News Hounds Forum

Back during the Clinton era, there were those who would argue that although Europe accounts for (back then) about 40% of our trade, our biggest single trading partner was the US.

So, rather than more European integration, some people, (not many, but a few) argued that we would be better off aligning with the United States.... perhaps even adopting the Dollar rather than the Euro....

Six years of Georgie boy, and you won't find many (read as ANY) takers for that proposal today...
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 1:00am

Common language. We dont have to write contracts twice. You know you want some of this. Plus, you can join us in bullying Canada around.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 1:19am

<bullying Canada around>

** Ahem! **

Mexico. Please.
_________________
Ralph/Blat 2012!
http://rr-for-president.blogspot.com/

http://tinyurl.com/fxmnr

"Politics is just like driving.
To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D."

Posted by: ET PbD on Fri 1.12 1:28am

ahhh, now you see, there's the problem...

I'd be perfectly happy to consider an alliance/amalgamation with Canada.... (very nice people - polite - well mannered - not known for cultural or military imperialism.....)
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 1:28am

...still have the Queen on the currency (along with beavers and polar bears)...
_________________
Ralph/Blat 2012!
http://rr-for-president.blogspot.com/

http://tinyurl.com/fxmnr

"Politics is just like driving.
To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D."

Posted by: ET PbD on Fri 1.12 1:32am

and occasionally get a Liberal government.... (which is something I'll probably never experience in my lifetime over here)
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 1:38am

Tell you what, The USA will join the commonwealth of nations, you guys join NAFTA and we will start taking soccer seriously. We just took Becham after all. Rooney is next.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 2:20am

And you'll take Rooney too.......? Promise?

I'm all for it.
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 2:34am

We will even take the Premier league, and make it a division of MLS. that should get your goat.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 2:39am

Hah..... but you would have to include other countries in your 'world series'.....

That you could never do.... someone else might - err WOULD - win!
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 2:47am

what. the uk. america. mexico. thats international. hence, world.

plus, we let toronto win in the baseball world series, plucky canadians. so cute.

join us. you know you wanna.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 2:49am

You know, that's always irked me a little. This 'why do they call it the World Series when America is the only country in it' thing. So, Canada is part of the USA now?
_________________
Orionova, PbD

The Selkirk Grace

Some hae meat and canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it;
But we hae meat, and we can eat,
Sae let the Lord be thankit.

http://orionova89.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Orionova on Fri 1.12 2:50am

why do they call it the sugar bowl, when they also make sugar in brazil?

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 2:52am

I'm sorry, but your economy is just to unstable.... Far too much debt, and just look at how far the Dollar has fallen.....

I'm not sure we could afford to absorb such an economically weak country..... I mean, I understand why you're so keen on the idea, but try to see it from our perspective.... just look what happened to Germany....

Perhaps once you've sorted out some of the underlying fundamental weaknesses.... And established a truly pluralistic democratic system that we could have faith in.

OH, and introduced appropriate legislation to ensure a truly open market, removed subsidies and barriers to trade, permit foreign ownership, free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, harmonised standards, tightened regulation, introduced equal benefits, and universal health care, and state pensions.....

Perhaps then, if you ask real nice, we might consider it.

Last edited by UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 3:01am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 3:00am

yeah, right. bulgaria and romania.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Fri 1.12 3:00am

UKLibDem,

You are correct that UKIP was originally formed as a single-issue party and its influence remains in the 2005 Manifesto. However, UKIP policy has moved a long way since then.

UKIP DID oppose the Iraq war at the time; the reason given was that fighting such a war without UN authorisation was of questionable legality.

The argument about the Human Rights Act is different. We are in favour of fundamental human rights; however, we are not convinced that the HRA is the best way to achieve that. We favour a written UK constitution setting out the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. We envisage that such a constitution would be subject to approval in a referendum by the British people.

As for ID cards, UKIP is affiliated to the No2ID campaign.

Since the 2005 manifesto, UKIP have launched independent policies on a number of other areas. What was probably a fair criticism of UKIP in 2005 is no longer a fair criticism in 2007. The Flat Tax policy with a higher income tax threshold may not be to your tastes as a Lib Dem, but does show a substantial move away from linking every issue to the EU. That said, in the European election campaign my local Lib Dem candidate wrote an article explaining that the elections were important and that people should vote because 'over 60% of our laws now come from the EU'. Some issues (like replacing VAT with a simpler, fairer system) just can't be done whilst in the EU.

