Off Topic Political Debate

With a relative small majority and the SNP objecting to most government proposals because they can I can understand the difficulties in choosing battles they can win (for example bombing Syria).

Every government since Thatcher has backed off the further union reform required, it would have been easy for this government to have left it for future governments to take on the considerable hassle involved, I still call it brave, some may call it foolish dependent on the outcome.

There may be more wealth at the highest extreme due to the very rich moving to the UK but the previously well heeled with dodgy offshore accounts have been targeted. Osbourne has financially hit people like myself that had large annual dividends. He has certainly not refrained from hitting traditional Tory voters although I except the effect on low income families losing tax credits will effect them more.

 

SNP are showing themselves to be dishonourable opportunists in voting on England only matters - but I guess their agenda is to p*ss off the English and hope to be given another referendum
Is much further union reform really required? I agree that strikes that target millions of ordinary people need to be at the very least backed by a strong turnout and a clear mandate - but other than that is there much wrong?
What is the logic when you are trying to cut the deficit - and reducing benefits to poor people - of changing the inheritance tax thresholds - could that not have waited till post austerity times. Have dividend taxes increased?

 

The dividend tax has increased.

The inheritance tax threshold tax was a long promised change. The original idea of inheritance tax was to only hit the very rich. With the absence of indexation over many years and the increase in house prices, the changes to inheritance tax previously affected the aspirational middle classes. Is it not right this tax should be for the much better off?
For people to take financial risks in starting and running businesses there must adequate carrots.

The main point of changing the rules on union balloting is to ensure a decent turnout and that activists cannot arrange a strike without the backing of most of the union membership. Quite a reasonable demand knowing millions can inconvenienced by a vote taken in previous years.

 

No sooner asked than answered Leo. In the 1950s they had 4 million members and now just under 100,000, average age just under 70. At their recent party conference only 30% of those attending were actually party members - and there were in fact more lobbyists present. I know that you think I am taking the micky on this but........ Imagine that only 1% of the population are actually members of any political party (that is the case in Britain) and it is very difficult to be active in politics without being a member - not at all desirable because then sponsors would be paying your election campaign. In that scenario a town of 20,000 population would have only 200 party members (ie. politically active) - more than half of those would be sleeping members - another quarter would be trying to fit in politics together with their jobs. In the end you have about 40 people who would be prepared to actually stand for wards at local elections (and that often under pressure) - the end result is that people are pushed onto town and borough councils whether they have any talent for this or not. Don't forget that the same political work is now being done by a tenth of the numbers who were doing it in the 1950s - quite literally any old Tom, Dick or Harry can get on to a council in the UK. (Germany is no different) This is the end result of shrinking political membership in the UK.

 

No time to respond properly tonight - will try tomorrow but please do not consider that I think you are taking the micky - I absolutely respect your sincerity on the points you make.

 

As someone who was chairman of a parish council for six years, and a member for many more, I can say from experience that people are just not interested in things that do have a bearing on their lives. They accept what happens and get on with living their lives as best they can. I could give examples, but even when it has a direct effect on their pocket they just shrug their shoulders and accept it. While this attitude to government at all levels exists, and my council consisted of all shades of political opinion, there is little chance of people wanting to go off and join one or another party. Clearly people on here have a different viewpoint, with some who are committed to one party or another, but I believe that the vast majority are more interested about a visit to B&Q than several hours discussing the merits of this policy or another.
The world has changed since I was young in so many ways, but I accept it and try not to live in the past, unless thinking about the GT years. There are new things to face in the world today as shown over here in the past couple of weeks. How do you deal with so many displaced people? The days of large party membership didn't have to confront these problems in the past, but would a large number of people agree to a solution more than governments can around the world? I somehow doubt it.

