All your Marple and Stockport property and financial needs under one roof

Author Topic: Local elections  (Read 59921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2014, 07:04:38 PM »
The Labour party have positioned themselves as being the party of the public sector worker..... The culmination of their work managed to have far more public sector workers than the productive sector.

The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle

there is not enough money in the system to pay all your environment officers, conservation officers, teachers, teacher assistants, assistant to the assistant teachers, college managers, we needed to give them a title so we could waste some budget officers.

I've no idea what Duke does for a living (no need to tell us, Duke   :D), but something tells me that it is less worthwhile than the honest and essential work of the teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, members of the armed services, firemen, ambulance drivers, and all the other public sector workers whom he denigrates so relentlessly.  

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2014, 01:51:02 PM »
....unlike us, of course.   ;)

I suspect everyone will vote to favour their own circumstances. Understandably, those who pay a lot into the system feel aggrieved when they see a lot of people swinging the lead yet pulling out a living.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2014, 09:54:19 AM »
People who pay no, or very little tax, will indeed vote according to their "own interests"'

....unlike us, of course.   ;)

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #92 on: June 15, 2014, 08:15:18 PM »
We're all fully aware that the above is Duke's opinion - after all, he has never been shy of saying so on this forum!   ::)  And it may be that Bowden Guy takes the same view.  What I don't understand is why they regard it as a problem. 

At an election, people will generally vote for the MP or the party which they regard as best serving their own interests and those of their family, as they see them.  That will include some people who don't earn much money and therefore don't pay much tax.  Get over it! 

The problem is that it is not sustainable Dave. If you have more people taking more out of the system, then there is not enough money in the system to pay all your environment officers, conservation officers, teachers, teacher assistants, assistant to the assistant teachers, college managers, we needed to give them a title so we could waste some budget officers.

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #91 on: June 15, 2014, 05:46:42 PM »
Actually, on reflection , your last paragraph had proved my point. People who pay no, or very little tax, will indeed vote according to their "own interests"' knowing that the tax burden will then be shouldered by others (actually a very small minority of the "others").  You are much more eloquent than me - many thanks, old chap.

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #90 on: June 15, 2014, 05:42:07 PM »
Dave, unfortunately I don't feel the need to explain anything to you. Sorry, and all that.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #89 on: June 15, 2014, 05:40:20 PM »
My view of the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer is simple. The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle and green, wide eyed students - none actually contribute to the economy.

We're all fully aware that the above is Duke's opinion - after all, he has never been shy of saying so on this forum!   ::)  And it may be that Bowden Guy takes the same view.  What I don't understand is why they regard it as a problem. 

At an election, people will generally vote for the MP or the party which they regard as best serving their own interests and those of their family, as they see them.  That will include some people who don't earn much money and therefore don't pay much tax.  Get over it! 

Melancholyflower

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #88 on: June 15, 2014, 03:32:13 PM »
The referendum on PR was a bit of naughtiness from the Conservatives. It was part of the coalition agreement but they knew full well that it was a rubbish alternative to FPTP. I would prefer PR but there was no way I was supporting the offer in the referendum.

AV is not PR, but then it was never meant to be. It's a much fairer way to achieve majority government without diluting the 'party market' and making a mockery of the system. For the worst of FPTP just look at the 1983 election. AV would have eliminated tactical voting, and to some extent it would have given smaller parties more of a fighting chance.

PR may be fair but it is ineffective. And whilst the principle of democracy is that everyone gets a shout, no government is ever going to please everybody. Coalitions are a worthy idea, but too many are bad for the long-term.

The only naughtiness of the AV referendum was that the Tories resorted to negative (with a small n) tactics in their campaign. Dave and co point out the major deficiency of PR in general, of too many minor parties wielding power that doesn't reflect their standing. And before anyone mentions the lib dems in the latest government, consider the fact that they have fewer seats than their national vote would have merited under PR.




Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #87 on: June 15, 2014, 02:25:30 PM »
I tend to agree with Bowden Guy that PR is essentially fairer.  However, I'm not so convinced it will  actually happen.  After all, a kind of watered down PR was put to a referendum about three years ago, and the idea was thrown out by the Great British Public.  

Meanwhile, perhaps Bowden Guy would explain to us why he referred to 'the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer'?

The referendum on PR was a bit of naughtiness from the Conservatives. It was part of the coalition agreement but they knew full well that it was a rubbish alternative to FPTP. I would prefer PR but there was no way I was supporting the offer in the referendum.

I think UKIP and Lib Dems car broker PR to be back on hte agenda in the next coalition.

My view of the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer is simple. The labour party find favour in the public sector, unemployed, economically idle and green, wide eyed students - none actually contribute to the economy. I know you didn't ask me Dave and I'm sure BG will speak for himself but I think you are never too old to be educated.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #86 on: June 15, 2014, 12:24:14 PM »
Proportional representation is undoubtedly "fairer' but it can lead to situations where small parties wield enormous amounts of power which bear no relation to the "proportion" of votes they have attracted. I expect we will have a version of PR for General Elections within 10 years, possibly as the price of the LDs entering a coalition with Labour after 2015?

I tend to agree with Bowden Guy that PR is essentially fairer.  However, I'm not so convinced it will  actually happen.  After all, a kind of watered down PR was put to a referendum about three years ago, and the idea was thrown out by the Great British Public.  

Meanwhile, perhaps Bowden Guy would explain to us why he referred to 'the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer'?

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #85 on: June 15, 2014, 11:36:19 AM »
Proportional representation is undoubtedly "fairer' but it can lead to situations where small parties wield enormous amounts of power which bear no relation to the "proportion" of votes they have attracted. I expect we will have a version of PR for General Elections within 10 years, possibly as the price of the LDs entering a coalition with Labour after 2015?

Bowden Guy

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2014, 11:31:52 AM »
Dave, if I wanted to "imply" any of what you have written in your previous post I would have just said it outright. If I wanted to advocate a 'university" vote or a "business' vote, I would have said so. But then you have a habit of responding to what people haven't actually said. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2014, 11:28:17 AM »
Perhaps we should have proportionate representation

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #82 on: June 15, 2014, 11:09:11 AM »
My apologies to Duke and to Bowden Guy - obviously I failed to explain my point clearly enough.  I will spell it out.

Bowden Guy wrote:
The implication is perfectly clear, though I accept that it may not have been intentional: that such an election outcome would in some way be flawed or lack legitimacy simply because it is largely determined by the votes of less affluent people who pay little or no tax and therefore 'contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer.'

The notion that poor people's votes are in some way less valid than those of wealthier people clearly suggests a desire for a return to some kind of pre-1918 wealth-related qualification on the electoral register.  That's all. 


I don't think BG was saying 'No representation without taxation.' The Labour party have positioned themselves as being the party of the public sector worker and  the unemployed. In govt, they've gone about making both pools of voter as large as possible. The problem with that is that it takes away ambition, enterprise and production of wealth creating units. The culmination of their work managed to have far more public sector workers and unemployed than the productive sector. That is not good for the country as a whole and is not sustainable.

Dave

  • Guest
Re: Local elections
« Reply #81 on: June 15, 2014, 10:16:21 AM »
your comprehension skills are appalling if that's how you interpreted BG's post

My apologies to Duke and to Bowden Guy - obviously I failed to explain my point clearly enough.  I will spell it out.

Bowden Guy wrote:
Well, Dave, everything will be hunky dory when Ed takes the keys to No 10 next year, elected by the 35-40% of the electorate who contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer. 

The implication is perfectly clear, though I accept that it may not have been intentional: that such an election outcome would in some way be flawed or lack legitimacy simply because it is largely determined by the votes of less affluent people who pay little or no tax and therefore 'contribute almost nothing to the national exchequer.'

The notion that poor people's votes are in some way less valid than those of wealthier people clearly suggests a desire for a return to some kind of pre-1918 wealth-related qualification on the electoral register.  That's all.