cigerettes, alcohol, and petrol are all taxed heavily here, but whats worse is you pay VAT on a price that includes duty, so you pay tax on a tax.

Ouch! I forgot the VAT! It is a lot higher then our sales tax which varies from 0-10% depending upon where you are in the country at the time. Cigs and Alcohol are hit with what is laughably called "sin" taxes here and petrol has taxes layered on at the state and federal levels to maintain the roads. Looks like our "sin" taxes are nowhere near as high as those in the UK!

- - - Updated - - -


Well I used to earn $100k a year, then I got sick so (after several months so I could go through my savings because that's how it works because I had assets) I now get $200 a week. Like I literally am so sick I cannot work and have been for a year, but I still have bills to pay, medication to buy, pay for my car, specialists (some of which are $400 a visit - literally a month's entire income!). Plus also the fact that when you're unemployed (for whatever reason) you lose massive parts of your social life, feel useless and awful, are looked down on by society, and have to justify why you feel you should not be thrown into poverty because of events out of your control. But hey, I'm just sat on my bahooky so what would I know :rolleyes:

Damn, I thought medical needs were covered in other parts of the world! Sorry you are having to go through such an awful time. I understand your feelings about these things, when you can't contribute, society has a way of making you feel bad about yourself. It doesn't make it true, but it still makes a person feel like boiled crap! :(

- - - Updated - - -


It's not that the govt gives you $33k no matter what, it's that everyone is given at least $33k a year, so if you earn more from working (ie $43k) that is your income with nothing from the govt.

It's a nice sentiment but I don't see a safety net program like that working in the US as things stand now. Illegal immigrants already put a strain on the US social systems as they are provided government assistance programs event though they aren't even legally supposed to be here. What is even more ridiculous is immigration gives people trying to go the legal route holy hell at being here while turning a blind eye to the poor border crashers.

[Al Shut]

It's not that the govt gives you $33k no matter what, it's that everyone is given at least $33k a year, so if you earn more from working (ie $43k) that is your income with nothing from the govt.

Getting about 2600$ a month no matter what and no matter who is exactly what is discussed in Switzerland. But as I understood it, when reading the Swiss site, it's expected that wages will sink about that amount because employers are supposed to be taxed that amount to pay for the unconditional basic income that you get from the state.

[Kirsten]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU

one for Mystery, slightly NSFW

[Denzark]

I wonder how much of the swiss system is funded by other people's gold from WWII?

[Wolfshade]

That video is why I am voting conservative for another term.

Poverty is unfortunately relative.

Giving people additional monies doesn't actually make things cheaper, (if you don't believe me look at the issues of hyperinflation, locals are paid loads a monies in local money but can't buy bread). Inflation tends to rise along side wages.

The next question is what do you include as state support?

In switzerland for example, you have to pay insurance for your healthcare, in the UK you just rock up to your local clinic /a&e

Calaculate your switzerland tax here:

http://www.estv2.admin.ch/e/dienstleistungen/steuerrechner/steuerrechner.htm

[Mr Mystery]

That video is why I am voting conservative for another term.

Poverty is unfortunately relative.

Giving people additional monies doesn't actually make things cheaper, (if you don't believe me look at the issues of hyperinflation, locals are paid loads a monies in local money but can't buy bread). Inflation tends to rise along side wages.

The next question is what do you include as state support?

In switzerland for example, you have to pay insurance for your healthcare, in the UK you just rock up to your local clinic /a&e

Calaculate your switzerland tax here:

http://www.estv2.admin.ch/e/dienstleistungen/steuerrechner/steuerrechner.htm

This time, I'm also voting Conservative, but it's more against UKIP than for the Tories. (for those confused, The Conservative Party are known as The Tories in the UK. I'm not entirely sure why myself, but they are!).

All parties have to do something about the deficit, and all parties are pledging to do that. So in the general run of things, who I'd vote for is moot. But with UKIP getting far, far more media attention than their meagre efforts deserve, I want to do what I can to make sure their little gravy train stops here and now. Yes their presence may damage the Tories in the long run, but they're far too dangerous in terms of outlook and attitude, and threaten to drag Britain back into the dark ages whilst desperately seeking an England (notably an England....) they once saw in an Ealing comedy and are convinced actually existed.

[Mr Mystery]

Mmmmm! Local Government Bueraucracy nonsense! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29447931)

Could be any council, any where in the country.

Though there is a small part of me finding the 'black is best' quote from a Tory surprisingly funny!

[Denzark]

Does anyone else really like Theresa May? She seems bold and effective.

[Mr Mystery]

Dunno. I don't dislike her anymore than other politicians, unlike Michael Gove who I feel should be locked away in a box somewhere, stop him from interfering in general.

[Psychosplodge]

I instinctively distrust her just from looking at her, which isn't the same as the general distrust I have of anyone who's a politician.

[YorkNecromancer]

I'd vote for any credible left-wing party. Shame there haven't been any since John Smith died in 1994. Faced with the worst Tory government since the heyday of Thatcher, Labour have been quite spectacularly spineless, and Ed Milliband still seems perpetually surprised that he's party leader, four years on.

UKIP are what the BNP has morphed into; a grotesque group of ignorant bigots, motivated by little more than fear of the world, fear of The Other and fear of change. They're less scary than the BNP, but their engagement with actual political process makes them far more dangerous.

As for the Tories? I always hated them as a matter of principle, but now? It is impossible for me to hate them enough. I am sick and tired of the needs of the 99% of people being sacrificed on the altar of the 1%. For example, London has £2,700 per head spent on fixing roads; everywhere else gets £5 per head (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349). London is propped up by public money; it couldn't exist without it. And why London? because that's where politics lives. It's a parasite, feeding on the rest of the nation, and Cameron preaches to the rest of us about austerity forever from a literal golden throne.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/528221c969bedd732e60db2c-640/image.jpg
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/picture-of-david-cameron-calling-for-austerity-2013-11
http://www.globalresearch.ca/speaking-from-gold-throne-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-proclaims-austerity-cuts-to-be-permanent/5358093

This is a man whose only wish is that the rest of us just doffed our caps as he passed, called him mi'lord, and just bloody well knew our place.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/15/how-super-rich-got-richer-10-shocking-facts-inequality

And no-one wants to change it. Look at the Scotland vote - almost everyone in the country voted, because there was a real chance for change. I'm not apathetic about politics. I just hate absolutely everyone in power because they're the absolute worst of us, and they lie and they lie and they lie and claim to be the best. I am sick of neocon values, sick of being told that free market capitalism produces anything but monopolies when it doesn't. Evolution doesn't produces anything but apex predators, and apex predators don't serve anyone's needs but their own.

So yeah. I've no idea how I'm going to vote. My only option is in protest. In that regard, Yorkshire First seems a good choice.

[40kGamer]

That video is why I am voting conservative for another term.

Poverty is unfortunately relative.

Giving people additional monies doesn't actually make things cheaper, (if you don't believe me look at the issues of hyperinflation, locals are paid loads a monies in local money but can't buy bread). Inflation tends to rise along side wages.

The real problem is a lack of financial balance in the world. Things are so screwed up and if you even 'mention' financial inequality in the US the wealthy yell "class warfare!" We're seeing a level of financial inequality that hasn't existed since the 1920's and we all know how well that went.

In the US the top 0.1% or 16,000 families have $6 trillion in assets which is equal to the entire wealth of the bottom 66%! Seriously WTF!

11385

The UK isn't quite so badly out of balance as it takes the entire top 1% to equal the bottom 55%. With the top 10% own ~44% of the UK wealth. In the US the top 10% are estimated to own ~75% of all the wealth! Holy **** Batman!

And it gets way worse when you look at the world abroad as there are so many countries where people in general have zero wealth. The world's richest 1% control ~50% of the entire world's wealth.

Financial inequality is 'the' issue and it's glossed over by the vast majority. Although hats off to the UK for doing twice as good of a job at keeping some pretense of balance. It's not an easy task!

[Mr Mystery]

Scary thing is, I earn above the median income, and I'm still finding many things out of my reach!

