What do you stand for, politically?

[dandelion]

- but also, not putting business and capitalism before the needs of people, as Thatcherism tended to do. Just finding a balance (whatever that is) between the two considerations.

Thatcher started well by curbing insane union power and ending subsidy of hopelessly uneconomic industries. However she could only do this because it was the settled will of the people, Heath tried before her but the time had not yet come.

Lowering corporation tax to make the UK more attractive to foreign investors, protecting the city from too many onerous regulations - while at the same time, providing enough regulation to protect workers, and protect against abuses such as the sub-prime hoo-hah, and the excesses that caused the credit crisis.

As I said, make banks liable to a proportion of the losses on a forced house sale. That will make them buck up their lending ideas. When Thatcher came into office some taxes were very high indeed and were cut, but this process has now gone too far the other way. The problem is not over taxing industry here but industry going abroad to avoid tax. That is the problem facing governments now and which has to be solved. The Uk could start by putting the Camen Islands out of business. We control it.

My bro used to work at Barclays, and some bigwig popped in to explain they were now the leading bank in the UK - and how profits had soared, etc (but only because they dumped a load of workers, paid the lowest wage possible, and made ppl survive on a skeleton staff

Time we learnt the UK cannot compete on low wages and increased minimum wage to a level UK people are willing to take the jobs. All we do by having a low mimimum wage is encourage foreigners to come here and do jobs we refuse.

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly with the handouts thing. I'm obviously in favour of helping people where they have no choice - unemployment, illness, helping ppl resolve issues, etc. I just meant I think it's more effective if they're a means to helping ppl back onto the ladder (and providing opportunities to help them reintegrate with society) rather than just handing out money, with no assistance to get ppl back on their feet, and no incentive to better their situation

What I meant is that the country has a certain quantity of wealth which just happens. No individual earns it. It is surely fair that every citizen benefits from this. As an extreme example I seem to remember that in alaska people get given money by the state instead of paying taxes ...from the oil revenue. Exactly who should get the tax money paid by banks, who have taken a cut from every borrower in the country?

 

[798686]

* Morality in government. There will always be individuals who behave badly, but collectively the government should seek to act properly.

Yep.

*Less government. Very much in favour of a much smaller state with less tax and less intrusion. Libertarianism.

Not sure on this - I'm somewhere between Labour and Cons. I don't think the state should be massive, take huge amounts in taxes and spend frivolously - also taking out of ppl's hands things they can do for themselves.

But, I'm not in favour of a small state and every man for himself mentality which seems to be where America's at. I'd prefer a responsible state with moderate taxes, which provides a safety net for the most vulnerable, but also acts as an enabler for people to improve their situation and take responsibility for themselves.

* Freedom of judiciary.

I was very unhappy with the dying days of the UK Labour government. IMO we had a government that was acting without morality...I was unhappy at Labour's betrayal of the people of the UK in breaking their manifesto promise to hold a referendum on Lisbon. I was unhappy about a set of economic policies which left the UK among the most vulnerable of nations when the economic crisis hit.

I think Labour politicised the judiciary to a certain (and unacceptable) extent - such as the attempted scrapping or at least limiting of the Lord Chancellor's role. I agree the judiciary should be independent, much as the Bank of England is (in a different area, lol).

I was unhappy with Labour in the last 4-5 years, too. But - I felt the same towards the end of the Tory tenure in the mid-90s. I don't know if parties run out of ideas and integrity after a certain amount of time at the helm?

I agree with your point about Government doing the will of the people. I don't mind things being moved forward or necessary decisions being taken - but to go completely contrary to public opinion, as with the Lisbon non-referendum, is pretty outrageous.

 

[798686]

6. Politicians should be taken off of their gravy train retirement and put onto Social Security just like the rest of the people. This is not Animal Farm and they are not more equal.

You'd be horrified at the extent of the EU gravy-train for MEPs, Commissioners, et al. :redface:

11. Politicians must think of country first, state second, and ethics/moral third - yes it is asking a lot from thieves. Please note that party is not mentioned....

I like a lot of your points - but not sure about this one (apart from putting party fairly far down the list).

