You're talking too much common sense for this board, clear off!
Printable View
But the point is shirley that the voting system didn't change because we, the voting public, voted not to change it.
as for the Brexit referendum he called it because it was a promise he made in the election manifesto. so many complain that parties do not keep their election promises and now he gets castigated for doing exactly that.
It seems sometimes you just can't win.
[QUOTE=B. Oddie;4975602]I would never dream in a million years of voting for the 'Nasty Party' or any other right-wing political party for that matter. Doing so would be an absolute betrayal of my roots and to those who have given their absolute all in working life only to have arthritis and high energy bills in
You think Labour has done better when in government?? They eat from the same trough.....
Not sure I understand how that follows on from my point. Are you saying you feel Westminster, in these two ways, is representative of the public? There is a lot of anger, division and refusal to compromise and that has been the case for a number of years now. That had to come from somewhere and I'd argue not changing the voting system was part of that because of what it lead to/allowed to continue on.
[QUOTE=Maurice Swan;4975811]That was New Labour. I voted them into power but not subsequently. I may as well have voted for the Tories in all honesty. There was very little difference in the two at the time.
I voted for Labour in the last General Election because I truly believe that a Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn is what we need to level to the social divides that exist in this country.
[QUOTE=B. Oddie;4975816]I have yet to hear from any Labour spokesperson how their policies are to be implemented. Privatisations, eliminating student debt, housing, increasing Benefits to eliminate so called poverty etc etc has to be paid for. We know Labour want to increase taxation on businesses but that will mean more unemployment. The upshot is that anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion and in all probability we will return to the days when people chose not to work as a career choice. Why work when you can earn as much or even more on Benefits - we have been there before.
Labour is not the answer; but neither is any Party. Something needs to change in politics but the answer alludes me.
Many (not all) politicians are 2 faced lying b@£#@%&£ out for themselves, fiddling expenses, backstabbing colleagues...... What happened to the good guys who you felt put the job and responsibility first? Bojo is a prize Bozo and the rest of the Tory pack unimpressive. If labour got shot of Corbyn and someone decent in charge it would be good to have a change. Wtf has happened with Brexit in 3 years is a calamity, fire the bloody lot!
[QUOTE=Eric the Half a Bee;4975946]Shirley you are not suggesting that the amount corporations pay is 'incorrect' just because it is not as much as you think they should pay? If they pay the rate set then that is correct. If they avoid paying using the legal means to do so then that is correct.
If you mean that the should be made to pay more that is a different thing. But as the previous poster says, once you have taxed them out of business where are you going to get the money to pay all the increased benefits and hand-outs planned? Less tax because companies gone out of business plus less tax because there are less people working and paying income tax, balanced against more people wanting higher benefits is a recipe for financial disaster. If you don't understand that look at almost any labour government.
I'm all in favour of helping people be better off but when you try to level things off, like wealth, it never levels up, it only ever levels down. Which sometimes leads me to think the people who want it are preaching the politics of envy.
Of course this is just an opinion.
[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975963]The previous poster also said "anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion" (in order to end "so called poverty") when Labour's manifesto said it would increase tax for those earning £80,000 a year or more. I'm guessing the overall counter argument would be more people having more money and therefore spending more money, but that is going down arguing over personal opinion about politics and likely to get this moved to the over forum. Perhaps what I can say is that it sounds as if the previous poster will never vote for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto which is surely just the other side of the always voting for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto coin - something that leads to Westminster not really reflecting our society and therefore leading to greater levels of disgruntlement with the system.
[QUOTE=surge;4975968]But part of the argument, whether right or wrong, is that the extra tax burden on those so called high-earners will go to the people in society who do nothing to earn it, (Whether through their own faults or the faults of others) so that money is long term just being poured away as this 'new money' will never generate the amount it was already contributing to society where it was.
As for the voting, well those in parliament are there because we, the electorate put them there in our stupidity, so we can hardly now say that they do not reflect our society or the opinions of our society. If people vote for historic reasons it is their wish and any attempt to prevent it might be seen as a little undemocratic wouldn't you agree?
[QUOTE=surge;4975984]Why should people be prevented from voting for "Not Corbyn" or not anyone else, if that is the message they want to convey? Are you suggesting the law should be changed to prevent people from tactically voting to prevent someone whom they think is totally unsuited for office from coming to power? Or only being prevented for voting for "not corbyn"?
[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975975]You are right a lot of high earners pay huge taxes , and taking more could see them take other descions with that money where society suffers.
What is needed is a socialist government that rewards achievers , but doesn't allow miss management of public money, or supplement those who are not likely to want to better themselves as their benefits are just enough for them .
On the other side you have the very unfortunate such as disability or suffer from inadequate social care , for those I believe we should (all ) be taxed 1p extra and it is ring fenced for that support.
[QUOTE=life on mars;4976024]we concur. i have no problem with helping those incapable of helping others, but as I m said before to someone, trying to level the playing field just because of a political dogma will never work. you can only level things down not up. The amount of money doesn't change.
[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975987]We had a different voting system last Thursday and no one was stopped from voting tactically. We have FPtP in a general election and a number of people have to seriously question whether they vote for one of the big two because they don't like the other major party or whether they vote for the one who best represents their political view. It's inaccurate, potentially deliberately so, to say I'm arguing to take away people's choices. Regardless, it was a suggestion as to how the UK became more divided, more disgruntled and less willing to compromise which I stand by.