[40kGamer]

Scary thing is, I earn above the median income, and I'm still finding many things out of my reach!

I understand that! I'm not sure how the UK chooses to tax your income but the US tax code is so convoluted that if you earn a good living "working income" you get hammered with taxes while if you receive a good living "passive income" you pay far, far less. Our tax system is set up perfectly for dynasty building across generations, the efforts of which we are seeing come to fruition in the present.

[Mr Mystery]

As of April next year, I get £10,000 tax free every year (though my tax code is lower because of workplace benefits, and a cockup a couple of years back. Bit of a pain, but beats them chasing me for a lump sum!).

Anything over that, and I pay 20% tax on it, and 12% National Insurance.

However, my pension contribution is Tax Free, as the pension itself will be taxed when I start drawing it down around 2050ish.....

So it's not terribly hard to work out - though Mumsie Mystery was a book keeper by trade, so I'm used to working it out!

Oh, and if I make Manager, I'll go up a Tax Band, and any earnings in excess of (currently) £41,900 would be taxed at 40%.

But hey, I don't mind. When I get there, as a single bloke I'm pretty sure I'll have plenty enough money for me :p

[YorkNecromancer]

Oh, and if I make Manager, I'll go up a Tax Band, and any earnings in excess of (currently) £41,900 would be taxed at 40%.

To put that in context, if you make over £26,000 per annum, you're in the richest 10% of people in the world.

Also, my sister makes in excess of £42,000 a year and is in that tax bracket. She lives in London, very, very comfortably. My brother in law makes over £50,000 a year and supports his wife and two children extremely well. A friend just went up to £50,000, and he keeps his family in total comfort. Yes, they all have problems, but none of them are financial.

Anyone complaining about high taxation at that level of pay is a d!ck.

[Mr Mystery]

Pretty much.

[Denzark]

Yorkie - as I quoted before, London contributes 30% of GDP for 20% population - it punches above its weight and should be treated as such.

I don't know why lefties feel able to be so prejudiced against tories for (as the cool kids like to say) reasons. If people demonstrated the unrelenting bias prejudice and pure hatred based on any other demographic - sex, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality etc - that a lot of lefties demonstrate about tories, they would be rightly castigated.

If £26k is enough to be in the top 10% of richest people in the world, it is possible for certain for people entirely on benefits in the UK to fall within the top 10-15% - which just goes to show what a subjective and irrelevant figure that is.

[Houghten]

Oh, and if I make Manager, I'll go up a Tax Band, and any earnings in excess of (currently) £41,900 would be taxed at 40%.

Ha! Spare a thought for the Australians. If you go up a tax band there, you don't get the excess taxed at the higher rate - you get the WHOLE THING taxed at the higher rate. If your gross pay doesn't go up enough, your net pay actually decreases.

[40kGamer]

As of April next year, I get £10,000 tax free every year

Anything over that, and I pay 20% tax on it, and 12% National Insurance.

As a married mook we have to run our taxes two different ways. Once as if we file together and then again as if we file separately. We can then pick the way that costs the least. (Extra work but we do it for a living so not too bad)

Where we live we pay taxes at 3 different levels. (National, state and local)

Nationally we pay various income based taxes
1) social security/medicare taxes that provide social services when we get older (65-70 years old is when they kick in)
2) national income taxes.

We own our own business so we have to pay double for the first type of national taxes. (Usually you pay half and your employer pays the other half... when you are the employer it bites) :p

Taxes from 1) above are a flat percentage so for us they are:
12.4% for social security and
2.9% for Medicare

Federal taxes are paid from a chart that changes every year (2013 is below and we would use the 2 middle columns to do the different calculations):

11395

There are also special taxes that kick in for different situations... the federal tax code isn't over 75,000 pages long for no reason. :rolleyes:


At the state level we pay off of the following table:

Ohio Taxable Income
Tax Calculation
0 – $5,200 = 0.537%
$5,200– $10,400 = $27.92+ 1.074% of excess over $5,200
$10,400 – $15,650 = $83.77+ 2.148% of excess over $10,400
$15,650 – $20,900 = $196.54 + 2.686% of excess over $15,650
$20,900 – $41,700 = $337.56 + 3.222% of excess over $20,900
$41,700 – $83,350 = $1,007.74 + 3.760% of excess over $41,700
$83,350 – $104,250 = $2,573.78 + 4.296% of excess over $83,350
$104,250 – $208,500 = $3,471.64 + 4.988% of excess over $104,250
More than $208,500 = $8,671.63 + 5.421% of excess over $208,500

Then at our local level we pay the city a flat 2.5% tax on our income

You include and exclude different things from your taxable income at the national, state and local levels. (It's a long list!), and depending upon the whims of the government there are various credits and other options that vary from year to year.

So when the dust settles you calculate your "effective" income tax rate each year as the total taxes you actually paid vs the total income you actually earned.

This is a bit of a simplification of how things roll here but you get the gist of things. Our normal tax filing is over 100 pages per year. Good times! :)

[Mr Mystery]

We have PAYE - pay as you earn.

In short, I don't need to worry about my income tax - it's deducted at source based on HMRC's advised tax code.

So where I underpaid one year due to gaining private medical insurance, HMRC adjusted my tax free allowance down, so in the next tax year it all balances out.

Only tax I need to really worry about is Council Tax, but quick Direct Debit and that's sorted too.

It's all very civilised!

[40kGamer]

Very! Ours is 'in theory' pay as you go and it is normally deducted from your pay throughout the year or you send in estimates of what you expect to owe based upon your prior year. At the end of the year you run everything through the various forms and pages and see if you over or underpaid. It is quite painful for a lot of people here so they just pay someone else to do it... like me! :)

- - - Updated - - -

Oops... I mean people pay me to do theirs not me pay someone else. :p

[YorkNecromancer]

Yorkie - as I quoted before, London contributes 30% of GDP for 20% population - it punches above its weight and should be treated as such.

So, because it brings in 10% more GDP than its population, it should get 540% more public spending than the rest of the country?

There's punching above your weight and there's being a greedy turd. London is a greedy, parasitical turd.


I don't know why lefties feel able to be so prejudiced against tories for (as the cool kids like to say) reasons. If people demonstrated the unrelenting bias prejudice and pure hatred based on any other demographic - sex, age, sexual orientation, race, nationality etc - that a lot of lefties demonstrate about tories, they would be rightly castigated.

False equivelancy.

You can choose your politics. You can't choose your gender orientation, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc...

I despise the Tories because they represent a choice I find despicable. Because they are the party of selfishness. Because they want to be left alone when it comes to governance, but they still want to read my emails. Because they regard Human Rights as something that should not be universal. Because they tax the poor and lionise the rich. Because they have ninety nine per cent of the cake, and still want that last one per cent for themselves. Because they believe that wealth inequality is natural, when it's not. Because they belong to the Bullingdon Club, yet castigate 'chavs' for violence. Because they destroyed the industries of the North, and left nothing to replace them. Because they destroyed a massive amount of BTEC and vocational courses which benefitted those 'bad kids' far more than any pastoral poet from the 17th century ever did, and they did it out of the misguided belief that the way they were educated is the way everyone should be educated. Because they make people poor, then shame them for being poor. Because they recruit sociopaths like Boris Johnson. Because they may wrap themselves in the rainbow flag of gay marriage, but they reserve the right to remain bigoted about our everyone else in the world who isn't rich. Because they believe in a class system with Tory Elites on top, and any system with an Elite class is just a way to have racism when those less well off have the same skin colour as you. Because, ultimately, the Tories are small, in every way that matters. Small souled, small minded and frightened of everyone who's different; not to mention how desperate they are to own all their own things and never have to help anyone they didn't go out to dinner with.

I hate them for the same reason I hate any bully. Because they are selfish, and cruel, and despite this, they have the temerity think they're the hero of the narrative.

And yes, I do have friends who vote Tory. But we never speak about politics, because we've had The Conversation and we all know where we stand, so there's just no need. They vote for who they like, I vote for who I like, and we talk about television and films.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/1/1412201336380/031a1854-333f-4f5b-a836-082a9791e8c0-460x276.jpeg

So Denzark? You and I will NEVER agree on politics. NEVER. I know why you like right-wing policies, and that's fine. Now you know my position, and that's fine too. There is literally no possibility of us ever seeing eye to eye. We must simply agree to disagree on everything, because that's what democracy means.

