End of the Labour Party
Discussion
Pints said:
Somewhat O/T but I think some sort of 3 question, multiple choice test should replace what we have as the "vote for a party" system we currently use.
Something like this.
Select 2 of the following choices to register your vote:
- more bureaucrats should be employed
- benefit payments should be reduced for the unemployed
- laws imposed by Brussels are a good thing
- private transport is preferable to public transport
Etc.
You get the idea. The questions could address specific policies each party has and you'd need at least a rudimentary understanding of where your preferred party actually stands to force a particular party way.
A different choice could Choi mean the difference between UKIP and Tory, or Labour and Lib Dem.
You'd end up with an endless raft of questions. Something like this.
Select 2 of the following choices to register your vote:
- more bureaucrats should be employed
- benefit payments should be reduced for the unemployed
- laws imposed by Brussels are a good thing
- private transport is preferable to public transport
Etc.
You get the idea. The questions could address specific policies each party has and you'd need at least a rudimentary understanding of where your preferred party actually stands to force a particular party way.
A different choice could Choi mean the difference between UKIP and Tory, or Labour and Lib Dem.
How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
The Labour party is based on one simple human emotion - Envy.
Listen to any Labour politician speaking and they use it as their main tool to engender support. This works very well with the less educated amongst us and isn't going to stop working any time soon.
In fact it suits Labour that they have made such a mess of our education system. It increases their vote.
Listen to any Labour politician speaking and they use it as their main tool to engender support. This works very well with the less educated amongst us and isn't going to stop working any time soon.
In fact it suits Labour that they have made such a mess of our education system. It increases their vote.
AJS- said:
Pints said:
Somewhat O/T but I think some sort of 3 question, multiple choice test should replace what we have as the "vote for a party" system we currently use.
Something like this.
Select 2 of the following choices to register your vote:
- more bureaucrats should be employed
- benefit payments should be reduced for the unemployed
- laws imposed by Brussels are a good thing
- private transport is preferable to public transport
Etc.
You get the idea. The questions could address specific policies each party has and you'd need at least a rudimentary understanding of where your preferred party actually stands to force a particular party way.
A different choice could Choi mean the difference between UKIP and Tory, or Labour and Lib Dem.
You'd end up with an endless raft of questions. Something like this.
Select 2 of the following choices to register your vote:
- more bureaucrats should be employed
- benefit payments should be reduced for the unemployed
- laws imposed by Brussels are a good thing
- private transport is preferable to public transport
Etc.
You get the idea. The questions could address specific policies each party has and you'd need at least a rudimentary understanding of where your preferred party actually stands to force a particular party way.
A different choice could Choi mean the difference between UKIP and Tory, or Labour and Lib Dem.
How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
You get a letter through your post, usually about once ever quarter with issues for you to vote on at Cantonal level and Federal level.AJS- said:
You'd end up with an endless raft of questions.
How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
What about a series of polls? How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
"Do you want to increase fuel duty by 1p?"
Yes: 0
No: 100,000
"Do you want tax credits for having a job?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
"Do you want Bankers to pay 100% tax?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
Referendums suck, the vast majority do not have a the faintest idea how it will affect them. They go on sensationalist rubbish - we elect people to be informed about what it is they vote on for our behalf so we don't have to and can carry on doing whatever it is we do...
muffinmenace said:
What about a series of polls?
"Do you want to increase fuel duty by 1p?"
Yes: 0
No: 100,000
"Do you want tax credits for having a job?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
"Do you want Bankers to pay 100% tax?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
Referendums suck, the vast majority do not have a the faintest idea how it will affect them. They go on sensationalist rubbish - we elect people to be informed about what it is they vote on for our behalf so we don't have to and can carry on doing whatever it is we do...
All well and good until you get to a point where they're informed by people with a vested interest, and the only nod they give to the rest of us is trying to stay on the right side of the sensationalist rubbish on tomorrow's front pages. "Do you want to increase fuel duty by 1p?"
