Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Why on earth would alternative medicine need regulating? Its not as if it actually does anything 😆
All that tells us is that FPTP is very poor at representing the will of the electorate.
But we don't know how people would vote under PR, I strongly suspect based on these polices that if we had PR in the UK the Greens wouldn't get 11% of the vote. Right now voting Green is a protest vote in the vast majority of constituencies. In the last 26 by-elections the Greens have lost their deposit in every single one. Thats why they where not invited to the TV debates.
I'm reminded of the following quote -
[i]"The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an ax."[/i]
Ahh Tom, why am I thinking of Mr Osbourne's economic policies?
In all maintained Schools the admissions policy has to follow legislation and the governments school admissions code. Thry can't just make it up like you're inferring
Voluntary-aided schools are free to set faith-based criteria, which they indeed do. In practice, that means my local secondary school excludes all but a tiny handful of its local community.
D0NK - Memberlooks like ahwiles did the same ctrl+F speed read on the greens I did
apologies if you did actually read all that ahwiles
ctrl+F is one of those little things that makes modern life possible.
But we don't know how people would vote under PR, I strongly suspect based on these polices that if we had PR in the UK the Greens wouldn't get 11% of the vote.
They've done consistently well in European elections which are PR so it's hard to say.
Anyway, if their share was actually the number of voters who wanted them in power (rather than a protest) that's a good thing, right?
Why on earth would alternative medicine need regulating? Its not as if it actually does anything
Neither does cough medicine...
[url=
them lightly at your peril...[/url]
(sorry) 😳
Voluntary-aided schools are free to set faith-based criteria, which they indeed do.
According to legislation created by a democratically elected government, in return for the use of land and buildings.
You can't get away from the fact that a quarter of all primary schools are owned by the church, and the Greens have announced a plan to close them.
Worth recalling that a few local authorities and the church) have been stung recently after selling off old school land that they had no right to, as it was handed over under the condition it was for education, and when that stopped it reverted to the donor.
Learns new trick
Is in awe of IT monkeys
According to legislation created by a democratically elected government, in return for the use of land and buildings.
As I've already said, my local secondary school was rebuilt by the taxpayer, is 97% funded by the taxpayer, and excludes nearly all of its local community.
I think that's wrong.
You can't get away from the fact that a quarter of all primary schools are owned by the church, and the Greens have announced a plan to close them.
No they haven't. They've said that publicly-funded schools should not be run by religious organisations.
Christ. Pub Landlord looks like the only 'party' worth my vote at this rate. Shame I don't live in South Thanet.
What is it about politics that attracts egotistical physcopathic nutters?
The current system is working perfectly. I can't see why anyone would want to change it.
Ninfan seeing as the church are serving the community ,not their flock, and seeing as they are a charity surely they will just continue to do it as its about giving to the community and not perpetuating the faith.
the only change is its not a faith school which wont matter as that is not why they do it.
FWIW the argument that faith school is not a faith school and not about faith is tenuous at best...given its you I reckon you can maintain it for the duration of the thread 😉
ransos - MemberNo they haven't. They've said that publicly-funded schools should not be run by religious organisations.
but then how will we make sure that white kids, and brown kids, don't go to the same school?
they'll be forced to mixX!!!!
The current system is working perfectly. I can't see why anyone would want to change it.
Could you elucidate?
The best education system in Europe is Finland and they don't have private schools.
but then how will we make sure that white kids, and brown kids, don't go to the same school?they'll be forced to mixX!!!
In fairness, my local church school graciously admits 1 or 2 poor brown heathens for the white middle class kids to gawp at.
I do hope they try to save them
but then how will we make sure that white kids, and brown kids, don't go to the same school?
Eh?
plenty of brown Christians, in case you hadn't noticed.
The best education system in Europe is Finland and they don't have private schools.
Also little homework, few exams, universal free school meals and start at age 7. It works.
Perhaps those accusing the Greens of ideology might look at conservative education policy instead...
Greens have lost their deposit in every single one. Thats why they where not invited to the TV debates.
Well I suppose its for that reason Mr Cameron won't be doing the TV debates because the green party won't be there...
