We are all in this together

[Dave1970]

They probably do have a hymen sheet, after all they are a bunch of c..................I'll get me coat

 

[IPA]

I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.

What riots?

 

[graysalchemy]

I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it.

What riots?

Thats the point they didn't riot they got on with it and looked for work.

 

[calumscott]

They probably do have a hymen sheet, after all they are a bunch of c..................I'll get me coat

:rofl:

 

[Tim_Crowhurst]

2, Proprotional representation is wrong, its just not fair for some voters.

That depends on what it's wrong/unfair for. PR and FPTP both have their strengths and weaknesses. What is needed is a system that takes advantage of the former while negating (as far as is possible) the latter.

FPTP and AV are both ideal for a close MP-constituency relationship, making it good for legislative debate. I followed the gay marriage debates 9 months ago quite closely, and one thing that came over again and again was how much the Commons MPs relied on the experiences of their constituents during the debates. None of the three major parties had it as a whipped vote, which allowed for very free and open discussion - exactly the kind of thing I believe is essential to the legislative process. The weakness of both FPTP and AV is that, if used to elect the government as well as the legislature, it forces voters to choose the least-worst option rather than their first choice. Another problem with FPTP (but not AV) is that, in a country with three major parties, it becomes easy for a party to win a majority of seats with a plurality (rather than a majority) of the vote, allowing governments (the cabinet and other ministers) to be elected by a minority of voters - AKA minority rule. The current government is the first since WWII's Grand Coalition with an electoral majority, because the current parliament is the second since WWII to have no party with an absolute majority, forcing a coalition (which, incidentally, has 21 fewer MPs than it would under PR). I cannot think of any other democracy that so consistently has governments elected by an electoral minority.

The reverse is true of PR: it is lousy if you want a close MP-constituency relationship, irrespective of whether the system used is like that of Israel (no constituencies) Sweden (multi-member constituencies, plus 10%-15% levelling seats) or Scotland (large single-person constituencies, plus 40%-50% levelling seats) because each MP is tied to their party more closely than their constituents. However it is good for ensuring that government represents the will of the nation as a whole because it ensures that all parties have representation equal to their public support, and therefore provides all voters with a fair say in who forms the government. Based on the number of votes they received in 2010, the Greens should have six MPs, yet they have one; UKIP should have twenty MPs, yet they have none; and Labour should have 188 MPs, yet they have 258. Labour voters have eight times more influence then Green voters, and infinitely more than UKIP voters. So FPTP denies UKIP, Green and other minority-party voters an equal voice. Using PR overcomes this.

The Lib Dems were pushing for an AV Commons and PR Lords, however I think they've got it the wrong way round. An AV Lords with a weak whip would ensure that the perspectives of individual communities are expressed during legislative debate, and would ensure that individual MPs had a constituency majority. It would ensure firebrand safe-seat MPs have little (if any) influence over the government. A PR Commons with a strong party whip would ensure that every government, whether coalition or not, is elected with the support of a majority of voters, and the Commons would have far fewer firebrands, depending on the specific system used. It would mean less desirable parties like the BNP getting elected (based on the 2010 election, the BNP should have thirteen MPs) however this would encourage the larger parties to publicly recognise and deal with the genuine issues and concerns which result in support for parties like the BNP.

Ultimately I think it is lack of accountability that is at the root of the current system's problems, and any change which fails to address this is doomed to fail - or at least be proven inadequate. IMO the Lib Dem's suggestion (PR Lords, AV Commons) would provide little more democratic accountability than we have at present, because governments would rarely have first-choice majority support, and AV would still disenfranchise minority-party voters. I believe the reverse (AV Lords, PR Commons) would provide a lot more accountability by making best advantage of the strengths of each system and forcing Commons backbenchers to act like adults, rather than the spoilt brats which are so shamefully common.

Michael Gove as a 'boss'?

Gove is a true politician . . .if his mouth his moving he is lying :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I'm not so sure about that. For someone to lie they have to be aware of the truth, and I don't think Gove is that competent. The statement would definitely be true of IDS, however: it's since he became head of the DWP that I learned that MPs can be removed from the Commons for lying to Parliament.

How can a socialist pay for socialism without a strong market driven private sector paying high levels of tax? (previous socialist governments ludicrous borrowing excluded)

How can a capitalist reconcile that some services really are better served outside of a free market economy? (Electricity generation - there is only one grid, railways - there is only rail network for example)

I agree with this in principle, but...

A genuine free-market economy means that no single company has a monopoly, yet this is exactly the situation on many sections of our rail network, something which is unavoidable on low-traffic routes. Similarly, the majority of our train companies are corporations, which aren't necessarily the best option because their key purpose is to maximise shareholder profit rather than reliability, quality or safety. But that doesn't mean letting the government run the train companies is the best option either. Nor is it the only other option: what about worker co-ops? They would be independent from both government and shareholders - no bad thing IMO! - and would maximise the effect of the profit motive on service.

Both of the above have missed the point that this once great nation was a giant of manufacture for the rest of the world, we invented things, we made things and most importantly we exported things. Which ever future government we get, we need to redress this balance and get rid of vast swaithes of pen pushing, bedwetting management and get back to basics. We need to encourage manufacture of stuff and export our way out of trouble.

The only party that are singing off this hymen sheet in my eyes are UKIP.

There's also the Greens and the BNP. (Yes, I just said something positive about the fascists :shock: :sick: )

Sorry for the long post, this is what happens when you miss the debate for a few days

 

[TRXnMe]

Wow, this went tangential while I was away :)

On the original subject, would higher wages really lead to 'better' Government? Considering that most of the actual Government are millionaires already and don't need the money, they only want the power. Question raised there is, what do they want the power for?

