Accrington Web

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)
-   -   If you were creating a government... (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/if-you-were-creating-a-government-26939.html)

andrewb 19-12-2006 22:25

If you were creating a government...
 
How would you go about it? Would you go the way of western democracy, would you use direct democracy and go one step further letting everyone vote on everything that was passed?

Or would you have a dictatorship that oppressed the people because you know best?

Both have shown to work well, infact you could say that dictatorship worked better than democracy in say Iraq (well certainly at the moment)..

What would you do?

shakermaker 19-12-2006 22:28

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Communism is the only way forward in my book; it's just never been done right.
Follow The Communist Manifesto to the letter and it would be brill.
Honest.

garinda 19-12-2006 23:20

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator involved.:)

jedimaster 19-12-2006 23:24

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
communism works brilliantly on a small scale and also in theory however i doubt the effectiveness on a large scale
i don't think there is a completeley effective form of government as people are naturally greedy and want more than they've got which opens the doors wide open to corruption

so in an ideal world yes a total democratic system would be wonderful however for it to work you would need honest integruous politicians who actually believe that they are there to represent the people and yes the people would need to vote on every issue

chav1 19-12-2006 23:25

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 354326)
Dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator involved.:)

infact he would be happy if you left the tator out of it all together :D

garinda 19-12-2006 23:40

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1 (Post 354328)
infact he would be happy if you left the tator out of it all together :D

You will the first against the wall to be shot.

The crime?

Trying too hard to be funny....and failing.:D

chav1 20-12-2006 00:31

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 354334)
You will the first against the wall to be shot.

The crime?

Trying too hard to be funny....and failing.:D

please feel free to use new material at any time

heres a website that may help you

www.keepmefunny.com :rolleyes:

shillelagh 20-12-2006 01:00

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
If you were creating a government... I'd do a runner :D Even I wouldnt want to live under a government created by me!! :D

SPUGGIE J 20-12-2006 06:59

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Dosnt matter whatk ind of govenment you it will always benifit the minority over the majority. :D

jedimaster 20-12-2006 10:40

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 354488)
Dosnt matter whatk ind of govenment you it will always benifit the minority over the majority. :D


i agree wholeheartedly

that is because governments are run by overpaid faceless beauracratic fatcats who are only interested in the benefits to themselvesand not the hardworking majority fighting to make a decent living in this country

chav1 20-12-2006 13:35

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
i think you will find it is very rare that you will find anyone entering politics because they feel the need to do good and help make things better

the majority of them are attracted by the benefits or the possibility of great rewards like expenses , backhanders and free lunches and i seriously think quite a lot of them actualy like the idea of been in charge and dictating what people shoudl do rather than working for teh people that vote for them

if all of tony blairs new laws he made and the iraq war had been put to a vote to teh people i would bet my life over 80% of his decisions would not have come to be especialy teh iraq war

we didnt go to war because it was needed we went to war because tony blair wanted to

local polotitions arnt as bad and in whole seem more honest than govenment polotitions but there is a hanfull who benefit greatly from their positions

Tinkerbelle 20-12-2006 16:21

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Oh I would love to be the head of a dictatorship Government. My main aim would be to crush all men.

Obvious benefits would be men would only speak when spoken to. They would be held in holding cells until they were required to perform a duty. Women would be able to go along and choose which male they'd like to perform that duty ;) :D


VOTE FOR TINKERBELLE!!

lancsdave 20-12-2006 16:22

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle (Post 354737)
Oh I would love to be the head of a dictatorship Government. My main aim would be to crush all men.

Obvious benefits would be men would only speak when spoken to. They would be held in holding cells until they were required to perform a duty. Women would be able to go along and choose which male they'd like to perform that duty ;) :D


VOTE FOR TINKERBELLE!!

Too late Maggie beat you to it :D

Tinkerbelle 20-12-2006 16:24

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Maggie was a pusycat ;)

WillowTheWhisp 20-12-2006 17:02

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Theoretically communism is not at all a bad idea - in practice some people always end up more equal than others unfortunately.

I would opt for a democracy with elected government where the government were more answerable to the public and for major issues held reforendums (reforenda?)

jambutty 20-12-2006 18:04

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
A Parliament would run for FOUR YEARS.