Indoctrinate your children by all means but don't expect the taxpayer to fund it.
Erm, School? Largely taxpayer funded? What better way to indoctrinate your offspring into the world's other notable religion, capitalism, by teaching them to become good little economic units.
yep there was 1 at our (CoE) schoolplenty of brown Christians, in case you hadn't noticed.
Eh?plenty of brown Christians, in case you hadn't noticed.
Well, as long as they have god, that's ok.
yep there was 1 at our (CoE) school
You know that thing about anecdote not being the singular of data?
but then how will we make sure that white kids, and brown kids, don't go to the same school?
My kids go to a catholic school (because we're all left-footers). Its very multi-coloured indeed.
But there's no muslamic swans or rayguns. Apparently a lot of muslamics apply to catholic schools, if theres no jihadi alternative, as they see them as slightly [s]more backward[/s] less godless than those vile progressive, women-priest-ordaining, gay-marriage-supporting, happy clappy infidels of the C of E.
None of 'em get in, mind. Bloody heathens! 😀
Personally I think they could unite more with the Church of England around the issue of beards and dresses
[img] 
[/img]
you do know DONK was agreeing with you dont you ninfan 😕
Not sure why you did that tbh
😆
Tax more. Spend more. Control* the economy from the centre. Pursue futile, inefficient "environmental" projects.
Probably make sandals compulsory.
(* strangle)
No thanks.
Wopster - Are you suggesting that the Greens would centralise the economy further than labour and the tories who, over the last 30 years, have turned us into the most centralised economy in the developed world, to the total detriment of everyone outside a privileged few in London and the south east?
Can't see it myself, somehow. Surely they'd do the opposite? What you basing that on? Apart from the usual right-wing knee-jerk ramblings
ninfan - Memberplenty of brown Christians, in case you hadn't noticed.
my point is this:
if you wanted to keep inter-racial mixing to a minimum, introducing religious schools would be a good place to start (short of actual apartheid).
Can't see it myself, somehow. Surely they'd do the opposite? What you basing that on? Apart from the usual right-wing knee-jerk ramblings
Their manifesto.
Their actual manifesto? Or the Torygraphs interpretation of it in their scare story? Or as I originally thought, neither, and its just your knee-jerk right wing prejudices, assuming that they're all communists?
Can you show us the quote where theres anything like that please Wopster? I must have missed it. What I'm reading pretty much says the reverse. Far more regionalism, in fact. Thats what it says on pages 4 and 5 of their actual manifest [url= http://greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/European%20Manifesto%202014.pdf ]here[/url]
Go on then... GO!.....
Their manifesto.
Their website appears to be arguing for the opposite of your claim.
"The basis for a decentralised society and the establishment of a Bill of Rights must be laid out in a clear and accessible written constitution; but in the years before the adoption of such a constitution there is much work to be done in dismantling such a hierarchical and centralised state."
http://greenparty.org.uk/values/policies-2010/2010manifesto-economy.html
Taxation
Promoting fairness, sustainability and citizenshipThis manifesto is not an uncosted wish list. It is a practical and realistic plan to move towards a more equal society, fight climate change and protect public services.
Unlike the other parties, we argue that increases in taxation for the better off are required. This is no bad thing in itself.
Taxes are the fees we pay as citizens for services that are best provided collectively. They are also an instrument for fairness. The corrosive belief that taxes are no better than a necessary evil, nurtured by successive Governments over the past 30 years, is at the root of the difficulties in financing public services during the same period.
So the Green Party wants to rehabilitate progressive taxation. This requires two things: raising taxes fairly and explaining them honestly. Labour’s plans depend upon wishful thinking about how quickly the economy and tax revenues will recover. They are unwilling to tell you about the cuts and tax increases coming later. The Conservatives will cut public spending, but have not put forward a plan that adds up to remotely enough cuts without tax increases to cut the deficit.
In contrast, the Green Party is open about what we would cut, what we would defend, and about the fact that we need to raise taxation from 36 per cent of GDP in 2009–10 to around 45 per cent in 2013. This would halve the gap between Government expenditure and revenues by 2013–14 (as the Labour Government proposes) and progressively close the gap thereafter.