I think ethics/morals should always be in consideration, and in 1st= place alongside your country's interests. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of countries putting their own interests first, without reference to the impact it may on everyone else. I think - especially these days, we should balance our national interests with awareness of global responsibility.

 

[Jason]

Well I agree it was an illegal war and a bad thing. However I also believe it was entered into with good intentions and equally important that the conservatives would very likely have done the same. You are again trying to make a political point out of a general one applying to all politicians. The UK has a general policy from all governments to go along slavishly with the US. In this particular case it seems Blair honestly believed it was for the good of the Iraqi people to get rid of Sadam. They didnt mind getting rid of Sadam (most of them) but little or no thought was given to what they wanted to happen next. Rapidly they started shooting at the invaders.

The argument "someone else would have done the same in the same position" is not valid. People, organisations, governments can be judged on their actions, not what they might have done.

What Labour did do was "sex up" the evidence, which is a circumlocution for saying they falsified it. Additionally Blair and his inner team bounced the decision through cabinet (most of the cabinet should have had the integrity to resign, as one member did). Falsifying evidence as Blair did is pretty shocking stuff - and no I don't believe that either another Labour PM or a Conservative PM would have done this. Then there's the spinelessness of the Cabinet. As individuals and as a group they acted very badly, seemingly putting their personal promotion chances above a proper consideration of a very serious decision.

None of us can ever know how it might have been. I suspect a Conservative government would have presented the intelligence as it was, and therefore had a (private) showdown with Bush. One senario is that the USA would have gone it alone - but I'm not sure about this. UK support and the ability to say they weren't acting alone was important to the USA. I think it possible that the war could have been avoided.

But whatever the Conservatives may or may not have done the fact remains that Blair presented evidence which he knew to be false both to his cabinet and to parliament. For this he deserves severe censure.

 

[eurotop40]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

BIG question!

* Less government. Very much in favour of a much smaller state with less tax and less intrusion. Libertarianism.

 

[eurotop40]

...
But, I'm not in favour of a small state and every man for himself mentality which seems to be where America's at. I'd prefer a responsible state with moderate taxes, which provides a safety net for the most vulnerable, but also acts as an enabler for people to improve their situation and take responsibility for themselves.
...

The problem is where you set the threshold. What are moderate taxes?
10%, 11%, 15%?
You can't really tell that in Switzerland we have a large state with high taxation.
Still, here we have big capitalists (you can't imagin how rich they are...) who feel they are still paying to much. They have "purchased" a political party that is trying to introduce the "every man for himself -- or possibly, every man for the party's masters" mentality and destroy our solidarity-based society.

 

[Jason]

The problem is where you set the threshold. What are moderate taxes?
10%, 11%, 15%?
You can't really tell that in Switzerland we have a large state with high taxation.
Still, here we have big capitalists (you can't imagin how rich they are...) who feel they are still paying to much. They have "purchased" a political party that is trying to introduce the "every man for himself -- or possibly, every man for the party's masters" mentality and destroy our solidarity-based society.

In the UK we have income tax plus national insurance (a type of income tax) which for most people in a job comes to around a third of their gross income. Then we have VAT on most purchases. Then there's council tax (property tax) and petrol duty. Very many people are paying something like 50% of their income in routine taxes (without buying a home or dying or doing something else which triggers tax).

I don't know what the "right" rate is. But my "feel" is that 50% is way too high. Yes of course we want the public sector - and the comparison with Somalia is not relevant - but we also need to accept that many people can make better decisions on their own. Government and the state is usually inefficient.

 

[eurotop40]

I agree. 50% is crazy.

 

[798686]

^Well, Labour raised income tax for low earners from 10 to 20%, which I disagree with - while at the same time reducing the level for medium earners from 22 - 20%.

There's a mechanism where you're allowed a certain amount of pay before you're taxed (£6475 - going upto £7475 soon, I believe), which offsets it a bit. And National Insurance contributions go towards benefits, etc.

Not sure of the ideal tax level, lemme think about it.

 

[B_RedDude]

I'm a liberal in the old FDR mold (an no, I'm not that old), with any absolutely necessary adaptions made for the reality of the global mobility of capital.

