Forum menu
Get a liitle closer to Scandanavia on many (all) of the World Bank indices.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator
PR, and to stand for parliament you must have lived in the constituency for 5+ years
Flat tax rate, starting at 20K
Minimum wage £10
Max pay of the board in a ltd company 20x average pay - although dividends can be paid to entrepreneurs
Keep the house of lords - I like the idea of the great and the good putting a brake on some of the more stupid knee jerk policies - but you must attent >30 days per year and retire at 80
Any building that needs planning permission (so new and extensions) should have to have a minimum amount of renewable energy installed (wind/solar/water)
Increase spending on cycle to equal the amount we spend on roads
Increase spending on public transport to equal the amount we spend on roads
Run public transport privately but within a single ticket structure (eg switzerland)
Edit - all government contracts must be published in full - if you dont want to show confidential info, don't bid for the contract
Another policy: Tax breaks or other incentives for companies whose employees work from home.
It should be noted that this policy would favour middle to high earners the most, as they are the type of people most likely to have a spare room to convert into an office, plus are most likely to be in a job they can do from home.
It should be noted that this policy would favour middle to high earners the most, as they are the type of people most likely to have a spare room to convert into an office, plus are most likely to be in a job they can do from home.
Company tax breaks, not personal ones.
Transport policy - well now that busses and rail are nationalised, I'd plan a proper connected network and put loads of bike carrying capacity on them. Also a free Brompton (or similar) for everyone.
[i]oh, and in case you were wondering, yes i'm happy to pay more in taxes to pay for it all.[/i]
Yep, me too.
[i]....also weirdly a lot of people are too embarrassed to admit voting Tory. Surely if you're embarrassed you know it's not the right thing?[/i]
Not really, its more like the people voting Conservative are exactly that....not foaming at the mouth Lefties, who scweam and scweam when they hear something they don't like! Therefore, they keep calm and vote Tory!
[i]Transport policy - well now that busses and rail are nationalised, I'd plan a proper connected network and put loads of bike carrying capacity on them. Also a free Brompton (or similar) for everyone.[/i]
It would never catch on.....no one wants to be associated with 'Bus W@nkers'!
Ok then.. First class busses 🙂
What so the company gets a tax break while it costs me the employee more as I now have to turn over a room in my house to an office and pay higher energy bills etc.
What a terrible policy. I'm not voting for you.
Most of moly.
Centre left here. I've done ok so far (good education, good job, nice lifestyle) and I don't want anyone prevented from doing well.
But I do want the vulnerable supported and opportunities for people to fulfil their potential - I didn't pay for my degree, the way I pay back is by offering the same free education to the next generation.
However, I work for a large power utility and we haven't sent the shareholder a dividend in their ownership (15 years or so) - they reinvest the lot (in fact rather more than that actually). But then we have an enlightened owner who believes in capital growth not asset stripping or profiteering (and they've done rather nicely out of it), so what does that tell us? Well it tells us that capitalism itself is not evil, it's certain capitalists who are a bit suspect.
My company is providing a better service, cheaper and safer than it was as a publicly owned body.
And yes of course people lie to pollsters about voting Tory, and yes it's because they are ashamed.
What so the company gets a tax break while it costs me the employee more as I now have to turn over a room in my house to an office and pay higher energy bills etc
You'd get compensated for that just as you do now. If you haven't the space then your company can rent a government subsidised office local to your home for less than the cost of a big centralised office.
Of course, if you live close to the main office then you're exempt. That way you only need commute if you really really want to spend half your life sat in a car.
That way you only need commute if you really really want to spend half your life sat [s]in a car[/s] on your bike.
FTFY 😉
Housing has ceased to have any kind of social function as far as government policy is concerned—that needs to be remedied. Housing should be about putting roofs over people’s heads, not about providing tax-efficient schemes for people to invest their pension pots/inheritances. We need more social housing, and private rental needs to be properly regulated—no landlord should have the power to turn away a tenant because they’re in receipt of benefits or have kids. People who buy a property to live in shouldn’t be at a tax disadvantage to people who buy to let. And pretty much wot Molgrips sez.