 

I think you appear to be on your own on the party membership issue Cologne - I have not seen a single other poster on here say they think it matters. That may be due to you living in Germany where membership is higher. But note - it is still not very high even there and is falling throughout Europe.
Party income in almost all parties comes primarily from donation rather than membership fees. In fact the Greens top the list of donation % at 62.7% (Tories at 62.5%) so income is not a driver for membership. Membership numbers do tend to be a bit of a boaster point - I have more members than you; my xxx is bigger than yours. Historically membership was driven by social factors and social clubs - my Dad was Labour, almost Communist in his youth but even he admitted he joined the Conservatives in order to get into their social club which was the best for miles around. Those clubs are now seen as uninviting and passe.
It now seems only fervent politically active people want to join parties. There are 18,000 councillors in England and even now party membership totals over 20 times that so there is still plenty of room for competition to become a councillor let alone one of 650 MPs.

To me the far more important statistic is what percentage of the voting age population are registered to vote and also what percentage of those registered actually do vote. It is when people become so disillusioned or apathetic that they will not bother to vote that we need to be concerned for democracy.

 

Several posters have informed Cologne about the non importance of political party membership in the UK. If nothing else he is consistent.

 

Cologne simply has a different point of view - without which this thread would not be worthwhile. I am not sure if that is due to his Green background or his living in Germany - both would imply a higher regard for membership statistics than seem to bother the rest of us

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/20/worst-uk-deficit-figures-six-years-george-osborne

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/20/nhs-deficit-soars-to-16bn

 

please log in to view this image

 

For anybody not convinced on getting the public finances under control they should study the above graph. Even when the debt is not being added to there is the small matter of paying back this enormous debt.

In the 60's 70's & 80's the public had more understanding about the nation's finances because the 'balance of payment' figures were announced monthly and were easy to understand that we were importing more than we were exporting.

As the UK and its inhabitants became more hooked on debt the unease we felt about our nation's debt became less as the figures became less imaginable.

I find it incredible that anyone can insist that Osbourne delays the point in which he can announce a surplus as if the debt will take care of itself.

 

Which other posters ?

 

No Leo, it's not to do with either being Green or with living in Germany but rather with having studied History and Politics and with knowing that this theme, amongst many others, is an important guide to the actual political involvement of a population. The theme apparently does bother many people in the UK. as well which is why the Conservatives are so reluctant to actually release latest figures on this. How else would you measure political involvement ? Voting figures measure only passive involvement - voting between a restricted set of ideas which come from the same political elite and which can change nothing, within a framework where elections are more or less decided by a media which is largely bought - and where politicians no longer have the power or the resources to actually put the wishes of voters into practice. How else do you measure democracy ? Or have we stopped trying to measure or test it - but rather consider it as there ie. the best way to stop somebody from fighting for something is to convince them that they have it already.

 

I could not name them either Cologne without trawling through all posts but I think you have received zero support for the line that membership matters - unless you can demonstrate others have supported that view

 

Well the core of activists tends to come from party members. So fewer members may mean fewer activists etc........ But I am not sure if this is evidenced

 

I too have studied history and politics but not arrived at your conclusion and know few who have - in fact the only support I have seen comes from the political parties themselves who try to use it to show importance. Can you show any non political support for how this is seen as important? Of course the Conservatives do not want to admit they have few members and of course Labour are relishing the fact that their membership has grown. I measure political involvement by votes cast - seems fine as a measure to me. Passive it could be called but it involves going out and voting which seems beyond quite a few. I measure democracy on votes cast ahead of membership of constructed parties. You surely would not regard a society that has multiple referenda not following party political lines as "not a democracy" would you? Party politics is not equivalent to democracy at all. It is an unfortunate but seemingly necessary part of large countries. Are you accusing me of being passive and not democratic because I find all Parties lacking and wanting? I have never failed to vote in any election at any level yet would not countenance joining any political party. I have no idea where you are going with your last sentence. You imply that if we do not use your preferred test of democracy that we do not test it at all. Sorry but that is a big leap

Around 30 million people voted - around 65% of those who could vote - to me that is a far greater statement about democratic society than less than half a million people who ally themselves with some party or other

 

Can some one explain why Tory Ministers would actively seek to BLOCK this bill by the use of filibuster?