We favour a Robin Hood Tax – a tax on financial transactions (see page 47) – but because that would work best with wide international agreement we do not rely on it to fill the gap in the Government’s finances, though we believe there is also scope to act unilaterally by introducing a tax on sterling foreign exchange transactions, and that the UK should demonstrate global leadership.
Our tax changes come in two groups – those that close the gap between rich and poor, and those that mainly discourage environmentally damaging activity.
Taxes to reduce inequality
We support a special tax on bankers’ bonuses, though we would make it permanent.
Also, no one in one of the wholly or partly state-owned banks should get a bonus of more than £25,000. And our changes to pension tax reliefs (see box on page 13) will radically reduce the huge advantages the present pension system gives to the most wealthy. But this is only a beginning.
We would also:
Introduce the new higher rate of income tax at 50% for incomes above £100,000, raising £2.3bn pa.
Abolish the upper limit for National Insurance contributions, raising £9.1bn in 2010.
Help lower earners by raising the lower National Insurance limit to the personal allowance rate (which is £6,475 a year, or £124.52 a week), costing £3.9bn.
Help lower earners by reintroducing the 10% tax band and the 22p basic rate, costing £14.9bn.
Increase the main rate of Corporation Tax from 28% back to 30% and reduce the small firms rate back to 20%, altogether raising £1.4bn.
Raise the Capital Gains Tax rate from 18% to the recipient’s highest income tax rate (that is 22%, 40% or 50%), raising £1bn.
Reform inheritance tax, so that the level of taxation depends on the wealth of the recipient rather than that of the deceased, raising £3bn by 2013. This will encourage people to distribute their property widely.
Crack down on tax havens and other methods of tax evasion and avoidance, raising £10bn in 2010 rising to £13bn by 2013. In particular press for a transparent international accounting standard that requires companies to report on a country-by-country basis so that their profits can be located and taxed.
Reform Council Tax by making people in more expensive houses pay more and those in smaller ones less, adding an additional band at the top for the biggest houses, raising £1.7bn. In the long run we favour moving to a system of Land Value Tax, where the level of taxation depends on the rental value of the land concerned.
Taxes to protect the environmentWe would reform the tax system to put far greater emphasis on taxes that discourage environmentally or other damaging behaviour.
If these changes were implemented the share of environmental taxation in total taxes would double from about 7 per cent now to 14 per cent in 2013. Some of these proposals involve raising existing taxes, some are new taxes and some modify existing exemptions and reliefs to achieve environmental purposes. In the long run we would aim to replace VAT by environmental taxes, but the current state of the public finances does not allow this in the short term.
We also recognise that some of these changes, for example on VAT or placing fuel duty on aviation, may involve international negotiation and cannot be introduced immediately.
We would:
Reintroduce the fuel duty escalator, raising fuel duty by 8% per year. This will raise £2.2bn in 2010 rising to £10bn by 2013. In the longer run we would introduce a system of domestic carbon quotas.
Modify the regime for Corporation Tax Capital allowances so that the allowances are only available for investment in sustainable technologies, raising £7bn in 2010 rising to £10bn by 2013.
Introduce VAT and fuel duty on aviation, raising £7bn in 2010 and £10bn by 2013.
Increase the rates for the Climate Change Levy and for Landfill Tax, raising £300m.
End the zero-rating of VAT on new dwellings, putting them on a level with conversions and renovations of existing dwellings, raising £5bn in 2010 and £7.5bn by 2013.
Tax plastic bags and other unnecessary packaging, raising perhaps £1bn by 2013.
Levy eco-taxes on non-renewables or pollutants, in particular pesticides, organochlorines, nitrogen and artificial fertilisers and phosphates.
Introduce new taxes on use of water by businesses and waste heat from power stations, raising £3bn by 2013.
Replace vehicle excise duty by a new graduated purchase tax on vehicles that heavily penalises over-sized or over-powered vehicles. Overall this would be tax neutral.
Make tax concessions on savings, such as ISAs, only available for investment in sustainable technologies, raising £1.8bn.
No longer offer zero VAT rating to financial services and betting duties, which are of limited value to the real economy, raising £5.6bn by 2013.