 

[BadBoyCanada]

The simple solution is to just be totally isolationist. Let others sort their own laundry. That could lead to moral dilemmas, obviously.

Ultimately, I'd be leaning heavily on the isolationist side of things, with a case-by-case determination as to whether a given situation called for extraordinary action/intervention.

And this is the morel dilemma.

Why have a UN if we're unwilling to stand up for those who can't? It's hard to be isolationist in a global environment. However, we seem to be tilted towards protecting those who most benefit us.

I find my own views getting greyer. I believe in economic justice, but it's ok to be rich. I believe in Universal Health Care, but there's room for private institutions. I believe in protecting the environment, but not at the cost of human lives.

And I believe the Heat are going to win the NBA crown (maybe wrong forum for that one). :biggrin1:

 

[dandelion]

The argument "someone else would have done the same in the same position" is not valid. People, organisations, governments can be judged on their actions, not what they might have done.

So your argument is that since labour is now in opposition and unable to make any decisions, whereas the con/libs are in power and will inevitably make at least some bad decisions, at the next election we should throw out the con/lib because they made some mistakes and install labour because they made no governing mistakes during that period at all? Pull the other one! You don't belive that for a minute!

What Labour did do was "sex up" the evidence, which is a circumlocution for saying they falsified it.

If you believe they are the first government ever to do this then you are much more naive than I take you for.

Additionally Blair and his inner team bounced the decision through cabinet (most of the cabinet should have had the integrity to resign, as one member did).

Well now I dont know. Claire Shorts description of the cabinet when she tried to raise objections sounded to me like a roomfull of people who were all on the 'inside ' of the decision while she was the only one on the outside. The cabinet has a degree of plausible deniability, but I would think the debate was, 'the americans want this, do we go along', and the answer was yes.

None of us can ever know how it might have been.

As it happens I agree that just as conservatives may feel more able to slash the armed forces than do labour, they might have felt more able to stand up to the US. But fundamentally if the US comes along and says they want a favour, typically UK governments just wag their tail and start slobbering all over. You feel a conservative government would have sided with the eu?

I suspect a Conservative government would have presented the intelligence as it was, and therefore had a (private) showdown with Bush.

I suspect it wouldnt! politely refusing the US is one thing but calling them liars?! I have no idea what bush and blair said in private but I hope they discussed the actual situation. Ive no idea why I am defending Blair because I think he was an idiot to get involved, but there was absolutely no indication from the opposition that they would do anything different. Just as they have now got a case of amnesia about their views on the budget from a few years ago, they have selective amnesia about evey time they declined to disagree with blair when they could have. The conservatives could have stopped britains involvement had they come out against it.

One senario is that the USA would have gone it alone - but I'm not sure about this

it is possible the US might have turned back, but i dont believe it. I dont know what Bush's motives were but he had made up his mind. It is not an accident that the US refuses to ratify war crimes treaties which might affect its own people.

I don't know what the "right" rate is. But my "feel" is that 50% is way too high. Yes of course we want the public sector - and the comparison with Somalia is not relevant - but we also need to accept that many people can make better decisions on their own. Government and the state is usually inefficient.

Personally I would have saved lots on health payments because thus far I have hardly used it and paid nothing in school fees having no children. Which bit of government expenditure do you believe is wrong? the principle behind government in our society is that it acts as an insurance broker. We pay the steady premiums, loosely based on our incomes and get back unevenly when need strikes.

You have read the posts about the US health system and the mess it is. Heaven defend us from that! Just where is this evidence that government expenditure is inefficient? I havnt seen it. The NHS is way fairer and way more efficent than the private US service. The UK state education system is considerably worse than the private system, but since it only has perhaps half the money, how is that a surprise? Should we collectively up taxes and pay more? Many people are already spending their money privately on home tutors for their children. Might as well up those taxes and do it centrally.

 

[piercedjobbie]

Good thread -

My personal political beliefs are:
1. protect and maintain the United States - legally and above board
2. protect the rights of citizens according to the Constitution - you know - we the people etc
3. mandatory term limits - we've had enough politically inbredding
4. all senators and congresspeople must participate in social security - no more private gravy train
5. they must also participate in the general health care program - whatever that may be
6. all votes in Congress must be registered - no more skirting issues....and the lying about what happened
7. outlaw gerrymandering - if the elected official cannot be re-elected on his or her record alone then it's time for new blood or the term limit
8. pay raises - in line with SS adjustments and no more

I've got a couple more but need some time to think.