Party politics has no place in a modern democratic government so each MP would be voted into office on his own personal manifesto. In office the MP would HAVE to vote according to his/her manifesto under pain of permanent expulsion. If a subject being debated in Parliament were not included in a MP’s manifesto that MP would be free to vote as his/her conscience dictates or if the will is there, as his/her constituents decree.

The country would be divided into 300 constituencies of approximately the same number of adult inhabitants.

Any bona fide resident of a constituency would be eligible to put him/herself forward as a candidate providing that s/he met the requirement for being able to vote. That being, residents of a constituency eligible to vote would be 18 years of age or older and a citizen of this country. A citizen of this country is a person who has been born in this country or if born abroad of British parents where one of the parents was a British citizen and the birth was registered at the British Consulate in the country of birth. Immigrants to this country would not be able to vote until they attained British citizenship. Inmates of a prison or those out on licence/parole would not be eligible to vote until the full sentence has expired. Inmates of mental health institutions would not be eligible to vote.

A prospective candidate standing in a general election would in addition to being eligible to vote in that constituency have to be over 21 years of age, without a criminal record and a full time resident in the constituency for a minimum of 3 years.

Each constituency candidate would have to lodge a £5,000 deposit that will be forfeited if that candidate does not gain at least half the number of votes that the runner up receives. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up from his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses.

Each candidate would be required to fund his/her own election campaign with $5,000 to be deposited in an Election Campaign Fund bank account. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up of his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses. This £5,000 would be matched three fold (£15,000) from state funds. Any remaining funds after the election would be returned to where they came from pro rata.

Government funds (i.e. taxpayer’s cash) would meet the cost of printing a booklet detailing the candidate’s profile and manifesto and the posting of the booklet to every household in the constituency. Government funds would also meet the cost of each candidate campaigning on local TV, radio and press twice during the election campaign. Government funds would also meet the cost of a candidate hiring a public hall for campaign debates with the constituents on two occasions.

All other campaign expenses, which would be basically travelling expenses and maybe the odd overnight accommodation expense, would have to be met from the Election Campaign Fund.

The election campaign would last 42 days.

After the elections the 300 MP’s would meet in Westminster to elect the Cabinet and Ministers. MP’s would be able to put themselves forward for a specific office including PM and deputy PM and present their case in open session after which all 300 MP’s would vote for their choices.

Government business would be conducted Tuesday to Friday inclusive between 9:00am and 6:00pm or later if the occasion demands leaving the weekends and Mondays free for MP’s constituency matters and a weekend break.

MP’s would NOT BE ALLOWED to have second jobs, consultancies, directorships etc. even for charities. A person cannot serve two masters. As a serving MP, s/he has only one master – his/her constituents.
Overnight accommodation expenses whilst Parliament is sitting (Tues to Fri) would be met from government funds and would be capped.
The cost of running a constituency office would be met from government funds with a limit on staff numbers and staff salaries.
Constituency office staff could not be a direct relative of the MP. That is father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister.
MP’s holiday entitlement would be the same as hospital medical staff.
MP’s pay would be capped at £290 per day (about £75,000 pa) 5/7 including bank holidays and the days of the holiday entitlement.
The PM’s salary would be £500 per day (about £130,000 pa)
Deputy PM $400 per day (about £104,000 pa)
Cabinet Ministers £350 per day (about £91,000 pa)
Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.
MP’s would be obliged to attend Parliament each day that it is in session with certifiable illness or death or on a bona fide holiday as the only excuses for not attending. None attendance without just cause will attract a deduction for that/those day/s.
MP’s would get free rail travel between their constituency and Westminster and overnight accommodation and Parliament.

A second chamber or Upper House would be elected in a similar fashion to MP’s with these differences.
The 120 successful candidates with the most votes after the elected MP from the 300 constituencies would form the Upper Chamber plus 30 Law Lords nominated by the MP’s.

On polling day constituents would be asked to vote for an MP and a representative in the Upper House.

Local government elections would follow a similar pattern to that of electing MP’s.

SPUGGIE J 20-12-2006 18:33

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Now that would be one ell of a way to run the country Jambutty. :eek: :D

The question is could/would it work?