Gradually increase alcohol and tobacco taxes by about 50% to match anticipated increases in expenditures on the NHS, raising £1.4bn in 2010 rising to £5.6bn by 2013.
Taken together, these tax changes are sufficient to pay for the entire programme set out in this manifesto, and also to more than halve the deficit as a proportion of GDP by 2013, setting the economy on a path that will almost eliminate the deficit by the end of the Parliament. The details of how we would pay for our programme are set out in the box below.How we would pay for our programme?
There are many spending commitments in this manifesto. And there are proposals for new and increased taxes (see pages 14–16). Does it all add up, and in particular will they in total more than halve the deficit by 2013–14?
In summary terms ,our plans, compared to those of the Labour Government (as announced in the Budget Report 2010), are as follows (all figures in billions in 2010 real terms):
1 Labour Government planned public expenditure: 2010 £704 ; 2013 £700
2 Labour Government anticipated tax receipts: 2010 £541 ; 2013 £617
3 Labour Government fiscal deficit to borrow*: 2010 £163 ; 2013 £82
4 Green Party proposed basic public expenditure: 2010 £704 ; 2013 £704
5 Net additions to public expenditure in this manifesto: 2010 £72 ; 2013 £80
6 Total Green Party proposed public expenditure**: 2010 £776 ; 2013 £784
7 Green Party anticipated tax receipts on existing Government tax plans: 2010 £541 ; 2013 £603
8 Net additional taxation proposed in this manifesto: 2010 £73 ; 2013 £112
9 Total Green Party proposed taxation†: 2010 £614 ; 2013 £714
10 Green Party proposed fiscal deficit to borrow‡: 2010 £162 ; 2013 £70
Notes: * Item 1 – item 2. ** Item 4 + item 5. †Item 7 + item 8. ‡Item 6 – item 9. Figures might not add up exactly due to rounding. In item 7, the Green Party figure for tax receipts on existing tax policies in 2013 is lower than that for the Labour Government assumption in item 2 as we assume a lower rate of GDP growth. Notice that Green Party borrowing plans in item 10 are lower than the Labour government plans in item 3.
We would freeze basic Government spending at £704bn (item 4 above). Our programme of additional spending and selected cuts (set out below) would add £72bn in 2010 rising to £80bn in 2013 (item 5 above).
We believe that the Government’s projections for GDP growth are too high, and that tax receipts on existing policies in 2013 will be only £603bn (item 7 above), £14bn less than the Government’s assumed £617bn (item 2 above).
On Government spending we have first of all a modest programme of savings totalling £20bn in 2010 rising to £28bn in 2013. We would save £8bn on defence in 2010 falling to £6bn in 2013 (including cutting Trident; see page 43), £1bn initially rising to £3bn on road-building (page 38), £2.5bn on ID cards and £0.5bn rising to £1.5bn on prisons (pages 24 and 26). We believe modest cumulative annual efficiency savings of 0.5% on 60% of Government spending are possible, saving £2.3bn in 2010 rising to £9.4bn in 2013. In addition our minimum wage policy would save about £6bn a year on tax credits throughout the period.
Apart from Citizen’s Pension we have a programme of additional expenditure totalling £52bn rising to £64bn in 2013. The major items are a £20pw rise in Child Benefit (£14bn; page 13), investment in public transport (£4bn, rising to £5bn; page 38), social housing and right to rent (£4bn; page 20), elderly care (£3bn in 2010 rising to £8bn by 2013; page 22), renewables and insulation (£5bn rising to £10bn in 2013; pages 20, 35), an increase in the aid budget (£3bn in 2010 rising to £4.5bn; page 48), training and community programmes for the unemployed (£5bn, but unnecessary by 2013; page 10), investment in waste management (£3bn pa; page 26), abolition of higher education fees (£1.8bn in 2010, but £3.6bn in later years; page 21), and about £9bn rising to £12bn for the 14 smaller commitments, all of which involve £1bn or less in 2010.
In terms of public expenditure, Citizen’s Pension will cost an extra £40bn rising to £44bn, so the overall increase in public expenditure will be £40bn (Citizen’s Pension) plus £52bn (gross cost of manifesto) less £20bn (public expenditure savings), or £72bn (as in item 5 above). The comparable figure for 2013 is £80bn.