It seems an arcane use of parliamentary rules ? But why do they do it for First Aid training??

Tory MPs block bill to give first aid training to children by talking non-stop until debate ends
One Education Minister's speech was described as being like reading a 'telephone book' out loud in Parliament

• K

please log in to view this image

Education minister Sam Gyimah spoke until the debate ended Crown copyright
Conservative MPs have blocked a bill to bring first aid training to schools by talking non-stop until time to discuss and vote on it ran out.

The Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-Funded Secondary Schools) Bill would have required schools to teach first aid training to children as part of the national curriculum.

The group of MPs used up the bill’s time by talking for hours, with one speech by an education minister described by the deputy speaker as like reading a “telephone book” out loud.

please log in to view this image

Thousands demand Government crackdown on MPs filibustering
Because the proposed law is not supported by the Government it only has a limited amount of time to be debated in Parliament, or has to be shelved.

It is backed by St John’s Ambulance, the British Red Cross, and the British Heart Foundation .

Tory MP Philip Davies, who is famous for “talking out” bills during Friday sessions of parliament, gave the longest speech of all, lasting around 50 minutes.

“The title gives away the principle of this bill: compulsory emergency first aid education in state-funded secondary schools. The point I am trying to make is that I do not agree with the principle of compulsory first aid education in schools. Why on earth would I allow a bill that principle of which I don’t like a second reading?” he said.

Mr Davies ultimately gave way before the end of the debate, with other MPs continuing to talk at length until time ran out.

please log in to view this image

Philip Davies came to the debate armed with pages and pages of notes for his speech
The debate ended without a vote while Conservative education minister Sam Gyimah continued to read a long list of subjects despite interventions by the deputy speaker asking him to stop.

The Bill was proposed by Labour MP Teresa Pearce but had cross party support, including from some Conservatives. During Mr Davies’ marathon speech fellow Tory MP Roger Gale urged him not to block the law.

“I’d like to think that given that this is a matter of life and death my honourable friend might just allow this to have a second reading and then allow it to be dissected in a committee stage,” Mr Gale said.

Mr Davies responded that Mr Gale’s argument was “ludicrous”.

Among reasons he listed for blocking the bill was that himself had been taught first aid in school but had forgotten what he was taught.

He also said the Government should not expect teachers to assume a “pseudo-parent role”, and that he did not want “the Government to be sticking their nose in at every turn trying to lecture [teachers] every five minutes that they should be doing this, that, and the other”.


St John’s Ambulance said: “We’re frustrated at today’s result as we believe that the opportunity to learn first aid shouldn’t be left up to chance.” The British Red Cross said the outcome was “disappointing”.

The incident follows outrage over Mr Davies filibustering a bill to scrap hospital car parking charges for carers, and an incident where Government health ministers deliberately blocked a bill to promote cheaper off-patent drugs in the NHS.

Mr Davies has also blocked a law that would have required landlords to make sure their homes were fit for human habitation.

Over 9,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Government to reform the filibuster process after the series of high-profile vetos and increased media coverage on the issue.

 

Another mystery Yorkie. Seems harmless to me - and death by filibustering is at best cowardly. If you oppose a bill then at least have the guts to make an argument

 

What I meant by the last sentence was exactly what it said - I do not regard democracy as a finished process and never can do. Either a society is still democratizing or it is all over - the minute you say 'this is a democracy' it is actually over. And yes, the best way to stop people fighting for something is to convince them that they have it already - and so they tell people, over and over again, look this is a democracy, without ever once analysing the term. Ok. Leo, it is my personal belief, but for me a democracy can only be called such if all organs of the whole society are organized along democratic means and that includes the economy. It really is difficult to 'influence' politics from outside the party system - you could join greenpeace, or friends of the Earth etc. you can go on countless demos etc. and I have done all that as well. You also have the transition town network, which I respect very much, but you still do not have real influence - and if all real influence is coming out of a group of only 1% of the society then I do not call that a democracy, even by your terms.