The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

only because gordon has made it so labyrinthine in the first place.

[Idaho]

This isn't Question Time mate. You don't have to strain our credulity to score party points

No matter what you think of the man, there is no way that Gordon Brown is responsible for the mess that is our social security system. It's been a political football for decades. Some good ideas badly implemented, some bad ideas put into effect.

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, as chancellor the taxation system became the longest in the world.

[Beskar]

My social employment plans are far simplier and effective.

Simply make that people under a certain threshold pay no tax, with a scaled increased. There are no benefits given out.

Instead, those who are looking for work or need employment will obviously do their weekly 3 minutes google search at the job centre, and if they require money, they do paid public service in the community. Because end of the day, doing service in the community would get people active and involved and giving back.

[Myrddraal]

paid public service in the community

I like the sound of that, which party does that come from?

[Furunculus]

This isn't Question Time mate. You don't have to strain our credulity to score party points

No matter what you think of the man, there is no way that Gordon Brown is responsible for the mess that is our social security system. It's been a political football for decades. Some good ideas badly implemented, some bad ideas put into effect.

oh believe me, while i am a conservative dave and cuddley band of new-cons are not, so while I am batting against labour as i believe it to be the lowest form of cretinism, i am not batting for the conservatives.

my vote is UKIP's to lose, especially given that i live in a part of the country where the cons are a joint third place party a LONG way behind the two big local parties.

---------------------------------------

while i would be happy with daves six EU pledges, i have no confidence in him that he will enact them, so ukip is closer to my position.

whil i would normally trust cons over lab on defence, i have no confidence in dave that he won't make cuts, so ukip's pledge to spend a minimum of 2.5% of GDP on defence is attractive.

nothing else matters.

----------------------------------------

new poll results, tories well ahead:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...oll-shows.html

----------------------------------------

where the Lib-Dems economic figures fall apart:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ne...e-sums-add-up/

[Furunculus]

So far JAG and myself have laid down in concrete our predictions for the election result:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAG (27/02/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2440038

Furunculus (29/03/10) - Narrow Conservative win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2459341

Idaho (16/04/10) - Narrow Labour win:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2471029

Rory (16/04/10) - Labour led hung-parliament:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...=1#post2471056

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone else going to show some stones and put their 'dog' in the race?

I propose a scoring system, the earliest person to predict the correct result is declared "magnificent" and is awarded an Orgah title, if our benevolent dictators would be so good as to agree......?

[Beskar]

I like the sound of that, which party does that come from?

I believe it is none of them. Unfortunately.

They are content with just throwing money at people. The way I describes ensures there is no money thrown at all, in return, the government supplies employment opportunities which allows people to work for money which will also assist in getting the homeless of the streets, as they can easily get work which is the biggest problem.

[rory_20_uk]

My brother's idea was similar, but suggested negative tax for the first earnings, then with an increasing scale. No other benefits.

Not working you get paid as your tax is negative. As you start to work this decreases slowly, so there is still an incentive for working.

As an adult, you are expected to budget for children - or not. No extra funds as if you can't afford them, don't have them.

Very simple to run and understand. Just insert earnings and taxes / benefits pop out. Very difficult to abuse as there isn't much there to abuse.

The need for masses of civil servants reviewing forms,, printing forms etc will be removed. The need for so many accountants to fight through labyrinthine forms will decrease. And so, taxes overall can also fall as there is less overhead, and probably less acidental overpaying / fraud.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe it is none of them. Unfortunately.

They are content with just throwing money at people. The way I describes ensures there is no money thrown at all, in return, the government supplies employment opportunities which allows people to work for money which will also assist in getting the homeless of the streets, as they can easily get work which is the biggest problem.

Cameron said it about two years ago, I'm afraid. He also said that community service should be publically visable, and involve things like litter picking, rather than working in a community centre.

[Beskar]

My brother's idea was similar, but suggested negative tax for the first earnings, then with an increasing scale. No other benefits.

Not working you get paid as your tax is negative. As you start to work this decreases slowly, so there is still an incentive for working.

Very simple to run and understand. Just insert earnings and taxes / benefits pop out. Very difficult to abuse as there isn't much there to abuse.

The need for masses of civil servants reviewing forms,, printing forms etc will be removed. The need for so many accountants to fight through labyrinthine forms will decrease. And so, taxes overall can also fall as there is less overhead, and probably less acidental overpaying / fraud.

Not exactly true, it can be abused. There are many loopholes, especially as you go into "What is earning a wage?" or the fact, many self-employed can simply like about how much they earn, thus get free money.

As for the first one, Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple) only earns around $1 a year in wages. Apple gives him his "wage" through "company expenses" which means there is no income tax.
As for the latter, self-employed can just claim they earn under a certain threshold and they get given money.