WillowTheWhisp 20-12-2006 19:29

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
It looks like you've really thought that out Jambutty. I'm very impressed. Not too sure about the £5,000 requirement though.

shillelagh 20-12-2006 19:58

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 354809)
Now that would be one ell of a way to run the country Jambutty. :eek: :D

The question is could/would it work?

Probably not.

Constituencies would be too large - at the minute we have over 600 MP's covering all of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. That would mean at the least doubling the size of the constituencies. That would mean Rossendale & Darwen Constituency joining with Hyndburn. Some of the items Jambutty mentioned are already in practice - http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ment.cfm/11604
That gives you the rough outline to see if you qualify for standing as an MP.

SPUGGIE J 20-12-2006 20:18

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
To think I qualify to stand as a money making bucket. :D

Might have to give it a go. :eek:

bullseyebarb 20-12-2006 21:09

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
[quote=shillelagh;354847]Probably not.

Constituencies would be too large - at the minute we have over 600 MP's covering all of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland. quote)


Holy cow! No wonder you have problems. We have 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators in the U.S.....with a population far greater than the U.K. And still we have a hard time taming those rascals. Once the citizenry discovers that it can vote itself goodies from the public purse, it's pretty much the beginning of the end. Bankruptcy is on the horizon.

I don't see anybody on this thread longing for FREEDOM! There is way too much government in my opinion.

andrewb 20-12-2006 21:28

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 354791)
A Parliament would run for FOUR YEARS.

Party politics has no place in a modern democratic government so each MP would be voted into office on his own personal manifesto. In office the MP would HAVE to vote according to his/her manifesto under pain of permanent expulsion. If a subject being debated in Parliament were not included in a MP’s manifesto that MP would be free to vote as his/her conscience dictates or if the will is there, as his/her constituents decree.

The country would be divided into 300 constituencies of approximately the same number of adult inhabitants.

Any bona fide resident of a constituency would be eligible to put him/herself forward as a candidate providing that s/he met the requirement for being able to vote. That being, residents of a constituency eligible to vote would be 18 years of age or older and a citizen of this country. A citizen of this country is a person who has been born in this country or if born abroad of British parents where one of the parents was a British citizen and the birth was registered at the British Consulate in the country of birth. Immigrants to this country would not be able to vote until they attained British citizenship. Inmates of a prison or those out on licence/parole would not be eligible to vote until the full sentence has expired. Inmates of mental health institutions would not be eligible to vote.

A prospective candidate standing in a general election would in addition to being eligible to vote in that constituency have to be over 21 years of age, without a criminal record and a full time resident in the constituency for a minimum of 3 years.

Each constituency candidate would have to lodge a £5,000 deposit that will be forfeited if that candidate does not gain at least half the number of votes that the runner up receives. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up from his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses.

Each candidate would be required to fund his/her own election campaign with $5,000 to be deposited in an Election Campaign Fund bank account. The candidate would have to prove that the £5,000 is made up of his/her own money and individual donations. Any donations cannot be more than £100 per person. Donations cannot be from businesses. This £5,000 would be matched three fold (£15,000) from state funds. Any remaining funds after the election would be returned to where they came from pro rata.

Government funds (i.e. taxpayer’s cash) would meet the cost of printing a booklet detailing the candidate’s profile and manifesto and the posting of the booklet to every household in the constituency. Government funds would also meet the cost of each candidate campaigning on local TV, radio and press twice during the election campaign. Government funds would also meet the cost of a candidate hiring a public hall for campaign debates with the constituents on two occasions.

All other campaign expenses, which would be basically travelling expenses and maybe the odd overnight accommodation expense, would have to be met from the Election Campaign Fund.

The election campaign would last 42 days.

After the elections the 300 MP’s would meet in Westminster to elect the Cabinet and Ministers. MP’s would be able to put themselves forward for a specific office including PM and deputy PM and present their case in open session after which all 300 MP’s would vote for their choices.

Government business would be conducted Tuesday to Friday inclusive between 9:00am and 6:00pm or later if the occasion demands leaving the weekends and Mondays free for MP’s constituency matters and a weekend break.