#teammolgrips 🙂
You'd get compensated for that just as you do now.
?? compensated by who?
I think you IT folk live in a world far removed from most peoples work lives. I need to be in the office simply to discuss things with colleagues and meet clients. Sure some of it could be done remotely but IMO it is nowhere near as effective and not everything can be done this way.
Russell Brand
Housing should be about putting roofs over people’s heads, not about providing tax-efficient schemes for people to invest their pension pots/inheritances.
Well that appears to have been one of the unintended consequences of Gordon Brown's tax raid on private pensions. People have lost trust in pensions and are looking to put their money elsewhere. Also not helped by low interest rates making other saving options not very attractive.
ok, i'm not sure this is actually workable, but i'd like to [i]reduce [/i]in work benefits and [i]increase [/i]out of work benefits, on the basis that "in work benefits" are effectively subsidising the high salaries at the top of companies by allowing them to pay their employees peanuts so they have to top up their salaries with housing benefit and so on.
I wouldn't have a "flat rate" tax as suggested above, unless its set at the current highest rate of tax (45%?) with a high tax-free allowance. Tax is already regressive as it is when you take into account all forms of taxation (not just income tax, which is usually the justification for this nonsense).
There'd also be proper bike lanes everywhere.
I don't want a Brompton, please can I choose something different?
Ooh yes. Like that.
I object to my taxes being used to subsidise Tesco's wage bill because they can't be bothered paying a decent wage.
Agree that New Labour was generally reasonably decent aside from TB going crazy and trying to dominate the world, although for me civil liberties have to be very high up the agenda. All that nonsense about ID cards and closer and closer scrutiny, the suspension of juries, habeas corpus and holding without charge - that needs to go. I guess I'm a true Social Democrat - which is why I warm to the Lib Dems.
I keep mistaking jambourgie for jambalaya, it does my head in when I read something sensible and intelligent from jambourgie and I think it's from jambalaya.
It's hugely reassuring when I realise my mistake and that the world is indeed as it should be.
Molgrips ,PM & Miketually , Home secretary?
😀
I was playing by the rules OP set so not posting
@molgrips all very good, can you make the numbers work? £150bn in welfare isn't doing what you suggest. Not under Labour (new or less-new) or under the Conservatives.
@Drac a number of US utility companies where bankrupted by state government rules on pricing, basically they fixed the price the utilities could sell at but of course the supply/production costs varied, production costs rose and suppliers went bust. Its my understanding/experience that the US has a mix of state and private companies to deliver utilities, they do the same for insurance which is quite interesting.
Plus, a massive social housing building program.Ditching the ludicrous war on drugs. If people want to temporarily alter/expand their consciousness in ways other than getting smashed on booze, it's none of the state's business.
Agreed on the first one, properties made available for key workers, means tested and no tenancies for life.
Drugs, massive social cost. It is the state's business when they burgle your house or when they need expensive medical treatment to keep them alive or their families need benefits to survive as the drug user cannot work.
jambalaya - Membercan you make the numbers work? £150bn in welfare isn't doing what you suggest.
is that the 150billion welfare bill that includes 75billion spent on the state pension?
pensions aren't welfare, they're pensions.
the benefits bill isn't 150billion, it's about 80billion - most of which is helping people who are working.
in other words, the benefits bill is a fantastically complicated way of subsidizing low pay.
Why does Left or Right have to be the way? The obvious compromise is a sensible middle course, rather than lurching from shades of red to shades of blue. Shades of Purple was a non-starter, and Green never suits anybody
But not Liberal of course, that would be silly.
Because the right wing causes a world of difficulties that don't have to be endured.
Drugs, massive social cost. It is the state's business when they burgle your house or when they need expensive medical treatment to keep them alive or their families need benefits to survive as the drug user cannot work.
Are they robbing your house or needing expensive medical treatment because of the drugs or because the drugs are of dubious origin and quality?
Would legalising them not perhaps solve some of these problems?