Yes: 0
No: 100,000
"Do you want tax credits for having a job?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
"Do you want Bankers to pay 100% tax?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
Referendums suck, the vast majority do not have a the faintest idea how it will affect them. They go on sensationalist rubbish - we elect people to be informed about what it is they vote on for our behalf so we don't have to and can carry on doing whatever it is we do...
I suspect that with a more direct democracy people would be more concerned with issues that directly affect their lives rather than the silly, abstract fuss over bankers bonuses, global warmings and so forth. I'm not sure how this tallies with the Swiss experience (or indeed many US state and cities that have citizen led referenda).
Getting 100,000 signatures for a national petition is no small thing and would take a fair amount of work. Probably a lot more than getting a few journalists and MPs on side.
A quick look at the government's epetition site here tends to support this view. One of my hobby horses about an EU referendum seems to never garner enough support.
Edited by AJS- on Monday 8th October 09:44
Derek Smith said:
JMGS4 said:
Labour have never represented the working class!! They have only represented poor socialist views with the aim of ensuring their own (Labour party's) interests and financial prosperity. They have never supported the actual working man!
The time will come when even the herd of dumbnuts who vote(d) labour will open their eyes......
I would suggest the early history of the party shows that is a little bit off the mark. It was very much working class up until the war I'd say, and beyond that for a time. What changed was the years of plenty in the 60s. The time will come when even the herd of dumbnuts who vote(d) labour will open their eyes......
muffinmenace said:
AJS- said:
You'd end up with an endless raft of questions.
How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
What about a series of polls? How about a system without active politicians where members of the public can propose a referendum then have to get a certain number of signatures - say 1,000 for local/distric issues, 10,000 for city/county issues and 100,000 for national issues - then the proposal is put to a vote.
You could have a series of referendums every year to create new laws, or just as importantly to scrap old ones.
"Do you want to increase fuel duty by 1p?"
Yes: 0
No: 100,000
"Do you want tax credits for having a job?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
"Do you want Bankers to pay 100% tax?"
Yes: 100,000
No:0
Referendums suck, the vast majority do not have a the faintest idea how it will affect them. They go on sensationalist rubbish - we elect people to be informed about what it is they vote on for our behalf so we don't have to and can carry on doing whatever it is we do...
The theme in this thread that the unemployed and low paid are only in that position because they are too lazy or stupid to better themselves ridiculous libertarian nonsense. Not to deny that some people on the dole are lazy scroungers, or that or the majority of wealthy people people worked very hard for what they have of course, because that is an undeniable fact.
However we have a situation where there is not enough jobs for everybody who is applying for one, and the unemployment rate is not driven by lazyness but by the economy. "Dole Scroungers" are in fact a non-issue* when we have hordes of people keen to work who cannot find a job, and others being laid off left and right.
Secondly the idea that anybody on a low wage is only there because they don't have the gumption to better themselves misleading. Yes, in theory any one person can better themselves through hard work, but it would be an impossibility for every single person to do so! We would end up with a country of company directors with nobody left to do any of the work required to keep them in a job! Our economy relies on low paid workers to thrive. The idea those people should be seen seen as lazy, feckless and looking for handouts, when in fact they are supporting the economy and trying to earn a living wage is a BS.
However we have a situation where there is not enough jobs for everybody who is applying for one, and the unemployment rate is not driven by lazyness but by the economy. "Dole Scroungers" are in fact a non-issue* when we have hordes of people keen to work who cannot find a job, and others being laid off left and right.
Secondly the idea that anybody on a low wage is only there because they don't have the gumption to better themselves misleading. Yes, in theory any one person can better themselves through hard work, but it would be an impossibility for every single person to do so! We would end up with a country of company directors with nobody left to do any of the work required to keep them in a job! Our economy relies on low paid workers to thrive. The idea those people should be seen seen as lazy, feckless and looking for handouts, when in fact they are supporting the economy and trying to earn a living wage is a BS.
*Forgetting for a minute the failures of the benefit system and those who abuse it, which is a separate issue.