The new Local Government Manifesto 2007 is being finalised, and I would get in a LOT of trouble now if I told you what UKIP plans are for the Council Tax. For now, suffice it to say that we agree with you that the Council Tax is unfair because it hits the poorest families hardest. Therefore, fairer (and easier to collect) alternatives should be considered.

Where I would disagree is about the practicality of a Local Income Tax which would vary from authority to authority. Firstly, it would reduce the income differential between minimum wage and claiming benefits, making it harder for people to escape unemployment. Secondly, there are issues of consistency where someone lives in a different local authority area to where they work. Thirdly, I'm not convinced that it would be less bureaucratic to collect.

As for the quiz, you're also correct that it doesn't take into account which issues are most important to you and weight answers accordingly. I'm aware of that problem (and it's highlighted in the FAQs). This means that someone might agree with every UKIP policy EXCEPT the EU ones, and score over 80% on the quiz. Likewise, someone might agree with the Greens on every issue except the environment and score over 80%.

I'm working on updating the coding of the website to allow people to select the issues that are most important to them, and apply a multiplier to the scores for each party on those issues accordingly.

This can be done, but it is a bit fiddly to make sure that 100% is always theoretically possible for each party.

Sorry - you also asked which system of PR we favour. There's been a lot of discussion within the party on this one. Ironically, I personally favour the system that we use in European elections! We would offer the public a choice of systems in a referendum.

Last edited by Jonathan Arnott on Fri 1.12 2:07pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott on Fri 1.12 2:00pm

You just want our water!
_________________
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?

Posted by: Paul on Fri 1.12 2:03pm

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott () on Fri 1.12 2:00pm
----------------------------

Thanks for coming back again Jonathan... I hope we're not boring the others, but I'm enjoying this, and I started this thread - so they'll just have to put up with it... ... ;D

Firstly, lets acknowledge where we agree.... Right from the off I said that we were broadly in agreement on ID cards..... perhaps coming at it from slightly different perspectives, but with the same ends. ID cards would be hugely expensive, require a massive bureaucracy to maintain, be an intrusion into our privacy and civil liberties, and be completely ineffective at achieving any of the stated aims.

I accept your word on Top Up Fees, and Iraq, but in both cases, it's the first I've heard about it, and I cannot find anything prior to the 2005 election which seems to say so explicitly, so you don't exactly appear to have been all that vociferous in your opposition.

"Are You Thinking What We Are Thinking?" I'm glad that on these issues at least, it's close. ;D

So, spirit of concensus over.... lets look at where we differ...

Well, Europe, obviously... but lets leave that one aside for now...

Flat tax, yep you are right, it is not to my tastes as a Lib Dem. If you are going to raise the same amount of revenue through a flat tax, as through Graduated Income Tax, then taxes on the rich will fall, and the poor will have to pay more. I fundamentally disagree with that.

If the amount of revenue raised is to drop then either other 'indirect taxes' have to rise, again hitting the poorest hardest, or spending has to be cut, and guess who gets hit hardest by that.... yep, in one, the poorest!

Everything I have seen suggests that with a Flat Tax, (which has no real provenance in a large developed economy) only the wealthy benefit, unless coupled wth massive cuts in expenditure. In which case everyone suffers, but the poorest most.

Which brings us to Local Taxation... clearly I cannot critique a policy you won't admit. But I will defend the concept of a Local Income Tax.

Of course it would vary from authority to authority. That's the very concept of local, why shouldn't it? (After all, you want to see different rules, regulations, taxes, and interest rates from country to country) Good authorities would attract businesses or residents based on the balance of services/taxes as appropriate, and be able to be held properly accountable through the democratic process (something else I think we are both generally in favour of)

It works in many countries, including, in particular, the United States. And for us, it need not be more bureaucratic. At the moment, each of the 500+ local councils has to set it's own Council Tax, and have it's own collections system. Local Income Tax could be collected by the Inland Revenue along with the Income Tax, (or Flat Tax) based on residential postcode. Removing over £600M of bureaucracy at a stroke.