[Houghten]

That's not what democracy means.

Democracy means if your opinion is in the minority, it sucks to be you because there's sod-all you can do about it.

[40kGamer]

That's not what democracy means.

Democracy means if your opinion is in the minority, it sucks to be you because there's sod-all you can do about it.

Actually you can be in the "physical" majority but the "financial" minority and you can still sod off. Britain and the US share so many traits it's scary.

11408

11409

[Wolfshade]

with the current system it depends on the constituencies which are all different sizes so you could have the majority number of people vote for one thing, but then each constituency sends an MP, then it is the majority of MPs which decide the PM.

[40kGamer]

with the current system it depends on the constituencies which are all different sizes so you could have the majority number of people vote for one thing, but then each constituency sends an MP, then it is the majority of MPs which decide the PM.

Who knows what agenda truly motivates the elected representatives but it is not 'the needs of the many'... more likely it can be expressed as the 'wants of the privileged few'.

At the end of the day it is painfully obvious what is wrong with society, less obvious how to address it and easily understood why real issues are constantly sidestepped.

[Wolfshade]

It seems that the problem is the same view, it is how to deal with it that remains different.

But that is old hat.

This is then hampered by short-term-ism and the chasing of the popular vote.

[40kGamer]

It seems that the problem is the same view, it is how to deal with it that remains different.

But that is old hat.

This is then hampered by short-term-ism and the chasing of the popular vote.

True that there are a bunch of different approaches... I think the real problem is that there is no option to address the world's problems where 1% of the population maintains control of the majority of the wealth... Add in that political favors are relatively cheap and 'poof' addressing real issues is deferred indefinitely.

[Wolfshade]

1% controlling the majority of the wealth is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only if they are not "benefactors" that the problems occur.

[40kGamer]

My issue with this is that it allows a financial oligarchy to control events from behind a governmental facade. One lesson from history has to be wealth = power.

[Wolfshade]

No, not necessarily. Ghandi wasn't rich yet held major political power. Also the workers uprisings again.

There was some discussion over here about stopping polictal parties private fund raising. So the money for campaigns/elections etc. would only come from the public purse. That way lobbyists/supporters are more remote.

Though most seem to dislike this especially given how many people don't bother to be invovled in polotics.

[Mr Mystery]

1% controlling the majority of the wealth is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only if they are not "benefactors" that the problems occur.

For me the issue isn't that those at the top are fabulously wealthy, but that the wealth doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Some of the richest families have frankly staggering amounts of money - and it just makes me wonder why?

Then of course you get Governments looking to protect the wealth of the rich with favourable taxes - not for political favours, but a country does need rich people knocking about. Drive them off, and it will harm the economy.

[40kGamer]

No, not necessarily. Ghandi wasn't rich yet held major political power. Also the workers uprisings again.

Individuals like Ghandi, Mandela or King are rare anomalies fueled by extreme situations. They did wield political power but I would still propose that political power is a derivative of financial power… individuals such as these are more exceptions that prove the rule.


There was some discussion over here about stopping political parties private fund raising. So the money for campaigns/elections etc. would only come from the public purse. That way lobbyists/supporters are more remote.
Campaign reform has come up in the US many times but nothing meaningful has ever been accomplished. In fact things could be considered worse than ever after the creation of Super PACs.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

Although the UK system is obviously open to abuse as well. No limits on what any one individual can contribute is pretty crazy! (Although the only thing a limit seems to accomplish is that it forces individuals who wish to influence things to contribute indirectly.)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/global-campaign-finance/


Though most seem to dislike this especially given how many people don't bother to be invovled in polotics.

A sad fact that the average citizen has so little confidence in the political systems that they feel no need to be involved in any way.


For me the issue isn't that those at the top are fabulously wealthy, but that the wealth doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Some of the richest families have frankly staggering amounts of money - and it just makes me wonder why?
This hits the issue square in the head. Stratifying the sample at the 1% is actually not a telling metric of the problem. The ultra-wealthy hide in the top 0.1% and as you note these families have staggering amounts of wealth. They also have no incentive to share their wealth (really why should they?) and the current state of the world guarantees that they will maintain their position indefinitely.


Then of course you get Governments looking to protect the wealth of the rich with favourable taxes - not for political favours, but a country does need rich people knocking about. Drive them off, and it will harm the economy.

A valid point but allowing these individuals to hoard the world’s wealth also harms the economy and the public. Plus as someone who works with taxes in the US they receive unimaginably favorable treatment.

And how can anyone politically justify that 5 families should control as much wealth as the bottom 20%?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/17/oxfam-report-scale-britain-growing-financial-inequality

Or how about the lifestyles of those with inherited wealth. Wouldn’t it be nice to just be handed the keys to the kingdom, especially when it is obvious that you could never earn the same on merit?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304371504577407171675538352

This sums up how the wealthy feel about the world at large quite nicely.

11434

[Mr Mystery]

Hand on heart, would we be any different?

I know I feel a certain amount of contempt for those who have squandered life's chances - for instance, the oik who sits on the dole and complains that his benefits aren't high enough, can't get a job because of immigrants, yet flunked out of school aged 15 with no qualifications or literacy.

Now ramp my current position up by 1,000 times, especially for self-made persons. Can be hard to keep sight of how close you came to not making it, and losing everything.

And now something more positive....

Heywood and Middleton by election tomorrow. Here's hoping UKIP get the bloody nose they so desperately need. I'm all for political shake up - Scotland's recent vote delivered just that. But I'd really rather it wasn't attributed to lunatics, bigots and swivel-eyed, chinless gits.

[Kirsten]

what we really need to be doing is putting a stop to these far right groups, especially on social media. there is a great page on facebook called 'exposing Britain First' that I recommend people follow and share, they highlight all the nonsensical crap that britain first pushes. it is very important to educate people and get rid of this nonsense.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I really loathe Britain First. Not only do they spout outright lies, but their cynical little marketing campaigns are horrible! 'How many likes for this Solider who served in WWII, and actually, you know, fought against horrible little fascists like us, but we won't tell you that bit eh'

[Kirsten]

exactly, they claim nearly half a million members, many of whom are not actually British (go figure), but in reality they just post innocent looking pictures that people share without realising. that is why it is so important to expose them, make sure everybody you know understands what is actually going on.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

It's like the paranoid fantasist that writes (well, wrote. It's apparently very hard to blog from Prison) the Daily Bale.

If he wasn't serious, that site would be hilarious. I mean, this is a scrawny little no-mark stirring up racial prejudice, and claimed 'left wing extremists were plotting to assassinate him because he's a rising star of the right wing'.....

[Wolfshade]

While I may agree with you, unfortunately, the slippery slope argument, means that unless the group is ouotlawed it is hard to do. I find some of the far left movements equally distateful, but for some reason in British politics, the three main parties + the right get the soap box far far far more than any of the left parties. I remember watching a discussion between various left groups and the one spokesman said that this was the first time that anyone from his organisation (or umberalla group) had been interviewed on the beeb.

[40kGamer]

Hand on heart, would we be any different?

I know I feel a certain amount of contempt for those who have squandered life's chances - for instance, the oik who sits on the dole and complains that his benefits aren't high enough, can't get a job because of immigrants, yet flunked out of school aged 15 with no qualifications or literacy.

It's hard to say that we would be any different if we were born into that kind of affluence where the world bows to your feet every day. Probably a good chance of that sort of thing going to one's head!

I have been close to both ends of the spectrum. Born and raised in a very poor part of the US, but thanks to education+talent+hard work+luck, I now flirt with being in the 1% myself. So I quite naturally have no sympathy for those who set on their arse and cry alms for the poor. However what I can say beyond any doubt is that I have seen the same annoying entitled attitude from the 'lazy' poor and the 'inherited' wealthy... both groups share a lot of the same bad personality traits when you get past their public facades.

