[JPKC]

(Original post by Jarred)
Only as reprehensible as the fact that Britain doesn't need to tax it's people as high as Zimbabwe (for example) to achieve the same level of services. You can't base your tax decision purely on the demand for the services it pays for, if you do, then surely that must apply to EVERYWHERE if you're gonna be consistent, and that means we should have a one world communist government which distributes all the wealth from the richer countries to the poorer ones, without anyone's consent. I don't want that to happen. In the same way that I don't want the central government micromanaging affairs across the whole of Britain.

Mr Speaker, while I share the Chancellor's vision of a world united in solidarity (albeit with a more positive outlook), I can't help but think he's telling me that it's fair to make poor people pay more for things like child protective services and social care for the vulnerable. Does the Right Honourable Gentleman believe the poor should pay more into our great National Health Service simply because they are more reliant on it? I hope not, and yet that's the precedent he is setting. To extend his idea yet further would, as he knows, lead to a social Darwinism country. The unlucky poor living without assistance from their fortunately wealthy neighbours; a state without justice and a society without a heart, his ideal. The principles of welfare were forged in Britain and he underestimates the passion with which people still regard them - it is a shame the Olympic Opening Ceremony did not remind him of them.

All people are different you see, even within the same country and that's why I prefer local control. You can't have a one size fits all model and hope for everyone to be satisfied, the human race is extremely heterogeneous by nature. My needs are different to yours, in the same way that the needs of a boy living in Camden Town are different to those of a girl living in Barnsley. If we allow councils to have control of their own policies then we will achieve a system where people's needs are better satisfied, because their local representatives are much more in touch with what they want. But you can't ever have any hope of that working if councils don't have a personal stake in the money they're spending. If it's centrally granted they'll squander it on pointless trash, but if they have to rake in their own cash, then they'll spend it a lot more wisely. So really, the only way of achieving efficient localism is if the local representatives have responsibility not just for their political affairs, but their economic ones too.

Control over spending already is considerable economic power, I fail to see your point. And what are these great differences in need between a girl in the North and a boy in Camden? The needs are ultimately the same: a decent education, work for their parents, and a safety net to keep their family and neighbours out of poverty. It is also true that the girl in Barnsley's parents will need to keep a higher percent of their income than a wealthy child's, as otherwise the tax system - as you will recognise - would be entirely regressive.

This brings rise to the problem you speak of. But is it a problem? Well, maybe, but it's only a problem is a council decides to choose that route. A council could tax it's poorer citizens more, or it could make up it's shortfalls by taxing it's richer citizens higher (we're a developed country, there are millionaires living all over). So, the problem you describe does not have to even exist, there's always another way, it is the decision of a democratically accountable branch of local government, and if they want to tax the poor unfairly, then so be it, they just better get ready to lose the next local election.

This is outright nonsense. I grew up in Salford. How many millionaires are there in Salford? What about Barnsley? Stoke? Gorton? Average incomes far below the rest of the nation, higher poverty rates. This is completely made-up, and totally evades the issue of tax avoidance. Poorer households struggle to switch localities while richer ones do so with ease; surely this in itself is enough to make the Chancellor recognise that any competitiveness among the 300+ tax codes will be geared towards lowering rates for the wealthy?

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Would you agree that this is the manifestation of your antisemitic opinions and that these opinions are shared by all members of your party?

I do believe that I cannot be anti-Semitic due to my being a Jew... not that I hold negative views against my fellow Jews, Judaism and the Jewish State. I'd admit that I myself would avoid אריאל שרון like the plague, he may be the former Prime Minister of Israel but my God he is ugly.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by tehFrance)
I do believe that I cannot be anti-Semitic due to my being a Jew... not that I hold negative views against my fellow Jews, Judaism and the Jewish State. I'd admit that I myself would avoid אריאל שרון like the plague, he may be the former Prime Minister of Israel but my God he is ugly.

All but one then

[Lipvig]

Mr Speaker, may I ask whether the right honourable gentleman prefers The Dark Knight Rises or Ted?

[Birchington]

Mr Speaker, did the honourable gentleman manage to secure any Olympics tickets?