Massive home building projects - planning permission issues and 'local protests' should be set aside and new suburbs built - careful regulation to ensure homes are cost effective and reflective of needs of local people / families, not state subsidised BTL flat farms. Yes it will drive down house prices, hurt the banks balance sheet and upset the Boomers, and no I don't care, they've been protected for years. This is the best, fairest method of wealth redistribution I can think of.
NHS should be protected, by law - it's budget set and increased inline with inflation and removed from the control of the Commons - yes that could mean it loses some over-sight, but the greater good is removing it as a political pawn. Dentistry should return to the NHS.
The Welfare State should be made simpler and an 'Abyss' introduced to separate the needy from the lazy. If you are unable to work because of severe illness, or because of disability you shouldn't have to face a life on the poverty line to subsidise those who have learned to live off the Welfare State and will accept poverty in exchange for a life of inactivity - JSA should be limited to 6 months, once that point is reached then recipients should perform civic duties that befit their skills in return for their income - no work, no dole. Yes, some will suffer and this may seem a 'right wing' policy, but in reality it's not, Left Wing politics or Socialism relies on everyone working together for shared wealth - not sitting on your arse all day and shipping off the terminally lazy into 'disability' category because it's easy is an insult to those who can't work.
Drugs, all drugs should be legalised - prohibition doesn't work, has never worked, will never work - a 'War on Drugs' is a civil war against your own people - those who wish to use drugs should be educated to their dangers, treatment should be the answer to drug addiction, not prison. Sale of Drugs should be regulated, taxed, but legal - we should use the billions of pounds of drug money that is spent every year in the UK to help those who need it and help fund the country, not make drug dealers rich.
Rebalancing of the Economy from London centric financial hub backed up by a services lead / debt based economy back to a more rounded production / manufacturing economy. Infrastructure projects should reflect this - everything has been London centric for 30 plus years - new airports or runways, London, new Rail lines, to connect smaller cities with London, roads to connect everywhere with London. I'd rather the UK produced 50 jobs paying £20k a year than 1 job paying £1m a year in the city. We'd have to actively devalue the £ to make us competitive in the world, which will upset the city, no, I don't care.
I agree with most of What Molgrips said in his first post. Mainly the nationalisation of key things like transport and utilities etc.
I think public transport can be greatly improved and I think London is one good example of what can be achieved. Local constituencies can decide exactly how their local public transport system is implemented but there should be national frame work. eg I one single payment system used nationally and guidelines on fare rates etc.
I would also want greater efficiency from the nationalised services to get more value for money. I think a lot of time and money is wasted and would like these services to be renovated and made to run efficient. I don't think public sector jobs should be seen as cushy, easy going jobs. I also wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I did get more value for money.
I also don't mind people and companies earning lots of money and becoming filthy rich, good on them. But I would like them to become wealthy by paying a fair rate of tax and not avoiding it via loop holes etc.
A long term sustained housebuilding programme gradually building up to match the current demand rate, which ramps up further in subsequent years to address the longterm deficit, the aim being to engineer a gradual realignment of housing costs.
Whilst the cost of living issues that most suffer from can be addressed by giving tax credits/ benefits.. it fixes symptoms not the causes.... enabling folks to live on a relatively low wage would enable them to compete on the global stage bring tax revenue, reduce benefits + reduce the individual tax burden
I think you IT folk live in a world far removed from most peoples work lives. I need to be in the office simply to discuss things with colleagues and meet clients. Sure some of it could be done remotely but IMO it is nowhere near as effective and not everything can be done this way.
It's not as effective now, because we're used to being face to face. And yes, some people need to be there in person - I accept that. But in the long term, the more common and acceptable it becomes to work remotely, the better our world will be in general. Of course it shouldn't be a draconian policy. The point is to a) reduce traffic and b) to help make people happier. I suspect many people would love to shut their laptop when the kids come back from school, have some family time, then open it again later. And many wouldn't - many would rather roll out of bed at 6 and get cracking, finish at three and go for a bike ride. It's all about flexibility to make your job fit in with what you want out of life.
those who wish to use drugs should be educated to their dangers, treatment should be the answer to drug addiction, not prison
Just like we do for legal drugs.