It is also ridiculous that the wealthy hide behind "class warfare" every single time taxes and jobs are raised. It doesn't make sense that someone making $20 million a year pays less than 15-20% effective federal taxes while someone making 100 times less at $200,000 pays over 30%. The ultra wealthy use their influence and position in society to sidestep shouldering the costs... it's just frustrating.

[Psychosplodge]

So a parody my little pony : equestria girls rainbow rocks tumblr account seems to have taken notice (https://38.media.tumblr.com/77635e6fabfce771430535483e45db13/tumblr_nd4w2vjnsD1tllr3bo1_r3_500.png) of yesterdays by-election result already, very nsfw language

[Kirsten]

well, the people of Clacton have proven they can't be trusted with voting :rolleyes:

[Al Shut]

I'm a bit confused by this recent story.

Is a by-election mandatory when a MP changes party affiliation or was this a political decision to give the whole thing more legitimation. Both possibilities would kind of surprise me.

[Kirsten]

I am sure somebody more knowledgeable will give a better answer, but I believe changing party does not have to trigger a by-election, or certainly didn't have to previously, because the BBC news yesterday reported that this is UKIP's first elected MP, but they have had two MPs in the past because of party switching.

[Denzark]

The by-election is not mandatory. He could have stayed in power without the by-election until the general election next year. However, in a rare display of integrity, the sitting MP resigned - that was what triggered the by-election. He therefore was saying to the electorate - 'I'm following a different route than what I said I would when I asked for your vote, so I am putting it to the test again.'

In the event, he won in Clacton. How many of those votes were for UKIP, and how many were for an MP who showed himself to have principles - a rare thing - remains to be seen.

[Al Shut]

How odd, I could have sworn I've read somewhere that MPs actually aren't allowed to resign. I also seem to remember that that rule could be bypassed but I thought that was limited to situations where the MP wouldn't show up for the rest of the term.

Never to late to learn something new.

[Mr Mystery]

Does anyone know why UKIP keep having a fuss made over them?

Greens have more MPs, yet no invite to debates.

Farage claims upcoming vote in a single by-election to be 'most important in 30 years', which is true, if you discount all other voting activity in the last 30 years.....

[Wolfshade]

Does anyone know why UKIP keep having a fuss made over them?

Greens have more MPs, yet no invite to debates.

Farage claims upcoming vote in a single by-election to be 'most important in 30 years', which is true, if you discount all other voting activity in the last 30 years.....

1 is equal to 1 isn't it?

Greens have but 1 MP.

But it is made a fuss of because right wing parties always get much more coverage than the left in this country, because reasons.

Always have.

[Mr Mystery]

It's stupid if you ask me.

And I thought The Greens had more than that - probably confusing it with control of Brighton Council (though they may have lost that).

It's all really quite depressing. Especially as even a cursory glance reveals UKIP to be everything generally disliked about the Tories bottled, refined, concentrated, with extra added bigotry.

[Path Walker]

A lot of the papers like UKIPs anti-Europe stance because they'd benefit from coming out of Europe, UKIP leadership don't care about immigration any more than the Tories, they want out of Europe to curtail the workers rights, as Lord Freud proved (he really shouldn't have apologised just for actually saying what he believes, people always say they want politicians to be honest, well, thats what you get when a Tory is honest), they don't care about the worker, only the capitalists making the profit.

If we leave Europe, immigration won't be capped, but the Working Time Regulations will dispear and your paid holidays along with it, Health and Safety regulations meaning your employer has to look out for you at work will go, the Equalities Act that protects your rights not to be discriminated against will vanish.

[Mr Mystery]

Equalities Act is much like Health and Safety.

It's bad reputation is down entirely to people working their ticket heavily, and abusing the laws as they stand.

[Path Walker]

Its bad reputation is all from the rich demonising it for the protections it gives the working people.

[Denzark]

A lot of the papers like UKIPs anti-Europe stance because they'd benefit from coming out of Europe, UKIP leadership don't care about immigration any more than the Tories, they want out of Europe to curtail the workers rights, as Lord Freud proved (he really shouldn't have apologised just for actually saying what he believes, people always say they want politicians to be honest, well, thats what you get when a Tory is honest), they don't care about the worker, only the capitalists making the profit.

If we leave Europe, immigration won't be capped, but the Working Time Regulations will dispear and your paid holidays along with it, Health and Safety regulations meaning your employer has to look out for you at work will go, the Equalities Act that protects your rights not to be discriminated against will vanish.

And how do you evidence this?


Its bad reputation is all from the rich demonising it for the protections it gives the working people.

You do know a large proportion of UKIP voters are 'working people' by which I take it you mean 'working class' - because a lot of rich people actually work? UKIP voters are not all sitting in their ivory towers in Canary wharf - clearly they are not champagne socialists in Islington either. They are people who think a couple of key things - the first being that the electorate can be trusted to have a vote on Europe irrespective of what Miliband thinks. Second, that actually this country can manage to survive without the EU.

[Wolfshade]

Having watched benefits street, and the new programme on BBC3 about chemsley wood, I think people are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions.

[Denzark]

Mmm, regrettably it is a key part of democracy. But it is a double edged sword - if it is reasonable for Scotland to have an in-out referendum, by true equality and parity of treatment the whole country can have the same on the EU - a matter of principle. Milibandito will not admit this though.

[40kGamer]

Having watched benefits street, and the new programme on BBC3 about chemsley wood, I think people are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions.

Hmmm... are you making a motion we defer to thinking machines? :)

[Psychosplodge]

Does anyone know why UKIP keep having a fuss made over them?

Greens have more MPs, yet no invite to debates.

Farage claims upcoming vote in a single by-election to be 'most important in 30 years', which is true, if you discount all other voting activity in the last 30 years.....

Don't UKIP MEPs massively outnumber greens?
And in terms of popular support by numbers of votes considering they've displaced lib dems to fourth in most elections run since the last general election?


Having watched benefits street, and the new programme on BBC3 about chemsley wood, I think people are too stupid to be allowed to make decisions.

being saying as much for years.

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

Humans really are stupid enough that a completely callous and empathy lacking supercomputer would be a better politician than any human

[Mr Mystery]

Don't UKIP MEPs massively outnumber greens?
And in terms of popular support by numbers of votes considering they've displaced lib dems to fourth in most elections run since the last general election?



being saying as much for years.

Lib Dems displaced themselves.....

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but the greens certainly don't compare to that in numbers.

[Mr Mystery]

Humans really are stupid enough that a completely callous and empathy lacking supercomputer would be a better politician than any human

Nope. Someone would need to programme the computer, preventing impartiality.

And knowing our luck, it would be someone in the pocket of Dingo Wukka of Newscorp fame.

[Wolfshade]

Humans are stupid, consider first world countries, we are soon getting to the point where the number 1 cause of death will be from having eaten too much.

If we were to elect some kind of beneolvant dictator it would be better.

Take for instance the roman catholic churhc, not the best of examples I know, but a group of "wise" heads elect their dictator. Then he can usher in whatever changes he wishes without the need for votes or people being consulted (though vatican II did stall his powers). So the pope can push through changes much quicker than say a democractic system which requires voting and discussion.

[40kGamer]

Humans are stupid, consider first world countries, we are soon getting to the point where the number 1 cause of death will be from having eaten too much.

If we were to elect some kind of beneolvant dictator it would be better.

Take for instance the roman catholic churhc, not the best of examples I know, but a group of "wise" heads elect their dictator. Then he can usher in whatever changes he wishes without the need for votes or people being consulted (though vatican II did stall his powers). So the pope can push through changes much quicker than say a democractic system which requires voting and discussion.

Huge downside of debates and discussion... I've been waiting for the US to overhaul the Health System for 30 years and there has been so little progress it's laughable! (I literally started hoping for an overhaul when I was a teenager.)

Not to mention the progress that gets killed by committee. When I worked in Healthcare there was a new technology being developed that got shelved because it shifted dollars from one physician specialty to another even though it would be better for the patients. Humans are worse than stupid, we have a tendency to be self serving.