By the way - I am opinoinated - as all people should be - but open to new ideas and methods by which we can make this country better. My party affiliation is Independent and I always like the person best suited for the job.

 

[D_Abraham Slinkin]

I believe that every person should have the same opportunities as others in life. People should only end up poor because of their decisions. Therefore all education, including college & university should be free. If someone is disabled or unable to work, they should receive benefits.

Instead of giving people who can work benefits, create jobs instead. Image if every benefit claimant had to collect litter or help care for the elderly. Society would be much better.

I believe that no one should be penalized for their sexuality, religion, race or political beliefs, everyone should be able to do what they want unless it affects someone else's ability to do what they want - aka, you can't encite hatred or murder even though we have freedom of speech.

 

[798686]

Why have a UN if we're unwilling to stand up for those who can't? It's hard to be isolationist in a global environment. However, we seem to be tilted towards protecting those who most benefit us.

I find my own views getting greyer. I believe in economic justice, but it's ok to be rich. I believe in Universal Health Care, but there's room for private institutions. I believe in protecting the environment, but not at the cost of human lives.

I agree with your comment on intervention - I think the situation in Kosovo had to be sorted out in 1999, since the UN was powerless, and ethnic cleansing was taking place. Not sure about Iraq tho - it's good Saddam's gone, but it seems to have taken a restraint off Iran, and left the whole region (and world?) far more unstable. I also think Zimbabwe needs to be sorted out - but it seems impossible, since the surrounding African nations, inexpicably, support Mugabe to some extent, so outside intervention may cause more problems than it solved.

Like the second comment, too. Things are a lot less black and white than I'd imagined, and all sorts of caveats need to be applied to things, usually.

4. all senators and congresspeople must participate in social security - no more private gravy train
My party affiliation is Independent and I always like the person best suited for the job.

I agree with 4/5 especially. People who govern the country must abide by the same rules as the people they govern, imo. Otherwise they're not entitled to rule. That's also why I dislike the idea of immunity for Europol employees, etc - why should police be immune from any crime they commit during the course of their duties? Absolutely opens the way for brutality and lack of accountability.

I like the independence aspect too. I tend to support Labour by and large, but I'm with the Conservatives (in spirit, lol) at the moment, as I think they're currently best fit to govern.

 

[Cybearia]

I think I read somewhere a quote about those who seek power should never be allowed to hold positions of power.

Although I am the first to admit that my political views are uninformed and naive it does seem that a lot of the career politicians seem to be in politics for the sake of politics, power and perks it brings, rather than because they want to help make society a better place.

Like I say, Im naive, but shouldn't the government be there to do what is right, morally right, not what is politically expedient?

*ducks for cover and awaits torrent of clever responses on why this is a misguided position to hold*

 

[Jason]

Like I say, Im naive, but shouldn't the government be there to do what is right, morally right, not what is politically expedient?

I'm inclined to agree.

There's the old quip that democracy is the worst possible system of government - until you consider the alternatives. One of the many problems with democracy is that it does create political expediency. Politicians know that they will face the voters and if they are voted out they have lost their job. I know we don't usually spend much time feeling sorry for politicians but they do face a sudden, public and humiliating loss of job and income. So yes there is always going to be a tendency to do what is expedient - wrong, but perhaps inevitable.

An alternative system is of course an aristocracy. Have a group of people trained from birth to rule and you get away from a lot of the expediency. Add in a strong moral code and you are not doing badly at all. This is the nineteenth and twentieth century UK House of Lords (and indeed the Commons through to about the 1950s - wartime PM Winston Churchill was actually related to more than half of his cabinet, to over 100 MPs as well as to the Queen and the leading nobles). Intellectually an aristocracy is terribly hard to defend (and we have now all but lost the system in the UK) and of course it has its own problems - but taken in the round it is more likely to do what is morally right than a pure democracy.