The consequences are, these two examples get money for nothing.

In my system, the worse case would be that government wouldn't recieve the right amount of tax part, not that plus handing out money. In otherwords, government wouldn't be responsible for giving away tax money for nothing, as in your brothers scheme, this would still be the case.

Also, the point of my system is to get people actually working. Even if it ultimately boils down to doing some simple tasks, as the ultimate result is, these people are getting up in the morning, they are going out of the house and they are doing something productive.

[Beskar]

Cameron said it about two years ago, I'm afraid. He also said that community service should be publically visable, and involve things like litter picking, rather than working in a community centre.

He has changed his stance since then. Last I heard, Conservative policy is a "refuse three jobs, you get no benefits" which is fraught with problems due to various reasons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He has changed his stance since then. Last I heard, Conservative policy is a "refuse three jobs, you get no benefits" which is fraught with problems due to various reasons.

It's still a better idea than what we have now, why would you refuse a job you applied for anyway?

[Beskar]

It's still a better idea than what we have now, why would you refuse a job you applied for anyway?

Because you are forced to apply for it anyway.

Because of this, people are forced to apply for jobs that for example, they are not suitable to work in due to health reasons or child care arrangements or suitable hours, but also, you are highly over-qualified for the job, and trying to get work which is your calibre, and not stuck changing sheets in a B'n'B on a 6-12month contract while you are more than qualified to be actually running the place. Then there is also the situation where you are in the middle and moving between two jobs, but require a little "pick-me up" to pay off your bills.

My idea would account for things like this.

[rory_20_uk]

Employers have to make adjustments for health reasons, or be reviewed as unfit by GP / Occ health.
Employers have to make adjustments for all women who have children under 5 years old. See the person who sued the MOD as they wouldn't bend over backwards to help her do exactly what she wanted (including breaking immigration law).
Highly qualified? Find something better, you high flyer you.
Want a pick me up between jobs? ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's called a loan, a credit card, or even savings - not my money!

[Beskar]

Employers have to make adjustments for health reasons, or be reviewed as unfit by GP / Occ health.
Employers have to make adjustments for all women who have children under 5 years old. See the person who sued the MOD as they wouldn't bend over backwards to help her do exactly what she wanted (including breaking immigration law).
Highly qualified? Find something better, you high flyer you.
Want a pick me up between jobs? ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's called a loan, a credit card, or even savings - not my money!

None of those examples were my own, but it is easy to paint the situation.

Well, how many one-armed bed changers do you know? I doubt occuptional health willl blame the business for that.
Well, appart from the fact there are also single fathers (usually because their wife died), even single mothers still have problems with children older than 5. Would you leave a 6 year old home-aline while you was at work doing a graveyard shift?
People turn you down if you are too highly qualified, also, other jobs might require you to have experience working as that job even though you could easily do it. I doubt you would like to leave University with a 2.1 degree and end up working in Mc Donalds, for example.
For the last one, not everyone can afford loan, credi cards, or even savings. Some people are simply forced by circumstance to be humiliated by having to take an unemployment check. At least under my system, they can do some work for that.

[rory_20_uk]

6 year olds go to school. To cover, I would suggest childcare of extended family / friends. Do you know the number of doctors and nurses who have to deal with this?
If you're turned down it doesn't count. I've been turned down after Medical school as I tried to do some work before my job started.
No, not everyone can afford a loan. But all can afford to save. I thought you meant a period when you know the next job is coming. Redundancy also usually gives a payout.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because you are forced to apply for it anyway.

If the system puts you up for jobs you can't do, that's incompetence; not a philosophical issue.

Because of this, people are forced to apply for jobs that for example, they are not suitable to work in due to health reasons or child care arrangements or suitable hours, but also, you are highly over-qualified for the job, and trying to get work which is your calibre, and not stuck changing sheets in a B'n'B on a 6-12month contract while you are more than qualified to be actually running the place. Then there is also the situation where you are in the middle and moving between two jobs, but require a little "pick-me up" to pay off your bills.

My idea would account for things like this.

If you are out of work and you can do the job you should take it, if you are litterally all on your own with a child then something else has happened in your life for you t reach that situation. There has to come a point where people are responsible for life choices.

as far as a "pick me up", I will have enough to live for about 2 months after I leave my current job. Everyone can afford to save a little, it's about regnising what you can actually afford to begin with.

[InsaneApache]

If you are out of work and you can do the job you should take it, if you are litterally all on your own with a child then something else has happened in your life for you t reach that situation. There has to come a point where people are responsible for life choices.