[Mr Mystery]

Humans are stupid, consider first world countries, we are soon getting to the point where the number 1 cause of death will be from having eaten too much.

If we were to elect some kind of beneolvant dictator it would be better.

Take for instance the roman catholic churhc, not the best of examples I know, but a group of "wise" heads elect their dictator. Then he can usher in whatever changes he wishes without the need for votes or people being consulted (though vatican II did stall his powers). So the pope can push through changes much quicker than say a democractic system which requires voting and discussion.

I think we could all do a lot better if we simply accepted that corruption is inevitable in politics. It's like Necromancy in Warhammer - it can and will pervert even the purest intent.

All those constantly complaining, or worse, following Mr Brand's wonderful idea of not actually voting at all are just peeved they've not been able to compete. And they also tend to show a very lax understanding of democracy (in short, you're the minority this time, suck it up).

[Denzark]

I would like the Starship Troopers version of achieving your voting rights by civic duty.

[Wolfshade]

I think we could all do a lot better if we simply accepted that corruption is inevitable in politics. It's like Necromancy in Warhammer - it can and will pervert even the purest intent.

All those constantly complaining, or worse, following Mr Brand's wonderful idea of not actually voting at all are just peeved they've not been able to compete. And they also tend to show a very lax understanding of democracy (in short, you're the minority this time, suck it up).
That blikey from the farmer's pride advert has a better view imo, but then he is a punk, always wanting to change the system.

I would like the Starship Troopers version of achieving your voting rights by civic duty.
Yes, you have to actually have a vested interest in the country in order to make decisions for it. Plus public education from an early age...;)

[40kGamer]

I would like the Starship Troopers version of achieving your voting rights by civic duty.

I've always thought every citizen should pay into the tax pool as well. People with no skin in the game tend to not care much about how a country runs.

[Psychosplodge]

It's almost like the EU want us to leave (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124)

[Denzark]

Hopefully - it will make things easier in the long run.

[Psychosplodge]

It's like basicly asking us to pay france and germany money while slashing our services.

[Psychosplodge]

So if Scotland has a lower drink drive limit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29750001) than the rUK and you get caught in Scotland over theirs but below ours does any ban only stand in Scotland?

[Mr Mystery]

It's almost like the EU want us to leave (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124)

I have a sneaking (and not a little paranoid) suspicion this is a bit of a cleverl stunt....

UKIP are gaining traction, despite being manifestly comprised of lunatics, closeted bigots, and not so closeted bigots.

Cameron fights back, very sensibly I have to say, by promising an in/out referendum if they remain in power.

Sadly, this somehow hasn't stopped UKIP claiming, and more disappointing people believing, that they're the only party who would take us out of Europe. Precisely how they would achieve that when the chances of them forming a majority government are exceptionally slim has not been explained.

So DC has a wee word with the outgoing EU Pres, and arranges a little publicity stunt.... Sudden bill pops up, and DC gets to look like a man of political action and clout by getting it torn up and the EU to back down - which is precisely what he needs right now.

[Psychosplodge]

So DC has a wee word with the outgoing EU Pres, and arranges a little publicity stunt.... Sudden bill pops up, and DC gets to look like a man of political action and clout by getting it torn up and the EU to back down - which is precisely what he needs right now.



That's very cynical for you mystery isn't it? Sounds more like something I'd say.

[Mr Mystery]

Not cynical.

Political :p

EU wants us in. DC has also said whilst he's happy to arrange a referendum, he'd be backing staying in, and wants a chance to trigger reforms beforehand.

Farage? He's kind of out in the cold. He talks a good game, I'll give him that. But that's it. All mouth, no trousers. Single MP, which may double to two soon aren't going to achieve anything, and I'd be very surprised if they last more than one term. Bunch of MEPs who act like petulant teenagers (including turning their backs on the EU flags, and never actually doing any work whatsoever, but swear they're not just scoffing in the trough they claim to want to abolish) - don't have enough clout to do anything. Some councillors, but no overall control. Exactly what influence do they have? Yes, they've galvanised the main parties somewhat, but that's about it. They're a joke, and the punchline seems to be they're genuinely convinced they're a massive political power waiting to be born.

[Psychosplodge]

It's called repatriating funds to the UK. Scoffing at the trough is what the kinnocks and their ilk do :D
I don't have an issue of turning their back on the EU flag, it's not our flag, and its not an other countries flag, and shows disdain for the institution.

There won't be any reform, it's not in the interests of most of the EU members to reform.

[Path Walker]

Elections should be done every year, would reduce corruption.

That or via a Jury service style system.

[Mr Mystery]

Elections should be done every year, would reduce corruption.

That or via a Jury service style system.

That'd just cripple things. MPs would spend more time vote bagging than actually MPing.

And Jury Service style? Watch Jeremy Kyle for why that would be a bad thing.

[Psychosplodge]

A short jury style would mean the civil service would be in more control than it is now.
Plus I second the jeremy Kyle thing.

[Path Walker]

The idea of yearly elections was a Chartist idea, the idea was pre-massive amounts of advertising for elections, but, the theory is that no one would be able to afford to pay off a politician, and politicians wouldn't be able to afford to campaign, if they were only in office for a year potentially.

The members of parliament are meant to be representative of the people, a jury is a council of your peers, ok some would be unqualified morons with no idea about the political process or how the world works and would push their own ideals into the running of departments despite all advice from experts to the contrary and at massive detriment to the services but that’s hardly different to how it is now, at least that way, you'd have a slim chance of getting a decent, moral, human being in office.

[Psychosplodge]

, at least that way, you'd have a slim chance of getting a decent, moral, human being in office.

That suggests you believe such things exist.

[Mr Mystery]

The idea of yearly elections was a Chartist idea, the idea was pre-massive amounts of advertising for elections, but, the theory is that no one would be able to afford to pay off a politician, and politicians wouldn't be able to afford to campaign, if they were only in office for a year potentially.

The members of parliament are meant to be representative of the people, a jury is a council of your peers, ok some would be unqualified morons with no idea about the political process or how the world works and would push their own ideals into the running of departments despite all advice from experts to the contrary and at massive detriment to the services but that’s hardly different to how it is now, at least that way, you'd have a slim chance of getting a decent, moral, human being in office.

Success and power do corrupt.

No, not necessarily from Paragon of Virtue to Cackling Fagin corruption. But it does change your point of view. People have a pop at the current Tories for being out of touch. And yes, they are. But is that any fault of the actual individuals? They were lucky enough to be born into wealth and privlege, so why the suddent expectation for them to know what it's like to have no money ever, and be dependant upon goodwill and foodbanks? Yes, it's frankly scandalous that we have that issue in one of the world's richest countries - but we can't blame the Politicians for having no idea what that's like.

Take me for instance. In the past four years, I've had a right rocket up me, and have forged a strong career, and am paid a very respectable wage. I'm still me ultimately - I've not gone all 'middle class climber'. But, I do propose things to my mates they simply cannot afford to do as readily as I can. I've largely forgotten just how tight it used to be for me, despite working full time in a decent (non-dead end) job. I don't lord it over them with my recent successes, but I do have a different perspective. Victim of success is probably the best way I can put it.

What we desperately need in the UK is a levelling of the playing field. I don't believe people should be elevated above where they're willing to work to. I don't believe anyone should be dragged down just because they're richer. What I want to see is the station of your birth matter less to the overall outcome - bit of a pipedream, because Old Boys Clubs will always exist. But a noble goal worthy of the effort.

But sadly that requires a large proportion of those who would be affected to buy in. And for every person born into poverty who wants to work their way out, there is someone in the same position either quite happy to wazz their life away, and another blaming everyone but themselves, and expecting it all on a silver platter, because they're just so deserving.

As I've said before - I don't hate anyone for their privilege. Nobody has an influence over the family they're born into. And the same goes for those with a distinct lack of privilege. What I do object to is those who live in utter ignorance of their privilege, and those who do nothing to change their surroundings.

[Al Shut]

So DC has a wee word with the outgoing EU Pres, and arranges a little publicity stunt.... Sudden bill pops up, and DC gets to look like a man of political action and clout by getting it torn up and the EU to back down - which is precisely what he needs right now.