On taxation our proposals are set out on pages 14 to 16, where it is clear that together with the tax changes on Citizen’s Pension these proposals will add £73bn in 2010 and £112bn in 2013 (item 8 above).
http://greenparty.org.uk/values/policies-2010/2010manifesto-environment.html
operating table, they operate on it with an ax."
Ahh Tom, why am I thinking of Mr Osbourne's economic policies?
Oh I agree to an extent. The Greens are more ideologically driven than the tories though.
I say, bring on the evidence based socially liberal technocracy!
[i]We would freeze basic Government spending at £704bn (item 4 above). Our programme of additional spending and selected cuts (set out below) would add £72bn in 2010 rising to £80bn in 2013 (item 5 above).
We believe that the Government’s projections for GDP growth are too high, and that tax receipts on existing policies in 2013 will be only £603bn (item 7 above), £14bn less than the Government’s assumed £617bn (item 2 above).
[/i]
****less I tell thee, ****less.
Well, Woppit certainly wins the prize for longest post. For what that's worth.
Can't see anything about centralisation in the 2010 manifesto, did I miss it?
F- it. Give them a go for five years. The other lot(s) have had the last hundred or so.
We believe that the Government’s projections for GDP growth are too high, and that tax receipts on existing policies in 2013 will be only £603bn (item 7 above), £14bn less than the Government’s assumed £617bn (item 2 above).
Gosh, next they'll be saying that George Osborne failed to meet his promises on deficit reduction...
Nope. Sorry. Still not getting the whole centralisation thing at all there Wopster. Could you just highlight me the bits you've noticed, and maybe expand on that a bit. Maybe explain to us how you beloved right wingers aren't centralisers of the economy? Given the actions of successive governments?
GO!
F- it. Give them a go for five years. The other lot(s) have had the last hundred or so.
This really ought to cover it.
If you are trying to achieve something and you fail with a given method, you try an alternative one, right?
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
yes, but people are scared because the stakes are so high
The best education system in Europe is Finland and they don't have private schools.
We can have 20 kids per class in our state schools, people have to be prepared to pay for it though. Electoral history would suggest they are not.
Are you suggesting that the Greens would centralise the economy further than labour and the tories who, over the last 30 years, have turned us into the most centralised economy in the developed world, to the total detriment of everyone outside a privileged few in London and the south east?
@binners you win today's award for "most sweeping generalisation" 🙂
By the way income disparity is greater regionally in Italy AFAIK plus it's a free country so move to London and enjoy these privileges you speak of
AlexSimon- Pale Blue Dot. The Earth will still turn, the sun will continue to be at the centre of our solar system and we'll still all be dead in 50 or so years, making all the petty squabbling over land and oil and money and resources pointless. [u]None[/u] of it matters. Give the Greens a go 😀
Jambalaya - it may be a generalisation, but is it true? We have such a completely unbalanced, centralised economy that is now so out of kilter, its not even benefitting the vast majority of the people in London any more.
Good fun if you're a Russian Oligarch though
@binners you win today's award for "most sweeping generalisation"
The Green party is as religious as any actual religion.
"[i]Introduce the new higher rate of income tax at 50% for incomes above £100,000[/i],"
They don't seem to even realise that the CURRENT marginal rate of tax at £100K to £120K is 62%.
and "[i]We believe that the Government’s projections for GDP growth are too high, and that tax receipts on existing policies in 2013 will be only £603bn (item 7 above), £14bn less than the Government’s assumed £617bn (item 2 above)[/i]"
so the current lot were out by 3% on their forecast, but much closer than nearly all leading economists and the IMF... what exactly was the green's forecast in the same period?
kayla1 - Ha, indeed.
For the record, I've voted Green at every available opportunity since I was allowed to vote (1990), but then I'm a certified lefty tree-hugging vegan.
What's interesting, is that people who aren't lefty tree-hugging vegans are also considering voting for them.
move to London and enjoy these privileges you speak of
Yeah, that's easy, right?
Also, some people are ideologically opposed to the centralisation of prosperity. I'd rank myself among them, binners may-well* be, too.