Good luck with tweaking the survey.... It did after all correctly identify me as a Lib Dem, but that weighting thing matters. Some UKIP members might agree with the LibDems on 90% of what we stand for, but if the Europe thing is what absolutely drives them, then they are just not going to support us... (although at local elections, some still do) A Green might agree with you completely about Europe (although, most Greens, like most LibDems see Europe as essential to making real progress on Environmental issues), but that Green is pretty unlikely to support UK while you want to build more Nuke power stations, and stop Wind Turbines.


Finally, you said, "Sorry - you also asked which system of PR we favour. There's been a lot of discussion within the party on this one. Ironically, I personally favour the system that we use in European elections! We would offer the public a choice of systems in a referendum."

LOL-O-LOL Sorry, had to smile there.... BTDTBTTS, STV, or AV, AV+ perhaps, etc, etc, ... lol... yep, have fun with those discussions.... beer helps ease the pain, trust me. (Whatever you decide, try to keep the constituency link in some way, it's an important part of our constitutional process)

Last edited by UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 7:29pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 7:02pm

Since the 2005 manifesto, UKIP have launched independent policies on a number of other areas. What was probably a fair criticism of UKIP in 2005 is no longer a fair criticism in 2007.
Posted by: Jonathan Arnott () on Fri 1.12 7:00pm
---------------------------

Jonathan, I just wanted to address this point separately.

For me, that is part of the problem with UKIP.

I know where you are on Europe, and as I've said, that is the single primary issue for the vast majority of your supporters. It totally defines the party. It's central to all your thinking, and runs through all your policies.

That's fine. I don't agree with you, but many people don't agree with me.... that doesn't make either of us necessarily right or wrong.

But, like you say, since 2005 UKIP has launched loads of other polices. Well, yes, OK, but I didn't know what most of them were, (and I am politcally involved) and I suspect the majority of your supporters don't know what they are. Or indeed, care!

There is no ideological foundation to anything, beyond your central belief of opposition to Europe. If so much has changed in the last 18months, what else might change in the next 18, or 5 years, basically anything might. The only thing that is sacrosanct is your opposition to the European Union.

Thats why I think you are a single issue party. And why I think you may simply be taking populist stances on other issues.

Nobody supports you because of your position on Nuclear Power... Or Fox-Hunting, or Wind Turbines. Nor even Iraq, ID Cards, or Top-up fees. It's all about the anti-Europeanism.

You could abandon every single policy tomorrow, and begin to support the reverse view, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to a single UKIP voter.
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 7:16pm

Okay...

1. I wouldn't have joined UKIP if it were a single-issue party. It shouldn't 'all be about the anti-Europeanism', although we attract a certain percentage of members for whom it is. The defection of Congdon from the Conservatives a couple of days ago (top economist) was down to UKIP taxation policy - NOT the EU.

2. You're right, people haven't heard much about other UKIP policies. A lot of this is down to the media perception of UKIP. We issue press releases on many issues; those on the EU are reported by the press far more frequently.

3. The ideology of UKIP is basically one of freedom of citizens to govern themselves, of making democracy more democratic and accountable. Policies flowing from that ideology include referendum by public petition, opposition to ID cards, belief in a low tax economy, opposition to state funding of political parties and opposition to 'political correctness'.

4. I don't expect you to agree with me on flat tax but basically:

a) Tax collection is horribly complicated at the moment. On minimum wage, you're taxed - then given back tax credits, etc. The differential between 'work' and 'claiming benefits' in terms of income is often as little as 5%. By encompassing income tax and national insurance, and having a single rate for all taxpayers, collection becomes cheap.

The poorest people are better off under flat tax by raising the tax threshold.

b) Rich people have the facility to hire accountants to limit tax burden or move offshore and as such, lower taxes increases the probability that they will actually pay them!

Since the very rich are a very small percentage of the population anyway, high taxes for the rich simply don't generate much revenue for the economy even if you CAN close all the loopholes, which I very much doubt.

c) Flat tax stimulates the economy. Any business owner considering expansion recognises that the majority of created revenue will currently go to the Chancellor. Hence,

5. One of the reasons for creating the quiz was to raise awareness of the fact that UKIP is no longer a single-issue party.