@molgrips all very good, can you make the numbers work?
Well now that's the thing, isn't it?
Taxes would have to go up, I'm sure. But people need to understand that their money is going to do some good.
However the free childcare thing - there's a good chance that would get a LOT of people back in work, and it might cost less than you might think. I seem to remember reading that in countries where they do it, it more or less pays for itself. Because if you're not sat at home looking after kids you're out earning taxable income and growing GDP.
It'd be interesting to see how much revenue that and legalising drugs would generate.
Re childcare- within our patriarchal setup its the men who are in the majority if work. Think how more effective our economy would be if we had vast amounts of women back in the workplace adding a whole raft of benefits that would come from a balanced workforce...
Are they robbing your house or needing expensive medical treatment because of the drugs or because the drugs are of dubious origin and quality?
@miketually interesting point but its my guess they are robbing your house as they are so out of it they cannot work so they need to get the money for drugs elsewhere
If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price
@P-Jay 68% of people in the UK own their own home, so pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected. Yes there is lots of noise from people unable to get on the housing ladder but I was hearing that 30 years ago when prices where much lower.
Re childcare- within our patriarchal setup its the men who are in the majority if work. Think how more effective our economy would be if we had vast amounts of women back in the workplace adding a whole raft of benefits that would come from a balanced workforce...
@edenvalley where would all these "vast" numbers of extra jobs come from ? I am happy to see more women back at work and approve of the childcare but unless you control immigration at the same time this would just lead to a big reduction in wages
If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price
Like they do now with alcohol, tobacco, and Lemsip?
pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected
This thread isn't about getting elected.
How about industry acknowledging that a job needs more people than claimed and not expecting appalling overtime hours or work spent on laptops AF home to get the job done...t
A reduction in wages because of immigrants doing jobs that don't exist? Are you ok Jamba?
pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected
It won't, if you assume that everyone owns a house.....
pushing down house prices to any large degree is not going to be popular or get you elected
I'm a home-owner, and I'd be happy to see a massive crash in house prices.
( I'd like a slightly bigger house with a garage, right now that'd cost me an extra £100k)
If you legalised drugs the criminals would just undercut you on price
Seems more likely to me that the government would be able to undercut all the crims, but it's an interesting point.
I'd go for a German style level of taxation, with if being more graduated, it'd be more complicated, but it'd spare people the sudden jump from one band to the next.
The thing that's always bugged me about house prices is this:
(all figures are completely made up to illustrate the point, it doesn't matter what the real pay increase/house price inflation rate is)
Let's say I buy a house for £100k in year x, when I'm earning £25k.
House price rises are good, says the Daily Mail, and 5 years later, my wages have gone up a bit too to, say, £27.5k (up 10%) and house prices have risen by 50% in the same period. So my house is now worth £150k. Wahey, I'm up 50 grand, I'll use that extra money to buy a new, better, house.
So I look at a house that would have cost £150k when mine cost £100k. When I bought my house I was 2 times my annual salary short of being able to buy this nicer house (the £100k I had, plus 2*£25k). But now I've got £150k of house to sell, and I'm earning a bit more.
But the new house cost £150k 5 years ago. Its price, just like every other house, has gone up by 50%, so now it's worth £225k. So if I sell my house for cash, I'm even further away from affording the nicer house than I was 5 years ago (near enough 3x my salary, rather than 2x my salary).
The longer house prices increase by more than wages, the bigger the problem gets.
If (like most people) I'm selling my house so that I can buy another house, a house price rise means nothing because the thing I'm buying is worth more too. Obviously I want MY house to get more valuable, but I want every other house to stay the same/get cheaper so I can upgrade.
@bails 68% of people in the UK own their own home (can't recall where I saw that stat). House prices more than just a function of wages, you have factors like cost of loans (interest rate level), availability of mortgages, availability of houses, demand (immigration, inward investment etc). The UK has a huge stock of cheap housing its just in places where there is little work, hence its cheap.
@TimothyD - with VAT on food at 8% ?