As I understood it it's not so much a sudden bill but a transparent and forseeable automatism.

I also can't really see the EU backing down with too many countries on the receiving end. You really think France would forego a billion €?

[Denzark]

But is that any fault of the actual individuals? They were lucky enough to be born into wealth and privlege, so why the suddent expectation for them to know what it's like to have no money ever, and be dependant upon goodwill and foodbanks? Yes, it's frankly scandalous that we have that issue in one of the world's richest countries - but we can't blame the Politicians for having no idea what that's like.

MM - come now Sir. Even if you won't acknowledge that not all Tories are sitting on oil baron-esque piles of cash (they're not) - you must realise that the ones that get into power do so on the first-past-the -post system we voted to keep what, 5 years back? And that means considerable mounts of their voters won't have been born into wealth and privilege - and either as fairly rational being think that their respective MPs weren't either - or that the individual record of the MP they voted for outweighed their social background.

[Mr Mystery]

Dude. I'm not attacking privilege, nor claiming it's a universal Tory trait.

I was specifically referring to the top Tories, DC, Gideon et al. The Bullingdon Boys.

[Denzark]

yeah but even them have plenty of support from people not their class. It is not necessary for a leader to have lived an experience in order to work out how to make that experience better.

[Mr Mystery]

Again, kind of my point.

You cannot blame someone from their background for perhaps not getting how much it sucks to be poor. They've never been close to that.

I do think the cuts are overly callous, and would like to see a lot more done in a more robust manner about corporation tax dodged etc. By all means let's no spend wastefully, but let's also ensure we're maximising our earnings.

[Denzark]

A rich person is decidedly uncomfortable around the poor.

Oh yeah he is also in bed with the unions and happens to be the leader of the Labour party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11201824/Ed-Miliband-accused-of-looking-awkward-while-giving-money-to-beggar.html

[Psychosplodge]

So I come back to find we've got another labour PCC, which seems pointless to me considering the last one was heavily involved in the rotherham scandal, and the labour council was heavily involved. How are we ever going to get answers by putting another person from the involved party in a position to direct policy?

[Mr Mystery]

PCCs just seem utterly pointless to me.

It's a hamfisted attempt to politicise the Police force.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes they really shouldn't exist.
To even stand you need to gamble £5000 iirc so who without party support can do that?

[Mr Mystery]

Indeedy.

For a 'laugh', look into the Kent Youth PCC.

You can hear the sad trumpets....

[Psychosplodge]

that the one with racist tweets?

[Mr Mystery]

Yep.

£15,000 a year that role pays. And for what?

It's not as if there was any public call for PCC roles - Government just sort of decided 'you're having them, because reasons'.

And the replacement for the racist tweets one? Not currently working whilst her relationship with a 50 year old is being investigated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-27692723).

[Psychosplodge]

so much for accountability?

[Kirsten]

excellent article from The Telegraph to share on social media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11207973/The-loathsome-Britain-First-are-trying-to-hijack-the-poppy-dont-let-them.html

[Mr Mystery]

Bit of a to-do over negotiations over future fishing stuff being handed to a member of the house of lords, rather than the Scottish minister for fisheries (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29987193)

Taking away the Scotland/England element - it's still a very odd decision. If the Environment Secretary can't attend, they can't attend. Fair enough. But to have someone invested and knowledgeable about the subject on hand, and then not make use of them is just....peculiar.

[Denzark]

That does seem a bit odd. However, Lochhead (awesomely appropriate name) is a MSP, not an MP. Neither is Lord NumptyBollocks, true - but the HoL is part of the wider UK goverment and not just the Scottish government.

I can see why HMG wants someone from the political body of the whole and not just Scotland - to represent the whole. But I can't see why UK fisheries minister George Eustice who supposedly attended with Lochhead last time (according to the BBC article), wouldn't be the best person in the absence of Truss.

Mebbe there is some unstated reason for not trusting Lochhead?

[Mr Mystery]

Dunno. Puntastic, but it is a bit fishy the whole thing.

Surely a MSP Fisheries Minister, who has wound up having to Brief a Lord is better than the Lord??

Don't give a monkies about what was or wasn't agreed or between whom, just seems daft that the best fit for the job hasn't been picked?

[CoffeeGrunt]

excellent article from The Telegraph to share on social media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11207973/The-loathsome-Britain-First-are-trying-to-hijack-the-poppy-dont-let-them.html

These guys are a sign of a worrying trend in this country. I'm glad so many see them as the hateful laughing stock they are...

[Wolfshade]

Two things politically related.

Firstly: Germany's sucessfully proved in EU court that EU migrants were not automatically entitled to all state benefits

This might help to pacify the more right wing UKIP goons, however, I am guessign that alot of them don't understand what they are voting for so will rely on their gut feelings baout things.

Secondly: In the Autumn Statement, the PM is to annouce a further £5 Bn road spending plans.

I am in two minds about this on the one hand building more roads is important economically. On the other, totla human experiance has shown that more roads you build the more congestion you get, the only exception being the M6 Toll which no one uses as it is the only Toll road in the UK.

[Mr Mystery]

Economics trumps convenience, and sadly sometimes sanity.

I'm pleased with the recent EU ruling. And you know what I want to see? A list of each member state's issues with how Europe currently is. Mostly because I'm nosy, but also because the image we're often painted by the media is that we're alone in wanting reform etc. Then this apparently came out of the blue?

[Psychosplodge]

I love the M6 toll road as I use it that infrequently its a beautifully empty piece of road.

[AirHorse]

I wish there was a toll road that went to the southwest :P. The M6/M5 is the bane of all Scotland-Cornwall travel. Id happily pay to drive on a nice clear road and save myself an extra 2-3 hours driving time!!

[Wolfshade]

AirHorse travel after 1900 and you will be fine. Trouble with the troll road is that it is longer than the original so is only quicker during peak times.

[AirHorse]

Yeah I know Wolfshade, but unfortunately when you are driving that far its not always possible :(.

Back on topic, I definitely agree with Mr Mystery, I'd love to see a lot more about the EU from perspectives of places like Germany etc. I really feel like in the UK right now the EU is such a huge political scapegoat...would be interesting to see if its similar in other places!

[Psychosplodge]

So we have a second UKIP seat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30140747) but its the sitting MP again so we still don't know if people are voting for him personally or along party lines.

And more middleclass sneering (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30139832) at the electorate from the labour party

[CoffeeGrunt]

"Ms Thornberry"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFNKccJc5eo

[Psychosplodge]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CRH60Gs-Htk/U6IV6Jw03xI/AAAAAAAB0Is/SubZ-1VQZ4Y/s1600/vector__twilight_looking_5_by_estories_d72ioif_by_ rainbow99101-d77gw0p.png

[Wolfshade]

So UKIP are twice as popular as the Greens.

I am starting to get quite worried that UKIP may be the king maker in the elections next year...

[Mr Mystery]

I just hope they're a flash in the pan.

Can't stand Farage, and it's frankly terrifying that people are voting for a party with no set manifesto.

[Wolfshade]

Well you know its about the immigrants and how they create a net benefit to the uk economy....

oh hang on that's not right...

[Mr Mystery]

Coming over here, taking all the jobs nobody already here wants to do...

No, hold on. I don't think that's quite right either.

[Wolfshade]

It is like the Daily Mail formed a political party...

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

I'm trying to work out if the Daily Mail was borne out of Middle England's Persecution Complex, or vice versa. They're certainly in a self sustaining loop right now.

[Kirsten]

it is certainly pretty terrifying

[Psychosplodge]

What it shows is just how out of touch the main two parties appear to be with the electorate. Especially when you consider that it wasn't even apparently a seat they considered winnable. But is it because he's a good MP for his constituents?

[eldargal]

Indeed.

I'm trying to work out if the Daily Mail was borne out of Middle England's Persecution Complex, or vice versa. They're certainly in a self sustaining loop right now.