I have to take issue with this. Some of you guys on this board may be surprised to learn that I was once a single parent family. After Mrs. Apache MK I ran off with a Ukrainian double glazing salesman (opps, where's me washboard!) I was left looking after two little lads under six. Although I was in full time employment, indeed I took on a part-time job on top of looking after the nippers, it was one of the hardest times in my life. I was lucky, a lot just aren't. Should they be punished (again!) because thier partner buggered off when the going got a bit rough?

Too simplistic a view IMO. Every case is different. That is all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Indeed. Life's too complex for populist solutions.

Occasionally, the populists do get elected into power. Inevitably, it results in a set of complete mobsters ruining an otherwise fine country, which a subsequent competent administration then has to spend two decades to clean up again.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Inevitably, it results in a set of complete mobsters ruining an otherwise fine country,

Does that mean it will take us twenty years to clean up NuLab's mess then?

[InsaneApache]

OK thirty then.

[Idaho]

I have to take issue with this. Some of you guys on this board may be surprised to learn that I was once a single parent family. After Mrs. Apache MK I ran off with a Ukrainian double glazing salesman (opps, where's me washboard!) I was left looking after two little lads under six. Although I was in full time employment, indeed I took on a part-time job on top of looking after the nippers, it was one of the hardest times in my life. I was lucky, a lot just aren't. Should they be punished (again!) because thier partner buggered off when the going got a bit rough?

Too simplistic a view IMO. Every case is different. That is all.

Thank god - a right winger who has actually experienced the world, as opposed to all these educated single men with comfortably off families talking tough about benefits.

The workfare idea is nonsense. You are sounding like politicians. Saying that people signing on can magically be given a 'job in the community'. What does that mean? Who would implement it? Who supervises/schedules/monitors/plans all this temporary labour? And if this work really needs doing, why not employ people to actually do it? It's just popular sounding nonsense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thank god - a right winger who has actually experienced the world, as opposed to all these educated single men with comfortably off families talking tough about benefits.

The workfare idea is nonsense. You are sounding like politicians. Saying that people signing on can magically be given a 'job in the community'. What does that mean? Who would implement it? Who supervises/schedules/monitors/plans all this temporary labour? And if this work really needs doing, why not employ people to actually do it? It's just popular sounding nonsense.

Employing people to "actually" do the job would cost more tax money. The idea is to mobilize un or under employed government check recipients to do some of the odds and ends work that always gets shunted aside in the effort to keep budgets down. Administration of such a temporary labor pool would be, of course, a potential sticking point. I am not sure exactly how U.S. states or cities who use workfare managed to administer it.

[Idaho]

Employing people to "actually" do the job would cost more tax money. The idea is to mobilize un or under employed government check recipients to do some of the odds and ends work that always gets shunted aside in the effort to keep budgets down. Administration of such a temporary labor pool would be, of course, a potential sticking point. I am not sure exactly how U.S. states or cities who use workfare managed to administer it.

It would be a nightmare to administer. It's not a practical policy - just showboating.

[InsaneApache]

I don't know if it's typical or not but when I worked for the local authority, upwards of 70% went on admin. I suspect it was.

Yes I have had experience of the real world. I bloody should have, I'm past fifty.

[tibilicus]

On the subject of tonight's debate my personal opinion was Cameron came out on top by a whisker, followed by Clegg and Brown firmly brought up the rear. It will be interesting to watch the other two and see how things turn out. I'm particularly keen to see the Conservatives foreign policies put under scrutiny in the international affairs debate.

[Subotan]

I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.

Polls:http://www.itv.com/electiondebate?intcmp=780097_123_1

56% - Clegg (!)
26% - Brown (!!)
18% - Cameron (!!!!)

[tibilicus]

I thought Clegg was pretty impressive. He managed to shake off the "Cameron-lite" perception that has haunted him since he became leader, whilst Brown did OK, considering it was Brown. Although there was no loser, there was certainly a winner, Clegg.

Polls:http://www.itv.com/electiondebate?intcmp=780097_123_1

56% - Clegg (!)
26% - Brown (!!)
18% - Cameron (!!!!)

Not too surprising. Clegg has a massive amount to gain from these debates and it will give him the exposure the lib dems have been desperate for.

It will be interesting to see the polls in the upcoming days once the dust settles.

[Idaho]

I didn't watch the debates - sounds like a potentially interesting turn of events if Clegg can capitalise on it.

I think this election has finally seen a situation that has caused these debates to be agreed to. Previously they were always demanded by the trailing candidate, and rejecting by the leading one. This time the combination of it being so close, both leaders are fighting for the agenda and desperate for the edge on each other. Interesting if allowing it to happen gives an unexpected boost to Clegg - who has the most to gain - compared to the profile he has had up to now.