Edited by clunkbox on Monday 8th October 10:22
JMGS4 said:
Derek, would agree with you there, but as no one on the PH board saw prewar Britain, this is why I said it as I did....
The labour party of the immediate post war was riven by different beliefs and I think it would be harsh to suggest that those who ran it in those days were unlike the present ones. So the next government was Wilsons. It had all gone pear-shaped by then.clunkbox said:
The theme in this thread that the unemployed and low paid are only in that position because they are too lazy or stupid to better themselves ridiculous libertarian nonsense. Not to deny that some people on the dole are lazy scroungers, or that or the majority of wealthy people people worked very hard for what they have of course, because that is an undeniable fact.
However we have a situation where there is not enough jobs for everybody who is applying for one, and the unemployment rate is not driven by lazyness but by the economy. "Dole Scroungers" are in fact a non-issue* when we have hordes of people keen to work who cannot find a job, and others being laid off left and right.
Secondly the idea that anybody on a low wage is only there because they don't have the gumption to better themselves misleading. Yes, in theory any one person can better themselves through hard work, but it would be an impossibility for every single person to do so! We would end up with a country of company directors with nobody left to do any of the work required to keep them in a job! Our economy relies on low paid workers to thrive. The idea those people should be seen seen as lazy, feckless and looking for handouts, when in fact they are supporting the economy and trying to earn a living wage is a BS.
It is funny how 600,000 Poles came here and managed to find jobs that our own unemployed couldn't find.However we have a situation where there is not enough jobs for everybody who is applying for one, and the unemployment rate is not driven by lazyness but by the economy. "Dole Scroungers" are in fact a non-issue* when we have hordes of people keen to work who cannot find a job, and others being laid off left and right.
Secondly the idea that anybody on a low wage is only there because they don't have the gumption to better themselves misleading. Yes, in theory any one person can better themselves through hard work, but it would be an impossibility for every single person to do so! We would end up with a country of company directors with nobody left to do any of the work required to keep them in a job! Our economy relies on low paid workers to thrive. The idea those people should be seen seen as lazy, feckless and looking for handouts, when in fact they are supporting the economy and trying to earn a living wage is a BS.
*Forgetting for a minute the failures of the benefit system and those who abuse it, which is a separate issue.
Edited by clunkbox on Monday 8th October 10:22
Serendipity72 said:
It is funny how 600,000 Poles came here and managed to find jobs that our own unemployed couldn't find.
I'm not saying that there are no jobs available, just that there are not enough to go around. A proportion of jobs will always go to immigrants regardless of unemployment levels. Whether or not a UK national gets a job not does not change the fact that the job is no longer available. Serendipity72 said:
It is funny how 600,000 Poles came here and managed to find jobs that our own unemployed couldn't find.
That's got more to do with exchange rates than job availability.Consider the two scenarios on offer:
-If you are Polish, and are sending money back home, then you see work in the UK as a temporary thing. The money goes further as Polish Zloty than it does in the UK, so you can put up with things like sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor of some house with 20 other people and eating crap food, because when you get back to Poland the money you've saved up, which barely keeps you alive in the UK, could get you a house deposit or help you set up a business in Poland. A lot of those Polish workers are graduates and going to work in England is as much a 'thing' in Poland as gap years are in England. Raises money, gets young graduates on their feet.
-The other scenario - you're a working-class Brit. Few if any academic qualifications but you're good at your job - as good as the Polish workers, in fact. However, you have a family to support and long-term plans to make in this country with our currency and housing market the way it is. You could get the same jobs as the Polish workers, but there's no way the money you make from those jobs would support a family.
Problem is, so long as migrant workers make themselves available for work in this country on the basis of sending money home, our own workers will be effectively 'priced out' by the cost of living. Work on or even below the minimum wage just doesn't make ends meet if you're trying to get by in Britain. No wonder that a life on benefits makes more economic sense to some than having their work valued at the square root of sod-all because a Polish worker will do just as good a job for less - because once the job's done, the Polish worker can go back to Poland and buy a house. The English worker can't. So where's the motivation to make work pay?