6. Ironically, the only real UKIP policy with which I disagree is fox-hunting. UKIP is in favour of it, and we DO get members as a result in rural communities.

7. The reason I like the 'European election' voting system for Westminster is this: you can have larger constituencies but retain some kind of constituency link. For instance, Sheffield has 6 constituencies. Elect 6 MPs by PR within Sheffield. Sheffield has a greater identity than any individual constituency within Sheffield. Admittedly it doesn't work perfectly everywhere, but you get a more stable form of PR and some kind of constituency link remains.

For European elections, the "regions" with millions of electors in each are too large to retain a constituency link.

8. If Local Income Tax is based on residential postcode, surely firms would have to operate various different tax codes for employees according to where they live? What would the threshold be for LIT? Would the poorest people pay it? Is it acceptable for two workers earning the same basic wage, in the same financial situation, (dependents, etc) to have different take-home pay? Would that cause resentment?

I would probably prefer a LIT to the current Council Tax, I have to admit.
_________________
www.vote-jonathan.co.uk

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott on Fri 1.12 7:59pm

Forgive my American ignorance. When did you adopt the Euro?
_________________
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Push me, pull me
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough, I'm fine, still in it
~~~ Pearl Jam ~~~

Posted by: theroachman on Fri 1.12 8:02pm

roachman.... we haven't adopted the Euro.... was there something we said that caused you to think we had?

However, Jonathan Arnott is a member, indeed has been a Candidate for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which supports Britain withdrawing from the European Union. And I as a Liberal Democrat take a completely (well, nearly completely) opposing view.

And it's good to exchange views with a UKIP member who is willing to present his case as reasonably as Jonathan is.
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 8:32pm

I did not think so.

My confusion arose when Mr Arnott indirectly pushed the idea that you are completely at the mercy of EU. Might just be the laguage bairier.

BTW it is not a boring conversation in the slightest. After I get the kiddos in bed I look forward to a more complete read.
_________________
Like a cloud dropping rain
I'm discarding all thought
I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
I'm like an opening band for the sun
Push me, pull me
I've had enough, said enough, felt enough, I'm fine, still in it
~~~ Pearl Jam ~~~

Posted by: theroachman on Fri 1.12 8:40pm

1. I wouldn't have joined UKIP if it were a single-issue party. It shouldn't 'all be about the anti-Europeanism', although we attract a certain percentage of members for whom it is. The defection of Congdon from the Conservatives a couple of days ago (top economist) was down to UKIP taxation policy - NOT the EU.

2. You're right, people haven't heard much about other UKIP policies. A lot of this is down to the media perception of UKIP. We issue press releases on many issues; those on the EU are reported by the press far more frequently.

3. The ideology of UKIP is basically one of freedom of citizens to govern themselves, of making democracy more democratic and accountable. Policies flowing from that ideology include referendum by public petition, opposition to ID cards, belief in a low tax economy, opposition to state funding of political parties and opposition to 'political correctness'.

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott () on Sat 1.13 12:59am
-------------------------------

Jonathan, I'll try and address everything, but it would be too much for one message, so I'll take on two or three points at a time if you don't mind....


1) I saw Tim Congdon's article in the Telegraph a couple of days ago.... http://tinyurl.com/y2cp93 It seemed to me to be as much about Europe as anything else... What did I miss? He was pretty scathing about Cameron, for almost the opposite reason I would be. Prof Congdon seems to feel Cameron's professed 'liberal' attitudes and committment to social justice are real and somehow repulsive. I think they are shallow affectations, and therefore repulsive. Hey ho.

2) I'm afraid I do still see UKIP as just about that one issue as I've said. But if people like Campbell-Bannerman (is he related to THE Campbell-Bannerman?) Congdon, and even yourself can develop a fully rounded and reasoned policy platform then great. But it is going to take time. And for several election cycles to come you are going to be perceived as just a single issue party, and have to take the jibes from people like me on the chin.