MP’s would NOT BE ALLOWED to have second jobs, consultancies, directorships etc. even for charities. A person cannot serve two masters. As a serving MP, s/he has only one master – his/her constituents.
Overnight accommodation expenses whilst Parliament is sitting (Tues to Fri) would be met from government funds and would be capped.
The cost of running a constituency office would be met from government funds with a limit on staff numbers and staff salaries.
Constituency office staff could not be a direct relative of the MP. That is father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister.
MP’s holiday entitlement would be the same as hospital medical staff.
MP’s pay would be capped at £290 per day (about £75,000 pa) 5/7 including bank holidays and the days of the holiday entitlement.
The PM’s salary would be £500 per day (about £130,000 pa)
Deputy PM $400 per day (about £104,000 pa)
Cabinet Ministers £350 per day (about £91,000 pa)
Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.
MP’s would be obliged to attend Parliament each day that it is in session with certifiable illness or death or on a bona fide holiday as the only excuses for not attending. None attendance without just cause will attract a deduction for that/those day/s.
MP’s would get free rail travel between their constituency and Westminster and overnight accommodation and Parliament.

A second chamber or Upper House would be elected in a similar fashion to MP’s with these differences.
The 120 successful candidates with the most votes after the elected MP from the 300 constituencies would form the Upper Chamber plus 30 Law Lords nominated by the MP’s.

On polling day constituents would be asked to vote for an MP and a representative in the Upper House.

Local government elections would follow a similar pattern to that of electing MP’s.

How would laws be passed when the upper and lower house are concerned?

I like some of your ideas, but I think the first part where you suggest no political parties, and just straight electing the cabinet will make a government in gridlock that can't decide anything or pass any laws. We have parties for people who think along the same lines and hence vote along the same lines, it helps get legislation passed, this wouldn't be at all easy in a free for all.

cashman 20-12-2006 22:36

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
i,d start by banning politics.:D

SPUGGIE J 21-12-2006 06:39

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 354934)
i,d start by banning politics.:D

Before or after you have shot the polititions. :eek:;)

jambutty 21-12-2006 13:25

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
No SPUGGIE J it would never been given a chance to work because the only people who could make it happen is the Government in office and they would never want that sort of control.

The £5,000 deposit WillowTheWhisp would deter frivolous prospective candidates.

In this day and age Shillelagh, with the advent of the Internet a larger constituency should not be a problem. If every MP had his/her own web site where constituents could register as a member, they could then make their views known to the MP as and when they choose. It would be fairly easy for the MP to seek the views of the constituents by way of a web site poll. It might just encourage people to get more involved in how the country is run. Many, many people complain about Government spending but few make their voices heard where it might do some good. They just moan to each other. Our country is the way it is because of electorate apathy.

With party politics Cyfr, we have to accept the whole manifesto even if there are parts that we do not agree with. We would have to do the same with my suggestion but the MP would have to vote as his/her manifesto decreed and not along party lines. On most occasions MP’s are forced to vote along party lines even if an MP disagrees with the subject being put to the vote. Some democracy that is!

It’s better not to pass a law than to pass one that is not for the benefit of the majority of the people. But you wouldn’t get ‘gridlock’. Look at it this way, if an MP is elected because his/her manifesto stated that s/he was against, say ID cards, when it came to the Parliamentary vote s/he would vote that way. If enough of the other MP’s were also elected because of the same view the ID motion would be defeated, or vice versa. The point is that without party politics an MP would represent his/her constituents views and that is democracy.

But as I said it is nothing more than a pipe dream.

andrewb 21-12-2006 14:45

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Your ideas seem to have the same flaws as the current system though. What happens when something is voted on which isn't in the MP's manifesto? They get to choose themselves? Then you shall end up with gridlock. The MP's will start finding people they can vote with in order to get things passed, and then you start the formation of parties again..

Lets face it if it wasn't for the whips then government legislation wouldn't get passed on quite a few occasions, but that isn't a bad thing in my viewpoint, a heck of a lot of what the government pass is on their manifesto which they're elected upon and without whips we would have a weak government that would collapse every few months.

Neil 21-12-2006 16:47

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 354791)
Annual salary increases would be tied to the CASH VALUE of a pensioners’ increase. That is if the pension is increased by £5 per week the MP’s increase would be the same – i.e. £1 per day.