[RoryS]

(changed my question!)

Mr Speaker, I now ask the Chancellor who will be taking on the position of Transport Secretary in the Cabinet? What bill or motion does he/she plan to bring into the House?

[toronto353]

(Original post by RoryS)
Mr Speaker, will the Chancellor be able to confirm who will be replacing internetguru as Transport Secretary while he is banned from The Student Room?

(Just one note - internetguru hasn't been in the Conservatives for quite a while now so he stopped being Transports Secretary ages ago.)

[RoryS]

(Original post by toronto353)
(Just one note - internetguru hasn't been in the Conservatives for quite a while now so he stopped being Transports Secretary ages ago.)

Oh yeah, woops!

Mr Speaker, I now ask the Chancellor (this is the same question but changed) who will be taking on the position of Transport Secretary in the Cabinet? What bill or motion does he/she plan to bring into the House?

[Stiff Little Fingers]

Mr speaker, does the chancellor side with Batman or Bane?

[Jarred]

(Original post by JPKC)
Mr Speaker, while I share the Chancellor's vision of a world united in solidarity (albeit with a more positive outlook), I can't help but think he's telling me that it's fair to make poor people pay more for things like child protective services and social care for the vulnerable. Does the Right Honourable Gentleman believe the poor should pay more into our great National Health Service simply because they are more reliant on it? I hope not, and yet that's the precedent he is setting. To extend his idea yet further would, as he knows, lead to a social Darwinism country. The unlucky poor living without assistance from their fortunately wealthy neighbours; a state without justice and a society without a heart, his ideal. The principles of welfare were forged in Britain and he underestimates the passion with which people still regard them - it is a shame the Olympic Opening Ceremony did not remind him of them.

Control over spending already is considerable economic power, I fail to see your point. And what are these great differences in need between a girl in the North and a boy in Camden? The needs are ultimately the same: a decent education, work for their parents, and a safety net to keep their family and neighbours out of poverty. It is also true that the girl in Barnsley's parents will need to keep a higher percent of their income than a wealthy child's, as otherwise the tax system - as you will recognise - would be entirely regressive.

This is outright nonsense. I grew up in Salford. How many millionaires are there in Salford? What about Barnsley? Stoke? Gorton? Average incomes far below the rest of the nation, higher poverty rates. This is completely made-up, and totally evades the issue of tax avoidance. Poorer households struggle to switch localities while richer ones do so with ease; surely this in itself is enough to make the Chancellor recognise that any competitiveness among the 300+ tax codes will be geared towards lowering rates for the wealthy?

But what you're suggesting as an alternative is that we have a big horrible central government monstrosity. Tax everyone a central rate and push it down to local government, right? Well, when you push things up a level in the hierarchy, you create inefficiencies, you create inconsistencies and you create an all round mess. The cost to micromanage it centrally is going to much greater because you're going to need a lot more bureaucracy and middle management to sort it all out. When you do that, everyone will need to pay more tax because of the increased cost. I suspect the poor you speak of will pay a considerably higher amount of tax if you were to do that, everyone would. So maybe your suspicions are true, but if they're paying less tax before does it matter? No, they're better off than they were, that's progress they ought to be happy with, and I'm sure many would, it's certainly not social Darwinism, because you are forgetting about how overall their taxes will be considerably less when coupled with the rest of our tax changes. You should also remember that they have the RI, 8K or however much it is, is more than enough to keep them out of poverty, and couple that with their lower tax bill and I'm sure you'll find that we've helped the poor, not disadvantaged them.

Sure their basic needs are the same, but we're a developed country and we have the time and money to think about a lot more than basic needs. Some of the differences are all down to cultural and political differences, of which location has a great influence. But that's not the main difference, the main difference is not cultural or political, but it is purely down to what the local area itself needs. For example; I think the humpback bridge down in Barrow needs change because it's only one lane and restricts traffic considerably, took me 30 minutes to get to school everyday because of that darn bridge, there needs to be a better one. Right now you must be thinking, "What are you talking about?" Because that's exactly the point, what are you, a Salford guy, going to know about a little 4 metre long bridge in a village that no-one has heard of even ten miles away from where I am right now? If I asked Nicky Morgan to raise it in Parliament she probably wouldn't even reply, if she did then Parliament would say go talk to the council, but if they have no control over their transport policy what can they really do? Granting more power to local representatives gets little local issues like this sorted out.

