Off Topic Political Debate

I saw in the last Green manifesto this idea of paying everybody a wage - I have not seen it in any other manifesto.
Why would you want to payeverybody a base amount - you only then take it back in taxes from 90% of the people.
I would prefer a system where you are expected to work - nobody gets nothing for nothing unless they have a reason - disabled etc.
The government / councils must have thousands of projects that they need doing so you employ anyone without a job to do these - additional work so as not to take it away from people already in employment. If you really have someone who refuses to do any work then they can get on a dialy basis some form of subsistence living - but being lazy and expecting other people to support your lifestyle should not be an option.
Society needs to encourage all its citizens to be responsible and not to believe they can do nothing but have a decent life.

 

Leo, I didn't actually know that this was a part of the English Green Party's manifesto - however, it is an idea which has some history, having been initially proposed in Thomas Paine's rights of man at the end of the 18th Century. There have been many feasibility studies on this - the most recent being in Ireland where it was calculated as payable with a basic tax rate of 45%. Would people mind paying this type of tax if they were also receiving this basic wage, which covered the essentials in life. It would not be a case of you paying for someone else because you would be receiving it as well. I know that there are people around who think that the World owes them a living, and I don't like it either - but there are also many rich people in this category as well. There are idle people and industrious people (and others who don't see the point of it all) amongst both rich and poor (but the latter are punished more for their idleness). There are industrious poor - who work their whole lives but have little to show for it, there are idle poor (often with many kids in tow). There are also industrious rich, those who work every hour that God sends and create jobs for others, there are also idle rich (mostly as a result of inheritance) who give nothing back to society. Unfortunately the industrious of both groups focus their scorn on the idle of the other group - rather than of their own.

 

It is still a foolish idea without any merit. If set at a sufficient level to let people live on it alone it would have massive inflationary consequences and the resultant increase in tax to recoup the cost would be enormous for the ordinary working family - all so that some lazy people could benefit.
The way forward is to gradually increase the living wage and encourage people to work. I have no truck for anything that tells sommeone they have a right to something for nothing.

 

You cannot encourage people to work if they think that the first 25-30 hours or so would be spent trying to earn the same as they can get on benefits. With the unconditional basic wage for all citizens - then, when people work they would be working on a plus from hour one (even though the tax on it would be higher) - so this system actually encourages work far more effectively. Also, when you talk about people getting something for nothing you are forgetting the sums accumulated by the richest 10%, or so, of our society in form of interest (what is interest other than money for nothing ?) or the vaste sums inherited in the UK. (also money for nothing) - these sums are far higher than anything paid in benefits in the UK.

 

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, Leo. The signing in of a car's parking details were not stumbled upon, but lept upon as immediate proof of not being eligible for a mobility vehicle. The fact it is more than 20m clearly involved the use of a tape measure, which to my mind shows a cynical approach - "if they can make it from the car park, they don't get the car." Someone must've thought that it was about twenty metres and broken out a tape measure - that's not an accident, nor is the jumping on the fact someone has used the car park.
A cold, harsh implementation of a cold, harsh treatment of the needy, one much more stringent than before, and too stringent for my liking. There is money in our society misplaced that disallows my friend's wife from being able to have an equal opportunity of a decent life. This isn't 'grey' - it is wrong.

 

I am not defending nasty ignorant jobsworth people. Perhaps they should have said they were dropped at the door - but then no doubt they would have cameras to disprove it. Nasty numpties - acting totally against the intention of the law and would almost certainly be overturned on appeal - my daughter's father in law would certainly have no truck with such petty minded officaldom.

 

I think we need to avoid judging without knowing the full facts.... I would prefer robust principles base on sound social values rather than a tape measure

 

NIce sentiments Yorkie - but in the real world sometimes you need to have tape measures. What social value can distinguish fraud from fact? Would you say a person who could walk 5 miles easily was disabled? How about someone who can walk only 2 metres? Somewhere in between there is a line to be drawn - or would you prefer to leave it to the whim of an official. You have to have rules and guidelines - perhaps the expectation that a bureaucrat will exercise some common sense and discretion is too much to ask. It is not beyond the wit of man to suggest that the 20 metre rule alone is not sufficient to make a binding judgement - and in fact I suspect it is not. I repeat - on appeal I am sure this decision would be properly reviewed.