I don't agree that that bit. Increases should be matched as a percentage.

jambutty 21-12-2006 16:52

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Your ideas seem to have the same flaws as the current system though.
Nearly all new ideas will be flawed until they are discussed Cyfr. That’s the idea of floating new ideas to see what can become of them. Dismissing a new idea out of hand just because someone thinks it won’t work is crass in the extreme.
Quote:

What happens when something is voted on which isn't in the MP's manifesto? They get to choose themselves? Then you shall end up with gridlock. The MP's will start finding people they can vote with in order to get things passed, and then you start the formation of parties again..
If an MP has to vote on a subject that is not in his/her manifesto the MP will either vote as his/her conscience dictates or seek guidance from his/her constituents although that may not be practical at times. What the MP won’t have to do is to vote as the party dictates. If your MP continually votes on matters not in his/her manifesto that do not suit you, you know what to do at the next election. Vote for someone else.

No doubt there would be some horse trading between MP’s and temporary coalitions will be formed – “if you vote with me on this issue, I will vote with you on that issue” but each MP will have a CHOICE. They don’t get much of a choice these days – except the independents but they are few. In fact they might as well get rid of MP’s and replace them with rubber stamps.
Quote:

Lets face it if it wasn't for the whips then government legislation wouldn't get passed on quite a few occasions, but that isn't a bad thing in my viewpoint, a heck of a lot of what the government pass is on their manifesto which they're elected upon and without whips we would have a weak government that would collapse every few months.
Yes let’s face it – if it wasn’t for the whips there would be much less bad legislation and the current PM wouldn’t be acting like a dictator. The whole Parliamentary system is supposed to be a servant of the people not their boss and that would make for a STRONGER Parliament not a weaker one.

jambutty 21-12-2006 17:08

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 355160)
I don't agree that that bit. Increases should be matched as a percentage.

Salary increases based on percentages is the scourge of the west and just widens the divide between the haves and have nots.

Let us assume that the national basket costs £50 and due to inflation it increases by £5 to £55.
Let us also assume that the lowest paid worker or pensioner receives £100 per week and some CEO gets £2,000 per week. The national basket has increased by 10% so if you give each end of the spectrum a 10% increase the lowest end gets £10 and the top end gets £200. The low end gains £5 on the deal but the high end gains £195 on the deal.

Now tell me again how that can be just and fair.

Although inflation is quoted in percentages the reality is an actual cash increase and it is the same for everybody. If I go into a shop to buy something the shopkeeper doesn’t charge me less because I happen to be a pensioner and more to some person earning £500 or more per week. The price of the item is the same for all customers regardless of their income.

LancYorkYankee 21-12-2006 17:16

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Hey jambutty, as soon as I saw that you had contributed to this thread, I knew that we'd get a well-thought, thorough analysis of your thoughts on this subject. Well done especially to the specific details.

It would be nice to have honest men (and yeah I guess women)(but tinks and lock-up. . .:rolleyes: ) of good character guiding various Governments but can't imagine it ever happening long-term do to many reasons as discussed previously!:(

In the Bible, it states that in the end times, there will arise a leader that will seemingly bring peace not only to the middle east but throughout the world. The world will worship this man for all the great things he will do . . . Not the end of the story but IMO an interesting addition to the thread.

Brian

yerself 21-12-2006 17:29

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
The monarchy should be usurped without delay. Boris Johnson named as President, Tealeaf as Prime Minister and Bagpuss as Foreign Secretary.

andrewb 21-12-2006 17:33

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 355161)
Nearly all new ideas will be flawed until they are discussed Cyfr. That’s the idea of floating new ideas to see what can become of them. Dismissing a new idea out of hand just because someone thinks it won’t work is crass in the extreme.
If an MP has to vote on a subject that is not in his/her manifesto the MP will either vote as his/her conscience dictates or seek guidance from his/her constituents although that may not be practical at times. What the MP won’t have to do is to vote as the party dictates. If your MP continually votes on matters not in his/her manifesto that do not suit you, you know what to do at the next election. Vote for someone else.

No doubt there would be some horse trading between MP’s and temporary coalitions will be formed – “if you vote with me on this issue, I will vote with you on that issue” but each MP will have a CHOICE. They don’t get much of a choice these days – except the independents but they are few. In fact they might as well get rid of MP’s and replace them with rubber stamps.
Yes let’s face it – if it wasn’t for the whips there would be much less bad legislation and the current PM wouldn’t be acting like a dictator. The whole Parliamentary system is supposed to be a servant of the people not their boss and that would make for a STRONGER Parliament not a weaker one.

Currently every single MP has a choice. The whips help influence a vote, but an MP is not forced to follow what they say.

I think we will have to disagree on the matter of stronger parliament as I don't believe a system of gridlock where a lot of legislation isn't passed helps stabilise a government or keep it together.

Neil 21-12-2006 18:50

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 355162)
Although inflation is quoted in percentages the reality is an actual cash increase and it is the same for everybody. If I go into a shop to buy something the shopkeeper doesn’t charge me less because I happen to be a pensioner and more to some person earning £500 or more per week. The price of the item is the same for all customers regardless of their income.

I don't agree with the inflation not being a percentage. If gas and electricity go up by 5% that might mean £20 a year to you in your flat(I think you live in a flat) but to me it could mean £100+ in my family home. If food goes up 5% then it will make a bigger difference to me with 5 mouths to feed (have you seen my mouth before someone tries to be funny). Same for car insurance fuel etc, I have a family so need a bigger car. Etc etc etc

andrewb 21-12-2006 18:56

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 355162)

Although inflation is quoted in percentages the reality is an actual cash increase and it is the same for everybody. If I go into a shop to buy something the shopkeeper doesn’t charge me less because I happen to be a pensioner and more to some person earning £500 or more per week. The price of the item is the same for all customers regardless of their income.

Completely disagree. If you use your logic you could say the poll tax is a good idea, its using your logic just the advantage is to the higher earners not the lower.. and we all know what a bad idea the poll tax was. Of course initialy it wouldnt be the same as the poll tax because I assume there will be different bands, but when you start adding fixed costs rather than percentages on to that when its increased, you shall get the lower income earners paying more and more with the higher paying not much compared to their salary..

Neil 21-12-2006 22:38

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 355210)
If you use your logic you could say the poll tax is a good idea..... and we all know what a bad idea the poll tax was.

Why was it a bad idea? Did it not mean that everyone paid the same for the same services in a given area?

Ianto.W. 21-12-2006 22:48

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
The poll tax was the right way, collecting it was always going to be a problem, as some people are mobile and move from town to town, whereas property is static making tax collection easier.

shillelagh 22-12-2006 01:25

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
In this day and age Shillelagh, with the advent of the Internet a larger constituency should not be a problem. If every MP had his/her own web site where constituents could register as a member, they could then make their views known to the MP as and when they choose. It would be fairly easy for the MP to seek the views of the constituents by way of a web site poll. It might just encourage people to get more involved in how the country is run. Many, many people complain about Government spending but few make their voices heard where it might do some good. They just moan to each other. Our country is the way it is because of electorate apathy.


All the MP's do have websites where you can send them an email. The only thing is not everyone has a computer. Also can you imagine trying to contact your MP and he's based in Accrington but you live in Whitworth or your MP is based in Rawtenstall or Haslingden and live in Great Harwood and you dont have a car you have to depend on public transport to get there and there is also the cost of that. Ok so you have a surgery in every town but then what happens is something goes wrong on Tuesday that you have to get in touch with him urgently and so you contact his office on the Wednesday. Because he's having a surgery in Whitworth on
Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon hes in Crawshawbooth, you wont be able to actually speak to him until the following Tuesday and then only by phone as he will be travelling back to London. By that time the problem could have escalated. You live in Great Harwood and think if i go to one of his surgeries i'll be able to speak to him. So you jump on the bus and go to Accrington, then catch another bus to Rawtenstall, and then wait for the bus to Crawshawbooth. How much will that cost plus you've got to come back.

http://www.gregpope.co.uk/ and http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsite...erson/home.htm

andrewb 22-12-2006 02:07

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 355278)
Why was it a bad idea? Did it not mean that everyone paid the same for the same services in a given area?