If we get better back benchers and they upset the apple cart by challenging the Cabinet, they will either be dropped by their constituency, or left to rot on the back benches and see funding moved away from their constituency (it's how MPs are controlled).

On the 'we have a cr@p Govt' subject ('we' voted for it by the way )

I rather like the randomly Government Option, not from the likes of us, but from those elected to Parliament, give them 5 years and then select a new bunch of ministers, randomly.

Having a non-political second house sounds good too, give them only one remit, to ask if it is good for the country and a veto if it is blatantly bad for the country (energy price rises).

Admittedly, it would be hell to implement, and choosing who would actually be the ultimate judge of a thing being bad for the country is an almost insurmountable challenge, but we need a change. The last Govt that gave us a balanced trade was Major's, since then the balance of trade has been a 45 degree down slope, with us buying in much more than we sell, this is not a supportable model and this Govt can't fix the problem in the time they will have, the next Labour govt will go back to borrowing more, 'to fund growth' then they'll spend the money on PFI initiative that take the money out the country, or pay overseas contractors to build major infrastructure improvments such as high speed rail*


*another tangent, sort of. British civil engineering companies win major projects from foriegn business' on a regular basis, many very similar to the ones they 'lose' when bidding in the UK, I often wonder if they've learned not to do business with an incompetent partner, a view supported slightly by conversations with a couple of Civil C.Eng. I know who seem to be working overseas a lot the last 10+ years.

 

[Tim_Crowhurst]

The last Govt that gave us a balanced trade was Major's, since then the balance of trade has been a 45 degree down slope, with us buying in much more than we sell, this is not a supportable model

The "balance of trade" thing can be misleading. In terms of hard physical goods we're exporting less than we import, but that's only part of the economic equation. Non-tangible products have been an important part of the British economy for many decades, and have become even more important over the last fifteen years.

The UK has more major publishing houses than any other country, and our music and software industries are also amongst the largest. These industries have been changed more than almost any others by the digital revolution, resulting in a massive shift from hardcopy formats (DVDs, CDs, books) to digitals (MP3, FLV, PDF). Amazon has been selling more eBooks than hardcopies for several years. When a consumer in another country buys an e-product by a British author/singer/producer/etc., the UK economy benefits from the royalties, but the sale doesn't count as an export because, in most cases, the sale goes through a foreign intermediary like Amazon or iTunes, so the item sold is "produced" outside the UK.

Our universities are also an important source of income. A degree from a British university is held in great esteem in many countries, and for good reason: the UK is second only to America in the number of its universities in the world-wide top 100, and if you take into account the fact that our population is one-fifth that of the United States, we easily outperform them. Foreign students' tuition fees are not the only way in which we make money either - there's also rent, food, clothing and other living expenses, none of which are exports. The degree isn't an export either.

The same is also true of the UK's banking sector, which is heavily geared towards providing services in international banking. For example, when someone pays for something online from a country with a different currency, the transaction often goes through a British company like WorldPay, but the service provided does not count as an export.

This is also true of tourism, sports and other TV programs, online media, pay-for-access/service (e.g. dating, ****) websites: these don't count as exports, yet all of these involve money coming into the British economy to pay the people working in those industries.

The question is whether or not the income from all of these is more or less than the difference between our imports and exports.

 

[TRXnMe]

The last Govt that gave us a balanced trade was Major's, since then the balance of trade has been a 45 degree down slope, with us buying in much more than we sell, this is not a supportable model

The "balance of trade" thing can be misleading. In terms of hard physical goods we're exporting less than we import, but that's only part of the economic equation. Non-tangible products have been an important part of the British economy for many decades, and have become even more important over the last fifteen years.

The UK has more major publishing houses than any other country, and our music and software industries are also amongst the largest. These industries have been changed more than almost any others by the digital revolution, resulting in a massive shift from hardcopy formats (DVDs, CDs, books) to digitals (MP3, FLV, PDF). Amazon has been selling more eBooks than hardcopies for several years. When a consumer in another country buys an e-product by a British author/singer/producer/etc., the UK economy benefits from the royalties, but the sale doesn't count as an export because, in most cases, the sale goes through a foreign intermediary like Amazon or iTunes, so the item sold is "produced" outside the UK.

Our universities are also an important source of income. A degree from a British university is held in great esteem in many countries, and for good reason: the UK is second only to America in the number of its universities in the world-wide top 100, and if you take into account the fact that our population is one-fifth that of the United States, we easily outperform them. Foreign students' tuition fees are not the only way in which we make money either - there's also rent, food, clothing and other living expenses, none of which are exports. The degree isn't an export either.

The same is also true of the UK's banking sector, which is heavily geared towards providing services in international banking. For example, when someone pays for something online from a country with a different currency, the transaction often goes through a British company like WorldPay, but the service provided does not count as an export.

This is also true of tourism, sports and other TV programs, online media, pay-for-access/service (e.g. dating, ****) websites: these don't count as exports, yet all of these involve money coming into the British economy to pay the people working in those industries.

The question is whether or not the income from all of these is more or less than the difference between our imports and exports.

There are several levels to the balance of trade figures, ranging from purely manufactured goods through to measurements that show pretty much any taxable trade in and out, none of them look good, none of them have looked good since 1996, and they weren't pretty then

No matter how you want to look at it, we aren't making money as a country, we lack industry compared to Germany, Japan and other top ten ecomomies, without more industry making goods to export, even including making computer games and banking which do bring in large amounts of money, we will not work our way back to a break even point.

Anyway, that tangent is now totally bent, I'll go back to working out why my IPA isn't as bitter as I'd like it to be, despite having a low enough FG for all the sugar to have been converted :)