Curiously the USA is moving towards aristocracy. The big political families - Kennedy, Bush, even Clinton - are a nascent aristocracy. If the trajectory continues it may well be that in a couple of generations inherited wealth and status really rules in the USA. As a democrat I cringe. But in terms of morality it might well be better. Would Obama be governing better right now if he wasn't facing bad mid terms? Would Bush jnr have made better decisions if he didn't have his eye on the next election?

A possible modification of a democratic process is to make political office part of public service. In the UK we have the idea that magistrates (lower court judges) are unpaid. The idea of unpaid politicians might be seen as an extension of this. It would get rid of the career politician. It might create a political class focused on public service rather than their own career and more inclined towards acting in a moral fashion. Indeed volunteer politicians would be far happier to look at say a five year stint as an unpaid MP than our present salaried MPs - and far more inclined to do what is right.

 

[798686]

Like I say, Im naive, but shouldn't the government be there to do what is right, morally right, not what is politically expedient?

I agree. I think many politicians actually do go into it with a desire to help, or at least with the belief they have something to offer that will change things for the better. I think being in the business of politics with all the party-stuff, etc, causes a lot of compromises to be made (unless you're particularly strong and focused) - and before they know it, they're making decisions politically rather than morally.

I still think we're all responsible for the choices we make (but not what opportunities are available to us), so things like the MPs' expenses scandal could be avoided if your moral fibre is strong enough.

And nice pics, btw.

 

[JustAsking]

...Intellectually an aristocracy is terribly hard to defend (and we have now all but lost the system in the UK) and of course it has its own problems - but taken in the round it is more likely to do what is morally right than a pure democracy.

Curiously the USA is moving towards aristocracy. The big political families - Kennedy, Bush, even Clinton - are a nascent aristocracy.....

Geez, Jason, you sure do make a lot of sense. I would agree that an aristocracy has the potential for making better decisions, especially as the world gets so complex that the electorate is not able to understand the issues. I am all for democracy and it is pretty much part of my DNA, but the problems of democracy you described are obvious and threatening as we speak. And it is not helped by the fact that the current US system makes it very easy to buy influence.

It is interesting that you mention the Kennedys. Although Ted Kennedy's personal life was not very popular with the rest of the country, the citizens of Massachussetts realized how uncorruptible he was politically, and how tireless and fearless he was for working on beneficial but politicaly unpopular causes.

The reason for that was that he basically did not need any more wealth, fame, political legacy, or political power. This was especially true when it became obvious he was not going to be elected president. Teddy basically just worked really hard to pass legislation that he thought was good for people and he was a very skilled and respected technician at doing that.

I think even his most ardent critics who are really in the know would all say the same thing about his lack of need for political expediency.

But this is rare in the USA. The Kennedys were beloved as a kind of quasi-royal family, and they seemed to rise to the occasion and want to fulfill the responsibilties that came with that. I don't think we have anyone with the kind of aura that could stand up against the extreme polarization we are experience in American politics and culture these days.

 

[dandelion]

Jason, in case you didnt notice, the churchills are still in parliament. There is a thriving political aristocracy in the UK. It has just changed a bit. There is an electoral college of a few hundred/thousand people who chose those in parliament now, and will do so next time. If you want to be an MP, what you do is ask these people to select you as a party candidate and place you in a safe seat. You then get rubber stamped in a confidence vote where the public is asked to endorse you as opposed to the selected candidate of the other accredited electoral college. But since most seats in this country are very safe, this is normally a formality. Nowadays the political aristocracy is less of a heridtary one than it was. This is still important, but the system is more akin to that once popular here in pre-norman times, when the new ruler was chosen from amongst the select elite rather than there being only one hereditary choice.

This is exactly what the famous winston Churchill did 100 years ago. Went and asked his dad's mates for a seat in parliament and got one. Hasnt changed.

Just how many people ever get into parliament without the endorsement of either of the two major electoral colleges, never mind how many do so without the support of either the main two or the remains of the once powerful liberal dynasty?

Although this is supposed to be a democracy, it is not. The people are asked a question, but they do not get to choose the question. The system is designed to prevent anyone except those already at the top ever getting into parliament. Did you notice them closing ranks at the suggestion of even a little change to the voting system?