Left or Right.. politically.

[KellieB]

What you have highlighted is exactly why the voting system is a farce. Cabinet seats should be allocated pro rata with the seats per party. A full coalition if you will. Ban the lobbyists and scrap the whips. It would never happen of course...much too democratic and no room for vested interests.

 

You do make me laugh. The Lieberals are 1/5th of the government.... they have one fifth of the vote, they have one fifth of the say but they will agree to anything because they have to.... the conservatives have been too liberal with them and people like me are spanking the Tories right now for using the Libs as a human shield.... I would rather take all the arrows and pull out of the EU and stop immigration.

 

If Countries like Sweden and Norway can function from within according to the old economic agreement.... why can't we? Gordon signed us up because he felt self importance and denied us the vote.... a fact the Labour party will never live down when they promised us it.

[Kaimani]

Who pays the most for being left, the right? Do the left just rely on taxing the aspirational who make something of themselves to also get on themselves on the back of the inspirational who use their own money to fund advances that give the less inspirational the chance of a job that they will eventually throw it back in their face due to union intervention, who never lose a days pay even though its on average five times the workers pay they presume to represent with zero mortgage interest and bonuses. Not to mention the gilt edged pensions.... not very socialist like.

 

I mean, where does it all begin and end?

 

Are we grateful for people creating businesses that employ us at a financial risk to themselves or do we hate them for giving us a chance because they had the money to do it in the first place? Are we just content with taking the benefit handouts afforded by people who socialists hate but can't do without, a bit like Muslim extremists living on benefits (who else would employ them?) we give freely but we never question who actually pays for it.

 

Its not the average reader in real terms. I am set to pay 50p out of very £1.00 I earn.... I put myself through university twice and the state never subsidised me.... it didn't because I never took a student loan, I worked my way through it.... I was born on a council estate in poor condition but we all moved on.

 

The left wanted to give people like me social mobility but the moment I get it I become the green eyed envy of the left and the eneny.

 

You can attack me all you want but somehow you can't do without my money.

 

Socialism is so corrupt and hypocritical.

i'm right about some things and left about some things. anyone who say they're right or left, period, are either naive or retarded. ni think.

[studentbob]

People can sometimes become hypocritical like yourself. I was never and could never become a student of the future, I was a student of the past and yet I am set to pay a 50% tax on all my earnings (in case you have no idea what that means its 50p taken away from every £1.00 I earn) plus NI contributions on top. Are you paying that level for your education in tax?

 

The real losers here are the people who never attended a university or struggled through a socialist regime to climb the ladder and end up paying the same in tax as the rest of us for having ambition and aspiration but no university education.

 

Socialism fights for social mobility and when those people in their own camp achieve it, they become the enemy. You can't have it both ways.

 

All your earnings? Are you sure?

A single person earning £150,000 will pay about £50,000 tax.

Nobody, under current rules (no matter how much they earn), will ever pay 50% tax on all their earnings - It's mathematically impossible.

[Hots on]

Unless you went to the University of Buckingham which is the only private University in the UK the state massively subsidised your University education, just as it has always provided or subsidised your previous education, your healthcare, your childhood housing...

 

You might like to think that you got where you are due to your own efforts with no help from the state and that consequently you owe society nothing and that anyone askign you contribute something is "hypocritical and corrupt" but that simply isn't the case. Everybody in our society business types included benefit massively from having a strong state which efficiently provides services healthcare, education, the rule of law, transport infrastructure... that businesses are utterly dependent upon. Socialism may well be hypocritical but no more so than you.

 

This is a good post; I've never really thought about it like that before.

[handypandy]

What is your view on getting the idling or cancers of society (as you call them) back into work instead of costing the taxpayer a fortune to subsidise them?

 

 

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

 

Bear in mind I am only referring to the hardcore ' don't wanna work' section.

 

a) Would you want to employ someone who was being given the 'work or starve' ultimatum? No...of course you wouldn't, because any employer wants to believe that the prospective employee actually wants to work. Those who would be forced into work, would be far too high maintenance for my liking.

b) Public sector, low level labouring jobs for local councils? Still high maintenance and subsidised employees.

c) Be resigned to the fact that they are useless anyway and be considered as an unwelcome but inevitable liability.

d) Designate an island somewhere offshore, give them a few tools, a handfull of seeds and a pig and give them a good luck wave goodbye!