*I have my suspicions, but I don't want to put words into mouths.
[i]They don't seem to even realise that the CURRENT marginal rate of tax at £100K to £120K is 62%.[/i]
was it when they wrote their 2010 manifesto?
AlexSimon- I sort of gathered that from your post but wasn't 100% sure!
For what it's worth, I voted LD at the last General Election and Green at the local council elections. Unfotunately I live in the 12th safest Labour seat where people seem to vote historically and are figuratively stuck fighting the Miners' strike.
Out of curiosity, are the people who appear to be 'anti' Green in relatively well paid/high stress jobs they have to commute to?
Jambalaya - it may be a generalisation, but is it true? We have such a completely unbalanced, centralised economy that is now so out of kilter, its not even benefitting the vast majority of the people in London any more.Good fun if you're a Russian Oligarch though
Well IMO not really. We have a service lead economy overly focused on financial services but one which actually pays a disproportionately large amount of the bills for the rest of the country, ie its for their benefit more than London/SE. London is attracting increasing numbers of people both from outside the UK and from the rest of the country, it must be doing something right. London is packed full of cheap social housing by the way, I doubt there is a nicer place in the UK to live in a council house.
You can fix your oligarch inequality issue by having them all pack up and leave but that actually helps pretty much no one.
Aside from the completely nutty policies, of which there are legion, how the F are they going to fund all that when they've managed the economy into negative growth?...............
[i]What's interesting, is that people who aren't lefty tree-hugging vegans are also considering voting for them[/i]
Yeah right! Come the moment of putting their X in the box......they'll come to their senses!
What's interesting, is that people who aren't lefty tree-hugging vegans are also considering voting for them.
Some of us are considering standing for them.
They don't seem to even realise that the CURRENT marginal rate of tax at £100K to £120K is 62%.was it when they wrote their 2010 manifesto?
The change was announced around April 2009 and effective April 2010. They certainly had time to get any implications of it in their manifesto.
Some of us are considering standing for them.
In sandals?
I'm looking forward to Mike "Supporting local communities to choose their own transition path, to become more self-reliant, reflecting local history, ecological profile and needs."
I assume it means that n+1 no longer applies and we are all going to be using Cargo bikes 😉
In sandals?
Sadly, I don't own any sandals.
I assume it means that n+1 no longer applies and we are all going to be using Cargo bikes
I sold my cargo bike 🙂
In many ways I admire their forward thinking and brave policies, and may vote for the Green candidate in my local constituency simply because I would have voted Lib Dem in the past.
However, until they decide to ditch the truly mad policies like homeopathy on the NHS and the banning of water fluoridation they cannot be taken seriously.
[quote="Flaperon"]However, until they decide to ditch the truly mad policies like homeopathy on the NHS and the banning of water fluoridation they cannot be taken seriously.
Yet despite various (illegal/immoral) wars/incursions and expenses scandals the general public continue to take the status quo seriously...
until they decide to ditch the truly mad policies like homeopathy on the NHS and the banning of water fluoridation they cannot be taken seriously.
I suspect that more out there policies will disappear from their manifesto as they grow in membership.
we are all going to be using Cargo bikes
we can only hope
It's funny watching the right of centre folk get in a tizzy..
Like spoilt kids who've been told they can't have any sweets cos they've been naughty 😆
If you are trying to achieve something and you fail with a given method, you try an alternative one, right?
What's failed? Capitalism? That thing that took Europe out of the dark ages, into an age of food security, better health, clean water and better education?
Oh but, because the planets climate might change a little bit - nothing that adaptable humans cannot cope with, suddenly the sky is falling down on everything we stand for and we now need to cast around for some wild new idea that may or may not work.
"It will make full-time paid employment less necessary, and will encourage home-based and part-time employment, and work in the 'third sector'. People will be able to choose their own working lifestyles"
Yeah, right. 🙄
Show me how that little utopia is gonna work, then.
It certainly wouldn't help me, considering the strict security I have to work under, which is, in fact, dictated by the third sector which is our client base.
One of those third sector clients who we've been working hard to win came round today to check how tight all our security precautions are, which include any visitor being chaperoned by a member of staff should they need to go to the loo, or other part of the building.