I think so. No one more insecure than the middle class. No illustrious family history, just money standing between them and being working class and instead of just rolling with it they attack everyone who isn't working class to set themselves apart from snobbery basically. That's my theory.:p #notallmiddleclass

[Cap'nSmurfs]

The Daily Mail is a Victorian newspaper. It was, and still is. There's no mystery to it; it's yer actual 19th century values here in the modern day.

[Mr Mystery]

The Daily Mail is a Victorian newspaper. It was, and still is. There's no mystery to it; it's yer actual 19th century values here in the modern day.

Nah. Victorian era revolutionised how we helped the poorest.

Daily Mail are much more Dark Ages inclined. Fear everything, despise everyone.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Nah. Victorian era revolutionised how we helped the poorest.

Daily Mail are much more Dark Ages inclined. Fear everything, despise everyone.

I work for an Environmental company, and one of my colleagues has a cousin who works as an editor for the Mail. She's apparently a Climate Change denier, though whenever asked about it, her response is, "let's just agree to disagree."

I.e., all opinion, no backup.

[Mr Mystery]

I work for an Environmental company, and one of my colleagues has a cousin who works as an editor for the Mail. She's apparently a Climate Change denier, though whenever asked about it, her response is, "let's just agree to disagree."

I.e., all opinion, no backup.

Well of course!

I mean, let's assume Climate Change isn't man made (despite as I understand the majority of evidence suggesting it is) - what's so bad about reducing pollution overall? Do they object to cleaner air and less bronchial health issues in the wider public? Because that would help reduce costs on something else they inexplicably despise - the NHS.

[Wolfshade]

If you look back in time the earth was hottest when the dinosaurs were made! Dinsoaurs created this problem and only through burning their dead remains can we fix the issue. So if you look at the long term trend the earth is cooling down.

[Mr Mystery]

If you look back in time the earth was hottest when the dinosaurs were made! Dinsoaurs created this problem and only through burning their dead remains can we fix the issue. So if you look at the long term trend the earth is cooling down.

http://missbamberger.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/science_rocks_lg1.jpg

[40kGamer]

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-faces-biggest-threat-security-since-9-11-121816146.html;_ylt=A0LEVyQ5pnNUH7AAKvNXNyoA

If these new laws are anything like the post 9/11 US laws prepare for your civil liberties to be eroded.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Erosion of civil liberty and introduction of Fascism to combat Middle-Eastern threats, you say?

http://p4.storage.canalblog.com/48/76/946444/72237006.jpg

Jesus, I can imagine Farage's lot subscribing to this fascist paranoia. I suppose it depends on how far they aim to go, plus in some ways Britain was further along at 9/11 than America was. I mean, like the CCTV thing we have everywhere. We have loads of cameras, America has loads of cops with itchy trigger fingers, I have a personal opinion on which I prefer.

This next election could be very, very bad if things go the way I fear they may.

Now we just need V...

[40kGamer]

At least we have it on good authority.

http://www.lrionline.com/wp-content/uploads/Churchill.jpg

[Mr Mystery]

Erosion of civil liberty and introduction of Fascism to combat Middle-Eastern threats, you say?

http://p4.storage.canalblog.com/48/76/946444/72237006.jpg

Jesus, I can imagine Farage's lot subscribing to this fascist paranoia. I suppose it depends on how far they aim to go, plus in some ways Britain was further along at 9/11 than America was. I mean, like the CCTV thing we have everywhere. We have loads of cameras, America has loads of cops with itchy trigger fingers, I have a personal opinion on which I prefer.

This next election could be very, very bad if things go the way I fear they may.

Now we just need V...

We've got Russell Brand? Yeah. We're doomed.

[Psychosplodge]

This (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-30197545) is dangerous. You don't stop hate speech by hiding it away. You stop it by letting them hang themselves with their own words, or challenging their arguments in a public forum. All censorship does is suggest you fear what they have to say.

[Denzark]

I've got to say, as a member of the armed forces, I find people automatically sneering at UKIP and their voters hugely condescending and undemocratic - in terms of the freedom I get up every day prepared to defend.

A vote for UKIP is no less valid to me than a vote for parties I personally loathe, execrate and despise - to whit labour and lib dem.

I still respect people's rights to vote that way and don't automatically assume they are one thing or another just for their voting behaviour.

For example I could as someone described as to the right of Genghis Khan, acknowledge that a labour voter could be highly honourable and principled - yet entirely misguided.

I wonder why people can't make this jump to UKIP voters?

[Wolfshade]

Intellectually, I do agree with you. However, I consider their policy to be a poor one, a very poor one indeed. I say policy as they seemingly want 1 thing, to cut the uk off from its single largest economic partner.

I will sneer at those who voted ukip for local elections given that they have no local policy. Even reading their pamphlet it doesn't reveal any policies, a bunch of generic statements which reveal a view point buy nothing to state how they would counter it.

In terms of their success in local elections recently, if one looks back in history, one sees a very common theme, those defecting to another party maintain their seat..up until the next election where it tends to revert to the party.

[Denzark]

I voted for UKIP at the local elections, whilst you're sneering at me I'll explain why.

Firstly, I believe it a duty to vote. So not voting ain't an option.

Second, I won't vote labour. Even if I agreed with all their policies but one- they shat the economy. Giving them a second chance with the economy is like putting a dog that savaged a baby in a room with squalling children. Not sensible. (And I don't agree with most of their policies.)

Thirdly I won't vote Liberal. Because they are weak ineffectual people whose idea of leadership contradicts almost every principle I learnt at one of the country's 3 officer training academies.

Fourthly, I wouldn't vote conservative in that election. Although I voted them in the last GE, their local candidate was an idiot. Firstly, the incumbents tried to force a waste incinerator on my home town of Kings Lynn. This in the face of a petition of 100k+ people saying they didn't ant it. The incinerator was due to be built in Norwich - a labour held council - but turned down on the basis of public opinion. And the local conservatives tried to force it through in my gaff. Well NIMBY thank you, obey democracy and listen to 100k+ voters. Also in their manifesto there was a picture of the candidate 'overseeing' the building of a new housing estate at the end of my road. With access through an already congested side road. I therefore decided the conservatives were too aloof from local issues to deserve my vote.

So excluding green and loonies, I went without looking at their manifesto, for the alternative vote of UKIP - because they are a one trick pony but it is a good trick. Ie get out of Europe.

So I'll take your sneer on the chin.

[40kGamer]

At least you have a wide choice. We get to go with the Liberal Idiot or the Conservative Idiot. :mad:

[Wolfshade]

[QUOTE=40kGamer;462965]At least you have a wide choice. We get to go with the Liberal Idiot or the Conservative Idiot. :mad:[/QUOTE

Though your liberal is more inline with our popular right party.

'zark my biggeset issue with them in the local elections was that their pamphlets contained nothing, not one local policy, not one deliverable. I posted the contents of their pamphlet earlier. Their policy was to get out of europe and unless I am very much mistaken, local government does not have the ability to do that.

So local elections should come down to one thing, not what party the person stands for, but what their vision is for where you live.

[DarkLink]

At least you have a wide choice. We get to go with the Liberal Idiot or the Conservative Idiot. :mad:

Or the green party idiot who'll never get elected but is on the ballot for some reason anyways.

[Aegwymourn]

or the green party idiot who'll never get elected but is on the ballot to goof up one of the other guys.

ftfy

[Denzark]

[QUOTE=40kGamer;462965]
So local elections should come down to one thing, not what party the person stands for, but what their vision is for where you live.

Do you know - that is entirely fair. I deliberately did one of the things that large numbers of the British electorate do - that is, vote someone out rather than vote someone in. But it was sort of calculated...

[Psychosplodge]

At least you have a wide choice. We get to go with the Liberal Idiot or the Conservative Idiot. :mad:

Not really. The odds are the only choice that matters in a general election is between Conservative/Labour or in the rare cases sometimes between one of those and a liberal. Apart from the few odd places where you get a green or single local issue independent.
And no matter who you vote for you still get a politician

[Wolfshade]

Do you know - that is entirely fair. I deliberately did one of the things that large numbers of the British electorate do - that is, vote someone out rather than vote someone in. But it was sort of calculated...

It does seem that you actually read and voted with an informed decision and that is fine, it is those that vote blindly.