 

Just what do some people believe that our political system is about? It doesn't matter what party you might support, or even none, it cannot be right when MPs get bricks through their windows, or receive death threats for standing up for what they believe is the right thing to do. Unfortunately there appears to be elements on both the left and right that think action against people is acceptable.

 

With deference to Cologne - I think this is what you get when you get committed Party Members. There is an attempt by Momentum to take over the Labour Party. Indeed they have all but the MPs now. It reminds me of Hitler's and Mussolini's black and brown shirts. Whilst the leadership condemns violence their every utterence helps fuel it. How a party can be so stupid as to allow people to join its ranks in order to vote for a leader beats me. Do they not know how the Socialist Workers Party and Communists work? No MP dare criticise the party membership for fear of de-selection - by activists previously banned from the party and those they can dupe into following like sheep. It is a shame the Labour rules do not stipulate that you have to have been a member for 5 years to vote on the Leader -it would exclude the Momentum based sheep.
It will either lead to a split in the Party along the old SDP lines or for Labour to fail to provide effective opposition for years to come.
Those of us who favour mildly left wing policies where care is given to ordinary people; benefits are for those in need and rich people pay a fair higher proportion of taxes have to put up with ..........

 

Leo, if you think about a political party as being just like a nation ie. you have a pyramid organized on democratic principles, then you saying that it is ok. for Party MPs to criticize the rank and file of the party is like saying that it is OK. for MPs to criticize the electorate. Of course new members can vote for the leadership of the party - just as first time voters can vote for who will be Prime Minister. You cannot have phased in membership in the way you suggest. Anyone can join a political party (in some cases they ask into your background eg. if you have ever been a member of any other party) and it is possible for a party to be taken over in a rush by new members, but that is the nature of the beast. There has been a difference between the rank and file of the party and the parliamentary party for quite some years now - which was submerged in times of electoral success (ie. the Blair/Brown years).

 

There is a world of difference between a party growing or reducing the mebership across the years in a natural way versus an orchestrated putsch against a party as Momentum have done in Labour. I like most people who have expressed an opinion here do not applaud increased party membership as you do. A party needs people to do the basics and if there are people willing to do that then great. But why thier voice is heard in selecting aleader beats me. The MPs have been voted for by millions and are there to represent their party and their people. No PM can govern without his MPs - they are the lifeblood. Corbyn is a very nice man with some good views but he is not a leader so should not be in charge of a party. Across a working life of over 40 years I have seen and experienced good and bad leaders - Corbyn is he latter - just naturally a rebel. Labour are being held hostage by Momentum and they will prevent the millions of us who want a decent Labour Government from having one.

 

Even without Momentum Leo the grass roots party has always been to the left of the parliamentary party, and even if you had counted the votes of only those with 5 years, or so, membership behind them Corbyn would still have won. Right up to the time of Blair there had always been members who joined because of clause 4, and those who joined in spite of it. There is a loophole which exists in nearly all parties. When I came to Germany I became a member of Bundnis 90 die Grünen (the German Green Party), at that time I had only the British passport - it is possible for a EU. citizen to become a member of a political party in another EU. state (and from day one I could help to choose the leader). Theoretically all of the 600,000 Poles in the UK. could become members of political parties there within 24 hours !

 

- which underlines the futility of relying on party membership to govern parties

 

please log in to view this image

 

Corbyn thrown out of NEC debating room, secret ballot on whether his name automatically goes on the ballot. Where is Cologne when he is needed?

 

As a little break from party vs party arguments - I found this upcoming parliamentary debate interesting...

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/23247

I never realised that the 1916 Military Service Act legalised the right of conscientious objection to military service - presumably it was just the earlier years of WWI in which objectors were shot?

What's mainly interesting though is the proposal to "create a legal structure that would allow citizens who object to paying for others to kill to redirect the military portion of their taxes into a fund dedicated to non-military security, conflict resolution and prevention work..." I can't help thinking that it would serve only as a dangerous precedent.

 

(oops the sever is playing up.... I cant corret

I imagine it would create a peaceful precedent

 

Oh I don't know - I for one would not trust either major party to keep their sticky, war-mongering fingers out of the fund...

And then of course, there would be the next petition - the one where taxpayers who object to paying into welfare for the 'feckless unemployed'.

 

Staggering that Labour has such internal problems as a result of a political crisis caused almost exclusively by Tories from beginning to end.