3) All well and good, and we agree in place, not in others. But in places it just sounds like platitudes... What do you mean by 'Referendum by Public Petition?' On what issue? Anything and everything? So Europe, Abortion, Death Penalty, Going to War, the TV Licence fee.... we should settle it all by referenda....? Don't you believe in 'representative democracy' What are we electing Councillors, and County Cllrs, and MP's and MEP's for?

And when you say "opposition to ID cards, belief in a low tax economy, opposition to state funding of political parties and opposition to 'political correctness" it just sounds to me like populism. Not a coherent political platform. A 'low tax economy?' Great, who wouldn't want one of them..... But it's only half the equation. Taxes are not raised just cause it's a fun thing to do. They are raised to pay for services. What services to you want to sacrifice to pay for these low taxes? 'Political Correctness?' Populism again. So there is a taboo against acting like Alf Garnett, or worse, Nick Griffin, can you really think that is a bad thing?

I'm all for more democratic and accountable government, at all levels. And Proportional Representation for all levels is essential to achieving that in the long run.... If only we can get the Turkeys to vote for Xmas....

One thing we do disagree on though is that I think Europe is one of those levels of Govt that matter. I strongly feel it should be MORE democratic and accountable, but withdrawing from it entirely simply fails to change it, and gives us less, (in fact NONE AT ALL) influence over it.

Whether you, or I, like it or not, Europe DOES have an enormous impact on our lives, through environmental legislation, the trading relationships, the economies of our major trading partners, even the movement of goods and labour that affect our businesses. I want us IN there, fighting OUR corner, and working to make the institutions accountable to the will of the people in Britain and across the Continent.

Last edited by UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 9:11pm; edited 1 time in total
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 8:45pm

UKLD,

No worries, about the discussion with JA being boring -- it's definitely not. I am a bit of an Anglophile -- something I picked up a few years ago while studying about Great Britain during the troop build-up prior to D-Day.

I find this exchange to be absolutely fascinating.
_________________
Interested Bystander, PsD

"Isn’t it funny? That which we are most afraid of, is what thrills us the most..."

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a292/BC_ert/ib_award.jpg
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a292/BC_ert/8765.jpg

Posted by: Interested Bystander on Fri 1.12 9:01pm

4. I don't expect you to agree with me on flat tax but basically:

a) Tax collection is horribly complicated at the moment. On minimum wage, you're taxed - then given back tax credits, etc. The differential between 'work' and 'claiming benefits' in terms of income is often as little as 5%. By encompassing income tax and national insurance, and having a single rate for all taxpayers, collection becomes cheap.

The poorest people are better off under flat tax by raising the tax threshold.

b) Rich people have the facility to hire accountants to limit tax burden or move offshore and as such, lower taxes increases the probability that they will actually pay them!

Since the very rich are a very small percentage of the population anyway, high taxes for the rich simply don't generate much revenue for the economy even if you CAN close all the loopholes, which I very much doubt.

c) Flat tax stimulates the economy. Any business owner considering expansion recognises that the majority of created revenue will currently go to the Chancellor. Hence,

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott () on Sat 1.13 12:59am
---------------------------------

OK, The Flat Tax......

I think the benefits issue is a bit of a red herring.... You are still going to have benefits right? So there will still need to be some mechanism to assess what those benefits should be, and to ensure that those in receipt of benefits are not earning without paying the appropriate tax on their gross income..... Where does the simplification and saving come from?

You have said you will raise thresholds.... OK. That might mean that the very poorest were not paying more.... But it would also reduce the liabiltiy for everybody else too. How much are you raising the Thresholds by...? And if you raise the threshold, then you are going to make less revenue, so how do you make up the shortfall....?

I don't agree with you that not much is brought n from the rich.... The vast bulk of Income Tax revenue comes from the wealthiest. But its also worth noting that we don't really have a 'High' rate of tax. The Top Rate is only 40%, but kicks in as low down the scale as £35k pa... (ish) not exactly super-rich.

You are not suggesting everyone should be paying at 40%.... Or are you....? Do you want a 50% limit on those over £100k, or £150k...? That would more than pay for abolishing those student fees you know? No, I didn't think you did.

So to have a flat rate, that I'm guessing is intended to be lower than the current 'Top Rate' would affect almost 15% of all workers. And cause a huge drop in revenue.