I agree that work always should pay, but with migrant pressure on the lower end of the economy like this, it's making life difficult for a lot of people who have to live with the reality of what is quite an expensive country to live in.
A tale of two vets.
One I met was working as a shoe shine. She was a Polish girl working to survive whilst she improved her English so she could get a high enough IELTS grade to be allowed to work as a vet.
Another one I met had hurt her arm whilst working as a vet. She was English so just took the insurance money and then went onto maximum benefits, disability, housing, car etc etc. There were plenty of other jobs she could have done. A year at college and she could have been a teacher. But why bother when the state will giver her the lifestyle she wants? And her sense of entitlement was just astounding.
These examples are not untypical.
One I met was working as a shoe shine. She was a Polish girl working to survive whilst she improved her English so she could get a high enough IELTS grade to be allowed to work as a vet.
Another one I met had hurt her arm whilst working as a vet. She was English so just took the insurance money and then went onto maximum benefits, disability, housing, car etc etc. There were plenty of other jobs she could have done. A year at college and she could have been a teacher. But why bother when the state will giver her the lifestyle she wants? And her sense of entitlement was just astounding.
These examples are not untypical.
Serendipity72 said:
Another one I met had hurt her arm whilst working as a vet. She was English so just took the insurance money and then went onto maximum benefits, disability, housing, car etc etc. There were plenty of other jobs she could have done. A year at college and she could have been a teacher. But why bother when the state will giver her the lifestyle she wants? And her sense of entitlement was just astounding.
Something about that doesn't add up.How badly did she hurt her arm? I take it it wasn't during vetinarary surgery unless she was examining a dog that bit her. In which case, if it went straight through tendons, muscles etc and left it essentially useless to the point where she was unable to do her job, then surely that's precisely what incapacity benefit is for. I agree that there are jobs she could do with, to all intents and purposes, only one arm, but if she was insured as a vet and had a level of income to reflect that, then loss of earnings could net you that kind of money, no government fiddling involved.
A year at college and she could have been a teacher - of what? Not everyone has the right set of skills to be a teacher - I tried and failed. Can't imagine what it'd be like trying to teach with only one arm of any use.
But if the arm wasn't hurt that badly, just a break that repaired or suchlike, then she wouldn't have been able to register herself disabled, which makes me think it's the former, in which case there's no 'benefits cheating' involved.
I don't think I'd be able to do my job without a full compliment of arms and legs.
Twincam16 said:
Serendipity72 said:
It is funny how 600,000 Poles came here and managed to find jobs that our own unemployed couldn't find.
That's got more to do with exchange rates than job availability.Consider the two scenarios on offer:
-If you are Polish, and are sending money back home, then you see work in the UK as a temporary thing. The money goes further as Polish Zloty than it does in the UK, so you can put up with things like sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor of some house with 20 other people and eating crap food, because when you get back to Poland the money you've saved up, which barely keeps you alive in the UK, could get you a house deposit or help you set up a business in Poland. A lot of those Polish workers are graduates and going to work in England is as much a 'thing' in Poland as gap years are in England. Raises money, gets young graduates on their feet.
-The other scenario - you're a working-class Brit. Few if any academic qualifications but you're good at your job - as good as the Polish workers, in fact. However, you have a family to support and long-term plans to make in this country with our currency and housing market the way it is. You could get the same jobs as the Polish workers, but there's no way the money you make from those jobs would support a family.
Problem is, so long as migrant workers make themselves available for work in this country on the basis of sending money home, our own workers will be effectively 'priced out' by the cost of living. Work on or even below the minimum wage just doesn't make ends meet if you're trying to get by in Britain. No wonder that a life on benefits makes more economic sense to some than having their work valued at the square root of sod-all because a Polish worker will do just as good a job for less - because once the job's done, the Polish worker can go back to Poland and buy a house. The English worker can't. So where's the motivation to make work pay?