Our company is directly involved in the raising of tens, hundreds of millions of pounds for these clients, just how that could be managed by home-based or part-time workers I'm not sure. (Having said that, we do use a fair number of agency staff, essentially because the volume of work varies dramatically through the course of the year).
Based on what I have read they won't get my vote.
I can't be bothered to plough through that lot but
a) Why the hell would fee paying schools paying tax cause the destruction of the country? Are you somehow insisting fee paying schools produce all the clever people? Because **** off
b) Managed decline wouldn't lead to job losses. Unmanaged decline would. The clue is in the 'managed' part. How do they do that? I don't know.. but the current government are just threatening to fire people willy nilly so I can't imagine it'd be much worse than that.
It certainly wouldn't help me
So because it doens't help you, it can't help anyone? That right? 🙄
molgrips - Membera) Why the hell would fee paying schools paying tax cause the destruction of the country?
In the same way that demanding other profitmaking companies pay tax has caused the destruction of all companies.
b) Managed decline wouldn't lead to job losses. Unmanaged decline would. The clue is in the 'managed' part. How do they do that? I don't know.. but the current government are just threatening to fire people willy nilly so I can't imagine it'd be much worse than that.
If you aimed to have no job losses, it means growth and job creation would have to follow the rate of population decline, which means it would take centuries at the current immigration and birth rate. And even longer with their proposed immigration policies.
Not that I am against immigration, it's just the greens are morons.
[quote="CountZero"]Yeah, right.
Show me how that little utopia is gonna work, then.
It certainly wouldn't help me, considering the strict security I have to work under, which is, in fact, dictated by the third sector which is our client base.
One of those third sector clients who we've been working hard to win came round today to check how tight all our security precautions are, which include any visitor being chaperoned by a member of staff should they need to go to the loo, or other part of the building.
Our company is directly involved in the raising of tens, hundreds of millions of pounds for these clients, just how that could be managed by home-based or part-time workers I'm not sure. (Having said that, we do use a fair number of agency staff, essentially because the volume of work varies dramatically through the course of the year).
I... but... <sigh> 🙁
it means growth and job creation would have to follow the rate of population decline,
No, it means we'd all work less or for less money. Deflation.
It'd be a trick if they could pull it off, mind. Simply allowing job loss is no kind of management at all, thereby not meeting their policy objectives.
They want to shrink the economy ie reduce consumption, without increasing joblessness. Afaik that's what's been happening the last few years anyway - jobless down, economy flat.
Why the hell would fee paying schools paying tax cause the destruction of the country?
it won't. It will just put more pressure on the state sector as people stop paying the fee's and schools close. This obviously will also be assisted by the complete removal of all restrictions on immigration.
funnily enough someone on the radio this morning commented that the reduction in people taking private health insurance in the recession had increased the pressure on the NHS
Are you somehow insisting fee paying schools produce all the clever people?
my wife insists she is cleverer than me 😉
No, it means we'd all work less or for less money. Deflation.
Good point, although I don't see how they could manage this long term without risking a significant recession at some point and redundancies in the private sector.
At the end of the day, Asia won't go down this route and neither will the US. We would just see a brain drain of the best and brightest leave the country to earn a lot more elsewhere.
Most people don't give a shit about the planet even when educated properly, so you have to frame environmental issues within a paradigm that takes this into account. Whenever I think about this, I can only see further technological development as the way round our problems. Other ideas are simply a waste of brain power as human society as a whole will never be co-opted to follow them.
it won't. It will just put more pressure on the state sector as people stop paying the fee's and schools close.
Corporation tax is paid on profit, no? So all that would happen is that those profiting would make less profit..? Encouraging investment back into the school rather than money making?
Flaperon - Membertruly mad policies like homeopathy on the NHS
Caroline Bennett: "I absolutely do not believe that homeopathy works as they describe it. However, what I do believe in is the placebo effect… The way I think homeopathy 'works' is as a placebo. And I think there is a very small and limited place on the NHS for homeopathy…"
Which makes them, er, as mad as the current government. Homeopathy on the NHS eh?
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#available