What would the Flat Tax rate be? And if it's going to be lower for the 'rich', and the poor are going to be taken out of the tax bracket..... Then the middle class (those currently on the 25% bracket) are going to get squeezed. And squeezed hard.

And for what benefit again..... Simplicity...? Doubtful. Stimulating the economy.....? No, that kind of voodoo economics got pretty much discredited with Reagan. It has a simplistic appeal, but all it really boils down to is a tax cut for the rich, that will have to be paid for by severely cutting public spending..... which means services that the least wealthy need.

I'm not an expert, so my opinion is just my opinion. But I'm not persuaded. But if UKIP produce figures and subject them to independent audit, like the Lib Dems do, then I'll look at them fairly, and if it does look like there is a real benefit, I'll consider it, but I start out as very sceptical.
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Fri 1.12 11:24pm

[5. One of the reasons for creating the quiz was to raise awareness of the fact that UKIP is no longer a single-issue party.]
.................................................

Good luck, honestly. The survey's fun, but still needs a little tweaking.... I'm afraid I'm not exactly 53% UKIP material.... ;)

It's going to be a long haul changing perceptions.... And it'll probably take several elections before you even start to see any real progress... We get it in the LibDems.... it's "Oh, you don't have any policies", or "I would vote for you, but you've got no chance so it's just a wasted vote" (have you any idea how frustrating it gets to hear that on about 35% of doorsteps....?)

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

[6. Ironically, the only real UKIP policy with which I disagree is fox-hunting. UKIP is in favour of it, and we DO get members as a result in rural communities.]
................................................

Well, to be fair, ironically, the main LibDem policy with which I disagree is probably Nuclear Power..... I'm quite open to nuclear power, I don't want to see the Government subsidising it through our taxes, and I do want a strong regulatory regime for the waste and de-commissioning, but I'm relaxed about the power stations themselves.

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

[7. The reason I like the 'European election' voting system for Westminster is this: you can have larger constituencies but retain some kind of constituency link. For instance, Sheffield has 6 constituencies. Elect 6 MPs by PR within Sheffield. Sheffield has a greater identity than any individual constituency within Sheffield. Admittedly it doesn't work perfectly everywhere, but you get a more stable form of PR and some kind of constituency link remains.

For European elections, the "regions" with millions of electors in each are too large to retain a constituency link.]
.................................................

I agree, the Constituency link is very important, but it does present a problem with creating different classes of elected official. Nevertheless, perhaps elect a constituency member, and then make up from a list based on the proportion of votes per party over a region.... (actually probably not too dis-similar to the Scottish system)

And I agree, the Euro regions are absurdly large.... But I have met Baroness Nicholson, Chris Huhne (before he went to Westminster), and Sharon Bowles on several occasions, so the region is not so large that the MEP's are too remote if you make the effort - indeed you know your own UKIP MEP too, don't you.

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

[8. If Local Income Tax is based on residential postcode, surely firms would have to operate various different tax codes for employees according to where they live? What would the threshold be for LIT? Would the poorest people pay it? Is it acceptable for two workers earning the same basic wage, in the same financial situation, (dependents, etc) to have different take-home pay? Would that cause resentment?

I would probably prefer a LIT to the current Council Tax, I have to admit.]

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

I think you agree at the implementation stage whether it is employer address or the employees that determines which rate applies. I'd go for Employee personally. Would it cause resentment. No, I don't think so, people are always free to move to a 'better' area that charges less tax, or offers better services at perhaps a marginally higher cost. Or vote for someone who can make the change they want to see in their own area.... That's democracy that is.

There would be a threshold so that the poorest did not pay..... Since it would be collected through the Inland Revenue, non-taxpayers would be automatically exempt. So there you are, an immediate £5k pa threshold (or whatever was agreed above that) with no additional bureaucracy required.

What would the rate be...? I'm not sure, I think a 2% or 3% local tax would be enough to generate about the same as Council Tax does, and almost 4 out of 5 people would be better, (or at least, no worse) off at that level.