I agree that work always should pay, but with migrant pressure on the lower end of the economy like this, it's making life difficult for a lot of people who have to live with the reality of what is quite an expensive country to live in.
AJS- said:
Twincam16 said:
Serendipity72 said:
It is funny how 600,000 Poles came here and managed to find jobs that our own unemployed couldn't find.
That's got more to do with exchange rates than job availability.Consider the two scenarios on offer:
-If you are Polish, and are sending money back home, then you see work in the UK as a temporary thing. The money goes further as Polish Zloty than it does in the UK, so you can put up with things like sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor of some house with 20 other people and eating crap food, because when you get back to Poland the money you've saved up, which barely keeps you alive in the UK, could get you a house deposit or help you set up a business in Poland. A lot of those Polish workers are graduates and going to work in England is as much a 'thing' in Poland as gap years are in England. Raises money, gets young graduates on their feet.
-The other scenario - you're a working-class Brit. Few if any academic qualifications but you're good at your job - as good as the Polish workers, in fact. However, you have a family to support and long-term plans to make in this country with our currency and housing market the way it is. You could get the same jobs as the Polish workers, but there's no way the money you make from those jobs would support a family.
Problem is, so long as migrant workers make themselves available for work in this country on the basis of sending money home, our own workers will be effectively 'priced out' by the cost of living. Work on or even below the minimum wage just doesn't make ends meet if you're trying to get by in Britain. No wonder that a life on benefits makes more economic sense to some than having their work valued at the square root of sod-all because a Polish worker will do just as good a job for less - because once the job's done, the Polish worker can go back to Poland and buy a house. The English worker can't. So where's the motivation to make work pay?
I agree that work always should pay, but with migrant pressure on the lower end of the economy like this, it's making life difficult for a lot of people who have to live with the reality of what is quite an expensive country to live in.
I agree with Iain Duncan Smith on this - in order for work to always pay, benefits can't be dropped like a stone the minute someone gets a job, simply because at the lower end of the market there's often very little in it - the person goes from living on benefits and having everything provided for them to having to pay their way with no help at all, ending up with a lot less, and for a lot of people who haven't worked for years, they find themselves drifting back out of work because it doesn't seem to make economic sense.
IDS proposed a kind of 'sliding scale', whereby the more you earn, the fewer benefits you are entitled to, but they're only completely withdrawn once you're earning above a certain threshold. The benefits bill is lowered because fewer people are being comprehensively supported by the state, they're also paying tax, and it also means there's always an incentive to go to work, because you'll only ever get more for it.
I do think it needs to go hand-in-hand with a policy whereby you can't refuse a job though. If a job is available and you're not in education or training to get yourself into something specifically better, you should have to take it, otherwise benefits should be reduced until you do.
It could be done by sharing a flat with 5 other people doing th same, working every hour you can and sending money to your wife and child who are living with her mother, as per the example you gave. Preferably before getting pregnant. After that you move up, set up a business or get some qualifications that mean you can make more.
Plenty of people do this in Thailand (and much of the rest of the world) for far less than £6 an hour.
It is far from ideal and I sympathise with people who have to do that even if through their own poor planning and carelessness. But it just doesn't seem sustainable to me to have a bottomless pit of benefits making it not worthwhile to work for what is a prett decent wage in global terms.
Agree with the idea of grading it somewhat but I would rather see this done by cutting NI and those taxes that hammer the poor the hardest. Isn't the income tax threshold something like £8000?
Plenty of people do this in Thailand (and much of the rest of the world) for far less than £6 an hour.
It is far from ideal and I sympathise with people who have to do that even if through their own poor planning and carelessness. But it just doesn't seem sustainable to me to have a bottomless pit of benefits making it not worthwhile to work for what is a prett decent wage in global terms.
Agree with the idea of grading it somewhat but I would rather see this done by cutting NI and those taxes that hammer the poor the hardest. Isn't the income tax threshold something like £8000?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff