The British Politics Thread

[cover drive man]

Originally Posted by Goughy

The free market is like a virgins maidenhood. Once you **** with it then its lost.

So many people say that a free market is great but if only we could do something about this and about this and maybe about this. Once the interference starts then the wealth creation stalls. The greater the meddling and the more politicised the involvement then the more the system fails.

Government often interfere with the free market whether it's the Conservatives, Labour or whoever else. Every budget day and throughout the year, we can't have a no holds barred free-for-all. There has to be regulation on

1) Marketing of unhealthy products (ciggarettes, alcohol, gambling, fatty food and drinks etc)

2) Corrupt and loop-holing tactics.

Originally Posted by cpr

Don't start me on Winter Fuel payments, most ****ed system out there. There are pensioners out there who earn more in pensions than I do in wage, quite a fair few who earn double and more than me, who still get this money because of their age. There is no income looked at when paying out. When it comes to Tax, pensioners get extra tax free, but that starts to disappear when their income goes above £22,800, when they hit £29,000 a year they get the normal rates.... but still get winter fuel payments. Applying the same tolerances would save the country millions without hitting any hard off pensioners

I agree, changes should be made to that. But the reason I used that as an example was because there are so many pensioners who genuinely need these payments.

[cpr]

Agreed, though there are so many who dont, but still get it. I've no problem with helping those in need, but we are trying to save money......

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by cover drive man

Come on Ed, we could do with bringing back a more radical edge to Labour.

Good to see Ed winning, instead of his slimy brother, David, who's a clone of the David Cameron/Tony Blair types, who are making present-day politics cringe-worthy....

Finally, we have something sensible on the front pages for a change!

Mind, folks are over-playing the 'radical' description. he's no Michael Foot, but if you read today's Sunday Times, you'd think he was Lenin reincarnated....

Seeing how much Murdoch's media are frothing the mouth at the election of Ed, it's made me like him even more. They clearly see Ed as a far bigger threat to their beloved Tories, especially since over the coming months a lot of people are going to lose their jobs. We need a party in opposition who can challenge them over these job-losses, most of which I believe are not as absolutely necessary as George Osborne would have us believe. And Ed, not his brother David, is the man to do that....

[Manee]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I'm completely against high corporation tax for the reason fred succinctly summed up. But when you call an emergency budget on the grounds that the deficit needs to be cut urgently, surely you can't then use that budget to reduce taxes.

I've read some quite interesting literature on a flat tax system. Its quite fascinating and managed to creep it in into my A2 exam in the summer. I used to think that it was some sort of joke policy that has been tried and failed but it looks quite handy.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by Goughy

So many people say that a free market is great but if only we could do something about this and about this and maybe about this. Once the interference starts then the wealth creation stalls. The greater the meddling and the more politicised the involvement then the more the system fails.

I disagree. I think that limited economic intervention is necessary. State healthcare (NHS) and state education, for example are required for the country to run equitably. Similarly, a progressive tax system (or steps which move towards such a state of affairs, if not totally toward such a system, at risk of damaging incentives) helps bind together 'one nation'. This improves law and order and stability, which in turn benefits an economy. If theft, vandalism and other crimes are high, then surely business cannot run efficiently. Moreover, if you have people living in the gutter, then they are not working and providing for an economy.

[PhoenixFire]

Lol, if I had a quid every time someone complained about SLC, I'd be a rich, rich man. Worst system.

[cpr]

SLC is not Student Finance. SLC will pay the loan etc, Student Finance are behind getting the infomation together and setting up the application. Guess which ones outsourced and staffed by people who don't understand income.....

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by cpr

And thats why I dont like PR systems. David clear choice over Ed in every round, until we decide those who prefer someone else get another say over who they think is second best, then suddenly Ed is the winner...... Nonsensical system to me.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to....

of course on a one member, one vote basis then Ed Milliband has actually won with a far higher support within his own party than either Cameron or Clegg managed in their respective elections. Surely, you don't mean that MPs alone should choose a leader? Party members, unions or not, should have an input in choosing a leader. Ed won a lot more votes from party members than his brother David.

[GIMH]

He's saying that Millband B was more popular than Millband A when other members were also included in the vote...not that other people should be excldued from voting

[Uppercut]

Although the majority of those would have directly voted for the candidate that had a chance of winning instead of the one they wanted to elect anyway had the election been held using FPTP.

[cpr]

Originally Posted by shivfan

Surely, you don't mean that MPs alone should choose a leader? Party members, unions or not, should have an input in choosing a leader. Ed won a lot more votes from party members than his brother David.

No I mean, one voice, one vote. You vote for who you want to win, none of this balls about 'Oh David had more votes, but if those who voted for the least liked candidates got another pick, then Ed did.

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Although the majority of those would have directly voted for the candidate that had a chance of winning instead of the one they wanted to elect anyway had the election been held using FPTP.

Well then they are ****ing clueless morons. The whole point of voting is to choose who you want to win, not try to back the winner. Its not ****ing horse racing. We shouldn't have to design an electoral system because people can't grasp the simple concept of voting for who they believe in.

[sledger]

Yeah, PR and all of its variants bring far more hassle than they are worth tbh, FPTP is far from a perfect system, but it works and is a lot less ****e than most of the alternatives.

[shivfan]

Personally, I don't have a problem with Labour using the AV version of PR in their leadership election, because delegates are bound to have an hierarchy of who they would want to see leading their party, and who they wouldn't....

Also, it gives us a peak of how this system works - or doesn't - before the referendum in May. Doesn't Australia use the AV version of PR?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by cpr

Well then they are ****ing clueless morons. The whole point of voting is to choose who you want to win, not try to back the winner. Its not ****ing horse racing. We shouldn't have to design an electoral system because people can't grasp the simple concept of voting for who they believe in.

Lolwut. No one has their views entirely represented by any of the major parties. No one. Not even anyone in the parties. The electoral system has nothing to do with voting for "who you believe in", we just vote for whichever major party represents our own views least loosely.

[GIMH]

You're just playing semantics there though and ignoring the rest of his point, IMO.