It's not made up, you seem to buy into your own hype that the North is some kind of 1970s failure, it's not. There are rich people living all over the country, this is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, some people may find life hard, but wherever you go, even the poorest areas have at least someone prospering away. Councils won't just be trying to keep tax on the wealthy low, but also trying to ensure the electorate as a whole are pleased so that they don't get voted out, regressive taxes aren't an election winner. You will allways get an equilibrium established eventually where taxes are roughly equal everywhere and are as fair as the electorate wants them to be. What troubles me is you trust the central government to maintain a fairer tax policy but not local government. Local government will noyl tax the poor unfairly if they choose to do so, and as I said before they will get unseated. Your concerns would only be warranted if councils were appointed in some kind of dictatorial fashion, which they aren't.

[Jarred]

(Original post by Lipvig)
Mr Speaker, may I ask whether the right honourable gentleman prefers The Dark Knight Rises or Ted?

I've not yet seen either, however I might be going to see The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow.

[internetguru]

I haven't asked Jarred questions before.

Is there any point remaining in the EU considering we now have worldwide free trade and the ability to over ride EU law?

[Jarred]

(Original post by Birchington)
Mr Speaker, did the honourable gentleman manage to secure any Olympics tickets?

Unfortunately not. I'm trying to get some in the resell they've got going on right now after the empty seats scandal.

Almost got some Category A handball seats but they put me in the queue and they all went by the time I came out of it.

[Jarred]

(Original post by RoryS)
(changed my question!)

Mr Speaker, I now ask the Chancellor who will be taking on the position of Transport Secretary in the Cabinet? What bill or motion does he/she plan to bring into the House?

I'm afraid that no decision has yet been made, though we will be taking a look at our MPs with an MP review here in the Tory Party at some point in August. That will likely bring some changes, but we can't be certain yet.

[Jarred]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Mr speaker, does the chancellor side with Batman or Bane?

Well I've not seen the film yet, though I'm thinking I'll side with Bane. Much more interesting if the bad guys win, right? That never happens, wouldn't it have been better if in Harry Potter 7, the dweeby little kid got tortured mercilessly by Voldemort just before he took over the world? Or is my dark evil Tory edge showing through? Hmm... I think it might be that.

[Jarred]

(Original post by internetguru)
I haven't asked Jarred questions before.

Is there any point remaining in the EU considering we now have worldwide free trade and the ability to over ride EU law?

In my opinion, there's barely any point in remaining in the EU even without a worldwide free trade agreement. So now that we have one, I am absolutely in support of leaving, and support the idea of a referendum.

[barnetlad]

Mr Speaker. does the Prime Minister feel that funding for sport in future should come with the condition of a fair and transparent ticketing system?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Jarred)
In my opinion, there's barely any point in remaining in the EU even without a worldwide free trade agreement. So now that we have one, I am absolutely in support of leaving, and support the idea of a referendum.

There seems to be a major shift in the Conservative party towards an anti EU stance yet your leader is very much in favour of political integration. Do you believe it is a big enough issue to cause an internal rift and a potential leadership challenge by a senior member of the party such as yourself?

[Stiff Little Fingers]

For my follow-up question, I'm going to quote Reginald D Hunter

rich dude, owns a corporation, has state of the art equipment and he uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn't mess with the industrialists, or the super-capitalists, or the Murdochs, or the Trumps. He'd rather just **** with the chap who's at you on the corner, Batman is a conservative's wet-dream.

So, Mr Speaker, given this evidence, is the chancellor admitting that's he's actually a bit less of a conservative than he'd like us to think?

[Lipvig]

(Original post by Jarred)
I've not yet seen either, however I might be going to see The Dark Knight Rises tomorrow.

I see.
Favorite vampire TV show/Film?