Well yes in theory its 'right' in terms of everyone paying the same for what they get. But actualy thinking about things.. even if people earn lower incomes they shouldnt be forced to suffer because they cant afford the tax which high earners can. High earners can afford to pay a little more.. so they do..

jambutty 22-12-2006 13:39

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
I accept that no MP is forced to vote on party lines Cyfr but the Whips do more than influence a vote. If an MP decides to go against the Whips ‘advice’ (which in reality is more of an instruction) that MP will be sanctioned in some way right up to being dismissed from the party. MP’s are whipped into party line if they show a tendency to think for themselves. That’s why the Whips are called Whips!

The National Basket has a certain cash value Neil (I don’t know what it is) and month-by-month the prices of the goods in that basket are checked and any increase is declared as an AVERAGE percentage value of the previous cash value. It’s called inflation. Thus during the course of a year the inflation could be say 10%. Wage increase claims are based on this figure and those with a lower income will not get the real cash value increase, whilst those on a higher income will, not only get the cash value but more. Because of this percentage thing pensions become less and less year-by-year in real terms and so do the wages of the low paid.

We shall have to agree to disagree Neil. But you will never convince me that basing wage increases on a percentage basis is anything other than UNFAIR.

In spite of your claims that the Poll Tax was a bad idea Cyfr, on the contrary many people saw it as being fair. Why should a pensioner, single person or even a couple pay the same Council Tax as a household with 3 or 4 working adults? The Poll Tax was a fair way of charging adults for the services that the local authority provided. Where it went wrong is the level of PT per person. It was too high. The Councils grabbed the opportunity to get more money out of the town’s residents. Lower income earners did not pay more as there was the safety net, in the same way that low income families get a full or partial Council Tax relief.

My MP, Janet Anderson, has a web site shillelagh but unless you declare which sector of industry you are in you cannot register to post on the Blog. The choices are; Charity, Corporate, Government Agency/NDPB, Government Department, Local Government, Media, MP/Peer/MEP/MSP/AM/MLA, Parliamentary Staff, Google Page Ranking/Public Affairs Consultancy, Public Services, Student/Research Institute, Think Tank/Pressure Group, Trade Assoc/Professional Body or Union. I don’t see factory, office, shop workers in that list. Nor postmen, binmen, pensioners etc.

Thus the man/woman in the street cannot register unless they lie about which sector they are in.

There are contact details, which include several email addresses but as you say not everyone is computer literate or indeed has one of these infernal machines. But there is always the public library and help is at hand for those who cannot use a computer to send an email.

andrewb 22-12-2006 13:45

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 355422)
I accept that no MP is forced to vote on party lines Cyfr but the Whips do more than influence a vote. If an MP decides to go against the Whips ‘advice’ (which in reality is more of an instruction) that MP will be sanctioned in some way right up to being dismissed from the party. MP’s are whipped into party line if they show a tendency to think for themselves. That’s why the Whips are called Whips!

I think you will find there would be an uproar if an MP was dismissed for not following the whip, so although possible, it is really not at all practical as its a weak threat.

garinda 22-12-2006 23:08

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Cyfr gets my vote.

Jambutty you're out of office.:D

SPUGGIE J 23-12-2006 09:38

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
I suppose that at the end of the day the Govenment we have is what we are stuck with. We can rebel at the voting booth or not as the case may be or start a cout de tat and drag it down. There are that many views on what a govenment should be that we will always jump on the bad stuff and mistakes. No one could ever honestly say that they are a 100% behind what their govenment does (unless under a gun) so there will always be debate which for our form of govenment is good. One thing I am unsure of is proportional represetation.

cashman 23-12-2006 10:12

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
they have "created a government" in iraq,that is us and the yanks, is it now a better place?:cool:

jambutty 23-12-2006 10:20

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
No it isn’t cashman but that’s not the fault of the incumbent government. The fault lies with the insurgents and the Shia and Sunni religious fanatics who are hell bent on ‘getting their own back on the other lot’ and trying to take over the country for themselves.

Neil - seeing as you are all for inflation figures and wage increases being quoted and acted upon in percentages and dismiss cash values instead let me throw out a challenge.