But I would be happier if the share of Local Authority finance that comes from central govt were reduced from it's current 80%, (and the Income Tax rate accordingly) but the LIT was then set higher so that at least 50%, and ideally more of Local Authority funds were raised locally. That would enhance local democratic control and accountability in my view.
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Sat 1.13 12:30am

I think that you guys should let Scottland and Wales both break off into independet republics. We will let you all join NAFTA. I promise.

Posted by: DrFreedom on Sat 1.13 12:47pm

With so many points to answer in each post, it's hard to know where to start - again!

1. To get some idea of UKIP's flat tax policy, you can read it on my website under the 'Policies' section. http://www.vote-jonathan.co.uk/PDFS/Flat-tax-policy.pdf

The issue with tax/benefits should be to increase the incentives for people to find work. Simplifying the benefits system would also help - perhaps a points system? People would receive points according to need - unemployment, disability, age, need of full-time care, living conditions, etc could all earn a number of points each. Then benefits could be paid according to number of points. At least the average person would be able to understand the system - and people would know what they want!

2. The referendum policy - UKLibDem asks if I believe in representative democracy, and uses abortion and the death penalty as examples.

Those are issues where representative democracy fails us at the moment. Suppose you want tougher/laxer rules on abortion. Which party do you vote for, when MPs treat it as a matter of conscience and it isn't in any manifesto?

The point about referendum by public petition is that it provides an appropriate check for the excesses of pure representative democracy, in which politicians are unaccountable between elections. It works pretty well in many US states (California?) with propositions on the ballot paper at the same time as other elections.

Representative democracy serves us well. Most of the time. But not always. And FWIW, I *think* the British people would reject the death penalty in a referendum.

3. Campbell-Bannerman is the great nephew of THE Campbell-Bannerman, I think.

4. DrFreedom, IF Scotland/Wales want independence from the UK, I would support their right to have it. However, I think that they would vote to remain in the UK in a referendum.

5. UKLibDem, I read up on the various alternatives to Council Tax a while ago, but recollection is somewhat rusty. IIRC, you need to collect about 3% of total income - so with tax thresholds, you might need a rate closer to 4%?

6. Yes, there's a link between tax and public services. That said, the tax burden in the UK is really quite high already. Tax 22%, National Insurance 9%, VAT 17.5% of everything you spend, Council Tax, fuel taxes, Inheritance Tax, etc etc.

Most people pay almost 50% of their income in taxation, direct or indirect.

I'm convinced that the NHS is improperly funded rather than under-funded.

In actual fact, the difference between Lab/LD/Con policy in terms of public service expenditure is probably less than 1% of GDP.

7. You say populism as though it's a dirty word - I wouldn't think that giving the people what they want is a bad thing (in general). I knew that when I used the term 'political correctness', it wouldn't be well received! I do understand that definitions are difficult. However, I am concerned that over-enthusiastic attempts to promote diversity are counter-productive and often offensive to the minorities that they claim to defend. See http://www.campaignagainstpc.com/ for a number of examples. I wouldn't necessarily go along with everything that they say on there, but hopefully it gives some indication of the kind of thing I mean. British Airways banning staff from wearing a cross, for instance. Jack Straw's remarks were totally unacceptable though - people should be allowed to wear full Moslem dress if they want to.

FWIW, I believe that the views of Nick Griffin should be defeated in debate not through censorship.

Posted by: Jonathan Arnott on Sat 1.13 2:06pm

"2. The referendum policy - UKLibDem asks if I believe in representative democracy, and uses abortion and the death penalty as examples."

Yes, and I did do it deliberately. In both cases the issue is highly emotive, and those on each end of the debate tend to be intractable in their stance. Any public debate on such topics would probably by highly emotional. On Capital Punishment for example, I *think* the public narrowly favours it.... (I certainly don't), but were a referendum to be held in the aftermath of a high profile murder, or a Police Killing, or a paedophile incident, or even something like the recent Suffolk serial killer, then the vote would not even be close - and that is partly why, yes, I am wary of 'populism' too.


Sadly, I feel that the people who share the world view of the likes of Nick Griffin, are not susceptible to reasoned debate... (and there is another reason for my disdain and distrust of simple populism)

Populism = government by Sun reader
_________________
White Riot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDEn9JouMM
Party On - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haFzhSSl6QU

Posted by: UKLibDem on Sat 1.13 7:48pm