Politians should work like this:
They should belong to a party of people that shares an overaching similiar view, or at least similiar mindset to how to solve a problem. Essentially various degrees of high tax - high services or low tax - low services.

Your local politian should, whilst holding their party views, should prioritise the needs of those that elected them before the party line.

Unfortuantely we seem just to have yes men and women. So opposition votes no to everything, those in power vote yes to everything.

Short-term-ism is such that any major change or improvement that takes longer to start to deliver positive results are largely ignored. If you look at the government's Autumn statement of expenditure for just the roads and compare those improvements with party seats you may find correlation.

[CoffeeGrunt]

http://www.ukip.org/issues

I have my own raft of issues with UKIP that will have me voting Conservative in the upcoming election. Labour are a joke economically speaking, Lib Dems and the Green Party are cute, but a wasted vote, and UKIP is just entirely abhorrent to me.

Their aim to secede from the EU and discard all environmental strategies and funding is going to cause incredible damage to us in the short term, and ruin any hope for long-term improvement on that front. They're grabbing the scapegoat that the EU has become, and using it to get kneejerk votes based on that and the incredibly overblown immigration figures they put out.

Not to mention every time I talk to a UKIP voter, they're so bloody blinkered it's scary. For one, you tell them seceding from the EU makes it harder for European immigrants to get in, and they're happy. Tell them it's going to make their annual hols to Mallorca more expensive and a PitA, and it's "they don't have the right to do that!" Tell them that their plans to move out to Costa Del Sol and get a nice villa with their earnings is practically out the door, and they get even angrier.

I mean they want free trade, but not membership with the EU. Despite the fact that it does nothing to stop non-EU immigrants coming here anyway.

Then there's shale gas, removal of the human rights act, inexplicably saying that welfare shouldn't be for the lazy, but seemingly attributing anyone who's lived here for more than five years to not apply.

There's too many parallels to some horrible periods of human history in this, and it worries me.

[Psychosplodge]

Spain is so economically backwards they'd probably still be quite happy for you to retire there to spend your money.

[Wolfshade]

The obvious parallel is with the SNP, charasmatic leader, playing under dog, one agenda. Both rely on feelings over fact.

[Denzark]

A nasty lefty political pseud gets caught out - ironically by a Channel 4 reporter. Its like watching a snake eat its own vomit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11267732/Russell-Brands-rent-rant-as-he-is-asked-about-his-own-wealth-on-protest.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11267732/Russell-Brands-rent-rant-as-he-is-asked-about-his-own-wealth-on-protest.html)

[CoffeeGrunt]

A nasty lefty political pseud gets caught out - ironically by a Channel 4 reporter. Its like watching a snake eat its own vomit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11267732/Russell-Brands-rent-rant-as-he-is-asked-about-his-own-wealth-on-protest.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11267732/Russell-Brands-rent-rant-as-he-is-asked-about-his-own-wealth-on-protest.html)

Eck, I've never been a fan of that guy anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

...

Oh, of all the things Mr Cameron has done, this, will be the one to undo him.

[Psychosplodge]

Russel Brand reminds me of geldoff and bono and the like, more about making themselves the centre of attention rather than solving anything.

CG that is still as ridiculous as it was when I saw it in the offtopic thread.

[Mr Mystery]

Chancellor''s Statement later today.

Interested to see what a Tory Election Warchest looks like. Haven't seen one of those for a long time.

Brand can bog off. Calls for a revolution - by the medium of not voting. Yeah. That'll show those moral minority parties with a core of fanatatical supporters repeatedly voting for them what's what. The big goon. (would use stronger language, but work sweary filter).

[Path Walker]

The thing is, the question doesn't invalidate the protest, it just points out the inherrent hypocracy in Russel Brands new image as lefty jesus (not that Jesus wasn't left wing).

The matter at the heart of the issue is still valid, rent is spiralling out of control in London as property prices reach ridiculous levels (which is a bubble that will burst hard at some point) but the Tories won't do anything about it because their backers are getting rich off the back of it.

People like Russel Brand, who are rich and can afford massive rents, feed this problem. He draws attention to the plight of people being evicted, to make himself famous to earn more money, to pay more rent so that poor people get evicted. He is a part of the cycle.

And don't get me started on the "don't vote" thing, thats ridiculous 6th Form politics. Its almost like his views have been targetted and tailored to directly attract the 16-23 year old demographic...

[Mr Mystery]

Has he mention he used to do Heroin yet?

Usually comes up pretty quickly, followed by hours upon hours of talking about himself.

[Path Walker]

Has he mention he used to do Heroin yet?

Usually comes up pretty quickly, followed by hours upon hours of talking about himself.

And how he was poor (because he spent all his money on heroin).

He doesn't seem to mention that he was married to multimillionaire singer Katy Perry often though, which is odd.

[Denzark]

The matter at the heart of the issue is still valid, rent is spiralling out of control in London as property prices reach ridiculous levels (which is a bubble that will burst hard at some point) but the Tories won't do anything about it because their backers are getting rich off the back of it.



It is a very surface analysis to claim this is a tory problem given the amount of multi-million pound property portfolios are owned by Labour grandees and their families. You do of course know that the labour MP who caused the twitter storm in Rochester, Emily thornberry, is actually more formally known as Lady Nugee becuase she is married to a millionaire knight of the realm.

The question your post raises to me is as follows:

Why should central government rule on property prices? As you point out, it is a bubble that will burst. Either people will move out increasingly en masse, causing property to fall in price both rental and ownership - or employers will need to add extra weighting to London wages to make it workable to live and work there.

The only group of people that it should effect where government must get involved is people whose accomodation is paid for by government. But then I see absolutely no reason why people should be entitled to property they cannot afford - in their location of choice. I am not entitled to have a government funded ferrari to drive instead of my ford. So why shoudl government pay for high London costs when it would be cheaper to the taxpayer to pay accomodation prices in Lincolnshire or rural areas?

[Mr Mystery]

Government could do with upping the tax on owning multiple properties for a start. Would put off would-be buy to let landlords, and it's mostly them that's doing the damage, as they buy up what would otherwise be entry level flats and houses.

[Wolfshade]

PMQ - PM asked to meet with the Sophie Lancaster trust.

[Wolfshade]

Listening to the Autumn Statement,

Ed Ball's reply to the chancellor says that I am 2k a year worse off than in 2010... laughably wrong.

[Mr Mystery]

Interested in the stuff announced, especially the Diverted Profits Tax.

May not work quite as well as promised (what tax does) but seems an elegantly simple solution overall. You make money in the UK, but choose to send it abroad? We'll have 25% of that, ta.

As for Mr Balls' (titter) suggestion - it is worth remembering that VAT went up to 20%, for 15% - that has an impact on the munneh left in my pocket.

Plus, wages on average have again failed to keep pace with inflation, leaving people worse off in real terms based just on that.

[Psychosplodge]

Listening to the Autumn Statement,

Ed Ball's reply to the chancellor says that I am 2k a year worse off than in 2010... laughably wrong.

I was confused at that. I've felt better off after every budget under this government. I was lower paid and suffered more under Brown.

[Wolfshade]

Obviously we are not hard working families...

[Psychosplodge]

Well just because I'm not irresponsible enough to have kids I can't afford...

[Wolfshade]

If you did you could have a free house, have 5 or more and it will be detached. Make sure you or one of the mothers are registered disabled and there will be no benefit cap.

Also, avoid being married to maximise profit.

[Mr Mystery]

Tax free is going up to £10,600. That's nice. Sounds daft, but should equate to a few quid extra every month, and I've never going to object to such perks!

40% rate threshold is also going up now, which is equally pleasing as with the overtime I'm doing at the moment, should that continue, I'd be tickling the current threshold after a year.

Fuel duty remains frozen - still think it needs to be cut, because it's daft, likewise beer duty, or at least a two tier system so Pubs don't end up carrying the can for the irresponsible prices Supermarkets offer.

[Wolfshade]

With air quality in cities being above eu safe levels and more people being killed off owing to air pollution than in actual rtcs there needs to be something to disincentivise people from driving everywhere.