I will donate 10% of my weekly income to a charity if you will do the same. That is YOU donate 10% of YOUR weekly income to charity.

andrewb 23-12-2006 10:28

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Are we going to account for heating allowances and such too? :p

jambutty 23-12-2006 11:36

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

I will donate 10% of my weekly income to a charity if you will do the same.
Maybe Xmas has come early for you Cyfr and you’ve been sampling the falling down water and you cannot comprehend that ‘weekly income’ means income coming in each week. The heating allowance is an annual allowance.

However, yes, I will include the £200 heating allowance – that is £3.85 per week providing that the challenged will also include any annual bonuses that they might receive.

A few years ago I wrote to Gordon Brown making the same challenge/offer. The response was conspicuous by its absence. In fact over the years I have written to numerous celebrities making the same challenge but not one even had the decency to respond.

The point is that some people are happy to receive wage increases in percentages but when it comes to paying out in a percentage of their income the shutters come down and they don’t want to know.

bullseyebarb 30-12-2006 16:12

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 355169)
Currently every single MP has a choice. The whips help influence a vote, but an MP is not forced to follow what they say.

I think we will have to disagree on the matter of stronger parliament as I don't believe a system of gridlock where a lot of legislation isn't passed helps stabilise a government or keep it together.


The less legislation the better, since it invariably infringes upon freedom and the rights of the people. Personally, I love gridlock. Better no law than a bad one. The best days are those when Congress is on recess.

bullseyebarb 30-12-2006 16:30

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 355762)
they have "created a government" in iraq,that is us and the yanks, is it now a better place?:cool:


Iraqis wrote their own Constitution and the people voted for it. It will undoubtedly be amended in the years to come, as such documents generally are. This is an experiment in democratic governance for them - a starting point, not the finished product. If they can only hang in there, yes, Iraq will be a much better place one of these days.

jambutty 30-12-2006 17:16

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb (Post 358171)
The less legislation the better, since it invariably infringes upon freedom and the rights of the people. Personally, I love gridlock. Better no law than a bad one. The best days are those when Congress is on recess.

Couldn’t agree more!

It seems like Neil – the quiet and shy member and Cyfr who also disagrees with my argument about percentages have opted out of accepting my challenge.

I don’t suppose it would have anything to do with the fact that they would pay more cash than me. Nah! They’ve just forgotten about the challenge, being Xmas and all and intend to take it up in the New Year.

Methinks that I will wait a long while for an acceptance from either.

andrewb 30-12-2006 17:25

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 355778)
Maybe Xmas has come early for you Cyfr and you’ve been sampling the falling down water and you cannot comprehend that ‘weekly income’ means income coming in each week. The heating allowance is an annual allowance.

However, yes, I will include the £200 heating allowance – that is £3.85 per week providing that the challenged will also include any annual bonuses that they might receive.

A few years ago I wrote to Gordon Brown making the same challenge/offer. The response was conspicuous by its absence. In fact over the years I have written to numerous celebrities making the same challenge but not one even had the decency to respond.

The point is that some people are happy to receive wage increases in percentages but when it comes to paying out in a percentage of their income the shutters come down and they don’t want to know.

Perhaps you should start at a standard figure and then raise it based upon a percentage year on year. Which would be more accurate as to what we're debating about. Then the person with the larger income will be donateing more and more to chairty as their wage permits, but from a percentage of the original amount, not based upon salary.

Actualy im not entirely sure what im trying to say. I think im trying to say 'lets donate X amount to charity then increase it by a percent in terms of our income.

Anyhow, under your current idea I would be paying charity £3 a week Jambutty. Which is based upon me getting EMA, which I don't get very often because I neglect to attend 'Sitting in the library'.

jambutty 30-12-2006 18:07

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Unless I have it wrong Cyfr that EMA that you get is a weekly allowance and not an earned income. But if we were to count it then yes you would only have to pay £3. However I wasn’t suggesting a regular weekly donation just a one off.

andrewb 30-12-2006 18:14

Re: If you were creating a government...
 
Well no its not earned unless you count getting an education as working (haha) but I was just taking 'income' as the figure to work it out from.

I'd be happy to donate it to charity.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com