 

I should have made this into a poll

[handypandy]

You do make me laugh. The Lieberals are 1/5th of the government.... they have one fifth of the vote, they have one fifth of the say but they will agree to anything because they have to.... the conservatives have been too liberal with them

 

Even without the benefit of a university education, this statement sounds a bit self contradictory to me:confused: However, my point was, that it's the whip system that creates the anomaly. Unfortunately, without the whip system, maybe nothing at all would get a decision ....so....I'll stop digging my hole

[KellieB]

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

 

Bear in mind I am only referring to the hardcore ' don't wanna work' section.

 

a) Would you want to employ someone who was being given the 'work or starve' ultimatum? No...of course you wouldn't, because any employer wants to believe that the prospective employee actually wants to work. Those who would be forced into work, would be far too high maintenance for my liking.

b) Public sector, low level labouring jobs for local councils? Still high maintenance and subsidised employees.

c) Be resigned to the fact that they are useless anyway and be considered as an unwelcome but inevitable liability.

d) Designate an island somewhere offshore, give them a few tools, a handfull of seeds and a pig and give them a good luck wave goodbye!

 

I should have made this into a poll

 

What a profound post Andy. The downside is the rest of the freeloading socialists don't agree. You only have to browse the comments.

 

Kaimani thinks I am retarded for having a view.... I wonder where that one leaves him/her exactly....

 

Studentbob doubts that I will pay 50% tax under the law and a new increment under NI.... when he finally gets his degree and moves up the pecking order, he may find the truth, that commies eat while the rest of us weep.

 

In answer to your question on parliamentary whips. They are designed to drive through government or for the opposition, their own policy by pressurising MP's to vote against their conscience sometimes. I don't agree with it.... people should vote for what they believe in and MP's should vote for what their constituents want OR WHAT THEY ELECTED THEM TO DO. Invariably, you find that they are all liars and you now have to put up with them for 5yrs in which time they become mega-rich and make lucrative contacts for the future.... that is more or less the state of British politics.

 

You didn't dig a hole with your coment at all.... its good that we see each others point of view. It brings compromise around and a new understanding. Something socialists will have to get used to.

[KellieB]

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

 

Bear in mind I am only referring to the hardcore ' don't wanna work' section.

 

a) Would you want to employ someone who was being given the 'work or starve' ultimatum? No...of course you wouldn't, because any employer wants to believe that the prospective employee actually wants to work. Those who would be forced into work, would be far too high maintenance for my liking.

b) Public sector, low level labouring jobs for local councils? Still high maintenance and subsidised employees.

c) Be resigned to the fact that they are useless anyway and be considered as an unwelcome but inevitable liability.

d) Designate an island somewhere offshore, give them a few tools, a handfull of seeds and a pig and give them a good luck wave goodbye!

 

I should have made this into a poll

 

What a profound post Handypandy. The downside is the rest of the freeloading socialists don't agree. You only have to browse the comments.

 

Kaimani thinks I am retarded for having a view.... I wonder where that one leaves him/her exactly....

 

Studentbob doubts that I will pay 50% tax under the law and a new increment under NI.... when he finally gets his degree and moves up the pecking order, he may find the truth, that commies eat while the rest of us weep.

 

In answer to your question on parliamentary whips. They are designed to drive through government or opposition policy by pressurising MP's to vote against their conscience sometimes. I don't agree with it.... people should vote for what they believe in and MP's should vote for what their constituents want OR WHAT THEY ELECTED THEM TO DO. Invariably, you find that they are all liars and you now have to put up with them for 5yrs in which time they become mega-rich and make lucrative contacts for the future.... that is more or less the state of British politics.

 

You didn't dig a hole with your coment at all.... its good that we see each others point of view. It brings compromise around and a new understanding. Something socialists will have to get used to.

[freezer]

You've already admitted that you have benefited from state funding - who do you think paid for the council house you lived in? Or the tuition fees for your university degrees? Or the hospital you were born in or the schools you attended.

 

And yet having used the state to improve yourself you seek to deny others the same opportunities.

[freezer]

 

Socialism fights for social mobility and when those people in their own camp achieve it, they become the enemy. You can't have it both ways.

 

This is totally untrue. Having benefited so much from the state it is right that those who earn more should contribute more to it's expenses. That doesn't make you the enemy - it makes you a part of society.